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

His works are: 1. “Sermons sur divers textes de l'Ecriture,” Leyderi, 1680. 2. “Panegyrique de M. l'Electeur de Brandenbourg,” Rotterdam, 1684, 4to. Gregorio Led translated this into Italian, and inserted it in his History of Brandenburgh. 3. “Traite de la Verite de la Religion Chretienne.” This treatise on the truth of the Christian Religion has passed through many editions, and has been translated into English, 2 vols. 8vo, and Dutch, and has long been esteemed an able confutation of infidel principles. The abbe Houteville, a steady Catholic, gives it the following character: “The most shining of these treatises in defence of the Christian religion, which were published by the Protestants, is that written by Mr. Abbadie. The favourable reception it obtained, the almost unexampled praise it received on the publication, the universal approbation it still preserves, render it unnecessary for me to join my commendations, which would add so little to the merit of so great an author. He has united in this book all our controversies with the infidels. In the first part, he combats the Atheists; the Deists in the second; and the Socinians in the third. Philosophy and theology enter happily into his manner of composing, which is in the true method, lively, pure, and elegant, especially in the first books.” 4. “Reflexions sur la Presence reelle du Corps de Jesus Christ dans l'Eucharistie,” Hague, 1685, 12mo, and Rotterdam, 1713, but both editions so erroneous as to induce the author to disown them. 5. “Traite de la Divinitie de notre Seigneur Jesus Christ,” Rotterdam, 1689, 8vo. A translation of this was published about the year 1777, by the Rev. Abraham Booth, a dissenting clergyman in London. 6. “L'art de se Connoitre Soimeme; ou, la recherche des Sources de la Morale,” Rotterdam, 1692, 12mo. An edition of this excellent treatise was published at Lyons in 1693, in which all the passages in favour of the Protestant religion are left out. 7. “Defence de la Nation Britannique,” &c. London, 1692, 8vo. This defence of the Revolution in England was in answer to Mr. Bayle’s “Avis important.” 8. “Panegyrique de Marie reine d'Angleterre,” Hague, 1695, 4to. 9. “Histoire de la Conspiration derniere d'Angleterre,” &c. Lond. 1698, 8vo, reprinted in Holland, and translated into English, but at present a very scarce book. It regards what was called the Assassination-plot, and was written by order of king William 111.; the original papers and documents were furnished by the earl of Portland, and sir William Trumball, secretary of state. 10. “La Verite de la Religion lleformee,” Rotterdam, 1718, 2 vols. 8vo. Dr. Henry Lambert, bishop of Dromore, translated this work for the instruction of the Roman Catholics in his diocese. 11. “Le triomphe de la Providence et de la Religion, en l'ouverture des Sept Sceaux par le Fils de Dieu,” &c. Amsterdam, 1723, 4 vols. 12mo. In this commentary on the Revelations, for such it is, the author has been supposed more inclining to conjecture and fancy than in his other works. Besides these he revised, in 1719, the French translation of the Common Prayer, and published some single sermons and small tracts.

His works are: 1. “Quæstiones Sex, totidem pralectionibus in Schola Theologica Oxoniae, pro forma habitis, discussae et disceptatae anno 1597, in quibus e Sacra Scriptura & Patribus, quid statuendum sit definitur.” Oxon. 1598, 4to, & Francfort, 1616, 4to, published by Abraham Scultetus. 2. “Exposition on the Prophet Jonah, contained in certaine Sermons, preached in S. Maries Church in Oxford,” 4to, 1600. It appears by a postscript to the reader, that these sermons or lectures were delivered on Thursdays early in the morning, “sometimes before daylight,” from 1594 to 1599. They were reprinted in and form the most popular of his works. 3. His “Answer to the questions of the Citizens of London in Jan. 1600, concerniug Cheapside Cross,” not printed until 1641. 4. “The reasons which Dr. Hill hath brought for the upholding of Papistry, unmasked and shewed to be very weak, &c.” Oxon. 4to. 1604. Hill was a clergyman of the church of England, which he exchanged for that of Rome, and wrote his “Quatron of Reasons” in vindication of his conduct, printed at Antwerp, 4to. 1600. 5. “A Preface to the examination of George Sprot,” &c. noticed before. 6. “Sermon preached at Westminster, May 26, 1608, at the funeral of Thomas earl of Dorset, late lord high treasurer of England, on Isaiah xl. 6.” 4to. 1608. 7. “Translation of a part of the New Testament,” with the rest of the Oxford divines, 1611. 8. “Some memorials, touching the Nullity between the earl-of Essex and his lady, pronounced Sept. 25, 1613, at Lambeth; and the difficulties endured in the same.” To this is added “some observable things since Sept. 25, 1613, when the sentence was given in the cause of the earl of Essex, continued unto the day of the marriage, Dec. 26, 1613,” which appears also to have been penned by his grace, or by his direction; and to it is annexed “the speech intended to be spoken at Lambeth, Sept. 25, 1613, by the archbishop of Canterbury, &c.” These were reprinted in one volume, 1719, 12mo, and the ms. in the archbishop’s hand was then said to be in the hands of an eminent lawyer. 9. “A brief description of the whole World, wherein is particularly described all the monarchies, empires, and kingdoms of the same, with their academies,” &c. 4to. 1617; a work, of which there have been several editions. 10. “A short apology for archbishop Abbot, touching the death of Peter Hawkins, dated Oct. 8, 1621.” 11. “Treatise of perpetual visibility and succession of the true Church in all ages,” Lond. 4to. 1624; published without his name; but his arms, impaled with those of Canterbury, are put before it. 12. “A narrative containing the true cause of his sequestration and disgrace at Court: in two parts, written at Ford in Kent,” 1627, printed in Rushworth’s Historical Collections, vol. I. p. 438—461, and In the Annals of king Charles, p. 213 224. Bp. Racket, in his life of Abp. Williams, p. 68, attests the authenticity of this curious memorial. 13. “History of the Massacre in the Valtoline,” printed in the third volume of Fox’s Acts and Monuments. 14. His “Judgment on bowing at the name of Jesus,” Hamburgh, 8vo. 1632. In 1618, he and sir Henry Savile defrayed the expence of an edition of Bradwardin’s “Cause of God,” a work written against the Pelagians.

, a clergyman of the Church of England, but whether belonging to the archbishop’s family is uncertain, was originally of the university of Cambridge, and was incorporated master of arts of Oxford, July 14, 1607. He was afterwards vicar of Cranbrooke in Kent, and minister of South wick in Hampshire. When Ephraim Udall, the lawful rector of St. Augustine’s, Watling-street, was sequestered by authority of the House of Commons in 1643, the living was given to Mr. Abbot, which he enjoyed until his death, at a very advanced age, in 1653. He published “Four Sermons,” 8vo, Lond. 1639, dedicated to Curie, bishop of Winchester, who had been his patron; and some other single sermons, a small catechism, &c.

, D. D. a dissenting clergyman, of considerable learning, was born at Northampton, June 9, 1729, and was educated under Dr. Doddridge, whose manner in the pulpit he closely followed for many years. After being admitted to preach, he removed in 1750, to Spaldwick in Huntingdonshire; where, in 1752, he married miss Reymes of Norwich, a lady who died in 1811, at a very advanced age. A few weeks after his marriage, he was called to be minister of a congregation of dissenters at Market Harborough, Leicestershire. His receiving this appointment was owing to a singular occurrence in the history of popular elections. Two candidates had appeared who divided the congregation so equally that a compromise was impossible, unless by each party giving up their favourite, and electing a third candidate, if one could be found agreeable to all. At this crisis Mr. Addington was recommended, and unanimously chosen. In this place he remained about thirty years, and became highly popular to his increasing congregation by the pious discharge of his pastoral duties, and by his conciliatory manners. In, 1758 he opened his house for the reception of pupils to fill up a vacancy in the neighbourhood of Harborough, occasioned by the rev. Mr. Aikin’s removal to Warrington. This scheme succeeded; and for many years he devoted nine hours each day to the instruction of his pupils, and compiled several books for their improvement; as, 1. “A system of Arithmetic,” 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “The Rudiments of the Greek tongue,” 1761, 12mo. 3. “Eusebes to Philetus; or Letters from a Father to his Son, on a devout temper and life,” 1761, 12mo. 4. “Maxims religious and prudential, with a Sermon to young People,” 12mo. 5. “The Youth’s Geographical Grammar,” 1770, 8vo. 6. “Dissertation on the religious knowledge of the ancient Jews and Patriarchs; to which is annexed a specimen of a Greek and English Concordance,” 1757, 4to; which he had a design of completing, if his health and time had perrnitted. He published also, partly in the country, and partly in London, some occasional funeral and other sermons; two tracts on infant baptism; a collection of psalm tunes, and another of anthems; and his most popular work, “The Life of St. Paul the Apostle,” 1784, 8vo. At length, in 1781 he received an invitation to become pastor of the congregation in Miles’s-lane, Cannon-street; and soon after his removal thither was chosen tutor of a new dissenting academy at Mile-end, where he resided until his growing infirmities, occasioned by several paralytic strokes, obliged him to relinquish the charge. He continued, however, in the care of his congregation till within a few months of his decease, when, from the same cause, he was compelled to discontinue his public services. He died Feb. 6, 1796, at his house in the Minories. In London he was neither so successful or popular as in the country; and his quitting Harborough after so long a residence appears to have displeased his friends, without adding to his usefulness among his new connections.

, son of Lancelot Addison a. clergyman, born at Mauldismeaburne in the parish of Crosby Ravens worth in Westmoreland, in 1632, was educated at the grammar school of Appleby, and afterwards sent to Queen’s college, Oxford, upon the foundation. He was admitted B. A. Jan. 25, 1654, and M. A. July 4, 1657. As he now had greatly distinguished himself in the univer? sity, he was chosen one of the terras filii for the act celebrated in 1658; but, his oration abounding in personal satire against the ignorance, hypocrisy, and avarice of those then in power, he was compelled to make a recantation, and to akk pardon on his knees. Soon after he left Oxford, and retired to Petworth in Sussex, where he resided till the restoration. The gentlemen of Sussex having recommended him to Dr. King, bishop of Chester, as a man who had suffered for his loyalty and attachment to th.e constitution of church and state; the bishop received him kindly, and in all probability would have preferred him, had he not, contrary to his lordship’s approbation, accepted of the chaplainship at Dunkirk; where he continued till 1662, when, the place being delivered up to the French, he returned to England. The year following he went chaplain to the garrison at Tangier, where he resided some years; and came back to England in 1670, with a resolution to return to Tangier. He was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty soon after his coming over; but had no thoughts, however, of quitting his chaplamship at Tangier, until it was conferred upon another, by which Mr. Addison became poor in his circumstances. In this situation of his affairs, a gentleman in Wiltshire bestowed on him the rectory of Milston, in Wilts, worth about 120l. per annum. Soon after he was also made prebendary of Minor pars altaris, in the cathedral of Sarum; and took the degrees of B. and D. D. at Oxford, July 6, 1675. His preferments, though not very considerable, enabled him to live in the country with great decency and hospitality; and he discharged his duty with a most conscientious diligence. In 1683 the commissioners for ecclesiastical affairs, in consideration of his former service at Tangier, conferred upon him the deanry of Lichfield, in which he was installed July 3; was collated to the archdeaconry of Coventry Dec. 8, 1684, and held it with his deanry in commendam. In the convocation, which met Dec. 4, 1689, dean Addison was one of the committee appointed by the lower house to acquaint the lords, that they had consented to a conference on the subject of an address to the king. He died April 20, 1703, and was buried in the church-yard of Lichfield, at the entrance of the west door, with the following epitaph “Hie jacet Lancelotus Addison, S. T. P. hujus ecclesiae decanus, necnon archidiaconus Coventrise, qui obiit 20 die Aprilis, ann. Dom. 1703, aetatis suae 71.” He was twice married; first to Jane, daughter of Nathaniel Gulston, esq., and sister to Dr. William Gulston, bishop of Bristol, by whom he had, Jane, who died in her infancy; Joseph, or whom in thenext article; Gulston, who died governor of Fort St. George in the East Indies; Dorothy, married first to Dr. Sartre, prebendary of Westminster, secondly to Daniel Combes, esq.; Anne, who died young; and Lancelot, fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, an able classical scholar.

, the son of a clergyman of the same name, rector of Ditchet, Somersetshire, for fifty years, was born at that place in 1611; the first part of his education under his father fitted him for the university in 1627. That year he entered a commoner of St. Alban’s hall, in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts. Thence he removed to New Inn Hall, where he took his master’s degree, and entering into orders, became an assistant to his father, who bei,;g inclined to puritanism, die son fell into the same opinions; and possessing great zeal and learning, he soon acquired a proportionable reputation. In March 1641, he succeeded to the living of Batcomb, in Dorsetshire, the duty of which he performed with much industry and fidelity, but being a zealous covenanter, had some disturbances with the king’s forces in those parts. He was, however, a great enemy to that enthusiastic spirit which prevailed in this country, on the ruin of the established church; this appears by his subscribing a representation, entitled “The Testimony of the Ministry of Somersetshire to the Truth of Jesus Christ, and to the Solemn League and Covenant,” printed in 1648. His industry and affection to the cause procured himself and his father to be constituted assistants to the commissioners appointed by parliament, for ejecting scandalous ministers. This was in 1654; and Mr. Wood tells us, what is probable enough, that they acted with great severity. However, on the Restoration, Mr. Allein shewed a disposition to yield obedience to the government, but could not accede to the terms of conformity, which occasioned his being ejected from his living, after he had held it upwards of twenty years. After this, he continued to exercise his function privately, preaching sometimes in his own house, at others in the houses of gentlemen in the neighbourhood. He was once apprehended at the seat of Mr. Moore, who had been a member of parliament, and who had invited him thither to preach to his family and some of his neighbours. Mr. Moore paid the tine, which was rive pounds, for him. He still went on in the way of his profession, notwithstanding he was often summoned to the quarter sessions, and severely reprimanded as the keeper of a conventicle. He, however, escaped imprisonment, as his great learning, piety, and exemplary life, had gained him so high a reputation, that it would have been very unpopular to have sent him to a gaol. After the five mile act passed, he was obliged to leave Batcomb, and retire to Frome Selwood, where he continued in the constant exercise of his ministry, notwithstanding the dangers he was exposed to. He died the 22d of December 1681, being upwards of 64 years of age. He was distinguished for his plain, practical manner of preaching, and for the delight he took in the pastoral office. His writings, which were mostly tracts on religious subjects, were much esteemed and often printed. The principal of these is a work entitled “Vindicise Pietatis, or a Vindication of Godliness,” which was, and is, in high reputation among persons of Calvinistic sentiments. It consists of three parts, published 1664 6. As it was printed without a licence, the king’s bookseller caused the copies to be seized, but afterwards purchased them from the king’s kitchen, where they were sent as waste-paper, and bound them up and sold them; being however discovered, he was obliged to make submission to the privy council, and the hooks were ordered to be destroyed. This occasioned the first edition to be long scarce, and created the mistakes as 10 date into which both Wood and Calamy have fallen, and which are not rectified by the editor of the Biographia Britannica, who does not appear to have examined the book. Although a zealous non-conformist, Mr. Allein was not tinctured either with spleen to the church, or disloyalty to his prince; on the contrary, he lived in a fair correspondence with the clergy of his neighbourhood, and the gentry paid him great respect, although of opposite sentiments.

, a non-conformist clergyman of Norwich, was born in that city in 1608, and educated at Caius college, Cambridge. He appears to have been minister of St. Edmund’s, Norwich, where he was silenced by bishop Wren, in L636, for refusing to read the book of Sports, and other non-compliances peculiar to the times. Two years afterwards he went to New England, and was a preacher at Charlestown until 1651, when he returned to Norwich, and had the rectory of St. George’s, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in 1662, and during the same period he preached in a meeting called the congregational church. He afterwards preached in the latter place, as he had opportunity, and without molestation, till the time of his death, Sept. 21, 1673. He published several pious practical treatises; but the work which obtained him most reputation, was his “Chain of Scripture Chronology, from the creation to the death of Christ, in seven periods,” 1639, 4to. One of his biographers compares him to Bucholtzer, who, being weary of controversy, betook himself to chronology, saying that he would rather compute than dispute.

, an eminent Dutch physician, but more eminent as a general scholar and editor, was born July 24, 1657, at Midrecht, or Mydregt, near Utrerht, where his father was a Protestant clergyman. His grandfather was Cornelius Almeloveen, a senator of Utrecht, who died in 1658. His mother was Mary Janson, daughter of the celebrated Amsterdam printer, so well known for his many fine editions, and for the atlas which he published in six folio volumes. As the printer had no male issue, the name of Janson was added to Almeloveen, probably by our author’s father. He studied first at Utrecht, and then at Goude or Tergou, where James Tollius was at the head of the schools of that place, and when Tollius removed to Noortwick, near Leyden, Almeloveen followed him, and it appears by his writings that he always acknowledged him as his master. In 1676, he returned to Utrecht, and studied the belles lettres in that city under the celebrated Graevius, and as his father intended him for the church, he also studied Hebrew under Leusden, and philosophy under De Uries; but, taking disgust at the violence and illiberality with which theological disputes were sometimes conducted, he gave a preference to medicine, and attended the instructions of Vallan and Munniks. In 16 So, he maintained a thesis on sleep, and the following year, one on the asthma, and was then admitted to his doctor’s degree in that faculty. In 1687, he went to reside at Goude, where he? married. In 1697, he was invited to Harderwic to become professor of Greek and history; and in 1702, he was appointed professor of medicine, and remained in both offices until his death in 1712. He bequeathed to the public library at Utrecht his curious collection of the editions of Quintilian, which he had made at a great expence, and of which there is a catalogue in Masson’s critical history of the Republic of Letters, vol. V. Bibliography was his favourite study, in which he was ably assisted by his grandfather Jansson; and to this we probably owe the number of editions, with commentaries, which he published. Among these are: 1. “Hippocratis Aphorismi, Gr. Lat.” Amsterdam, 1685, 12mo. 2. “Aurelii Celsi de medicina,” with his own additions and those of Constantine and Casaubon, Amsterdam, 1687, 12mo; 1713, 8vo; Padua, 1722, 8vo; with “Serini Sammonici de medicina prsecepta salubfrrrima.” 3. “Apicii Caelii de obsoniis et condimentis, sive de arte coquinaria libri X.” with the notes of Martin Lister, Hamelbergius, Vander Linden, &c. Amsterdam, 1709, 8vo. 4. “Aurelianus de Morbis acutis et chronicis,” Amsterdam, 1709, 4to. 5. “Bibliotheca promissa et latens,” or an account of books promised, and never published, with the epistles of Velschius on such medical writings as have not been edited, Goude, 1688, 1698, 8vo; 1692, 12mo; Nuremberg, 1699, 8vo; with the additions of Martin Melsuhrerus. 6. “The anatomy of the Muscle,” in Flemish, with observations anatomical, medical, and chirurgical, Amst. 1684, 8vo. 7. “Onomasticon rerum inventarum et Inventa nov-antiqua, id est, brevis enarratio ortus et progressus artis medicæ,” ibid. 1684, 8vo; a history of the discoveries in medicine, with a marked preference to the merit of the ancients. 8. “Opuscula sive antiquitatum e sacris profanarum specimen conjectans veterum poetarum fraguienta et plagiarorum syllabus,” ibid. 1686, 8vo. 9. A new edition of Decker’s work, “De scriptis adespotis, pseudepigraphis, et supposititiis, conjecture,” ibid. 1686, 12mo. 10. An edition of “C. Rutilius Numantianus,” ibid. 1687, 12mo. 11. “Amdenitates theologico-philologicæ,” ibid. 1694, 8vo. Besides some critical pieces, this volume contains several letters of Bochart, Erasmus, Baudius, Scriverius, and others, and an attempt to prove that Erasmus was a native of Goude, and not of Rotterdam; because, according to the laws, the place where children are born accidentally, is not accounted their country. 12. “Dissertationes quatuor de mensis, lecticis, et poculis veterum,” Hanvick, 1701, 4to. These are theses composed by Alstorf, and maintained during the presidency of Almeloveen. 13. “Fasti Consulares,” Amst. 1705, 8vo. 14. A beautiful, but not very correct edition of “Strabo,” ibid. 2 vols. fol. 15. “De vitis Stephanoruni,” 1682, 8vo. Besides some other contributions of notes, &.c. to editions of the classics, he assisted Drakestein in the publication of the sixth volume of the “Hortus Malabaricus.”

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

, a noted presbyterian teacher in the times of the usurpation, was son of a clergyman, and descended from the Ambroses of Ambrose-hall, in Lancashire. In the beginning of the year 1621 he was admitted of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts. Afterwards he went into holy orders, and officiated in some little cure in his own county. Being in very low circumstances, he was often obliged to the bounty of William earl of Bedford for the relief of himself and family. Mr. Wood thinks that lord procured him to be inserted in the list of his majesty’s preachers, appointed for the county of Lancaster. Afterwards, when the times changed, in 1641, he left the church of England, and went over to the presbyterian party, took the covenant, and became a preacher at Preston, and afterwards at Garstang, in his own county. He was very zealous and very active against the clergy of the established church, especially after he was appointed assistant to the commissioners for ejecting such whom they called scandalous and ignorant ministers and school-masters. In 1&62 he was ejected for nonconformity. It was usual with him to retire every year for a month, into a little hut in a wood, when he shunned all society, and devoted himself to religious contemplation. He had, according to Calamy, a very strong impulse on, his mind of the approach of death: and took a formal leave of his friends at their own houses, a little before his departure, and the last night of his life, he sent his “Discourse concerning Angels,” to the press. Next day he shut himself up in his parlour, where, to the surprise and regret of his friends, he was found expiring. The time of his death is stated to have been in 1663-4, in the seventysecond year of his age, but at the bottom of the portrait prefixed to his works, is the inscription “aetat.5.9. 1663.” This contradiction has not been reconciled by Granger. His works were printed in a large folio volume, in 1674, 1682, and 1689, and often since. They consist of pious tracts on various subjects, and have ever been popular.

, an English political and miscellaneous writer, was born at Marden in Kent, but in what year is uncertain, although by a passage in his Terras Filius, it would appear to be about 1706. Under the tuition of his grandfather, a clergyman, he received his grammatical education at Merchant-Taylor’s school in, London; and thence was removed to St. John’s college, Oxford, whence he was expelled on a charge of libertinism, irregularity, and his insulting 1 behaviour towards the president of the college. From his own account of the matter, in the dedication of his poems to Dr. Delaune, president of St. John’s, and in his “Teme Filius,” we may collect that he wished to have it understood, that he was solely persecuted for the liberality of his sentiments, and his attachment to the cause of the Revolution and of the Hanover-succession. Whatever were the causes of his expulsion, ius resentment, on the account of it, although violent, was impotent. He made it his business to satirize the learning and discipline of the university of Oxford, and to libel the characters of its principal members. This he did in a poem published in 1724, called “Oculus Britanniae,” and in his “Terrae Filius,” a work in which is displayed a considerable portion of wit, intermixed with intemperate satire. The full title of the work is, “Terrae Filius; or the secret history of the university of Oxford; in several essays. To which are added, Remarks upon a late book, entitled, University Education, by R. Newton, D. D. principal of Hart Hall,” 2 vols. 12mo, printed for R. Francklin, 1726. Amidst all the malignity and exaggeration with which the Terrae Filius abounds, it contains some curious anecdotes relative to the principles, manners, and conduct of several members of the university, for a few years after the accession of king George I.; but they are to be read with caution. It had been an ancient custom in the university of Oxford, at public acts, for some person, who was called Terrae Filius, to mount the rostrum, and divert a large crowd of spectators, who flocked to hear him from all parts, with a merry oration in the fescennine manner, interspersed with secret history, raillery, and sarcasm, as the occasions of the times supplied him with matter. Wood, in his Athenae, mentions several instances of this custom; and hence Mr. Amhurst took the title of his work. It was originally written in 1721, in a periodical paper, which came out twice a week, and consists of fifty numbers.

, a native of the province of Over-yssel, was first a clergyman at Haerlem, but afterwards studied medicine and practised in Lower Saxony, having also been appointed medical professor at Rostock, and physician to the duke of Mecklenburgh. He died at Rostock in 1612, aged eighty-three?., he wrote, 1. “Dissertatio iatromathematica,” Rostock, 1602, 1618, 4to; 1629, 8vo. In this, after preferring medicine and astronomy to all other sciences, he contends for the necessity of their union in the healing art. 2. “De Theriaca, oratio,” 1618, 4to. 3. “De Morborum differentiis,” 1619, and other works, in which his practice appears rather more rational than his theory.

, an eminent French divine, was born in September 1596, at Bourgueil, a small town of Touraine, of an ancient family originally from Orleans. Having gone through his course of philosophy, he was sent to Poictiers, to read law; to which he applied himself with great assiduity, and is said to have spent fourteen hours a day in that study. At the end of his first year, he took the degree of licentiate; but Mr. Bouchereau, minister of Saumur, advising him to study divinity, and the reading of Calvin’s Institutions having strongly inclined him to follow this advice, he acquainted his father that he earnestly desired to be a clergyman, and obtained his assent, though tiot without difficulty. He then went to study at Saumur, where he continued a considerable time as student of divinity. Upon his admission into orders, he was presented to the church of St. Agnau, in the country of Mayne, and eighteen months after, he was invited to Saumur, to succeed Mr. Daillé, appointed minister of Charenton. About the same time that the church of Saumur desired him for their minister, the academic council fixed upon him for professor of divinity; and his admission to the professorship, his previous examination, and his inaugural thesis “De sacerdotio Christi,” redounded much to his reputation.

, an English clergyman and nonconformist, was born about the latter end of the sixteenth century, in Gloucestershire, and admitted of Magdalen hall, Oxford, in 1610. After taking his degrees in arts, he went into the church, and became a frequent and popular preacher. In 1630 he preached a lecture at Leicester; but, in 1634, was suspended by the dean of the arches for preaching without a licence. In 1650, the Independents, who then were predominant, obliged him to leave Leicester, because he refused to subscribe to their engagement. On this the Mercers’ company chose him lecturer of Grantham in Lincolnshire, where he remained until his death in 1655, an event which was deeply lamented by his flock. He wrote “The right government of the Thoughts,” London, 1659, 8vo, and “Four Sermons,” ibid. 8vo.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of William Rufus and Henry I was an Italian by birth, and born in 1033 at Aost, or Augusta, a town at the foot of the Alps, belonging to the duke of Savoy. He was descended of a considerable family: his father’s name was Gundulphus, and his mother’s Hemeberga. From early life his religious cast of mind was so prevalent, that, at the age of fifteen, he offered himself to a monastery, but was refused, lest his father should have been displeased. After, however, he had gone through a course of study, and travelled for some time in France and Burgundy, he took the monastic habit in the abbey of Bee in Normandy, of which Lanfranc, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was then prior. This was in 1060, when he was twenty-seven years old. Three years after, when Lanfranc was made abbot of Caen, Anselm succeeded him in the priory of Bee, and on the death of the abbot, was raised to that office. About the year 1092, Anselm came over into England, by the inritation of Hugh, earl of Chester, who requested his assistance in his sickness. Soon after his arrival, William Rufus, falling sick at Gloucester, was much pressed to fill up the see of Canterbury. The king, it seems, at that time, was much influenced by one Kanulph, a clergyman, who, though a Norman and of mean extraction, had a great share in the king’s favour, and at last rose to the post of prime minister. This man, having gained the king’s ear by flattering his vices, misled him in the administration, and put him upon several arbitrary and oppressive expedients. Among others, one was, to seize the revenues of a church, upon the death of a bishop or abbot; allowing the dean and chapter, or convent, but a slender pension for maintenance. But the king now falling sick, began to be touched with remorse of conscience, and among other oppressions, was particularly afflicted for the injury he had done the church and kingdom in keeping the see of Canterbury, and some others, vacant. The bishops and other great men therefore took this opportunity to entreat the king to fill up the vacant sees; and Anselm, who then lived in the neighbourhood of Gloucester, being sent for to court, to assist the king in his illness, was considered by the king as a proper person, and accordingly nominated to the see of Canterbury, which had been four years vacant, and was formerly filled by his old friend and preceptor Lanfranc. Anselm was with much difficulty prevailed upon to accept this dignity, and evidently foresaw the difficulties of executing his duties conscientiously under such a sovereign as William Rufus. Before his consecration, however, he gained a promise from the king for the restitution of all the lands which were in the possession of that see in Lanfranc’s time. And thus having secured the temporalities of the archbishopric, and done homage to the king, he was consecrated with great solemnity on the 4th of December, 1093. Soon after his consecration, the king intending to wrest the duchy of Normandy from his brother Robert, and endeavouring to raise what money he could for that purpose, Anselm made him an offer of five hundred pounds; which the king thinking too little, refused to accept, and the archbishop thereby fell under the king’s displeasure. About that time, he had a dispute with the bishop of London, touching the right of consecrating churches in a foreign diocese. The next year, the king being ready to embark for Normandy, Anseim waited upon him, and desired his leave to convene a national synod, in which the disorders of the church and state, and the general dissolution of manners, might be remedied: but the king refused his request, and even treated him so roughly, that the archbishop and his retinue withdrew from the court, the licentious manners of which, Anselm, who was a man of inflexible piety, had censured with great freedom. Another cause of discontent between him and the archbishop, was Anselm’s desiring leave to go to Rome, to receive the pall from pope Urban II. whom the king of England did not acknowledge as pope, being more inclined to favour the party of his competitor Guibert. To put an end to this misunderstanding, a council, or convention, was held at Rockingham castle, March 11, 1095. In this assembly, Anselm, opening his cause, told them with what reluctancy he had accepted the archbishopric; that he had made an express reserve of his obedience to pope Urban; and that he was now brought under difficulties upon that score. He therefore desired their advice how to act in such a manner, as neither to fail in his allegiance to the king, nor in his duty to the holy see. The bishops were of opinion, that he ought to resign himself wholly to the king’s pleasure. They told him, there was a general complaint against him, for intrenching upon the king’s prerogative; and that it would be prudence in him to wave his regard for Urban; that bishop (for they would not call him pope) being in no condition to do him either good or harm. To this Anselm returned, that he was engaged to be no farther the king’s subject than the laws of Christianity would give him leave; that as he was willing “to render unto Cassar the things that were Caesar’s,” so he must likewise take in the other part of the precept, and “give unto God that which was God’s.” Upon this William, bishop of Durham, a court prelate, who had inflamed the difference, and managed the argument for the king, insisted, that the nomination of the pope to the subject was the principal jewel of the crown, and that by this privilege the kings of England were distinguished from the rest of the princes of Christendom. This is sound doctrine, if that had really been the question; but, whatever may be now thought of it, Anselm held an opinion in which succeeding kings and prelates acquiesced, and in the present instance, there is reason to think that William Rufus’s objection was not to the pope, but to a pope. Be this as it may, the result of this council was that the majority of the bishops, under the influence of the court, withdrew their canonical obedience, and renounced Anselm for their archbishop, and the king would have even had them to try and depose him, but this they refused. In consequence of this proceeding, Anselm desired a passport to go to the continent, which the king refused, and would permit only of a suspension of the affair from March to Whitsuntide; but long before the expiration of the term, he broke through the agreement, banished several clergymen who were Anselm’s favourites, and miserably harrassed the tenants of his see. Whitsuntide being at length come, and the bishops having in vain endeavoured to soften Anselm into a compliance, the king consented to receive him into favour upon his own terms; and, because Anselm persisted in refusing to receive the pall from the king’s hands, it was at last agreed that the pope’s nuncio, who had brought the pall into England, should carry it clown to Canterbury, and lay it upon the altar of the cathedral, from whence Anselm was to receive it, as if it had been put into his hands by St. Peter himself.

With this immense stock of learning, acquired without the assistance of a master, and the most extraordinary talents, which might have made him shine in any station of life, it is to be lamented that he was guilty of an action inconsistent with every principle of humanity; for, in 1758, he was taken up at Lynn, in Norfolk, for the murder of Daniel Clark, a shoe-maker of Knaresborough, who hau been missing upwards of 13 years, and removed to York castle, where being brought to his trial, on the third of August 1759, he read a most admirable defence, in which he displayed equal modesty, good sense, and learning; but was found guilty, and the next morning confessed the justness of his sentence, acknowledging to a clergyman, that his motive for committing the murder was his suspecting Clark of having unlawful commerce with his Wife. When he was called from bed to have his irons taken off, he refused to rise, alleging that he was very weak. On examination it was found that he had attempted to take away his own life, by cutting his arm in two places with a razor. Though weak, he was conducted to the gallows of York, and there executed, and hung in chains in Knaresborough forest.

, a celebrated wit and physician in queen Anne’s reign, was the son of an episcopal clergyman of Scotland, nearly allied to the noble family of that name. He had his education in the university of Aberdeen, where he took the degree of doctor of physic. The revolution deprived the father of his church preferment; and though he was possessed of a small paternal estate, vet necessity obliged the son to seek his fortune abroad. He came to London, and at first, as it is said, for his support taught the mathematics. About this time, viz. 1695, Dr. Woodward’s “Essay towards a natural history of the Earth” was published, which contained such an account of the universal deluge, as our author thought inconsistent with truth: he therefore drew up a work, entitled “An examination of Dr. Woodward’s account of the Deluge, &c. with a comparison between Steno’s philosophy and the doctor’s, in the case of marine bodies dug up out of the earth, &c.” 1695, 8vo, which gave him no small share of literary fame. His extensive learning, and facetious and agreeable conversation, introduced him by degrees into practice, and he became eminent in his profession. Being at Epsom when prince George of Denmark was suddenly taken ill, he was called in to his assistance. His advice was successful, and his highness recovering, employed him always afterwards as his physician. In consequence of this, upon the indisposition of Dr. Hannes, he was appointed physician in ordinary to queen Anne, 1709, and admitted a fellow of the college, as he had been some years of the Royal Society.

, founder of the sect of Arminians, or Remonstrants, was born at Oudewater in Holland, 1560. He lost his father in his infancy, and was indebted for the first part of his education to a clergyman, who had imbibed some opinions of the reformed, and who, to avoid being obliged to say mass, often changed his habitation. Arminius was a student at Utrecht, when death deprived him of his patron, which loss would have embarrassed him greatly, had he not had the good fortune to be assisted by iiodolphus Snellius, his countryman, who took him with him to Marpurg in 1575. Soon after his arrival here, he heard the news of his country having been sacked by the Spaniards: this plunged him into the most dreadful affliction, yet he visited Holland, to be himself an eye-witness of the state tc which things were reduced; but having found that his mother, his sister, his brothers, and almost all the inhabitants of Oude-water, had been murdered, he returned to Marpurg. His stay here was, however, but short; for, being informed of the foundation of the university of Leyden, he went again to Holland, and pursued his studies at this new academy with so much assiduity and success, that he acquired very great reputation. He was sent to Geneva in 1583, at the expeuce of the magistrates of Amsterdam, to perfect his studies; and here he applied himself chiefly to the lectures of Theodore Beza, who was at this time explaining the Epistle to the Romans. Armiuius had the misfortune to displease some of the leading men of the university, because he maintained the philosophy of Ramus in public with great warmth, and taught it in private: being obliged therefore to retire, he went to Basil, where he was received with great kindness. Here he acquired such reputation, that the faculty of divinity offered him the degree of doctor without any expence, but he modestly excused himself from receiving this honour, and returned to Geneva; where having found the adversaries of Ramism. less violent than formerly, he became also more moderate. Having a great desire to see Italy, and particularly to hear the philosophical lectures of the famous James Zabarella, at Padua, he spent six or seven months in the journey: and then returned to Geneva, and afterwards to Amsterdam; where he found many calumnies raised against him, on account of his journey to Italy, which had somewhat cooled the affections of the magistrates of Amsterdam, his friends and patrons. He easily justified himself to some, but others remained prejudiced against him. He was ordained minister at Amsterdam in 1588, and soon distinguished himself by his sermons, which were so esteemed for their solidity and learning, that he was much followed, and universally applauded. Martin Lyclius, professor of divinity at Franeker, thought him a fit person to refute a writing, wherein the doctrine of Theodore Beza upon Predestination had been attacked by some ministers of Delft: Beza, and his followers, represented man, not considered as fallen, or even as created, as the object of the divine decrees. The ministers of Delft, on the other hand, made this peremptory decree subordinate to the creation and fall of mankind. They submitted their opinion to the public, in a book entitled “An Answer to certain arguments of Beza and Calvin, in the treatise concerning Predestination, upon the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.” This piece, which contained several difficulties, with which the doctrine of the divines of Geneva seemed to be embarrassed, was transmitted by the ministers of Delft to Martin Lydius, who promised to write a reply; but he applied to Arminius to take this upon him. Arminius, accordingly, at his earnest entreaty, undertook to refute this piece: but, upon examining and weighing the arguments on both sides, he embraced the opinions he proposed to confute; and even went farther than the ministers of Delft. He was threatened with some trouble about this at Amsterdam, being accused of departing from the established doctrine; but the magistrates of Amsterdam interposing their authority, prevented any dissension. In 1603, he was called to the professorship of divinity at Leyden: he began his lectures with three elegant orations; the first, Of the Object of Theology; the second, Of the Author and End of it; and the third, Of the Certainty of it; and then proceeded to the exposition of the prophet Jonah. The disputes upon grace were soon after kindled in the university, and the states of the province were forced to appoint conferences betwixt him and his adversaries. Gomarus was the great antagonist of Arminius; but the reputation of the latter was so well established, that he was continually attended by a numerous audience, who admired the strength of argument and solid learning which he shewed in all his lectures: this exposed him to the envy of his brethren, who treated him with great outrage. In 1607, he wrote an excellent letter to the ambassador of the elector Palatine, to vindicate his conduct with regard to the contests about religion, in which he was engaged: and the same year gave a full account to the states of Holland, of his sentiments with regard to the controverted points. These contests, however, his continual labour, and his uneasiness at seeing his reputation attacked in all quarters, threw him into a fit of sickness, of which he died the 19th of October, 1609.

, a clergyman in the time of the usurpation, was the son of Thomas Ashton, and born at Teuerdly in Lancashire, in 1631. At sixteen years of age, he was admitted a servitor of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, and took the degree of B. A. February 7, 1650. He was chosen fellow of his college, and took holy orders. Mr. Wood tells us, he was a “forward and conceited scholar,” and “became a malapert preacher in and near Oxford.” Being appointed to preach at St. Mary’s, on Tuesday (a lecture-day) July 25, 1654, he gave so great effence by a very indecent sermon, that he was in a fair way of expulsion but, by the intercession of friends, the matter was compromised yet he was obliged, about two years after, to quit his fellowship upon some quarrel which he had with Dr. Greenwood, principal of his house. In 1656, he was intrusted with a commission from the protector to be chaplain to the English forces in the island of Jersey, but was soon after displaced upon the arrival of a new governor. After the king’s restoration, he was beneficed somewhere near Hertford in Hertfordshire; where, Mr. Wood says, “he soon after finished his restless course. 111 He published, 1.” Blood-thirsty Cyrus unsatisfied with blood; or, the boundless cruelty of an Anabaptist’s tyranny, manifested in a letter of colonel John Mason, governor of Jersey, 3d Nov. 1659; wherein he exhibits seven false, ridiculous, and scandalous articles against quartermaster William Swan," &c. London, 1659, in one sheet 4to. 2. “Satan in Samuel’s Mantle, or, the cruelty of Germany, acted in Jersey; containing the arbitrary, bloody, and tyrannical proceedings of John Mason, of a baptised church, commissionated to be a colonel, and sent over into the island of Jersey, governor, in July 1656, against several officers and soldiers in that small place,” &c. London, 1659, in four sheets in 4to.

, a learned and ingenious lady, was the daughter of Mr. Astell, a merchant at Newcastle-uponTyne, where she was born about 1668. Her uncle, who was a clergyman, having discovered her superior capacity, generously undertook to be her preceptor and, under his tuition, she learned Italian and French, and made a considerable progress in logic, philosophy, and the mathematics. At the age of twenty, she left Newcastle and went to London, where, and at Chelsea, she spent the remaining part of her life. Here she assiduously prosecuted her studies, and acquired very considerable attainments in all the branches of polite literature. When the Rev. John Morris published his “Practical Discourses upon divine subjects,” several excellent letters passed between him and Mrs. Astell upon the love of God, which, at the request of Mr. Morris, she suffered him to publish in 1695, without her name, a precaution which their merit rendered useless. Having often observed and lamented the defects in the education of her sex, which, she said, were the principal causes of their running into so many follies and improprieties, she published in 1696, an ingenious treatise, entitled, “A serious Proposal to the Ladies, for the advancement of their true and greatest interest,” &c. and, some time after, a second part, under the same title, with this addition “wherein a Method is offered for the Improvement of their Minds.” Both these performances were published together in 1696, and had, in some measure, the desired effect. The scheme, indeed, in her proposal, seemed so rational, that a certain opulent lady, supposed to be the queen, intended to have given 10,000l. towards the erecting a sort of college for the education and improvement of the female sex and as a retreat to those ladies who preferred retirement and study to the noise and hurry of the world. Bishop Burnet, hearing of the design, went to the lady, and powerfully remonstrated against it, telling her it would look like paving the way for popish orders, and that it would be reputed a nunnery; in consequence of which the design was relinquished. About seven years after, she printed “An Essay in Defence of the Female Sex. In a Letter to a Lady. Written by a Lady.” These publications did not prevent her from being as intent on her studies as ever and when, she accidentally saw needless visitors coming, whom she knew to be incapable of conversing on useful subjects, instead of ordering herself to be denied, she used to look out at the window, and jestingly tell them, “Mrs. Astell was not at home.” In the course of her studies she became intimately acquainted with many classic authors. Those she admired most were Xenophon, Plato, Hierocles, Tully, Seneca, Epictetus, and M. Antoninus. In 1700, she published a book entitled “Reflections-on Marriage,” occasioned, as it is said, by a disappointment she experienced in a marriage-contract with an eminent clergyman. However that might be, in the next edition of her book, 1705, she added a preface, in answer to some objections, which perhaps is the strongest defence that ever appeared in print, of the rights and abilities of her own sex.

When Dr. D' Avenant published his “Moderation a Virtue,” and his “Essay on Peace and War,” she answered him in 1704, in a tract entitled “Moderation truly stated.” The same year D' Avenant published a new edition of his works, with remarks on hers, to which she immediately replied in a postscript, and although without her name, she was soon discovered, and distinguished with public approbation. Some eminent men of the time bear testimony to the merit of her works, as Hickes, Walker, Norris, Dodwell, Evelyn, and bishop Atterbury, who praises her controversial powers, but with a hint that a little more urbanity of manner would not have weakened her arguments. Among her other works was “An impartial Inquiry into the Causes of Rebellion and Civil Wars in this kingdom, in an examination of Dr. Rennet’s Sermon, Jan. 30, 1703-4.” “A fair way with Dissenters and their Patrons, not writ by Mr. Lindsay, or any other furious jacobite, whether a clergyman or a layman but by a very moderate person and dutiful subject of the queen,” 1704. “The Christian Religion, as practised by a daughter of the Church of England,” 1705. This was suspected to be the work of Atterbury. “Six familiar Essays upon Marriage, Crosses in Love, and Friendship,” 1706. “Bart'lemy Fair, or an Inquiry after Wit,” 1700, occasioned by colonel Hunter’s celebrated Letter on Enthusiasm. It was republished in 1722, without the words * Bart‘lemy Fair.’ Although living and conversing with the fashionable world, she led a pious life, generally calm and serene, and her deportment and conversation were highly entertaining and social. She used to say, the good Christian only has reason, and he always ought to be cheerful and that dejected looks and melancholy airs were very unseemly in a Christian. But though she was easy and affable to others, she was severe towards herself. She was abstemious in a very great degree frequently living many days together on bread and water and at other times, when at home, rarely eat any dinner till night, and then sparingly. She would frequently say, abstinence was her best physic and that those who indulge themselves in eating and drinking, could not be so well disposed or prepared, either for study, or the regular and devout service of their Creator.

, a very celebrated French physiciaiTj was born in 1684, at Sauve in the diocese of Alais. His father, who was a Protestant clergyman, bestowed great pains upon his early education, after which he was sent to the university of Montpelier, where he was created M. A, in 1700. He then began the study of medicine; and in two years obtained the degree of bachelor^ having upon that occasion written a dissertation on the cause of fermentation, which he defended in a very able manner. On Jan. 25, 1703, he was created doctor of physic, after which, before arriving at extensive practice, he applied to the study of medical authors, both ancient and modern, with uncommon assiduity. The good effects of this study soon appeared; for in 1710 he published a treatise concerning muscular motion, from which he acquired very high reputation. In 1717 he was appointed to teach medicine at Montpelier, which he did with such perspicuity and eloquence that his fame soon rose to a very great height; the king assigned him an annual salary, and he was at the same time appointed to superintend the mineral waters in the province of Languedoc. But as Montpelier did not afford sufficient scope for one of his celebrity, he went to Paris with a great numher of manuscripts, which he designed for the press. Soon afterwards, however, he left it, having in 1729 accepted the office of first physician to the king of Poland, which was then offered to him; but here his stay was very short, as he disliked the ceremonious restraint of a court. He again therefore returned to Paris, and upon the death of the celebrated Geoffroy, in 1731, he was appointed regins professor. The duties of this office he discharged in such a manner as toanswer the most sanguine expectations; and he drew, from the other universities to that of Paris, a great concourse of medical students, foreigners as well as natives. At the same time he was not more celebrated as a professor than as a practitioner, and his private character was in all respects truly amiable. He reached a very advanced age, and died May 5, 1766. Of his works, which are very numerous, the following are the principal 1. “Origine de la Peste,” 1721, 8vo. 2. “De ia Contagion cle la Peste,” 1724. 8vo. 3. “De Motu Musculari,” 1710, 12mo. 4. “Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire naturelle cle Languedoc,” 1737, 4to. 5. “De Morbis Veuereis, libri’sex,” 1736, 4 to, afterwards enlarged to -t 8vo Vols. and translated into French by Jault, 4 vols. 12mo, “Traitedes maladies desFemmes,” 1761—1765, 6vols. 12tno. 7. “L'Art crAccoucher reduit a ses principles,” 1766, 12mo. 8. “Theses de Phantasia,” &c. 9. “De motus Fermentativi causa,” 1702, 12mo. 10. “Memo ire sur la Digestion,” 1714, 8vo. 11.“Tractatus Pathologicus,” 1766, 8vo. Besides these, in 1759 he published “Trait des Tumeurs,” 2 vols. 12mo; and one or two treatises not connected with medicine, one with the singular title of “Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux qui ont servi a Moise pour ecrire la Genese,” Paris, 1753, 12mo, and a dissertation on the immateriality and immortality of the Soul, Paris, 1755. His work on the venereal disease, and those on the diseases of women, and on midwifery, have been translated into English.

The time of his entering into the church is not exactly known but may be very nearly ascertained by his “Epistolary Correspondence;” where a letter to his father in 1690 is highly expressive of a superior genius, impatient of the shackles of an humble college life whilst the father’s answer displays the anxiety, together with a mixture of the severity, of the paternal character, offended by the quemlousness of the son, and his dissatisfaction. He had taken the degree of B. A. June 13, 1684 (when he was little more than twenty-two years old) ayd that of M.A. April 20, 1687; and it has been ingeniously conjectured, that he had applied to the college for permission to take pupils whilst he xv.is B. A. only (winch is unusual), and that he was refused. After passing two or three years more in the college, he then seems to have thought too highly of himself (when now become M. A.) to take any at all, and to be “pinned down, as,” he says, “it is his hard luck to be, to this scene.” This restlessness appears to have broken out in October 1690, when he was moderator of the college, and had had Mr. Boyle four months under his tuition, who a took up half his time,“and whom he never had a thought of parting with till he should leave Oxford; but wished he” could part with him to-morrow on that score.“The father tells him in November,” You used to say, when you had your degrees, you should be able to swim without bladders. You used to rejoice at your being moderator, and of the quantum and sub-lecturer but neither of these pleased you; nor was you willing to take those pupils the house afforded you when master nor doth your lecturer’s place, or nobleman satisfy you.“In the same letter the father advises his marrying into some family of interest,” either bishop’s or archbishop’s, or some courtier’s, which may be done, with accomplishments, and a portion too.“And to part of this counsel young Atterbury attended for he soon after married Miss Osborn, a relation (some say a niece) of the duke of Leeds, a great beauty, who lived at or in the neighbourhood of Oxford, and by whom he had a fortune ofTOOO/. In February 1690-1, we find him resolved” to bestir himself in his office in the house,“that of censor probably, an officer (peculiar to Christ Church) who presides over the classical exercises he then also held the catechetical lecture founded by Dr. Busby. About this period he probably took orders, and entered into” another scene, and another sort of conversation;“for in 1691 he was elected lecturer of St. Bride’s church in London, and in October 1693, minister and preacher at Bridewell chapel. An academic life, indeed, must have been irksome and insipid to a person of his active and aspiring temper. It was hardly possible that a clergyman of his fine genius, improved by study, with a spirit to exert his talents, should remain long unnoticed and we find that he was soon appointed chaplain to king William and queen Mary. The earliest of his sermons in print was preached before the queen at Whitehall, May 29, 1692. In August 1694 he preached his celebrated sermon before the governors of Bridewell and Bethlem,” On the power of charity to cover sins“to which Mr. Hoadly (afterwards bishop) published sorne^” Exceptions“in the postscript to his” Second Letter to Dr. Atterbury,“mentioned hereafter. In this he accuses Atterbury, and not without reason, of endeavouring to maintain the proposition that” God will accept one duty (charity) in lieu of many others.“In” October that year he preached before the queen p “The scorncr incapable of true wisdom” which was also warmly attacked by a friend of sir Robert Howard, author of “The History of Religion,” supposed to be alluded to in this sermon. The pamphlet was entitled “A two-fold Vindication of the late archbishop of Canterbury, and the Author of the History of Religion, &c.” 1696, 8vo.

In 1700, a still larger field of activity opened, in which Atterbury was engaged four years with Dr. Wake (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) and others, concerning the rights, powers, and privileges of convocations in which he displayed so much learning and ingenuity, as well as zeal for the interests of his order, that the lower house of convocation returned him their thanks; and in consequence of this vote a letter was sent to the university of Oxford, expressing, that, “whereas Mr. Francis Atterbury, late of Christ Church, had so happily asserted the rights and privileges of an English convocation, as to merit the solemn thanks of the lower house for his learned pains upon that subject; it might be hoped, that the university would be no less forward in taking some public notice of so great a piece of service to the church and that the most proper and seasonable mark of respect to him, would be to confer on him the degree of doctor in divinity by diploma, without doing exercise, or paying fees.” The university approved the contents of this letter, and accordingly created Mr. AtterburyD.D. Out author’s work was entitled, “The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vindicated, in answer to a late book of Dr. Wake’s, entitled ‘ The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted,’ &c. and several other pieces,” 8vo. The fame of this work was very great; but it was censured by Burnet, and in November the judges had a serious consultation on it, as being supposed to affect the royal prerogative. Holt, then chief justice, was strongly of that opinion, and the same idea was encouraged by archbishop Tenison, Dr. Wake, and others. Endeavours were made to prejudice king William against him, but his majesty remained indifferent; and on the other hand, Atterbury gained the steady patronage of sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Exeter, of Lawrence earl of Rochester, and of bishop Sprat. In December 1700, he published a second edition of “The Rights,” considerably enlarged, and with his name, and a dedication to the two archbishops. This was immediately answered by Drs. Kennet, Hody, and Wake. Another controversy of some importance was at this time also ably agitated by Atterbury, the execution of the prtemunienles, a privilege enjoyed by the several bishops of issuing writs to summon the inferior clergy to convocation. Bishops Compton, Sprat, and Trelawny, were his strenuous supporters on this occasion, and by the latter he was presented to the archdeaconry of Totness, in which he was installed Jan. 29, 1700-1. His attendance in convocation was regular, and his exertions great. In placing Dr. Hooper in the prolocutor’s chair, as the successor of Dr. Jane in the examination of obnoxious books in the controversy between the lower and upper houses in considering the methods of promoting the propagation of religion in foreign parts and in preparing an address to the king, his zeal distinguished itself. About this time he was engaged, with some other learned divines, in revising an intended edition of the Greek Testament, with Greek Scholia, collected chiefly from the fathers, by Mr. archdeacon Gregory. On the 29th of May he preached before the House of Commons; and on Aug. 16, published “The power of the Lower House of Convocation to adjourn itself,” which was a sort of analysis of the whole controversy. He also published “A letter to a clergyman in the country, concerning the Choice of Members, &c.” Nov. 17, 1701; a second, with a similar title, Dec. 10, 1701; and a third, in defence of the two former, Jan. 8, 1701-2. In October he published “The parliamentary origin and rights of the Lower House of Convocation, cleared, &c.” At this period he was popular as preacher at the Rolls Chapel, an office which had been conferred on him by sir John Trevor, a great discerner of abilities, in 1698, when he resigned JBridewell, which he had obtained in 1693. Upon the accession of queen Anne, in 1702, Dr. Atterbury was appointed one of her majesty’s chaplains in ordinary and, in July 1704, was advanced to the deanery of Carlisle but, owing to the obstacles thrown in his way by bishop Nicolson, he was not instituted tintil Oct. 12, and the same year Sir Jonathan Trelawny bestowed on him a canonry of Exeter. About two years after this, he was engaged in a dispute with Mr. Hoadly, concerning the advantages of virtue with regard to the present life, occasioned by his sermon, preached August 30, 1706, at the funeral of Mr. Thomas Bennet, a bookseller. The doctrine of this sermon Mr. Hoadly examined, in “A letter to Dr. Francis Atterbury, concerning Virtue and Vice,” published in 1706.; in which he undertakes to shew, that Dr. Atterbury has extremely mistaken the sense of his text. Dr. Atterbury, in a volume of Sermons published by himself, prefixed a long preface to the sermon at Mr. Bennet’s funeral in which he replies to Mr. Hoadly’s arguments, and produces the concurrent testimonies of expositors, and the authorities of the best writers, especially our English divines, in confirmation of the doctrine he had advanced. In answer to this “Preface,” Mr. Hoadly published in 170&, “Asecond letter,” &c. and in the Preface to his “Tracts,” tells us, these two letters against Dr. Atterbury were designed to vindicate and establish the tendency of virtue and morality to the present happiness of such a creature as man is which he esteems a point of the utmost importance to the Gospel itself. In Jan. 1707-8 he published a volume of Sermons, 8vo, and in the same year “Reflections on a late scandalous report about the repeal of the Test Act.” In 1709, he was engaged in a fresh dispute with Mr, Hoadly, concerning Passive Obedience, occasioned by his Latin sermon, entitled “Concio ad Clerum Londinensem, habita in Ecclesia S. Elphegi.” Atterbury, in his pamphlet entitled “Some proceedings in Convocation, A. D. 1705, faithfully represented,” had charged Mr. Hoadly (whom he sneeringly calls “the modest and moderate Mr. Hoadly”) with treating the body of the established clergy with language more disdainful and reviling than it would have become him to have used towards his Presbyterian antagonist, upon any provocation, charging them with rebellion in the church, whilst he himself was preaching it up in the state.“This induced Mr. Hoadly to set about a particular examination of Dr. Atterbury' s Latin Sermon; which he did in a piece, entitled” A large Answer to Dr. Atterbury’s Charge of Rebellion, &c. London a 1710,“wherein he endeavours to lay open the doctor’s artful management of the controversy, and to let the reader into his true meaning and design which, in an” Appendix“to the” Answer,“he represents to be” The carrying on two different causes, upon two sets of contradictory principles“in order to” gain himself applause amongst the same persons at the same time, by standing up for and against liberty; by depressing the prerogative, and exalting it by lessening the executive power, and magnifying it by loading some with all infamy, for pleading for submission to it in one particular which he supposeth an mcroachment, and by loading others with the same infamy for pleading against submission to it, in cases that touch the happiness of the whole community.“” This,“he tells us,” is a method of controversy so peculiar to one person (Dr. Atterbury) as that he knows not that it hath ever been practised, or attempted by any other writer.“Mr. Hoadly has likewise transcribed, in this Appendix, some remarkable passages out of our author’s” Rights, Powers, and Privileges, &c." which he confronts with others, from his Latin Sermon.

At the beginning of the succeeding reign, his tide of prosperity began to turn and he received a sensible mortification presently after the coronation of king George I. Oct. 20, 1714, when, upon his offering to present his majesty (with a view, no doubt, of standing better in his favour) with the chair of state and royal canopy, his own perquisites as dean of Westminster, the offer was rejected, not without some evident marks of dislike to his person. At the close of this year he is supposed to have written a pamphlet, deemed a libel by government, “English Advice to the Freeholders of England.” Bolingbroke and Swift were also supposed to have had a hand in it. During the rebellion in Scotland, which broke out in the first year of this reign, Atterbury gave an instance of his growing disaffection to the established government, in refusing to sign the “Declaration” of the bishops. In that juncture of affairs, when the Pretender’s declaration was posted up in most market towns, and, in some places, his title proclaimed, it^was thought proper, by most bodies of men, to give the government all possible assurance of their fidelity iand allegiance and accordingly there was published “A Declaration of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops in and near London, testifying their abhorrence of the present rebellion and an exhortation to the clergy, and people under their care, to be zealous in the discharge of their duties to his majesty king George.” This paper both Atterbury and Smalridge refused to sign, on pretence of a just offence taken at some unbecoming reflections cast on a party, not inferior to any, they said, in point of loyalty. But Atterbury' s refusal of signing the declaration of his episcopal brethren, during the rebellion in Scotland, was not the only testimony he at that time afforded of his disaffection to government. Another remarkable proof of it was his conduct to an ingenious and learned clergyman, Mr. Gibbin, curate of Gravesend. When the Dutch troops, which came over to assist in subduing the rebellion, were quartered at that place, the officers requested of Mr. Gibbin the use of his church one Sunday morning for their chaplain to preach to their soldiers, alleging that the like favour had been granted them in other parishes, and promising that the service should begin at six in the morning, that it might not interfere with that of the town. The request was granted, the chaplain preached, and his congregation was dismissed by nine o'clock. But Dr. Atterbury was so in^ censed at this transaction, that he suspended Mr. Gibbiu for three years. The suspension, however, was deemed so injurious by the inhabitants of Gravesend, that they subscribed a sum to Mr. Gibbin more than double the income of his church and the affair being represented to the king, his majesty* gave him the rectory of NorthFleet in Kent, which living he afterwards exchanged for Birch, near Colchester in Essex, where he died July 29, 1752. He was a very ingenious, learned, and worthy clergyman, who had greatly improved and enlarged his mind, by his travels into France, Italy, and other countries, with Mr. Addison. A farther striking instance (if true) of bishop Atterbury’s attachment to the Pretender, is related, by the author of the “Memoirs of lord Chesterfield,” from Dr. Birch’s manuscript papers, and was often mentioned by the late bishop Pearce (who appears to have been always severe on the memory of Atterbury) “Lord Harcourt leaving the old ministry, provoked Atterbury’s abusive tongue. He, in return, declared, that on the queen’s death, the bishop came to him and to lord Bolingbroke, and said, nothing remained but immediately to proclaim king James. He further offered, if they would give him a guard, to put on his lawn sleeves, and head the procession.” Whatever may be in this, it is certain that from the time he perceived himself slighted by tile king he constantly opposed the measures of the court in the House of Lords, and drew up some of the most violent protests with his own hand. In 1716, we find him advising dean Swift in the management of a refractory chapter.

On the 6th of April, in the same year, there was a dreadful earthquake and in the dead of the night of the 1 st of May, it was felt again, which, as it exceedingly terrified the people, so the bishop, that he might turn their concern to a proper object, and at the same time exhibit to them reasonable grounds of comfort, composed certain prayers to be made use of in the public service. In 1581, the bishop had an angry contest with the lord Rich, who kept one Wright a puritan minister in his house, and would have compelled the bishop to license him to preach in his diocese but on a hearing before the ecclesiastical commissioners, Wright was committed to the Fleet, and others who had interfered in this affair, to other prisons. This increased the number of his enemies, of whom he had not a few before, who daily suggested that he was a violent man, and sought to vest too great a power in churchmen and these representations had such effect, that sometimes messages were sent to him, to abate somewhat of the rigour of his proceedings. His lordship, however, still supported the ecclesiastical commission, by his presence and authority; and though a milder course might have made him more popular, yet he thought it better to suffer himself, than that the church should. He began, however, to have many doubts concerning the treasurer, from whose hands his reproofs usually came but upqn the winding up of his cause before the council about felling of woods, he saw clearly, that he had no friend equal to the treasurer, who, though he endeavoured by his admonitions to prevent his falling into difficulties, yet generously exerted his utmost power to help him out of them, so far as was consistent with equity, and the good of the common weal. From this time forward, therefore, thebishop applied chiefly to the treasurer, for any favours he expected from court, particularly with regard to the business of his translation. He became exceedingly solicitous to be removed from London, either to Winchester or Ely; but, though he had many fair promises, his interest was insufficient, and in the mean time new informations, some with little, many with no cause at all, were exhibited against him, and gave him not a little uneasiness, although, on a thorough examination, his conduct escaped the censure of his superiors. In 1583 he performed his triennial visitation, and having discovered many scandalous corruptions in the ecclesiastical courts, especially in the business of commuting penances, he honestly represented what came to his knowledge to the privy council. About this time also he suspended certain ministers, accused of nonconformity and it appears, that upon a thorough examination of the matter, his lordship did impartial justice, in restoring one Mr. Giffard, whom he had twice suspended, when those who had charged him were able to make nothing out. In this year also he committed Mr. Thomas Cartwright, the celebrated Puritan minister, who had written against the hierarchy. Yet for this his lordship incurred the queen’s displeasure and a little after was informed that he stood accused to her majesty, for impairing the revenues of his bishopric, of which he purged himself, by exhibiting a state of the bishopric as it then stood, compared with the condition it was in when he became bishop. Other difficulties. he met with, on account of the share he had in executing her majesty’s ecclesiastical commission, from which there were Continual appeals to the privy council, where the lords who favoured the Puritans, did not fail to object to the bishop’s conduct, which contributed not a little to irritate his warm temper. In 1585 he composed a prayer to be used on account of the rainy unseasonable weather, which he recommended to private families, as well as directed to be read with the public prayers. He also used his interest to quiet the murmurs of the common people in London, against the crowds of strangers who fled hither, to avoid the persecutions raised against them, for embracing the Protestant religion. In the summer of the year 1586, the, bishop went his next triennial visitation, and at Maiden in Essex, narrowly escaped an outrageous insult, intended against him by some disaffected persons. In 1587, the bishop entered into a new scene of trouble, on account of one Mr. Robert Cawdry, schoolmaster, whom the lord Burleigh had presented to the living of South LufFenhara in Rutlandshire, where, after preaching sixteen years, he was convened before the ecclesiastical commission, and at length, the bishop sitting as judge, deprived. Cawdry would not submit to the sentence upon which the matter was re-examined by the ecclesiastical commission, at Lambeth, where to deprivation, degradation was added. Cawdry, however, still refusing to submit, made new and warm representations to the lord Burleigh, who favoured him as much as with justice he could but after near five years contest, the bishop’s and archbishop’s sentences were supported, both by the civil and common lawyers. In 1588, his lordship restored one Mr. Henry Smith, a very eloquent and much admired preacher, whom he had suspended for contemptuous expressions against the book of Common Prayer, which Smith denied. In 1589, he expressed his dislike of certain libels against the king of Spain, giving it as his reason, that on so glorious a victory, it was better to thank God, than insult men, especially princes. That year also he visited his diocese, though he was grown old and very infirm, and suspended one Dyke at St. Alban’s, though he had been recommended by the lord treasurer. In 1591 he caused the above-mentioned Mr. Cartwright to be brought before him out of the Fleet, and expostulated with him roundly, on the disturbance he had given the church. In 1592, he strongly solicited in favour of Dr. Bullingham, and Dr. Cole, that they might be preferred to bishoprics, but without success, which his lordship foresaw. For he observed when he applied for them, that he was not so happy as to do rmieh good for his friends yet he added, he would never be wanting in shewing his good will, both to them and to the church. About this time, casting his eye on Dr. Bancroft, a rising and very active man, he endeavoured to obtain leave to resign his bishopric to him, as a man every way fit for such a charge but in this also he was disappointed, which it seems lay heavy at his heart for even on his death-bed, he expressed his earnest desire that Bancroft might succeed him. In 1592, the bishop assisted at his son’s visitation, as archdeacon of London, and exerted himself with as much zeal and spirit as he had ever shewn in his life. His great age, and great labours, however, weighed him down by degrees, and he died June 3, 1594, and his body being brought from his palace at Fulham, was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral before St. George’s chapel, under a fair stone of grey marble, with an inscription which was demolished by the republicans in Cromwell’s time. Bishop Aylmer married Judith Bure&, or Buers, of a very good family in Suffolk, by whom he had a very numerous offspring, viz. seven sons, and two or three daughters. As to the personal qualities of the bishop, they were, as those of most men are, good and bad, the former, perhaps, too much magnified by his friends, as the latter were by his enemies. He was solidly and extensively learned in all things that became either a great churchman, or a polite man, to know. He was very well versed in the three learned languages, had read much history, was a good logician, and very well skilled in the civil law. As a divine, he had studied, and understood the scripture thoroughly could preach, not only rhetorically but pathetically and in the course of his life-time, never buried his talent . He was in his heart, from the conviction of his head, a Protestant, and opposed Popery warmly, from a just sense of its errors, which he had the courage to combat openly in the days of queen Mary, and the honesty to suppress in the reign of queen Elizabeth. With all this, and indeed with a temper occasionally soured and irritable, he was a good-natured, facetious man, one extremely diligent and painful in the several employments he went through of too generous a temper to be corrupted, and of much too stout a one to be brow-beaten. He was a magnificent man in his house, as appears by his household, which consisted of fourscore persons, to whom he was a liberal and kind master. After his fatigues he was wot to refresh himself, either with conversation or at bowls. As to his failings, his temper was without doubt warm, his expressions sometimes too blunt, and his zeal not guided by wisdom. His enemies charged him with an exorbitant love of power, which displayed itself in various extraordinary acts of severity, with covetousness, which prompted him to spoil his see, and injure a private man; with intemperate heat against Puritans, with a slight regard of the Lord’s day, and with indecencies in ordinary speech some of which charges must be allowed a foundation, while on the other hand they appear to have been greatly exaggerated. But upon the whole there must have been many errors in a conduct which his superiors so often reproved. At the time of his decease he left seven sons, and either two or three daughters. His sons were, first, Samuel, who was bred to the law. He was stiled, of Claydon-hall in the county of Suffolk, and was high-sheriff of that county in the reign of king Charles I. and by two wives left a numerous posterity. His second, Theophilus, a most worthy divine, archdeacon of London, rector of Much-Hadham in Hertfordshire, and doctor of divinity. He was chaplain to king James, an able and zealous preacher, and, like his father, zealous against the Puritans, but so charitable, that he left his own family in indifferent circumstances. He lived a true pattern of Christian piety, and died heroically, closing his own eyelids, and with these words in his mouth, “Let my people know that their pastor died undaunted, and not afraid of death I bless my God, I have no fear, no doubt, no reluctancy, but a sure confidence in the sin-overcoming itierits of Jesus Christ.” This happened January 1625. He was buried in his own parish church, and the excellent primate Usher preached his funeral sermon, no inconsiderable proof of his merit. His third, John, who for some eminent service was knighted, and styled sir John Aylmer, of Rigby in the county of Lincoln, knt. Fourth, fifth, and sixth, Zachary, Nathaniel, and Edmund, of whom we know nothing particularly, except that Zachary and Edmund were the warmest friends that age produced. When Edmund lay sick, Zachary continued with him night and day till his death, and when a person came to measure the body, in order to make a coffin, Zachary would be measured also, and in a very short space took possession of the coffin made for him at the same time with that of his deceased brother. These gentlemen seem to have been divines. His seventh, Tobel, i.e. God is good. Archbishop Whitgift was his godfather, and the reason he was thus named, was his mother’s being overturned in a coach, without receiving any hurt, when she was big with child. He wrote himself Tobel Aylmer, of Writtle, in the county of Essex, gentleman. He married a gentleman’s daughter in that county, and had by her several children. As to the bishop’s daughters, Judith, the eldest, married William Lynch, of the county of Kent, esq. the second, Elizabeth, married sir John Foliot of Perton, in the county of Worcester, knt. Either a third daughter, or else lady Foliot, took for her second husband Mr. Squire, a clergyman, a man of wit, but very debauched, and a great spendthrift, though he had large preferments. He made a very unkind husband to his wife, which her father, the bishop, so much resented, that, as Martin MarPrelate phrasss it, “He went to buffets with his son-inlaw, for a bloody-nose .” This Squire died poor, lerving a son named John, who was well educated, and provided for as a clergyman, at the ex pence, and by the procurement of his uncle, Dr. Theophilus Aylmer, which he repaid with the utmost gratitude. To all his children our bishop, by his will, bearing date the 22d of April, 1594, bequeathed large legacies, as also some to his grand-children, appointing his two sons, Samuel and Theophilus, his executors, with Dr. Richard Vaughan, who was also his relation.

On his quitting Barnstaple, he removed to South Moulton, where he had a congregation willing enough to receive his doctrines as he pleased to dispense them, but too few to be able to provide for him many of the comforts of life. In this retirement, his mind, ever active, and well stored with miscellaneous literature, turned its views to some employment in the learned world. During the progress of the London Review, which terminated in 1730, he occasionally corresponded with the editor, Dr. Kciirick and contended with that sceptic, a man of no mean talents, on different points of Christianity. He occasionally also wrote some articles in that Review, which are yet distinguishable by their spirit and intelligence. He was before this period an occasional correspondent in the Westminster Magazine, where, in 1774, he wrote "An essay on modern Education: Anecdotes of Mr. John Wesley, with, two of his original letters A Shandean letter A scription of a desperate case The Presbyterian Parson’s Soliloquy The Expostulation An improved copy, occasioned by a most horrid murder: An essay on Infidelity Extracts of a letter sent by a clergyman to his friend, after having met with ill treatment from Lord (a real letter on his own case) A clerical character, aimed at a free-thinking Lecturer, who made some noise at that time. These, it must be confessed, are trifles, but discover much vivacity of imagination, and a turn for poetry which might have been cultivated with advantage.

, one of those German writers who have of late years disgraced the profession of religion and philosophy, was born in 1741, at Leipsic, where his father was a clergyman, and educated this son for the church, but with so little success that he soon left college, and enlisted in the army. Being bought off, however, he returned to the university, and in 1761 was admitted to the degree of M. A. Soon afterwards he became catecbist in his father’s church, was a popular preacher, and in 1765 published sermons and some controversial writings, which evinced that he possessed both learning and genius. From his early days he appears to have been of a debauched turn, with a propensity to satire which no considerations could restrain and these two qualities, which he persisted in all his life, laid the foundation of what he termed his misfortunes, although they were no other than the contempt which his infamous conduct and impious doctrines have a natural tendency to produce in every well-ordered society. His life became a series of adventures too numerous for the plan of this work but the principal were these.

“Worthy sir, I can assure you I am not alone in the disposal of these exhibitions, nor is it any qualification by the settlement to be the son of a clergyman. In the disposal of them I have commonly had regard to those that want them most, and I thank God that is not your son’s case. But I will do him that right to say, he wants no other qualifications,” &c.

, D.D. was educated at Eton school, and was admitted into King’s college, Cambridge, in 1737, where he proceeded B. A. 1742, M. A. 1746, and D.D. 1771. He was tutor of his college, and presided as moderator in the Soph’s school, in 1747, 1751, and 1756 and was of course one of the taxors of the university in each of the years succeeding. He was public orator in 1761-2, which office he resigned in 1768, and a candidate for the Greek professorship on the death of Fraignean, but was unsuccessful. He was presented by his college to the living of Fordinbridge, in Hampshire, in that year, which he ceded in April 1773, on being instituted to the rectory of Kimpton, in Hertfordshire, which he held during life, along with the living of Allhallows, Lombard-street, London. In June 1770, he was installed 9. prebendary of Canterbury, in consequence of his having been chaplain to the house of commons, on the appointment of sir John Cust, the speaker. But he did not continue in this office above one session sir Fletcher Norton the succeeding speaker, making choice of another clergyman for that office. It was supposed there was some design to prevent his receiving the usual recompense for his service, but his friends contended, that he was not to be considered as the chaplain of the speaker, but of the house, and Mr. Thomas Townsend, afterwards lord Sydney, moved, on May 9th, to address the king to confer upon Mr. Barford, as chaplain, some dignity in the church. He was ordered to preach before the house of commons on Jan. 30 of that year, which sermon he printed. He published also “In Pindari primum Pythium dissertatio habita Cantabrigiae in Scholis publicis,” 1751, 4to; a “Latin Oration” at the funeral of Dr. George, provost of King’s college, 1756; and a “Concio ad Clerum,” 1784, on the first meeting of the convocation at St. Paul’s cathedral. The learned Mr. Bryant, in the preface to the third volume of his System of Mythology, bears honourable testimony to the merits of Dr. Barford, as a scholar and a friend. He died as he had lived, universally respected by all learned and good men, in Nov. 1792, at his rectory of Kim p ton.

, dean of Canterbury, was the sixth son of Robert Bargrave, of Bridge, in Kent, esq. by Joan, the daughter or John Gilbert, of Sandwich, esq. and was born in 1586. He was entered early at Clare-hall, in Cambridge, of which society he was probably a fellow, where he took his degrees in arts. He was incorporated M. A. at Oxford, in 16*11, and in 1612 he undertook the office of taxor in the university of Cambridge. In March 1614-15, when king James visited Cambridge, Bargrave was one of those who performed a part in the celebrated comedy of “Ignoramus,” written by Ruggle, his fellowcollegian, in order to entertain his majesty. He was at this time a beneficed clergyman, having been inducted to the rectory of Eythorne, in Kent, in October preceding. He became soon afterwards minister of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, and chaplain to Charles prince of Wales, whom he served in the same quality after his accession to the throne. In his church of St. Margaret’s, he often preached before the house of commons, and with much approbation. In 1622, at which time he was D. D. he was promoted by the crown to the fifth prebend in the church of Canterbury. In Feb. 1623, in a sermon before the house of commons, he inveighed with honest warmth against the influence of popery, bad counsellors, and corruption, which displeased king James, but Charles I. soon after his accession, nominated him to the deanery of Canterbury. Other promotions followed, some of which he exchanged, and in 1629 he was commissioned by archbishop Abbot, together with archdeacon Kingsley, to enforce the instructions from the king concerning the regularity of lecturers in the diocese, and the due attendance at divine worship. When the rebellion broke out, he shared the sufferings of the rest of the loyal clergy, and, jn 1641 was fined a thousand pounds by the house of commons, for being a member of a convocation of the clergy in the preceding year. In 1642, when the parliamentary colonel Sandys came to Canterbury, he and his troops treated the dean and his family with the most brutal behaviour, without regard to age or sex his son was then sent prisoner to Dover, and himself to the Fleet prison, London. It does not appear, however, that the dean was either examined or called before the house, nor did his confinement last above three weeks, yet what he bad suffered so much affected him, that he died in January following, (1643). It is worthy of notice, although shocking to relate, that this Sandys owed his escape from an* ignominious death, when he was indicted at Maidstone for a rape, to the interest of dean Bargrave. The dean had been a great traveller, and his connexions ii> foreign countries were such as prove his discernment as well as testify his merit. He attended sir Henry Wotton in one of his embassies, as his chaplain, and sir Henry appointed him one of the supervisors of his will, with a legacy of books: during his residence at Venice, he enjoyed the intimate acquaintance of the celebrated father Paul, who once said to him that he thought the hierarchy of the church of England the most excellent piece of discipline in the whole Christian world. Bargrave was a firm defender of our civil and religious rights. He published only three sermons, printed at London in 1624 and 1627. He was interred in the dean’s chapel, Canterbury, and a monument was erected in the same place by Dr. John Bargrave, in 1679.

, a very learned divine and antiquary, in the end of the sixteenth, and part, of the seventeenth century, was born in the parish of St. Mary the More, in the city of Exeter, about 1572. He was the second son of Lawrence Barkham, of St. Leonard’s, near that city, by Joan his wife, daughter of Edward Bridgeman of Exeter, a near relation of John Bridgeman, bishop of Chester. In Michaelmas term, 15^7, he was entered a sojourner.of Exeter college in Oxford; and on the 24th of August, the year following, admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college in the same university. He took the degre of B. A. February 5 1590-1, and that of M. A. December 12, 1594. On “the 21st of June, 1596, he was chosen probationer fellow of Corpus Christi college, being then in orders and July 7, 1603, took the degree of B. D. Some time after, he became chaplain to Ric. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury: and, after his death, to George Abbot, his successor in that see. On the llth of June, 1608, he was collated to the rectory of Finchleyin Middlesex, and on the 31st of October, 1610, to the prebend of Brownswood, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s on the 29th of March, 1615, to the rectory of Packlesham; the 27th of May following to the rectory of Lachingdon and, the 5th of December, 1616, to the rectory and deanery of Bocking, all in the county of Essex. But, in 1617, he resigned Packlesham, as he had done Finchley in 1615. March 14, 1615, he was created D. D. He had great skill and knowledge in most parts of useful learning, being an exact historian, a good herald, an able divine, a curious critic, master of several languages, an excellent antiquarian, and well acquainted with coins and medals, of which he had the best collection of any clergyman in his time. These he gave to Dr. Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, who presented them to the university of Oxford. He died at Bocking, March 25, 1642, and was buried in the chancel of that church. He was a man of strict life and conversation, charitable, modest, and reserved, but above all, exemplary in his duties as a clergyman. Dr. Barkham wrote nothing in his own name, but assisted others in their works, particularly Speed in his history of Great Britain, which that author gratefully acknowledges. In this work Barkham wrote” The life and reign of king John,“one of the most valuable in the book and” The life and reign of king Henry II.“in the same history. He is likewise the author of” The display of Heraldry,“&c. first published at London in 1610, folio, under the name of John Guillim. The learned author having mostly composed it in his younger years, thought it too light a subject for him (who was a grave divine) to own, and gave Guillim the copy, who, adding some trivial things, published it, with the author’s leave, under his own name. He published also Mr. Ric, Crakanthorpe’s book against the archbishop of Spalato, entitled” Defensio Ecclesiie Anglicanee,“Lond. 1625, 4to, with a preface of his own. It is said also that he wrote a treatise on coins, which was never published. Fuller, in his usual, way, says, that he was <fr a greater lover of coins than of money; rather curious in the stamps than covetous for the metal thereof.”

, D. D. a clergyman of Scotland, was born, in 1748, in the county of Berwick. He was educated in the university of Edinburgh, and for a short time was employed as private tutor to the sons of some gentlemen in Orkney, by whose patronage he became second minister of the royal burgh and ancient cathedral of Kirkwall; from whence, about 1796, he was translated to the island and parish of Shapinshay. Here he discharged the duties of the pastoral office with zeal, and the approbation of his parishioners. He first attracted public notice by the statistical account of his two parishes, published by sir John Sinclair in that work (“Statistical Reports”), which has done so much credit to the talents of the clergy of Scotland. Dr. Barry had also great merit in the education of youth, which he superintended in his parish and its neighbourhood with the happiest effect. Sensible of his zeal in this respect, the society for propagating Christian knowledge in Scotland, about the year 1800, chose him one of their members, and gave him a superintendence over their schools at Orkney. Soon after the university of Edinburgh conferred on him the degree of doctor in divinity. For some years before his death, he was employed in drawing up a work of great value and authenticity, entitled “The History of the Orkney Islands; in which is comprehended an account of their present as well as their ancient state, c.” 4to. This was published a short time after his death, which took place May 14, 1805.

, an author of some merit on the subject of education, was born at Hamburgh in 1723. His father appears to have been a person of a rigid temper, and so frequent in correcting his son with severity, as to drive him from home for a time, during which the boy served as a domestic in the house of a land-surveyor at Holstein. Being, however, persuaded to return, he was placed at the public school at Hamburgh, where he made himself respected by his talents, and the aid he was enabled to give to his indolent schoolfellows. When advanced to the higher class, he attended the lectures of professors Richey and Reimarus, from whose instructions, particularly those of Reimarus, he derived great improvement: but he afterwards allowed that he did not pay a regular attention to the sciences, and passed much of his time with indolent and dissolute companions. He had little disposition for study, and remained for some time undetermined in the choice of a profession. His father was ambitious that he should be a clergyman, and the means being provided, he went to Leipsic in 1744, to prosecute his studies particularly in theology. Here he continued for two years, attending the lectures of professor Crusius, who had begun to philosophize on religion; and these lectures, with the writings of Wolf, to which he also applied, induced a sceptical disposition, which more or less prevailed in all his writings and opinions during his life. In 1749, he was appointed private tutor to the son of a gentleman at Hoistein, and this situation gave him an opportunity of bringing to the test of experience, the plan of an improved method of education, which he had, for some time, in contemplation. The attempt succeeded to his wishes, and his pupil, who was only seven years old, when put under him, and could merely read the German language, became able in the space of three years, not only to read Latin authors, but to translate from the German into that language, and also to speak and write it with a degree of fluency. The young gentleman had also made considerable progress in the principles of religion and morals, in history, geography, and arithmetic.

, a clergyman and poet, was born at lilandford in Dorsetshire, and educated at Winchester-r school, from whence he removed to New college, Oxford, where he was chosen perpetual fellow in 1588, and two vcars after took the degree of B. A. but indulging too much his passion for satire, he was expelled the college for a libel. Not long after, he was made chaplain to Thomas, earl of Suifolk, lord treasurer of England, through whose interest he became vicar of Bere Regis, and rector of Aimer in his native county, having some time before taken the degree of M. A. He was a person of great natural endowments, a celebrated poet, and in his latter years an excellent preacher. His conversation was witty and facetious, which made his company be courted by all ingenious men. He was thrice married, as appears from one of his epigrams. Towards the latter end of his life, being disordered in his senses, and brought into debt, he was confined in the prison of All-Hallows parish in Dorchester, where dying in a very obscure and mean condition, he was buried in the church-yard belonging to that parish, April the 19th, 1618.

, a distinguished wit, and Latin poet, was descended of an ancient family, and was born at Howthorpe, a small hamlet in Northamptonshire, in the parish of Thedingworth, near Market-Harborough in Leicestershire, in 1620. He received the first part of his education at the free-school in Coventry, where his father seems to have resided in the latter part of his life. His mother was Elizabeth Villiers, daughter and coheir of Edward Villiers, esq. of the same place. They had issue thirteen sons, and four daughters. Six of the sons lost their lives in the service of king Charles I. during the grand rebellion: the rest, besides one who died young, were Ralph (of whom we now treat), Villiers, Edward, Moses, Henry, and Benjamin, father of the late earl Bathurst, the subject of the preceding article. At Coventry school our author made so quick a progress in the classics, that at the age of fourteen he was sent to Oxford, and entered October 10, 1634, in Gloucester hall, now Worcester college; but was removed in a few days to Trinity college, and probably placed under the immediate tuition of his grandfather Dr. Kettel, then president, in whose lodging he resided (still known by the name of Kettel-hall), and at whose table he had his diet, for two years. He was elected scholar of the house, June 5., 1637, and having taken the degree of A. B. January 27th following, he was appointed fellow June 4, 1640. He commenced A. M.April 17, 1641, and on March 2, 1644, conformably to the statutes of his college, he was ordained priest by Robert Skinner, bishop of Oxford, and read some theological lectures in the college hall in 1649. These, which he called “Diatribae theologicEc, philosophies, et philological,” are said to discover a spirit of theological research, and an extensive knowledge of the writings of the most learned divines. He likewise kept his exercise for the degree of B. D. but did not take it. The confusion of the times promising little support or encouragement to the ministerial function, like his friend, the famous Dr. Willis, he applied himself to the study of physic, and accumulated the degrees in that faculty, June 21, 1654. Before this time he had sufficiently recommended himself in his new profession, and had not been long engaged in it, when he was employed as physician to the sick and wounded of the navy, which office he executed with equal diligence and dexterity, to the full satisfaction of the sea-commanders, and the commissioners of the admiralty. We find him soon after settled at Oxford, and practising physic in concert with his friend Dr. Willis, with whom he regularly attended Abingdon market every Monday. He likewise cultivated every branch of philosophical knowledge: he attended the lectures of Peter Sthael, a chymist and rosicrucian, who had been invited to Oxford by Mr. R. Boyle, and was afterwards operator to the royal society about 1662. About the same time he had also a share in the foundation of that society; and when it was established, he was elected fellow, and admitted August 19, 1663. While this society was at Gresham college in London, a branch of it was continued at Oxford, and the original society books of this Oxford department are still preserved there in the Ashmolean Museum, where their assemblies were held. Their latter Oxford meetings were subject to regulations made among themselves; according to which Dr. Bathurst was elected president April 23, 1688, having been before nominated one of the members for drawing up articles, February 29, 1683-4. Nor was he less admired as a classical scholar; at the university a.cts, in the collections of Oxford verses, and on every public occasion, when the ingenious were invited to a rival display of their abilities, he appears to have been one of the principal and most popular performers. Upon the publication of Hobbes’s treatise of “Human Nature,” &c. 1650, Bathurst prefixed a recommendatory copy of Latin iambics, written with so much strength of thought, and elegance of expression, that they fully established his character as a Latin poet; and recommended him to the notice of the duke of Devonshire, by whose interest he afterwards obtained the deanery of Wells. He had thought fit, by a temporary compliance, to retain his fellowship at Oxford, under the conditions of the parliamentary visitation in 1648, and after the death of Cromwell, procured a majority of the fellows of his college, in 1659, to elect Dr. Seth Ward president, who was absolutely disqualified for it by the college-statutes. After the Restoration, he re-assumed the character of a clergyman, and returned to his theological studies, but with little hope or ambition of succeeding in a study, which he had so long neglected: however, he was made king’s chaplain in 1663. He was chosen president of his college September 10, 1664, and ^.he same' year he was married, December 31, to Mary, the widow of Dr. John Palmer, warden of All Souls college, a woman of admirable accomplishments. June 28, 1670, he was installed dean of Wells, procured, as before mentioned, by the interest of the duke of Devonshire. In April 1691, he was nominated by king William and queen Mary, through the interest of lord Somers, to the bishopric of Bristol, with licence to keep his deanery and headship in commendam; but he declined the acceptance of it, lest it should too much detach him from his college, and interrupt the completion of those improvements in its buildings, which he had already begun, and an account of which may be seen in the History of Oxford. Had Dr. Bathurst exerted his activity and interest alone for the service of his society, he might have fairly claimed the title of an ample benefactor; but his private liberality concurred with his public collections. He expended near 3000l. of his own money upon it, and purchased for the use of the fellows, the perpetual advowson of the rectory of Addington upon Otmere, near Oxford, with the sum of 400l. in 1700. Nor was he less serviceable by his judicious discipline and example, his vigilance as a governor, and his eminence as a scholar, which contributed to raise the reputation of the college to an extraordinary height, and filled it with students of the first rank and family. He is said to have constantly frequented early prayers in the chapel, then at five in the morning, till his eighty-second year, and he punctually attended the public exercises of the college, inspected the private studies, relieved the wants, and rewarded the merit of his scholars. In the mean time he was a man of the world, and his lodgings were perpetually crowded with visitants of the first distinction. October 3, 1673, he was appointed vice-chancellor of the university, and continued for the two following years, the duke of Ormond being chancellor. During the execution of this office, he reformed many pernicious abuses, introduced several necessary regulations, defended the privileges of the university with becoming spirit, and to the care of the magistrate added the generosity of the benefactor. He established the present practice of obliging the bachelors of arts to stipulate for their determination: he endeavoured, at the command of the king, to introduce a more graceful manner of delivering the public sermons at St. Mary’s, to which church he was also a benefactor, and introduced several other improvements in the academical ceconomy. As Dr. Bathurst was intimately acquainted with the most eminent literary characters of his age, few remarkable productions in literature were undertaken or published without his encouragement and advice. Among many others, Dr. Sprat, Dr. South, Dr. Busby, Dr. Allestree, Creech the translator, sir George Ent, a celebrated physician and defender of the Harveyan system, were of his common acquaintance. Such were his friends; but he had likewise his enemies, who have hinted that he was unsettled in his religious principles. This insinuation most probably arose from his iambics prefixed to Hobbes’s book, which are a mere sport of genius, written without the least connection with Hobbes, and contain no defence or illustration of his pernicious doctrine, which, however, did not appear at that time to be so pernicious. And the sincere and lasting intimacies he maintained with Skinner, Fell, South, Allestree, Aldrich, and several others, are alone an unanswerable refutation of this unfavourable imputation. He died in his eighty-fourth year, June 14, 1704. He had been blind for some time; and his death was occasioned by n fracture of his thigh, while he was walking in the garden, which, on the failure of his eyes, became his favourite and only amusement. Under this malady he languished for several days in acute agonies. It is said that at first, and for some time, he refused to submit to the operations of the surgeon, declaring in his tortures, that there was no marrow in the bones of an old man. He had lost his memory a year or two before his death, of which Mr. Warton has given an instance which we could have wished he had suppressed. He was interred on the south side of the antichapel of Trinity college without the least appearance of pomp and extravagance, according to his own appointment. He left legacies in his will to his friends, servants, and the college, to the amount of near 1000^. As to his character, it is observed that his temperance in eating and drinking, particularly the latter, was singular and exemplary. Amidst his love of the polite arts, he had a strong aversion to music, and discountenanced and despised the study of all external accomplishments, as incompatible with the academical character. His behaviour in general was inoffensive and obliging. The cast of his conversation was rather satirical, but mixed with mirth and pleasantry. He was remarkably fond of young company, and indefatigable in his encouragement of a rising genius. John Philips was one of his chief favourites, whose “Splendid Shilling” was a piece of solemn ridicule suited to his taste. Among his harmless whims, he delighted to surprize the scholars, when walking in the grove at unseasonable hours; on which occasions he frequently carried a whip in his hand, an instrument of academical correction, then not entirely laid aside. But this he practised, on account of the pleasure he took in giving so odd an alarm, rather than from any principle of reproving, or intention of applying an illiberal punishment. In Latin poetry, Ovid was his favourite classic. One of his pupils having asked him what book among all others he chose to recommend he answered, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses.” The pupil, in consequence of this advice, having carefully perused the Metamorphoses, desired to be informed what other proper book it wouldbe necessary to read after Ovid, and Dr. Bathurst advised him to read “Ovid’s Metamorphoses” a second time. He had so mean an opinion of his performances in divinity, that in his will he enjoins his executors entirely to suppress all his papers relating to that subject, and not to permit them to be perused by any, excepting a very few such friends as were likely to read them with candour. We are told, however, that on Sunday, March 20, 1680, he preached before the house of commons at St. Mary’s, the university church, and gave much satisfaction. His manner was nearly that of Dr. South, but with more elegance and felicity of allusion. His Life, written by Mr. Thomas Warton, is perhaps one of the most correct of that author’s performances, and contains Dr. Bathurst’s miscellaneous works, which, though they have great merit in their particular way, and may be read with much pleasure, are not written in such a taste as entitles them to imitation. This is acknowledged by Mr. Warton. “His Latin orations,” says that ingenious Biographer, “are wonderful specimens of wit and antithesis, which were the delight of his age. They want upon the whole the purity and simplicity of Tully’s eloquence, but even exceed the sententious smartness of Seneca, and the surprising turns of Pliny. They are perpetually spirited, and discover an uncommon quickness of thought. His manner is concise and abrupt, but yet perspicuous and easy. His allusions are delicate, and his observations sensible and animated. His sentiments of congratulation or indignation are equally forcible: his compliments are most elegantly turned, and his satire is most ingeniously severe. These compositions are extremely agreeable to read, but in the present improwriiient of classical taste, not so proper to be imitated. They are moreover entertaining, as a picture of the times, and a history of the state of academical literature. This smartness does not desert our author even on philosophical subjects.” Among Dr. Bathurst’s Oratiuncuhe, his address to the convocation, about forming the barbers of Oxford into a company, is a most admirable specimen of his humour, and of that facetious invention, with which few vice-chancellors would have ventured to enforce and eiiliven such a subject. We doubt, indeed, whether a parallel to this exquisite piece of humour can be found. With regard to the doctor’s Latin poetry, though his hexameters have an admirable facility, an harmonious versification, much terseness and happiness of expression, and a certain original air, they will be thought, nevertheless, too pointed and ingenious by the lovers of Virgil’s simple beauties. The two poems which he hath left in iambics make it to be wished tiiat he had written more in that measure. “That pregnant brevity,” says Mr. Warton, “/which constitutes the dignity and energy of the iambic, seems to have been his talent.” Dr. Bathurst’s English poetry has that roughness of versification which was, in a great degree, the fault of the times.

, rector of the parish of Kirkandrews upon Esk, in Cumberland, was born in the parish of Arthuret, and received his academical education in the university of Glasgow, where he was admitted to the degree of A. M. in 1725. He afterwards became curate of Kirkandrews and in this situation, his exemplary conduct, and faithful discharge of the ministerial duties, recommended him so effectually to lord viscount Preston, that on a vacancy, he presented him to the rectory in 1732. As there was no parsonage-house, nor glebe appropriated to the living, on its separation from Arthuret, he built the house contiguous to the old tower at Kirkandrews, with barns, stables, &c. entirely at his own expencd, having first obtained a lease of the situation and farm there during his incumbency. The parish is divided by the river Esk; and as there is no bridge on this part of it, he established a ferry for the use of those coming to church. He likewise promoted the building of the school-house near Meadhope (endowed by lady Widrington and her sister), and for the information of those of maturer years, he printed, at Newcastle, 1750, a “Sermon on the Sacrament;” with prayers for the use of persons in private, and of families, which he distributed liberally among them. With the same views he published, in 1751, a small volume entitled “Seasonable advice to a careless world,” in essays, &c. and lastly, in 1756, “The young Clergyman’s Companion in visiting the Sick;” all these without his name. He was also skilful, and much consulted, as an oculist, but his advice and applications were always gratuitous. His temper and manners were mild and conciliating, his company much in request, and his house presented a scene of hospitality to the utmost of his abilities. He died in 1758.

, a very ingenious metaphysician and natural philosopher, was born in 1686, or 1687, at Old Aberdeen, in Scotland, of which city his father was a merchant, and educated in king’s college there. His principal employment was that of a private tutor to young gentlemen; and among other of his pupils were lord Grey, lord Blantyre, and Mr. Hay of Drummeizier. About 1724, he married the daughter of Mr. Mebane, a clergyman in the shire of Berwick. A few years after he published in 4to, “An Enquiry into the nature of the human Soul, wherein its immateriality is evinced from the principles of reason and philosophy;” without date. In 1741, he went abroad with Mr. Hay, and resided some years at Utrecht; having there also lord Blantyre under his care. He made excursions from thence into Flanders, France, and Germany; his wife and 'family residing in the mean time chiefly at Berwick upon Tweed. He returned to Scotland in 1747, and resided till his death at Whittingham, in the shire of East Lothian. He drew up, for the use of his pupils, and his son, a piece entitled “Matho: sive, Cosmotheoria puerilis, Dialogus. In quo prima elementa de mundi ordine et ornatu proponuntur, &c.” This was afterwards greatly enlarged, and published in English, in two volumes, 8vo. In 1750 was published, “An Appendix to his Enquiry into the nature of the human Soul” wherein he endeavours to remove some difficulties, which had been started against his notions of the “vis inertias” of matter, by Maclaurin, in his “Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.” To this piece Mr. Baxter prefixed a dedication to Mr. John Wilkes, afterwards so well known in the political world, with whom he had commenced an acquaintance abroad. He died this year, April the 23d, after suffering for some months under, a complication of disorders, of which the gout was the chief, and was buried in the family vault of Mr. Hay, at Whittingham.

, a pious and learned clergyman of the church of England, and many years chaplain to the Haberdashers’ hospital at Hoxton, was the son of Richard Bedford, and was born at Tiddenham, in Gloucestershire, Sept. 1668. Having received the rudiments of learning from his father, he was in 1684, at the age of sixteen, admitted commoner of Brasen-nose college, Oxford, where he acquired some reputation as an Orientalist. He became B.A. in Feb. 1687, and M.A. July, 1691. In 1688 he received holy orders from Dr. Frampton, bishop of Gloucester, and about this time removed to Bristol, and became curate to Dr. Read, rector of St. Nicholas church, with whom he continued till 1692, when, having taken priest’s orders from Dr. Hall, bishop of Bristol, the mayor and corporation of the city presented him to the vicarage of Temple church. From this he was removed to Newtou St. Loe, a private living in Somersetshire, soon after which, as he himself informs us, he was prompted to undertake a work on “Scripture Chronology,” by reading over the preface to Abp. Usher’s Annals, in which the primate gave his opinion concerning a more exact method of “A chronological system of the sacred Scriptures, by the help of astronomy and a competent skill in the Jewish learning.” After many difficulties, Mr. Bedford flattered himself that he had succeeded, and then digested his thoughts into some method. Soon after this, coming to London, to assist in the correction of the Arabic Psalter and New Testament, for the benefit of the poor Christians in Asia, he shewed his thoughts to some friends, who advised him to publish them; with which he complied, with a design not to have exceeded fourscore or an hundred pages in the whole. A few sheets were printed off, but the author having received information that a work of a similar nature was intended to be published from the papers of sir Isaac Newton, and being advised by some friends, contrary to his first intention, to publish the work on a more extensive plan, he suppressed his papers. In the mean time, in 1724, he was chosen chaplain to Haberdashers hospital, (founded in 1690, by alderman Aske), and continued to reside there for the remainder of his life. In 1728 he published “Animadversions upon sir Isaac Newton’s book entitled The chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended,” 8vo, in which he attempts to prove that sir Isaac’s system entirely contradicts the scripture history, and he appeals, as his supporters in this opinion, to Bochart, Dr. Prideaux, archbishop Usher, and the bishops Lloyd, Cumberland, Beveridge, &c.

, of Sibsey, in Lincolnshire, a quaker, came to London, and settled there as a stationer between the years 1600 and 162.5. He married a daughter of Mr. William Plat, of Highgate, by whom he had a son, Hilkiah, a mathematical instrument maker in Hosier-lane, near West-Smithfield. In this house (which was afterwards burnt in the great fire of London, 1666), was born the famous Hilkiah, July 23, 1663; who was educated at Bradley, in Suffolk, and in 1679 was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, the first scholar on the foundation of his maternal grandfather, William Plat. Hilkiah was afterwards elected fellow of his college, and patronized by Heneage Finch earl of Winchelsea, but deprived of his preferment (which was in Lincolnshire), for refusing to take the oaths at the revolution, and afterwards kept a boarding-house for the Westminster scholars. In 1714, being tried in the court of king’s-bench, he was fined 1000 marks, and imprisoned three years, for writing, printing, and publishing “The hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted,” 1713, folio; the real author of which was George Harbin, a nonjuring clergyman, whom his friendship thus screened; and on account of his sufferings he received 100l. from the late lord Weymouth, who knew not the real author. His other publications were, a translation of “An answer to Fontenelle’s History of Oracles,” and the translation of the life of Dr. Barvvick, as noticed in the life of that gentleman. He died Nov. 26, 1724, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Margaret’s Westminster, with an epitaph.

, a nonconformist clergyman of Dorsetshire, was born at or near Egremond, in Cumberland, Nov. 1600, and educated at St. Bees. Thence he entered Queen’s college, Oxford, Wood thinks, as a servitor, but left the university without taking a degree, on obtaining a presentation to the living of Oakingriain, in Berkshire; but upon Mr. Bateman’s having got another presentation to the same living, a gentleman who was his contemporary at Oxford, they agreed jointly to perform the duty, and divide the profits, rather than contest the matter at law. Mr. Benn became afterwards chaplain to the marchioness of Northampton, with whom he resided in Somersetshire, leaving Oakingham to Mr. Bateman In 1629, the celebrated Mr. White, usually called the patriarch of Dorchester, invited him to that town, by whose interest he obtained the rectory of All Saints; and, excepting two years ttiat he attended Mr. White at Lambeth, continued here until Bartholomew-day, when he was ejected for nonconformity. Not satisfied with his constant labours in the church, while he held his rectory, he preached gratis, on week-days, to prisoners in the gaol, and the room not being large enough for his auditory, he built a chapel within the prison limits, principally at his own expence. In 1654, he was one of the assistants to the commissioners for ejecting such as were called scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers, and school-masters. After his own ejectment, he continued to preach occasionally, and was sometimes fined and imprisoned. He died March 22, 1680, and was buried in All Saints church-yard. Wood records three particulars of him the first, that he was, as already mentioned, assistant to the commissioners, &c. secondly, that although he lived to be eighty, he never used spectacles, and yet read and wrote much, writing all his sermons as he delivered them; and thirdly, that he prayed in his study seven times a day, and commemorated certain deliverances from dangers which he had experienced on certain days of his life. His only works were an “Answer to Mr. Francis Bamph'eld’s Letter, in vindication of the Christian Sabbath against the Jewish,” Lond. 1672, 8vo; and a volume of sermons, on “Soul prosperity,” 1683, 8vo.

Dr. Bennet was undoubtedly a divine of eminent piety and distinguished learning. The zeal and diligence with which he engaged in the studies and duties of his profession were highly commendable, and shew that h had no conception that the life of a clergyman was to be an idle or trifling life. Several of his works, however, being upon subjects of temporary controversy, are, we apprehend, not much read at present. This will ever be the case when disputes turn upon matters which are not of lasting importance, or upon some trivial circumstances in questions otherwise momentous, and it will especially be the case, when a man of abilities has to contend with insufficient adversaries. Dr. Kippis remembered being told, in his youth, by Dr. Doddridge, that the dissenting ministers, in and near Colchester, who endeavoured to answer Dr. Bennet, and particularly Mr. Shepherd, were persons of very mean talents. The doctor, in some of his subsequent writings, met with far abler 'antagonists. The question concerning-schism was deemed of gr^at importance during the last century, and in the beginning of the present. The Papists charged this crime upon the Protestants, and the members of the church of England upon the Dissenters. A concise and rational account of the general controversy with regard to schism, and of the variations and inconsistencies to which it hath given rise, would be no incurious subject in the history of theological literature.

, canon of Christ-church, Oxford, and king’s professor of divinity in that university, was born in the college at Ely, July 23, 1707. His father, Mr. Samuel Bentham, was a very worthy clergyman, and vicar of Witchford, a small living near that city; who having a numerous family, his son Edward, on the recommendation of Dr. Smalridge, dean of Christ-church, was sent in 1717 to the school of that college. Having there received the rudiments of classical education, he was in Lent term 1723, when nearly 16 years of age, admitted of the university of Oxford, and placed at Corpus-Christi college under his relation Dr. John Burton. In this situation, his serious and regular deportment, and his great proficiency in all kinds of academical learning, recommended him to the notice of several eminent men; and, among others, to the favour of Dr. Tanner, canon of Christ-church, by whose death he was disappointed of a nomination to a studentship in that society. At CorpusChristi college he formed a strict friendship with Robert Hoblyn, esq. of Nanswydden in Cornwall, afterwards representative for the city of Bristol, whose character, as a scholar and a member of parliament, rendered him deservedly esteemed by the lovers of literature and of their country. In company with this gentleman and another intimate friend, Dr. Ratcliff, afterwards master of Pembroke college, Mr. Bentham made, at different times, the tour of part of France, and other countries. Having taken the degree of B. A. he was invited by Dr. Cotes, principal of Magdalen-hall, to be his vice-principal; and was accordingly admitted to that society, March 6, 1730. Here he continued only a short time, for, on the 23d of April in the year following, he was elected fellow of Oriel college. In act term, 1732, he proceeded to the degree of M. A. and, about the same time, was appointed tutor in the college; in which capacity he discharged his duty, in the most laborious and conscientious manner, for more than twenty years. March 26, 1743, Mr. Bentham took the degree of B. D.; and April 22, in the same year, was collated to the prebend of Hundreton, in the cathedral church of Hereford. July 8, 1749, he proceeded to the degree of D. D.; and in April 1754 was promoted to the fifth stall in that cathedral. Here he continued the same active and useful course of life for which he had always been distinguished. He served the offices of sub-dean and treasurer, for himself and others, above twelve years. The affairs of the treasury, which Dr. Bentham found in great confusion, he entirely new modelled, and put into a train of business in which they have continued ever since, to the great ease of his successors, and benefit of the society. 80 intent was he upon the regulation and management of the concerns of the college, that he refused several preferments which were offered him, from a conscientious persuasion that the avocations they would produce were incompatible with the proper discharge of the offices he had voluntarily undertaken. Being appointed by the king to fill the divinity chair, vacant by the death of Dr. Fanshavve, Dr. Bentham was, with much reluctance, and after having repeatedly declined it, persuaded, by archbishop Seeker and his other learned friends, to accept of it; and, on the 9th of May, 1763, he was removed to the 8th stall in the cathedral. His unwillingness to appear in this station was increased by the business he had to transact in his former situation, and which he was afraid would be impeded by the accession of new duties: not to say that a life spent in his laborious and sedentary manner had produced some unfavourable effects on his constitution, and rendered a greater attention than he had hitherto shewn to private ease and health, absolutely necessary. Besides, as the duties, when properly discharged, were great and interesting, so the station itself was of that elevated and public nature to which his ambition never inclined him: 66 latere maluit atque prodesse.“The diffidence he had of his abilities had ever taught him to suspect his own sufficiency; and his inauguratory lecture breathed the same spirit, the text of which was,” Who is sufficient for these things?" But whatever objections Dr. Bentham might have to the professorship before he entered upon it, when once he had accepted of it, he never suffered them to discourage him in the least from exerting hi* most sincere endeavours to render it both useful and honourable to the university. He set himself immediately to draw out a course of lectures for the benefit of young students in divinity, which he constantly read at his house at Christ-church, gratis-^ three times a week during term-time, till his decease. The course took up a year; and he not only exhibited in it a complete system of divinity, but recommended proper books, some of which he generously distributed to his auditors. His intense application to the pursuit of the plan he had laid clown, together with those concerns in which his affection for his friends, and his zeal for the public good in every shape, involved him, proved more than a counterbalance for all the advantages of health and vigour that a strict and uniform temperance could procure. Jt is certain that he sunk under the rigorous exercise of that conduct he had proposed to himself: for though 6-; years are a considerable proportion in the strongest men’s lives, yet his remarkable abstemiousness and self-denial, added to a disposition of body naturally strong, promised, in the ordinary course of things, a longer period. Dr. Bentham was a very early riser, and had transacted half a day’s business before many others begin their day. His countenance was uncommonly mild and engaging, being strongly characteristic of the piety and benevolence of his mind; and at the same time it by no means wanted expression, but, upon proper occasions, could assume a very becoming and affecting authority. In his attendance upon the public duties of religion, he was exceedingly strict and constant; not suffering himself ever to be diverted from it by any motives, either of interest or pleasure. Whilst he was thus diligent in the discharge of his own duty, he was not severe upon those who were not equally so in theirs. He could scarcely ever be prevailed upon to deliver his opinion upon subjects that were to the disadvantage of other men; and when he could not avoid doing it, his sentiments were expressed with the utmost delicacy and candour. No one was more ready to discover, commend, and reward every meritorious endeavour. Of himself he never was he? rd to speak and if his own merits were touched upon in the slightest manner, he felt a real uneasiness. Though he was not fond of the formalities of visiting, he entered into the spirit of friendly society and intercourse with great pleasure. His constant engagements, indeed, of one kind or other, left him not much time to be devoted to company; and the greater part of his leisure hours he spent in the enjoyment of domestic pleasures, for which his amiable and peaceable disposition seemed most calculated.

, an able naturalist, and a Clergyman at Gresbach in Westgothland, was born in 1735, and died in 1795. He published in the Memoirs of the Academy of Stockholm, of which he was a member, a great number of papers on insects, which he had made his particular study, and on the transpiration of plants, the burning of vegetables, the effect of cold on vegetables, &c. all in the Swedish language.

, a late valuable historical and biographical writer, was born in the parish of St. John’s Clerkenwell, on the 23d of November, 1705. His parents were both of them quakers, and his father, Joseph Birch, was a coffee-mill maker by trade. Mr. Joseph Birch endeavoured to bring up his son Thomas to his own business; but so ardent was the youth’s passion for reading, that he solicited his father to be indulged in his inclination, promising, in that case, to provide for himself. The first school he went to was at Hemel-hempsted in Hertfordshire, kept by John Owen, a rigid quaker, for whom Mr. Birch afterwards officiated, some little while, as an usher, but at present he made very little progress. The next school in which he received his education was taught by one Welby, who lived near Turnbull-street, Clerkenwell, a man who never had above eight or ten scholars at a time, whom he professed to instruct in the Latin tongue in the short space of a year and a half, and had great success with Mr. Birch, who afterwards lived with him as an usher; as he also afterwards was to Mr. Besse, the famous quaker in George’s court near St. John’s lane, who published the posthumous works of Claridge. It is farther said, that he went to Ireland with dean Smedley; but in what year he passed over to that country, and how long he resided with the dean, cannot now be ascertained. In his removals as an usher, he always took care to get into a still better school, and where he might have the greatest opportunity of studying the most valuable books, in which he was indefatigable, and stole many hours from sleep to increase his stock of knowledge. By this unremitting diligence, though he had not the happiness of an university education, he soon became qualified to take holy orders in the church of England; and as his early connections were of a different kind, his being ordained was a matter of no small surprise to his old acquaintance. In 1728, he married the daughter of one Mr. Cox, a clergyman to whom he was afterwards curate and in this union he was singularly happy but his felicity was of a short duration, Mrs. Birch dying in less than twelve months after their marriage. The disorder which carried her off was a consumption accelerated by childbearing, and almost in the very article of her death she wrote to her husband the following letter:

In June 1753, he was admitted fellow of St. John’s, and in April 1754, he took the degree of B. A. and about the same time was ordained to holy orders. He was then settled in the curacy of Headley in Surrey, whither he had removed on account of a declining state of health, but change of air soon restored him, and he continued to dividehis time between Headley and the university, till 1758, when he took the degree of M. A. He then quitted Headley, and came to reside entirely in London, on being elected under-master of Merchant Taylors’ school, July 26. He was appointed also curate of St. Mary Abchurch, and some time afterwards lecturer of St. Christopher-leStocks, a church since taken down for the enlargement of the Bank. In 1762, he published “An Ode to the earl of Lincoln on the duke of Newcastle’s Retirement,” without his name. In 1763 and 1764, he wrote several essays and poems, printed in the Public Ledger, and soon after a volume of Latin poems, partly translated, and partly original, under the title of “Feriae poeticse.” This was published by subscription, beyond which the sale was not considerable. He also appears to have tried his talents for dramatic composition, but not meeting with sufficient encouragement, he very wisely relinquished a pursuit that could have added little dignity to the character of a clergyman and a public teacher. From this period he devoted his talents to the amusement of a few friends, and the laborious duties of his profession, which he continued to discharge with the utmost fidelity, during the prime of his life.

, a French poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Konigsberg, Nov. 24, 1732, of a family of French refugees, of the protestant religion. After completing his education, he became a clergyman of that communion, and appears to have formed his taste for oratory and poetry from a frequent perusal of the Bible, the style of the historical part of which he much admired. He was a no less warm admirer of Homer. Although a Prussian by birth, he was a Frenchman at heart, and having accustomed himself to the language of his family, he felt a strong desire to reside in what he considered as properly his native country, conceiving at the same time that the best way to procure his naturalization would be through the medium of literary merit. As early as 1762, he published at Berlin a translation of the Iliad, which he called a free translation, and was in fact an abridgment and this served to introduce him to D'Alembert, who recommended him so strongly to the king, Frederick II. that he was admitted into the Berlin academy, received a pension, and afterwards visited France in order to complete his translation of Homer. A first edition had been printed in 1764, 2 vols. 8vo, but the most complete did not appear until 1780, and was followed by the Odyssey in 1785. Such was the reputation of both among his countrymen, that the academy of inscriptions admitted his name on their list of foreign members. Modern French critics, however, have distinguished more correctly between the beauties and defects of this translation. They allow him to have been more successful in his “Joseph,” a poem published first in 1767, and with additions in 1786, and now become almost a classic in France. It was translated into English in 1783, 2 vols. 12mo, but is certainly not likely to become a classic in this country, or where a taste prevails for simplicity and elegance. His “Joseph” was followed by “Les Bataves,” a poem of which some detached parts had appeared in 1773, under the title of “Guillaume de Nassau,” Amsterdam. This was reprinted in 1775, and again in 1796. During the war in 1793, as he attached himself to the French interest, he was struck off the list of the academy of Berlin, and his pension withdrawn but on the peace of Bale, his honours and his pension were restored. If his sovereign punished him thus for acting the Frenchman, he was not more fortunate with his new friends, who imprisoned him because he was a Prussian. On the establishment of the institute, however, Bitaube was chosen of the class of literature and the fine arts but gave a very bad specimen of his taste in translating the “Herman and Dorothea” of Goethe, and comparing that author with Homer, whose works, from this opinion, we should suppose he had studied to very little purpose. Some time before his death, which happened Nov. 22, 1808, he was admitted a member of the legion of honour. His other works were 1. “Examen de la Confession de Foi du Vicaire Savoyard,” 1763, a very liberal expostulation with Rousseau on account of his scepticism. 2. “De l'influence cles Belles-lettres sur la Philosophic,” Berlin, 1767, 8vo; and 3. “Eloge de Corneille,” 1769, 8vo none of which are in the collection of his works published at Paris in 1804, 9 vols. 8vo. Bitaub cannot be ranked among writers eminent for genius, nor is his taste, even in the opinion of his countrymen, of the purest standard; but his works procured him a considerable name, and many of the papers he wrote in the memoirs of the Paris academy discover extensive reading and critical talents. His private character appears to have been irreproachable, and his amiable manners and temper procured him many friends during the revolutionary successions.

, an eminent English divine, was born in London, 1654, and educated at Catherine-hail, Cambridge. In 1690, he was inducted into the living of South Okenden, Essex, and four years afterwards to the rectory of St. Mary Aldermary, London and was successively chosen lecturer of St. Olave’s, and of St. Dunstan’s in the West. He was likewise appointed chaplain to king William. He preached before the house of commons Jan. 30, 1699, and in his sermon animadverted on Mr. Toland for his asserting in his life of Milton, that Charles I. was not the author of “Icon Basilike,” and for some insinuations against the authenticity' of the holy scriptures which drew him into a controversy with that author. In 1700, he preached a course of sermons at Boyle’s lecture, in the cathedral church of St. Paul, which were afterwards published. In 1707, he was consecrated to the bishopric of Exeter. Burnet, having mentioned him and sir William Dawes as raised to bishoprics, tells us, “that these divines were in themselves men of value and worth; but their notions were all on the other side. They had submitted to the government but they, at least Blackall, seemed to condemn the revolution, and all that had been done pursuant to it.” And it is asserted in an anonymous pamphlet, published in 1705, that he had refused for two years to take the oath of allegiance to king William. But what contributed most to his fame in his life- time was a controversy he had with Mr. (afterwards bishop) Hoadly, which was occasioned by his sermon upon Rom. xiii. 3, 4, entitled, “The Divine Institution of Magistracy, and the gracious design of its institution,” preached before the queen at St. James’s on Tuesday, March 8, 1708, being the anniversary of her majesty’s happy accession to the throne, and published by her majesty’s special command. The next year, 1709, Mr. Hoadly animadverted upon the bishop’s sermon, in a piece, entitled “Some Considerations humbly offered to the right reverend the lord bishop of Exeter, occasioned by his lordship’s sermon before her majesty, March 8, 1708.” Upon this the bishop published “An Answer to Mr. Hoadly’s Letter,” dated from Bath, May the 10th, 1709. Mr. Hoadly endeavoured to vindicate himself, in “An humble Reply to the right reverend the lord bishop of Exeter’s answer; in which the Considerations offered to his lordship are vindicated, and an apology is added for defending the foundation of the present government,” London, 1709, in 8vo. In this controversy, bishop Blackall defends the High-church, Tory, principles (as they usually are called), of the divine institution of magistracy, and unlimited passive obedience and non-resistance; which Mr. Hoadly opposes. There were several pamphlets written on the side of the bishop against Mr. Hoadly particularly one, entitled, “The best Answer that ever was made, and to which no answer will be made” supposed to be wi'itten by Mr. Lesley, a nonjuring clergyman, and which Mr. Hoadly animadverts upon in the postscript to his humble reply. The wits in the Tatler engaged in this controversy on the side of Hoadly, and with an illiberality not usual in the writers of that paper. He died at Exeter, Nov. 29, 1716, and was interred in the cathedral there. Archbp. Dawes, who had a long and intimate friendship with him, declares, that in his whole conversation he never met with a more perfect pattern of a true Christian life, in all its parts, than in him: so much primitive simplicity and integrity; such constant evenness of mind, and uniform conduct of behaviour; such unaffected and yet most ardent piety towards God such orthodox and steadfast faith in Christ such disinterested and fervent charity to all mankind such profound modesty, humility, and sobriety such an equal mixture of meekness and courage, of cheerfulness and gravity such an exact discharge of all relative duties and in one word, such an indifferency to this lower world and the things of it and such an entire affection and joyous hope and expectation of things above. He says also, that his “manner of preaching was so excellent, easy, clear, judicious, substantial, pious, affecting, and upon all accounts truly useful and edifying, that he universally acquired the reputation of being one of the best preachers of his time.” Felton, in his Classics, commends him as an excellent writer. M. de la Roche, in his memoirs of literature, tells us, that our prelate was one of those English divines, who, when they undertake to treat a subject, dive into the bottom of it, and exhaust the matter. His works were published by archbishop Dawes, in 2 vols. fol. 1723, consisting of Practical discourses on our Saviour’s Sermon on the mount, and on the Lord’s Prayer, together with his sermons preached at Boyle’s lecture, with several others upon particular occasions.

, D.D. an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was born at Edinburgh, April 7, 1718. His father, John Blair, a respectable merchant in that city, was a descendant of the ancient family of Blair, in Ayrshire, and grandson of the famous Mr. Robert Blair, minister of St. Andrew’s, chaplain to Charles I. and one of the most zealous and distinguished clergymen of the peilod in which he lived. Of the two sons who survived him, David, the eldest, was a clergyman of eminence in Edinburgh, and father to Mr. Robert Blair, minister of Athelstanford, the author of the well-known poem entitled “The Grave.” From his youngest son, Hugh, who engaged in business as a merchant, and had the honour to fill a high station in the magistracy of Edinburgh, the object of the present memoir descended.

, a learned French Protestant, born at Roan in Normandy, 1599. His father was a Protestant clergyman, and his mother a sister of the celebrated Peter du Moulin. He made a very early progress in learning, particularly in the Greek language, of which we have a proof in the verses he composed at the age of fourteen, in praise of Thomas Dempster, under whom he studied at Paris, and who has prefixed them to his Roman Antiquities. He went through a course of philosophy at Sedan, and studied divinity at Saumur, under Cameronius, whom he followed to London, the academy at Sauinur being dispersed during the civil war. He went also to Oxford, and in Lent term, 1622, was entered as a student at the library, where he laid in a considerable part of that stock of Oriental learning which he afterwards displayed in his works. He afterwards went over to Leyden, and studied Arabic under Erpenius. When returned to France, he was chosen minister of Caen, where, in 1630, he distinguished himself by public disputations with father Veron, a very famous polemic, and champion for the Roman catholic religion, published under the title of “Acte de la conference entre S. B. et Jean Baillebache, &c. d'un part: et Francois Veron, predicateur de controverses,” Saumur, 2 vols. 8vo. The dispute was held in the castle of Caen, in presence of a great number of Catholics and Protestants. Bochart came off with honour and reputation, which was not a little increased upon the publication of his Phaieg and Canaan, which are the titles of the two parts of his “Geographica Sacra,” 1646. While at Caen, he was tutor to Wentworth Dillon, earl of Roscommon, author of the “Essay on Translated verse.” He acquired also great fame by his tl Hierozoicon, printed at London, 1675. The great learning displayed in these works rendered him esteemed, not only amongst those of his own persuasion, but amongst all lovers of knowledge of whatever denomination, especially such as studied the scriptures in their original languages, which was then very common. Dr. Haiceweli, who was contemporary with Bochart, speaking of the knowledge of the oriental languages, observes, that “this last century (the fifteenth) afforded more skilful men that way than the other fourteen since Christ” In 1652, the queen of Sweden invited him to Stockholm, where she gave him many proofs of her regard and esteem. At his return into France, in 1653, he continued his ordinary exercises, and was one of the members of the academy of Caen, which consisted of all the learned men of that place. He died suddenly, when he was speaking in this academy, May 6, 1667, which gave M. Brieux occasion to make the following epitaph on him:

In 1737 he was elected a member of the grand council of Zurich, but this excited no ambition. Having lost his children, he refused every kind of civil promotion, and took as much pains to avoid as others do to procure such honours. His object was to reform the taste of his country, and with this view, for many years all his writings were of the didactic and critical kind. In 1721 he and Breitinger made their first appearance in the republic of letters, by a periodical paper, in the manner of the English Spectator, to which they gave the title of the “Painter of Manners,” and which contributed in a very great degree to the reformation of style. This was followed by many other works, which procured Bodmer the high character of the restorer of the German language, criticism, and poetry. He published also various pieces relative to the history of Swisserland, the greater part of which appeared in the Helvetic Bibliotheque, and have since been inserted in the supplement of Lauffer’s history of Swisserland. In 1748 and 1758, he and his former colleague Breitinger re-published many pieces of German poetry of the thirteenth century: Bodmer also translated some old English ballads, and published the poetry of Opitz with critical remarks. All these contributed essentially to the refinement of German taste and style but Bodmer reached his fiftieth year before he became himself a poet. He had hitherto been terrified at the restraint which rhime imposes, and made no attempt of the kind, until Klopstock, by introducing hexameters, opened the way to ease and variety. Bodmer had studied Milton and Klopstock, and as he was the son of a clergyman, and once destined for the church, this, and a desire to tread in the steps of these illustrious predecessors, determined him to choose a subject from the Bible. Perhaps, says his biographer, his creative powers suggested to him the patriarchs instead of the Achilleses and Æncases. Hitherto his pen had not touched on a national subject, nor could he find any creative fund in national history. Animated therefore by the genius of Milton, he ventured to write an epic in an age in which the poetic fire appeared to be extinguished. His hero was Noah, who having survived the destruction of the first, became the father of a new race of men. Bodmer, by charging this new generation with the crimes of all ages, rendered his poem at once moral and political, and, under the title of the “Noachide,” it was printed at Zurich, 1752, 1765, and 1772.

, a pious and useful clergyman of Leicestershire, was born at Leicester in 1679, and at the age of fifteen had made such progress in letters as to be matriculated at St. John’s college, Cambridge. Having taken the degree of B. A. in 1698, he retired to Hinckley in Leicestershire, where he engaged in teaching a small endowed school, and retained that employment until 1732, at the humble salary of 10l. per annum. At the usual age, he was admitted into holy orders to serve the curacy of Stoney Stanton near Hinckley. It appears from the parish register, that he commenced his parochial duties in May 1702; and the care of the parish was confided to him, his rector then residing on another benefice. His stipend was only 30l. a year, as the living was a small one, being then in the open-field state. Nor does it appear that he had made any saving in money from the profits of his school all the property he seems to have brought with him to his curacy was, his chamber furniture, and a library, more valuable for being select than extensive. When Mr. Bold was examined for orders, his diocesan (Dr. James Gardiner, bishop of Lincoln) was so much pleased with his proficiency in sacred learning, that he had determined to make Mr. Bold his domestic chaplain: but the good bishop’s death soon after closed his prospect of preferment as soon as it was opened in that quarter; and Mr. Bold framed his plan of life and studies upon a system of rigid ceconomy and strict attention to his professional duties, which never varied during the fifty years he passed afterwards on his curacy. Remote from polished and literary society, which he was calculated both to enjoy and to adorn, he diligently performed the duties of an able and orthodox divine; a good writer; an excellent preacher, and an attentive parish priest. He appears, from the early age of 24 years, to have formed his plan of making himself a living sacrifice for the benefit of his flock; and to have declined preferment (which was afterward offered to him) with a view of making his example and doctrine the more striking and effective, by his permanent residence and labours in one and the same place. He appears to have begun his ecclesiastical labours in a spirit of self-denial, humility, charity, and piety. He had talents that might have rendered him conspicuous any where, and an impressive and correct delivery. His life was severe (so far as respected himself); his studies incessant; his spiritual labours for the church and his flock, ever invariably the same. His salary, we have already mentioned, was only ZOl. a year, which was never increased, and of which he paid at firsts/, then J2l. and lastly 16l. a year, for his board. It needs scarcely be said that the most rigid ceconomy was requisite, and practised, to enable him to subsist; much more to save out of this pittance for beneficent purposes. Yet he continued to give away annually, 5l.; and saved 5l. more with a view to more permanent charities: upon the rest he lived. His daily fare consisted of water-gruel for his breakfast; a plate from the farmer’s table, with whom he boarded, supplied his dinner; after dinner, one half pint of ale, of his own brewing, was his only luxury; he took no tea, and his supper was upon milk-pottage. With this slender fare his frame was supported under the labour of his various parochial duties. In the winter, he read and wrote by the farmer’s fire-side; in the summer, in his own room. At Midsummer, he borrowed a horse for a day or two, to pay short visits beyond a walking distance. He visited all his parishioners, exhorting, reproving, consoling, instructing them.

The last six years of his life he was unable to officiate publicly; and was obliged to obtain assistance from the Rev. Charles Cooper, a clergyman who resided in the parish on a small patrimonial property, with whom he divided his salary, making up the deficiency from his savings. Mr. Bold’s previous saving of 5l. annually, for the preceding four or five and forty years (and that always put out to interest) enabled him to procure this assistance, and to continue his little charities, as well as to support himself, though the price of boarding was just doubled upon him from his first entrance on the cure, from 8l. to 16l. a year. But, from the annual saving even of so small a sum as 5l. with accumulating interest during that term, he not only procured assistance for the last years of his life, but actually left by his will securities for the payment of bequests to the amount of between two and three hundred pounds: of which 100l. was bequeathed to some of his nearest relations; 100l. to the farmer’s family in which he died, to requite their attendance in his latter end, and with which a son of the family was enabled to set up in a little farm; and 40l. more he directed to be placed out at interest, of which interest one half is paid at Christmas to the poorer inhabitants who attend at church; and the other, for a sermon once a year, in Lent, “on the duty of the people to attend to the instructions of the minister whom the bishop of the diocese should set over them.”

This very singular and exemplary clergyman, whose character it is impossible to contemplate without admiration, died Oct. 29, 1751. He wrote for the use of his parishioners the following practical tracts; 1. “The sin and danger of neglecting the Public Service of the Church,” 17*5, 8vo, one of the books distributed by the Society for promoting Christian knowledge. 2. “Religion the most delightful employment, &c.” 3. " The duty of worthily communicating.

, a nonjuring clergyman of great piety and learning, son of the rev. John Bonwicke, rector of Mickleham in Surrey, was born April 29, 1G52, and educated at Merchant Taylors school. Thence he was elected to St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1668, where he was appointed librarian in 1670; B.A. 1673; M. A. March 18, 1675; was ordained deacon May 21, 1676; priest, June 6 (Trinity Sunday), 1680; proceeded B. D. July 21, 1682; and was elected master of Merchant Taylors school June 9, 1686. In 1689, the college of St. John’s petitioned the Merchant Taylors company, that he might continue master of the school (which is a nursery for their college) for life; but, at Christmas 1691, he was turned out for refusing to take the oath of allegiance, and was afterwards for many years master of a celebrated school at Headley, near Leatherhead in Surrey, where he had at one time the honour of having the poet Fenton for his usher, and Bowyer (who was afterwards the learned printer) for a scholar.

, a learned philologist, was born at Worcum in Friesland, Nov. 23, 1670. His father who was rector or principal regent of the schools, and accustomed to mark the early appearance of talents, soon discovered his son’s aptitude for learning, and taught him Greek and Latin. His mother, a woman of abilities, and aunt to Vitringa, when she saw the latter, then a very young man, advanced to the professorship of Oriental languages, exclaimed with maternal fondness that she hoped to see her son promoted to a similar rank. In this, however, she was not gratified, as she died before he had finished his studies. When he had gone through the ordinary course of the classes in his father’s school, he continued adding to his knowledge by an attentive perusal of the Greek and Latin authors, and had many opportunities for this while he lived with a man of rank, as private tutor to his children. Cicero, above all, was his favourite Latin, author, whom he read again and again. In 1694 he went to the university of Franeker, where his relation, Vitringa, encouraged him to pursue the Greek and Latin studies, to which he seemed so much attached. In October 1696 he was permitted to teach Greek in the university, and in February of the following year, the curators honoured him with the title of prelector in that language. In 1704, when the Greek professorship became vacant by the death of Blancard, Mr. Bos was appointed his successor, and on taking the chair, read a dissertation on the propagation of Greek learning by their colonies, “de eruditione Graecorum per Colonias eorum propagata.” About the end of 1716 he was attacked with a malignant fever, ending in a consumption, a disorder he inherited from his mother, which terminated his life Jan. 6, 1717. Bos was a man of extensive classical learning, a solid judgment, and strong memory. In his personal character he was candid, amiable, and pious; in his studies so indefatigable that he cegretted every moment that was not employed in them. About five years before his death he married the widow of a clergyman, by whom he left two sons.

, an English clergyman of ingenuity and learning, was descended from an ancient family in Staffordshire, and born at Derby in 1688. His grandfather had been a major on the parliament side in the civil wars; his father had diminished a considerable paternal estate by gaming; but his mother, a woman of great prudence, contrived to give a good education to six children. Thomas the youngest acquired his grammatical learning at Derby; had his education among the dissenters; and was appointed to preach to a presbyterian congregation at Spalding in Lincolnshire. Not liking this mode of life, he removed to London at the end of queen Anne’s reign, with a view of preparing himself for physic; but changing his measures again, he took orders in the church of England, soon after the accession of George I. and was presented to the rectory of Winburg in Norfolk. About 1725 he was presented to the benefice of Reymerston; in 1734, to the rectory of Spixworth; and, in 1747, to the rectory of Edgefield; all in Norfolk. About 1750, his mental powers began to decline; and, at Christmas 1752, he ceased to appear in the pulpit. He died at Norwich, whither he had removed, in 1753, with his family, Sept. 23, 1754, leaving a wife, whom he mafried in 1739; and also a son, Edmund Bott, esq. of Christ church in Hampshire, a fellow of the Antiquarian society, who published, in 1771, A collection of cases relating to the Poor laws. Dr. Kippis, who was his nephew by marriage, has given a prolix article on him, and a minute character, in which, however, there appears to have been little of the amiable, and in his religious opinions he was capricious and unsteady. His works were, 1. “The peace and happiness of this world, the immediate design of Christianity, on Luke ix. 56,” a pamphlet in 8vo, 1724. 2. A second tract in defence of this, 1730, 8vo. 3. “The principal and peculiar notion of a late book, entitled, The religion of nature delineated, considered, and refuted,” 1725. This was against Wollaston’s notion of moral obligation. 4. A visitation sermon, preached at Norwich, April 30th, 1730. 5. A 30th of January sermon, preached at Norwich, and printed at the request of the mayor, &c. 6. “Remarks upon Butler’s 6th chapter of the Analogy of Religion, &c. concerning Necessity,” 1730. 7. Answer to the first volume of Warburton’s Divine Legation of Moses.

, a learned English clergyman and philologer, was horn at Blencogo, in the county of Cumberland, March 12, 1738; and after receiving his education at Wigton, under the rev. Joseph Blaine, went in his sixteenth year to North America. At the proper age he returned to England to be ordained, previously to which, in 1761, the vestry of the parish of Hanover, in the county of King George, Virginia, had nominated him to, the rectory of that parish. He afterwards exchanged this for the parish of St. Mary’s in Caroline county, Virginia. When the late sir Robert Eden, bart. became governor of Maryland, he appointed Mr. Boucher rector of St. Anne’s in Annapolis, and afterwards of Queen Anne’s in Prince George’s county, where he faithfully and zealously discharged the duties of a minister of the church until 1775.

, the son of a clergyman, was born in Northamptonshire, Dec. 27, 1590, and was educated at Christ church, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree in 1616. About that time he preached under Dr. Piers, rector of St. Christopher’s, Threadneedle-street, London, and was much encouraged in his studies and profession by sir Samuel Tryon, knt. and inhabitant of that parish. In 1622, he got the living of Ashover, in Derbyshire, which he retained many years. During the rebel- 1 ­lion, he sided with the predominant party, and removed to London, where he became preacher of St. Sepulchre’s, and was much followed. In- 1656, he became rector of Waltham in Leicestershire, and having conformed at the restoration, was instituted to the rectory of Ailston in the same county. Wood says he was well acquainted with the fathers and schoolmen. He died Dec. 27, 1672, and was buried in the chancel of the church of Ailston. Besides some occasional sermons, he published, 1. “A Light from Christ, &c.” or a preparatory to the Sacrament, London, 1645, 8vo. 2. “Defence of Scriptures,” ibid. 1656, 4to. 3. “Defence and justification of ministers’ maintenance by tithes, &c.” against the Anabaptists and Quakers, ibid. 1659, 4to. 4. “A, Gold Chain of directions with twenty Gold Links of love to preserve firm love between husband and wife,” ibid. 1669, 12mo.

, an elegant Latin poet, and a very amiable man, of whom we regret that our memoirs are so scanty, was admitted a scholar of Westminsterschool in 1710, from whence he was elected to the university of Cambridge in 1714, where, in Trinity college, he took his degree of A. B. 1717, and A.M. 1721, and obtained a fellowship. He was afterwards for several years an usher in Westminster-school, and died of a lingering disorder December 2, 1747. He married; and in a letter which he wrote to his wife a few weeks before his death, gives the following reasons why he did not take orders “Though I think myself in strictness answerable to none but God and my own conscience, yet, for the satisfaction of the person that is dearest to me, I own and declare, that the importance of so great a charge, joined with a mistrust of my own sufficiency, made me fearful of undertaking it; if I have not in that capacity assisted in the salvation of souls, I have not been the means of losing any; if I have not brought reputation to the function by any merit of mine, I have the comfort of this reflection, I have given no scandal to it, by my meanness and unworthiness. It has been my sincere desire, though not my happiness, to be as useful in' my little sphere of life as possible-: my own inclinations would have led me to a more likely way of being serviceable, if I might have pursued them: however, as the method of education I have been brought up in was, I am satisfied, very kindly intended, I have nothing to find fault with, but a wrong choice, and the not knowing those disabilities I have since been truly conscious of: those difficulties I have endeavoured to get over; but found them insuperable. It has been the knowledge of theee discouragements, that has been the chief subject of my sleeping, as well as my waking thoughts, a fear of reproach and contempt.” While we admire the conscientious motives which induced him to contemplate, with reverential awe, the duties of a clergyman, we must regret the concurrence of events which, according to the conclusion of this letter, seems to have led him into a way of life not agreeable to his inclinations. Cowper, however, in one of his excellent letters, throws some light on those peculiar habits, which were not certainly very happily adapted to his situation as a public teacher. “I love,” says Cowper, “the memory of Vinny Bourne. I think him a better Latin poet thaa Tibullus, Propertius, Ausonius, or any of the writers in his way, except Ovid, and not at all inferior to him. I love him too, with a love of partiality, because he was usher of the fifth form at Westminster when I passed through it. He was so good-natured, and so indolent, that I lost more than I got by him; for he made me as idle as himself. He was such a sloven, as if he had trusted to his genius as a cloak for every thing that could disgust you in his person; and indeed in his writings he has almost made amends for all. His humour is entirely original he can speak of a magpie or a cat, in terms so exquisitely appropriated to the character he draws, that one would suppose him animated by the spirit of the creature he describes. And with all his drollery, there is a mixture of rational, and even religious reflection, at times, and always an air of pleasantry, good nature, and humanity, that makes him, in my mind, one of the most amiable writers in the world. It is not common to meet with an author who can make you smile, and yet at nobody’s expence; who is always entertaining, and yet always harmless; and who, though always elegant and classical, to a degree not always found in the classics themselves, charms more by the simplicity and playfulness of his ideas, than by the neatness and purity of his verse: yet such was poor Vinny. I remember seeing the duke of Richmond set fire to his greasy locks, and box his ears to put it out again.”

Being thus disengaged from his literary employment, though he had not then received back his money from the Jesuits, he, on the 25th of March 1747, put forth the proposals for his “History of the Popes;” a work, winch, he says, he undertook some years since at Rome, and then brought it down to the pontificate of Victor, that is, to the close of the second century. In the execution of this work at that period he professes to have received the first unfavourable sentiments of the pope’s supremacy. On the 13th of May 1748, he presented to the king the first volume; and on the death of Mr. Say, keeper of queen Caroline’s library (10th of September), one of his friends (Mr. Lyttelton, afterwards lord Lyttelton) applied to Mr. Pelham for that place for him, and obtained it. The next year, 1749, on the 4th of August, he married a niece of bishop Nicolson, and daughter of a clergyman of the church of England, a younger son of a gentleman’s family in Westmoreland, who had a fortune of 4000l. sterling, and then had a child by a former husband; which child he afterwards deposed on oath was no way injured by his marriage. He had been engaged in a treaty of marriage, which did not take effect, in 1745. In 1751, the second volume of the History of the Popes made its appearance. In the same year, 1751, Mr. Bower published by way of supplement to his second volume, seventeen sheets, which were delivered to his subscribers gratis; and about the latter end of 1753 he produced a third volume, which brought down his history to the death of pope Stephen, in 757. His constant friend Mr. Lyttelton, at this time become a baronet, in April 1754 appointed him clerk of the buck warrants, instead of Henry Read, esq. who held that place under the earl of Lincoln. This office was probably of no great emolument. His appointment to it, however, serves to shew the credit he was in with his patron.

, the most learned English printer of whom we have any account, was born in Dogwelt-court, White Fryars, London, on the 19th of December, 1699. His father, whose name was also William, was of distinguished eminence in the same profession; and his maternal grandfather (Thomas Dawks) was employed in printing the celebrated Polyglott Bible of bishop Walton. At a proper age, he was placed, for grammatical education, under the care of Mr. Ambrose Bonwicke, a non-juring clergyman of known piety and learning, who then lived at Headley, near Leatherhead in Surrey. Here Mr. Bowyer made such advances in literature as reflected the highest credit both on himself and his preceptor; for whose memory, to his latest years, he entertained the sincerest respect; and to whose family he always remained an useful friend. The attachment, indeed, was mutual; and the following instance of the good school-master’s benevolence made an indelible impression on the mind of his pupil. On the 30th of January, 1712-13, the whole property of the elder Mr. Bowyer was destroyed by a dreadful fire; on which occasion, Mr. Bonwicke, with great generosity, and no less delicacy (endeavouring to conceal its being his own act of kindness), took upon him, for one year, the expences of his scholar’s board and education. In June 1716, young Mr. Bowyer was admitted as a sizar at St. John’s college, Cambridge, of which Dr. Robert Jenkin was at that time master. The doctor had been a benefactor to the elder Mr. Bowyer in the season of his calamity; and the son, at the distance of sixty years, had the happiness of returning the favour to a relation of the worthy master, in a manner by which the person obliged was totally ignorant to whom he was indebted for the present he received, Mr. Bowyer continued at Cambridge under the tuition, first, of Dr. Anstey, and afterwards of the rev. Dr. John Nevvcome, till June 1722, during which time he obtained Roper’s exhibition, and wrote, in 1719, what he called “Epistola pro Sodalitio a rev. viro F. Roper mihi legato;” but it does not appear that he took his degree of bachelor of arts. Notwithstanding an habitual shyness of disposition, which was unfavourable to him at his first appearance, the regularity of his conduct, and his application to study, procured him the esteem of many very respectable members of the university. Here it was that he formed an intimacy with Mr. Markland and Mr. Clarke, two learned friends with whom he maintained a regular correspondence through life and their letters contain a treasure of polite literature and sound criticism. On the death of Mr. Bonwicke, his grateful scholar had an opportunity of requiting, in some measure, the obligations he had received, by officiating, for a time, in the capacity of a schoolmaster, for the benefit of the family; but before this, he had entered into the printing business, together with his father, in June 1722; and one of the first bucks which received the benefit of his correction, was the complete edition of Selden by Dr. David Wilkins, in three volumes, folio. This edition was begun in 1722, and finished in 1726; and Mr. Bowyer’s great attention to it appeared in his drawing up an epitome of Selden “de Synedriis,” as he read the proof-sheets, and tue several memoranda from “The privileges of the Baronage” and “Judicature in Parliament,” &c. which are now printed in his “Miscellaneous Tracts.” In 1727, the learned world was indebted to him for nn admirable sketch of William Baxter’s Glossary of the Roman Antiquities. The sketch was called “A View of a Book, entitled, * Reliquiae Baxtevianae.' In a Letter to a Friend;” a single sheet, 8vo. Very few copies were printed; and, having never been published, it is seldom found with the Glossary; but it was reprinted in the “Miscellaneous Tracts.” Dr. Wotton and Mr. Clarke were highly pleased with this first public proof given by Mr. Bowyer of his literary abilities. On the 20th of December, 1727, he lost an affectionate mother, upon which occasion he received a letter of pious consolation, from Mr. Chishull, the learned editor of the “Antiquitates Asiaticae.”

Very highly to his own and his father’s satisfaction, he entered, on the 9th of October, 1728, into the marriage state, with Anne Prudom, his mother’s niece. His happiness, however, with this accomplished woman, lasted bait little more than three years; he being deprived of her, by death, on the 17th of October, 1731. Of two sons, venom he had by her, William died an infant, and Thomas survived him. His friends Mr. Clarke and Mr. Chishull wrote him very affectionate and Christian letters on this melancholy event. In 1729, he ushered into the world a curious treatise, entitled “A Pattern for young Students in the University, set forth in the Life of Mr. Ambrose Bonwicke, some time scholar of St. John’s college, Cambridge.” (See Bonwicke). This little volume was generally ascribed to our learned printer, though it was in reality the production of Mr. Amtyruse Bonwicke the elder, but the preface was probably Mr. Buwyer’s. About the same time, it appears, from a letter of Mr. Clarke, that Mr. Bowyer had written a pamphlet against the Separatists; but neither the title nor the occasion of it are at present recollected. Through the friendship of the right honourable Arthur Onslow, he was, likewise, appointed, in 1729, printer of the Votes of the House of Commons; an office which he held, under three successive speakers, for nearly fifty years. In 1730, he was avowedly the editor of “A Discourse concerning the Confusion of Languages at Babel, proving it to have been miraculous, from the essential difference between them, contrary to the opinion of M. Le Clerc and others. With an Enquiry into the primitive language before that wonderful event. By the late learned William Wotton, D. D. &c.” In 1731, he took part in a controversy occasioned by a sermon of Mr. Bowman, a clergyman in Yorkshire, entitled “The Traditions of the Clergy destructive of Religion, with an Enquiry into the Grounds and Reasons of such Traditions.” This performance, which was charged with containing some of the sentiments that had been advanced by Dr. Tindal in his “Rights of the Christian Church,” and by Mr. Gordon in his “Independent Whig,” excited no small degree of offence; and several answers were written to it, and strictures made upon it, both of a serious and ludicrous nature. Mr. Bowyer, upon this occasion, printed a pamphlet, called “The Traditions of the Clergy not destructive of Religion; being Remarks on Mr. Bowman’s Sermon; exposing that gentleman’s deficiency in Latin and Greek, in ecclesiastical history, and true reasoning.” The dispute, like many others of a similar kind, is now sunk into oblivion. In 1733, he published “The Beau and Academick,” two sheets, in 4to; a translation from “Bellus Homo & Academicus, &c.” a poem recited that year at the Cornitia in the Sheldonian theatre, and afterwards printed in his Tracts. On the 7th of July, 1736, Mr. Bowyer was admitted into the Society of Antiquaries, of which he had been chosen printer in May preceding; and he was an active, as well as an early member of that respectable body, regularly attending their meetings, and frequently communicating to them luatters of utility and curiosity, which were reprinted in his “Tracts.” In conjunction with Dr. Birch, he was, also, materially concerned in instituting “The Society for the Encouragement of Learning.” Of this Mr. Nichols has given an interesting account. It was certainly well-meant, but injudicious, and became dissolved by its own insufficiency. On the 27th of December, 1737, Mr. Bowyer lost his father, at the age of seventy-four; and it is evident, from his scattered papers, that he severely felt this affliction; applying to himself the beautiful apostrophe of Æneas to Anchises, in Virgil:

, a celebrated statesman, descended from an ancient and honourable family, and distinguished by the title of the great earl of Cork, was the youngest son of Mr. Roger Boyle of Herefordshire, by Joan, daughter of Robert Naylor of Canterbury, and born in the city of Canterbury, Oct. 3, 1566. He was instructed in grammar learning by a clergyman of Kent; and after having been a scholar in Ben'et college, Cambridge, where he was remarkable for early rising, indefatigable study, and great temperance, became student in the Middle Temple. He lost his father when he was but ten years old, and his mother at the expiration of other ten years; and being unable to support himself in the prosecution of his studies, he entered into the service of sir Richard Manwood, chief baron of the exchequer, as one of his clerks: but perceiving few advantages from this employment, he resolved to travel, and landed at Dublin in June 1588, with a very scanty stock, his whole property amounting, as he himself informs us, to 271. 3s. in money, two trinkets which his mother gave him as tokens, and his wearing apparel. He was then about two-and-twenty, had a graceful person, and all the accomplishments for a young man to succeed in a country which was a scene of so much action. Accordingly he made himself very useful to some of the principal persons employed in the government, by penning for them memorials, cases, and answers; and thereby acquired a perfect knowledge of the kingdom and the state of publia affairs, of which he knew well how to avail himself. In 1595 he married at Limeric, Joan, the daughter and coheiress of William Ansley of Pulborough, in Sussex, <esq. who had fallen in love with him. This lady died 1599, in labour of her first child (born dead) leaving her husband an estate of 500l. a year in lands, which was the beginning of his fortune. Some time after, sir Henry Wallop, of Wares, sir Robert Gardiner, chief justice of the king’s bench, sir Robert Dillam, chief justice of the common pleas, and sir Richard Binghim, chief commissioner of Connaught, envious at certain purchases he had made in the province, represented to queen Elizabeth that he was in the pay of the king of Spain (who had at that time some thoughts of invading Ireland), by whom he had been furnished with money to buy several large estates; and that he was strongly suspected to be a Roman catholic in his heart, with many other malicious suggestions equally groundless. Mr. Boyle, having private notice of this, determined to come over to England to justify himself: but, before he could take shipping, the general rebellion in Minister broke out, all his lands were wasted, and he had not one penny of certain revenue left. In this distress he betook himself to his former chamber in the Middle Temple, intending to renew his studies in the law till the rebellion should be suppressed. When the earl of Essex was nominated lord-deputy of Ireland, Mr. Boyle, being recommended to him by Mr. Anthony Bacon, was received by his lordship very graciously; and sir Henry Wallop, treasurer of Ireland, knowing that Mr. Boyle had in his custody several papers which could detect his roguish manner of passing his accounts, resolved utterly to depress him, and for that end renewed his former complaints against him to the queen. By her majesty’s special directions, Mr. Boyle was suddenly taken up, and committed close prisoner to the Gatehouse: all his papers were seized and searched; and although nothing appeared to his prejudice, yet his confinement lasted till two months after his new patron the earl of Essex was gone to Ireland, At length, with much difficulty, he obtained the favour of the queen to be present at his examination; and having fully answered whatever was alledged against him, he gave a short account of his behaviour since he first settled in Ireland, and concluded with laying open to the queen and her council the conduct of his chief enemy sir Henry Wallop. Upon which her majesty exclaimed with, her usual intemperance of speech, “By God’s death, these are but inventions against this young man, and all his sufferings are for being able to do us service, and these complaints urged to forestal him therein. But we find him to be a man fit to be employed by ourselves; and we will employ him in our service: and Wallop and his adherents shall know that it shall not be in the power of any of them, to wrong him. Neither -shall Wallop be our treasurer any longer.” Accordingly, she gave orders not only for Mr. Boyle’s present enlargement, but also for paying all the charges and fees his confinement had brought upon him, and gave him her hand to kiss before the whole assembly. A few days after, the queen constituted him clerk of the council of Munster, and recommended him to sir George Carew, afterwards earl of Totness, then lord president of Munster, who became his constant friend; and very soon, after he was made justice of the peace and of the quorum, throughout all the province. He attended in that capacity the lord president in all his employments, and was sent by his lordship to the queen with the news of the victory gained in December 1601, near Kinsate, over the Irish, and their Spanish auxiliaries, who were totally routed, 1200 being slain in the field, and 800 wounded. “I made,” says he, “a speedy expedition to the court, for I left my lord president at Shannon -castle, near Cork, on the Monday morning about two of the clock; and the next day, being Tuesday, I delivered my packet, and supped with sir Robert Cecil, being then principal secretary of state, at his house in the Strand; who, after supper, held me in discourse till two of the clock in the morning; and by seven that morning called upon me to attend him to the court, where he presented me to her majesty in her bedchamber.” A journey so rapid as this would be thought, even in the present more improved modes of travelling, requires all his lordship’s authority to render it credible.

, a learned clergyman of the seventeenth century, and nephew to the dean of Canterbury, hereafter mentioned, was of a good family in Kent, and was educated at Eton school, from which he was admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, in May 1620. Here he took the degree of A. B. in 1623, of A. M. 1627, and was elected fellow in 1651. He proceeded B. D. and was appointed one of the university preachers in 1634; and in 1640, was presented to the rectory of Mautboy in Norfolk, upon the death of Mr. Thomas D'Engayne; but before he left college, he gave to its library a fine set of Binnius’s Councils. His patron was William Paston, esq. his friend and contemporary at college, to whose sou sir Robert Paston, bart. of Oxnead in that county, a volume of his “Sermons,” Lond. 1672, 4to, was dedicated sometime after his decease, by his friend the editor, Roger Flynt, who had likewise been of Bene r t college. He died either in 1665 or 1667, March 10. He was a much admired preacher, a favourite of the bishop of Norwich (the celebrated Hall), and a chaplain to Charles I. His editor, in the preface to the above “Sermons,” informs us that it was with difficulty he obtained leave of the dying author to make them public, and obtained it only upon condition that he should say nothing of him. He has, however, given a short, but excellent character of him.

, an English divine of good parts and learning, the son of Nicholas Brady, an officer in the king’s army in the civil wars of 1641, was born at Bandon, in the county of Cork, Oct. the 28th, 1659; and continued in Ireland till he was 12 years of age. Then he was sent over to England to Westminster-school; and from thence elected stuJent to Christ-church in Oxford. After continuing there about four years, he went to Dublin, where his father resided; at which university he immediately commenced B. A. When he was of due stanuing, his diploma for the degree of D. D. was, on account of his uncommon merit, presented to him by that university while he was in England; and brought over by Dr Pratt, then senior travelling fellow, afterwards provost of that college. His first ecclesiastical preferment was to a prebend in the cathedral of St. Barry, at Cork; to which he was collated by bishop Wettenhal, whose domestic chaplain he was. He was a zealous promoter of the revolution, and in consequence of his zeal suffered for it. In 1690, when the troubles broke out in Ireland, by his interest with king Tatnes as general, M'Carty, he thrice prevented the burning of the town of Bandon, after three several orders given by that prince to destroy it. The same year, having been deputed by the people of Bandon, he went over to England, to petition the parliament for a redress of some grievances they had suffered while king James was in Ireland; and afterwards quitting his preferments in Ireland, he settled in London; where, being celebrated for his abilities in the pulpit, he was elected minister of St. Catherine Cree church, and lecturer of St. Michael’s Wood-street. He afterwards became minister of Richmond in Surry. and Stratford upon Avon in Warwickshire, and at length rector of Clapham in Surry; which last, together with Richmond, he held till his death. His preferments amounted to 600l. a year, but he was so little of an Œconomist as to be obliged to keep a school at Richmond. He was also chaplain to the duke of Ormond’s troop of horse-guards, as he was to their majesties king William and queen Mary. He died May 20, 1726, aged 66, leaving behind him the character of being a person of an agreeable temper, a polite gentleman, an excellent preacher, and a good poet. He has no high rank, however, among poets, and would have long ere now been forgotten in that character, if his name was not so familiar as a translator of the new version of the “Psalms,” in conjunction with Mr. Tate, which version was licensed 1696. He translated also the Æneids of Virgil,“published by subscription in 1726, 4 vols. 8vo,­and a tragedy, called” The Rape, or the Innocent Impos-­tors,“neither performances of much character. His prose works consist of” Sermons," three volumes of which were published by himself in 1704, 1706, and 1713, and three others by his eldest son, who was a clergyman at Tooting, in Surry, London, 1730, 8vo.

, an eminent prelate, was descended from the antient family of the Bramhalls, of Cheshire, and born at Pontefract, in Yorkshire, about 1593. He received his school education at the place of his birth, and was removed from thence to Sidney-college, Cambridge, in 1608. After taking the degrees of B A. and M. A. he quitted the university; and, entering into orders, had a living given him in the city of York. About the same time he married a clergyman’s widow of the Hally’s family, with whom he received a good fortune, and a valuable library, left by her former husband. In 1623 he had two public disputations, at North-Allerton, with a secular priest and a Jesuit. The match between prince Charles and the infanta of Spain was then depending; and the papists expected great advantages and countenance to their religion from it. These two, therefore, by way of preparing the way for them, sent a public challenge to all the protestant clergy in the county of York; and when none durst accept it, our author, though then but a stripling in the school of controversy, undertook the combat. His success in this dispute gained him. so much reputation, and so recommended him in particular to Matthews, archbishop of York, that he made him his chaplain, and took him into his confidence. He was afterwards made a prebendary of York , and then pf Rippon; at which last place he went and resided after the archbishop’s death, which happened in 1628, and managed most of the affairs of that church, in the quality of sub-dean. He had great political influence, especially in elections, in the town of Rippon, and was also appointed one of his majesty’s high commissioners, in the administration of which office he was by some accounted severe, although far less so than some of his brethren.

His works were: 1. “An account of Church-government and governors, wherein is shewed that the government of the church of England is most agreeable to that of the primitive church; for the instruction of a near relation, who had been brought up among the Dissenters,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. Some reflections were made upon this in “The beautiful Pattern,” written by Mr. Nokes, pastor of an independent congregation, who afterwards conformed to the church of England. A second edition of this tract was published in 1710, with large additions and amendments, and a chapter on “Provincial Synods,” which was animadverted upon in a pamphlet entitled “Presbytery not always an authoritative part of Provincial Synods,” written by Mr. Lewis, of Margate, 1711. 2. “The Authority of Presbyters vindicated, in answer thereto.” In a letter to a friend, however, he afterwards acknowledges he was convinced of being mistaken, for although Presbyters were often connected with, yet they had no authoritative votes in the ancient church. 3. “Two letters on the times wherein Marriage is said to be prohibited,” Lond. 1708, 4to. 4. “A letter to the author of LayBaptism invalid, wherein the doctrine of Lay-Baptism, taught in a sermon said to have been preached by the B of S 7 Nov. 1710, is censured and condemned by all reformed churches,” Lond. 1711. 5. “A sermon on Remission of Sins, Joh. xx. 21—23,” Lond. 1712, which Dr. Cannon made two motions in the house of convocation to have censured, but not succeeding, he published an account of them, which was answered the same year, in 6. “The doctrine of Remission, &c. explained and vindicated.” He afterwards owned he went too far, and that Dr. Marshall, in his “Doctrine of the primitive church,” had set this matter right. With this sermon he also published in 1715, five others, on “The honour of the Christian priesthood. The extent of Christ’s commission to baptise. The Christian Altar and Sacrifice. The Dangers of a Relapse. And, True Moderation.” The “Extent of Christ’s commission to baptise,” with “the Letter to the author of Lay-Baptism invalid,” was answered by Mr. Bingham in his “Scholastic History of Lay-Baptism,” and being reflected upon by the bishop of Oxford in a charge, he wrote 7. an “Enquiry into the judgment and practice of the primitive church, &c. in answer thereto,” Lond. 1713; and upon Mr. Bingham’s reply, he published, 8. “A farther Enquiry, &c.” 1714. 9. “A review of the Lutheran principles,” shewing how they differ from the church of England, &c.“In the same year, Mr. Lewis, in answer to this, undertook to show their agreement, with which Dr. Brett was very angry, and threatened him with a reply, from which his friends dissuaded him. In a second edition, however, he nvule some transient remarks upon, two letters to the lord viscount Townsend, by Robert Watts, in answer thereto. 10.” A vindication of himself from the calumnies cast upon him in some news-papers, falsely charging him with turning papist; in a letter to the hon. Arch. Campbell, esq.“Lond. 1715. 11.” Dr. Bennet’s concessions to the Non-jurors proved destructive to the cause he endeavours to defend,“1717. 12.” The Independency of the Church upon the State, as to its pure spiritual powers, &c.“1717. 13.” The Divine right of Episcopacy, &c.“1718; and in the same year, 14.” Tradition necessary to explain and interpret the Holy Scriptures,“with a postscript in answer to” No sufficient reason, &c.“and a preface, with remarks on” Toland’s Nazarenus,“and” a further proof of the necessity of Tradition, &c.“15.” A Vindication of the postscript in answer to No just grounds, &c.“1720. 16.” A discourse concerning the necessity of discerning Christ’s body in the Holy Communion,“Lond. 1720. 17.” A dissertation on the principal liturgies used by the Christian church in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist,“1720. He is also supposed to have written, 18.” Some discourses on the ever-blessed Trinity,“in the same year. 19.” Of degrees in the university,“a dissertation in the Biblioth. Liter. N”. 1. “An essay on the various English translations of the Bible,” N. 4. “An historical essay concerning arithmetical figures,” N. 8, with an appendix to it, N. 10, 1722, 3, 4, in 4to. 20. “An instruction to a person newly confirmed, &c.” 1725. 21. “A Chronological essay on the Sacred History, &c.” in defence of the computation of the Septuagint, with an “Essay on the confusion of languages,” 1729. 22. “A general history of the World, &c.” 1732. There is a letter of his to Dr. William Warren, fellow of Trinity-hall, in Peck’s Desiderata, lib. VII. p. 13, containing an account of Richard Plantagenet (a natural son of king Richard III.) dated from Spring-grove, 1 Sept. 1733, which is said to be a forgery, invented to impose upon the doctor’s credulity, and to ridicule modern antiquaries. 23. “An answer to the plain account of the Sacrament,” in 1735 or 6. 24. “Some remarks on Dr. Waterland’s Review of the doctrine of the Eucharist,” &c. with an Appendix in answer to his charges,“1741. 25.” A letter to a clergyman, shewing why the Hebrew Bibles differ from the Septuagint,“1743. 26.” Four letters between a Gentleman and a Clergyman, concerning the necessity of Episcopal communion for the valid administration of Gospel ordinances,“1743. 27.” The life of Mr. John Johnson, A.M.“ prefixed to his posthumous tracts in 1748, with several prefaces to the works of others, particularly a very long one to Hart’s” Bulwark stormed,“&c. In 1760 was published” A dissertation on the antient versions of the Bible,“a second edition prepared for the press by the author, and” now first published," 8vo.

, an English clergyman, was a native of Shropshire, but where educated is not known. In the beginning of king James II.'s reign he was curate of St. Giles’s in the Fields, London, but afterwards turned Roman catholic, and was employed as a corrector of the press in the king’s printing-house, which afforded him a comfortable subsistence. When obliged to quit that, after the revolution, he undertook a boarding-school for the instruction of young gentlemen, some of whom being the sons of opulent persons, this employment proved very beneficial. His biographer informs us that Pope, the celebrated poet, was one of his pupils. He afterwards travelled abroad with some young gentlemen, as tutor, but retired at last to his own country, where he died Jan. 10, 1717. He published only a translation of the “Catechism of the Council of Trent,” Lnhd. 1687, 8vo.

, whose maiden name was Moore, was the daughter of a clergyman, and the wife of the rev. John Brooke, rector of Colney in Norfolk, of St. Augustine in the city of Norwich, and chaplain to the garrison of Quebec. She was as remarkable for her gentleness and suavity of manners as for her literary talents. Her husband died on the 21st of January 1789, and she herself expired on the 26th of the same month, at Sleaford, where she had retired to the house of her son, now rector of Folkingham in Lincolnshire. Her disorder was a spasmodic complaint. The first literary performance we know of her writing was the “Old Maid,” a periodical work, begun November 15, 1755, and continued every Saturday until about the end of July 1756. These papers have since been collected into one volume 12mo. In the same year (1756) she published “Virginia,” a tragedy, with odes, pastorals, and translations, 8vo. In the preface to this publication she assigns as a reason for its appearance, “that she was precluded from all hopes of ever seeing the tragedy brought upon the stage, by there having been two so lately on the same subject.” “If hers,” she adds, “should be found to have any greater resemblance to the two represented, than the sameness of the story made unavoidable, of which she is not conscious, it must have been accidental on her side, as there are many persons of very distinguished rank and unquestionable veracity, who saw hers in manuscript before the others appeared, and will witness for her, that she has taken no advantage of having seen them. She must here do Mr. Crisp the justice to say, that any resemblance must have been equally accidental on his part, as he neither did, nor could see her Virginia before his own was played; Mr. Garrick having declined reading hers till Mr. Crisp’s was published.” Prefixed to this publication were proposals for printing by subscription a poetical translation, with notes, of il Pastor Fido, a work which probably was never completed.

, 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.

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.

, a clergyman of the church of England in the seventeenth century, was born in the county of Middlesex in 1604, was elected student of Christ church in 1620, and took the degrees in arts, that of master being completed in 1627. In 1636, he served the office of proctor, and the year after was made domestic chaplain to archbishop Laud, and bachelor of divinity. Soon after he became rector of St. Mary, Aldermary, London, canon of Windsor in 1639, and rector of Oddington in Oxfordshire. On the breaking out of the rebellion, he was ejected from his church in London by the ruling party, and retired to his majesty, to whom he was chaplain, at Oxford, and in 1642 was created D. D. having then only the profits of Oddington to maintain him. He appears afterwards to have been stripped even of this, and went to the continent, where he was for some time chaplain to Mary, princess of Orange. After the restoration, he was admitted again to his former preferments, but does not appear to have had any other reward for his losses and sufferings. He died at Windsor Dec. 6, 1673, and was buried on the outside of St. George’s chapel, where Dr. Isaac Vossius, his executor, erected a monument to his memory, with an inscription celebrating his learning, eloquence, critical talents, and knowledge of antiquities. Besides a sermon preached before the university in 1633, he published, “A Key to the King’s Cabinet; or animadversions upon the three printed speeches of Mr. L'isle, Mr. Tate, and Mr. Browne, members of the house of commons, spoken at a common hall in London, July 1645, detecting the malice and falsehood of their blasphemous observations upon the king and queen’s letters,” Oxford, 1645, 4to. His next publication was a treatise in defence of Grotius against an epistle of Salmasius, “De posthumo Grotii;” this he printed at the Hague, 1646, 8vo, under the name of Simplicius Virinus, and it was not known to be his until after his death, when the discovery was made by Vossius. He wrote also, “Dissertatio de Therapeutis Philonis adversus Henricum Valesium,” Loud. 1687, 8vo, at the end of Colomesius’ edition of St. Clement’s epistles; and he translated part of Camden’s annals of queen Elizabeth, under the title, “Tomus alter et idem; or the History of the life and reign of that famous princess Elizabeth, &c.” London, 1629, -4to. In the Republic of Letters, vol. VI. 1730, we find published for the first time, a “Concio ad Clerum,” delivered for his divinity bachelor’s degree in 1637; the subject, “the revenues of the clergy,” which even at that period were threatened.

, the learned author of the “History of Philosophy,” was a Lutheran clergyman, of whose life we have very few particulars. He was born Jan. 22, 1606, at Augsburgh, and educated at Jena, whence he returned to his native place, and in 1724, became rector of Kafbeueren. He was afterwards pastor of St. Ulric’s church at Augsburgh, where he died in 1770. Among his works are, I. “Tentamen introductionis in historiam doctrinae de Ideis,” Jena, 1719, 4to. 2. “Historia phijosophica doctrinae de Ideis,” Augsburg, 1723, 8vo. 3. “De Vita et Scriptis Cl. Etringeri,” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 4. “Otium Vindelicum, sive Meletematum Historico-philosophicorum Triga,” ibid. 1721, 8vo. 5. “Historia Vitae Adolphorum Occonum,” Lips. 1734, 4to. 6. “Dissertatio Epistol. de Vita Hier. Wolfii,” ibid. 1739, 4to. 7. “-De Hoeschelii Meritis in Rem Literariam,” ibid. 1739, 4to. 8. “Institutiones Historiae Philosophicae,” ibid. 1727, 8vo, and 1756, 4to. But the most important work, to which he owes his chief reputation, is his “Historia Critica Philosophiae,” published at Leipsic between the years 1742 and 1744, in four large volumes 4to; and reprinted at the same place in 1767, with large improvements and additions, in 6 vols. 4to. This was the fruit of nearly fifty years labour, and has received the general suffrage of the learned, as being the most comprehensive, methodical, and impartial history of philosophy hitherto written. He traces the progress of philosophy through three periods, the ancient, the middle, and the modern; in the first he surveys the state of philosophy in the ancient world, prior to the establishment of the Grecian states, and in the several sects of Grecian philosophers. In the second, he exhibits the various forms under which it appeared, during the course of twelve hundred years, among the Romans, the Orientalists, the Jews, the Saracens, and the Christians. In the third, he relates the attempts, whether successful or unsuccessful, which have been made since the revival of letters, to restore, or improve upon, ancient philosophy, or to introduce new methods of philosophizing. It is both a history of doctrines and of men. As a history of doctrines, it lays open the origin of opinions, the changes which they have undergone, the distinct characters of different systems, and the leading points in which they agree or differ. As a history of men, it relates the principal incidents in the lives of the more eminent philosophers, remarks those circumstances in their character or situation which may be supposed to have influenced their opinions, takes notice of their followers and opponents, and describes the origin, progress, and decline of their respective sects. To this part of his work every collector of biography must own his obligations. A very judicious and satisfactory abridgement of this work was published in 1791, 2 vols. 4to, by the late Dr. Enfield.

, D. D. a learned and ingenious English clergyman and antiquary, was born in 1716, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree in 1739. He was afterwards elected a fellow of All-Souls college, where he proceeded B. D. in 1755, and D. D. in 1759. In 1755 he was presented to the vicarage of Cumner in Berkshire, by the earl of Abingdon. He was also rector of Frilsham in the same county. He died and was buried at Cumner, Dec. 24, 1780, being at that time likewise keeper of the archives in the university of Oxford, to which office he was elected in 1777. His talents would in all probability have advanced him to higher stations, had they been less under the influence of those honest principles, which, although they greatly dignify a character, are not always of use on the road to preferment. In truth, says the author of his epitaph, he preserved his integrity chaste and "pure: he thought liberally, and spoke openly; a mean action was his contempt. He possessed not great riches, secular honours, or court favours; but he enjoyed blessings of a much higher estimation, a competency, a sound mind, an honest heart, a good conscience, and a faith unshaken.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, was born June 25, 1667, at Anclam, a town in Pomerania, where his father was a clergyman, who bestowed great pains on his education, with a view to the same profession. Before he went to the university, he was taught Greek and Latin, Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Syriac, and had several times read the scriptures in their original tongues. In 1685, at the age of eighteen, he was sent to Wittemberg, where he studied history, oriental learning, and the canon law, under the ablest professors, and with a success proportioned to the stock of knowledge he had previously accumulated. In 1687 he received the degree of M. A. and printed on that occasion his thesis on the symbols of the Eucharist. In 1689 he was assistant professor of philosophy; and some time after, having removed to Jena, gave lessons to the students there with the approbation and esteem of the professors. In 1692 he was invited to Cobourg, as professor of Greek and Latin, In 1693, when Frederick, elector of Brandenburgh, afterwards king of Prussia, founded the university of Halle, Buddeus was appointed professor of moral and political philosophy, and after filling that office for about twelve years, he was recalled to Jena in 1705, to be professor of theology. The king of Prussia parted with him very reluctantly on this occasion, but Buddeus conceived his new office so much better calculated for his talents and inclination, that he retained it for the remainder of his life, refusing many advantageous offers in other universities; and the dukes of Saxony of the Ernestine branch, to whom the university of Jena belongs, looking upon Buddeus as its greatest ornament, procured him every comfort, and bestowed their confidence on him in. the case of various important affairs. In 1714, he was made ecclesiastical counsellor to the duke of Hildburghausen; and afterwards was appointed inspector of the students of Gotha and Altenburgh; assessor of the Concilium arctius, which had the care of the university of Jena; and he was several times pro-rector, the dukes of Saxony always reserving to themselves the rectorate of that university. Under his care the university flourished in an uncommon degree, and being an enemy to the scholastic mode of teaching, he introduced that more rational and philosophical system which leads to useful knowledge. Amidst all these employments, he was a frequent and popular preacher, carried on an extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, and yet found leisure for the composition of his numerous works. He died Nov. 19, 1729. A very long list of his works is given in our authority; the principal are: 1. “Elementa Philosophic prarticæ, instrumentalis ct theoreticæ,” 3 vols. 8vo. 2. “Institutiones Theologiæ Moralis,” 1711, 4to, often reprinted. 3. “Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti,” 1715, 1718, 2 vols, 4to. 4. “Institutiones Theologicse, Dogmaticae, variis observationibus iilustratse,” 1723, 3 vols. 4to. 5. “Miscellanea Sacra,” 1727, 3 vols. 4to. 6. The Great German Historical Dictionary," 2 vols. folio, and often reprinted, was principally drawn up by our author, and published with his name.

, 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.

Of late years many imitations have been attempted, and many rivals have appeared to Bunyan, but while candour obliges us to allow, in some instances, the goodness of the intention, and that they are written in a style which promises to be useful, it is at the same time justice to our author to say, that they fall very short of his performance in almost every requisite: in simplicity, in the preservation of the allegorical characters, and in that regular and uniform progress which conducts the hero through every scene, and renders every scene and every episode subservient to the main purpose. How well this has been executed, the constant and increasing popularity of the “Pilgrim’s Progress” is sufficient to demonstrate. What pleases all, and pleases long, must have extraordinary merit: and that there is a peculiar fascination about the Pilgrim has never been denied either by those who do not read to be instructed, or “who are averse to the author’s religious opinions. Of this latter, we have a striking instance in dean Swift. In his celebrated Letter to a yeung Clergyman he says,” I have been better entertained, and more informed, by a few pages in the Pilgrim’s Progress, than by a long discourse upon the will, and the intellect, and simple and complex ideas." It must be allowed to be no small merit to have fixed the attention of such a man as Swift, and to have conciliated the esteem of men of critical taste, on account of the powers of invention, and the exercise of a rich and fertile imagination.

, a Nonconformist clergyman, was the son of a schoolmaster at Watford, in Hertfordshire^ and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge. He afterwards became a fellow of Emanuel college, and took his master’s degree. He obtained the living of SuttonColfield, in Warwickshire, in 1635, by the death of the rev. John Burgess, but no relation. He was afterwards one of the assembly of divines, and although inclined to conformity before the rebellion, acquired such opinions on the subject as induced him to submit to ejectment aftet the restoration. Dr. Racket, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, who had a high opinion of his learning, and said he was fit for a professor’s chair in the university, endeavoured by every argument to retain him in the church, but in vain, although Mr. Burgess went to the parish church of Tamworth, where he spent the remainder of his days, and lived in cordiality with the incumbent. At what time he died, is not mentioned. The celebrated Dr. John Wallis was his pupil, and says he was “a pious, learned, and able scholar, a good disputant, a good tutor, an eminent preacher, and a sound and orthodox divine.” (See Hearne’s Langtoft, publisher’s appendix to his preface, p. cxlviii). His principal works are: 1. “Spiritual Refinings; or a Treatise of Grace and Assurance,” 1658, foJ. 2. Sermons on John xvii.“fol. 1656. 3.” The Doctrine of Original Sin,“1659, fol. 4.” Commentary on the 1. and 2. of Corinthians," 1661, 2 vols. fol. with some smaller tracts, and several sermons before the long parliament.

, a moral and political writer, was born at Madderty, in Perthshire, Scotland, in the latter end of the year 1714. His father was minister of that parish, and his mother was aunt to the celebrated historian Dr. Robertson. His grammatical education he received at the school of the place which gave him birth, where he discovered such a quickness and facility in imbibing literary instruction, that his master used to say, that his scholar would soon acquire all the knowledge that it was in his power to communicate. In due time young Burgh was removed to the University of St. Andrew’s, with a view of becoming a clergyman in the church of Scotland; but he did not continue long at the college, on account of a bad state of health, which induced him to lay aside the thoughts of the clerical profession, and enter into trade, in the linen, way; which he was enabled to do with the greater prospect of advantage, as he had lately obtained a handsome fortune by the death of his eldest brother. In business, however, he was not at all successful; for, by giving injudicious credit, he was soon deprived of his property. Not long after this misfortune, he came to London, where his first employment was to correct the press for the celebrated Mr. Bowyer; and at his leisure hours he made indexes. After being engaged about a year in this way, during which, he became acquainted with some friends who were highly serviceable to him in his future plans of life, he removed to Great Marlow, in Buckinghamshire, as an assistant at the free grammar-school of that town; and whilst he continued in this situation, the school is said to have been considerably increased. During his residence at Marlow, he met with only one gentleman who was suited to his own turn of mind. With that gentleman, who was a man of piety, and of extensive reading in divinity, though no classicai scholar, he contracted a particular friendship. At Marlow it was that Mr. Burgh first commenced author, by writing a pamphlet, entitled Britain’s Remembrancer," and which was published, if we mistake not, a little after the beginning of the rebellion, in 1745. This tract contained an enumeration of the national blessings and deliverances which Great Britain had received; with pathetic exhortations to a right improvement of them, by a suitable course of piety and virtue. It appeared without Mr. Burgh’s name, as was the case with his works in general, and was so much read and applauded by persons of a religious temper, that it went through five editions in little more than two years, was reprinted in Scotland, Ireland, and America, and again in London 1766. Mr. Barker, at that time one of the most eminent ministers among the protestant dissenters in London, spoke highly of it, in a sermon preaghed at Salters’-hall and publicly thanked the unknown author, for so seasonable and useful a performance.

, 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.

On May 19, 1685, he was made master of the Charterhouse, by the interest of the duke of Ormond; and soon after commenced LL. D. At what time he entered into orders is not exactly known; but it is plain that he was a clergyman at his election to this mastership, from the objection then made against him by some of the bishops who were governors, namely, “that he generally appeared in a lay-habit,” which was over-ruled by his patron the duke of Ormond, by asserting in his favour, that he had no living or other ecclesiastical preferment; and that his life and conversation were in all respects suitable to the clerical character. In the latter end of 1686, Dr. Burnet’s integrity, prudence, and resolution, were fully tried in his new station, upon the following occasion: one Andrew Popham, a Roman Catholic, came to the Charter-house, with a letter from king James to the governors, requiring them to choose and admit him the said Andrew Popham a pensioner thereof, “without tendering any oath or oaths unto him, or requiring of him any subscription, recognition, or other act or acts, in conformity to the doctrine and discipline of the church of England as the same is now established; and notwithstanding any statute, order, or constitution, of or in the said hospital; with which, says his majesty, we are graciously disposed to dispense in his behalf.” On the meeting of the governors, the king’s letter was read, and the lord chancellor Jefferies moved, that without any debate they should proceed to vote whether Andrew Popham should be admitted a pensioner of the hospital, according to the king’s letter. The master, Dr. Burnet, as the junior, was to vote first, but he told the governors, that he thought it was his duty to acquaint their lordships with the state and constitution of that hospital; and, though this was opposed by some, yet, after a little debate, he proceeded to observe, that to admit a pensioner into the hospital without his taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, was not only contrary to the constitution of the ho&pital, but to an express act of parliament for the better establishment thereof. One of the governors asked what this was to the purpose? The duke of Ormond replied, that he thought it much to the purpose; for an act of parliament was not so slight a thing as not to deserve a consideration. After some other discourse, the question was put, whether Popham should be admitted? and passed in the negative. A second letter from the king was afterwards sent; to which the governors, in a letter addressed to his majesty, humbly replied, and gave their reasons why they could not admit Andrew Popham as a pensioner of the hospital. This not satisfying king James, he ordered chancellor Jefferies to find out a way how he might compel their submission, and the master was particularly threatened to be summoned before the ecclesiastical commissioners. But his subsequent quarrels with the universities, and the commotions which followed, prevented any farther proceeding on the part of the king. This was the first stand made against the dispensing power of that reign, by any society in England, and was of great importance to the public, A relation of the Charter-house proceedings upon this occasion was published by Dr. Burnet in 1689. After the revolution, he was introduced to court by his tutor and friend, archbishop Tillotson, and was made chaplain to the king, and soon after, clerk of the closet. He was now considered as in the high road to great preferment, and had certainly a fine prospect before him; when he ruined all by some unadvised strokes of his pen. In 1692 he published “Archæologiæ philosophiæ; sive doctrina antiqua de rerum originibus,” 4to, with a dedication to king William, whose character he diws with great strength of genius and art, and in that beautiful style which was peculiar to himself. But neither the high rank and authority of his patron, nor the elegance and learning displayed throughout the work, could protect the author from the clamours raised against him for allegorizing in a very indelicate manner the scripture account of the fall of Adam and Eve. In consequence of which, as appears from a Latin letter written by himself to Walters, a bookseller at Amsterdam, dated Sept. 14, 1694, he desires to have the most offensive parts omitted in the future editions of that work. He had expressed himself to the same purpose, some time before the date of this letter, in a Latin epistle, “Ad virum clarissimum circa nuper editum de Archæologiis Philosophicis libellum;” where he says, that he cheerfully wished that any passages which have given offence to the pious and wise, and particularly the dialogue between Eve and the Serpent, may be expunged. The person to whom this letter is addressed, and also a second afterwards upon the same subject, was generally understood to be archbishop Tillotson. Both the letters are subjoined to the second edition of “Archæologiæ philosophicæ,” printed in 1728, in 8vo, and in both he acknowledges sacred scripture, whether literally or mystically understood, to be given us from heaven, as the rule of our faith, the guide of our life, and the refuge of our salvation; and professes to pay to it all possible respect, honour, and veneration.

, 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.”

He perhaps wrote upon a greater variety of subjects than any other clergyman of his time. Among his works are enumerated: 1. “Heroici characteres, ad illustriss. equitem Henricum Nevillum,” Oxon. 1603, 4to. Several of his Latin verses are also in the university-book of verses made on the death of sir Philip Sidney, in “Bodleiomnema,” and in other books. 2. “Tithes examined, and proved to be due to the Clergy by a Divine Right,”- Lond. 1606, and '1611, 4to. 3. “Jurisdiction Regal, Episcopal, Papal: Wherein is declared how the Pope hath intruded upon the jurisdiction of Temporal Princes,and of the Church, &c.” Lond. 1610, 4to. 4. “Consensus Ecclesiae Catholicse contra Tridentinos, de Scripturis, Ecclesia, fide, & gratia,” &c. Lond. 1613, 8vo. 5. “A thankful! Remembrance of God’s Mercy. In an Historicall Collection of the great and mercifull Deliverances of the Church and State of England, since the Gospel began ne here to flourish, from the beginning of queene Elizabeth,” Loud. 1614; the third edition came out in 1627, and the fourth in 16 Jo. The historical part is chiefly extracted from Camden’s Annals of queen Elizabeth; and the latter editions are adorned at the beginning of each chapter, with figures engraved in copper, representing the most material things contained in the ensuing description. 6. “Short Directions to know the true Church,” Loud. 1615, &c. 12mo. 7. “Oration made at the Hague before the prince of Orange, and the Assembly of the high and mighty lords, the States General,” Lond. 1619, in one sheet and a half, 4to. 8. “Astrologimania or, the Madness of Astrologers or, an Examination of sir Christopher Heydon’s book entitled ' A Defence of judicial Astrology 1” written about the year 1604, and published at London, 1624, 4to, by Thomas Vicars, B. D. who had married the author’s daughter. It was reprinted at London, 1651. 9. “Examination of those things wherein the Author of the late Appeal (Montague afterwards bishop of Chichester) holdeth the Doctrine of Pelagians and Arminians, to be the Doctrines of the Church of England,” Lond. 1626, and 16S6, 4to. 10. “A joynt Attestation, avowing that the Discipline of the Church of England was not impeached by the Synod of Dort,” Lond. 1628, 4to. 11. “Vita Bernardi Gilpini, viri sanctiss. farnaque apud Anglos aquilonares celeberrimi,” Lond. 1626, 4to, inserted in Dr. W. Bates’s Collection of Lives, Lond. lf.81, 4to. It was also published in English, under this title, “The Life of Bernard Gilpin, a man most holy and renowned amongthe Northerne English,” Lond. 1629, 4to, and 1636, 8vo. 12. “Testimony concerning the Presbyterian discipline in the Low-countries, and Episcopal government in England,” printed several times in 4to and- 8vo, and at London in particular, in 1642, in one sheet. 13. Latin Letter to Mr. Camden, containing some Notes and Observations on his Britannia. Printed by Dr. Smith amongst “Camdeni Epistolae,” N 80. 14-. Several Sermons. 15. He had also a hand in the Dutch Annotations, and in the new translation of the Bible, undertaken by order of the Synod of Dort, but not completed and published till 1637. Two of hU letters to sir Dudley Carleton, are in lord Hardwicke’s publication of sir Dudley’s correspondence. By his first wife, Anne, daughter of sir Henry Killegrew, knt. and widow of sir Henry Neville, of Billingbere, in Berkshire, he had a son, Henry, who was chosen representative for Arundel, in Sussex, in the short parliament which met at Westminster on the 13th -of April 1640. Mr. Henry Carleton embraced the cause of the house of commons in the civil war with king Charles the First, accepted a captain’s commission in the parliamentary army, and in other respects did no honour to his father.

, an English clergyman o great learning and parts, was born in the parsonage-house of North- Lew (not Northlegh, as Wood says), near Hatherlegh, in Devonshire, Feb. 7, 1588. His father, John Carpenter, a native of Cornwall, was at that time rector of this place, and author of some sermons enumerated by Wood. His son, after a private education, was entered of Edmund hall, Oxford; and in 1607, by the casting vote of the vice-chancellor, was elected fellow of Exeter college, to which he removed, and became distinguished as a logician, mathematician, and philosopher.- He took his degree of B. A. in 1610, of M. A. in 1613, and of B. D. in 1620, and soon after completing his master’s degree, entered into holy orders, and had the reputation of a very popular divine. About 1626 he became acquainted with

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.

, a clergyman of the episcopal church in Scotland, was born at Newcastle, Feb. 16, 1704, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts. Soon after his return to Newcastle he went into orders, and in 1737 was appointed senior clergyman of the episcopal chapel at Edinburgh, where he spent the remainder of his days, and officiated for the space of thirty-nine years. On the morning of Sunday, August 18, 1776, as he was preparing to go to the chapel, he suddenly expired. Three volumes of his “Sermons” were published in the following year, 12mo, by sir William Forbes, bart. who undertook the task of selecting these from his numerous manuscripts. On his private and public character, sir William lived to express himself with zeal and affection thirty years after the decease of his friend, and says of his “Sermons,” that although they do not contain the profound reasonings of Butler, nor the elegant discussions of Sherlock; neither the learning of Tillotson, nor the declamation of Seed, they exhibit the most useful and important truths of the gospel, not only with plainness and perspicuity, but in language always elegant and seldom incorrect. Dr. Beattie, on the occasion of his death, said, that “to his merits as a preacher, great as they were, the lustre of his private character was still superior,” and that " the death of such a man was a real loss to society.

, 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.

, an English lady of profound learning and genius, was the eldest daughter of the rev. Dr. Nicholas Carter, a clergyman in Kent, who, with other preferment, held the cure of the chapel of Deal, where this daughter was born, Dec. 16, 1717, and educated by her father. At first she discovered such a slowness of faculties, as to make him despair of her progress ia intellectual attainment, even with the aid of the greatest industry, and the most ardent desire, which characterized her efforts. She herself, however, though mortified and sorrowful at her own difficulties, resolved to persevere, and her perseverance was crowned with unexampled success. She early became mistress of Latin, Greek, French, German, and afterwards understood Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Hebrew, and last of all acquired something of Arabic. Before she was seventeen years of age, many of her poetical attempts had appeared, particularly in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1734, with the signature of Eliza. This extraordinary display of genius and acquirements procured her immediate celebrity, and the learned flocked about her with admiration. In 1738, when she was about twenty, Cave, the proprietor of the Gentleman’s Magazine, published some of her poems in a quarto pamphlet, now little known, as it was published without her name. It is probable she did not think many of these worthy of her; as in 1762, when she published a small collection with her name, she admitted only two from the former publication, the “Lines on her birth-day,” and the “Ode of Anacreon.”

The late duke of Newcastle used to say of lord Granville, that he was a man who never doubted. From his lordship’s acknowledged literature, it may naturally be supposed that he patronized learned men and learned undertakings. His regard for Dr. Swift, and his attention to the dean’s recommendations, we have already mentioned. He assisted and encouraged Mr. Lye, in his edition of Junius’s Etymologicon, and the learned Mrs. Grierson of Dublin, when he was lord lieutenant of Ireland. Of Dr. Taylor, the celebrated Grecian, he was the particular patron. The doctor owed his principal preferments to lord Granville; and has testified his gratitude, in the dedication of his Demosthenes, by warmly celebrating his lordship’s excellencies, and especially his eloquence, and his eminent skill in the ancient and modern languages. Our learned peer engaged Dr. Bentley to undertake an edition of Homer, and was very active in procuring the doctor the use of manuscripts, and- other necessary aids, for that purpose. Dr, Bentley, when he came to town, was accustomed, in his visits to lord Carteret, sometimes to spend the evenings with his lordship. One day ojjl lady Granville reproached her son with keeping the country tler^yman, who was with him the night before, till he was intoxicated. Lord Carteret denied the charge; upon which the lady replied, that the clergyman could not have sung in so ridiculous a manner, unless he had been in liquor. The truth was, that the singing thus mistaken by her ladyship, was Dr. Bentley’s endeavour to instruct and entertain his noble friend, by reciting Terence according to the? true cantilena of the ancients.

, a country girl of the name of Martha, which she changed for Catherine when she embraced the Greek religion, and came to be empress of Russia, was born in 1688, of very indigent parents, who lived at Ringen, a small village not far from Dorpat, on the lake Vitcherve, in Livonia. While yet only three years old, she lost her father, who left her with no other support than what an infirm and sickly mother could afford her; whose labour was barely sufficient to procure them a scanty maintenance. She was handsome, of a good figure, and gave intimations of a quick understanding. Her mother had taught hereto read, and an old Lutheran clergyman, of the name of Gluck, instructed her in the principles of that persuasion. Scarcely had she attained her fifteenth year, when she lost her mother. The good pastor took her home to him, and employed her in attending his children. Catherine availed herself of the lessons in music and dancing that were given them by their masters; but the death of her benefactor, which happened not long after her reception into his family, plunged her once more into the extremity of indigence; and her country being now become the seat of vv.-r between Sweden and Russia, she went to seek an asylum at Marienburg. In 1701 she espoused a dragoon of the Swedish garrison of that fortress. If we are to believe some authors, the very day that these two lovers had fixed on for plighting their faith at the altar, Marienburg was besieged by the Russians; the lover, who was on duty, was obliged to march with his troop to repel the attack, and perished in the action, before the marriage was consummated. Marienburg was at last carried by assault; when general Bauer, seeing Catherine among the prisoners, a'nd being smitten with her youth and beauty, took her to his house, where she superintended his domestic affairs, and was supposed to be his mistress. Soon afterwards she was removed into the family of prince Menzicof, who was no less struck with the attractions of the fair captive: with him she lived till 1704, when, in the seventeenth year of her age, she became the mistress of Peter the Great, and won so much upon his affections, that he espoused her on the 29th of May, 1711. The ceremony was secretly performed at Yaverhof, in Poland, in the presence of general Bruce; and on the 20th of February, 1712, it was publicly solemnized with great pomp at Petersburg; on which occasion she received the diadem and the sceptre from the hands of her husband. After the death of that prince, in 1725, she was proclaimed sovereign empress of all the Russias. In this high station she shewed herself not unworthy of reigning, by endeavouring to complete some of the grand designs which the tzar had begun. The first thing she did on her accession to the imperial dignity, was to cause all the gibbets to be taken down, and all the implements of torture to be destroyed. She instituted a new order of knighthood, in honour of St. Alexander Nefski; and performed some other actions that bespoke a greatness of mind not to be expected from her, although some of these have been rather exaggerated. She attended Peter the Great in his expeditions, and rendered him essential services in the unfortunate affair of Pruth; it was she who advised the tzar to tempt the vizir by presents; which succeeded beyond expectation. It cannot, however, be dissembled, that she had an attachment which excited the jealousy of the tzar. The favoured object was a chamberlain of the court, originally from France, named mons. de la Croix. The tzar Peter caused him to be decapitated, under pretence of some treasonable correspondence; after which he had his head stuck on a pike, and placed in one of the public places of Petersburg. In order that his empress might contemplate at leisure the view of the mangled carcase of her lover, he drove her across this place in all directions, and even conducted her to the foot of the scaffold. Catherine had address or firmness enough to restrain her tears. This princess has been suspected of not being favourably disposed towards the tzarevitsh Alexius, who died under the displeasure of his father. As the eldest born, and sprung from the first marriage, he excluded from the succession the children of Catherine: this is perhaps the sole foundation on which that reproach has been built.

Of his grace’s literary labours, it is less possible to entertain a high opinion. Except the first article we shall mention, they may be passed over with very slight notice as the amusements of a nobleman, who, with a strong attachment to poetry, and the polite arts, was not qualified to advance either, unless by his patronage. It has been remarked by Granger, with a sneer borrowed from Strawberry-hill, that “the duke of Newcastle was so attached to the muses, that he could not leave them behind him, but carried them to the camp, and made Davenant, the poet-laureat, his lieutenant-general of the ordnance.” Why did he not add, that his scout-master-general was a clergyman, the rev. Mr. Hudson, and that the celebrated Chillingworth served in the engineers? The fact was, that after Davenant, at the risk of his life, returned to England to devote himself to the king’s service, the duke did promote him to the above office, and his majesty bestowed the honour of knighthood on him for his able and judicious conduct at the siege of Gloucester. While the duke was permitted to devote his time, his health, and his fortune, to the royal cause, he never suffered his thoughts to stray far from his employment. It was in his exile, that being extremely fond of the breaking and managing^ horses, which is now almost entirely left to grooms and jockies, he thought fit to publish his sentiments on those subjects in a work we are about to notice, and which is still held in high esteem. He also, for the amusement of his leisure hours, applied himself to dramatic poetry, the produce of which, says Mr. Reed, cannot but give us a strong idea of his fortitude and cheerfulness of temper, even under the greatest difficulties, since, though written during his. banishment, and in the midst of depression and poverty, all the pieces he has left us in that way of writing are of the comic kind.

, 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.

, a late clergyman of the church of England, was born in Chiswell-street, London, on -Nov. 8, 1743. His father and grandfather were scarlet-dyers to the East India company. His mother was the only child of Mr. Grosvenor, a merchant of London, and was a strict dissenter, but his father belonged to the established church. In his early years his father intended him for business, but the son had a stronger predilection for general literature; and the success of some juvenile attempts, inserted in the periodical journals, with a taste for music and painting, diverted him still more from trade. At length his father determined to give him an university education, and, by the advice of Dr. Phanuel Bacon, an old acquaintance, sent him to Oxford, where he entered of Queen’s college, May 19, 1773. Before this he had fallen into a course of reading which dispelled the religious education of his infancy, and had made him almost a confirmed infidel. Previously, however, to going to the university, he had recovered from this infatuation, and became noted for that pious conduct and principles which he maintained through life. With his studies he combined his former attachment to the fine arts, particularly music and painting, and might be deemed a connoisseur in both, and upon most subjects of polite literature manifested a critical taste and relish for the productions of genius and imagination, of both which he had himself no small portion. In 1776 he was ordained deacon, and in 1777 priest, having only taken his bachelor’s degree, after which he withdrew his name from the college books, and exercised his talents as a preacher in some churches in Lancashire. Soon after, by the interest of some friends, two small livings were obtained for him at Lewes in Sussex, together in value only about 80l. a year. These he did not long enjoy, a rheumatic affection in his head obliging him to employ a curate, the expence of which required the whole of the income, but he continued to hold them for some years, and occasionally preached at Lewes. Removing to London, he officiated in different churches and chapels, particularly the chapel in Orangestreet and thai in Long-acre, &c. In 1780 he was invited to undertake the duty of the chapel of St. John’s, in Bedford-row, and by the assistance of some friends who advanced considerable sums of money, was enabled to repair it, and collected a most numerous and respectable congregation. But for many years he derived little emolument I from it, as he devoted the produce of the pews most conscientiously to the discharge of the debts incurred. Even in 1798, a debt of 500l. remained on it, which his friends and hearers, struck with his honourable conduct, generously defrayed by a subscription. In this year appeared that complaint, of the schirrous kind, which more or less afflicted him with excruciating pain during the remainder of his life, and frequently interrupted his public labours, but which he bore with incredible patience and constancy. In 1800 he was presented by the trustees of John Tiiornton, esq. to the livings of Chobham and Bisley in Surrey, by which 150l. was added to his income, the remainder of their produce being required to provide a substitute at St. John’s chapel, and defraying the necessary travelling expences. In these parishes, notwithstanding the precarious state of his health, he pursued his ministerial labours with unabated assiduity, and conciliated the affections of his people by his affectionate addresses, as well as by an accommodation in the matter of tithes, which prevented all disputes. In 1807 and 1808 two paralytic attacks undermined his constitution, and at length terminated in a fit of apoplexy, which proved fatal August 15, 1810. Few men have left a character more estimable in every quality that regards personal merit, or public services, but for the detail of these we must refer to the “Memoirs” prefixed to an edition of his Works, in 4 vols. 8vo, published in 1811 for the benefit of his family. Such was the regard in which he was held, that the whole of this edition of 1250 copies, was subscribed for by his friends and congregation. The first volume contains his “Life of Mr. Cadogan,” printed separately in 1798; that of “John Bacon, esq. the celebrated sculptor,” in 1801; and that of the “Rev. John Newton” in 1808. Vol. II. contains his “Miscellanies,” practical tracts published in the course of his life vol. Ill; his “Sermons,” and vol. IV. his “Remains,” consisting of remarks made by Mr. Cecil in conversation with the editor (the rev. Josiah Pratt, B. D.) or in discussions when he was present, with an appendix communicated by some friends.

, a protestant clergyman, was born at Nismes in 1640, and being obliged to leave his country upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes, went to Rotterdam, and afterwards to Berlin, where he became professor of philosophy. He died in 1725 at the age of eighty-five. He published, 1. A “Lexicon philosophicum,” Rotterdam, 1692, fol. and at Leuwarden, 1713, with plates. 2. A new “Journal des Savans,” begun in 1694 at Rotterdam, and continued at Berlin, but less esteemed than the “Histoire des Ouvrages des Sçavans” by Basnage, who on the continent was considered as a better writer, and a man of more taste.

, a doctor and librarian of the Sorbonne, was born at Pontoise in the isle of France in 1636, of poor parents. One of his uncles, a clergyman of Veaux in the diocese of Rouen, undertook his education, and afterwards sent him to Paris, where he took his degrees in divinity, and he was received into the house and society of the Sorbonne in 1658, where he was equally admired for learning, piety, and charity, often stripping himself to clothe the poor, and even selling his books to relieve them, which, all book-collectors will agree, was no small stretch of benevolence. Having been appointed librarian to the Sorbonne, his studies in that collection produced a valuable work, well known to bibliographers, entitled “Origine de I'lmprimerie de Paris, dissertation historique et critique,” Paris, 1694, 4to. Maittaire frequently quotes from this dissertation. 2. A translation, or rather paraphrase of the “Grand Canon de l'Eglise Grecque,” written by Andrew of Jerusalem, archbishop of Candy, Paris, 1699, 12mo. He also published in 1664, a Latin dissertation on the council of Chalcedon, on formularies of faith, and had some hand in the catalogue of prohibited books which appeared in 1685. Chevillier died Sept. 8, 1700.

In consequence of the free mode of living in which our author had for some time indulged himself, besides the ill consequences that have been already mentioned, he at length brought on himself, as he informs us, an autumnal intermittent fever; but this he removed in a few weeks by taking the bark. He afterwards went on tolerably well for about a year, though neither so clear in his faculties, nor so gay in his temper, as he had formerly been. But the following autumn, he was suddenly seized with a vertiginous paroxysm, so alarming in its nature, as to approach nearly to a fit of an apoplexy. By degrees, his disorder turned to a constant violent head-ach, giddiness, and lowness of spirits upon which he entirely left off suppers, which he never resumed, and also confined himself at dinner to a small quantity of animal food, drinking but very little fermented liquors." The decline of his health and spirits occasioned him to be deserted by many of his more airy and jovial companions; and this circumstance contributed to the increase of his melancholy. He soon after retired into the country, into a fine air, and lived very low; and at this time he employed himself in the perusal of some of the most valuable theological writers. He bad never, even in his freer moments, deserted the great principles of natural religion and morality; but in his present retirement he made divine revelation the more immediate object of his attention. The books that he read were recommended to him by a worthy and learned clergyman of the church of England, whom he does not name, but whom he represents to be the man, that of all his numerous acquaintance, he the most wished to resemble.

One of his, first publications in these sciences appeared in 1721, and was entitled, “Inscriptio Sigæa antiquissima Βουστροφηδον exarata. Commentario earn HistoricoGrammatico-Critico illustravit Edmundus Chishull, S.T.B. regiae majestati à sacris,” folio. This was followed by “Notarum ad inscriptionem Sigaeam appendicula; addita a Sigaeo altera Antiochi Soteris inscriptione,” folio, in fifteen pages, without a date. Both these pieces were afterwards incorporated in his “Antiquitates Asiaticae.” When Dr. Mead, in 1724, published his Harveian oration, delivered in the preceding year at the royal college of physicians, Mr. Chishull added to it, by way of appendix, “Dissertatio de Nummis quibusdam a Smyrnseis in Medicorum honorem percussis,” which gave rise to a controversy very interesting to the professors of the medical art, and amusing to the learned world in general. The question was, whether the physicians of ancient Rome were not usually vile and despicable slaves, or whether there were not some, at least, among them, who enjoyed the privileges of a free condition, and the respect due to their services. The history of this controversy will be found in the articles of Mead and Middleton; but Mr. Chishull has not been deemed happy in all his explanations of the Smyrnsean inscriptions. In 1728 appeared in folio, his great work, “Antiquitates Asiaticoe Christianam Æram antecedentes ex primariis Monumentis Graecis descriptae, Latine versae, Notisque et Commentariis illustratae. Accedit Monumentum Latinum Ancyranum.” Dr. Mead contributed fifty-one guineas, Dr. William Sherard twenty, and Dr. Lisle five guineas towards this book, which was published by subscription, at one guinea the common copy, and two o-uineas the royal paper. The work contains a collection of inscriptions made by consul Sherard, Dr. Picenini, and Dr. Lisle, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph, which was deposited in the earl of Oxford’s library, and is now in the British Museum. Mr. Chislmll added to the “Antiquitates Asiatics;” two small pieces which he had before published, viz. “Conjectaneade Nummo Ckhiii inscripto,” and “her Asite Poeticum,” addressed to the rev. John Horn. Our author not having succeeded in his explication of an inscription to Jupiter Ourios, afterwards cancelled it, and substituted a different interpretation by Dr. Ashton, which was more satisfactory; but our author did not submit in, this case with so good a grace as might have been wished, and was reasonably to be expected. He added also, at the same time, another half sheet, with the head of Homer, of which only fifty copies 'were printed. He had formed the design of publishing a second volume, under the title of “Antiquitates Asiatics? pars altera diversa, diversarum Urbium inscripta Marmora complectens,” and the printing was begun; but the author’s death put a stop to the progress of it, and the manuscript was purchased at Dr. Askew’s sale in 1785 for the British Museum, for about 60l. It is to be regretted that the learned Thomas Tyrwhitt declined being the editor of this second volume. Mr. ChishulPs printed books were sold by a marked catalogue by Whiston in 1735. In 1731, Mr. Chishull was presented to the rectory of South-church in Essex. This preferment he did not long live to enjoy; for he departed the present life at Walthamstow, on the 18th of May, 1733. Mr. Clarke, of Chichester, writing to Mr. Bowyer, says, “I was very sorry for Mr. Chishull' s death as a public loss.” That our author sustained an excellent character, as a clergyman and a divine, cannot be doubted. Two letters, written by him to his friend Mr. Bowyer, and which Mr. Nichols has preserved, are evident proofs both of the piety and benevolence “of his disposition. With respect to his literary abilities, Dr. Taylor styles him” Vir celeberrimus ingenii acumine et literarum peritia, quibus excellebat maxime;“and Dr. Mead has bestowed a high encomium upon him, in the preface which introduces Mr. ChishulPs Dissertation on the Smyrnxan Coins. The same eminent physician testified his regard to the memory of his learned friend, by publishing in 1747 our author’s” Travels in Turkey, and back to England," fol. They were originally published at a guinea, in sheets, and in 1759, the remaining copies, which were numerous, were advertised by the proprietors at fourteen shillings bound.

The success of the Rosciad,“and of” The Apology," opened new prospects to their author. He saw in his genius a source of plentiful emolument, but unfortunately also he contemplated it as an object of terror, which might be employed against the friends of virtue, with whom he no longer thought it necessary to keep any terms. While insulting public decency by the grossest immorality, he aimed his vengeance on those who censured him, with a sprightliness of malignity and force of ridicule which he deemed irresistible. His conduct, as a clergyman, had long shocked his parishioners, and incurred at length the displeasure of Dr. Pearce, the dean of Westminster, who remonstrated as became his station. But Churchill was now too far gone in profligacy, and being, as his friends have been pleased to say, too honest to dissemble, he resigned his curacy and lectureship *, and with this acknowledged sacrifice to depravity, threw off all the external restraints which his former character might be thought to impose. That his contempt for the clerical dress might be more notorious, he was seen at all public places habited in a blue coat with metal buttons, a gold-laced waistcoat, a gold-laced hat, and rufHes.

, duke of Marlborough, and prince of the holy Roman empire, was eldest son of sir Winston Churchill, and born at Ashe in Devonshire on Midsummerday in 1650. A clergyman in the neighbourhood instructed him in the first principles of literature, and he was for some time educated at St. Paul’s school but his father, having other views than what a learned education afforded, carried him to court in the twelfth year of his age, where he was particularly favoured by James duke of York. He had a pair of colours given him in the guards, during the first Dutch war, about 1666; and afterwards obtained leave to go over to Tangier, then in our hands, and besieged by the Moors, where he resided for some time, and cultivated the science of arms. Upon his return to England, he attended constantly at court, and was greatly respected by both the king and the duke. In 1672, the duke of Monmouth commanding a body of English auxiliaries in the service of France, Churchill attended him, and was soon after made a captain of grenadiers in his grace’s own regiment. He had a share in all the actions of that famous campaign against the Dutch; and at the siege of Nimeguen, distinguished himself so much, that he was particularly taken notice of by the celebrated marshal Turenne, who bestowed on him the name of the handsome Englishman. He appeared also to so much advantage at the reduction of Maestricht, that the French king thanked him for his behaviour at the head of the line, and assured him that he would acquaint his sovereign with it, which the duke of Monmouth also confirmed, telling the king his father how much he had been indebted to the bravery of captain Churchill.

After this paper had been before the upper house, being apprehensive that, if it should be published separately, as afterwards happened, without any true account of the preceding and following circumstances, it might be misunderstood in some particulars, he caused an explanation, dated July 5, to be presented to the bishop of London, the next time the upper house met: setting forth, “That whereas the paper laid before their lordships the Friday before, was, through haste and want of time, not drawn up with sufficient exactness, he thought himself indispensably obliged in conscience to acquaint their lordships, that he did not mean thereby to retract any thing he had written, but to declare that the opinion set forth at large in his Scripture Doctrine, &c. is, that the Son was eternally begotten by the eternal incomprehensible power and will of the Father, &c. and that, by declaring he did not intend to write any more concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, he did not preclude himself from a liberty of making any inoffensive corrections in his former books, if they should come to another edition, or from vindicating himself against any misrepresentations or aspersions, which might possibly hereafter be cast upon him, on occasion of this controversy.” After the delivery of this explanation, the upper house resolved, July 5,. to proceed no farther upon the extract, laid before them by the lower house and ordered Dr. Clarke’s papers to be entered in the acts of that house. But the lower house, not so satisfied, resolved, July 7, that the paper subscribed by Dr. Clarke, and communicated to them by the bishops, does not contain in it any recantation of the heretical assertions and offensive passages complained of in their representation, and afterwards produced in their extract; nor gives such satisfaction for the great scandal occasioned thereby, as ought to put a stop to any farther examination and censure thereof. Thus ended. this affair; the most authentic account of which we have in a piece entitled, “An Apology for Dr. Clarke, containing an account of the late proceedings in convocation, upon his writings concerning the Trinity, 1714, 8vo,” written, Whiston tells us, by a clergyman in the country, a common friend of his and Dr. Clarke’s, with the knowledge and assistance of the latter. The “Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,” as we have observed, was first published in 1712; afterwards there was a second edition, with many alterations, in 1710; and there has been, since his death, a third edition, with very great additions, left under the doctor’s hand ready prepared for the press. Bishop Hoadly assures us, in opposition to those who have supposed Clarke to have retracted his notions concerning the Trinity, that, “from the time of publishing this book to the day of his death, he found no reason, as far as he was able to judge, to alter the notions which he there professed.” Mr. Whitaker, in his “Origin of Arianism disclosed,” has taken uncommon pains to support the truth of chevalier Ramsay’s assertion, that Dr. Clarke greatly repented of his ever having published his work upon the Trinity. The testimonies on the other side of the question Mr. Whitaker endeavours to reconcile, by supposing that the doctor occasionally avowed his repentance, and yet continued his practices. He avowed fully “to Mr. Ramsay what he was too timid to avow to his son, to a Hoadly, or to an Emlyn; and what he even took pains to conceal from them, in a seeming continuance of opinion, and in an actual perseverance of conduct.” All this, however, has been most confidently denied by Dr. Clarke’s friends.

The character of Dr. Clarke has been thus drawn by Dr. Hare, bishop of Chichester, and by bishop Hoadly. Dr. Hare, in his pamphlet entitled “The difficulties and discouragements which attend the study of the Scripture, in the way of private judgement,” says that he is “a man who has all the good qualities that can meet together to recommend him. He is possessed of all the parts of learning that are valuable in a clergyman, in a degree that few possess any single one. He has joined to a good skill in the three learned languages a great compass of the best philosophy and mathematics, as appears by his Latin works; and his English ones are such a proof of his own piety, and of his knowledge in divinity, and have done so much service to religion, as would make any other man, that was not under the suspicion of heresy, secure of the friendship and esteem of all good churchmen, especially of the clergy. And to all this piety and learning, and the good use that has been made of it, is added a temper happy beyond expression: a sweet, easy, modest, inoffensive, obliging behaviour adorns all his actions; and no passion, vanity, insolence, or ostentation, appears either in what he writes or says: and yet these faults are often incident to the best men, in the freedom of conversation, and writing against impertinent and unreasonable adversaries, especially such as strike at the foundation of virtue and religion. This is the learning, this the temper of the man, whose study of the scriptures has betrayed him into a suspicion of some heretical opinions.”

, an eminent French protestant clergyman, was born at Sauvetat in the province of Angenois, in 1619, and studied grammar and philosophy under his father Francis Claude, also a minister, ~and a man of great piety, and afterwards went through a course of divinity at Montauban, where he was ordained in 1645. He was made minister of the church of la Treyne, where he officiated a year, and then became minister of a church of St. Afric in Rovergne and eight years after, pastor of that of Nismes. As the protestants had an university in the city of Nismes, Claude had an opportunity of displaying one of his chief talents, that of happily explaining a theological subject; and he used to read private lectures to such as were candidates for the ministry. He had undertaken to refute the piece called “The Method,” which was written by cardinal Richelieu against the protestants; but hearing that Martel, an eminent professor of divinity, had a synodical commission for that purpose, he laid aside that design. Havfng opposed, in the synod of the Lower Languedoc, a person whom the court had won over to attempt a re-union between the Roman catholics and protestants, he was forbid, by a decree of council, the functions of a minister in Languedoc, after he had exercised them eight years at Nismes. He went to Paris to get this resolution taken off; and, after staying there six months to no purpose, he went to Montauban, preached the day after his arrival, and accepted an offer from the people of that church.

Soon after Dr. Clayton’s marriage, he went with his lady to England, and while at London, a person in distressed circumstances applied to him for assistance, with the testimony of Dr. Samuel Clarke for a recommendation, upon which, instead of the usual donation on such occasions, he gave to the necessitous man the sum of three hundred pounds, which was the whole that he wanted to make him easy in the world. This circumstance introduced him to Dr. Clarke, and the result of their acquaintance was, Dr. Clayton’s embracing the Arian principles, to which he adhered during the remainder of his life. Dr. Clarke having carried to queen Caroline an account of Dr. Clayton’s remarkable beneficence, it made a powerful impression on her majesty’s mind in favour of his character; which impression was strongly enforced by her bed-chamber woman, Mrs. Clayton, afterwards lady Sundon. Such a powerful interest procured an immediate recommendation to lord Carteret, then chief governor of Ireland, for the very first bishopric tbat should become vacant, and accordingly, he was advanced to that of Killala, January 1729-30. In this situation he continued till November 1735, when he was translated to the see of Cork, and in 1745 to that of Clogher. Excepting a letter written to the royal society upon a subject of no great consequence, his first publication was an “Introduction to the History of the Jews,” which was afterwards translated into French, and printed at Leyden. His next work was “The Chronology of the Hebrew Bible vindicated: the facts compared with other ancient histories, and the difficulties explained, from the flood to the death of Moses; together with some conjectures in relation to Egypt during that period of time; also two maps, in which are attempted to be settled the journeyings of the children of Israel,” 1747, 4to, and containing a variety of observations which deserve the attention of the learned reader. In 1749 he published a “Dissertation on Prophecy,” in which he endeavoured to shew, from a joint comparison of the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelation of St. John, that the final end of the dispersion of the Jews will be coincident with the ruin of the popedom, and take place about 2000. This was followed by an “Impartial Enquiry into the time of the coming of the Messiah,” in two letters to an eminent Jew, printed first separately, and then together, in 1751. In the same year (1751), appeared the “Essay on Spirit,” a performance which excited very general attention, and was productive of a fruitful controversy. Its object was to recommend the Arian doctrine of the inferiority of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to prepare the way for suitable alterations in the Liturgy. His biographer, who is at the same time his warm panegyrist, allows that in this performance he has indulged too freely in imagination and conjecture; and that he might have confined the question with greater advantage to the direct and simple standard of Scripture. The work, after all, was not Dr. Clayton’s, but one of his adoption, the real authoi being a young clergyman in his diocese, who shewed the manuscript to his lordship, but had not the courage to print it in his own name. The bishop, with what is called a romantic generosity, conveyed it to the press, and managed the affair in such a manner, that the treatise was universally ascribed to him in all the attacks to which it was exposed, and the sentiments certainly were his. One effect of this conduct was, his being prevented from rising higher in the church. In 1752, he was recommended by the duke of Dorset, then viceroy of Ireland, to the vacant archbishopric of Tuam, but this was refused, solely on account of his being regarded as the writer of the Essay.

, rector of Whatfield, and vicar of Debenham, in Suffolk, was the son of the rev. George Clubbe, M. A. of Catherine-hall, Cambridge, and was born in 1703. He was admitted of King’s-college, Cambridge, by an unlucky mistake of an uacle, who did not know until too late, that his not proceeding from Eton school was a bar to his promotion in that college. He left it, therefore, after talcing his bachelor’s degree, in 1725. At what time he was presented to his livings, is not mentioned. He married one of Dr. Jortin’s daughters, by whom he had a large family. He had the misfortune to lose his sight some time before his death, March 2, 1773, but never his placid and agreeable humour. His publications, besides a single “Sermon” before the incorporated Society for the Relief of Clergymen’s Widows and Orphans at Ipswich, 1751, are, 1. “The History and Antiquities of the ancient villa of Wheatfield, in the county of Suffolk,” 1758; an admirable piece of irony at the expence of modern antiquaries, which was reprinted by Dodsley in the second volume of his “Fugitive Pieces.” 2. “Physiognomy; being a. sketch of a larger work upon the same plan, wherein the different tempers, passions, and manners of men, will be particularly considered.” 3. “A Letter of free advice to a young Clergyman,” 1763.

A considerable part of the summer of 1707 was spent by Mrs. Trotter at Ockham- Mills, near Ripley, in the county of Surrey. During her retirement there, Mr. Fenn, a young clergyman of an excellent character, paid his addresses to her, but she had previously engaged in a correspondence by letters with Mr. Cockburn , which terminated in a mirriage in the beginning of 1708. Mr. Cockburn had taken orders in the church of England but a short time before his marriage; and soon after that event, he had the donative of Nayland in Suffolk, where for some time they settled; but Mr. Cockburn removed to London to be curate of St. Dunstan’s church in Fleet-street. In this situation he remained till the accession of king George the First, when, entertaining some doubts about taking the oath of abjuration, he was obliged to quit his curacy, and for ten or twelve years was reduced to great difficulties in procuring subsistence for his family. During that period, he was employed in instructing the youth of an academy in Chancery-lane in the Latin tongue. But in 1726, by consulting the lord chancellor King, and his own father, upon the meaning and intent of the oath of abjuration, and byreading some papers which were put into his hands upon the subject, he was at length reconciled to taking it. In consequence of this, being the following year invited to be minister of the episcopal congregation at Aberdeen, he qualified himself conformably to the law; and on the day of king George the Second’s accession, he preached there a sermon on the duty and benefit of praying for the government. This sermon was printed, and being animadverted upon, he published a reply to the remarks on it, with some papers relative to the oath of abjuration, which were much commended. Soon after his settlement at Aberdeen, the lord chancellor King presented him to the living of LongHorseley, near Morpeth, in Northumberland, in order to enable him the better to support his family, and he was permitted to remain at Aberdeen, till the negligence and ill behaviour of the curates, whom he employed at LongHorseley obliged him to quit his station at Aberdeen in 1737, whereby his income was considerably lessened.

, an English botanist, was the son of a clergyman, and born at Adderbury, in Oxfordshire, about 1626. After he had been well-instructed in grammar-learning and the classics, he was entered in 1642 of Me rton- college, in Oxford. In 1650 he took a degree in arts; after which he left the university, and retired to Putney, near London; where he lived several years, and became the most famous simpler or botanist or his time. In 1656 he published “The art of simpling, or an introduction to the knowledge of gathering plants, wherein the definitions, divisions, places, descriptions, and the like, are compendiously discoursed of;” with which was also printed “Perspicillum microcosmologicum, or, a prospective for the discovery of the lesser world, wherein man is a compendium, c.” And in 1657 he published “Adam in Eden, or Nature’s paradise: wherein is contained the history of plants, herbs, flowers, with their several original names.” Upon the restoration of Charles II. in 1660, he was made secretary to Duppa, bishop of Winchester, in whose service he died in 1662.

Thus did Collier, by such ways and means as were in his power, continue to oppose with great vigour and spirit the revolution and all its abettors: and thus he became obnoxious to the men in power, who only waited for an occasion to seize him. That occasion at length came; for information being given to the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, that Collier, with one Newton, another nonjuring clergyman, was gone to Romney marsh, with a view of sending to, or receiving intelligence from the other side of the water, messengers were sent to apprehend them. They were brought to London, and, after a short examination by the earl, committed to the Gate-house. This was in the latter end of 1692, but as no evidence of their being concerned in any such design could be found, they were admitted to bail, and released. Newton, as far as appears, availed himself of this but Collier refused to remain upon bail, because he conceived that an acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the court in which the bail was taken, and consequently of the power from whence the authority of the court was derived, and therefore surrendered in discharge of his bail before chief justice Holt, and was committed to “the king’s-bench prison. He v/as released again at the intercession of friends, in a very few days; but still attempted to support his principles and justify his conduct by the following pieces, of which, it is said, there were only five copies printed: 8.” The case of giving Bail to a pretended authority examined, dated from the King’s-bench, Nov. 23, 1692,“with a preface, dated Dec. 1692; and, 9,” A Letter to sir John Holt,“dated Nov. 30, 1692; and also, 10.” A Reply to some Remarks upon the case of giving bail, &c. dated April, 1693.“He wrote soon after this, 11.” A Persuasive to consideration, tendered to the Royalists, particularly those of the Church of England,“1693, 4to. It was afterwards reprinted in 8vo, together with his vindication of it, against a piece entitled” The Layman’s Apology.“He wrote also, 12.” Remarks upon the London Gazette, relating to the Streights’ Fleet, and the Battle of Landen in Flanders," 1693, 4to.

When this affair was over, Collier employed himself in reviewing and finishing several miscellaneous pieces, which he published under the title of “Essays upon several Moral Subjects.” They consist of 3 vols. 8vo; the first of which was printed in 1697, and its success encouraged the author to publish a second in 1705, and a third in 1709. These were written with such a mixture of learning and wit, and in a style so easy and flowing, that notwithstanding the prejudice of party, which ran strong against him, they were in general well received, and have passed through many editions since. In 1698 he entered on his celebrated attempt to reform the stage, by publishing his “Short View of the immorality and profaneness of the English Stage, together with the sense of antiquity upon this argument,” 8vo. This engaged him in a controversy with the wits; and Congreve and Vanbrugh, whom, with many others, he had taken to task very severely, appeared openly against him. The pieces he wrote in this conflict, besides the first already mentioned, were, 2. “A Defence of the Short View, being a reply to Mr. Congreve’s amendments, &c. and to the vindication of the author of the Relapse,” 1699, 8vo. 3. “A Second Defence of the Short View, being a reply to a book entitled The ancient and modern Stages surveyed, &c.” 1700, 8vo the book here replied to was written by Mr. Drake. 4. “Mr. Collier’s dissuasive from the Play-house: in a letter to a person of quality, occasioned by the late calamity of the tempest,” 1703, 8vo. S. “A farther Vindication of the Short View, &c. in whjch the objections of a late book, entitled A Defence of Plays, are considered,” 1708, 8vo. “The Defence of Piays” has Dr. Filmer for its author. In this controversy with the stage, Collier exerted himself to the utmost advantage; and shewed that a clergyman might have wit as well as learning and reason on his side. It is remarkable, that his labours here were attended with success, and actually produced repentance and amendment; for it is allowed on all hands, that the decorum which has been for the most part observed by the later writers of dramatic poetry, is entirely owing to the animadversions of Collier. What Dryden said upon this occasion in the preface to his Fables does much credit to his candour and good sense. “I shall say the less of Mr. Collier, because in many things he has taxed me justly; and I have pleaded guilty to all thoughts and expressions of mine which can be truly arraigned of obscenity, profaneness, or immorality, and retract them. If he be my enemy, let him triumph; if he be my friend, as 1 have given him no personal occasion to be otherwise, he will be glad of my repentance. It becomes me not to draw my pen in the defence of a bad cause, when I have so often drawn it for a good one.” If Congreve andVanbrugh had taken the same method with Dryden, and made an ingenuous confession of their faults, they would have retired with a better grace than they did: for it is certain that, with all the wit which they have shewn in their respective vindications, they make but a very indifferent figure. “Congreve and Vanbrugh, says Dr. Johnson, attempted answers. Congreve, a very young man, elated with success, and impatient of censure, assumed an air of confidence and security. His chief artifice of controversy is to retort upon his adversary his own words: he is very angry, and hoping to conquer Collier with his own weapons, allows himself in the use of every term of contumely and contempt: but he has the sword without the arm of Scanderbeg; he has his antagonist’s coarseness, but not his strength. Collier replied; for contest was his delight: he was not to be frighted from his purpose, or his prey. The cause of Congreve was not tenable: whatever glosses he might use for the defence or palliation of single passages, the general tenour and tendency of his plays must always be condemned. It is acknowledged, with universal conviction, that the perusal of his works will make no man better; and that their Vol. X, ultimate effect is to represent pleasure in alliance with vice, and to relax those obligations by which life ought to be regulated. The stage found other advocates, and the dispute was protracted through ten years: but at last comedy grew more modest, and Collier lived to see the reward of his labour in the' reformation of the theatre.”

In 1710 he published “A vindication of the Divine Attributes, in some remarks on the archbishop of Dublin’s (Dr. King) sermon, entitled, Divine predestination and foreknowledge consisting with the freedom of man’s will.” March 1711, he went over to Holland, where he became acquainted with Le Clerc, and other learned men; and returned to London the November following, to take care of his private affairs, with a promise to his friends in Holland, that he would pay them a second visit in a short time. In 1713 he published his “Discourse of Freethinking, occasioned by the rise and growth of a sect called Free-thinkers;” which was attacked by several writers, particularly by Hoadly, afterwards bishop of Winchester, in some “Queries recommended to the authors of the late discourse of Free-thinking,” printed in his collection of tracts in 1715, 8vo and by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, in “Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free-thinking, in a letter to F. H. D. D.” This Phileleutherus Lipsiensis was the learned Bentley; and the person to whom this performance is addressed, Hare, afterwards bishop of Chichester. The first part of these remarks gave birth to a pamphlet said to be written by Hare, entitled, “The clergyman’s thanks to Phileleutherus for his remarks on the late Discourse of Freethinking: in a letter to Dr. Bentley, 1713.” The late Mr. Cumberland, in his “Life of himself,” informs us, that when Collins had fallen into decay of circumstances, which, however, we find no where else mentioned, Dr. Bentley, suspecting he had written him out of credit by his “Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,” secretly contrived to administer to the necessities of his baffled opponent in a manner that did no less credit to his delicacy than his liberality. Of all this Dr. Bentley we believe was capable, but it is certain that Collins lived and died in opulence. Soon after the publication of this work, Collins made a second trip to Holland; which was ascribed to the general alarm caused by the “Discourse of Free-thinking,” and himself being discovered by his printer. This is taken notice of by Hare: who, having observed that the least appearance of danger is able to damp in a moment all the zeal of the free-thinkers, tells us, that “a bare inquiry after the printer of their wicked book has frightened them, and obliged the reputed author to take a second trip into Holland; so great is his courage to defend upon the first appearance of an opposition. And are not these rare champions for free-thinking? Is not their book a demonstration that we are in possession of the liberty they pretend to plead for, which otherwise they durst ne'er have writ? And that they would have been as mute as fishes, had they not thought they could have opened with impunity? M Hare afterwards tells us, that” the reputed author of free-thinking is, for all he ever heard, a sober man, thanks to his natural aversion to intemperance; and that,“he observed,” is more than can be said of some others of the club:“that is, the club of free-thinkers, which were supposed to meet and plan schemes in concert, for undermining the foundations of revealed religion. The” Discourse of Free-thinking“was reprinted at the Hague, with some considerable additions, in 1713, 12mo, though in the title-page it is said to be printed at London. In this edition the translations in several places are corrected from Bentley’s remarks; and some references are made to those remarks, and to Hare’s” Clergyman’s thanks."

Among the many excellent features of his character given by Dr. Gooch, his munificence stands conspicuous. “He disposed of money to every one who could make out (and it was very easy to make that out to him) that he was a proper object of charity. He answered literally the apostle’s character, poor enough himself, yet making many rich. He had divers ancient people, men and women^ whom he supported by constant annual pensions; and several chiklren at school, at his own cost and charge, besides those educated from children, and brought up to the universities, to the sea, or to trades, &c. The poor of his parish were always attending his gate for their dole, and for the remains of his constant hospitable table, which was always furnished, and free to those whom respect or business drew to him. His hall was frequented in the morning with petitioners of all sorts. More particularly, he spared no cost nor pains to serve the church and clergy. He bought many advowsons out of lay-hands. He gave great sums for the rebuilding of churches, and greater still for the buying in impropriations, and settling them on the poor vicars. There was no poor honest clergyman, or his widow, in want, but had his benevolence when applied for: not any in the reformed churches abroad, to whom he was not a liberal patron, steward, and perpetual solicitor for. The French refugees drank deep of his bounty for many years; so did the Irish in their day of affliction and likewise the Scotch episcopal party,” when ejected from their livings at the revolution. It may truly 'be said, that by his death the church lost an excellent bishop; the kingdom a consistent and able statesman; the protestant religion, at home and abroad, an ornament and refuge; and the whole Christian world, an eminent example of virtue and piety.

His works are: 1. “A translation from the Italian, of the Life of Donna Olympia Maldachini, who governed the church during the time of Innocent X. which was from the year 1644- to 1655,” London, 1667. 2. “A translation i'roni the French, of the Jesuits’ intrigues; with the private instructions of that society to their emissaries,” 1669. 3. “A treatise of the Holy Communion,” 1677. 4. “A Letter to the Clergy of the diocese of London, concerning Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Catechising, dated April 25, 1679.” 5. “A second letter concerning the Half- communion, Prayers in an unknown tongue, Prayers to Saints, July 6, 1680.” 6. “A third letter, on Confirmation, and Visitation of the Sick, 1682.” 7. “A fourth letter, upon the 54th Canon,” April 6, 1683. 8. “A fifth letter, upon the 118th Canon, March 19, 1684.” 9. “A sixth letter, upon the 13th Canon, April Is, 1685.” They were all reprinted together in 1686, 12mo, under the title of “Episcopalia, or Letters of the right reverend father in God, Henry lord hishop of London, to the Clergy of his Diocese.” There is also, 10. “A Letter of his to a Clergyman in his Diocese, concerning Nonresistance:” written soon after the revolution, and inserted in the Memoirs of the life of Mr. John Kettlewell.

, a miscellaneous writer of some note in his day, was born in Ireland, and bred to the law, in which we do not find that he ever made any great figure. From thence he came over to London, in company with a Mr. Stirling, a dramatic poet of little note, to seek his fortune; and finding nothing so profitable, and so likely to recommend him to public notice, as political writing, he soon commenced an advocate for the government. There goes a story of him, however, but we will hope it is not a true one, that he and his fellow-traveller, who was embarked in the same adventure, for the sake of making their trade more profitable, resolved to divide their interests; the one to oppose, the other to defend the ministry. Upon which they determined the side each was to espouse by lots, or, according to Mr. Reed’s account, by tossing up a halfpenny, when it fell to Concanen’s part to defend the ministry. Stirling afterwards went into orders, and became a clergyman in Maryland. Concanen was for some time concerned in the “British” and “London Journals,” and in a paper called “The Specnlatist,” which last was published in 1730, 8vo. In these he took occasion to abuse not only lord Bolingbroke, who was naturally the object of it, but also Pope; by which he procured a place in the Dvwiciad. In a pamphlet called “A Supplement to the Profound,” he dealt very unfairly by Pope, as Pope’s commentator informs us, in not only frequently imputing to him Broome’s verses (for which, says he, he might seem in some degree accountable, having corrected what that gentleman did), but those of the duke of Buckingham and others. His wit and literary abilities, however, recommended him to the favour of the duke of Newcastle, through whose interest he obtained the post of attorney-general of the island of Jamaica in 1732, which office he filled with the utmost integrity and honour, and to the perfect satisfaction of the inhabitants, for near seventeen years; when, having acquired an ample fortune, he was desirous of passing the close of his life in his native country; with which intention he quitted Jamaica and came to London, proposing to pass some little time there before he went to settle entirely in Ireland. But the difference of climate between that metropolis and the place he had so long been accustomed to, had such an effect on his constitution, that he fell into a consumption, of which he died Jan. 22, 1749, a few weeks after his arrival in London. His original poems, though short, have considerable merit; but much cannot be said of his play, entitled “Wexford Wells.” He was also concerned with Mr. Roome and other gentlemen in altering Richard Broome’s “Jovial Crew” into a ballad opera, in which shape it is now frequently performed. Concanen has several songs in “The Musical Miscellany, 1729,” 6 vols. But a memofable letter addressed to him by Dr. Warburton will perhaps be remembered longer than any writing of his own pen. This letter^ which Mr. Malone first published (in his Supplement to Shakspeare, vol. I. p. 222), shews that, in 1726, Warbtirton, then an attorney at Newark, was intimate with Concanen, and an associate in the attacks made on Pope’s fame and talents. In 1724, Concanen published 3, volume of “Miscellaneous Poems, original and translated,” by himself and others.

About 1628 he took the degree of D. D. and the same year was concerned, with his brethren of the church of Durham, in a prosecution against Peter Smart, a prebeiidary there, for a seditious sermon preached in that cathedral, npon Psalm xxxi. 7. “I hate them that hold of superstitious vanities.” Smart was degraded, and dispossessed of his preferments; but, as we shall perceive, afterwards amply revenged of Cosin for his share in the prosecution. In 163 4 Cosin was elected master of Peterhouse in Cambridge; and in 1640 made dean of Peterborough by Charles I, whose chaplain he then was; but on Nov. 10, three days after his installation into that deanry, a petition from Peter Smart against him was read in the house of commons; wherein complaint was made of his superstition, innovations in the church of Durham, and severe prosecution of himself in the high commission-court. This ended in his being, Jan. 22, 1642, sequestered by a vote of the whole house from his ecclesiastical benefices; and he is remarkable for having been the first clergyman in those times who was treated in that manner. March 15th ensuing, the commons sent twenty -one articles of impeachment against him to the house of lords, tending to prove him popishly affected; and about the same time he was put under restraint, upon a surmise that he had enticed a young scholar to popery: of all which charges he fully cleared himself, and was indeed acquitted; but in those days of tyrannical oppression, this availed him little, nor was any recompense made him for his expences. In 1642, being concerned with others in sending the plate of the university of Cambridge to the king, who was then at York, he was ejected from his mastership of Peter-house; so that, as he was the first who was sequestered from his ecclesiastical benefices, he was also the first that was displaced in the university. Thus deprived of all his preferments, and not without fears of something worse, he resolved to leave the kingdom, and retire to Paris; which accordingly he did in 1643.

, a learned clergyman of the church of England, was born at Shrewsbury about the year 1710. He was educated at Wadham-college, Oxford, of which he was admitted a member in 1726, if not earlier; and on^ the 28th of June 1733, took the degree of master of arts. He also became a tutor, and fellow of his college; and, indeed, seems to have spent a great part of his life there, though the fellows of Wadham-college hold their fellowships only for a limited number of years. The same year in which he took the degree of M.A. he published, in 8vo, “Critical observations on some Psalms.” The first ecclesiastical situation in which he was placed, was that of curate of Islip in Oxfordshire. He afterwards became vicar of Whitchurch, in Dorsetshire, where he served two churches for some years. Part of a letter written by him to Mr. John Catlain, containing an account of a fiery meteor seen by him in the air, on the 14th of July 1745, was read at the Royal Society on the 7th of November in that year, and published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 477. The following year he published at London, in 8vo, “A Letter to Martin Folkes, esq. president of the Royal Society, concerning the rise and progress of Astronomy amongst the Ancients,” in which he endeavoured to prove, that the Greeks derived but a very small portion of their astronomical knowledge from the Egyptians or Babylonians; and that though the Egyptians and Babylonians may be allowed, by their observations of the heavens, to have laid the foundation of astronomy; yet, as long as it continued amongst them, it consisted of observations only, and nothing more; till Geometry being improved by the Greeks, and them alone, into Sl science, and applied to the heavens, they became the true and proper authors of every thing deserving the name of astronomy.

, the eldest son of Thomas Coventry, esq. by Anna Maria Brown, was born in Cambridgeshire, and educated at Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1748, and his master’s in 1752. He was a young man of very considerable talents, and would probably have been more distinguished for polite literature, had he not been cut off in the prime of life by the small pox, in 1759, soon after he bad been presented by his relation, the earl of Coventry, to the donative or perpetual curacy of Edgware. He published “Penshurst,” an elegant poem, 1750, reprinted in Dodsley’s collection, with a poetical epistle to “The hon. Wilmot Vaughari in Wales.” He was also the author of a paper in the “World,” on the absurdities of modern gardening and of the well-known satirical romance of “Pompey the Little,” 1751. Mr. Gray told Mr. Waipole, in a letter of that date, “Pompey is the hasty production of Mr. Coventry (cousin to him you know), a young clergyman. I found it out by three characters, which made part of a comedy that he shewed me, of his own writing.” This cousin was Henry Coventry, author of the “Letters of Philemon to Hydaspes,” and who was one of the writers of the “Athenian Letters.” He was a fellow of Magdalen college; once, we are told, a religious enthusiast, and afterwards an infidel. He died Dec. 29, 1752.

In November 1784, the “Task” was sent to the press, and he began the “Tirocinium,” the purport of which, in his own words, was “to censure the want of discipline, and the scandalous inattention to morals, that obtain in public schools, especially in the largest; and to recommend private tuition as a mode of education preferable on all accounts; to call upon fathers to become tutors of their own sons, where that is practicable; to take home a domestic tutor, where it is not; and if neither can be done, to place them under the care of some rural clergyman whose attention is limited to a few.”

, said to be brother to the preceding, was born in 1633, and was educated at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he gained such esteem by his learning and piety, that Dr. Cudworth, in 1656, wrote in the strongest terms to secretary Thurloe, to recommend him to Oliver Cromwell, as a proper person for the chaplainship of the English factory at Lisbon. Some years after the restoration, he was made canon-residentiary of Chichester, and was elected fellow of Eton college in 1672. In 1680 he was chosen by the fellows provost of Eton in opposition to Waller the poet, who was twice disappointed of the same preferment, once in 1665, when the lord chancellor Clarendon refused to put the seal to the grant, because it could be held only by a clergyman, and now when the privy-council came to the same determination. Dr. Cradock, who was admired in his own time for his uncommon talents, great copiousness and vivacity in preaching, is scarce known to the present day, except by the high character given of him by his contemporaries, and two excellent sermons: one on Providence, preached before Charles II. by whose command it was printed: it has since passed through several editions: the other “On the great end and design of Christianity,” was printed some years after his death, which happened Oct. 16, 1695, when he was interred in the college chapel.

, M. A. a Scotch clergyman, was born at Gifford in East Lothian 1682, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, took his degrees, and was ordained minister at Yester, where he continued some years till he was removed to Haddington. During the time he was minister at Yester, he wrote a volume of “Divine Poems,” which have gone through two editions, and are much esteemed. In 1732 he was translated to Edinburgh, and was much followed as one of the most popular preachers in that city. While he was at Edinburgh; he published three volumes of “Sermons,” in 8vo, chiefly on the principal heads of Christianity; but they are now become scarce. He died at Edinburgh in 1744, aged 62.

Crashaw’s poems were first published in 1646, under the title of, 1. Steps to the Temple. 2. The Delights of the Muses. 3. Sacred Poems presented to the Countess of Denbigh. But Mr. Hayley is of opinion that this third class only was published at that time, and that the two others were added to the subsequent editions. So many republications within a short period, and that period not very favourable to poetry, sufficiently mark the estimation in which this devotional enthusiast was held, notwithstanding his having relinquished the church in which he had been educated. His poems prove him to have been of the school which produced Herbert and Quarles. Herbert was his model, and Granger attributes the anonymous poems, at the end of Herbert’s volume, to Crashaw; but however partial Crashaw might be to Herbert, it is impossible he could have been the author of these anonymoVis poems, which did not appear until after his death, and were written by a clergyman of the church of England known to Walton, who subjoins some commendatory lines dated 1654.

, a learned protestant clergyman in France, in the seventeenth century, was born at Usez, and being educated to the church, was appointed pastor, first of Beziers, and afterwards of Usez. His life appears to have been spent in the exercise of his duties as a clergyman, and in writing on the controversies of the times, in which he was enabled to take a distinguished part, being a man of extensive learning, a critic, and an able Oriental scholar. He died Aug. 31, 1659. He wrote many controversial pieces in French, particularly a defence of the Geneva confession of Faith, 1645, 8vo, and “Augustin suppose,” &c. proving that the four books on the creed in St. Augustine’s works are not the production of that author; but his Latin works gained him greater reputation, particularly his “Specimen Conjecturarum in qusedam Origenis, Ireneei, et Tertulliani Loca,” 1632; and “Observationes Sacræ et Historicæ in Nov. Test.” chiefly against Heinsius, 1644.

, professor of eloquence at Wittemberg, and an eminent philologer, was born at Wolbech, where his father was a clergyman, in 1715. He was first educated at Hall, whence he removed to Leipsic, and studied polite literature under Mascovius. His principal attachment was to the classics, which he read with the eye of a critic and antiquary. While at Leipsic, he contributed some of his first remarks on classical history and antiquities to the “Acta Eruditorum.” In 1738 he left Leipsic for Dresden, where he became acquainted with Juncker, and by his persuasion went to St. Petersburg, and became a member of the academy of history founded by Peter the Great, and afterwards succeeded Beyer in the same academy. His situation here was for some time agreeable, and his fame spread; but the stipend affixed to his place in the academy being irregularly paid, and Crusius being little attentive to pecuniary matters, his studies became interrupted, and his mind harassed, and his object now was to procure some place in Saxony where he could pursue his studies in comfort. For this purpose he consulted Gesner, who promised him every assistance; and in 1751, on the death of Berger, he was elected professor of eloquence at Wittemberg. Here for some time he fulfilled the utmost hopes of the friends by whose interest he had been elected; but having while at St. Petersburgh contracted habits too social for a man of learning, he now indulged them to such a degree as to obstruct his usefulness, expose himself to ridicule, and lessen his authority. He died Feb. 1767, according to Klotz his biographer, regretting his past imprudence, and with pious resignation. The failings of this accurate critic are much to be lamented, as but for them be would have probably attained the highest class in philology. His writings are: 1. “Commentarius de originibus pecunise a pecore ante nummum signatum: accedit ejusdem oratio habita in conventu Academico, cum auspicaret munus Professoris,” Petrop. 1748, 8vo. 2. “Probabilia critica, in quibus veteres Graeci et Latini scriptores emendantur & declarantur,” Leipsic, 1753, 8vo. This collection of criticisms and emendations on the classics, chiefly contributed to our author’s fame. 3. “Opuscula ad historiam et humanitatis literas spectantia,” Altenburgh, 1767, with a biographical preface by Klotz, to which we are indebted for this sketch of the life of Crusius. Besides these, Crusius contributed various dissertations to the German journals, a list of which may be seen in Harles.

During the time that Cuilen practised as a country surgeon and apothecary, he formed another connexion of a more permanent kind, which, happily for him, was not dissolved till a very late period of his life. Very early in life he took a strong attachment to an amiable woman, a Miss Johnston, daughter to a clergyman in that neighbourhood, nearly of his own age, who was prevailed on to marry him, at a time when he had nothing else to recommend him, except his person and dispositions. She was beautiful, had great good sense, equanimity of temper, an amiable disposition, and elegance of manners, and brought with her a little money, which, however small in modern calculation, was important in those days to one in his situation in life. After giving to him a numerous family, and participating with him the changes of fortune which he experienced, she peacefully departed this life in summer 1786.

, student, as he calls himself, in physic and astrology, was born in London, Oct. 18, 1616. He was the son of a clergyman, by whom he was sent, after receiving a preparatory education, to the university of Cambridge, at the age of eighteen. There making but a short stay, he was put apprentice to an apothecary, under whom he appears to have acquired a competent knowledge of the materia medica, and of the method of preparing and compounding medicines. On completing the term of his apprenticeship, he came to London, and settled in Spital-fields about 1642. By the whole tenor of his writings we find he joined, or at least favoured the Puritans, and those who were engaged in those unhappy times in overturning the constitution of the country. But his warfare was with the college of physicians, whom he accused of craft and ignorance. Like the popish clergy, he says they endeavoured to keep the people in ignorance of what might be useful either in preserving or restoring health. To counteract their endeavours, he published, in 1649, a translation of the “Dispensary of the College of Physicians,” in small 4to, adding to the account of each drug and preparation a list of their supposed virtues, and of the complaints in which they were usually given. He also published an “Herbal,” which has passed through several editions, and is still in repute as a sort of family guide. He tells in this book under what planet the plants are to be gathered, which he thinks essential in preserving their virtues; but Dr. Pulteney says his descriptions of common plants are drawn up with a clearness and distinction that would not have disgraced a better pen. He intended to treat of the diseases incident to men at the different periods of their lives, and as a beginning, gave a directory to midwives, on the method of insuring a healthy progeny, and then of the management of new-born children. Though this book is of very small value, it passed through many editions. He died at his house in Spital-fields, Jan. 10, 1653-4.

The high fame and repeated praises of this work did not divert the author from his studies or his duties; and in his station of a private clergyman, so great was his reputation, that he was importuned by the university, and by other acquaintance, to take upon him the weighty exercise of responding at the public commencement. Nothing but the earnest solicitation of his friends could have prevailed with a man void not only of ambition, but of even the desire of applause, to appear so publicly. This he did in 1680, in so masterly a manner, as to be remembered for many years after. The next specimen of his abilities was his “Essay on Jewish Measures and Weights,” 1686, 8vo, a work not only highly useful in its nature, but very much wanted, and was therefore received with the highest applause by the best judges, who were equally pleased with the method and matter, as well as the manner and conciseness, of the performance. It was afterwards reprinted, and will continue to support the reputation of its author, as long as this kind of literature is either en-, couraged or understood. His sincere attachment to the protestant religion made him very apprehensive of its danger; and the melancholy prospect of affairs in the reign of king James made so deep an impression on him as to affect his health. After the revolution he appears to have entertained no thoughts of soliciting for better preferment; and it was, therefore, a greater surprize to himself than to any body else, when walking after his usual manner, on a post-day, to the coffee-house, he read there in a newspaper, that one Dr. Cumberland, of Stamford, was named to the bishopric of Peterborough, This piece of intelligence, however, proved true, and he had the singular satisfaction of finding himself raised to a bishopric, not only without pains or anxiety, but without having so much as sought for it; but at that time it was necessary to the establishment of the new government, that men who were to be raised to these high stations in the church, should be such only as had been most eminent for their learning, most exemplary in their lives, and firmest to the protestant interest; and whilst these qualifications were only considered, the king, who in two years’ time had appointed no less than fifteen bishops of the above character, was told that Dr. Cumberland was the fittest man he could nominate to the bishopric of Peterborough. He was elected in the room of Dr. Thomas White, who refused the new oaths May 15th; was consecrated with other bishops, July 5th, and enthroned September 12th, 1691, in the cathedral of Peterborough. He now applied himself to the work of a bishop, making no omissions to consult his own ease, or to spare his pains; and the desires of his mind, that all under him should do their duty, were earnest and sincere. His composition had no alloy of vain-glory. He never did any thing to court applause, or gain the praise of men. He never acted a part, never put on a mask. His tongue and heart always went together. If he ran into any extreme, it was the excess of humility; he lived with the simplicity and plainness of a primitive bishop, conversed and looked like a private man, hardly maintaining what the world calls the dignity of his character. He used hospitality without grudging; no man’s house was more open to his friends, and the ease and freedom with which they always found themselves entertained, was peculiar to it. The poor had substantial relief at his door, and his neighbours and acquaintance a hearty welcome to his table, after the plentiful and plain manner in which he lived. Every thing in his house served for friendly entertainment, nothing for luxury or pomp. His desire was to make every body easy, and to do them good. He dispensed with a liberal hand, and in the most private and delicate manner, to the necessities of others. His speeches to the clergy at his visitations, and his exhortations to the catechumens before his confirmations, though they had not the embellishments of oratory, yet they were fervent expressions of the inward desires of his soul to do what good he was able, and to excite others to be influenced by it; the pious breathings of a plain and good mind. On all occasions he treated his clergy with singular ta and indulgence. An expression that often came from him, was, “I love always to make my clergy easy.” This was his rule in all applications made to him by them, and if he erred, it was always on this side. When the duties of his office required it, he never spared himself. To the last month of his life it was impossible to dissuade him from undertaking fatigues that every body about him feared were superior to his strength. He was inflexible to their intreaties, and his answer and resolution was, “I will do my duty as long as I can.” He had acted by a maxim like this in his vigour. When his friends represented to him, that by his studies and labours he would injure his health, his usual reply was, “A man had better wear out than rust out.” The last time he visited his diocese, he was in the eightieth year of his age; and at his next triennial, when he was in the eighty-third year of his age, it was with the utmost difficulty that he could be dissuaded from undertaking again the visitation of his diocese. To draw the clergy nearer than the usual decanal meetings, to make his visitations easier to himself, was a thing he would not hear of. Such were the public acts of this great prelate in the discharge of his duty as a father of the church. In respect to his temporal concerns, and his management of the revenue arising from his see, he was not less liberal and munificent. His natural parts were not quick, but strong and retentive. He was a perfect master of every subject he studied. Eyery thing he read staid with him. The impressions on his mind were some time in forming, but they were clear, distinct, and durable. The things he had chiefly studied, were researches into the most ancient times; mathematics in all its parts and the Scripture in its original languages but he was also thoroughly acquainted with all the branches of philosophy, medicine, and anatomy, and was a good classical scholar. He was so thoroughly conversant in Scripture, that no difficult passage ever occurred, either occasionally, or in reading, but he could readily give the meaning of it, and the several interpretations, without needing to consult his books. He sometimes had thoughts of writing an exposition of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, with a view to set the doctrine of justification in a light very different from that in which it has been hitherto considered by most divines, but what that light was we are not told. One of his chief objects was the examination of Sanchoniatho’s Phoenician History, about which the greatest men had been most mistaken, and in relation to which none had entered into so strict an examination as our learned prelate thought it deserved. He spent many years in these speculations; for he began to write several years before the revolution, and he continued improving his design down to 1702. Jt may be justly wondered, that, after taking so mnch pains, and carrying a work of such difficulty to so high a degree of perfection, he should never judge it expedient to publish it; for though his bookseller refused to print the first part at a critical season, yet afterwards both might have seen the light; and for this the most probable reason that can be assigned is, that thorough dislike he had to controversy. His son-in-law, however, the rev. Mr. Payne, has done justice to his memory, and published it under the title of“Sanchoniatho’s Phoenician History, translated from the first book of Eusebius de Preparatione Evangelica,” &c. Lond. 1720, 8vo. Mr. Payne observes, that our author had a quicker sense than many other men, of the advances popery was making upon us, and was affected with the apprehension of it to the last degree. This made him turn his thoughts to the inquiry, by what steps and methods idolatry got ground in the world. The oldest account of this he believed he found in Sanchoniathe'a fragment. This he saw was a professed apology for idolatry, and owned openly what other heathens would have made a secret of, that the gods of the Gentile world had been all mortal men. He studied this fragment with no other view than as it led to the discovery of the original of idolatry. He spent some time upon it, before ever he had a thought of extracting from it footsteps of the history of the world preceding the flood. While other divines of the church of England were engaged in the controversy with the papists, in which they gained over them so complete a victory, our author was endeavouring to strike at the root of their idolatrous religion. These fragments have exercised the talents of some of the ablest scholars that foreign nations have produced, and several of these, being able to make nothing clear or consistent out of them, incline to think they were forgeries, and consequently not worthy of notice. Our prelate was not only of a different sentiment, but with great knowledge and great labour, has made it very evident that these fragments are genuine, and that he thoroughly understood them. He has proved that they contain the most ancient system of atheism and idolatry; that very system which took place in Egypt, and was set up against the true religion contained in the writings of Moses.

Mr. Cumberland now for the first time entered the lists of controversy, in a pamphlet entitled “A Letter to the right rev. the lord bishop of O d (Lowth) containing some animadversions upon a character given of the late Dr. Bentley, in a Letter from a late professor in the university of Oxford to the right rev. author of the Divine Legation,” &c. It passed through two editions. Dr. Lowth did not reply to this pamphlet nor did he accept the services of a clergyman of his diocese, who offered to undertake it; acknowledging that Cumberland had just reason for retaliation.

During his residence in Queen Anne-street East, an event occurred which evinced in a striking manner his disinterested generosity and high sense of honour. He was visited by an old clergyman, the rev. Decimus Reynolds, son of bishop Reynolds, and first cousin to his father. This gentleman, without any previous intimacy, had bequeathed to Cumberland his estate twenty years before: he brought the will in his hand; but required that Cumberland should accompany him to a conveyancer, and direct that a positive deed of gift should be drawn up; for whfch purpose he had brought the title-deeds, and should leave them with Cumberland. Cumberland conjured Mr. Reynolds to inform him if he had any cause of displeasure with his nearer relations; stating that his natural heir was a man of most unexceptionable worth and good character. Mr. Reynolds stated that he left it to Cumberland, as being the representative of the maternal branch of his family; that Cumberland’s father hud ever been his valued friend; and that ho had constantly watched Cumberland’s character, though he had not established any personal acquaintance with him. Upon this explanation, and the evidence of Mr. Reynolds’ s having inherited no atom of his fortune from his paternal line, Cumberland consented to the drawing up of the deed, causing, however, highly to his honour, a clause of resumption to be inserted, impowering the donor to revoke his deed at any future time. This clause Mr. Reynolds was with great difficulty prevailed on to admit; prophetically observing, that it left him exposed to the solicitations of his relations, and in the debility of age, he might be pressed into a revocation of what he had decided upon as the most deliberate act of his life. After ten years of uninterrupted cordiality between them, this resumption actually took place; major Reynolds, the nephew of the old gentleman, bringing his order for the whole of the title-deeds; which were immediately delivered up by Cumberland exactly as he had received them.

He assisted at the national synod, which was held at Alengon in 1637: and his authority and advice contributed much to quiet the disputes, which were then warmly agitated among the protestants concerning universal grace. He declared strenuously for universal grace; and afterwards published at Amsterdam, in 1655, a Latin work against Frederic Spanheim, the divinity professor at Leyden, entitled “An apology for the synods of Alengon and Cbarenton.” This work rekindled the war among the protestant divines; yet Daille endeavoured to clear himself. by saying, that his book had been published without his knowledge. Nevertheless, he answered the celebrated Samuel des Marets, professor of Groning-en, which produced a short, but very warm contest between them, in which Daille’s spirit of controversy has not been approved even by his friends. He died at Paris, April 15, 1670, having never experienced throughout his life any illness, except that in 1650 he was suddenly seized with a lethargic or apopletic disorder, in which he lay 10 or 11 days, apparently without a possibility of recovering. He left a high reputation behind him; and the protestants used to say in France, that “they had no better writer since Calvin than M. Daille.” In 1720, M. Engelschall, a Roman catholic clergyman at Dresden, published proposals for a complete edition of Daille’s works, for which it is probable he had no encouragement, as we have not been able to find such a publication in any catalogue; but his proposals, which are drawn up with great candour, will at least enable us to give a more correct list of Daille’s works, with the best editions. 1. “De Usu Patrum,” Geneva, 1656. 2. “Apologia ecclesiarum veformatarum,” Amst. 3. “Fides ex S. Scripturis demonstrate,” Gen. 1660. 4. “Examen Sententiae Theoph. Bracheti Milleterii super conciliatione Controversiarum religionis,” Paris, 1637. 5. “De Patrum, fide circa imagines,” Leyden, 1642. 6. “De pcenis et satisfactionibus humanis,” Amst. 1649. 7. “Pseudepigrapha Apostolica de octo libris constitutionum Apostolicarum,” Harderw. 1653. 8. “De jejuniis et quadragesima,” Daventer, 1G54. 9. “Pro duabus Synodis, Alenson et Carenton. Apologia,” Amst. 1655. 10. “De coniirmatione et extrema unctione,” Genev. 1659. II. “De confessione auriculari,” Genev. 1661. 12. “Adversus Latinorurn traditionem de cultus religiosi objecto, disputatio,” Gen. 1664. 13. “De Scriptis, quae sub Dionysii Areopagii et Ignatii nominibus circumferuntur,” Gen. 1666. 14. “De cultibus Latinorum religiosis Libri Novem,” Gen. 1671. In all those he has been thought to be very perspicuous, both with regard to the expression, and to the disposition of his subject. He was reproached by one of his adversaries with stealing several things from Dr. Davenant, in his “Exposition of the Epistle to the Colossians;” but he answered the charge.

, a Welsh clergyman, was born in Tre'r-Abbot, in Whiteford parish, Flintshire. Of his personal history little is known, except that he was a good scholar, very conversant in the literary history of his country, and very unfortunate in attempting to turn his knowlege to advantage. He was a vehement foe to Popery, Arianism, and Socinianism, and of the most fervent loyalty. to George I. and the Hanoverian succession. Owing to some disgust, he quitted his native place, and probably his profession when he came to London, as he subscribes himself “counsellor-at-law;” and in one of his volumes has a long digression on law and law-writers. Here he commenced author in the humblest form, not content with dedicating to the great, but hawking his books in person from door to door, where he was often repulsed with rudeness, and seldom appears to have been treated with kindness or liberality. How long he carried on this unprosperous business, or when he died, we have not been able to discover. Mr. D'Israeli, who has taken much pains to rescue his name from oblivion, suspects that his mind became disordered from poverty and disappointment. He appears to have courted the Muses, who certainly were not very favourable to his addresses. The most curious of his works consist of some volumes under the general title of “Athenæ Britannicæ,” 8vo, 1715, &c. a kind of bibliographical, biographical, and critical work, “the greatest part (says Baker, the antiquary) borrowed from modern historians, but containing some things more uncommon, and not easily to be met with.” The first of these volumes, printed in 1715, is entitled Ειχων Μιχρο-βιβλιχε, sive Icon Libellorum, or a Critical History of Pamphlets.“In this he styles himself” a gentleman of the inns of, court.“The others are entitled” Athenæ Britannicæ, or a Critical History of the Oxford and Cambridge Writers and Writings, &c. by M. D.“London, 1716, 8vo. They are all of so great rarity, that Dr. Farmer never saw but one volume, the first, nor Baker but three, which were sent to him as a great curiosity by the earl of Oxford, and are now deposited in St. John’s college, Cambridge. In the British Museum there are seven. From the” Icon Libellorum," the only volume we have had an opportunity of perusing attentively, the author appears to have been well acquainted with English authors, their works and editions, and to have occasionally looked into the works of foreign bibliographers.

, an American clergyman of dissenting principles, and known by three volumes of sermons, in 8vo, edited by Dr. Gibbons, of London, was born November 3, 1721, in the county of Newcastle in Delaware, in America, and was early designed by his parents for the ministry, in which he became very popular. In 1759 he succeeded Mr. Jonathan Edwards as president of his college of New Jersey, which he held to his death, Feb. 4, 1761. He was succeeded in his post by the rev. Dr. S. Finley, who died on the 17th of July 1766, being the fourth president that filled that chair in the short space of less than nine years. In the sermons above mentioned Mr. Davies deserves little praise for style, and his editor not much for judgment of selection.

, a man of considerable talents, and who prided himself on being through life “a companion of his superiors,” was born about 1712. In 1728 and 1729 he was at the university of Edinburgh, completing his education, and became, as Dr. Johnson used to say of him, “learned enough for a clergyman.” That, however, was not his destination, for in 1736 we find him among the dramatis personae of Lillo’s celebrated tragedy of “Fatal Curiosity,” at the theatre in the Hay market, where he was the original representative of young Wilmot, under the management of Henry Fielding. He afterwards commenced bookseller in Duke’s court, opposite the church of St. Martin-in-the-fields, and afterwards in Round court in the Strand, but met with misfortunes which induced him to return to the theatre. For several years he belonged to various companies at York, Dublin, and other places, particularly at Edinburgh, where he appears to have been at one time the manager of the theatre. At York he married miss Yarrow, daughter of a performer there, whose beauty was not more remarkable than the blamelessness of her conduct and the amiableness of her manners. In 1753 he returned to London, and with Mrs. Davies was engaged at Drury-lane, where they remained for several years in good estimation with the town, and played many characters, if not with great excellence, at least with propriety and decency. Churchill, in his indiscriminate satire, has attempted to fix some degree of ridicule on Mr. Davies’s performance, which, just or not, had the effect of driving him from the stage, which about 1762 he exchanged for a shop in Russel-street, Covent Garden; but his efforts in trade were not crowned with the success which his abilities in his profession merited. In 1778 he became a bankrupt; when, such was the regard enterr tained for him by his friends, that they readily consented to his re-establishment; and none of them, as he says himself, were more active to serve him than those who had suffered most by his misfortunes. Yet, all their efforts might possibly have been fruitless if his powerful and firm friend Dr. Johnson had not exerted himself to the utmost in his behalf. He called upon all over whom he had any influence to assist Tom Davies; and prevailed on. Mr. Sheridan, patentee of Drury-lane theatre, to give him a benefit, which he granted on the most liberal terms. In. 1780, by a well-timed publication, the “Life of David Garrick,” which has passed through several editions, Mr. Davies acquired much fame, and some money. He afterwards published “Dramatic Miscellanies,” if) 3 yols. of which a second edition appeared a few days only before the author’s death. His other works are, 1. “Some Memoirs of Mr. Henderson.” 2. “A Review of lord Chesterfield’s Characters.” 3. A “Life of Massinger.” 4. Lives of Dr. John Eacharo, sir John Davies, and Mr. Lillo, prefixed to editions of their works, published by Mr. Davies; and fugitive pieces without number in prose and verse in the St. James’s Chronicle, and almost all the public newspapers. The compiler of this article in the last edition of this Dictionary, informs us that he “knew him well, and has passed many convivial hours in his company at a social meeting, where his lively sallies of pleasantry used to set the table in a roar of harmless merriment. The last time he visited them he wore the appearance of a spectre; and, sensible of his approaching end, took a solemn valediction of all the company.” Mr. Davies died the 5th of May, 1785, and was buried, by his own desire, in the vault of St. Paul, Covent Garden, close by the side of his next door neighbour, the late Mr. Grignion, watchmaker. Mrs. Davies died Feb. 9, 1801. Tom Davies, as he was familiarly called, was a good-natured and conscientious man in business as in private life, but his theatrical bias created a levity not consistent with prudence. Had he been rich, he would have been liberal: Dr. Campbell used to say he was not a bookseller, but a gentleman who dealt in books"

, a learned French protestant divine, was born about 1670, and came to England on the revocation of the edict of Nantz. Of his history we hare only a short memorandum in ms. by Mr. Whiston, who supposes that he died in 1740. He wrote “Pro Testinonio Josephi de Jesn Christo, contra Tan. Fubrum et alios,” Lond. 1700, 8vo; and a “Commentary on the Revelation of St. John,” 1712, folio. This was, in 1730, published by Peter Lancaster, vicar of Bowden in Cheshire, under the title of “A Perpetual Commentary, &c. newly modelled, abridged, and rendered plain to the meanest capacities.” Mr. Daubuz is here said to have been vicar of Brotherton in Cheshire. Mr. Whiston adds that he had a son, a clergyman, also beneficed in Yorkshire, near Ferrybridge, a studious man, who lived in obscurity, and died a bachelor about 1752.

We shall conclude this article with an anecdote that has been related, to shew the characteristic absence of our author’s mind. In the reign of king George II. being desirous of the honour of preaching before his majesty, he obtained, from the lord chamberlain, or the dean of the chapel, the favour of being appointed to that office on the fifth Sunday of some month, being an extra-day, not supplied, e x qfficio, by the chaplains. As he was not informed of the etiquette, he entered the royal chapel after the prayers began, and, not knowing whither to go, crowded into the desk by the reader. The vesturer soon after was at a loss for the preacher, till, seeing a clergyman kneeling by the reader, he concluded him to be the man. Accordingly, he went to him, and pulled him by the sleeve. But Dr. Delany, chagrined at being interrupted in his devotions, resisted and kicked the intruder, who in vain begged him to come out, and said, “There was no text.” The doctor replied, that he had a text; nor could he comprehend the meaning, till the reader acquainted him, that he must go into the vestry, and write down the text (as usual) for the closets. When he came into the vestry, his hand shook so much that he could not write. Mrs. Delany, therefore, was sent for; but no paper was at hand. At last, on the cover of a letter, the text was transcribed by Mrs. Delany, and so carried up to the king and royal family.

, a clergyman who is entitled to a place in this Dictionary, as having been a contributor to the first edition of it, was born at Sebergbam, in Cumberland, of an ancient family, in 1724, and was educated under the rev. Josiah Ralph, of whose poems he superintended a handsome edition published by subscription. From school he went to Queen’s-college, Oxford, when be took his master’s degree June 16, 1752. On leaving college, he became curate to the rev. Dr. Graham, of Netherby, at Arthuret, and Kirkandrews; and here he printed a local poem, entitled “Gariston,” which is now scarce a as he only circulated a few copies among his friends. In 1753, Dr. Graham removed him to be his curate at Ashted, in Surrey, in which living, upon the doctor’s resignation, Mr. Demon succeeded him. He died here June 27, 1777, leaving three sons and four daughters. As he had had no opportunity to make much provision for this family, the late lord Suffolk generously gave his widow the next presentation to the living, which bounty was so well managed by a judicious friend, as to secure a very comfortable annuity to her and her children. Mr. Denton was a man of unassuming, modest manners; serene and placid, rather than cheerful; and a facetious man, rather than a man of humour. In discharging the duties of his profession, he was exemplarily decent, and his parishioners loved him when living, and lamented him dead. Early in life he reformed, and published a very useful manual of devotions, entitled “Religions retirement for one day in every month,” from the original of Gother, a popish writer. This he undertook “to free from the peculiarities of the Romish church, and to fit it for the use of Protestants.” He is, however, better known by two well-written poems, “Immortality, or the Consolation of human life, a Monody,” printed separately in 4to, 1755, and afterwards reprinted in Dodsley’s Collection; and “The House of Superstition,” a vision, 1762, 4to, afterwards prefixed by Mr. Gilpin to his “Lives of the Reformers.” In both he has proved himself no unsuccessful imitator of the style of Spenser. He also compiled the supplemental volume to the first edition of the Biographical Dictionary, in which the lives are given with equal candour and accuracy.

, a fellow of the royal society of London, was born in Auvergne, in France, in 1666, and was the son of a protestant clergyman. He came over in his youth to England, and appears to have led the life of a man of letters, continually employed in composing or editing literary works. In 1720 he was elected F. R. S. and from his numerous letters in the British Museum, appears to have carried on a very extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, especially St. Evremont and Bayle. He died at London in June 1745. Bayle he assisted with many articles and remarks for his Dictionary, and published his “Letters” at Amsterdam, 1729, 3 vols. 12mo, with a variety of observations, which shew an extensive knowledge of modern literature. He also wrote the life of Bayle, which was prefixed to the edition of his Dictionary published in. 1730, and was reprinted at the Hague in 2 vols. 1732, 12mo. By a letter in the beginning from Desmaiseaux to M. la Motte, it appears that the latter had induced him to undertake this life of his friend. In 1732 he edited Bayle’s Miscellaneous Works in 4 vols. folio, and probably was likewise the author of the “Nouvelles Lettres de Pierre Bayle,” Hague, 1739, 2 vols. 12mo. His intimacy and friendship for St. Evremond led him to publish the life and works of that writer, in 1709, 3 vols. 4to and 8vo, often reprinted and translated into English. He also published the lives of Boileau in French, and of Chillingworth and Hales of Eton in English, which he wrote fluently. For some time it is 'said he was engaged in an English Dictionary, historical and critical, in the manner of Bayle, but no part of it appears to have been published, except the above-mentioned Life of Hales, in 1719, which was professedly a specimen of the intended Dictionary. In 1720 he published some pieces of Locke’s which had not been inserted in his works; and the same year “Recueii de diverses pieces sur la philosophic, la religion naturelle, l'histoire, les mathematiques, &c.” by Leibnitz, Clarke, Newton, and others; Amst. 2 vols. 12mo. He appears likewise to have been the editor of the “Scaligerana, Thuana, Perroniana, Pithoeana, et Colomesiana,” Amst. 1711, 2 vols. Besides these, and his translation of Bayle’s Dictionary, he was a frequent contributor to the literary Journals of his time, particularly the “Bibliotlieque Raisonnæ” and “The Republic of Letters.”

The great objects which Diderot and his coadjutors had in view when they entered upon this work, are now universally known. It has been completely proved, that their intention was to sap the foundation of all religion; not directly or avowedly, for \mre-faced atheism would not then have been suffered in France. They had engaged a very worthy, though not very acute clergyman, to furnish the theological articles, and while he was supporting, by the best arguments which he could devise, the religion of his country, Diderot and D'Alembert were overturning those arguments under titles which properly allowed of no such disquisitions. This necessarily produced digressions: for the greatest genius on earth could not, when writing on the laws of motion, attack the mysteries of Christianity without wandering from his subject; but that the object of these digressions might not pass unnoticed by any class of readers, care was taken to refer to them from the articles where the question was discussed by the divine. That when employed in this way, Diderot seems to write obscurely, is indeed true; but the obscurity is not his. His atheism was so plain, that for the most part, D'Alembert or some other leader, had to retouch his articles, and throw a mist over them, to render their intention less obvious.

, a Lutheran divine, was born June 30, 1647, at Stade in the duchy of Bremen, where his father was also a clergyman. He studied at Giessen, Jena, and Wirtemberg, at which last university he took his master’s degree. In 1672 he finished his course of study, and in 1675 was appointed rector of Stade. In 1683 he was raised to the dignity of superintendant of the duchies of Bremen and Ferden, and about that time was honoured with the degree of doctor of divinity by the university of Kiel. In 1712, the war obliging him to leave Stade, he went to Bremen; but after three years returned, and was re-instated in his office at Stade, where he died July 4, 1720. He wrote, 1. “De naturalismo cum aliorum, turn maxime Joannis Bodini, ex opere ejus manuscripto anecdoto, de abditis rerum subliinium arcanis, schediasnaa,” Leipsic, 1684, 12mo. This is a very able answer to the impious freedoms of Bodin (See Bodin). 2. “Specimen glossarii Latino-theodisci.” 3. “Dissertationes de sparsione florum.” 4. “De dissensu ecclesiae orientalis et Latinae circa purgatorium.” 5. “Enneacles animadversionum in diversa Joca annalium cardinalis Baronii,” &c. He wrote also various tracts in the German language, collected in a volume, Hamburgh, 1709, 4to. But he is, perhaps, better known as the publisher of an edition of the Stade Bible, which is a revision of Luther’s German Bible.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Salisbury, on the 29th of May, 1675, being the fourteenth of that name in a direct line. His father was a gentleman possessed of a small estate in the county of Wilts. His mother was of the family of the Luttrells of Dunstercastle, near Taunton, in Somersetshire, whose fortune made a considerable increase to the family income. Mr. Ditton’s father being of the sect of nonconformists, and extremely tenacious of his opinions, entered much into the religious controversifs of those times, and in supporting such contentions impaired his fortune, almost to the ruin of his family. Mr. Humphrey Ditton was the only son; and his father, observing in him an extraordinary good capacity, was desirous that he should not want the advantage of a good education. Accordingly, he placed him in a private academy, under the direction of Dr. Olive, a clergyman of the established church, who, notwithstanding his religious sentiments were different from those of Mr. Ditton’s family, was much esteemed by them for his candour and moderation in those troublesome times. When Mr. Ditton had finished his studies under Dr. Olive, he at the desire of his father, although contrary to his own inclination, engaged in the professioa of divinity, and began to exercise his function at Tunbridge, in Kent, where he continued to preach some years during which time he married Miss Ball, a lady at that place.

, a Roman catholic historian, deserves a fuller memorial than can now be recovered. All we know of him is derived from Mr. Berrington, who informs us that he was a clergyman of the Roman church, resided at Harvington in Worcestershire, and died there about the year 1745. His virtues and talents were eminent, and his labours in the range of literature were incessant and manifold. The work that has principally given celebrity to his name is a “Church History of England,” 1737 1742, 3 vols. folio, with the place of Brussels, but evidently from the type, &c. printed in England. Having had repeated occasion to consult it, we are ready to acknowledge our obligations for information derived from this history, which cost the author the labour of thirty years; and we agree with Mr. Berrington, that it contains much curious matter, collected with great assiduity, and many original records. The author’s style, when the subject admits expression, is pure and unincumbered, his narration easy, and his reflections just and liberal, at least as much so as can be expected from an undisguised zeal for a certain train of opinions, and certain views of history. His materials are perhaps not well arranged, and he was himself, we are told, so dissatisfied, as, with his own hand, to copy this voluminous work into two or three different forms. This history remained for many years almost unknown, and we can remember when it was sold almost at the price of waste-paper. Its worth is now better ascertained, and the last copy offered for sale, belonging to the marquis Tenvnshend’s library, was sold for ten guineas.

His reputation was such, and the respect of persons of all parties and denominations for his various excellent qualities was so great, that in the close of his life, and in the scene of his last decline, all seemed to vie in testifying their solicitude for his recovery, and their wishes for his obtaining every accommodation that would render his mind and his circumstances easy. During his stay at Bristol, previously to his voyage to Lisbon, he received very particular expressions of regard from a clergyman of the established church. When Dr. Doddridge undesignedly threw out a hint of the principal reason which caused him to demur about the voyage, and that was the expence of it, this gentleman was both generous and active in promoting a subscription to defray the charges of his voyage. Nathaniel Neal, esq. an eminent Solicitor in London, was also very zealous in the management of this business, which he conducted with such success as to be able to inform the doctor, that instead of selling what our author had in the funds, he should be able through the benevolence of friends, to add something to it, after the expence of the voyage was defrayed. As Mrs. Doddridge forfeited a considerable annuity, to which as a widow she would have been entitled, by her husband’s dying abroad, a subscription was opened for her, chiefly in London, and in a great measure under the direction of Mr. Neal, by means of which a sum was raised, which was more than equal to the annuity that had been forfeited.

, was born at Shottesbrooke, in Berkshire, June 17, 1709, and was educated at Trinity college, Oxford, where he took the degree of master of arts, on the 8th of June, 1732. In the course of his life, he obtained several considerable preferments. He was rector of Shottesbrooke, and vicar of Bucklesbury and of White-Waltham. Dr. Sherlock, when bishop of Salisbury, gave him a prebendal stall in that cathedral, and he afterwards became a canon of the same church. Bishop Thomas promoted him to the archdeaconry of Berks. The principal works by which he was distinguished, were, “A Free Answer to Dr. Middleton’s Free Enquiry,” published in 1749; and “A full and final Reply to Mr. Toll’s Defence of Dr. Middleton,” which appeared in 1751. Both these works were written with temper, as well as with learning. Our author was judged to have performed such good service to the cause of religion by his answer to Dr. Middleton, that the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of doctor in divinity by diploma, in full convocation on Feb. 23, 1749-50. He published also, “Two Sermons on the eternity of future punishment, in answer to Whiston with a Preface,” Oxford, 1743; “Visitation Sermon on the desireableness of the Christian Faith, published at the request of bishop Sherlock,” Oxford, 1741 “Two Sermons on a rational faith,” Oxford, 1745 “Sermon on the practical influence of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” Oxford, 1715; “Dissertation on Jepthah’s Vow, occasioned by Romaine’s Sermon on that subject,” London, 1745; “Practical Discourses (14) on moral subjects, vol.1.” London, 1748. A Dedication to his patron Arthur Vanittart, esq. of Shottesbrooke, precedes a masterly preface of considerable length, stating the great duties of morality, c. “Vol. II. London, 1749, containing 14 more;” and preceded by a Dedication to bishop Sherlock, whose “unsolicited testimony of favour” to him laid him “under personal obligations. Such a testimony from such a patron, and the obliging manner of conferring it, added much to the value of the favour itself.” “Assize Sermon on Human Laws,” Oxford, 1750; “Sermon on St. Paul’s Wish,” Oxford, 1752; “Two Sermons on Superstition,” Oxford, 1754; “Assize Sermon on the equal and impartial discharge of Justice,” Oxford, 1756 “Letter to the Author of Considerations on the Act to prevent Clandestine Marriages; with a Postscript occasioned by Stebbing’s Enquiry into the annulling Causes,” &c. London, 1755. This Letter *' by a Country Clergyman“was known, at the time, as Dr. DodwelPs;” Two Sermons on the Doctrine of the Divine Visitation by Earthquakes,“Oxford, 1756;” Assize Sermon on the False Witness, Oxford, 1758; “Sermon at the Meeting of the Charity Schools,” London, 1758; “Two Sermons on a particular Providence,” Oxford, 1760 “Sermon before the Sons of the Clergy,” London, 1760; “Charge to the Clergy of the archdeaconry of Berks,” London, 1764-; “Sermon at the Consecration of Bishop Moss, in 1766,” London, 1767; “The Sick Man’s Companion; or the Clergyman’s Assistant in visiting the Sick; with a Dissertation on Prayer,” London, 1767; “The Prayer, on laying the foundation stone of the Salisbury infirmary, subjoined to dean Greene’s Infirmary Sermon,” Salisbury, 1767; “Infirmary Sermon,” Salisbury, 1768. In 1302, the eldest son of our author permitted the “Three Charges on the Athanasian Creed,” in consequence of the request of some Oxford friends, to see the light. They were accordingly printed at the university press; and contributed, as the author expresses himself in his second page, “to obviate all real mistakes, to silence all wilful misrepresentations, to remove prejudices, to confirm the faith of others, and to vindicate our own sincerity in the profession of it” and it was considered by him as “not unseasonable or unuseful to review and justify that which is called the Athanasian Creed not, we well know, as composed by him whose name it bears, but as explaining the doctrine which he so strenuously maintained.”

, an ingenious mathematician, was born Feb. 6, 1718, at Bideford, in Devonshire, where his father kept a mathematical school, and was reputed one of the best teachers of arithmetic, navigation, and dialing, in his time. It appears from some papers in ms. left by the Rev. Mr. Hervey, author of the “Meditations,” that the family name was Donne and that Christopher, the grandfather, was the first that dropped the final e. The subject of the present article was brought up under the care of the Rev. Mr. Mudge, of Plymouth, and his successor White, M. A. with whom he made a very considerable progress in the Latin and Greek languages. When he left the grammar-school, as far as his health would permit, he assisted his father in his mathematical school; and when he was about fourteen years of age, being at play with some of his schoolmates, he fell from a high pile of deals, which, with his soon after going a-swimming in a profuse sweat, laid the foundation for disorders which continued on him till the time of his death; so that, from the fourteenth year of his age to his twenty-eighth, when he died, he can scarcely be said to have had the blessing of health, even for so short an interval as a month. ^Notwithstanding this severe sickness, he studied the mathematics, and acquired some considerable knowledge in those sciences; for he solved several questions in the Diaries. As to astronomy, it seemed to have been his favourite study; and he left behind him the result of hiss calculations of the eclipses of the Sun and Moon, with the transits of Mercury, for more than ten years to come, with their delineations. He was assistant to Mr. Hervey in his studying the use of the globes and that pious clergyman preached his funeral sermon, July 15, 1746. His works were published by his younger brother, Benjamin Donn, who about 1756 opened an academy at Kingston, near Taunton, in Somersetshire, where he taught with great success, and where he died in 1798, after publishing some mathematical treatises.

, bishop of Dunkeld, eminent for his poetical talents, was descended from a noble family, being the third son of Archibald, earl of Angus, and was born in Scotland at the close of the year 1474, or the Beginning of 1475. His father was very careful of his education, and caused him to be early instructed in literature and the sciences. He was intended by him for the church; and after having passed through a course of liberal education in Scotland, is supposed to have travelled into foreign countries, for his farther improvement in literature, particularly to Paris, where he finished his education. Alter his return to Scotland, he obtained the office of provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles in Edinburgh, a post of considerable dignity and revenue; and was also made rector of Heriot church. He was likewise appointed abbot of the opulent convent of Aberbrothick; and the queenmother, who was then regent of Scotland, and about this time married his nephew the earl of Angus, nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. But he was prevented from obtaining this dignity by a violent opposition made to him at home, and by the refusal of the pope to confirm his appointment. The queen-mother afterwards promoted him to the bishopric of Dunkeld; and for this preferment obtained a bull in his favour from pope Leo X. by the interest of her brother, Henry VIII. king of England. But so strong an opposition was again made to him, that he could not, for a considerable time, obtain peaceable possession of this new preferment; and was even imprisoned for more than a year, under pretence of having acted illegally, in procuring a bull from the pope. He was afterwards set at liberty, and consecrated bishop of Dunkeld, by James Beaton, chancellor of Scotland, and archbishop of Glasgow. After his consecration he went to St. Andrew’s, and thence to his own church at Dunkeld; where the first day, we are told, “he was most kindly received by his clergy and people, all of them blessing God for so worthy and learned a bishop.” He still, however, met with many obstructions; and, for some time, was forcibly kept out of the palace belonging to his diocese; but he at length obtained peaceable possession. He soon after accompanied the duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, to Paris, when that nobleman was sent to renew the ancient league between Scotland and France. After his return to Scotland, he made a short stay at Edinburgh, and then repaired to his diocese, where he applied himself diligently to the duties of his episcopal office. He was also a promoter of public-spirited works, and particularly finished the stone bridge over the river Tay, opposite to his own palace, which had been begun by his predecessor. We meet with no farther particulars concerning him till some years after, when he was at Edinburgh, during the disputes between the earls of Arran and Angus. On that occasion bishop Douglas reproved archbishop Beaton for wearing armour, as inconsistent with the clerical character, but was afterwards instrumental in saving his life. During all these disorders in Scotland, it is said, that bishop Douglas behaved “with that moderation and peaceableness, which became a wise man and a religious prelate;” but the violence and animosity which then prevailed among the different parties in Scotland, induced him to retire to England. After his departure, a prosecution was commenced against him in Scotland; but he was well received in England, where he was treated with particular respect, on account of the excellency of his character, and his great abilities and learning. King Henry VII I. allowed him a liberal pension; and he became particularly intimate with Polydore Vergil. He died of the plague, at London, in 1521, or 1522, and was interred in the Savoy church, on the left side of the tomb-stone of Thomas Halsay, bishop of Laghlin, in Ireland; on whose tomb-stone a short epitaph for bishop Douglas is inscribed. Hume, of Godscroft, in his “History of the Douglases,” says, “Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, left behind him great approbation of his virtues and love of his person in the hearts of all good men; for besides the nobility of his birth, the dignity and comeliness of his personage, he was learned, temperate, and of singular moderation of mind; and in these turbulent times had always carried himself among the factions of the nobility equally, and with a mind to make peace, and not to stir up parties; which qualities were very rare in a clergyman of those days.”

, the late learned bishop of Salisbury, was born in Scotland, in 1721, the son of Mr. Archibald Douglas, a merchant of Fittenween, in Fifeshire. His grandfather (who was a younger brother of the family of Douglas of Tulliquilly, one of the oldest branches of the house of Douglas now in existence), was an eminent clergyman of the episcopal church of Scotland, and the immediate successor of bishop Burnet in the living of Salten, in East Lothian, from which preferment he was ejected at the revolution, when presbyterianism was established in Scotland. The subject of this memoir was educated for some years at the school of Dunbar, but in 1736 was entered a commoner of St. Mary hall, Oxford, where he remained till 1738, and then removed to Baliolcollege, on being elected an exhibitioner on bishop Warner’s foundation. In 1741 he took his bachelor’s degree; and in 1742, in order to acquire a facility of speaking French, he went abroad, and remained for some time at Montreal, in Picardy, and afterwards at Ghent, in Flanders. On his return to college, in 1743, he took his master’s degree, and having been ordained deacon, in 1744, he was appointed to officiate as chaplain to the third regiment of foot-guards, which he joined when serving with the combined army in Flanders. During the time he tilled this situation, he employed himself chiefly in the study of modern languages. He was not an inactive spectator of the battle of Fontenoy, April 29, 1745, on which occasion he was employed in carrying orders from general Campbell to the English who guarded the village in which he and the other generals were stationed.

, one of our most distinguished naval heroes, who flourished in the reign of Elizabeth, was the son of Edmund Drake, a sailor, and born near Tavistock, in Devonshire, in 1545, but some have said that he was the son of a clergyman. He was, however, brought up at the expence, and under the care, of sir John Hawkins, who was his kinsman; and at the age of eighteen was purser of a ship trading to Biscay. At twenty he made a voyage to Guinea; and at twenty-two had the honour to be made captain of the Judith. In that capacity he was in the harbour of St. John de Ulloa, in the gulph of Mexico, where he behaved most gallantly in the glorious actions under sir John Hawkins, and returned with him to England with great reputation, though as poor as he set out. Upon this he projected a design against the Spaniards in the West Indies, which he no sooner announced, than he had volunteers enough ready to accorapany him. In 1570 he made his first expedition with two ships; and the next year with one only, in which he returned safe, if not with such advantages as he expected. He made another expedition in 1572, did the Spaniards some mischief, and gained considerable booties. In these expeditions he was much assisted by a nation of Indians, who then were, and have been ever since, engaged in perpetual wars with the Spaniards. The prince of these people was named Pedro, to whom Drake presented a fine cutlass from his side, which he saw the Indian greatly admired. Pedro, in return, gave him four large wedges of gold, which Drake threw into the common stock, with this remarkable expression, that“he thought it but just, that such as bore the charge of so uncertain a voyage on his credit, should share the utmost advantages that voyage produced.” Then embarking his men with all the wealth he had obtained, which was very considerable, he bore away for England, where he arrived in August, 1573.

In 1753 when a severe attack was made on the political character of his two intimate friends Mr. Stone and Mr. Murray, afterwards the great earl of Mansfield, the bishop vindicated his old school-fellows before a committee of the privy council, directed to inquire into the charge, with that persuasive energy of truth, which made the king exclaim on reading the examination, “That is indeed a man to make a friend of.” In May 1761 he was translated to the see of Salisbury, and when archbishop of York elect, in which dignity he was enthroned in the November following, he preached the coronation sermon of their present majesties, and soon after became lord high almoner, and a member of the privy council. In the former office he rectified many abuses, and rendered it more extensively beneficial, by preventing the royal bounty from being considered as a fund to which persons of high n;nk and opulence could transfer any just claims on their own private generosity. On one occasion, when applied to by a very rich peer in behalf of two of his cousins, he replied, “that he was sorry to say that the very reason which would induce himself to assist them, prevented his considering them as objects of his majesty’s charity their near relationship to his lordship.” His conduct in the metropolitan see of York is described with great spirit and truth by Mr. llastal, the topographer of Southwell, who styles him “peculiarly virtuous as a statesman, attentive to his duties as a churchman, magnificent as an archbishop, and amiable as a man.” This character appears to be confirmed by all who knew him. As a statesman he acted upon manly and independent principles, retiring from parliament in 1762, when new men and measures were promoted, averse, in his opinion, to that system of government under which the country had so long flourished. When, however, any question was introduced, in which the interference of a churchman was proper, he was sedulous in his attendance, and prompt in delivering his sentiments. His munificence in his see deserves to be recorded. When he was translated to York, he found the archiepiscopal palace, small, mean, and incommodious; and the parish church in a state of absolute decay. To the former he made many splendid additions, particularly in the private chapel. The latter he rebuilt from its foundation, with the assistance of a small contribution from the clergyman of the parish, and two or three neighbouring gentlemen. He died at his palace at Bishopsthorpe, Dec. 10, 1776, in the 66th year of his age, and was buried by his own desire, in a very private manner, under the altar of the church. Although his literary attainments were very considerable, he published only six occasional sermons, which were much admired, and of which his son, rev. George Hay Drummond, M. A. prebendary of York, published a correct edition in 1803: to this edition are prefixed “Memoirs of the Archbishop’s Life,” and it also contains “A Letter on Theological Study,” addressed to the son of an intimate friend, then a candidate for holy orders, which evinces an intimate acquaintance with many of the best writers on theological subjects. His own principles appear to have been rather more remote from those contained in the articles and homilies than could have been wished, because they are thereby not so consistent with some of the writers whom he recommends; and he speaks with unusual freedom of certain doctrines which have been held sacred by some of the wisest and best divines of the established church. Of the “Memoirs” prefixed to this new edition of his Sermons, we have availed ourselves in this brief record of a prelate whose memory certainly deserves to be rescued from oblivion. His Sermons are composed in an elegant and classical style, and contain many admirable passages, and much excellent advice on points of moral and religious practice.

a distinguished clergyman of the established church of Scotland, the third son of the rev. John Drysdale, minister of Kirkaldy, was born April 29, 1718, and educated there in classical learning. In 1732, he was sent to finish his studies at the university of Edinburgh; and in 1740, was licensed to preach by the presbytery of Kirkaldy, was several years assistant minister of the collegiate church in Edinburgh, and in 1748 was presented to the church of Kirkliston. After residing there for fifteen years, he was presented to lady Yester’s church, by the town-council of Edinburgh. This being the first instance in which the magistrates of that city had exercised their right of presentation, which was thought to reside in the parishioners, and Mr. Drysdale being suspected of favouring in his discourses the Arminian tenets, a very common objection to the modern church of Scotland, a formidable opposition was made to his institution; but the magistrates proving victorious, he obtained a settlement in lady Yester’s church. The sermons he preached there, says professor Dalzel, although his mode of delivery was by no means correct, always attracted a great concourse of hearers, whom he never failed to delight and instruct by an eloquence of the most nervous and interesting kind. His natural diffidence for some prevented his appearing as a speaker in the ecclesiastical judicatures; but he was at length induced to co-operate with Dr. Robertson, in defence of what was termed the moderate party in the church of Scotland. In 1765, the university of Aberdeen, unsolicited, conferred upon him the degree of D, D. by diploma, and on the death of Dr. Jardine, he was preferred to the church of Tron, and appointed a king’s chaplain, with the allowance of one-third the emoluments arising from the deanery of the chapel royal. In 1773, having obtained the character of an able and impartial divine, he was unanimously elected moderator of the general assembly of the Scottish kirk; “the greatest mark of respect,” observes his biographer, “which an ecclesiastical commonwealth can bestow.” In 1784 he was re-elected, by a great majority, to the same dignity. In May, 17s8, he appeared at the general assembly, and the first day acted as principal clerk, but was taken ill, and died on the 16th of June following, aged seventy years. His general character was that of betievolence and inflexible integrity. His candour obtained him many friends; and even such as were of different sentiments in church affairs, and held different religious tenets, esteemed the man, and with these he kept up a friendly intercourse. “Indeed,” adds the professor, “never any man more successfully illustrated what he taught by his own conduct and manners.” His reputation as a preacher was very great; and on an occasional visit he made to London, Mr. Strahan, the late printer, endeavoured to persuade him to publish a volume of sermons. On his return to Scotland he began a selection for the purpose, but his modesty hindered his proceeding, and induced him, finally, to relinquish the plan. After his death, his son-in-law, the late professor Dalzel, who h;,d the inspection of his manuscripts, made a selection of his sermons, and published them in two 8vo volumes, with biographical anecdotes of his life, which were published also in the " Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

, an eminent school-master and learned man, was the son of Henry Dugard, a clergyman, and born at Bromsgrove in Worcestershire, Jan. 9, 1605. He was instructed in classical learning at a school in Worcester; and from thence sent, in 162'J, to Sidney college, Cambridge. In 1626 he took the degree of B. A. and that of M. A. in 1630. Soon after he was appointed master of Stamford school in Lincolnshire; from whence, in 1637, he was elected master of the free-school in Colchester. He resigned the care of this school Jan. 1642-3, in consequence of the ill-treatment he received at the hands of a party in that town, to which, us well as to the school, he had been of great service; and May 1644 was chosen head master of Merchant Taylors’ school in London. This school flourished exceedingly under his influence and management but for shewing, as was thought, too great an affection to the royal cause, and especially for printing Salmasius’s defence of Charles I. at a press in his own house, he was deprived of it February 1650, and imprisoned in Newgate his wife and six children turned out of doors and a printing-office, which he valued at a thousand pounds, seized . Being soon released from this confinement, he opened, April 1650, a private school on Peter’s Hill, London; but, in September was restored to his former station, by means of the same council of state who had caused him to be removed, and who, with Milton, took advantage of his distresses to force him into their service, and among other things to print Milton’s answer to Sahaasius. There, however, he continued with great success and credit, till about 1662, when he was dismissed for breaking some orders of the merchant tailors, though he had been publicly warned and admonished of it before. He presented a remonstrance to them upon that occasion, but to no purpose: on. which he opened a private school in Coleman-street, July 1661, and, by March following, had gathered a hundred and ninety-three scholars: so great was his reputation, and the fame of his abilities. He lived a very little while after, dying in 1662. He gave by will several books to Sion college library. He published some few pieces for the use of his schools as, 1. “Lexicon Grajci Testament! alphabetieum; una cum explicaiione gramimitica vocum singularum, in usum tironum. Necnon Concordantiil singulis dictionibus apposita, in usurn theologian candidatorum,” 1660. 2. “Rhetorices compendium,” Hvo. 3. “Luciani SamosatenMS dialogorum seiectorum libri duo, cum interpretatione Latina, multis in locis emendata, et ad calcem adjecta,” 8vo. 4. “A Greek grammar.”

, was born 1730, and when a child, was of an amiable disposition, had an uncommon capacity for learning, and discovered, very early, a genius for poetry. After some years passed at a school at Romford, in Essex, under the care of his relation, the rev. Philip Fletcher, afterwards dean of Kildare, and younger brother to the bishop of that see, he was removed to a more eminent one at Felsted, in the same county. At this school he was stimulated by emulation to an exertion of his talents; and, by a close application, he became the first scholar, as well as captain of the school, and gained the highest reputation; and by the sweetness of his temper and manners, and by a disposition to friendship, he acquired and preserved the love of all his companions, and the esteem of his master and family. He has, on some particular occasions, been heard modestly to declare, that he was never punished, during hib whole residence at either school, for negligence in his lessons or exercise, or for any other misdemeanor. He was very early qualified for the university, and constantly improved himself, when at home, by his private studies, and the assistance or his father, happy in the companionship of such a son, who was always dutiful and affectionate to him; and the first literary characters of that time associated with a father and son, whose polished taste and amiable manners rendered them universally acceptable. He was entered, at the age of sixteen, at Bene‘t-college, Cambridge, where Mr. Castle, afterwards dean of Hereford, was then master: and he was recommended to that college by archbishop Herring, whom we have mentioned as his father’s particular friend. The archbishop baptised his son, and promised to patronize him, if educated for the church, and therefore sent him to the college where he had completed his own education. At the university he continued to rise in reputation as a scholar and a poet, and was always irreproachable in his moral character: he had the happiness of forming some connections there with men of genius an ’< virtue, which lasted through life; but the first and strongest attachment, in which he most delighted, end which reflected honour on his own merit, was the uninterrupted friendship, and constant correspondence, which com.uued to the last, with Mr. Greene, a very respectable clergyman of the diocese of Norwich, a man whose character for learning and abilities, goodness and virtue, justly gained him the esteem and love of all who had the happiness of his acquaintance, whose testimony is real praise, who acknowledged the worth of his valuable friend, “and loved his amiable and benevolent spirit.”

By his will he bequeathed several sums of money to charitable uses; particularly lands in Pembridge, in Herefordshire, which cost 250l. settled upon an alms-house there begun by his father; 500l. to be paid to the bishop of Sarum, to be bestowed upon an organ in that church, or such other use as the bishop shall think fittest; 500l. to the dean and chapter of Christ-church, in Oxford, towards the new buildings; 200l. to be bestowed on the cathedral church of Chichester, as the bishop and dean and chapter shall think fit; 200l. to the cathedral church at Winchester; 40l. to the poor of Lewisham, in Kent, where he was born; 40l. to the poor of Greenwich; 20l. to the poor of Westham, in Sussex, and 20l. more to provide communion-plate in that parish, if they want it, otherwise that 20l. also to the poor; 20l. to the poor of Witham, in Sussex; 10l. per annum for ten years to William Watts, to encourage him to continue in his studies; 50l. a-piece to ten widows of clergyman; 50l. a-piece to ten loyal officers not yet provided for; 200l. to All-souls’ college, in Oxford; 300l. to the repair of St. Paul’s cathedral; and above 3000l. in several sums to private friends and servants! so that the character given of him by Burnet, who represents him as not having made that use of his wealth that was expected, is not just. He wrote and published a few pieces: as, 1. “The soul’s soliloquies, and conference with conscience;” a sermon before Charles I. at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, on Oct. 25, being the monthly fast, 1648, 4to. 2. “Angels rejoicing for Sinners repenting;” a sermon on Luke xv. 10, 1648, 4to. 3. “A guide for the penitent, or, a model drawn up for the help of a devout soul wounded with sin,” 1660, 8vo. 4. “Holy rules and helps to devotion, both in prayer and practice, in two parts,” 1674, 12mo, with the author’s picture in the beginning. This was published by Benjamin Parry, of Corpus Christi college, in Oxford. The life of archbishop Spotsvvood is likewise said by some to have been written by bishop Duppa but, as Wood justly observes, that could not be, because it was written by a native of Scotland.

, D. D. a very eloquent French protcstant preacher at the Savoy in London, and a fellow of the royal society, was born about 1679 at St. Pargoire in Lower Languedoc, and was the son and brother of two distinguished protestant clergymen. Of his history, however, our memoirs are very scanty. It appears that he had a congregation first at Amsterdam, whence he was invited to that of the Savoy in London, where he died Jan. 16, 1763. His character was that of an universal scholar, a deep divine, a devotee to truth, and a most benevolent and disinterested man. Among: his works are, 1. “La Vie et les Sentimens de Lucilio Vanini,” Rotterdam, 1717, 12mo, and afterwards published in English. 2. “Histoire de la Peinture ancienne,” from Pliny’s Natural History, with the Latin text, and notes, Lond. 1725, fol. without his name. [3. “A volume of Sermons in French,” Lond. 1726.] 4. “Hist, naturelle del‘Oretde l’Argent,” edited in the same manner, 1729, fol. and both marked by French bibliographers among their rare books. 5. “C. Plinii historiae naturalis ad Titum imperatorem pra?fatio,” collated with ancient Mss. &c. Lond. 1728, 8vo. 6. An edition of Telemachus, with notes and illustrations, and a life of Fenelon, Hamburgh, 1731, 2 vols. 12mo, and revised by Dr. Durand for Watts of London, 1745. 7. “Histoire du XVI Siecle,” Lond. 1725 29, 6 vols. 8vo, on the plan of Perizonius. 8. “Onzieme et douzieme volumes de l‘Hist. d’Angleterre par Rapin,” Hague, 1734, and Paris, 1749, 2 vols. 4to. 9. “Academica, sive de judicio erga verum, in ipsis primis fontibus, opera P. Valentiae Zafrensis, editio jiova emendatior,” Lond. 1740, 8vo, printed by Bowyer, in French and Latin. This work is so scarce in France, that when M. Capperonnier, one of the keepers of the national library, wanted to add it to the other editions published by Barbou, he was obliged to transcribe the whole from a copy lent to him by M. Chardin, who had one of the finest libraries in Paris. 10. “Exercices Francais et Anglais,” Lond. 1745, 8vo. 11. “Dissertation en forme cTentretien sur la Prosodie Francaise,” prefixed to Boyer’s Dictionary. 12. “Eclaircissemens sur le toi et sur le vous,” ibid. 1753, 12mo. His sentiments on the thce and thoit have been adopted by La Harpe in his late lectures. In 1777, a posthumous work by Dr. Durand, a life of Ostervald, was published, with a preface by the late rev. Samuel Beuzeville of Bethnal-green, a French clergyman, who died in 1782.

About the same time he married a lady of Coleshill, named Ensor; “whose grandmother,” says he, “was a Shakspeare, descended from a brother of every body’s Shakspeare.” His ecclesiastical provision was a long time but slender. His first patron, Mr. Harper, gave him in 1741, Calthorp in Leicestershire, of 80l. a year, on which he lived ten years; and in April 1757, exchanged it for Belchford, in Lincolnshire, of 75l. which was given him by lord-chancellor Hardwicke, on the recommendation of a friend to virtue and the muses. His condition now began to mend. In the year 1752 sir John Heathcote gave him Coningsby, of 140l. a-year; and in 1756, when he was LL. B. without any solicitation of his own, obtained for him, from the chancellor, Kirkby-on-Bane, of 110l. “I was glad of this,” says Mr. Dyer, in 1756, “on account of its nearness to me, though I think myself a loser by the exchange, through the expence of the seal, dispensations , journies, &c. and the charge of an old house, half of which I am going to pull down” The house, which is a very good one, owes much of its improvement to Mr. Dyer. His study, a little room with white walls, ascended by two steps, had a handsome window to the church-yard, which he stopped up, and opened a less, that gave him a full view of the fine church and castle at Tateshall, about a mile off, and of the road leading to it. He also improved the garden. In May 1757 he was employed in rebuilding a Lirge barn, which a late wind had blown down, and gathering materials for re-building above half the parsonage-house at Kirkby. “These,” he says, “some years ago, I should have called trifles but the evil days are come, and the lightest thing, even the grasshopper, is a burden upon the shoulders of the old and fickly.” He had then just published “The Fleece,” his greatest poetical work; of which Dr. Johnson relates this ludicrous story: Dodsley the bookseller was one day mentioning it to a critical visitor, with more expectation of success than the other could easily admit. In the conversation the author’s age was asked: and being represented as advanced in life, “he will,” said the critic, “be buried in woollen.” He did not indeed long outlive that publication, nor long enjoy the increase of his pre; ments; for a consumptive disorder, with which he had long struggled, carried him off at length, July 24, 1758. Mr. Gough, who visited Coningsby Sept.5, 17S2, could find no memorial erected to him in the church. Mr--. Dyer, on her husband’s decease, retired to her friends in Caernarvonshire. In 17.56 they had four children living, three girls and a boy. Of these, Sarah died single. The son, a youth of the most amiable disposition, heir to his father’s truly classical taste, and to his uncle’s estate of 300l. or 400l. a year in Suffolk, devoted the principal part of his time to travelling; and died in London, as he was preparing to set out on a tour to Italy, in April 1782, at the age of thirty-two. This young gentleman’s fortune was divided between two surviving sisters; one of them married to alderman Hewitt, of Coventry; the other, Elizabeth, to the rev. John Gaunt, of Birmingham. Mr. Dyer had some brothers, all of whom were dead in 1756, except one, who was a clergyman, yeoman of his majesty’s almonry, lived at Marybone, and had then a numerous family.

, a clergyman, and author of several historical and other works, was nearly related to Dr. John Eachard, although they chose to spell the name differently. He was born at Cassam, near Beccles, in Suffolk, about 1671, and was the son of a clergyman, who, by the death of an elder brother, became possessed of a good estate in that county. Having passed through a course of grammar-learning, he was sent to Christ’s college, Cambridge, and, in 1691, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and that of master in 1695. He afterwards entered into holy orders, and was ordained by More, bishop of Norwich, being presented for ordination by Whiston, then the bishop’s chaplain, who says that his character was unexceptionable. Echard then was promoted to the livings of Welton and Elkinton, in Lincolnshire, where he spent above twenty years of his life; and, during that time, he published a variety of works. One of his first publications was, “The Roman History, from the building of the City to the perfect Settlement of the Empire by Augustus Caesar.” This was so well received, that the fourth edition, in one volume 8vo, was published in 1699. He also published “The History, from the Settlement of the Empire, by Augustus Caesar, to the removal of the Imperial Seat of Constantine the Great,” said to be “for the use of his highness the duke of Gloucester,” to whom it was dedicated; and the second edition, in 8vo, was printed in 1699. Two continuations of this work, one of which was revised by Mr. Echard, were afterwards published in 3 vols. 8vo. In 1702, our author published, in folio, with a dedication to queen Anne, “A General Ecclesiastical History, from the Nativity of our blessed Saviour to the first establishment of Christianity by Human Laws, under the emperor Constantine the Great. Containing the space of about 313 years. With so much of the Jewish and Roman History as is necessary and convenient to illustrate the work. To which is added, a large chronological table of all the Roman and Ecclesiastical affairs, included in the same period of time.” This work was so well received, that the sixth edition of it was published in 1722, in 2 vols. 8vo. Dean Prideaux says, that it is the best of its kind in the English tongue.

In 1759, a younger, and the only brother of his good uncle, came to England, and settling in London, took him to reside with him, in a high and elegant style of life. He was a representative in parliament for Abingdon, and afterward for his native town. This gentleman, in the latter end of the same year, sent him to Jamaica; which proved the happiest and most fortunate change in his life, as his uncle, to the most enlarged and enlightened mind, added the sweetest temper, and the most generous disposition. His tenderness toward Mr. Edwards was excessive, and he in return regarded him with more than filial affection and veneration. Observing his passion for books, and thinking favourably of his capacity, his uncle engaged a clergyman, a Mr. Teale, to reside in his family, chiefly to supply by his instructions Mr. Edwards’s deficiency in the learned languages. Mr. Teale had been master of a free grammar school, and beside being a most accomplished scholar, possessed an exquisite taste for poetry, of which the reader will be convinced by referring to the Gentleman’s Magazine for August 1771, the beautiful copy of verses, there first published, called “The Compliment of the Day,” being of his composition. Mr. Edwards, however, according to his own account, did not make any great progress in the languages under his tuition. He acquired “small Latin, and less Greek;” and never found it easy to read the Roman poets in their own language. Not having been grounded in the Latin grammar at an early period of life, he found the study of it insupportably disgusting, after he had acquired a taste for the beauties of fine writing. Poetry, however, was their chief amusement; for Mr. Teale, as well as himself, preferred the charms of Dryden and Pope, to the dull drudgery of poring over syntax and prosody. They preferred belles lettres; and laughed away many an hour over the plays of Moliere, and wrote verses on local and temporary subjects, which thev sometimes published in the Colonial newspapers. Yet the Latin classics were not altogether neglected; Mr. Teale delighted to point out to his pupil the beauties of Horace, and would frequently impose on him the task of translating an ode into English verse, which, with his assistance in construing the words, he sometimes accomplished.

, or Eliseus, as he calls himself in his “Miscellanea,” the son of a clergyman in Devonshire, was educated at Baliol-college, Oxford. In 1655, about the time when he took the degree of B. A. being then fellow of the college, he published a small volume of divine poems, and another in 1658. The same year he published “Miscellanea,” in Latin and English verse, and several short essays in Latin prose. This book was reprinted in 1662. In the preface, and again in the body of the work, he speaks with great sensibility of some persons who had decried his performances, and aspersed his character on account of some levities and follies of youth. In 1659 he succeeded his father in the rectory of East Allington, in Devonshire. His conduct appears to have been irreproachable after he entered into orders. By his writings he has given sufficient testimony of his parts, industry, and learning. The most remarkable of his numerous works, which are mentioned by Wood, is the pamphlet he published against Dr. Tillotson’s sermons on the incarnation; and the most estimable is his volume of Letters, &c. as some of them are written to eminent persons, particularly Dr. Sherlock and Dr. Bentley. There are also letters from Dr. Henry More, Dr. Barlow, and others, to Edmund Elys. He was living, and in studious retirement, in 1633, at which time he was a non-juror.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born May 14, 1701, at Hurvvorth, a village about three miles south of Darlington, on the borders of the county of Durham, at least it is certain he resided here from his childhood. His father, Dutlly Emerson, taught a school, and was a tolerable proficient in the mathematics; and without his books and instructions perhaps his son’s genius might might never have been unfolded. Besides his father’s instructions, our author was assisted in the learned languages by a young clergyman, then curate of Hurworth, who was boarded at his father’s house. In the early part of his life, he attempted to teach a few scholars; but whether from his concise method (for he was not happy in expressing his ideas), or the warmth of his natural temper, he made no progress in his school; he therefore Sood left it oft', and satisfied with a small paternal estate of about 60l. or 70l. a year, devoted himself to study, which he closely pursued in his native place through the course of a long life, being mostly very healthy, till towards the latter part of his days, when he was much afflicted with the stone: towards the close of the year 1781, being sensible of his approaching dissolution, he disposed of the whole of his mathematical library to a bookseller at York, and on May the 26th, 1782, his lingering and painful disorder put an end to his life at his native village, in the eighty-first year of his age. In his person he was rather short, but strong and well-made, with an open countenance and ruddy complexion. He was never known to ask a favour, or seek the acquaintance of a rich man, unless he possessed some eminent qualities of the mind. He was a very good classical scholar, and a tolerable physician, so far as it could be combined with mathematical principles, according to the plan of Keil and Morton. The latter he esteemed above all others as a physician the former as the best anatomist. He was very singular in his behaviour, dress, and conversation. His manners and appearance were that of a rude and rather boorish countryman, he wasof very plain conversation, and indeed seemingly rude, commonly mixing oaths in his sentences. He had strong natural parts, and could discourse sensibly on any subject; but was always positive and impatient of any contradiction. He spent his whole life in close study and writing books; with the profits of which he redeemed his little patrimony from some original incumbrance. He had but one coat, which he always wore open before, except the lower button no waistcoat; his shirt quite the reverse of one in. common use, no opening before, but buttoned close at the collar behind; a kind of flaxen wig which had not a crooked hair in it; and probably had never been tortured with a comb from the time of its being made. This was his dress when he went into company. One hat he made to last him the best part of his lifetime, gradually lessening the flaps, bit by bit, as it lost its elasticity and hung down, till little or nothing but the crown remained. He never rode although he kept a horse, but was frequently seen to lead the horse, with a kind of wallet stuffed with the provisions he had bought at the market. He always walked up to London when he had any thing to publish, revising sheet by sheet himself; trusting no eyes but his own, which was always a favourite maxim with him. He never advanced any mathematical proposition that he had not first tried in practice, constantly making all the different parts himself on a small scale, so that his house was filled with all kinds of mechanical instruments together or disjointed. He would frequently stand up to his middle in water while fishing; a diversion he was remarkably fond of. He used to study incessantly for some time, and then for relaxation take a ramble to any pot ale-house where he could get any body to drink with and talk to. The duke of Manchester was highly pleased with his company, and used often to come to him in the fields and accompany him home, but could never persuade him to get into a carriage. When he wrote his sinall treatise on navigation, he and some of his scholars took a small vessel from Hurworth, and the whole crew soon gotswampt; when Emerson, smiling and alluding to his treatise, said “They must not do as I do, but as I say.” He was a married man; and his wife used to spin on an old-fashioned wheel, of which a very accurate drawing is given in his mechanics. He was deeply skilled in the science of music, the theory of sounds, and the various scales both ancient and modern, but was a very poor performer. He carried that singularity which marked all his actions even into this science. He had, if we may be allowed the expression, two first strings to his violin, which, he said, made the E more melodious when they were drawn up to a perfect unison. His virginal, which is a species of instrument like the modern spinnet, he had cut and twisted into various shapes in the keys, by adding some occasional half-tones in order to regulate the present scale, and to rectify some fraction of discord that will always remain in the tuning. He never could get this regulated to his fancy, and generally concluded by saying, 4< It was a bad instrument, and a foolish thing to be vexed with."

, a learned English divine, a great champion of Arianism, and memorable for his sufferings on that account, was descended of a substantial and reputable family, and born at Stamford, in Lincolnshire, May 27, 1663. His parents were frequenters of the established church, and particularly acquainted with Cumberland, then a minister at Stamford, afterwards bishop of Peterborough; but being inclined to the sentiments of the nonconformists, they chose to bring up their son to the ministry among them. For this purpose, after he had been at a private school four years, he was sent in 1678 to an, academy in Northamptonshire, where he continued four years more. He went in 1679 to Cambridge, and was admitted of Emanuel college; but soon returned to the academy. In August 1682, he removed to Mr. Doolittle’s school near London; and in December following made his first essay as a preacher at Mr. Doolittle’s meeting-house, near Cripplegate. In 1683, Mr. Emlyn became chaplain to the countess of Donegal, a lady of great quality and estate in the north of Ireland, but then living in Lincoln’sinn-fields. In 1684, Mr. Emlyn went over with the countess and the rest of her family to Belfast, in Ireland, where she was soon after married to sir William Kranklin, and lived in great state and splendour. Here our chaplain had a very liberal and handsome allowance, usually wore the habit of a clergyman, and was treated by sir VV illiam and the countess with every mark of civility. Sir William, who had a good estate in the ivest of England, offered him a considerable living there; but this offer he declined, not being satisfied with the terms of ministerial conformity, though at that time he had no scruples on the subject of the trinity constantly attended the service of the church both parts of the day and when in the evening he preached in the countess’s hall, he had the minister of the parish, Mr. Claude Gilbert, for a hearer, with whom he lived in great intimacy, and for whom he often officiated in the parish church. Indeed, without any subscription, he had from the bishop of the diocese a licence to preach facultatis exercende gratiá; insomuch that it was reported that he had entirely left the dissenters, and was gone over to the establishment. While Mr. Emlyn was in this station, he made a journey fo Dublin, where he preached once to the congregation of which Mr. Daniel Williams and Mr. Joseph Boyse were then pastors; and so acceptable were his services to the audience, that the people were afterwards induced to invite him thither. Towards the latter end of king James’s reign, the north of Ireland was thrown into such confusion and disorder, that the family of sir William Franklin and the countess of Donegal broke up; an event which was accelerated by some domestic differences. Mr. Emlyn, therefore, returned to London, where he arrived in December 1688. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams had some time before retreated to the same place, having quitted the pastoral care of the congregation at Dublin, which he could never be persuaded to resume. When this determination was known, and Mr. Emlyn had not yet left Ireland, Mr. Boyse sounded him by letter, to know whether he was disposed to become Mr. Williams’s successor, and wished him to take Dublin in his way to England, but this he declined. In Mr. Emlyn’s journeyings between Ireland and London, he several times accepted of invitations to preach in the parish-churches of some towns through which he passed. At Liverpbol in particular, as he was standing at the door of his inn one Saturday evening, the minister of the place, concluding by his garb that he was a clergyman, requested him to give his parishioners a sermon the next day, which he accordingly did. What was very remarkable, when he passed that way again some time afterwards, the minister being dead, several of the people, who had heard him before, desired him to preach for them the next Sunday, which service he performed so much to their satisfaction, that they offered to use their interest with their patron to procure him the living; an offer with which his views of things did not permit him to comply. After Mr. Emlyn had returned to London, being out of employment, he was invited by sir Robert Rich, one of the lords of the admiralty, in May 1689, to his house near Beccles, in Suffolk, and was by him prevailed upon to officiate as minister to a dissenting congregation at Lowestoff in that county. This place he supplied for about a year and a half, but refused the invitation of becoming their pastor, having determined not to accept the pastoral care, where he was not likely to settle for life, or at least for a long continuance. Here also Vie cultivated a friendly correspondence with the parish-minister, frequently taking several of his people along with him to church, and accompanying the minister in collecting public charities; by which means a perfect harmony subsisted between the members of the establishment and the dissenters. During Mr. Emlyn’s residence at LowestofT, ho contractcJ a closu and intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Manning, a nonconformist minister at Peasenhall in that neighbourhood. Being both of them of an inquisitive temper, they frequently conferred together, and jointly examined into the principal points of religion, mutually communicating to each other their respective sentiments. This correspondence, notwithstanding the great distance to which they were afterwards separated, was carried on by letters as long as Mr. Manning lived. Dr. Sherlock’s “Vindication of the Trinity” having been published about this time, their thoughts were much turned to the consideration of that subject, the result of which was, that they began to differ from the received doctrine in that article. Mr. Manning embraced the Socinian opinion, and strove hard to bring Mr. Emlyn into the same way of thinking; but he could not be brought to doubt either of the pre-existence of Jesus as the Logos, or that by him God had created the material world. The interpretations which the Socinians gave of the scriptures appeared to our divine so forced and unnatural, that he could by no means accede to them; nor did he ever, in the succeeding part of his life, change his sentiments upon the subject. Nevertheless, upon occasion of his carrying a letter from Mr. Whiston to the prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, in 1711, he was reflected on as a Socinian preacher.

Theology, however, was his favourite study; and his predilection for the ministerial function increasing, he persevered, notwithstanding the opposition of his relations, in the necessary preparatory studies; which being completed, he obtained a licence from the presbytery of Dumblane, in 1742. In May 174-4, he was ordained minister of Kirkintillock, in the presbytery of Glasgow. In 1751 he was removed to the borough of Culross, in the presbytery of Dumfermline. In June 1758, he was invited to Edinburgh, and settled in the New Grey-friars’ church there; and in July 1759, he and Dr. Itobertson were admitted joint ministers of the Old Grey-friars’ church. His unaffected piety, attention to pastoral duties, and useful instructions in public and private, his sympathy with the distressed, and the blamelessness of his private conduct, were truly exemplary, and secured him the affections of his people wherever he went, as well as occasioned their regret at his removal. While thus employed among his people, or in his study, his actiye mind was also employed in watching the progress of religion, both in his own country and in the world at large, and in manifesting his zeal for the success of it. With a view to procure information on this subject, he commenced a correspondence with several persons of distinguished fame and knowledge, both on th continent and in America. He also procured and read very new publication of merit, all the foreign journals, and whatever could administer to his purpose. His “Sermons,” which were published in 1798, may be ranked among the best specimens of pulpit composition. Between 1742, the year in which he was licensed, and 1798, the year in which his sermons appeared, the literature of Scotland had suffered a complete revolution, and in nothing was the change more apparent than in the manner in which the services of the pulpit were conducted. At the former period, sermons abounded with diffuse illustrations; and were disgraced by colloquial phrases, and vulgar provincialisms, In these later years, pulpit composition has attained a highdignity and elegance. Whoever reads the discourses of Dr. Erskine, which in purity and energy of style, no less than in precision of thought and originality of sentiment, may challenge a comparison with any contemporary sef+ inons, must be sensible that their author, whose education bad been completed sixty years before their publication, must have paid no common attention to literary composition, and could watch the variations of taste, keep pace with its improvements, and adapt his productions to the style of the day. Yet he did not servilely imitate the refinements of others, or allow himself to be passively borne along with the stream of fashion. His labours contributed to accomplish that revolution to which we have just now alluded, and to form that standard which we admire; but he had nobler objects in view than the bare information of the literary taste of his countrymen, although he was far from indifferent to this object. In the detached sermons which he printed when a country clergyman, there was a propriety and correctness which had never been exhibited in any religious productions of North Britain, and which was scarcely surpassed in the English language at that time. His “Theological Dissertations,” which appeared so early as 1765, contain several masterly disquisitions on some highly interesting branches of divinity. The subjects, indeed, did not admit a display of eloquence; but throughout the whole, he has shewn great soundness of judgment, as well as an intimate acquaintance with the doctrines of the Gospel, and history of the Christian church.

, one of the most eminenjt and laborious scholars of his time in Europe, was descended both by the father’s and mother’s side from a family originally of Holstein. His father, Werner Fabricius, a native of Itzhoa, in Holstein, was director of the music at St.Paul'p in Leipsic, organist of the church of St. Nicholas in that city, and a poet and a man of letters, as appears by a work be published in 1657, entitled “Delicias Harmonicas.” His mother was Martha Corthum, the daughter of John Corthum, a clergyman of Bergedorff, and the descendant of a series of protestant clergymen from the time of the reformation. He was born at Leipsic Nov. 11, 1668. His mother died in 1674, and his father in 1679; but the latter, while he lived, had begun to instruct him, and on hig death-bed recommended him to the care of Valentine Albert, an eminent divine and philosopher, who employed, as his first master, Wenceslau* Buhl, whom Mayer calls the common Msecenas of orphans; and he appears to have been taught by him for about five years. He also received instructions at the same time under Jo. Goth. Herrichius, rector of the Nicolaitan school at Leipsic, an able Greek and Latin scholar, whose services Fabricius amply acknowledges in the preface to Herrichius’s “Poemata Graeca et Latina,” which he published in 1718, out of regard to the memory of this tutor. In 1684, Valentine Albert sent him to Quedlinburgh to a very celebrated school, of which the learned Samuel Schmidt was at that time rector. It was here that he met with, in the library, a copy of Barthius’s “Adversaria,” and the first edition of Morhoff’s “Polyhistor,” which he himself informs us, gave the first direction to his mind as to that species of literary history and research which he afterwards carried beyond all his predecessors, and in which, if we regard the extent and accuracy of his labours, he has never had an equal. Schmidt had accidentally shown him Barthius^, and requested him to look into it; but it seemed to open to him such a wide field of instruction and pleasure, that he requested to take it to his room and study it at leisure, and from this he conceived the first thought, although, perhaps, at that timfe, indistinct, of his celebrated Bibliothecas. After his return, to Leipsic in 1686, he met with Morhoff, who, he says, gave his new-formed inclination an additional spur. He now was matriculated in the college of Leipsic, and was entirely under the care of his guardian Valentine Albert, one of the professors, with whom he lodged for seven years. During this time he attended the lectures of Carpzovius, Olearius, Feller, Rechenberg, Ittigius, Menckenius, &c. and other learned professors, and acknowledges hisobligations in particular to Ittigius, who introduced him to a knowledge of the Christian fathers, and of ecclesiastical history. It is perhaps unnecessary to add of one who has given such striking proofs of the fact, that his application to his various studies was incessant and successful. His reading was various and extensive, and, like most scholars of his class, he read with a pen in his hand.

In 1775, Mr. Farmer gave to the world “Essay on the Demoniacs of the New Testament,” in which his opinions were too far remote from those of the Christian world to give much satisfaction. It was ably attacked by Dr. Worthington, a learned clergyman, who had already favoured the public with some pious and valuable writings, in “An impartial Inquiry into the case of the Gospel Demoniacs, with an Appendix, consisting of an essay on Scripture Demonology,” 1777. There were some things advanced in this work, which, in Mr. Farmer’s opinion, deserved to be considered; and he thought that certain parts of the subject were capable of farther and fuller illustration. He printed, therefore, in 1778, “Letters to the rev. Dr. Worthington, in answer to his late publication, entitled An impartial Inquiry into the case of the Gospel Demoniacs.” Another of Mr. Fanner’s antagonists was the late rev. Mr. Fell, a dissenting minister, at that time of Thaxted in Essex, and afterwards one of the tutors of the dissenting academy at Homerton. This gentleman pubJished in 177l>, a treatise, entitled “Demoniacs an inquiry into the lieathen and the Scripture doctrine of Daemons; in which the hypotheses of the rev. Mr. Farmer, and others, on this subject, are particularly considered,” In this Mr. Fell deduces the injurious consequences to natural and revealed religion which he apprehends to result from the doctrines advanced in the “Dissertation on Miracles,” and the “Essay on the Demoniacs,” but acquits Mr. Farmer of any evil design, and allows “that he really meant to serve the cause of virtue, which he thought could not be more effectually done than by removing every thing which appeared to him in the light of superstition.”

, an ingenious comic writer, was the son of a clergyman in Ireland, and born at Londonderry in 1678, where he received the rudiments of education, and discovered a genius early devoted to the muses. When he was very young, he gave specimens of his poetry; and discovered a force of thinking, and turn of expression, much beyond his years. His parents, having a numerous issue, could bestow on him no other fortune than a liberal education therefore, when he was qualified for the university, he was sent in 1694 to Trinitycollege, in Dublin. He made great progress in his studies, and acquired a considerable reputation: but his gay and volatile disposition could not long relish the gravity and retirement of a college life, and therefore, soon quitting it, he betook himself to the diversions of the stage, and got admitted into the company of the Dublin theatre. He had the advantage of a good person, and was well received as an actor, though his voice was somewhat weak: for which reason he resolved to continue on the stage, till something better should offer. But his resolution was soon broken by an accident: being to play the part of Guyomar, who kills Vasquez, in Dryden’s “Indian Emperor,” and forgetting to exchange his sword for a foil, in the engagement he wounded his brother tragedian, who represented Vasquez, very dangerously; and though the wound did not prove mortal, yet he was so shocked at it, that he determined never more to appear on the stage.

, a brave English officer, the descendant of a very ancient family, was born in 1728 at Shipdenhall, near Halifax, in Yorkshire, which, for many centuries, had been in the possession of his ancestors, and is now the property and residence of their lineal descendant. His father dying when he was very young, his education was superintended by an uncle, a very worthy clergyman. He was brought up at a free school in Lancashire, where he was well grounded in classical learning, and became also a remarkable proficient in mathematics. He has very frequently been heard to declare, that, from his earliest youth, he always felt the strongest predilection for the army, which his mother and nearest relations constantly^ endeavoured to dissuade him from; but, finding all their arguments ineffectual, they either bought, or he had an ensigncy given him, in general Oglethorpe’s regiment, then in Georgia; but the war being then going on in Flanders, he gave up his ensigncy, and went there as a volunteer, furnished with letters from the late marquis of Rockingham and Mr. Lascelles (afterwards lord Harewood) to the commander and several others of the officers. This step was at the time frequently taken by young men of spirit of the first rank and fortune, fte entered as a volunteer, but messed with the officers, and was very soon presented with a pair of colours. Some time after, he married a lady of good fortune and family, and, at the pressing entreaties df her friends, he most reluctantly resigned his commission; which he had no sooner done, than he felt himself miserable, and his new relations finding that his propensity to a military life was invincible, agreed to his purchasing an ensigncy in the third regiment of guards. Having now obtained the object of his most anxious wishes, he determined to lose no opportunity of qualifying himself for the highest situations in his favourite profession. With this view he paid the most unremitting attention to his duty, and every hour he could command was given up to the study of the French and German languages, in which (by the assistance of his classical learning) he soon became such a proficient as not only to understand and write both, grammatically and elegantly, but to speak them fluently. When he was a lieutenant in the guards, he translated from the French, “The Reveries; Memoirs upon the Art of War, by field-marshal count Saxe,” which was published in 1757, in 4to, and dedicated “To the general officers.” He also translated from the German, “Regulations for the Prussian cavalry,” which was also published in 1757, and dedicated to major-general the earl of Albemarle, colonel of the king’s own regiment of dragoons. And he likewise translated from the German, “llegulations for the Prussian Infantry,” to which was gelded “The Prussian Tactics,” which was published in 1759, and dedicated to lieutenant-general the earl of Rothes, colonel of the third regiment of foot guards. Having attained the situation of adjutant in the guards, his abilities and unremitting attention soon became conspicuous; and, on the late general Elliot’s being ordered to, Germany in the seven years war, he offered to take him as his aid-de-camp, which he gladly accepted, as it gave him an opportunity of gaining that knowledge which actual service could alone impart. When he served in Germany, his ardour, intrepidity, and attention to all the duties of his situation, were such, that, on the death of general Elliot, he had immediately offers both from the late prince Ferdinand, the commander in chief, and the late marquis of Granby, to be appointed aid-de-camp. By the advice of a noble earl (who hinted to him that the German war would not last for ever) he accepted the offer of the latter, after making due acknowledgements for the honour intended him by the former. In this his new situation his ardour and attention were, if possible, increased, which gained him the friendship of all those attached to lord Granby, particularly of a noble lord who, being fixed upon to bring to England the account of the battle of Warburgh, gave up his appointment to captain Fawcett; an instance of generous friendship which he always spoke of with the most heartfelt gratitude. On his arrival in England, he was introduced by the then great minister to his late majesty king George the Second, who received him most graciously, and not the less so on his giving the whole account in German. Soon after he was promoted to a company in the guards, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the army, and became military secretary to, and the intimate and confidential friend of lord Granby. His manners were formed with equal strength and softness; and to coolness, intrepidity, and extensive military knowledge, he added all the requisite talents of a man of business; and the most persevering assiduity, without the least ostentation. Notwithstanding the most unassuming modesty, his abilities were now so generally known, that he was fixed upon as the most proper person to manage and support the interest of his country, in settling many of the concerns of the war in Germany; and by that means necessarily became known to the great Frederic of Prussia, from whom he afterwards had the most tempting offers, which he declined without hesitation, preferring the service of his king and country to every other consideration.

During the usurpation, Dr. Feme appears to have lived in privacy, but, as the only privilege now left to him, as a clergyman, he carried on disputes with the Roman catholics, which occasioned some of his publications. On the restoration, Charles II. as his royal father had promised Dr. Feme the reversion of the mastership of Trinity college, Cambridge, now conferred that office upon him, which he kept a year and a half, and was twice chosen vicechancellor. He was also promoted to the deanery of Ely; and upon Dr. Walton’s death, he was made bishop of Chester, and consecrated at Ely house chapel, Feb. 9, 1661, but held it only ahout five weeks, dying March 16, 1661, at his relation Mr. Nevill’s house, in St. Paul’s churchyard, London, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. He was a man of great learning, piety, and loyalty, and of singular candour and modesty. The character given of him by one who knew him from his youth, was, that if he had any fault, it was that he could not be angry.

When he was very young he was taught Latin, at London, at the desire of his master, though others thought it too soon: but he was so eager and diligent in his application, that he soon surpassed all his companions, though his seniors. He was of a grave disposition, and very early shewed a great dislike of every thing that savoured of worldly vanity In his apparel he wished to be neat, but refused all that was not simple and plain. When bands were making for the children, he earnestly entreated his mother that his might not have any lace upon them, like those of his brothers, but be made little and plain, like those of Mr. Wotton (a clergyman whom he knew), “for I wish to be a preacher as he is.”

On the first Sunday of every month they always had a communion, which was administered by the clergyman of the adjoining parish; Mr. Nicholas Ferrar assisting as deacon. All the servants who then received the communion, when dinner was brought up, remained in the room, and on that day dined at the same table with Mrs. Ferrar and the rest of the family. When their early devotions in the oratory were finished, they proceeded to church in the following order: First, the three school-masters, in black gowns and Monmouth caps. Then, Mrs. Ferrar’s grandsons, clad in the same manner, two and two. Then, her son Mr. John Ferrar, and her son-in-law Mr. Collet, in the same dress. Then, Mr. Nicholas Ferrar, in surplice, hood, and square cap, sometimes leading his mother. Then 3Vlrs. Collet, and all her daughters, two and two. Then all the gervants, two and two. The dress of all was uniform. Then, on Sundays, all the Psalm children, two and two, or children who were taught to repeat the Psalms from memory.

, a French clergyman of the Jansenist party, was born at Paris in 1616, and studied in the college of the Sorbonne, where he obtained the esteem of persons of all ranks. In 164,5, he was engaged by M. de Bellegarde, archbishop of Sens, to deliver a course of instructions to the candidates for holy orders in his diocese. He obtained some preferment in the church, and composed several useful books, among which was one entitled “A Catechism on Grace 3” which was afterwards reprinted with the title of “Illustrations of certain difficulties respecting Grace.” This work was condemned by a decree of the inquisition at Home, which M. Fouquet, attorneygeneral of the parliament at Paris, would not permit to be promulgated in that city. In 1656, M. Feydeau was one of the seventy-two doctors who were expelled by the faculty of the Sorbonne for refusing to subscribe to the condemnation of M. Arnauld; and on this account he was obliged to relinquish his preferments. After this, for several years, he lived chiefly in retirement, and produced his “Reflections on the History and Harmony of the Gospels,” in 2 vols. 12mo; a work which has gone through several editions. In 1665, he was presented by the bishop of Aleth with a prebend in his diocese, which he resigned in 1668, in order to undertake the cure of Vitri le Francois, in Champagne, which after seven years he was obliged to give up, in consequence of the persecutions with which his party was harassed. He was banished to Bourges, in 1677; and afterwards was sent to Annonai in the Virares, where he died July 24, 1694. He published many works besides those above-mentioned, and left behind him many others that have not yet appeared, particularly memoirs of himself, as far as 1678, and many letters. A long Latin epitaph, engraved on his tomb, which is preserved by Moreri, was written by a religious of the Celestine order.

, a Scotch presbyterian clergyman, whose works are still much esteemed in that country, was born at Bathens, or Easter, the seat of the earls of Tweedale, in 1630, where his father, James Fleming, was long a minister of the gospel. He was educated in classics^ philosophy, and divinity, at the universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrew’s, and at the latter studied divinity under the celebrated Samuel Rutherford. His natural parts, according to his biographer, were excellent; hjs understanding quick and penetrating, his judgment clear and profound, and his memory strong. These talents, which he employed in the course of his academical-studies, and especially in theology and ecclesiastical history, recommended hiai to ordination, when in his twenty-third year, and when the church of Scotland was purely presbyterian. His pastoral charge was Cambuslang, in Clydsdale, in which he remained highly venerated by his flock until th^ restoration; but an attempt being then made to establish episcopacy in Scotland, he and such of his brethren as adhered to the presbyterian form of government, were ejected from their livings. After this he resided mostly at Edinburgh, and in Fifeshire until September 1673, when he was apprehended for nonconformity, but was soon liberated, and went to Holland, where he officiated as minister to the Scotch congregation at Rotterdam. He died at this place July 15, 1694, deeply regretted by his flock, as well as by his brethren in Scotland, who considered him. in respect of piety and learning, as a great ornament to his profession. He published a few religious tracts of the practical kind, but is best known by his more elaborate work entitled “The Fulfilling of the Scriptures,” which is in fact, a view of the operations of providence in preserving the church through all the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical history. This was originally published in three parts, separately, which were printed together in a handsome manner, in 1726, folio, with a life prefixed, from which this article is chiefly taken.

In 1589, queen Elizabeth, with whom he was in high favour, promoted him to the bishopric of Bristol, and about the same time made him her almoner. Sir John Harrington says that he took this see on condition to lease out the revenues to courtiers, an accusation to which Browne Willis seems inclined to give credit. He was, however, translated to Worcester in 1592, and about two years after that to London, in consequence of his particular solicitation to the lord treasurer. Soon after he was promoted to the see of London, he gave out twenty-seven articles of inquiry to the churchwardens upon his primary visitation; and by these means, according to Neal, many of the nonconformists, or rather puritans, as they were at this time called, suffered imprisonment. But he was soon interrupted in these proceedings, by marrying, for his second wife, the widow of sir John Baker, of Sisingherst in Kent, a very handsome woman. Queen Elizabeth, who had an extreme aversion to the clergy’s marrying, was highly offended at the bishop. She thought it very indecent for an elderly clergyman, a bishop, and one that had already had one wife, to marry a second: and gave such a loose to her indignation, that, not content with forbidding him her presence, she ordered archbishop Whitgift to suspend him from the exercise of his episcopal function, which was accordingly done. He was afterwards restored to his bishopric, and in some measure to the queen’s favour: yet the disgrace sat so heavy on his mind, that it is thought to have hastened his end. He died suddenly in his chair, at his house in London, June 15, 1596; being, to all appearance, well, sick, and dead, in a quarter of an hour. He was an immoderate taker of tobacco; the qualities of which being then not well known, and supposed to have something poisonous in them, occasioned Camden to impute his death to it, as he does in his Annals of Elizabeth’s reign. He was buried in his cathedral, near bishop Aylmer, but without any monument. Of his character it is not easy to form a very favourable judgment, nor does it appear that he is censurable for any great errors, except that he was perhaps too compliant with some of the caprices of his royal mUiress His appearance and person wr re stately, which made him be called Prcsul spttndidus, hut this did not arise from pride, as those who were most intimate with him commended his modesty and humility. There are no works ascribed to his pen, except some regulations for the better government or his diocese, and the reformation of his spiritual courts, which are printed among the records in Collier’s “Ecclesiastical History.” By his first wife, whose name is not known, he had the more celebrated subject of the following article.

, a dissenting clergyman of considerable learning and industry, was born Feb. 22, 1707-8, at Great Torrington, in Devonshire, where his father was a manufacturer. He discovered a very early inclination for the ministry, and such was his proficiency in classical learning, that, at the age of fifteen he was admitted into the academy at Tiverton, under the rev. John Moore, who, on finishing his studies, solicited his assistance in the conduct of that institution. This, however, he declined, and in pursuance of his original intentions, was ordained in 1730 at Modbury, whence he soon removed to Crediton, and afterwards to Chard, and in 1739 to Bradford, Wilts. In 1747 he arrived in the metropolis, and became the pastor of a congregation at Rotherhithe, in which station he continued until his hearers, by death, or otherwise, declined so much in numbers, that he thought proper to resign in 17S3. He continued, however, for time time to preach occasionally at a morning lecture in St. Helen’s, Bishojisgate-street, and eisewh^re; but in his latter years his health and faculties were so much impaired as to render the performance of his public duties no longer possible. He died June 14, 1795, at the very advanced age of eighty-eight.

, D.D. a dissenting clergyman of considerable eminence, was born about 1720, in the city of Aberdeen, and was brother to the preceding David Fordyce. Having acquired the foundation of classical knowledge at the grammar school of his native place, and completed the usual course of study in philosophy and divinity at the Marischal college, Mr. Fordyce was licensed, when very young, according to the forms of the church of Scotland, and was settled soon after as one of the ministers of Brechin, in the county of Angus. He was removed from this, after some years, to the parish of Alloa near Stirling, where at first he had many prejudices to encounter; but the amiableness of his manners, his affectionate temper, and the assiduous discharge of his parochial duties, not only by preaching, but by visiting, catechizing, &c. his parishioners, as is the custom in Scotland, soon enabled him to overcome their dislike, and their attachment became so unbounded, that, when he afterwards left them to settle in London, his departure occasioned universal regret. During his residence at Alloa, he printed three occasional sermons, which attracted much notice; and he still farther increased his fame by publishing, in 1760, a sermon preached before the general assembly of the church of Scotland, “On the folly, infamy, and misery of Unlawful Pleasures.” The delivery of this sermon entitled him to rank among the most popular orators of his country, and the style and sentiments, when it came to be examined in the closet, claimed the admiration not only of general readers, but of the best judges. It struck also with all the force of novelty, for nothing of that kind had hitherto been heard from the pulpits of Scotland.

, an English dissenting minister, was born at Exeter, Sept. 16, 1697. His grandfather was 9, clergyman at Kettering in Northamptonshire; but his father, being educated by an uncle who was a dissenter, imbibed the same principles, and was afterwards by trade a tucker, or fuller, in Exeter. He was sent early to the free school in that town, where the foundation of a friendship between him and Dr. Conybeare, afterwards bishop of Bristol, is said to have been laid; and thence was removed to an academy in the same city, where he finished his studies. He there displayed pre-eminent natural abilities, a quick apprehension, a solid judgment, a happy memory, and a free commanding elocution.

, a clergyman originally of the church of England, was the son of John Fowler of Marlborough, in Wiltshire, where he was born in 1610 or 1611. In 1627 he was admitted a servitor at Magdalencollege, Oxford, and continued there until he took his bachelor’s degree; and then went to Edmund-hall, and took that of master. Having entered into holy orders, he preached some time in and near Oxford; and afterwards at West-Woodhay, near Donnington castle, in Berkshire. In 1641 he took the covenant, and joined the presbyterians being then, as Wood imagines, minister of Margaret’s, Lothbury, but his name does not occur in the registers until 1652. In 1641 he became vicar of St. Mary’s, Reading, and an assistant to the commissioners of Berkshire, for the ejection of such as were then styled “scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters.” He was at length, a fellow of Eton college, though he had refused the engagement, as it was called. After the restoration, he lost his fellowship of Eton, and, being deprived of the vicarage of St. Mary’s for non-conformity, he retired to London, and afterwards to Kennington, in Surrey, where he continued to preach, although privately. For some time before his death, he was much disordered in his understanding, and died in Southwark, Jan. 15, 1676, and was buried within the precincts of St. John Baptist’s church, near Dowgate. He is said by Wood to have used odd gestures and antic behaviour in the pulpit, unbecoming the serious gravity of the place, but which made him popular in those times. His character by Mr. Cooper, who preached his funeral sermon, is more favourable, being celebrated “as an able, holy, faithful, indefatigable servant of Christ. He was quick in apprehension, solid in his notions, clear in his conceptions, sound in the faith, strong and demonstrative in arguing, mighty in convincing, and zealous for ther truth against all errors.” We are told, likewise, that “he had a singular gift in chronology, not for curious speculation or ostentation, but as a key and measure to know the signs of the times,” &c.

, an English clergyman, of whose early history we have no account, was educated at Edmund Hall, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree, July 5, 1704. He afterwards became vicar of Pottern, in Wiltshire, prebendary of that prebend in the church of Salisbury, and chaplain to lord Cadogan. In 1722 he published “The New Testament explained,” 2 vols. 8vo. This work has the several references placed under the text in words at length, so that the parallel passages may be seen at one view; to which are added, the chronology, the marginal readings, and notes on difficult or mistaken texts, with many more references than in any other edition then published, of the English New Testament. He likewise wrote “The duty of Public Worship proved, to which are added directions for a devout behaviour therein, drawn chiefly from the holy scriptures and the liturgy of the church of England; and an account of the method of the Common Prayer, by way of question and answer.” The fourth edition of this was printed in 1727, -and it is now in the list of books distributed by the society for promoting Christian knowledge. In 1726 he was presented to the vicarage of St. Mary’s, Reading. Having preached a sermon on moral obligations, from Matt, xxiii. 23, at the Reading lecture, he afterwards preached it as an assize sermon, at Abingdon, July 18, 1727. It was then printed, and dedicated to the chancellor. Some expressions in the discourse being liable to an unfavourable interpretation, it gave offence to several members of the lecture, and produced a controversy between the author and Mr. Joseph Slade, who had been curate of St. Mary’s, was then lecturer of St Lawrence’s, and afterwards vicar of South Molton. Mr. Slade published the letters which had passed between himself and the author; and preached a lecture sermon on Tuesday, Oct. 31, 1727, containing several severe strictures on Mr. Fox’s sermon, and some personal reflections, which he published. To this a reply was made by Lancelot Carleton, rector of Padworth, in “A Letter to the rev. Joseph Slade, &c.” printed at Reading. Mr. Fox published also a few other occasional sermons. He died at Reading in 1738, and was buried in St. Mary’s church.

, an English clergyman, and the able translator of Horace and Demosthenes, was of Irish extraction, if not born in that kingdom, where his father was a dignified clergyman, and, among other preferments, held the rectory of St. Mary, Dublin, from which he was ejected by the court on account of his Tory principles. His son, our author, was also educated for the church, and obtained a doctor’s degree. His edition of “Horace” made his name known in England about 1743, and raised him a reputation as a classical editor and translator, which no subsequent attempts have greatly diminished. Dr. Johnson, many years after other rivals had started, gave him this praise: “The lyrical part of Horace never can be properly translated; so much of the excellence is in the numbers and the expression. Francis has done it the best: I'll take his, five out of six, against them all.”

, a learned dissenting clergyman, was born at Totness in Devonshire in Dec. 1726, and was educated in the free-school of that town at the same time with Dr. Kennicott, who was a few years his senior, and between them a friendship commenced which continued through life. From Totness Dr. Furneaux came to London for academical studies among the dissenters, which he completed in 1749. He was soon after ordained, and chosen assistant to the rev. Henry Read, at the meetinghouse in St. Thomas’s, Southwark, and joint Sunday evening lecturer at Salters’-hall meeting. In 1753 he succeeded the rev, Moses Lowman, as pastor of the congregation at Clapham, which he raised to one of the most opulent and considerable among the protestant dissenters. He remained their favourite preacher, and highly esteemed by all classes, for upwards of twenty-three years, bat was deprived of his usefulness in 1777, by the loss of his mental powers, under which deplorable malady (which was hereditary) he continued to the day of his death, Nov. 23, 1783. His flock and friends raised a liberal subscription to support him during his illness, to which, from sentiments of personal respect, as well as from the principle of benevolence, the late lord Mansfield, chief justice of the king’s bench, generously contributed. Dr. Furneaux (which title he had received from some northern university) united to strong judgment a very tenacious iriemory; of which he gave a remarkable proof, when the cause of the dissenters against the corporation of London, on the exemption they claimed from serving the office of sheriff, was heard in the' house of lords. He was then present, and carried away, and committed to paper, by the strength of his memory, without notes, the very able speech of lord Mansfield, with so much accuracy, that his lordship, when the copy was submitted to his examination, could discover but two or three trivial errors in it. This circumstance introduced him to the acquaintance of that great man, who conceived a high regard for him. Dr. Furneaux published but little, except a few- occasional sermons the most considerable of his works was that entitled “Letters to the hon. Mr. Justice Blackstone, concerning his exposition of the act of toleration, and some positions relative to religious liberty, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England,” 1770, 8vo. This is said to have induced the learned commentator to alter some positions in the subsequent edition of his valu^­able work. To the second edition of Dr. Furneaux’s “Letters” was added the before-mentioned speech of lord Mansfield. In 1773 he published also “An Essay on Toleration,” with a view to an application made by dissenting ministers to parliament for relief in the matter of subscription, which, although unsuccessful then, was afterwards granted.

, an English clergyman and traveller, was descended from Robert Gage of Haling, in Surrey, third son of sir John Gage, of Firle, in Sussex, who died in 1557. He was the son of John Gage, of Haling, and his brother was sir Henry Gage, governor of Oxford, who was killed in battle at Culham-bridge,' Jan. 11, 1644. Of his early history we are only told that he studied in Spain, and became a Dominican monk. From thence he departed with a design to go to the Philippine islands, as a missionary, in 1625; but on his arrival at Mexico, he heard so bad an account of those islands, and became so delighted with New Spain, that he abandoned his original design, and contented him with a less dangerous mission. At length, being tired of this mode of life, and his request to return to England and preach the gospel among his countrymen being refused, he effected his escape, and arrived in London in 1637, after an absence of twentyfour years, in which he had quite lost the use of his native language. On examining into his domestic affairs, he found himself unnoticed in his father’s will, forgotten by some of his relations, and with difficulty acknowledged by others. After a little time, not being satisfied with respect to some religious doubts which had entered his mind while abroad, and disgusted with the great power of the papists, he resolved to take another journey to Italy, to “try what better satisfaction he could find for his conscience at Rome in that religion.” At Loretto his conversion from popery was fixed by proving the fallacy of the miracles attributed to the picture of our Lady there; on which he immediately returned home once more, and preached his recantation sermon at St. Paul’s, by order of the bishop of London. He continued above a year in. London, and when he saw that papists were entertained at Oxford and other parts of the kingdom attached to the royal cause, he adopted that of the parliament, and received a living from them, probably that of Deal, in Kent, in the register of which church is an entry of the burials of Mary daughter, and Mary the wife of “Thomas Gage, parson of Deale, March 21, 1652;” and in the title of his work he is styled “Preacher of the word of God at Deal.” We have not been able to discover when he died. His work is entitled “A new Survey of the West-Indies; or the English American his Travail by sea and land, containing a journal of 3300 miles within the main land of America. Wherein is set forth his voyage from Spain to St. John de Ulhua; and from thence to Xalappa, to Flaxcalla, the city of Angels, and forward to Mexico, &c. &c. &c.” The second edition, Lond. 1655, thin folio, with maps. The first edition, which we have not seen, bears date 1648. Mr. Southey, who has quoted much from this work in the notes on his poem of “Madoc,” says that Gage’s account of Mexico is copied verbatim from Nicholas’s “Conqueast of West-India,” which itself is a translation from Gomara. There is an Amsterdam edition of Gage, 1695, 2 vols. 12mo, in French, made by command of the French minister Colbert, by mons. de Beaulieu Hues O'Neil, which, however, was first published in 1676, at Paris. There are some retrenchments in this edition. Gage appears to be a faithful and accurate relator, but often credulous and superstitious. His recantation sermon was published at London, 1642, 4to; and in 165L he published “A duel between a Jesuite and a Dominican, begun at Paris, fought at Madrid, and ended at London,” 4to.

Being soon recalled to Naples, he was appointed a counsellor in the tribunal of commerce, an office of magistracy not incompatible with the order of a clergyman. He retained this place during the remainder of his life; and as it required much time and application to perform its duties, M. Galiani after this was no<t so active in literary exertions as he had been heretofore. In 1779 he published a work “on the Origin of the Neapolitan Dialect.” This performance, however, does not bear an accurate correspondence to the title, and was judged superficial and unsatisfactory. In 1780, he published a treatise on the Armed Neutrality, which he dedicated to the late empress Catherine of Russia. This work, on a question entirely new and complicated in the system of public law of Europe, fell likewise considerably short of the expectation entertained by his admirers. He died in 1789, and since his death it has been asserted that he was indebted to other writers for the substance of some of those volumes which he published under his own name, and by which he acquired his reputation; but we know not upon what authority this assertion has been made. Galiani was short in stature, full of vivacity, wit, and humour, and a great favourite on that account in all companies.

, or Gallæus, a Dutch writer, who was born at Rotterdam, according to the inscription on his portrait, or according to other authorities, at Zuriczee, in 1627, and died at Campen in 1709, was a clergyman and an able philologist. His principal work is his treatise on the “Sybilline Oracles,” 2 vols. 4to, the first of which,containing the Oracles, was published at Amsterdam in 1689, and the second, which consists of dissertations, appeared soon after. In this he has brought together every thing relating to these celebrated fictions, but neither with success, nor judgment, according to Fabricius and his biographer Reimar, who speak with harshness of his abilities, and give us an extraordinary instance of his ignorance in classing Agathias and Jamblicus among Latin writers. They also seem to intimate that he frequently borrows without acknowledgment. Galle was more successful in a very correct edition of “Lactantius,” published at Leyden in 1660. He had also begun an edition of “Minutius Felix,” but did not live to complete it.

, a brave officer of the army, and not less celebrated for his piety, was born at Carriden, in Linlithgow shire, in Scotland, Jan. 10, 1687-8. He was the son of captain Patrick Gardiner, of the family of Torwoodhead, by Mrs. Mary Hodge, of the family of GladsKiitir. His family was military, his father, his uncle by the mother’s side, and his elder brother, all fell in battle. He was educated at the school of Linlithgow, but was soon removed from it, owing to his early zeal to follow his father’s profession. At the age of fourteen he had an ensign’s commission in the Dutch service, in which he continued until 1702; when he received the same from queen Anne, and being present at the battle of Ramillies, in his nineteenth year, was severely wounded and taken prisoner by the French. He was carried to a convent, where he resided until his wound was cured; and soon after was exchanged. In 1706 he obtained the rank of lieutenant, and after several intermediate promotions, was appointed major of a regiment commanded by the earl of Stair, in whose family he resided for several years. In January 1730, he was advanced to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the same regiment, in which he continued until April 1743, when he received a colonel’s commission over a regiment of dragoons. During the rebellion in Scotland, in 1745, his regiment being in that country, and the rebel army advancing to Edinburgh, he was ordered to march with the utmost expedition to D unbar, which he didj and that hasty retreat, with the news soon afterwards received of the surrender of Edinburgh to the rebels, struck a visible panic into the forces he commanded. This affected his gallant mind so much, that on the Thursday before the battle of Preston-pans, he intimated to an officer of considerable rank, that he expected the event would be as it proved; and to a person who visited him, he said, “I cannot influence the conduct of others as I could wish; but I have one life to sacrifice to my country’s safety, and I shall not spare it.” On Friday Sept. 20th, the day before the fatal battle, when the whole army was drawn up, about noon, the colonel rode through the ranks of his regiment, and addressed them in an animated manner, to exert themselves with courage in defence of their country. They seemed much affected by his address, and expressed a very ardent desire of attacking the enemy immediately, a desire in which he, and another gallant officer of distinguished rank, would have gratified them, had it been in their power, but their ardour and their advice were overruled by the strange conduct of the commander-in-chief, sir John Cope, and therefore all that colonel Gardiner could do, was to spend the remainder of the day in making as good a disposition as the circumstances would allow. He continued all night under arms, wrapped Mp in his cloak, and sheltered under a rick of barley which happened to be in the field. By break of day the army was roused by the noise of the approach of the rebels; and the attack was made before sun -rise. As soon as the enemy came within gun-shot, they commenced a furious fire; and the dragoons which constituted the left wing immediately fled. The colonel at the beginning of the attack, which lasted but a few minutes, received a ball in his left breast, which made him give a sudden spring in his saddle; upon which his servant, who had led the horse, would have persuaded him to, retreat; but he said it was only a flesh-wound, and fought on, though he presently after received a shot in his right thigh. The colonel was for a few moments supported by his men, and particularly by about fifteen dragoons, who stood by him to 'the last; but after a faint fire, the regiment in general was seized with a panic; and though their colonel and some other brave officers did what they could to rally them, they at lust took to a precipitate flight. Just in the moment when colonel Gardiner seemed to be making a pause to deliberate what duty required him to do in such a circumstance, he saw a party of the foot fighting bravely near him, without an officer to lead them, on which he rode up to them immediately, and cried out aloud, “Fire on, my lads, and fear nothing.” As he had uttered these words, a Highlander advanced towards him with a scythe fastened to a long pole, with which he gave him such a deep wound in his right arm, that his sword dropped from his band, and several others coming about him at the same time, while he was thus dreadfully entangled with that savage weapon, he was dragged from his horse. The moment he fell, another Highlander gave him a stroke either with a broad -sword, or a Lochaber axe, on the hinder part of the head, which was the mortal blow. All that his faithful servant, John Forster, who furnished this account, saw further at this time, was, that as his hat was falling olf, he took it in his left hand, waved it as a signal for him to retreat, and added, which were the last words he ever heard him speak, “Take care of yourself.” The servant immediately fled to a mill, about two miles distant, where he changed his dress, and disguised like a miller’s servant, returned with a cart about two hours after the engagement. He found his master not dnly plundered of his watch and other things of value, but even stripped of his upper garments and boots. He was, however, still breathing, and from appearances, not altogether insensible. In this condition he was conveyed to the church of Tranent, and from that to the clergyman’s house, where he expired about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, Saturday Sept. 21, 1745. The rebels entered his house before he was carried off from the field, and plundered it. His remains were interred on the Tuesday following, Sept. 24, at the parish church of Tranent. Even his enemies spoke honourably of him, and seemed to join in lamenting the fall of so brave and so worthy a man. Nor was it for bravery only that colonel Gardiner was distinguished. He was perhaps one of the most pious men of his age and country. He was, says his biographer, in the most amazing manner, without any religious opportunity, or peculiar advantage, deliverance, or affliction, reclaimed on a sudden, in the vigour of life and health, from a life of licentiousness, not only to a steady course of regularity and virtue, but to high devotion, and strict, though unaffected sanctity of manners. All this is amply illustrated in Dr. Doddridge’s well-known life of this gallant hero, whose death was as much a loss, as the cause of it, the battle of Preston-pans, was a disgrace to his country.

In 1535, Cranmer visiting the see of Winchester, in virtue of his metropolitan power, Gardiner disputed that power with great warmth. Some time afterwards, he resumed his embassy to France, where he procured the removal of Pole (then dean of Exeter, afterwards cardinal) out of the French dominions, having represented him as his master’s bitter enemy; and this was the original root of that disagreement between them, which in time became public. Before his return this second time, being applied to by Cromwell for his opinion about a religious league with the protestant princes of Germany, he declared himself against it, and advised a political alliance, which he judged would last longer, as well as answer the king’s ends better, if strengthened by subsidies. In 1538 he was sent ambassador to the German diet at Ratisbon, where he incurred the suspicion of holding a secret correspondence with the pope. Whatever truth there may be in this charge, it is certain that Lambert this year was brought to the stake by his instigation, for denying the real presence in the sacrament. This instance of a sanguinary temper was then shown before the statute of the six articles was enacted; a law on which many were put to death, and which he undeniably framed and promoted in the house of lords to the utmost extent of his influence. This act passed in 1540; and the first person condemned by it, and burnt in Smithfield, the same year, was Robert Barnes, who at his death declared his suspicion of Gardiner’s having a hand in it . Upon the death of Cromwell, his rival long in the king’s favour, the university of Cambridge, where he still held his mastership of Trinity-hall, chose him their vice-chancellor; and in return he shewed his sense of it by an assiduity in his office among them, and a warm zeal to assist them on all occasions with his interest at court; which, as long as the sunshine of any signal service lasted, was very good. But in this, his case, like other courtiers, was subject to the sudden vicissitudes of light and shade which so remarkably checquered the series of that reign; and this minister was no more excepted than his fellows from complying with those conditions of ministerial greatness, which were indispensable as long as Henry sat at the helm: and, though he tells us himself that, after the king had let him into the secret, that he could look sour and talk roughly, without meaning much harm, he ever after bore those sallies with much less anxiety, and could stand a royal rattling pretty well ; yet this was only sometimes, and on some occasions. For upon others, we rind him submitting to very disagreeable supplications and expressions of deep humility, and great sense of his failings, directly contrary to the convictions of his own conscience and understanding. Of this we have the following remarkable instance. The bishop had for his secretary a relation of his own name, Gardiner, who, in some conferences with Fryth the martyr, had acquitted himself so well that they were judged fit for the public view. This young clergyman was much in his master’s favour, yet he fell under a prosecution upon the act of supremacy; and being very obstinate, was executed as a traitor, March 7, 1544. This was made an engine against the bishop by his enemies, who whispered the king that he was very likely of his secretary’s opinion, notwithstanding all he had written; and that if he was once in the Tower, matter enough would come out against him. On this suggestion, his majesty consented to his proposed imprisonment. But the bishop being informed of it in time, repaired immediately to court; confessed all that his majesty had charged him with, whatever it was; and thus, by complying with the king’s humour, and shewing the deepest concern for real or pretended failings, obtained full pardon, to the great mortification of his enemies. We have selected this instance from many others of a similar nature, all which are evident proofs of Gardiner’s want of honest and sound principle, because it may be of use in discovering his real principles upon the subject of the supremacy, which will at last be found to be nothing more, in fact, than an engine of his political craft. It has indeed been alleged in his behalf, that he was not always so servile and ready an instrument of the king’s will, especially upon the matter of the supremacy, and Strype publishes (Memorials, vol. I. p. 215) a letter in the Cottonian library, which Gardiner wrote to the king in consequence of his majesty’s being angry with him for approving some sentiments in a book that seemed to impugn his supremacy. But if this letter, as Strype conjectures, was written about 1535, this was the time when the king had some thoughts of a reconciliation with the see of Rome, and of returning the supremacy to the pope, which being very well known to Gardiner, might encourage him to speak with the more freedom on that subject. Gardiner, than whom no man seems to have more carefully studied the king’s temper, was not accustomed to look upon himself as undone because he sometimes received such notices of his majesty’s displeasure as threw some other courtiers into the most dreadful apprehensions. This knowledge and his artful use of it taught him to seek his own safety, in taking a share with others, in the divorce of Anne of Cleves, and that of queen Catherine Howard; the first of which, if we consider his skill in the law, must have been, against his conscience, and the second as much against his inclination, on account of his attachment to that noble family. The same regard for himself might also, had he been in the kingdom at the time, have led him to take a part against queen Anne Boleyn, sir Thomas More, and bishop Fisher.

Ga.Scoigne (George), an old English poet of considerable merit, was born of an ancient 'and honourable family in Essex, and was son and heir of sir John Gascoigne, who, for some reason not assigned by his biographer, Whetstone, chose to disinherit him. Previously 10 this harsh step, he had been privately educated under a clergyman of the name of Nevinson, perhaps Stephen Nevinson, LL. D. prebendary, and commissary of the city and diocese of Canterbury. After this he was removed, either to Oxford or Cambridge. Wood says, he “had his education in both the universities, though chiefly, as he conceives, in Cambridge;” but Gascoigne himself, in his “Steele-Glasse,” informs us that he was a member of the university of Cambridge, without mentioning Oxford. His progress at Cambridge is unknown, but he removed from it to Gray’s-inn, for the purpose of studying the law. It is probable that in both places he wrote a considerable number of his poems, those of the amatory kind particu1 Niceron, vol. XXXVI. Moreri. Raes’s Cyclopedia. larly, as he seems to include them among his youthful follies.

, an eminent French writer of the last century, was born at Lausanne in 1727. His father, who was a protestant clergyman of that place, took extraordinary pains in cultivating his mind, and at the age of twelve years, young Gebelin could read German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; and at fifteen, he spoke German and Latin with ease, as well as French in compliment to his parents, who were natives of France, but had left it on account of their religion. His thirst of knowledge was such as to prevent his hours of rest; and when his parents, in order to break him of the habit of studying at night, would not allow him candles, he used to pore over his books as well as he could by moon -light. In 1763, after the death of his father, he came to Paris, bringing with him nothing but a great stock of learning, and the greatest simplicity of manners; and as the persons to whom he had recommendations happened to be absent, he remained for some time alone and friendless in that great metropolis. The first acquaintances he made were two ladies who lived opposite to him, and who lived together in such harmony as to desire no other connections, but were yet so pleased with Gebelin’s amiable manners, as to admit him into their friendship, and furnish him with every assistance he could wish in carrying on his great work, “Le monde primitif,” in digesting the materials of which he employed ten years. One of these ladies, mademoiselle Linot, learned engraving solely with the view of being useful to him in his labours, and actually engraved some of the plates in his work; while the other, mademoiselle Fleury, contributed 5000 livres towards the expences of the first volume of his work. After his -death they transferred their kindness to his relations, a sister and two nieces whom he had sent for to reside at Paris, but to whom he was not able to leave much.

, an eminent German poet and moral writer, was born at Haynichen, in Saxony, July 4, 1715. His father was a clergyman of a small income, who had thirteen children. Gellert was educated at home, where his poetical powers first appeared in a poem on the birth-day of his father, which was succeeded by many others, but all these in his maturer years he committed to the flames. He was afterwards sent to school at Meissen r where he learned Greek and Latin, and in 1734 he went to Leipsic, whence, after studying four years, his father’s narrow income obliged him to recall him. Gellert wished much to continue at the university, but he submitted to necessity, and at home had an opportunity of again turning his attention to those poetical pursuits for which he had early displayed a predilection; and perhaps it is to his recall from the university that we owe the beauty and simplicity of his fables. At this time he occasion-ally composed sermons, which are in general distinguished both for spirit and sound reasoning, but they contain several indications of a taste not very correct, and a judgment not arrived at maturity. In 1741 he again returned to the university of Leipsic, with a nephew of his own, of whose education he had the charge. Here he met with some friends, from whose conversation and directions he confesses that he derived very considerable advantage. About this time he published several tales and fables in a periodical publication. In 1745 he acquired the right of giving public lessons in the university, particularly on- morals. He had early received an impression of the importance of Christian morality, and thought that he could not pass over the subject in silence, without neglecting one of the most essential duties of his Situation. Soon after the commencement of his academical labours, he published his “Tales and Fables.” Amongst these, the manner in which the character of a devotee was drawn, was much admired. This suggested to Gellert the idea of his comedy of the “Devotee,” which was first published in the Bremen Magazine, but afterwards caused him much vexation. Many condemned it because it appeared to them to have a mischievous tendency, by exposing piety and seriousness to ridicule. But Gellert was not a man who could attempt to sap the foundations of real religion and morality, though he wished to expose hypocrisy and affectation to merited contempt. Among the many flattering instances of public approbation which the “Tales and Fables” produced, Gellert was particularly pleased with that of a Saxon peasant. One day, about the beginning of winter, he saw the man drive up to his door a cart loaded with fire-wood. Having observed Gellert, he asked him whether he was the gentleman who wrote such fine tales? Being answered in the affirmative, he begged pardon for the liberty which he took, and left the contents of his cart, being the most valuable present he could make. At this time the Germans had no original romances of any merit. In order to give some celebrity to this species of composition in his own country, he published the “Swedish Countess,” a work of a melancholy cast, and containing many indications of that depression of spirits which embittered the latter days of Gellert. In 1747 he published a book entitled “Consolations for Valetudinarians,” which was received with as much eagerness as his other works, and translated into various languages. It contains a melancholy representation of the sufferings which he himself endured. Nothing, however, could overcome his activity, and in 1748 the continuation of hisf “Tales and Fables” was published. About this time he was deprived of the society of several friends who had often dispersed the gloom that resulted from his disorder. The only intimate friend that remained was Havener, who persuaded Gellert to give to the public some of his letters. In 1754 he published his “Didactic Poems,” whicu were not so well received as his Tales and Fables, and he himself seems to have been sensible that they were not so agreeable, although useful and instructive. He bestowed particular care on some sacred songs, which were received with great enthusiasm all over Germany, both in the Roman catholic and protestant states. About this time he was appointed professor extraordinary in philosophy, and gave lectures on the Belles Lettres. From this period Gellert suffered extremely from an hypochondriac affection. His days were spent in melancholy reflections, and his rights in frightful dreams. But he made prodigious efforts to resist this malady, and to continue to perform his academical duties; and these efforts were often successful. The constant testimonies of the approbation with which his works were received, and the sympathy of his friends, were never-failing sources of consolation, and served to spread many cheerful moments over the general languor of his life. The calamities of war which desolated Germany after 1757, induced Gellert for some time to quit Leipsic. While in the country, he was attacked by a severe illness, from which, however, contrary to all expectation, he recovered. In 1761 the chair of a professor in ordinary was offered him, but he refused to accept it, from a persuasion that the state of his health was such as to render him incapable of discharging the duties of the situation with that regularity and attention which he thought necessary. In 1763-4, Gellert went to Carlsbad by the advice of his physicians to drink the waters, which, however, seem to have given him little relief. After a few years more of almost constant suffering, GeHett died at Leipsic, on the 13th of December. 1769. Some time before his death he revised and corrected his moral lessons, which he published at the request of the elector of Saxony. He was a man of the easiest and most conciliating manners; pleasing even to strangers; and of a disposition to form and preserve the most valuable friendships. He was open and enthusiastic in his attachments, ready at all times to givtt his counsel, labour, and money, to serve his friends. In himself, of a timid and hypochondriac habit, and disposed to criticise both his own character and works with a severity of which his friends could not acknowledge the justice. He had a constitutional fear of death, which, notwithstanding, receded as the hour of trial approached; so that he died with calmness and fortitude. In this he is thought to have resembled our Dr.Johnson, but in other respects his character and habit seem to approach nearer to those of Cowper. His works were published in ten vols. 8vo, in 1766; and after his death a more complete edition at Leipsic, in eight rolumes, with engravings. Kutner has celebrated his various excellencies; he says, “a century will perhaps elapse, before we have another poet capable of exciting the love and admiration of his contemporaries, in so eminent a degree as Gellert, and of exercising so powerful an influence on the taste and way of thinking of all ranks.” Though not deserving all this, he was an agreeable and fertile writer; the poet of religion and virtue; an able reformer of public morals. His “Moral Lessons” were translated into English, and published by Mrs. Douglas of Eduam house, 1805, 3 vols. 8vo, with an excellent life of the author, to which this article is chiefly indebted.

, an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, eldest son of the rev. Gilbert Gerard, minister of Chapel-Garioch, in Aberdeenshire, was born there Feb. 22, 1728; he was educated partly at the parish school of Foveran, whence he was removed to the grammar-school at Aberdeen, after his father’s death. Here he made such rapid progress, that he was entered a student in Marischal-college when he was but twelve years of age. He devoted his first four years to the study of Greek, Latin, the mathematics, and philosophy, and was at the close of the course admitted to the degree of M. A. He now commenced his theological studies, whtch he prosecuted at the universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Immediately on the completion of his twentieth year, in 1748, he was licensed to preach in the church of Scotland, and in 1750 was chosen assistant to Mr. David Fordyce, professor of philosophy in the Marischal college at Aberdeen, and in two years afterwards, upon the death of the professor, Gerard was appointed to succeed him. Here, after a short time, the department assigned to Mr. Gerard was confined to moral philosophy and logic, the duties of which he discharged with conscientious and unwearied diligence, and with equal success and reputation. He was a member of a literary society at Aberdeen, consisting of Drs. Blackwell, Gregory, Reid, Campbell, Beattie, &c. which met very regularly every fortnight during the winter, when the members communicated their sentiments with the utmost freedom, and received mutual improvement from their literary discussions; and hence originated those well-known works, Reid’s “Inquiry into the Human Mind” Gregory’s “Comparative View;” Gerard’s “Essay on Genius” Beattie’s “Essay on Truth” andCampbell’s “Philosophy of Rhetoric.” In 1759 Mr. Gerard was ordained a minister of the church of Scotland, and in the following year he was appointed professor of divinity in the Marischal college, and about the same period he took his degree of D. D. He continued to perform the several duties attached to his offices till 1771, when he resigned the professorship, together with the church living, and was preferred to the theological chair in the university of King’s-college, a situation which he held till his death, which happened on his birth-day, Feb. 22, 1795. Dr. Gerard’s attainments were solid rather than brilliant, the effect of close and almost incessant study, and a fine judgment. He had improved his memory to such a degree, that he could in little more than an hour get by heart a sermon of ordinary length. He was author of “An Essay on Taste,” which was published in 1759, and which obtained for him the prize of a gold medal, from the society of Edinburgh. This work was afterwards much enlarged, and reprinted in 17 So. His “Dissertations on the Genius and Evidences of Christianity,” published in 1766, are well known and highly appreciated; so also are his “Essay on Gesius,” and his sermons in 2 volumes. In 1799 his son and successor, Dr. Gilbert Gerard, gave the world a posthumous work of much merit, which had been left among the papers of his father, entitled “The Pastoral Care,” which made a part of his theological course of lectures. As a clergyman the conduct of Dr. Gerard was marked with prudence, exemplary manners, and the most punctual and diligent discharge of his ministerial duties; his sermons were simple and plain, adapted to the common class of hearers, but so accurate as to secure the approbation of the ablest judges. As a professor of divinity, his great aim was not to impose by his authority upon his pupils any favourite system of opinions; but to impress them with a sense of the importance of the ministerial office; to teach them the proper manner of discharging all its duties; and to enable them, by the knowledge of the scriptures, to form a just and impartial judgment on controverted subjects. Possessing large stores of theological knowledge, he was judicious in selecting his subjects, happy and successful in his manner of communicating instruction. He had the merit of introducing a new, and in many respects a better plan of theological education, than those on which it had formerly been conducted. Having a constant regard to whatever was practically useful, rather than to unedifying speculations, he enjoined no duty which he was unwilling to exemplify in his own conduct. In domestic life he was amiable and exemplary; in his friendships steady and disinterested, and in his intercourse with society, hospitable, benevolent, and unassuming; uniting to the decorum of the Christian pastor, the good breeding of a gentleman, and the cheerfulness, affability, and ease of an agreeable companion.

, or, as some spell the name, Gessner (Solomon), a distinguished German poet, was born at Zurich in 1730. His youth afforded no remarkable symptoms of his future fame, but his father was assured that the boy had talents, which would one day or other exalt him above his school-fellows. As. these, however, were not perceptible at that time, and the progress he made in school-learning at Zurich was unpromising, he was sent to Berg, and put under the care of a clergyman, where he appears to have made greater proficiency. In about two years he returned to his father, who was a bookseller at Zurich, and, probably encouraged by the men of genius who frequented his father’s shop, our author now began to court the muses. His success, however, not being such as to induce his father to devote him to a literary life, he preferred sending him to Berlin in 1749 to learn the trade of a bookseller. Young poets are not easily confined by the shackles of commercial life, and young Gesner soon eloped from his master, while his father, irritated at this step, discontinued his remittances as the most effectual mode of recalling him ta his duty.

, a Scotch clergyman, and founder of a sect, was born at Dundee, 1638, and educated in the New-college, at St. Andrew’s, where he took his degrees, and was settled minister of a country church, near the place of his nativity. In 1727 he published a treatise to prove that the civil establishment of religion was inconsistent with Christianity, for which he was deposed, and became the father of a new sect, called from him Glassites; and afterwards from another leading propagator, Sandemanians. Some account of their tenets will be given under the article Sandeman. Glass wrote a great number of controversial tracts, which have been published at Edinburgh, in 4 vols. 8vo. He died at Dundee, in 1773, aged seventy-five.

, an eminent poet and miscellaneous writer, was born on Nov. 29, 1728, at a place called Pallas, in the parish of Forney and county of Longford in Ireland. His father, the rev. Charles Goldsmith, a native of the county of Roscommon, was a clergyman of the established church, and had been educated at Dublin college. He afterwards held the living of Kilkenny West in the county of Westmeath. By his wife, Anne, the daughter of the rev. Oliver Jones, master of the diocesan school of Elphin, he had five sons, and two daughters. His eldest son, Henry, went into the church, and is the gentleman to whom our poet dedicated his “Traveller.” Oliver was the second son, and is supposed to have faithfully represented his father in the character of the Village Preacher in the “Deserted Village.” Oliver was originally intended for some mercantile employment, as his father found his income too scanty for the expences of the literary education which he had bestowed on his eldest son. With this view he was instructed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, at a common school, the master of which was an old soldier, of a romantic turn, who entertained his pupil with marvellous stories of his travels and feats, and is supposed to have imparted somewhat of that wandering and unsettled turn which so much appeared in his pupil’s future life. It is certain that Oliver had not been long at this humble school before he proved that he was “no vulgar boy.” He made some attempts in poetry when he was scarcely eight years old, and by the inequalities of his temper and conduct, betrayed a disposition more favourable io the flights of genius than the regularity of business. This after some time became so obvious, that his frfends, who had at first pleaded for his being sent to the university, now determined to contribute towards the expence, and by their assistance, he was placed at a school of reputation, where he might be qualified to enter the college with the advantages of preparatory learning.

In 1765 he published “The Traveller,” which at once established his fame. The outline of this he formed when in Switzerland, but polished it with great care, before he submitted it to the public. It soon made him known and admired, but his roving disposition had not yet left him. He had for some time been musing on a design of penetrating into the interior parts of Asia, and investigating the remains of ancient grandeur, learning, and manners. When he was told of lord Bute’s liberality to men of genius, he applied to that nobleman for a salary to enable him to execute his favourite plan, but his application was unnoticed, as his name had not then been made known by his Traveller. This poem, however, having procured him the unsolicited friendship of lord Nugent, afterwards earl of Clare, he obtained an introduction to the earl of Northumberland, then lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who invited our poet to an interview. Goldsmith prepared a complimentary address for his excellency, which, by mistake, he delivered to the groom of the chambers, and when the lord lieutenant appeared, was so confused that he came awa.y without being able to explain the object of his wishes. Sir John Hawkins relates, that when the lord lieutenant said he should be glad to do him any kindness, Goldsmith answered, that “he had a brother in Ireland, a clergyman, that stood in need of help as for himself, he had no dependence on the promises of great men he looked to the booksellers they were his best friends, and he was not inclined to forsake them for others.” This was very characteristic of Goldsmith, who, as sir John Hawkins adds, was “an ideot in the affairs of the world,” but yet his affectionate remembrance of his brother on such an occasion merits a less harsh epithet. Goldsmith was grateful for the kindness he had received from this brother, and nothing probably would have given him greater pleasure than if he had succeeded in transferring the earl’s patronage tp him. From this time, however, although he sometimes talked about it, he appears to have relinquished the project of going to Asia. “Of all men,” said Dr. Johnson, “Goldsmith is the most unfit to go out upon such an inquiry for he is utterly ignorant of such arts as we already possess, and consequently could not know what would be accessions to our present stock of mechanical knowledge. He would bring home a grinding barrow, and think that he had furnished a wonderful improvement.”

, a learned philologist, antiquary, and historian of Copenhagen, was born at Aalburg in Jutland, Oct. 28, 1685. His father, who was a clergyman, carefully superintended his education until he was fit to go to the university. He went accordingly in 1703 to Copenhagen, where he very soon distinguished himself as a classical scholar and critic. In 1705 he took his bachelor’s degree with great credit, and in 1707 published the first specimen of his learned researches, entitled “Archytce Tarentini fragmentum ntp vw pafapalucw, cum disquisitione chronologica de aetate Archytse.” This was followed by other dissertations, which raised his fame so highly that he was made professor of Greek at Copenhagen, and was also appointed counsellor of justice, archivist, historiographer, and librarian, to the king, whom he had taught when a youth. In 1745, he was made counsellor of state, and died March 19, 1748, leaving an elaborate work, “Corpus diplomatum ad res Danicas facientium.” This work, which he undertook by order of Christian VI. is still in ms. and probably consists of several folio volumes. Gramm laid the first foundation of the academy at Copenhagen, and contributed very frequently to the literary journals of his time. He was a man of very extensive learning, but particularly skilled in Greek and Latin, and in history, and of such ready memory that he was never consulted on books or matters of literature without giving immediate information. He corresponded with many of the literati of Germany, England, Italy, and France, but was most admired by those who were witnesses of his amiable private character, his love of literature, and his generous patronage of young students.

, an empiric, whose wori r derful cures have been attested by some of the most eminent men of the seventeenth century, was the son of William Greatrakes, esq. and born at Affane, co. Waterforcl, in Ireland, Feb. 14, 1628. He was educated a protestant in the free-school of Lismore, until the age of thirteen, when his friends intended to have removed him to Trinity college, Dublin, but the rebellion breaking out, his mother took refuge with him in England, where he was kindly received by his great uncle Edmund Harris, brother to sir Edward Harris, knt. his grandfather by the mother’s side. After his uncle’s death he spent some years in the study of the classics and divinity under a clergyman in Devonshire, and then returned to Ireland, which was at that time in so deplorable a state that he retired to the castle of Caperquin, where he spent a year in contemplation, and seems to have contracted a species of enthusiasm which never altogether left him. In 1649 he entered into the service of the parliament, and continued in the army until 1656, when, a great part of the English being disbanded, he retired to his native country of Aflfane, and by the interest of the governor there, was made clerk cf the peace for the county of Cork, register for transplantation, and justice of the peace. At the Restoration all these places were taken from him, and his mind being disturbed partly with this disappointment, and partly for want of any regular and useful occupation, he felt an impulse, as he calls it, that the gift of curing the king’s evil was bestowed upon him and accordingly he began his operations, which were confined to praying, and stroking the part affected and such wonderful cures were effected, that he determined not to stop here. Three years after, he had another impulse that he could cure all kinds of diseases, and by the same simple remedy, which must be administered by himself. When however he pretended to some supernatural aid, and mentioned the Holy Ghost with irreverent presumption, as his assistant, he was cited to the bishop’s court, and forbid to take such liberties. This probably was the cause of his coming to England in January 1665, where he performed many cures, was invited by the king to Whitehall, and his reputation spread most extensively. Even Dr. Henry Stubbe, an eminent physician, published a pamphlet in praise of his skill. Having failed in one instance, that of a Mr. Cresset in Charterhouse square, there appeared a pamphlet entitled “Wonders no miracles: or Mr. Valentine Greatrakes Gift of Healing examined,” &c. Lond. 1666, 4to. This was written by Mr. David Lloyd, reader to the Charter-house, who treated Greatrakes as a cheat. In answer to this, he published “A brief account of Mr. Valentine Greatrakes, and divers of his strange cures,” &c. ibid. 1666, 4to. This was drawn up in the form of a letter to the right hon. Robert Boyle, who was a patron of our physician, as was also Dr. Henry More, and several other members of the royal society, before whom Greatrakes was examined. To his cures we find the attestations of Mr. Boyle, sir William Smith, Dr. Denton, Dr. Fairclough, Dr. Faber, sir Nathaniel Hobart, sir John Godolphin, Dr. Wilkins, Dr. VVhichcot (a patient), Dr. Cudworth, and many other persons of character and reputation. The truth seems to be, that he performed cures in certain cases of rheumatism, stiff joints, &c. by friction of the hand, and long perseverance in that remedy; in all which there would have been nothing extraordinary, as the same is practised till this day, had be not excited the astonishment and enthusiasm of his patients by pretensions to an extraordinary gift bestowed upon him, as he insinuates in one place, to cure the people of atheism. When he left England or died is not known. Mr. Harris says he was living in Dublin in 168 1.

, a younger son of the preceding, and brother to sir John Greenville first eari of Bath, of his name, was born in Cornwall, admitted gentleman commoner of Exeter college, Sept. 22, 1657, actually created in convocation master of arts Sept. 28, 1660. About this time he married Anne, the daughter of Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham, who conferred several preferments on him, as the rectories of Easington and Elwick in. the county palatine of Durham; the archdeaconry of Durham, to which he was collated on the death of Dr. Gabriel Clarke, Sept. 16, 1662, and to the first stall of prebendaries of the church of Durham, Sept. 24, 1662, from whence he was removed to the second, April 16, 1668. On December 20, 1670, he was created doctor of divinity, being then one of the chaplains in ordinary to Charles II.; and on the 14th of December, 1684, he was installed dean of Durham in the place of Dr. John Sudbury deceased. In the register of Eton college we find that immediately after the restoration, Dr. Greenville was recommended in very strong terms to the master and fellows for a fellowship, by three several letters from the king, but for what reason this recommendation did not take effect, does not appear; probably he might wave his interest on account of other preferment which was more acceptable to him. On the 1st of February 1690, he was deprived of all his >referments upon his refusal to comply with the new oaths >f allegiance and supremacy to the prince of Orange then in possession of the throne, a change which he utterly abhorred, always considering the revolution as a rebellion and usurpation. Soon after the prince of Orange’s landing, he left Durham in order to retire into France; and sometimes lived at Corbeil (from whence it is supposed his family originally sprung), but more frequently at Paris and St. Germain’s, where he was very civilly treated and much countenanced by the queen-mother, as we find in several of his own letters, notwithstanding what has been falsely asserted by Mackay in an account of the court of St. Germain’s. He owns he _was sometimes attacked by the priests, but with much good manners and civility. Mr* Wood says, that during his retirement, he was, on the death of Dr. Lamplugh, nominated to the see of York, by king James II. though never consecrated; but this seems rery doubtful. In April 1695 he came incognito into EngJand; but soon returned. For some time before his death he enjoyed but a very indifferent state of health, having been much troubled with a sciatica, and other infirmities. He died at Paris, after a series of many sufferings, on April 7, 1703, N. S. and was buried at the lower end of the Holy Innocents’ church in that city. Lord Lansdowne in a letter to a nephew of his, who was going to enter into holy orders, says of him, “You had an uncle whose mejnory I shall ever revere: make him your example. Sanctity sate so easy, so unaffected, and so graceful upon him, that in him we beheld the very beauty of holiness. He was as cheerful, as familiar, as condescending in his conversation, as he was strict, regular, and exemplary in his piety; as well bred and accomplished as a courtier, and as reverend and venerable as an apostle. He was indeed apostolical in every thing, for he abandoned all to follow his Lord and Master.” There seems little reason to doubt this character, as far as it respects Dr. Greenville’s private character, but in bigotry for restoration of James II. he probably excelled all his contemporaries, and from some correspondence lately published in the Life of Dr. Comber, his successor in the deanery of Durham, there is reason tp doubt whether in his latter days his mind was not unsound. He published, 1. “The Complete Conformist, or seasonable advice concerning strict conformity and frequent celebration of the Holy Communion,” preached on the 7th of January, being the first Sunday after the Epiphany, 1682, in the cathedral church of Durham, on John i. 29, Loud. 1684, 4to. To which is added “Advice or a letter written to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Durham,” to the same purpose. 2. “A Sermon preached in the cathedral church of Durham, upon the revival of the ancient and laudable practice of that and some other cathedrals, in having sermons on Wednesdays and Fridays during Advent and Lent,” on Rom. xiii. 11, Loud. 1686, 4to. 3. “Counsels and Directions divine and moral: in plain and familiar letters of advice to a young gentleman his nephew, soon after his admission into a college in Oxford,” Lond. 1685, 8vo. Besides these pieces which we have just mentioned, our author, immediately after his retiring into France, published some small tracts at Rouen, which are very scarce, and not very correctly printed; and perhaps it is remarkable that such an unusual favour should be permitted in a popish country to a dignified clergyman of the church of England. The titles of the pieces printed at Rouen are, viz. 4. “The resigned and resolved Christian and faithfull and undaunted loyalist: in two plaine farewell sermons, and a loyal farewell visitation speech. Both delivered amidst the lamentable confusions occasioned by the late foreign invasion and home-defection of his majestie’s subjects in England. By Denis Granville, D. D. deane and archdeacon of Durham, now in exile, chaplaine in ordinary to his majestic. .Whereunto are added certaine Letters to his relations and friends in England, shewing the reasons and manner of his withdrawing out of the kingdom.” “A Letter to his brother the earl of Bathe.” “A Letter to his bishop the bishop of Durham.” “A Letter to his brethren the prebendaries” “A Letter to the clergy of his archdeaconry.” “A Letter to his curates, at Easington and Sedgefield,” printed at Rouen, 1689. 5. “The chiefest matters contained in sundry Discourses made to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Durham, since his majestic‘ s coming to the crown. Summed up and seasonably brought again to their view in a loyal farewell visitation speech on the 13th of November last, 88, being ten days after the landing of the prince of Orange.*’ This is dated from his study at Rouen Nov. 15, 1689. With a preface to the reader and an advertisement. 6.” A copy of a paper penned at Durham, by the author, Aug. 27, 1688, by way of reflection on the then dismal prognostics of the time.“7.” Directions which Dr. Granville, archdeacon of Durham, rector of Sedgefield and Easington, enjoins to be observed by the curates of those his parishes, given them in charge at Easter-visitation held at Sedgefield, in the year 1669."

, a French protestant clergyman, born at Paris in 1647, was educated in the reformed religion, and after applying with success to classical studies, was advised by his father to follow the law. In 1664, accordingly, he was admitted to the title and privilege of a doctor of the civil and canon law, and the year following was received as an advocate at Paris, and was distinguishing himself, when by the persuasion of some friends, he quitted his profession, and began to study divinity at Saumur. In 1675 he was appointed minister of the church of Lisy, and was ordained. In -1677 and 1678 he received pressing invitations from the churches of Gien and Amiens, both which he declined, as it was his intention to spend a few more years in close study. At length, however, in 1682, he accepted an invitation from the church at Rouen, but did not remain long connected with it, a decree of council having separated him from his flock, and forbid him to come nearer the place than seven leagues. He was confined by sickness at the time this decree arrived, and on his recovery went to England in 1685, and connected himself in the exercise of his ministerial functions with Messieurs Allix and Lombard. In 1694 he became minister of the Savoy, which office he held until his death, Sept. 30, 1713. His widow is said to have given his library to the Savoy church, on Condition of its being open to the public certain days in every week. He published “Trait< de Pinspiration des livres sacrt-es,” Amst. 1695, and several sermons and pious tracts. He appears to have been a very active member of the society for propagating the gospel.

, or Hugo de Groot, one of the most eminent names in literary history, was descended from a family of the greatest distinction in the Low Countries: his father^ John de Groot, was burgomaster of Delft, and curator of the university of Leyden, and in 1582, married Alida Averschie, a lady of one of the first families in the country, by whom he had three sons and a daughter. His son Hugo, the subject of this article, was born at Delft on Easter-day, April I0j 1583, and came into the world with the most happy dispositions; a profound genius, a solid judgment, and a wonderful memory. These extraordinary natural endowments had all the advantages that education could give them, and he found in his own father a pious and an able tutor, who formed his mind and his morals. He was scarce past his childhood, when he was sent to the Hague, and boarded with Mr. Utengobard, a celebrated clergyman among the Arrninians, who took great care of his trust; and, before he had completed his twelfth year, was removed to Leyden, under the learned Francis Jimiiis. He continued three years at this university, where Joseph Scaliger was so struck with his prodigious capacity, that he condescended to direct his studies; and in 1597, Grotius maintained public theses in the mathematics, philosophy, and law, with the highest applause.

, a German lawyer and historian, was born February 25, 1671, near Nuremberg, and was the son of a clergyman, who died 1689. He was successively professor of philosophy, rhetoric, and the law of nature and nations, at Halle; and frequently consulted on public affairs at Berlin, where his talents were so well known, that he obtained the title of privy-counsellor for his services on various occasions. Gundling was indefatigable, had an excellent memory, great wit, vivacity, and eloquence; but his warmest admirers wished that his numerous writings had contained less satire, and more moderation and politeness. He died rector of the university of Halle, December 16, 1729, leaving several valuable works on literature, history, law, and politics: the principal are, 1.“Historia Philosophic moralis,” 8vo. 2. “Otia,” or a collection of dissertations on various physical, moral, political, and historical subjects, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “De jure oppignorati Territorii,” 4to. 4. “Status naturalis Hobbesii in corpore juris civilis defensus et defendendus,” 4to. 5. “De statu Reipublicae Germanicse sub Conrado I.” 4to. Ludwig has refuted this work in his “Germania Princeps.” 6. “Gundlingiana,” in German. 7. “Commentaria de Henrico Aucupe,” 4to. 8. “Via ad veritatem,” or a course of philosophy, 3 vols. 8vo. Gundling had a great share in the “Observationes Hallenses,” an excellent collection in 11 vols. 8vo.

, an eminent clergyman of the presbyterian church of Scotland, descended from the ancient family of Pitforthy in the shire of Angus, was horn on his father’s estate of Pitforthy in 1620, and educated at the university of St. Andrew’s under his cousin, professor James Guthrie, who was executed at the restoration for his opposition to episcopal government, although he had with equal zeal opposed the usurpation of Cromwell. Under this tutor our author became a very hard student, well versed in the classical languages; and after taking his degree of M. A. studied divinity under professor Samuel Rutherford. He became afterwards private tutor to the eldest son of the earl of London, chancellor of Scotland, and in November 1644 was presented to the church of Finwick, a newly erected parish, and consisting of inhabitants rude and unacquainted with religion. The pains he bestowed upon them, however, soon produced a favour able change in their manners, and his easy and affable address and example had a remarkable elfcct upon them. With this view, as he was fond of fishing, fowling, and other field sports, he took those opportunities to mix among his people, and recommend morals and piety. He was not less happy in curbing the insolence of Cromwell’s army when in Scotland, by addressing them with an eloquence and air of authority which they could not resist. In the mean time his great fame as a preacher procured him invitations from the more eligible churches of Renfrew, Linlithgow, Stirling, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, to all which he preferred his humble situation at Finwick, and continued among his parishioners until 1664, when he was ejected by Burnet, archbishop of Glasgow, notwithstanding the solicitations of the earl of Glencairn, then chancellor of Scotland, and other persons of rank, who represented Mr. Guthrie as an excellent man and well affected to government. He did not long survive this sentence, dying Oct. Jo, 1665. Some spurious publications were attributed to him; but the only genuine work extant is his “Christian’s Great Interest,” which has long been a standard book in Scotland, and has been translated into Dutch and French, and, as reported, into one of the Eastern languages, at the expence of the Hon. Robert Boyle.

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

, a dissenting clergyman, was born at Exeter in 1692, and educated under the care of Mr. Pierce, who was assistant to his father Mr. Hallet, minister of a congregation of protestant dissentars in that city. Joseph was ordained in 1713, and in 1722 he succeeded his father as joint-minister with Mdf. Pierce. Prior to this event he had engaged in the controversy, then warmly carried on in the west of England, concerning the Trinity; and in 1720, adopted the principles of Dr. Clarke, which he demonstrated in a treatise entitled “The Unity of God not inconsistent with the Divinity of Christ; being remarks upon Dr. Waterland’s Vindication, relating to the Unity of God, and the Object of Worship.” He published other pieces on the same subject; but his reputation is chiefly founded on his work entitled “A free and impartial Study of the Holy Scriptures recommended, being notes on some peculiar texts, with discourses and observations,” 1729 1736, 3 vols. published at different times. Our author published many other works, which being of the controversial kind, are now forgotten. Those which merited most general approbation were his “Discourse of the nature, kinds, and numbers of our Saviour’s Miracles” his “Immorality of the Moral Philosopher,” and his “Consistent Christian,” against the infidel writers, Woolston, Morgan, and Chubb. Mr. Hallet died in 1744.