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

In 1584 Liddel returned to Francfort, and again applied to physic, and at the same time instructed some pupils in various branches of mathematics and philosophy. In 1587, being obliged to leave Francfort on account of the plague, he retired to the university of Rostock, where his talents attracted the esteem of Brucseus, and Caselius, which last observes, that, as far as he knew, Liddel was the first person in Germany who explained the motions of the heavenly bodies according to the three different hypotheses of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Tycho Brahe. With these learned men he lived more like a companion than a pupil; and Brucxus, himself an excellent mathematician, acknowledged that he was instructed by Liddel in the more perfect knowledge of the Copernican system, and other astronomical questions. It was probably during his residence here that Licldel became acquainted with Tycho Brahe. In 1590, having taken his master’s degree at Rostock, he returned once more to Francfort; but, hearing of the increasing reputation of the new university at Helmstadt, where his friend Caselius had accepted the chair of philosophy, he removed thither, and in 1591 was appointed to the first or lower professorship of mathematics, and in 1594 to the second and more dignified mathematical chair, which he filled with great reputation to himself and to the university. In 1596 he obtained the degree of doctor of medicine, and both taught and practised physic, and was employed as first physician at the court of Brunswick. His reputation being now at its height, he was several times chosen dean of the faculties, both of philosophy and physic, and in 1604, pro-rector of the university, the year before he resigned his mathematical professorship.

, a distinguished botanist* was born at Newent, in the forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, Dec. 9, 1735. His father, Stephen Lightfoot, was a reputable yeoman or gentleman farmer, who died in 1769, with a very amiable character, expressed on a small marble monument in the parish church of Newent His son was educated at St. Crypt’s school,Jat Gloucester; from whence he became an exhibitioner in Pembroke-college, Oxford; where he continued his studies with much reputation, and took his master’s degree in July 1766. He was first appointed curate at Colnbrook, and afterwards at Uxbridgef which he retained to his dying day.

In 1634, having procured a manuscript, with some alterations, of the “Ars Notoria” of Cornelius Agrippa, he became so infatuated by the doctrine of the magical circle, and the invocation of spirits, as not only to make use of a form of prayer prescribed there to the angel Salmonaeus, and to fancy himself a favourite of great power and interest with that uncreated phantom, but even to claim a knowledge of, and a familiar acquaintance with, the partieular guardian angels of England, by name Salmael and Malchidael. After this he treated the more common mystery of recovering stolen goods, &c. with great contempt, claiming a supernatural sight, and the gift of prophetical predictions, and seems to have known well how to profit by the credulity of the times. Such indeed was his fame, as to produce the following notable story. When one Ramsay, the king’s clock maker, being informed that there was a great treasure buried in the cloister of Westminster-abbey, obtained the dean’s (Dr. Williams, bishop of Lincoln), leave to search for it with the divining or Mosaical* rods, he applied to Lilly for his assistance. Lilly, with one Scot, who pretended to the use of the said rods, attended by Ramsay and above thirty persons more, went into the cloister by night, and, observing the rods to tumble over one another on the West side of the cloister, concluded the treasure lay hid under that spot; but, the ground being' dug to the depth of six feet, and nothing found but a coffin, which was not heavy enough for their purpose, they proceeded, without opening it, into the abbey. Here they were alarmed by a storm, which suddenly rose, and increased to such a height, that they were afraid the West end of the church would have been blown down upon them; the rods moved not at all; the candles and torches, all but one, were extinguished, or burned very dimly. Scot was amazed, looked pale, and knew not what to think or do; until Lilly gave directions to dismiss the chcinons, which when done, all was quiet again, and each man returned home. Lilly, however, took care not to expose his skill again in this manner, though he was cunning enough to ascribe the miscarriage, not to any defect in the art itself, but to the number of people who were present at the operation and derided it; shrewdly laying it down for a rule, that secrecy and intelligent operators, with a strong confidence and knowledge of what they are doing, are necessary requisites to succeed in this work.

, a learned scholar, was descended from the Westcot family of Mounslow, in Worcestershire, and born Nov. 8, 1627, at Hales-Owen, in Shropshire, of which place his father, Thomas, was vicar. He was educated under Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, and in 1644 was chosen student of Christ-church, Oxford, but was ejected by the parliament visitors in Nov. 1648. This ejection, however, does not seem to have extended so far as in other cases, for we find that, soon after, he became usher of Westminster-school; and in 1658 was made second master, having for some time in the interim taught school in other places. In July 1670, being then chaplain in ordinary to the king, he accumulated his degrees in divinity, which were conferred upon him without taking any in arts, as a mark of respect due to his extraordinary merit. This indeed had been amply attested to the university by letters from Henchman, bishop of London, recommending him as a man eminently learned, of singular humanity and sweetness of manners, blameless and religious life, and of genius and ready faculty in preaching. In Sept. 1674, he was inducted into the rectory of Chelsea, was made a prebendary of Westminster, and afterwards sub -dean. In 1685 he was licensed to the church of St. Botolph Aldersgate, which he held about four years, and then resigned it, possibly on account of some decay in his constitution.

, a very learned English bishop, was originally of Welsh extraction, being grandson of David Lloyd of Henblas, in the isle of Anglesey. He was born at Tilehurst, in Berkshire, in 1627, of which place his father, Mr. Richard Lloyd, was then vicar, and also rector of Sunning, in the same county. Having been carefully instructed by his father in the rudiments of grammar and classical learning, he understood Greek and Latin, and something of Hebrew, at eleven years of age; and was entered, in 1638, a student of Oriel college, in Oxford, whence, the following year, he was elected to a scholarship of Jesus college. In 1642 he proceeded B. A. and left the university, then garrisoned for the use of the king; but, after the surrender of it to the parliament, he returned, was chosen fellow of his college, and commenced M. A. in 1646. In 1649 he was ordained deacon by Dr. Skinner, bishop of Oxford, and afterwards became tutor to the children of sir William Backhouse, of Swallowfield, in Berkshire. In 1654, upon the ejection of Dr. Pordage by the Presbyterian committee, he was presented to the rectory of Bradfield, in the same county, by Elias Ashmole, esq. patron of that living in right of his wife; but this right being disputed by Mr. Fowler and Mr. Ford, two ministers at Reading, who endeavoured to bring in Dr. Temple, pretending the advowson was in sir Humphrey Forster, he chose to resign his presentation to Mr. Ashmole, rather than involve himself in a contest. In 1656 he was ordained priest hy Dr. Brownrig, bishop of Exeter, and the same year went to Wadham college, in Oxford, as governor to John Backhouse, esq. a gentleman-commoner, with whom he continued till 1659. In Sept. 1660, he was incorporated M. A. at Cambridge; and, about the same time, made a prebendary of Rippon, in Yorkshire. In 1666 he was appointed king’s chaplain; and, in 1667, was collated to a prebend of Salisbury, having proceeded D. D. at Oxford in the act preceding. In 1668 he was presented by the crown to the vicarage of St. Mary’s in Reading; and, the same year, was installed archdeacon of Merioneth, in the church of Bangor, of which he was made dean in 1672. This year he obtained also a prebend in the church of St. Paul, London. In 1674 he became residentiary<of Salisbury; and, in 1676, he succeeded Dr. Lamplugh, promoted to the see of Exeter, in the vicarage of St. Martin’s in the Fields, Westminster; upon which occasion he resigned his prebend of St. Paul’s.

Besides the “Considerations,” &c. mentioned above, he wrote, 1. “The late Apology in behalf of Papists, reprinted and answered, in behalf of the Royalists,” 1667, 4to. 2. “A seasonable Discourse, shewing the necessity of maintaining the Established Religion in opposition to Popery,” 1672, 4to, which passed through five editions in the following year. 3. “A reasonable Defence of the Seasonable Discourse,” &c. 1673, 4to, in answer to the earl of Castlemain’s observations on the preceding article. 4. “The difference between the Church and the Court of Rome considered,” 1673, 4to. All the preceding were published without the author’s name, nor were they at first acknowledged by, though generally attributed to him. They were reprinted in 1689, 4to. 5. “An Alarm for Sinners,” 1679, 4to. This was published by our author when dean of Bangor, from an original copy containing the confession, prayers, letters, and last words of Robert Foulks, vicar of Stanton-Lucy, in Shropshire, who was executed at Tyburn, in 1678, for the murder of a natural child; and whom Dr. Lloyd and Dr. Buraet attended during his imprisonment. 6. Various occasional Sermons, printed separately. 7. “An historical account of Church Government,” 1684, 8vo. 8. “A Letter to Dr. William Sherlock, in vindication of that part of Josephus’s History, which gives an account of Jaddua the high priest’s submitting to Alexander the Great,” 1691, 4to. 9. “A Discourse of God’s ways of disposing Kingdoms,” 1691, 4to. 10. “The Pretences of the French Invasion examined,” &c. 1692, 4to. 11. “A Dissertation upon Daniel’s 70 Weeks,” the substance of which is inserted in the chronology of sir Isaac Newton. 12. An exposition of the same subject, left printed imperfect, and not published. 13. *‘ A Letter upon the same subject, printed in the ’ Life of Dr. Humphrey Prideaux,' p. 288, edit. 1758,“8vo. 14.” A System of Chronology,“left imperfect, but out of it his chaplain, Benjamin Marshall, composed his” Chronological Tables,“printed at Oxford, 1712, 1713. 15.” A Harmony of the Gospels,“partly printed in 4to, but left imperfect. 16.” A Chronological account of the Life of Pythagoras,“&c. 1699. 17. He is supposed to have had a hand in a book published by his son at Oxford, 1700, in folio, entitled” Series Chronologica Olympiadum,“&c. He wrote also some” Explications of some of the Prophecies in the Revelations,“and added the chronological dates at the head of the several columns, with an index to the Bible, and many of the references and parallel places, first printed in the fine edition of the Bible published in folio, under the direction of archbishop Tenison, in 1701. He left a Bible interlined with notes in short hand, which was in the possession of Mr. Marshall, his chaplain, who married a relation, and would have published these notes had he met with encouragement, as Whiston informs us, who always, even in his index, calls Dr. Lloyd” the great bishop,“and in speaking of Wasse says,” one more learned than any bishop in England since bishop Lloyd."

During his residence in Holland, he was accused at court of having written certain tracts against the government of his country, which were afterwards discovered to be the production of another person; and upon that suspicion he was deprived of his studentship of Christ-church. This part of Mr. Locke’s history requires some detail. The writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica (Nicoll) says that “being observed to join in company with several English malcontents at the Hague, this conduct was communicated by our resident there to the earl of Sunderland, then secretary of state; who acquainting the king therewith, his majesty ordered the proper methods to be taken for expelling him from the college, and application to be made for that purpose to bishop Fell, the dean; in obedience to this command, the necessary information was given by his lordship, who at the same time wrote to our author, to appear and answer for himself on the first of January ensuing, but immediately receiving an express command to turn him out, was obliged to comply therewith, and, accordingly, Air. Locke was removed from his student’s place on the 15th of Nov. 1684.” This account, however, is not correct. All that lord Sunderland did, was to impart his majesty’s displeasure to the dean, and to request his opinion as to the proper method of removing Mr. Locke. The dean’s answer, dated Nov. 8, contains the following particulars of Mr. Locke, and of his own advice and proceedings against him. “I have,” says the dean, “for divers years had an eye upon him; but so close has his guard been on himself, that after several strict inquiries, I may confidently affirm there is not any man inthe college, however familiar with him, who had heard him speak a word either against or so much as concerning the government; and although very frequently, both in public and private, discourses have been purposely introduced to the disparagement of his master, the earl of Shaftesbury, his party and designs, he never could be provoked to take any notice, or discover in word or look the least concern. So that I believe there is not a man in the world so much master of taciturnity and passion. He has here a physician’s place (he had taken the degree of B. M. in 1674) which frees him from the exercise of the college, and the obligations which others have to residence in it; and he is now abroad for want of health.”

Thus far we might suppose the dean had advanced enough in behalf of the innocence of Mr. Locke. What follows, however, will be read with regret, that so good a man as bishop Fell should have given such advice. “Notwithstanding this, I have summoned him to return home, which is done with this prospect, that if he comes not back, he will be liable to expulsion for contumacy; and if he does, he will be answerable to the law for that which he shall be found to have done amiss. It being probable that, though he may have been thus cautious here, where he knew himself suspected, he has laid himself more open at London, where a general liberty of speaking was used, and where the execrable designs against his majesty and government were managed and pursued. If he don't r^­turn by the first of January, which is the time limited to him, I shall be enabled of course to proceed against him to expulsion. But if this method seems not effectual or speedy enough, and his majesty, our founder and visitor, shall please to command his immediate remove, upon the receipt thereof, directed to the dean and chapter, it shall accordingly be executed.” In consequence of this, a warrant came down to the dean and chapter, dated Nov. 12, in these words: “Whereas we have received information of the factious and disloyal behaviour of Locke, one of the students of that our college; we have thought fit hereby to signify our will and pleasure to you, that you forthwith remove him from his student’s place, and deprive him of all rights and advantages thereunto belonging, for which this shall be your warrant,” &c. And thus, on the 16th following, one of the greatest men of his time was, expelled the college at the command of Charles II. without, as far as ia known, any form of trial or inquiry. After the death of Charles II. William Penn, the celebrated quaker, who had known Mr. Locke at the university, used his interest with king James to procure a pardon for him) an J would have obtained it, if Mr. Locke had not said, that he had no occasion for a pardon, since he had not been guilty of any crime.

After becoming a fellow of his college, he was in 1505 chosen principal of Magdalen-hall, which he resigned in 1507. In 1510 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in the following year. In 1514 he was promoted to be dean of Salisbury, and in 1519 had the additional preferment of a canonry of Windsor. At this time he was in such favour with Henry VIII. as to be appointed his confessor, and upon the death of Atwater, bishop of Lincoln, he was by papal provision advanced to this see in 1520, and was consecrated May 3, 1521. In the same year (1520) we find him at Oxford assisting in drawing up the privileges for the new statutes of the university. In 1523 he was at the same place as one of those whom. Wolsey consulted in the establishment of his new college; and when the foundation was laid on July 15, 1525, Longland preached a sermon, which, with two others on the same occasion, he dedicated to archbishop Warham. He was afterwards employed at Oxford by the king, to gain over the learned men of the university fo sanction his memorable divorce. It is said, indeed, that when Henry’s scruples, or, as we agree with the catholic historian, his pretended scruples, began to be started, bishop Longland was the first that suggested the measure of a divorce. The excuse made for him is, that he was himself over-persuaded to what was not consistent with his usual character by Wolsey, who thought that Longland’s authority would add great weight to the cause; and it is said that he expressed to his chancellor, Dr. Draycot, his sorrow for being concerned in that affair. In 1533 he was chosen chancellor of the university of Oxford, to which he proved in many respects a liberal benefactor, and to poor students a generous patron. The libraries of Brazenose, Magdalen, and Oriel colleges, he enriched with many valuable books; and in 1540 he recovered the salary of the lady Margaret professorship, which had almost been lost, owing to the abbey from which it issued being dissolved. It must not be disguised, however, that he was inflexible in his pursuit and persecution of what he termed heresy. In 1531, we find him giving a commission to the infamous Dr. London, warden of New college, and others, to search for certain heretical books commonly sold at St. Frideswyde’s fair near Oxford. He died May 7, 1547, at Wooburn in Bedfordshire, where his bowels were interred; while his heart was carried to Lincoln cathedral, and his body deposited in Eton-college chapel, where it is thought he once had some preferment. He built a curious chapel in Lincoln cathedral in the east part, in imitation of bishop Russel’s chapel, with a tomb, &c. He also gave the second bell at Wooburn church, and built almshouses at Henley, his birth-place.

, an English clergyman, was born iir Northamptonshire about 1630, and is supposed to have been the son of Simon Lowth, a native of Thurcaston in Leicestershire, who was rector of Dingley in that county in 1631, and was afterwards ejected by the usurping powers. This, his son, was educated at Clare Hall, Cambridge, where be took his master’s degree in 1660. He was afterwards rector of St. Michael Harbledown in 1670, and vicar of St. Co.Miius and Damian on the Blean in 1679, both in, Kent. On Nov. 12, 1688, king James nominated him, and he was instituted by bishop Sprat, to the deanery of Rochester, on the death of Dr. Castillon, but never obtained possession, owing to the following circumstances. The mandate of installation bad issued in course, the bishop not having allowed himself time to examine whether the king’s presentee was legally qualified; which happened not to be the case, Mr. Lowth being only a master of arts, and the statute requiring that the dean should be at least a bachelor of divinity. The bishop in a day or two discovering that he had been too precipitate, dispatched letters to the chapter clerk, and one of the prebendaries, earnestly soliciting that Mr. Lowth might not be installed; and afterwards in form revoked the institution till he should have taken the proper degree. On Nov. 27 Mr. Lowth attended the chapter, and produced his instruments, but the prebendaries present refused to obey them. He was admitted to the degree of D.D.Jan. 18 following, and on March 19 again claimed instalment, but did not obtain possession, for which, in August of this year, another reason appeared, viz. his refusing to take the oaths of allegiance; in consequence of which he was first suspended from his function, and afterwards deprived of both his livings in Kent. He lived very long after this, probably in London, as his death is recorded to have happened there on July 3, 1720, when he was buried in the new cemetery belonging to the parish of St. George the Martyr, Queen Square. He published, 1. “Letters between Dr. Gilbert Burnet and Mr. Simon. Lowth,” 1684, 4to, respecting some opinions of the former in his “History of the Reformation.” 2. “The subject of Church Power, in whom it resides,” &c. 1685, 8vo. 3. “A Letter to Edward Stillingfleet, D. D. in answer to the Dedicatory Epistle before, his ordination-sermon, preached at St. Peter’s Cornhill, March 15, 1684, with reflections. on some of Dr. Burnet’s letters on the same subject,” 1687, 4to, and 8vo. This was answered by Dr. Stillingfleet in a short letter to the bishop of London, “an honour,” bishop Nicolson says, “which he (Lowth) had no right to expect;” Lowth had submitted this letter both to Stillingfleet and Tillotson, who was then dean of Canterbury, but, according to Birch, “the latter did not think proper to take the least public notice of so confused and unintelligible a writer.” Dr. Hickes, however, a suffering nonjuror like himself, calls Lowfeh “a very orthodox and learned divine,” and his book an excellent one. His only other publication, was “Historical Collections concerning Deposing of Bishops,” 1696, 4to. From the sameness of name we should suppose him related to the subjects of the two preceding articles, but have not discovered any authority for more, than a conjecture on the subject.

, surnamed Brugensis, from being a native of that city, was a doctor of Louvain, and dean of the church of St. Omer. He studied under Arias Montanus, and acquired an extensive knowledge of the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac languages. He has left, 1. “Critical notes on the Holy Scriptures,” Antwerp, 3 vols. 4to, which are commended by Simon, in his Critical History. 2. Latin commentaries on the New Testament, in 3 vols. folio. 3. Concordances of the Bible, published at Cologne in 8vo, by Egmond, in 1684, which are convenient in size, and printed with correctness and beauty. He died Feb. 19, 1619.

, whom Granger, by mistake, calls Dr. Lupton, was one of the earliest publishers of biographical collections in English, but with his own history we are almost totally unacquainted. We can only gather from one of his dedications that he had served in the army several years, and from the contents of his two principal publications, that he was a man of piety, and an admirer of the characters of those eminent fathers and divines who made the greatest figure in the church from the earliest periods to the reformation. The first of these is entitled “The History of the Moderne Protestant Divines, &c. faithfully translated out of Latin,” Lond. 1637, a small 12mo. This is dedicated to sir Paul Pindar, sir John Wolstenholme, sir Abraham Dawes, sir John Jacob, “farmers of the custom-house.” It contains twenty-two foreign lives, and twenty-three English, translated from Holland’s “Heroologia, and Verheiden’s” Effigies,“with each an engraved head dopied, in small, from those in Holland and Verheiden. Mr. Churton has made particular mention of this curious and very scarce volume in the preface to his elaborate life of dean Newell, and an account has since been published in the Bibliographer. The other biographical collection said to be by Lupton is a 4to volume, entitled” The Glory of their Times, or the Lives of the Primitive Fathers,“&c. London, printed by J. Okes, 1640. This contains forty four lives, with heads of the same scale as. the other, but of less value, as being mostly imaginary. We know not on what authority this work is attributed to Lupton, >as there is no mention of his name in any part of the copy now before us, and the preface, or address to the reader, is signed Typographies. From internal evidence, however, we should be inclined to think it was his compilation. Lupton’s other productions werte,” London and the countrey carbonadoed and quartered into several chafacters,“1632, 8vo” ObjectorUm reductio; or daily employment for the soule,“1634, 8vo” Emblems of Rarities; or choice Observations out of worthy Histories, &c.“1636, l&tTio; and” England’s command of the Seas; or the English Seas guarded," 1653, 12mo.

, third son of sir Thomas, and brother to George lord Lyttelton, was born at Hagley, in 1714. He was educated at Eton-school, and went thence first to University-college, Oxford, and then to the InnerTemple, where he became a barrister at law; but entering into orders, was collated by bishop Hough to the rectory of Alvechurch, in Worcestershire, Aug. 13, 1742. He took the degree of LL. B. March 28, 1745; LL. D. June 18 the same year; was appointed king’s chaplain in Dec. 1747, dean of Exeter in May 1748, and was consecrated bishop of Carlisle, March 21, 1762. In 1754 he caused the cieling and cornices of the chancel of Hagley church to be ornamented with shields of arms in their proper colours, representing the paternal coats of his ancient and respectable family. In 1765, on the death of Hugh lord Willoughby of Parham, he was unanimously elected president of the society of antiquaries; a station in which his distinguished abilities were eminently displayed. He died unmarried, Dec. 22, 1768. His merits and good qualities are universally acknowledged; and those parts of his character which more particularly endeared him to the learned society over which he so worthily presided, shall be pointed out in the words of his learned successor dean Milles: “The study of antiquity, especially that part of it which relates to the history and constitution of these kingdoms, was one of his earliest and most favourable pursuits; and he acquired g cat knowledge in it by constant study and application, to which he was led, not only by his natural disposition, but also by his state and situation in life. He took frequent opportunities of improving and enriching this knowledge by judicious observations in the course of several journies which he made through every country of England, and through many parts of Scotland and Wales. The society has reaped the fruits of these observations in the most valuable papers, which his lordship from time to time has communicated to us; which are more in number, and not inferior either in merit or importance, to those conveyed to us by other hands. Blest with a retentive memory, and happy both in the disposition and facility of communicating his knowledge, he was enabled also to act the part of a judicious commentator and candid critic, explaining, illustrating, and correcting from his own observations many of the papers which have been read at this society. His station and connections in the world, which necessarily engaged a very considerable part of his time, did not lessen his attention to the business and interests of the society. His doors were always open to his friends, amongst whom none were more welcome to him than the friends of literature, which he endeavoured to promote in all its various branches, especially in those which are the more immediate objects of our attention. Even this circumstance proved beneficial to the society, for, if I may be allowed the expression, he was the centre in which the various informations -on points of antiquity from the different parts of the kingdom united, and the medium through which they were conveyed to us. His literary merit with the society received an additional lustre from the affability of his temper, the gentleness of his manners, and the benevolence of his heart, which united every member of the society in esteem to their head, and in harmony and friendship with each other. A principle so essentially necessary to the prosperity and even to the existence of all communities, especially those which have arts and literature for their object, that its beneficial effects are visibly to be discerned in the present flourishing state of our society, which I flatter myself will be long continued under the influence of the same agreeable principles. I shall conclude this imperfect sketch of a most worthy character, by observing that the warmth of his affection to the society continued to his latest breath; and he has given a signal proof of it in the last great act which a wise man does with resp'ect to his worldly affairs; for, amongst the many charitable and generous donations contained in his will, he has made a very useful and valuable bequest of manuscripts and printed books to the society, as a token of his affection for them, and of his earnest desire to promote those laudable purposes for which they were instituted.” The society expressed their gratitude and respect to his memory by a portrait of him engraved at their expence in 1770.

Besides his contributions to the papers of the society of antiquaries, published in the “Archaeologia,” there is in Gutch’s “Collectanea Curiosa,” vol. II. p. 354, “Dean Lyttelton’s Memoir concerning the authenticity of his copy of Magna Charta,” from the minutes of the antiquarian society, and an answer by judge Blackstone.

, a famous English prelate, born at London, July 27, 1697, of obscure parents, whom he lost while he was young, was taken care of by an aunt, who placed him in a charity-school, and afterwards put him on trial to a pastry-cook; but, before he was bound apprentice, the master told her that the boy was not fit for trade; that he was continually reading books of learning above his (the master’s) comprehension, and therefore advised that she should take him away, and send him back to school, to follow the bent of his inclination. He was on this sent, by an exhibition of some dissenting friends, to one of the universities of Scotland, Cole says, that of Aberdeen; but, not caring to take orders in that church, was afterwards, through the patronage of bishop Gibson, admitted to Queen’s-college, Cambridge, and was favoured with a doctor’s degree at Lambeth. After entering into orders, he first was curate of St. Bride’s, then domestic chaplain to Dr. Waddington, bishop of Chichester, whose niece he married, and was afterwards promoted to the rectory of St. Vedast, in Foster-lane, London. In 1729, he was appointed clerk of the closet to queen Caroline. In 1733, he became dean of Wells, and was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, in 1736. He was translated to the see of Worcester, in 1743. In 1733 he published the first part of the “Review of Neal’s History of the Puritans,” under the title of, “A Vindication of the Government, Doctrine, and Worship of the Church of England, established in the reign of queen Elizabeth:” of which the late bishop Hallifax said, “a better vindication of the reformed church of England, I never read.” He was a great benefactor to the London hospitals, and the first promoter of the Worcester Infirmary in 1745, which has proved of singular benefit to the poor, and a great advantage to medical and surgical knowledge in that neighbourhood. He was also a great encourager of trade, engaging in the British fishery, by which he lost some money. He likewise was a strong advocate for the act against vending spirituous liquors. He married Elizabeth daughter of Richard Price, esq. of Hayes in Middlesex, in 1731; and had two daughters and a son, of whom only one daughter survived him, and was afterwards married to the hon. James Yorke, bishop of Gloucester, and late bishop of Ely. He died Sept. 27, 1739. Bishop Madox published fourteen occasional sermons preached between the years 1734 and 1752. Among other instances of his benevolence, we may mention his assigning 200l.perann. during his life, for the augmentation of the smaller benefices of his diocese. He corresponded with Dr. Doddridge with affectionate familiarity, and visited him when at Bristol, offering in the most obliging manner to convey him to the Wells in his chariot, at the stated times of drinking. He used to anticipate any hints respecting his origin by a joke which he was fond of repeating. When tarts wera on his table, he pressed the company to partake, saying “that he believed they were very good, but that they were not of his own making” This he varied, when John Whiston dined with him, into, “some people reckon me a good judge of that article!” Upon the whole he appears to have been an amiable and benevolent man, and to have employed his wealth as well as his talents to the best purposes. His widow survived him thirty years, dying Feb. 19, 1789.

, dean of the cathedral of Munster, and celebrated for his inquiries into typographical antiquities, was certainly a learned man, but very turbulent and ambitious. Hence it happened that he was named to two bishoprics without taking possession of either, and that he died in prison for his opposition to another prelate. The emperor Ferdinand I. appointed him to the bishopric of Ratzebourg, and he was, a few days after, elected to the see of Minden. But his ambition was to be bishop of Munster, and not succeeding, in 1650, he intrigued and raised seditions against the bishop who had succeeded, till in 1655, he was degraded from his dignity of dean. Nor yet warned, he continued his machinations, and in 1657, the bishop had him arrested and confined in the castle of Otteinzheim. Here he continued till his death, which happened suddenly, March 7, 1664. He wrote in Latin, 1. “De natura et usu Literarum,” Munster, 1638, 4to. 2. “De ortu et progressu artis Typographica;,” Cologne, 1639, 4to, and since reprinted in Wolfs collection of “Monumenta Typographica,” vol. I. 1740. 3. “De Archicancellariis S. R. imperil,” Munster, 1640, 4to. 4. “Paralipomenon de Historicis Gracis,” Cologne, 1656, 4to.

, a Roman catholic writer, was the son of lieutenant-colonel Manby, and after being educated at the university of Dublin, became chaplain to Dr. Michael Boyle, archbishop of -Dublin, and at length dean of Derry. During the reign of James II. in 1686, being disappointed of a bishopric, which he had hopes of obtaining by means of the lord primate, he attempted to rise by popish interest, and publicly embraced that religion, in vindication of which he wrote several books. But the revolution preventing the accomplishment of his wishes, he removed to France, and thence to England, and died at London in 1697. He wrote “A Letter to a Nonconformist minister,” Lond. 1677, 4to. 2. “A brief and practical Discourse on Abstinence in Lent,” Dublin, 1682, 4to. 3. “Of Confession to a lawful Priest,” &c. Lond. 1686, 4to. 4. “The Considerations which obliged Peter Manby, Dean of Derry, to embrace the Catholic religion. Dedicated to the Lord Primate of Ireland,” Dublin, 1687. This was ably answered by Mr. William King, afterwards archbishop of Dublin, and by Dr. Clagett in England. Manby replied to Mr. King, in “A reformed Catechism in two Dialogues,” the first only of which appeared in 1687, and was answered by King.

, a learned physician and laborious historian of that science, was horn June 19, 1652, at Geneva, where his father was an eminent merchant. His father’s brother, author of a work on fevers, was physician to the king of Poland. Manger, having finished his classical studies at the age of fourteen, bestowed two years on philosophy, and then studied theology for five years, when, changing his destination, he entered on a course of medical reading (for he says he had no teacher but his books), and made such proficiency, that in 1678, he received his doctor’s degree at Valence, along with the celebrated Hartman. On his return home he entered upon practice, to which he joined the laborious perusal of many medical works, which served as the foundation of his own publications. In 1699, the elector of Brandenburgh appointed him, by letters patent, his first physician, and the kings of Prussia continued this title to him during his life. He was dean of the faculty at Geneva at the time of his death, Aug. 15, 1742, in the ninetieth year of his age. His works are: l.“Messis Medico-spagyrica, &c.” Geneva, 1683, folio, which contains a most abundant collection of pharmaceutical preparations, arranged in a very complex order. 2. In the same year he edited, “Pauli Barbetti Opera omnia Medica et Chirurgica,” with additional cases and illustralions. 3. “Bibliotheca Anatomica,” 1685, two vols, folio a work which was executed in conjunction with Daniel le Clerc. He afterwards edited, 4. The “Compendium Medicinae Practicum,” of J. And. Sehmitz. 5. The “Pharmcopeia Schrodero-Hoffmanniana.” 6. The “Tractatus de Febribus,” of Franc. Pieus; and, 7. The “Sepulchretum” of Bonetus, to which he added several remarks and histories. 8. In 1695, he published his “Bibliotheca Medico-Practica,” four vqls. folio; a vast collection of practical matter relative to all the diseases of the human body, arranged in alphabetical order. 9. “Bibliotheca Chemica curiosa,” 1702, two vols. folio. 10 “Bibliotheca Pharmaceutico Medica,” 1711, two vols. folio; and 11. “Bibliotheca Chirurgica,” 1721, four vols. in two, folio. 12. “Theatrum Anatomicum, cum Eustachii Tabulis Anatomicis,” 1716, two vols. folio, a description of all the parts of the body, abridged from various authors. On the appearance of the plague at Marseilles, he published a collection of facts and opinions on that disease, under the title of “Traite de la Peste recueilli des meilleurs Auteurs,” 1721, two vols. 12mo; and in the following year, 14. “Nouvelles Reflexions sur l'Origine, la Cause, la Propagation, les Preservatifs, et la Cure de la Peste,” 12mo. 15. His “Observations sur la Maladie qui a commence depuis quelques annees a attaquer le gros Betail,” was a collection of the opinions of the Genevese physicians concerning the distemper of horned cattle. The last work of Manget was his “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Medicorum veterum et recentiorum,” at which he laboured when at least eighty years of age, and published it in 1731, in four vols. folio. It is the most important of his productions, being an useful collection of medical lives, and catalogues of writings. It has not been so much thought of since the appearance of Haller’s Bibliotheca, and particularly of Eloy’s; but the plans are different, and Manget’s, as well as the rest of his voluminous compilations, may be yet consulted with advantage. Although he was so intent on accumulating information, and reprinting scarce works and tracts, that he did not employ his judgment always, either in selection or arrangement, yet those, who, like himself, wish to trace the progress of medical knowledge, will find his works of great use. They contain, indeed, the substance of many libraries, and a variety of treatises which it would not be easy to procure in their separate form.

, an English lady, authoress of a noted piece of scandal called “The Atalantis,” was born in Guernsey, or one of those small islands, of which her father, sir Roger Mauley, was governor. He wa* the second son of an ancient family, and had been a great sufferer for his loyalty in the reign of Charles I. without receiving either preferment or recompense in that of Charles II. He was a man of considerable literary talents, wnich appeared in several publications, particularly his Latin commentaries on the rebellion, under the title of “Commentaria de Rebelhone Anglicana, ab anno 1640 ad annum 1685,” Lond. 1686, 8vo, and of which an English translation was published in 1691; and his “History of the late wars of Denmark,” 1670. He is also said to have been the author of the first volume of the “Turkish Spy,” which was found among his papers, and continued to its present number of volumes by Dr. Midgley, a physician, who had the care of his papers; but this has been justly doubted (See Marana). His daughter, the subject of this article, received an education suitable to her birth, and gave indications of genius above her years, and, as her biographer says, “much superior to what is usually to be found amongst her sex.” The loss of her parents before she was settled in life, seems to have been peculiarly unfortunate, for her father confided the care of her to his nephew, a married man, who first pretended that his wife was dead, then by a series of seductive manoeuvres cheated her into a marriage. When he could no longer conceal his infamy, he deserted her, and the world tamed its back upon her. While in this situation, she accidentally acquired the patronage of the duchess of Cleveland, one of Charles II.'s mistresses, having been introduced to her by an acquaintance to whom she was paying a visit; but the duchess, a woman of a very fickle temper, grew tired of Mrs. Manley in six months, and discharged her upon a pretence that she intrigued with her son. When this lady was thus dismissed, she was solicited by general Tidcomb to pass some time with him at his country-seat; but she excused herself by saying, “that her love of solitude was improved by her disgust of the world; and since it was impossible for her to be in public with reputation, she was resolved to remain concealed.” In this solitude she wrote her first tragedy, called “The Royal Mischief,” which was acted at the theatre in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, in 1696. This play succeeded, and she received such unbounded incense from admirers, that her apartment was crowded with men of wit and gaiety, which proved in the end very fatal to her virtue, and she afterwards engaged in various intrigues. In her retired hours she wrote her four volumes of the “Memoirs of the New Atalantis,” in which she was very free with her own sex, in her wanton description of loveadventures, and with the characters of many high and distinguished personages. Her father had always been attached to the cause of Charles I. and she herself having a confirmed aversion to the Whig ministry, took this method of satirising those who had brought about the revolution. Upon this a warrant was granted from the secretary of state’s office, to seize the printer and publisher of those volumes. Mrs. Mauley had too much generosity to let innocent persons suffer on her account; and therefore voluntarily presented herself before the court of King’s -bench, as the author of the “Atalantis.' 1 When she was examined before lord Sunderland, then the secretary, he was curious to know from whom she got information of some particulars which they imagined to be above her own intelligence. She pleaded that her only design in writing was her own amusement and diversion in the country, without intending particular reflections and characters; and assured them that nobody was concerned with her. When this was not believed, and the contrary urged against her by several circumstances, she said,” then it must be by inspiration, because, knowing her own innocence, she could account for it no other way.“The secretary replied, that” inspiration used to be upon a good account; but that her writings were stark naught.“She acknowledged, that” his lordship’s observation might be true; but, as there were evil angels as well as good, that what she had wrote might still be by inspiration.“The consequence of this examination was, that Mrs. Manley was close shut up in a messenger’s house, without being allowed pen, ink, and paper. Her counsel, however, sued out her habeas corpus at the King’s-bench bar, and she was admitted to bail. Whether those in power were ashamed to bring a woman to a trial for this book, or whether the laws could not reach her, because she had disguised her satire under romantic names, and a feigned scene of action, she was discharged, after several times exposing herself in person, to oppose the court before the bench of judges, with her three attendants, the printer, and two publishers. Not long after, a total change of the ministry ensued, when she lived in high reputation and gaiety, and aroused herself in writing poems and letters, and conversing with wits. To her dramatic pieces she now added” Lucius,“the first Christian king of Britain, a tragedy, acted in Drury-lane, in 1717. She dedicated it to sir Richard Steele, whom she had abused in her” New Atalantis,“but was now upon such friendly terms with him, that he wrote the prologue to this play, as Mr. Prior did the epilogue. This was followed by her comedy called the” Lost Lover, or the Jealous Husband,“acted in 1696. She was also employed in writing for queen Anne’s ministry, certainly with the consent and privity, if not under the direction, of Dr Swift, and was the author of” The Vindication of the Duke of Maryborough,“and other pamphlets, some of which would not disgrace the best pen then engaged in the” defence of government. After dean Swift relinquished “The Examiner,” she continued it with great spirit for a considerable time, and frequently finished pieces begun by that excellent writer, who also often used to furnish her with hints for those of her own composition. At this season she formed a connection with Mr. John Barber, alderman of London, with whom she lived in a state of concubinage, as is supposed, and at whose house she died July 11, 1724.

In 1741 he was elected to a fellowship of his college, in right of which he had the living of St. Botolph, in Cambridge, which he held until his marriage, in 1755. He took the degree of M. A. in 1744, and that of B. D. in 1753. In 1760, Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, to whom he was chaplain, gave him the prebend of Milton Ecclesia, in the church of Lincoln, consisting of the impropriation and advowson of the parish of Milton, co. Oxford. In 1763 he was presented by Dr. Greene, dean of Salisbury, to the vicarage of Godalming, in Surrey, and was instituted Dec. 22, he preferring the situation to that of St. Nicholas in Guildford (though a better living) which was offered to him by the same patron. Here he constantly resided till the time of his death, beloved and respected by his parishioners, and discharging his professional duty in the most punctual and conscientious manner. In 1769 he was presented to the rectory of Pepperharrow, an adjoining parish, by viscount Middleton. He was elected F. R. S. in 1767, and F. S. A. in 1770. To the sincere regret of his parishioners, and of all who knew him, Mr. Manning died Sept. 9, 1801, after a short attack of pleurisy, having entered his eighty-first year. By Catherine, his wife, daughter of Mr. Reade Peacock, a quaker, mercer, of Huntingdon, he had three sons and five daughters, all of whom survived him, except his eldest son, George Owen, and one of the daughters.

Dr. Mapletoft lived very hospitably at Ely, and wherever he resided, and was esteemed for the many pious and charitable acts in his life-time; and, at his death, after many gifts, legacies, and charitable donations, he bequeathed to the university 100l. towards purchasing Golius’s library of Oriental books for the university library; and in case that design was not executed, then to some permanent university use, at the discretion of the vicechancellor and the two professors of divinity; lOOl. to poor widows, chiefly clergymen’s. His benefactions to the church of Ely were, to the dean and chapter for ever, all his close called hundred acres in the Wash in the town of Coveney, for the increase of the Dinging men’s stipends, and on condition that they should frequent early prayers in the cathedral. He also bequeathed to the same church his library of books, and 100l. toward fitting up a place to receive them, and furnishing it with more books; to each of the prebendaries a ring of 20,?. to each minor canon and schoolmaster 20s. to each singing-man and verger 10s. and to the choristers 5s. each.

Dr. Marsh appears to have employed the greater part of his life and income in acts of benevolence and utility. While he presided over the see of Dublin, he built a noble library, and filled it with a choice collection of books; having for that purpose bought the library of Dr. Stillingfleet, late bishop of Worcester, to which he added his own collection; and to make it the more useful to the public, he settled a handsome provision on a librarian and sublibrarian, to attend it at certain hours. This prelate also endowed an alms-house at Drogheda, for the reception of twelve poor clergymen’s widows, to each of whom he assigned a lodging, and 20l. per annum. He likewise repaired, at his own expence, many decayed churches within his diocese, and hought-in several impropriations, which he restored to the church. Nor did he confine his good actions to Ireland only; for he gave a great number of manuscripts in the oriental languages, chiefly purchased out of Golius’s collection, to the Bodleian library. He was a very learned and accomplished man. Besides sacred and profane literature, he had applied himself to mathematics and natural philosophy: he was deep in the knowledge of languages, especially the oriental; he was also skilled in music, the theory as well as the practice; and he frequently, in the earlier part of his life, had concerts of vocal and instrumental music for his own amusement, both at Exeter-college and Alban-hall. Dean Swift must have been under the influence of the most virulent spleen, when he wrote of such a man as Dr. Marsh, the gross caricature published in his works. As an antidote, we would recommend a letter from this excellent prelate, published in “Letters written by eminent persons,” &c. 1813, 3 vols. 8vo.

, an English divine, was born at Barkby in Leicestershire, about 1621, and educated there in grammar learning, under the vicar of that town. He was entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, in 1640; and, about the same time, being a constant hearer of archbishop Usher’s sermons in All-hallows church in that university, he conceived such a high opinion of that prelate, as to wish to make him the pattern of his life. Soon after, Oxford being garrisoned upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he bore arms for the king at his own charge; and therefore, in 1645, when he was a candidate for the degree of bachelor of arts, he was admitted to it without paying fees. Upon the approach of the parliamentary visitors, who usurped the whole power of the university, he went abroad, and became preacher to the company of English merchants at Rotterdam and Dort. In 1661, he was created bachelor of divinity; and, in 1663, chosen fellow of his college, without his solicitation or knowledge. In 1669, while he was at Dort in Holland, he was made doctor of divinity at Oxford; and, in 1672, elected rector of his college, in the room of Dr. Crew, promoted to the bishopric of Oxford. He was afterwards appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, rector of Bladon near Woodstock in Oxfordshire, in May 1680, and was installed dean of Gloucester on April 30, 1681. He resigned Bladon in the year 1682. He died at Lincoln-college in 1685. By his will he gave to the public library at Oxford all such of his books, whether manuscript or printed, as were not then in the library, excepting such only as he had not other-­wise disposed of, and the remaining part to Lincoln-college library; in which college also he fitted up the common room, and built the garden-wall.

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

The body was accordingly taken up and buried in the dunghill near the dean’s stable, and remained there, until queen Elizabeth was settled on the throne, when a singular act of retaliation took place. The archbishop of Canterbury, bishop of London, and others, having ordered some of the society of Christ church to replace the body, Dr. Calfhill, the subdean, not content with this, made search for the relics of St. Frideswyde, and having found them, put them into the coffin along with the remains of Martyr’s wife, that in time they might become (indistinguishable. In this state the coffin was solemnly interred in Christ church. On this occasion one of the Oxford wits proposed by way of epitaph, “Hie jacet religio cum superstitione.” Dr. Calfhiil published in the following year (1562), an account of this affair, entitled “Historia cte exhuumione Katherinee nuper uxoris Petri Martyris,” in 8vo.

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of John Matthew, a merchant of Bristol, and born in that part of the city which lies in Somersetshire, in 1546. He received the first rudiments of learning in the city of Wells, and at the age of thirteen became a student in the university of Oxford, in the beginning of 1558-9. In Christ Church college he took the degree of bachelor of arts, Feb. 11, 1563, and in June 1566, was made master of arts; about which time he entered into holy orders, and was greatly respected for his learning, eloquence, conversation, friendly disposition, and the sharpness of his wit. On the 2nd of November 1569, he was unanimously elected public orator of the university; which office he filled with great applause. In 1570, he was made canon of the second stall in the cathedral of Christy-church, and November 28 following was admitted archdeacon of Bath. In 1571, he petitioned for his degree of bachelor of divinity, but was not admitted to it for two years. In 1572, he was made prebendary of Teynton-Regis with Yalmeten in the church of Salisbury; and in July following was elected president of St. John’s college, Oxford: at which time, being in high reputation as a preacher, he was appointed one of the queen’s chaplains in ordinary. On December lOth, 175S, he was admitted bachelor of divinity; and next year, May 27, proceeded doctor. On the 14th of June, 1576, being archdeacon at Bath, he was commissioned by archbishop Grindal, with some others, to visit the church, city, and deanry of Bristol. In the same year, he was made dean of Christ-church; and then obtained, from the pen of Camden, the distinguished character of " Theologus praestantissimus/' Camden adds, that learning and piety, art and nature, vied together in his composition. Sir John Harrington is also full of his praises, and even Campian the Jesuit speaks highly of his learning and virtues.

In 1579, he served the office of Vice-chancellor of the university. At a convocation held in 1580, archbishop Grindal being then under the queen’s displeasure, it was agreed, that our prelate, then dean of Christ-church, should, in the name of that assembly, draw up an humble address to her majesty, for the archbishop’s restitution; but it was not favourably received. June 22, 1583, he was collated to the precentorship of Salisbury; and Sept. 3 following, was made dean of Durham, being then thirtyseven years of age, on which he resigned his precentorship. From this time, says Le Neve, to the twenty-third Sunday after Trinity in 1622, he kept an account of all the sermons he preached, the place where, the time when, the text what, and if any at court, or before any of the prime nobility; by which it appears, that he preached, while dean of Durham, seven hundred and twenty-one; while bishop of Durham five hundred and fifty; and while archbishop of. York, to the time above mentioned, seven hundred and twenty-one; in all one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two sermons; and among them several extempore. This prelate, adds Le Neve, certainly thought preaching to be the most indispensible part of his duty; for in the diary before quoted, wherein, at the end of each year, he sets down how many sermons he had preached at the end of 1619, “Sum. Ser. 32, eheu! An. 1620, sum. ser. 35, eheu! An. 1621, sore afflicted with a rheume and coughe diverse months together, so that I never could preach until Easter-daye. The Lord forgive me!” On the 28th of May, 1590, he was inducted to the rectory of Bishopwearmouth, co. Durham; and in 1595, April 13, was consecrated bishop of Durham, and resigned Bishopwearmouth.

Our prelate was much engaged in political matters: Strype gives a letter of his, dated April 9, 1594, whilst dean of Durham, to lord Burleigh, touching Bothwell’s protection; in which he says, “I pray God the king’s protestations be not too well believed, who is a deep dissembler, by all men’s judgement that know him best, than is thought possible for his years.” Such was the character he gave of the prince who was shortly to come to the throne of England. In 1596, commissioners were appointed by the queen to treat with Scotland, and redress grievances on the borders: the English commissioners were the bishop of Durham, sir William Bowes, Francis Slingsby, esq. and Clement Colmer, LL.D. The place of convention was Carlisle, and many months were spent on that duty; but the good effect of their assiduous application to the work of peace was much retarded, and almost rendered abortive, by the outrages repeatedly committed on the eastern and middle marches. The first article of this treaty, however, says Ridpath, in his “Border History,” does honour to the character of the prelates of the church, one of whom stood first in the list of commissioners from each nation. In this article it was resolved, “that the sovereigns of each king should be addressed, to order the settlement of ministers at every border-church, for the sake of reforming and civilizing the inhabitants, by their salutary instructions and discipline: and for this purpose, the decayed churches should be repaired: and for the safety of the persons of their pastors, and due respect to be paid them in the discharge of their offices, the principal inhabitants of each parish should give security to their prince.”

, eldest son of the preceding, and a very singular character, was born at Oxford, in 1578, while his tather was dean of Christ church; and matricuJated in 1589, when only eleven years of age. He was the year after admitted student, and by the advantage of quick parts, and a good tutor, he soon acquired considerable distinction as an orator and disputant. After taking his degrees in arts, he left England in 1605, for such improvement as travelling could confer, and made himself a master of some foreign languages. This journey, however, was much against his father’s inclination, who expressly forbade his going to Italy, suspecting probably what happened when he broke his word and went to that country, where he was converted to popery by the celebrated Jesuit Parsons, to the great grief of his father, who was theu in so distinguished a station in the church. He himself informs us that the first impressions made upon him arose from the devout behaviour of the rustics in the churches abroad, and from being convinced of the reality of the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius at Naples; but that his complete conversion was reserved for father Parsons, who gave him to read Mr. William Reynolds’ s “Reprehension of Dr. Whitaker,” which he esteemed the most valuable work on wit and humour he had ever seen. It affords, however, no very favourable idea of Mr. Matthew’s conversion, that it was begun by an imposture, and perfected by wit and humour.

, a Spanish poet, was born at Oropesa in New Castile, in 1663. His poetical essays were published in 1682, in one volume, 4to. This fortunate commencement encouraged the young poet; but it gained himjnvoluntarily, as he was an ecclesiastic, the affections of a lady of great beauty and high rank. In order to retire from this temptation, he went to Rome, where he was received a member of the Arcadi; and Innocent XII. delighted with his talents, appointed him dean of Alicant. At that place he died,. Dec. 18, 1737, being then 74 years old. His letters and Latin poetry, published at Madrid in 1735, in 2 voh. 12mo, prove that he was gifted both with facility of writing and with imagination.

, in Latin Menckenius, a learned German writer, was born of a good family at Oldenburg, in Westphalia, in 1644. He cultivated his first studies in his native place; and at seventeen went to Bremen, where he applied himself to philosophy. He stayed there one year, and removed to Leipsic, where he was admitted master of arts in 1664; and afterwards visited the other universities, Jena, Wittemberg, Groningen, Franeker, Utrecht, Leyden, and Kiel. Upon his return to Leipsic, he applied himself for some time to divinity and civil law. In 1668 he was chosen professor of morality in that university; and, in 1671, took the degree of licentiate in divinity. He discharged the duties of his professorship with great reputation till his death, which happened in 1707. He was five times rector of the university of Leipsic, and seven times dean of the faculty of philosophy. He published several works; many of his own, and some of other people. The edition of sir John Marsham’s “Canon Chronicus,” at Leipsic, in 4to, and a new edition of “Camden’s Annals of queen Elizabeth,” were procured by him. But his most considerable work, and what alone is sufficient to perpetuate his name, is the “Acta eruditorum” of Leipsic, of which he was the first author, and in which he was engaged till his death. When he had formed that design, he began a correspondence with the learned men of all nations, in order to inform himself of what passed in the republic of letters. For the same purpose he took a journey to Holland, and thence to England. He afterwards formed a society of several persons of eminent abilities, to assist him in the work, and took all proper measures to render it lasting. The elector of Saxony contributed, by his generosity, to the success of the design. The first volume was published at Leipsic, in 1682, in 4to. Our author continued to publish, with the assistance of colleagues, every year a volume while he lived, with supplements from time to time, and an index once in ten years. His share ends with the thirtieth volume.

On his arrival in England, in November 1780, he was appointed joint agent for the disposal of the valuable prizes taken during the Commodore’s cruize; and by the profits of this place, and his share of the prize-money, he was enabled to discharge his debts. This had long been the ardent wish of his heart, the object of all his pursuits, and an object which he at length accomplished with the strictest honour, and with a satisfaction to his own mind the most pure and delightful. Jn 1782 our poet published /'The Prophecy of Queen Emma," a ballad, with an ironical preface, containing an account of its pretended author and discovery, and hints for vindicating the authenticity of the poems of Ossian and Rowley. This irony, however, lost part of its effect by the author’s pretending that a poem, which is modern both in language and versification, was the production of a prior of Durham in the reign of William Rufus, although he endeavours to account for this with some degree of humour, and is not unsuccessful in imitating the mode of reasoning adopted by dean Milles and Mr. Bryant, in the case of Chatterton.

Bishop Milles left his fortune to his nephew, Jeremiah, who was born in 1714, and educated at Eton school, when he entered of Queen’s college, Oxford, as a gentleman commoner, and took his degrees of M. A. in 1735, and B. and D. D. in 1747, on which occasion he went out grand compounder. He was collated by his uncle to a prebend in the cathedral of Waterford, and to a living near that city, which he held but a short time, choosing to reside in England. Here he married Edith, a daughter of archbishop Potter, by whose interest he obtained the united rectories of St. Edmund the King and St. Nicholas Aeon in Lombard-street, with that of Merstham, Surrey, and the sinecure rectory of West Terring, in Sussex. To Merstham he was inducted in 1745. From the chantorship of Exeter he was promoted to the deanery of that cathedral, in 1762, on the advancement of Dr. Lyttelton to the see of Carlisle, whom he also succeeded as president of the society of antiquaries in 176.5. He had been chosen a fellow of this society in 1741, and of the Royal Society in 1742. His speech, on taking upon him the office of president of the Society of Antiquaries, was prefixed to the first volume of the Archoeologia. In other volumes of that work are some papers communicated by him, one of which, “Observations on the Wardrobe Account for the year 1483, wherein are contained the deliveries made for the coronation of king Richard III. and some other particulars relative to the history,” was answered by Mr. Walpole, afterwards lord Orford, in a paper or essay, very characteristic of his lordship’s ingenuity and haughty petulance. In the early part of his life, Dr. Milles had made ample collections for a history of Devonshire, v*hich are noticed by Mr. Gough in his Topography. Ha was also engaged in illustrating the Da ish coinage, and the Domesday Survey, on both which subjects, it is thought, he left much valuable matter. His worst attempt was to vindicate the authenticity of Rowley’s poems, in an edition which he printed in 1782, 4to. After what Tyrwhitt and Warton had advanced on this subject, a grave answer to this was not necessary; but it was the writer’s misiortune to draw upon himself the wicked wit of the author of “An Archaeological Epistle,” and the more wicked irony of George Steevens in the St. James’s Chronicle. The dean died Feb. 13, 1784, and was buried in the church of St. Edmund, which, as well as his other preferments, he retained until his death, with the exception of the rectory of West Terring, which he resigned to his son Richard. His character is very justly recorded on his monument, as one conspicuous for the variety and extent of his knowledge, and for un remitted zeal and activity in those stations to which his merit had raised him; nor was he in private life less distinguished for sweetness of disposition, piety, and integrity.

, a pious and learned divine and ecclesiastical historian, was born in the neighbourhood of Leeds in Yorkshire, Jan. 2, 1744, and was educated at the grammar school of his native place, where he made great proficiency in Greek and Latin, in which he was assisted by a memory of such uncommon powers, that his biographer, the present dean of Carlisle, says that he never saw his equal, among the numerous persons of science and literature with whom he has been acquainted. This faculty which Mr. Milner possessed, without any visible decay, during the whole of his life, gained him no little reputation at school, where his master, the rev. Mr. Moore, often availed himself of his memory in cases of history and mythology, and used to say, “Milner is more easily consulted than the Dictionaries or the Pantheon, and he is quite as much to be relied on.” Moore, indeed, told so many and almost incredible stories of his memory, that the rev. Mr. Murgatroyd, a very respectable clergyman, at that time minister of St. John’s church in Leeds, expressed some suspicion of exaggeration. Mr. Moore was a man of the strictest veracity, but of a warm temper. He instantly offered to give satisfactory proof of his assertions. “Milner,” said he, “shall go to church next Sunday, and without taking a single note at the time, shall write down your sermon afterward. Will you permit us to compare what he writes with what you preach” Mr. Murgatroyd accepted the proposal with pleasure, and was often heard to express his astonishment at the event of this trial of memory. The lad,“said he,” has not omitted a single thought or sentiment in the whole sermon; and frequently he has got the very words for a long way together."

When he had obtained deacon’s orders, he applied for the place of head-master of the grammar-school at Hull, and having obtained it, was soon after chosen afternoon, lecturer in the principal church in that town. Under his auspices, the school, which had decayed through the negligence of his immediate predecessors, soon acquired and retained very considerable celebrity, and as the master’s salary rose in proportion to the increase of scholars, his income now, on the whole, amounted to upwards of 200L a year. The first use he made of this great change of circumstances was to discharge those duties that arose from the situation of his father’s family. His pious affection instantly led him to invite his mother (then living at Leeds in poverty) to Hull, where she became the manager of his house. He also sent for two indigent orphans, the children of his eldest brother, and took effectual care of their education. At this time his youngest brother, Isaac, whose prospects of advancement in learning were ruined by his father’s death, was now humbly employed in the woollen manufactory at Leeds. From this situation his brother Joseph instantly removed him, and employed him as his assistant in teaching the lower boys of his crowded school at Hull. By his brother’s means also, he was sent to Queen’s college, Cambridge, in 1770, of which he is now master, professor of mathematics, and dean of Carlisle. Of the affection between those brothers, the survivor thus speaks, “Perhaps no two brothers were ever more closely bound to each other. Isaac, in particular, remembers no earthly 7 thing without being able to connect it, in some way, tenderly with his brother Joseph. During all his life” he has constantly aimed at enjoying his company as much as circumstances permitted. The dissolution of such a connection could not take place without being severely felt by the survivor. No separation was ever more bitter and afflicting; with a constitution long shattered by disease, he never expects to recover from That wound."

, an able mathematical and medical writer, was born at Rheims about 1536, of a family which possessed jthe estate of Monantheuil in the Vermandois, in Picardy. He was educated at Paris in the college de Presles, under Kamus, to whose philosophical opinions he constantly adhered. Having an equal inclination and made equal progress in mathematics and medicine, he was first chosen professor of medicine, and dean of that faculty, and afterwards royal professor of mathematics. While holding the latter office he had the celebrated De Thou and Peter Lamoignon among the number of his scholars. During the troubles of the League, he remained faithful to his king, and even endangered his personal safety by holding meetings in his house, under pretence of scientific conversations, but really to concert measures for restoring Paris to Henry IV. He died in 1606, in the seventieth year of his age. His works are, 1 “Oratio pro mathematicis artibus,” Paris, 1574, 4to. 2. “Admonitio ad Jacobum Peletarium de angulo contactus,” ibid. 1581, 4to. 3. “Oratio pro suo in Regiam cathedram ritu,” ibid. 1585, 8vo. 4. “Panegyricus dictus Henrico IV. statim a felicissima et auspicatissima urbis restitutione,” &c. ibid. 1594, translated into French in 1596. 5. “Oratio qua ostenditur quale esse debeat collegium professorum regiorum,” &c. ibid. 15&6, 8vo. 6.“Commentarius in librum Aristotelis Tt^I Tuv /x>i%avjv,” Gr. and Lat. ibid. 1599, 4to. 7. “Ludus latromathematicus,” &c. ibid. 1597, 8vo, and 1700. 8. “De puncto primo Geometriae principio liber, 7 ' Leyden, 1600, 4to. This was at one time improperly attributed to his son, Thierry. 9.” Problematis omnium quse & 1200 annis inventa sunt nobilissimi demonstratio," Paris, 1600. He left some other works, both ms. and printed, of less consequence.

About this time his elder brother died without issue male; and the family estate by entail devolving upon him, he repaired it from the ruinous condition in which his father and brother had left it. He had scarce settled his private affairs, when he was called to serve against the Scots (who had proclaimed Charles II.) under Oliver Cromwell; by whom he was made lieutenant-general of the artillery, and had a regiment given him. His services were now so important, that Cromwell left him commander in chief in Scotland, when he returned to England to pursue Charles II. In 1652, he was seized with a violent fit of illness, which obliged him to go to Bath for the recovery of his health: after which, he set out again for Scotland, was one of the commissioners for uniting that kingdom with the new-erected commonwealth, and, having successfully concluded it, returned to London. The Dutch war having now been carried on for some months, lieutenant-general Monk was joined with the admirals Blake and Dean in the command at sea; in which service, June 2, 1653, he contributed greatly by his courage and conduct to the defeat of the Dutch fleet. Monk and Dean were on board the same ship; and, Dean being killed the first broadside, Monk threw his cloak over the body, and gave orders for continuing the fight, without suffering the enemy to know that we had lost one of our admirals. Cromwell, in the mean time, was paving his way to the supreme command, which, Dec. 16, 1653, he obtained, under the title of protector; and, in this capacity, soon concluded a peace with the Dutch. Monk remonstrated warmly against the terms of this peace; and his remonstrances were well received by Oliver’s own parliament. Monk also, on his return home, was treated so respectfully by them, that Oliver is said to have grown jealous of him, as if he had been inclined to another interest, but, receiving satisfaction from the general on that head, he not only took him into favour, but, on the breaking out of fresh troubles in Scotland, sent him there as commander in chief. He set out in April 1654, and finished the war by August; when he returned from the Highlands, and fixed his abode at Dalkeith, a seat belonging to the countess of Buccleugh, within five miles of Edinburgh: and here he resided during the remaining time that he stayed in Scotland, which was five years, amusing himself with rural pleasures, and beloved by the people, though his government was more arbitrary than any they had experienced. He exercised this government as one of the protector’s council of state in Scotland, whose commission bore date in June 1655. Cromwell, however, could not help distrusting him at times, on account of his popularity; nor was this distrust entirely without the appearance of foundation. It is certain the fcing entertained good hopes of him, and to that purpose sent to him the following letter from Colen, Aug. 12, 1655.

Lord Peterborough was a man of great courage and skill as a commander, and was successful in almost all his undertakings. As a politician, he appears also to much, advantage, being open, honest, and patriotic in the genuine sense. Lord Or ford has characterized him well in other respects, as “one of those men of careless wit and negligent grace, who scatter a thousand bon-mots and idle verses, which (such) painful compilers (as lord Orford) gather and hoard, till the owners stare to find themselves authors. Such was this lord of an advantageous figure, and enterprizing spirit as gallant as Amadis, and as brave, but a little more expeditious in his journeys; for he is said to have seen more kings and more postillions than any man in Europe.” He was indeed so active a traveller, according to Dean Swift, that queen Anne’s ministers used to say, they wrote at him, and not to him . What lord Peterborough wrote, however, seems scarcely worth notice, unless in such a publication as the “Royal and Noble Authors,” where the freedom of that illustrious company is bestowed on the smallest contributors to literary amusement. He is said to have produced “La Muse de Cavalier; or, an apology for such gentlemen as make poetry their diversion, and not their business,” in a letter inserted in the “Public Register,” a periodical work by Dodsley, 1741, 4to “A copy of verses on the duchess of Marl-' borough” <c Song, by a person of quality,“beginning” I said to my heart, between sleeping and waking, &c.“inserted in Swift’s Works.” Remarks on a pamphlet,“respecting the creation of peers, 1719, 8vo; but even for some of these trifles, the authority is doubtful. His correspondence with Pope is no little credit to that collection. He was the steady friend and correspondent of Pope, Swift, and other learned men of their time, as he had been of Pryden, who acknowledges his kindness and partiality. The” Account of the Earl of Peterborough’s conduct in Spain,“taken from his original letters and papers, was drawn up by Dr. Freind, and published in 1707, 8vo. Dr. Jf reind says, that” he never ordered off a detachment of a hundred men, without going with them himself.“Of his own courage his lordship used to say, that it proceeded from his not knowing his danger; agreeing in opinion with. Turenne, that a coward had only one of the three faculties of the mind apprehension. Of his liberality, we have this instance, that the remittances expected from England, not coming to his troops when he commanded in Spain, he is said to have supplied them for some time with money from his own pocket. In this he differed considerably from his great contemporary the duke of Marlborough, and the difference is stated in one of his best bon-mots. Being once taken by the mob for the duke, who was then in disgrace with them, he would probably have been roughly treated by these friends to summary justice, had he not addressed them in these words:” Gentlemen, I can convince you by two reasons that I am not the duke. In the first place, I have only five guineas in my pocket; and in the second, they are heartily at your service." So throwing his purse among them, he pursued his way amid loud acclamations. Many other witticisms may be seen in our authorities, which are less characteristic.

When admitted to the bar, he had read a public lecture, in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, upon St. Austin’s treatise “De civitate Dei,” in which, without attempting to discuss any points of divinity, he explained the precepts of moral philosophy, and cleared up difficulties in history, and that with such skill, eloquence, and ability, as to attract a large number of hearers among persons of note and learning; and Grocyn himself, who had been his master in Greek, also became one of his auditors. The reputation of this lecture, which appears to have been gratuitous, made him be appointed law-reader at FurnivaPs-inn, which place he held above three years. Some time after, the superstition which we lament in this illustrious man’s character, led him to take lodgings near the Charter-house, where he went through all the spiritual exercises of that society. He disciplined himself every Friday, and on high fasting days; he used also much fasting and watching, and often lay either upon the bare ground, or upon some bench, with a log under his head, and allowed himself but four or five hours’ sleep in the night. He was also a diligent attendant on the public preaching of dean Colet, whom he chose for his spiritual father, and once had a strong inclination to enter into the order of the Franciscans, as well as to take the priesthood. But rinding that all his austerities were of little avail in procuring him the gift of continence, he took Dr. Colet’s advice, and resolved to marry. Having some acquaintance with John Colt, esq. of Newhall in Essex, he now accepted an invitation to visit him. Mr. Colt had three accomplished and agreeable daughters, the eldest of whom Mr. More chose for a wife, although his inclination rather led him to the second, but he considered it “would be a grief and some blemish to the eldest,” should he act otherwise. Bringing his wife to town he took a house in Bucklersbury, and attended the business of his profession at his chambers in Lincoln’s inn, where he continued till he was called to the bench, and had read there twice. This was a very honourable post at that time: and some of these readings are quoted by lord Coke as uncontested authorities in the law. In the mean time he was appointed, in 1508, judge of the sheriff’s court in the city of London; made a justice of the peace; and became so eminent in the practice of the law, that there was scarcely a cause of importance tried at the bar in which he was not concerned. Sir Thomas told his son-in-law Roper, that be earned by his business at this time, with a good conscience, above 400l. a year, which is equal to six times that sum now. He was, however, uncommonly scrupulous in the causes he undertook. It was his constant method, before he took any cause in hand, to investigate the justice and equity of it; and if he thought it unjust, he refused it, at the same time endeavouring to reconcile the parties, and persuading them not to litigate the matter in dispute. Where not successful in this advice, he would direct his clients how to proceed in the least expensive and troublesome course. It may, indeed, be seen in his “Utopia,” that he satirizes the profession, as if he did not belong to it.

When all things were preparing for the king’s restoration, Morley was sent over by chancellor Hyde, two months before, to help to pave the way for that great event. In this undertaking he had some trouble in repressing the intemperance of the royalists, who accustomed themselves to inveigh against the republicans in a manner calculated to irritate those who had as yet a considerable share of power in their hands. He conversed also with the heads of the presbyterian party, without entering too deeply into particulars, but avowed himself a Calvinist, because he knew that they entertained the most favourable opinion of such churchmen as were of that persuasion. His chief business, however, in this kind of embassy, was to confute the report that Charles II. was a papist. In this he was probably more successful than correct. Upon the king’s return, he was not only restored to his canonry, but also promoted to the deanry of Christ-church. He was installed, July 1660, and nominated to the bishopric of Worcester, October following. In 1661, he was a principal manager at the conference between the episcopal and presbyterian divines, commissioned under the great seal to review the liturgy; and, according to Baxter, was the most fluent and chief speaker of all the bishops. Some time after, he was made dean of his majesty’s royal chapel; and, in 1662, upon the death of Dr. Duppa, was translated to the bishopric of Winchester; when the king, it is said, told him, “he would be never the richer for it.” He was, in truth, a great benefactor to this see; for, besides the repairing of the palace at Winchester, he spent above 8000l. in repairing Farnham-castle, and above 4000l. in purchasing Winchester-house at Chelsea, to annex to this see. Many other benefactions of his are recorded. He gave 300/ per ann. to Christ-church in Oxford, for the public use of that college: he founded five scholarships of lOl. per annum each, in Pembroke-college, three for the Isie of Jersey, and two for Guernsey he gave, at several times, upwards of 1800l. to the church of St. Paul, London and he bequeathed in his will 1000l. to purchase lands for the augmenting of some small vicarages. By temperance and exercise he reached a very old age, and died at Farnhamcastle, Oct. 29, 1684, and was’buried in Winchester cathedral.

, lord of Plessis Marly, an illustrious French protestunt, privy-counsellor of Henry IV. and governor of Saumur, was born at Buhi or Bishuy, in the French Vexin, in 1549. He was descended from an ancient and noble family, which had, in course of time, divided itself into several brandies, and produced many great aiKi eminent men. His father, James de Morn ay, had done great services to the royal family in the wars; but in the time of peace led a very retired life, and was much attacnecl to the religion of his country He designed Philip for the church, as he was a younger son, with a view to succeed his uncle Bertin de Mornay, who was dean of Beauvais and abbe of Saumur, and who had promised to resign those preferments to him; but this plan was rendered abortive by the death of the uncle. In the mean time his mother, who was the daughter of Charles du Bee Cre^pin, vice-admiral of France, and chamberlain to Francis II. was secretly a protestant, and had taken care to inspire her son insensibly with her own principles. His father died when he was not more than ten years of age; and his mother, making open profession of the protestant religion in 1561, set up a lecture in her own house, xvhich confirmed hirn in it. His literary education was all the while carrying on with the utmost care and circumspection he had masters provided for him in all languages and sciences and the progress he made in all was what might be expected from his very uncommon parts and application.

, a learned English bishop in the seventeenth century, was of the same family with cardinal Morton, and was the sixth son of nineteen children of Mr. Richard Morton, an eminent mercer and alderman of York, by Elizabeth Leedale his wife. He was born at York, March 20, 1564, and was 6rst educated there under Mr. Pullen, and afterwards at Halifax under Mr. Maud. In 1582 he was sent to St. John’s college in Cambridge, and placed under the tuition of Mr. Anthony Higgon, afterwards dean of Rippon, who left him to the care of Mr. Henry Nelson, afterwards rector of Hougham ia Lincolnshire, who lived to see his pupil bishop of Durham, and many years after. In the beginning of November 1584, he was chosen to a scholarship of Constable’s foundation, peculiar to his native county of York; and in 1586 took the degree of bachelor of arts, and in 1590 that of master, having performed the exercises requisite to each degree with great applause. He continued his studies at his father’s charge until March 17, 1592, when he was admitted fellow, of the foundation of Dr. Keyson, merely on account of his merit, against eight competitors for the place. About the same time he was chosen logic lecturer of the university, which, office he discharged with ^reat skill and diligence, as appeared from his lectures found among his papers. The same year he was ordained deacon, and the year following priest by Richard Rowland, bishop of Peterborough. He continued five years after this in the college, pursuing his private studies, and instructing pupils. In 1598 he took the degree of bachelor of divinity; and ahout the same year was presented to the rectory of Long Marston four miles from York. He was afterwards made chaplain to the earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the North, who selected him for his zeal and acuteness in disputing with the Romish recusants. It was queen Elizabeth’s command to his lordship, to prefer arguments to force with these people: and this she expressed, as the earl used to say, in the words of scripture, “Nolo mortem peccatoris.” Afterwards, when lord Huntingdon was dead, and lord Sheffield was appointed lord president, Morton held a public conference before his lordship and the council, at the manor-, house at York, with two popish recusants, then prisoners in the castle. In 1602, when the plague raged in that city, he behaved with the greatest charity and resolution. The year following, the lord Eure being appointed ambassador-extraordinary to the emperor of Germany, and king of Denmark, Morton attended him as chaplain, along with Mr. Richard Crakenthorp, and took this opportunity to make a valuable collection of books, as well as to visit the universities of Germany. At his return he became chapJain to Roger earl of Rutland, and was afterwards presented by archbishop Matthews to a prebend in the cathedral of York. In 1606 he took the degree of doctor of divinity; and about the same time was sworn chaplain in ordinary to king James I. and preferred to the deanery of Gloucester, June 22, 1607. While he was dean there, the lord Eure above mentioned, then lord president of Wales, appointed him one of his majesty’s council for the marches. In 1609, he was removed to the deanery of Winchester; and while there, the bishop (Bilson) collated him to the rectory of Alesford. In the same year, Dr. Sutcliff, dean of Exeter, founding a college at Chelsea, for divines to be employed in defending the protestant religion against the papists, he was appointed one of the fellows. About this time, he became acquainted with Isaac Casaubon. In 1615, he was advanced to the see of Chester and, in 1618, to that of Lichfield and Coventry about which time he became acquainted with Antonio de Dominis, abp. of Spalato, whom he endeavoured to dissuade from returning to Rome. The archbishop’s pretence for going thither was, to attempt an unity between the church of Rome and that of England, upon those terms which he had laid down in his book entitled “De Repnblica Christiana.”

out of the Old and New Testament, he over to him. He died at about twentycotnmitted them perfectly to memory, six years of a$e, iipon his uncle’s twice reading them granted at first by the lady Saville, in the minority of her son sir George, and afterwards confirmed by himself when he came to be of age. At last he was obliged to quit Durham-yard, by the soldiers who came to garrison it, a little before the death of Charles I.; and then went to Exeter-house in the Strand, at the invitation of the earl of Rutland, where he continued but a short time. After several removals, he took up his abode with sir Henry Yelverton, at Easton Mauduit in Northamptonshire, where he died Sept. 22, 1659, in his ninety-fifth year. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. John Barwick, afterwards dean of St. Paul’s, and printed at London, in 1660, under this title, “Ιερονικησ: or, The Fight, Victory, and Triumph, of St. Paul, accommodated to the Right Rev. Father in God, Thomas, late Lord Bishop of Duresme.”

, was a learned and pious Irish prelate, of whose early history we find no account. Mr. Nichols, in his “Anecdotes,” says that he “appears to have been appointed to be minister of St. Peter’s, Paul’s Wharf, London, after the sequestration of Edward Merbury;” but this is quite, inconsistent with bishop Kenn’s account of him, in his funeral sermon on lady Margaret Maynard. There he says that Dr. Mossom, during the usurpation, was silenced, plundered, and persecuted. After the restoration we can trace him more exactly. He was made, in 1660, dean of Christ Church, Dublin, and in 1662, prebendary of Knaresborough in the cathedral of York. From thence he was promoted to the see of Derry in March 1666, with which he held his deanery of Christ Church, but resigned his prebend. He died at Londonderry, Dec. 21, 1679, and was buried in the cathedral. Harris mentions his book entitled “The Preacher’s Tripartite,” Lond. 1657; fol. and another, “Variae colloquendi Formulas, in usum condiscipulorum in palaestra literaria sub paterno moderamine vires Minervales exercentium, parthn collects, partim composite a Roberto Mossom,” Lond. 1659, by which it appears that his father taught a school in London. Mr. Nichols enumerates a, few single sermons and speeches, a “Narrative panegyrical on the life, &c. of George Wild, bishop of Derry,” 1665, 4to; and “Zion’s prospect in its first view, in a summary of divine truths, viz. of God, Providence, decrees,” &c. 1654, 4to, reprinted at least twice, the last in 1711.

In 1624 he became involved in those controversies and imputations on his character as a divine, which, more or less, disturbed the tranquillity of the whole of his life. They were occasioned by the following circumstance:?. Some popish priests and Jesuits were executing their mission at Stamford -Rivers, in Essex, of which he was then rector; and to secure his flock against their attempts, he ]eft some propositions at the place of their meeting, with an intimation that, if any of those missionaries could give a satisfactory answer to the queries he had put, he would immediately become their proselyte. In these, he required of the papists to prove, that the present Roman church is either the catholic church, or a sound member of the catholic church that the present church of England is not a true member of the catholic church and that all those points, or any one of those points which the church of Rome maintains against the church of England, were, or was, the perpetual doctrine of the catholic church, the decided doctrine of the representative church in any general council, or national approved by a general council, or the dogmatical resolution of any one father for 500 years after Cnrist. On their proving all this in the affirmative, he promised to subscribe to their faith. Instead, however, of returning any answer, a small pamphlet was left at last for him, entitled “A new Gag for the old Gospel.” To this he replied, in “An Answer to the late Gagger of the Protestants,” 1624, 4to, which gave great offence to the Calvinists, at that time a very numerous and powerful party in the church, and thus drew upon him enemies from a quarter he did not expect: and their indignation against him ran so high, that Ward and Yates, two lecturers at Ipswich, collected out of his book some points, which they conceived to savour of popery and Arminianism, in order to have, them presented to the next parliament. Mountagu, having procured a copy of the information against him, applied to the king for protection, who gave him leave to appeal to himself, and to print his defence. Upon this, he wrote his book entitled “Appello Ccesarem a just Appeal against two unjust Informers” which, having the approbation of Dr. White, dean of Carlisle, whom king James ordered to read, and give his sense of it, was published in 1625, 4to, but addressed to Charles I. James dying before the book was printed off.

In this work many of the acknowledged doctrines of the church of England are undoubtedly maintained with great force of argument, but there are other points in which he afforded just ground for the suspicions alleged against him; and that this was the opinion of many divines of that period appeared from the answers to his “Appeal” published by, It Dr. Matthew Sutcliffe, dean of Exeter. 2. Mr. Henry Burton in his “Plea to an Appeale,” Lond. 1626, 4to. 3. Mr. Francis Rous, afterwards provost of Eton college, in his “Testis Veritatis,” ibid. 1626, 4to. 4. Mr. John Yates, B. D. formerly fellow of Emanuel college in Cambridge, afterwards minister of St. Andrew’s in Norwich, in his book entitled “Ibis ad Caesarem,” ibid. 1626, 4to. 5. Mr. Anthony Wotton, professor of. divinity in Gresham college. 6. Dr. Daniel Featly, in his “Pelagius Redivivus; or, Pelagius raked out of the ashes by Arminius and his scholars,” ibid. 1626, 4to. This book contains two parallels, one between the Pelagians and Arminians; the other between the church of Rome, the appealer, Mr. Mountagu, and the church of England, in three columns; together with a writ of error sued against the appealer. 7. Dr. George Carleton, bishop of Chichester, in his “Examination of those things, wherein the author of the late Appeale holdeth the doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to be the doc-” trines of the church of England," ibid. 1626, 4to.

, doctor of music, an eminent composer and teacher in that science, under whom some of the first musicians of the present day received the whole or part of their education, was tfce son of Mr. Nares, who was, for many years, steward to Montague and Willoughby, earl* of Abingdon. He was born, as well as his brother, the late Mr. Justice Nares, at Stanwell in Middlesex; the former in 1715, the latter in 1716. His musical education he commenced under Mr. Gates, then master of the royal choristers; and completed it under the celebrated Dr. Pepusch. Thus prepared, he officiated, for some time, as deputy to Mr. Pigott, organist of Windsor; but, on the resignation of Mr. Salisbury, organist of York, in 1734, was chosen to succeed him, being then only nineteen. It is related, on undoubted authority, that, when the old musician first saw his intended successor, he said, rather angrily, “What! is that child to succeed me?” which being mentioned to the organist-elect, he took an early opportunity, on a difficult service being appointed, to play it throughout half a note below the pitch, which brought it into a key with seven sharps; and went through it without the slightest error. Being asked why he did so, he said, that “he only wished to shew Mr. Salisbury what a child could do.” His knowledge in all branches of his profession was equal to his practical skill in this instance; and, during his residence at York, where he was abundantly employed as a teacher, and where he married, Mr. Nares, by his good conduct, as well as professional merit, obtained many powerful friends. Among the foremost of these was Dr. Fontayne, the late venerable dean of York; who, when Dr. Green died, towards the latter end of 1755, exerted his interest so successfully, that he obtained for him the united places of organist and composer to his majesty. He removed, therefore, to London in the beginning of 1756; and, about the same time, was created doctor in music at Cambridge.

In 1722 he published a pamphlet, entitled “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Francis Hare, dean of Worcester, occasioned by his reflections on the Dissenters, in his late visitation Sermon and Postscript,” 8vo. In the same year he published a tract which excited considerable attention from the novelty and importance of its subject, “A Narrative of the method and success of inoculating the Small-pox, in New-England, by Mr. Benjamin Colman; with a reply to the objections made against it from principles of conscience, in a letter from a minister at Boston. To which is now prefixed, an historical introduction.” This procured him an interview with their royal highnesses the prince and princess of Wales, afterwards George II. and queen Caroline.

, a celebrated bishop of the catholics in Holland, known by the title of bishop of Castoria, was born at Gorcum in 1626. He entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris, and, having finished his plan of education there, went to be professor of philosophy at Saumur, then of divinity at Mechlin, and was afterwards archdeacon of Utrecht, and apostolical provincial. James de la Torre, archbishop of Utrecht, being dead, M. de Neercassel was elected in his place by the chapter of that city; but, Alexander VII. preferring M. Catz, dean of the chapter of Harlem, they agreed between them, as a means to preserve peace, that M. Catz should govern the diocese of Harlem under the title of archbishop of Philippi, and M. de Neercassel that of Utrecht, under that of bishop of Castoria. This agreement being approved by the nuncio of Brussels, they were both consecrated in the same day at Cologn, September 9, 1662; but, M. Catz dying a year after, M. de Neercassel remained sole bishop of all the catholics in Holland, of which there were above four hundred thousand. He governed them with great prudence, and, after having discharged the duties of his office in the most exemplary manner, died June 8, 1686, aged sixty, in consequence of the fatigues attending the visitation of his churches. This prelate left three tracts in Latin, the first “On reading of the Holy Scriptures;” to which he has added a dissertation “On the Interpretation of Scripture;” the second “On the worship of the Saints and the Holy Virgin;” the third, enticed “Amor Prerii tens.” This last is a treatise on the necessity of the love of God in the sacrament of penitence. The two first have been translated into French by M. le Roy, abbot of Haute- Fontaine, 2 vols. 8vo, and the third by Peter Gilbert, a Parisian, 1741, 3 vols. 12mo. The best Latin edition of “Amor Pcenitens” is that of 1684, 2 vols. 8vo; the second part of the Appendix, which is in this edition, was written by M. Arnauld, and only approved by M. de Neercassel. The above three tracts having some expressions which were thought to favour the errors of Jansenius, an attempt was made to get the “Amor Prenitens” condemned at Rome but pope Innocent XL to whom the application was addressed, declared that “the book contained sound doctrine, and the author was a holy man.”

In 1680 he was chosen F. R. S. probably by the introduction of his friend and school-fellow, Dr. Halley, for whom he had a particular regard, and in whose company he set out on his travels the same year. In the road to Paris they saw the remarkable comet which gave rise to the cometical astronomy of sir Isaac Newton; and our author, apparently by the advantage of his fellow-traveller’s instructions, sent dean Tillotson a description of it. Before he left Paris he received a letter from a friend in the English court, suggesting to him to purchase a place there, and promising his assistance in it. But although Nelson had a great affection for king Charles and the duke of York, and was at first pleased with the thoughts of aU taching himself to the court, on which, however, at that time, he was more likely to confer honour, than to derive any from it, yet he could not resolve upon an affair of such consequence without the approbation of his mother and uncle. He first, therefore, applied to Tillotson to obtain their opinion, with assurances of determining himself by their and the dean’s advice; but, finding no encouragement from either of the parties, he relinquished his intention, and pursued his journey with his fellow-traveller to Rome. Here he became acquainted with a lady considerably older than himself, the lady Theophila Lucy, widow of sir Kingsmili Lucy, of Broxburne, Herts, bare, and second daughter of George earl of Berkeley, who soon discovered a strong passion for him, which concluded in a marriage, after his arrival in England, in 1682. His disappointment was, however, very great, when he found that she had deceived him in one very essential point, that of her having been won over to the popish religion while on this tour; and it was some time before she confessed this change, which was owing to her acquaintance with Bossuet, and conversations at Rome with cardinal Philip Howard, who was grandson of the earl of Arundel, the collector of the Arundelian marbles, &c. and had been raised to the purple by Clement X. in May 1675. Nor was this important alteration of her religious sentiments confined to her own mind, but involved in it her daughter by her first husband, whom she drew over to her new religion; and her zeal for it prompted her even to become a writer in one of the controversies so common at that time. She is the supposed authoress of a piece printed in 1686, 4to, under the title of “A Discourse concerning a Judge of Controversy in matters of Religion, shewing the necessity of such a judge.”

, an English divine, was born at Wotton, in the parish of Stanton Lacy, near Lud'low in Shropshire, in 1694, and was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1714. He appears then to have left college, and became schoolmaster of Spalding, and minor-canon of Peterborough, where he was a joint-founder of “The Gentleman’s Society,” and became its secretary. He was afterwards prebendary of Lincoln, archdeacon of Huntingdon in 1747, and rector of Alwalton in Huntingdonshire, where he died Feb. 3, 1757, aged sixty-three. There is an inscription to his memory against the West wall of the North transept, in which he is styled D. D. In 1727, he communicated to the Spalding Society “An Essay on the invention of Printing and our first Printers,” and bishop Rennet’s donation of books to Peterborough cathedral. In the first leaf of the catalogue (3 vols. in folio, written neatly in the bishop’s own hand) is this motto “Upon the dung-­hill was found a pearl. Index librorurn aliquot vetustiss. quos in commune bonum congessit W. K. dec. Petriburg. 1712.” These books are kept with dean Lockyer’s, in the library of Lady-chapel, behind the high altar, in deal presses, open to the vergers and sextons. In a late repair of this church, which is one of the noblest monuments of our early architecture, this benefactor’s tomb-stone was thrust and half-covered behind the altar, and nothing marks the place of his interment. Mr. Neve was chaplain to, and patronised by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, and published one sermon, being his first visitation-sermon, entitled “Teaching with Authority;” the text Matth. vii. 28, 29. Dr. Neve bore an excellent character for learning and personal worth. He married, for his second wife, Christina, a daughter of the rev. Mr. Greene, of Drinkstone, near Bury, Suffolk, and sister to lady Davers of Rushbrook. His son Timothy was born at Spalding, Oct. 12, 1724, and was elected scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, where he proceeded M. A. 1744; and in 1747 was elected fellow. In 1753, he took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in 1758, and on being presented by the college to the rectory of Geddington in Oxfordshire, resigned his fellowship in 1762. He was also presented by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, to the rectory of Middleton Btoney, in the same county. On the death of Dr. Randolph (father to the late bishop of London), in 1783, he was elected Margaret professor of divinity, at Oxford, and was installed prebendary of Worcester in April of that year. He was early a member of the Literary Society of Spalding. He died at Oxford Jan. 1, 1798, aged seventy-four, leaving a wife and two daughters.

, dean of Canterbury, and an eminent benefactor to Trinity college, Cambridge, brother to the preceding, was born in Canterbury, to which city his father, who had spent his younger days at court, had, in his declining years, retired. He entered early at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, of which he was elected a fellow in November 1570. In 1580, he was senior proctor of the university, and in 1582 was presented to the mastership of Magdalen -college by the then patron of that office, Thomas lord Howard, first earl of Suffolk. In 1587, the queen, to whom he was chaplain, conferred on him the second prebend in the church of Ely, at which time he was also rector of Doddington cum Marchj in the isle of Ely. In 158S, he was elected vice-chancellor of the University, but relinquished the office, in the following year, to Dr. Preston, master of Trinity-hall. While he presided in this station, he took the degree of D. D. During his being vice-chancellor, it is only recorded, that he had occasion to repress the freedoms which two of the university preachers took when speaking in their sermons of the established church.

By his munificence to Trinity-college, Dr. Nevile has secured to himself the gratitude and admiration of posterity. He expended more than 3000l. in rebuilding that fine quadrangle, which to this day retains the name of Nevil’s-eourt. He was also a contributor to the library of that college, and a benefactor to East-bridge hospital in his native city. He was not less a generous patron of many scholars who became the ornaments of the succeeding age. He was buried in Canterbury-cathedral, in the ancient chantry in the South aile, which he had fitted up as the burial-place of his family, and which was afterwards called NeviPs chapel. Here he placed a monument to the memory of his father, mother, and uncle; and another was erected to himself: but in 1787, when the cathedral was new paved, the chapel itself was removed, and the monuments, in taking down, almost entirely destroyed. The inscription to the dean only remains, and is placed between two mutilated figures of himself and his elder brother Alexander, in the chapel of the Virgin Mary.

“He died at Lavendon Grange, extremely lamented by all the poor of that neighbourhood, to whom he was a kind benefactor, and by all his friends and acquaintance throughout the kingdom. Upon his death-bed, he ordered all his writings to be destroyed, as his worthy widow informed me; and she was a conscientious person. His friend, Dr t Hunt, advised her to be cautious, and to be sure she did not mistake his meaning, especially with regard to some articles. I also, to whom she paid a favourable regard, presumed to suggest the same caution. How far that good lady proceeded in the proposed destruction of the worthy doctor’s papers, I am not able to say; but do hitherto suppose she reduced them to ashes. Upon a vacancy of the public orator’s place at Oxford, Newton offered himself a candidate; but Digby Cotes, then fellow of All Souls-college, and afterwards principal of Magdalenhall, carried the point against him. Newton’s friends thought him to be by far the more qualified person for that eminent post; though orator Digby was also, I think, a man of worth as well as reputation. Newton survived him. Dr. Newton was well skilled in the modern foreign languages, as well as in the ancient ones of Greece and Rome. A well-polished gentleman, and, at the same time, a sincere Christian. He carried dignity in his aspect, but sweetened with great modesty, humility, and freedom of conversation. This I know, having carefully observed bim, and having always found him even and uniform, both in his temper and in his conduct. One thing comes novr into my mind. Being a guest for a night or two at his house at Lavendon, in the summer-1749, and in my way to Oxford and London, &c. I had much familiar and free discourse with him, and particularly upon the subject of a reasonable reform in some particulars relating to our ecclesiastical establishment a reform, to which he was a hearty welt- wisher. One evening, there being present his worthy vice-principal Mr. Saunders, and an ingenious young gentleman of fortune, a pupil of Saunders, the doctor was pleased to propose to us this question: What share are ifce to allow to Common Sense and Reason in matters of lieKgion? Those two gentlemen and myself being silent, he addressed himself particularly to me, who was, in pqiuT-qf age, superior to them both. I freely answered, that, in my poor opinion, the due exercise of common sense and reason^ and private judgment in all matters of religion, ought to be allowed to all Christians. He said, he was of the same mind. He read prayers in his family at Lavendon, morning and evening, being select parts of the public liturgy. On Wednesdays and Fridays the litany only. He appointed to his studious guests several separate apartments (being parlours) for private study, with pen, ink, and paper, for each, and the use of his library, which was near those apartments, &c. When Pelham was minister, that station corrupted the man, and made him like other ministers; for when he was asked why he did not place, in proper station, the able and meritorious Dr. Newton, he said, `How could I do it? he never asked me' forgetting his tutor. Mr. Pelham more than once employed Dr. Newton to furnish king’s speeches.” His foundation of Hertford-college, for which chiefly he is now remembered, was an unfortunate speculation, ft was preceded by some publications calculated to make known his opinions on academic education. The first of these, which appeared in 1720, was entitled “A Scheme of Discipline, with Statutes intended to be established by a royal charter for the education of youth in Hert-hall;” and in 1725, he drew up the statutes of Hertford -college, which he published in 1747. In 1726, or 1727, he published his “University Education,” which chiefly relates to the removal of students from one college to another, without the leave of their respective governors, or of the chancellor. This appears to have involved him in some unpleasant altercations with his brethren. His application, for a charter to take Hert-hall from under the jurisdiction of Exeter- college, and erect it into an independent college, occasioned a controversy between him and Dr. Conybeare, then rector of Exeter, and afterwards bishop of Bristol and dean of Christ church. In August 1740, however, he obtained the charter for raising Hert-hall into a perpetual college, for the usual studies; the society to consist of a principal, four senior fellows or tutors, eight junior fellows or assistants, eight probationary students, twenty-four actual students, and four scholars. He contributed an annuity of 55l. 6s. Sd. issuing out of his house at Lavendon, and other lands in that parish, to be an endowment for the four senior fellows at the rate of 13l. 6s. Sd. each yearly. He then purchased some houses in the neighbourhood of Hert-hall for its enlargement, and expended about 1500l. on building the chapel and part of an intended new quadrangle. Very few benefactors afterwards appeared to complete the establishment, which, by the aid of independent members subsisted for some years, but has of late gradually fallen off, and it is but within these few months that a successor could be found to the late principal Dr. Bernard Hodgson, who died in 1805. Dr. Newton’s radical error in drawing up the statutes, was his fixing the price of every thing at a maximum, and thus injudiciously overlooking the progress of the markets, as well as the state of society. He seems indeed to have been more intent on establishing a school upon rigid and ceconomical principles, than a college which, with equal advantages in point of education, should keep pace with the growing liberality and refinement of the age. Besides some single sermons, Dr. Newton published in answer to the learned Wharton on pluralities, a volume entitled “Pluralities indefensible,” 1744; and in 1752 issued “Proposals for printing by subscription 4000 copies of the Characters of Theophrastus, for the benefit of Hertford-college;” but this did not appear until a year after his death, when it was published by his successor Dr. William Sharp, in an 8vo volume. The produce to the college is said to have amounted to 1000l., which we much doubt, as the price was only six shillings each copy. In 1784, a volume of his “Sermons” was published by his grandson, S.Adams, LL. B. 8vo.

In 1702, on the eve of Ascension day, our author was elected bishop of Carlisle, confirmed June 3, and consecrated June 14, at Lambeth. This promotion he owed to the interest of the house of Edenhall. On Sept. 15, 1704, the celebrated Dr. Atterbury, who had reflected with much harshness on some parts of the “Historical Library,” waited upon bishop Nicolson at Rose, for institution to the deanery of Carlisle; but the letters patent being directed to the chapter, and not to the bishop, and the date thereof being July 15, though the late dean (Grahme,) did not resign till the 5th of August, and some dispute also arising about the regal supremacy, institution was then refused. The bishop, however, declared at the same time that the affair should be laid forthwith before the queen; and that, if her majesty should, notwithstanding these objections, be pleased to repeat her commands for giving Dr. Atterbury possession of the deanery, institution should be given, which was accordingly done in consequence of her intimation to the bishop through the secretary of state. This preferment, however, was followed by many unpleasant consequences, as we shall have occasion to notice, a^ter enumerating the remaining productions of our learned prelate.

The archbishop left three ms volumes, fol. to the dean and chapter of Carlisle, consisting of copies and extracts from various books, Mss. registers, recorus, and charters, relating to the diocese of Carlisle, from which many articles in the “History of Cumberland,” by his nephew Joseph Nicolson, esq. and Dr. Richard Burn, were transcribed. There is also a large octavo ms. of his, containing miscellaneous accounts of the state of the churches, parsonage and vicarage houses, glebe lands, and other possessions, in the several parishes within the diocese, collected in his parochial visitation of the several churches in 1703, 1704, and 1707, which, in 1777, was in the possession of his nephew. Bagford, in his catalogue prefixed to Gibson’s edition of Camden’s “Britannia,” 1695, advertised, as ready for the press, but stiil remaining in the dean and chapter’s library at Carlisle, a description of the ancient kingdom of Northumberland, by bishop Nicolson. when archdeacon of Carlisle, consisting of eight parts; but although no man was more capable of executing such a work, we are assured by Mr. Wallis in the preface to his account of Northumberland, that all that can now be found in the Carlisle library is only a compendious ecclesiastical view of that diocese in a parochial method. The truth appears to have been, that instead of making a separate publication of his account of Northumberland, he made other uses of his collections, as in his “Leges Marchiarum,” where we find much information respecting the ancient state of Northumberland, but we are not permitted to doubt that a separate work was his original design. In 1692 he speaks of his having hopes that his “Essay on the Kingdom of Northumberland,” would be completed in a few months; and that Mr. Ray had promised (in the preface to his late collection of English words), that it should shortly be published. He informs us also that he was the author of the “Glossarium Northanhymbricum,” in Ray’s work.

The publication of the first part of his “Historical Library” involved him in the first literary controversy in which he was engaged. Two of his antagonists were Dr, Hugh Todd, and Dr. Simon Lowth, against whom he appears to have defended himself with much reputation, as they were both far beneath him in talents and learning. In Atterbury, who likewise attacked him, he had an antagonist more worthy of his powers; but even against him he was very successful, although not very temperate, in the long letter addressed to Dr. Kennett, which was originally a separate publication, and has since been prefixed with some alterations to the various editions of the “Historical Library.” This, however, perhaps laid the foundation for that degree of animosity which prevailed between our prelate and Dr. Atterbury. The latter, unfortunately for both parties, considering their hostile tempers, was made dean of Carlisle while Nicolson was bishop. In any other arrangement of preferments, their passions might have had leisure to cool, but they were now brought together, with no personal respect on either side, and the consequences were what might have been expected. Nicolson, it must be allowed, had some reason to complain, or some apology for his feelings concerning Atterbury: Atterbury had made an, attack on his “Historical Library,” in very contemptuous language; but what was worse, Atterbury appears to have been the cause of Nicolson 9 s being for some time refused a degree at his own university, when, on his promotion to the bishopric of Carlisle, he applied for that of D. D. For an explanation of this we must refer to the principles of the times, as well as of the men; and both perhaps will be sufficiently illustrated by the following paper which was sent to Mr. Nicolson (in answer to his request of having a doctor’s degree by diploma) by the vice-chancellor, Dr. Mander, “Whereas the members of the university of Oxford, in a very full convocation held the (fifth) day of (March) 1701, did unanimously agree to confer the degree of Doctor of Divinity upon the reverend Mr. Francis Atterbury, as a testimony of the sense which they had of the signal service he had done the church, by his excellent book entitled The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation, 7 &c. (See Atterbury, vol. III. p. 113, &c.) And whereas W. Nicolson, archdeacon of Carlisle, in a pamphlet, entitled ‘ A Letter to Dr. White Kennett, in defence of the English Historical Library against the unmannerly and slanderous objections of Mr. Francis Atterbury, preacher at the Rolls,’ &c. and printed in 1702, doth, in and through the said pamphlet, term the said doctor Mr. Atterbury only, in a seeming contempt of the honour done him by the said university: And whereas the said archdeacon (in the thirty-fourth page of the said pamphlet) hath these words: viz.” I need not, Sir, acquaint you what a toil and expence the very collecting of those materials hath brought upon me; nor how much trouble I have had in the composure. And it is but a discouraging prospect (after all) to see so many men of gravity and good learning, to whom I thought my labours might have been chiefly useful, caressing an empty misrepresenter of our antiquities, histories, and records; and patronizing an ambitious wretch in his insolent attempts against our ancient and apostolical church-government; which words are conceived to contain a severe and undecent reflection upon the proceedings of the university; it is humbly proposed to Mr. Vice-chancellor, by several members of your venerable convocation, whether it can be consistent with the honour of the university to bestow any mark of favour upon the said archdeacon, before he shall have made suitable satisfaction for so high an indignity, and open an affront, as he hath hereby put upon her."

The vice-chancellor, who communicated this paper to bishop Nicolson, added that he would notwithstanding propose the degree, if “he would please to order him what to say in answer.” Nicolson, however, irritated at the superiority thus given to his antagonist, determined to send no answer. His own words on this occasion are: “Mr. Vice-chancellor not having acquainted me who the masters or members of the venerable convocation are, that presented this libellous memorial to him: the most civil treatment, which (as I thought, by advice of my friends) could be given to it, was, to take no manner of notice of its coming to my hand.” He accordingly applied to Cam-­bridge, where the degree in question was readily granted; and, what must have been yet more gratifying, he received the same honour from the university of Oxford, on July 25 following. The former refusal seems to have been that of a party, and not of the convocation at large. In one of his letters written at this time to Dr. Charlett, master of University-college, he enters upon a defence of his vindication of the “Historical Library,” and not unsuccessfully. The objection that he had called the doctor Mr. Atterbury was certainly trifling and unjust, for he was Mr. Atterbury when he wrote against Nicolson. He also alludes to the coarse treatment of himself in the above paper, where he is styled only William Nicolson, although at that time a bishop elect. But whatever may be thought of bishop Nicolson’s conduct, or that of these members of the convocation, it was not to be expected that when Atterbury was made dean of Carlisle, there could be much cordiality between them. Nicolson knew to whom he had been indebted for the affront he had received from the university; and Atterbury was equally out of humour with the bishop, in addition to his usual turbulence of disposition. In 1707, when the bishop found that Atterbury was continually raising fresh disputes with his chapter, he endeavoured to appease them once for all, by visiting the chapter in pursuance of the power given by the statutes of Henry VIII. at the foundation of the corporation of the dean and chapter. But Dr. Todd, already mentioned, one of the prebendaries, was instigated by Atterbury to protest against any such visitation, insisting upon the invalidity of Henry VIII's statutes and that the queen, and not the bishop, was the local visitor. Nicolson, conscious of his strength in a point which he had probably studied more deeply than any of the chapter, during the course of his visitation suspended and afterwards excommunicated Dr. Todd on which the latter moved the court of common pleas for a prohibition, and obtained it unless cause shown. In the mean time such proceedings alarmed the whole bench of bishops; and the archbishop of Canterbury, Tenison, wrote a circular letter on the subject to all his suffragans, considering the cause of the bishop of Carlisle as a common cause, and of great concern to the church, which, he added, “will never be quiet so long as that evil generation of men who make it their business to search into little flaws in ancient charters and statutes, and to unfix what laudable custom hath well fixed, meet with any success.” Soon afterwards a bill was carried into parliament, and passed into a law, which established the validity of the local statutes given by Henry VIII. to his new foundations. Bishop Nicolson published on this occasion, “Short Remarks on a paper of Reasons against thepassing of a bill for avoiding of doubts and questions touching the statutes of divers cathedrals and collegiate churches,” 4to, in one half sheetj without date. His triumph was now compleat, and a fevr years afterwards, when Atterbury was preferred to the deanry of Christ-church, his old friends of the university of Oxford had reason to change their sentiments of him.

In the first parliament of queen Mary, in 1553, Nowell was returned one of the burgesses for Loo, in Cornwall; but a committee being appointed to inquire into the validity of the return, they reported that *' Alexander Nowell being a prebendary of Westminster, and thereby having a voice in the convocation-house, cannot be a member of this house,“and a new writ was directed to” be issued accordingly. Nowell quietly submitted to this decision, although it was not correct as to the law; for none below the dignity of dean or archdeacon were bound to personal appearance in the convocation; but these were not times for men desirous of retaining peace and a good conscience, to insist rigidly on their right, against the prevailing party; and he soon afterwards found it necessary to join his countrymen who were exiles in Germany, from the persecuting spirit of popery. Of this event we are only told, that Bonner, having intended him as one of his victims, he was assisted in his escape by Francis Bowyer, at that time a merchant, and afterwards sheriff of London. In 1554, we find him at Strasburgh, with Jewell, Poinet, Grindal, Sandys, and other men of future eminence in the Reformed Church. In the unfortunate disputes which afterwards took place among these exiles, respecting church discipline, Nowell took a moderate part, sometimes, for the sake of peace, conceding to the presbyterian party: but at last, with equal wisdom and firmness, pressing unity in essentials, and’submission in smaller matters to authority duly appointed and legally exercised.

He now became a frequent preacher at St. Paul’s cross, and on one occasion, a passage of his sermon was much talked of, and grossly misrepresented by the papists, as savouring of an uncharitable and persecuting spirit. He had little difficulty, however, in repelling this charge, which at least shews that his words were considered as of no small importance, and were carefully watched. One of his sermons at St. Paul’s cross was preached the Sunday following a very melancholy event, the burning of St. Paul’s cathedral by lightning, June 4, 1561. Such was. his reputation now, that in September of this year, when archbishop Parker visited Eton college, and ejected the provost, Richard Bruerne, for nonconformity, he recommended to secretary Cecil the choice of several persons fit to supply the place, with this remark, “that if the queen would have a married minister, none comparable to Mr. Nowell.” The bishop of London also seconded this recommendation; but the queen’s prejudice against the married clergy inclined her to give the place to Mr. Day, afterwards bishop of Winchester, who was a bachelor, and in all respects worthy of the promotion. In the course of the ensuing year, 1562, No well was frequently in the pulpit on public occasions, before large auditories; but his labours in one respect commenced a little inauspiciously. On the new-year’s day, before the festival of the circumcision, he preached at St. Paul’s, whither the queen resorted. Here, says Strype, a remarkable passage happened, as it is recorded in a great man’s memorials (sir H. Sidney), who lived in those times. The dean having met with several fine engravings, representing the stories and passions of the saints and martyrs, had placed them against the epistles and gospels of their respective festivals, in a Common Prayer-book; which he caused to be richly bound, and laid on the cushion for the queen’s use, in the place where she commonly sat; intending it for a new-year’s gift to her majesty, and thinking to have pleased her fancy therewith. But it had a quite contrary effect. For she considered how this varied from her late injunctions and proclamations against the superstitious use of images in churches, and for the taking away all such reliques of popery. When she came to her place, and had opened the book, and saw the pictures, she frowned and blushed; and then shutting the book (of which several took notice) she called for the verger, and bade him bring her the old book, wherein she was formerly wont to read. After sermon, whereas she used to get immediately on horseback, or into her chariot, she went straight to the vestry, and applying herself to the dean, thus she spoke to him: “Mr. Dean, how came it to pas’s, that a new service-book was placed on my cushion r” To which the dean answered, “May it please your majesty, I caused it to be placed there.” Then said the queen, “Wherefore did you so” “To present your majesty with a new year?s gift.” “You could never present me with a worse.” “Why so, madam?” “You know I have an aversion to idolatry, to images, and pictures of this kind.” “Wherein is the idolatry, may it please your majesty?” “In the cuts resembling angels and saints; nay, grosser absurdities, pictures resembling the blessed Trinity.” “I meant nq harm; nor did I think it would offend your majesty, when I intended it for a new-year’s gift.” *“You must needs be ignorant then. Have you forgot our proclamation against images, pictures, and Romish reliques, in the churches? Was it not read in your deanery?” “It was read. But be your majesty assured I meant no harm when I caused the cuts to be bound with the service-book.” “You must needs be very ignorant to do this after our prohibition of them.” “It being my ignorance, your majesty may the better pardon me.” “I am sorry for it; yet glad to hear it was your ignorance rather than your opinion.” “Be your majesty assured it was my ignorance.” “If so, Mr. dean, God grant you his spirit, and more wisdom for the future.” “Amen, I pray God.” “I pray, Mr. Dean, how came you by these pictures who engraved them” “I know not who engraved them I bought them.” “From whom bought you them” “From a German.” “It is well it was from a stranger. Had it been any of our subjects, we should have questioned the matter. Pray let no more of these mistakes, or of this kind, be committed within the churches of our realm for the future.” “There shall not.” Strype adds to this curious dialogue, that it caused all the clergy in and about London, and the churchwardens of each parish, to search their churches and chapels; and to wash out of the walls all paintings that seemed to be Romish and idolatrous; in lieu whereof, suitable texts of Holy Scripture were written.

NowelPs preaching as well as writing, appears to have greatly assisted the reformation. In 1568 we find him among his friends in Lancashire; where, by his continual preaching in divers parts of the country, he brought many to conformity; and obtained singular commendation and praise, even of those who had been great enemies to his religion. So Downham, bishop of Chester, who this year visited his whole diocese, and therefore had the better opportunity of informing himself, reported the matter to secretary Cecil; desiring him to be a means to the queen, and to her honourable council, to give the dean thanks for his great pains, taken among his countrymen.

The principal remaining monument of Nowell’s fame is his celebrated “Catechism,” of the history of which and of catechisms in general, his biographer has given a very interesting detail. The precise time when he wrote it has not been discovered; nor whether, as is not improbable, he first devised it (or some such summary) for the use of his pupils in Westminster-school, It is, however, certain that it was composed, and in readiness for publication, before the convocation sat in 1562, for, among the minutes of matters to be moved in that synod, we find two memorable papers, both of them noted by the archbishop of Canterbury’s hand (Parker), and one of them drawn up by one of his secretaries, in both of which there is express mention of Nowell’s catechism. For the proceedings of the convocation on the subject, we must refer to his excellent biographer. The work was not published until June 1570, 4to. This is what is called his “Larger Catechism,” and in the preface it is announced that he intended to publish it, reduced into a shorter compass, as soon as possible. The abridgment accordingly came out the same year, and both in Latin. They were soon after, for the sake of more extensive usefulness, translated into English, by Thomas Norton, of whom we have lately taken notice, and into Greek by the Dean’s nephew, Whitaker, but the Greek translation of the larger, which was first printed (along with the Latin) did not appear until 1573, and that of the smaller in 1575. His biographer gives some account of a third Catechism, attributed to Nowell, but its history seems involved in some obscurity. There seems reason to think that this was, in whole or in part, what is now called “The Church Catechism.” Nowell’s other catechisms were in such request as to go through a great many impressions, and long continued to be used in schools, and the use of them appears to have been frequently enjoined by the founders of schools, and mentioned expressly in the statutes drawn up for such seminaries. What public authority and private influence could do, was not wanting to recommend these catechisms as the foundation of religious knowledge. In fact, the church catechism, the homilies, and Nowell’s catechisms, appear to have long been the standard books, which were quoted as authorities for all that the church of England believed and taught; and Nowell’s were within these few years reprinted in the “Enchiridion Theologicum,” by Dr. Randolph, late bishop of London, and by Dr. Cleaver, late bishop of St. Asaph.

In 1572 he completed the endowment at one and the same time, of a free- school at Middleton in Lancashire, and of thirteen scholarships in Brazen-nose college and as these benefactions were both of them established by royal patent (her majesty also of her free bounty encouraging and assisting him), he chose that the school should be called queen Elizabeth’s school, and the scholars queen Elizabeth’s scholars. This benefaction to the college was peculiarly seasonable, as in consequence of a severe plague at Oxford, in the preceding year, and for want of exhibitions to assist them in their studies, some of the scholars were compelled to go about requesting alms, having licence so to do, as an act of parliament required, under the common seal of the university. Nowell was at all times a zealous patron of learning, and was much looked up to in that character, as appears not only by his being frequently consulted on schemes for the promotion of liberal education, but also by the numerous dedications of learned books to him. Books that had a tendency to inculcate the principles of the reformation were also frequently published under the protection of his name, as one acknowledged “to be a learned and faithful preacher of God’s word, and an earnest furtherer of all godliness.” In 1580 the queen granted him a licence of non-residence for three months and fourteen days, that he might visit his scholars of Brasen-nose, and the school at Middleton, her majesty “having long, by sure proof, known his experience and skill in business, as well as earnest desire and constant solicitude for the training up of youth in learning and virtue.” It was indeed his great success as a preacher, and his eminence as an opponent of popery, that procured him the honour of having his works proscribed in the “Index librorum prohibitorum;” and his name, together with that of Fox, Fleetwood the recorder, and others; inserted at Rome in a “bede-roll,” or list of persons, that were to be dispatched, and the particular mode of their death, as by burning or hanging, pointed out. Campion, the great emissary from Rome, being apprehended, Nowell, and May dean of Windsor, held, in August 1581, a conference with him in the Tower, of which an account was afterwards published under the title of “A True Report of the disputation or rather private conference had in the Tower of London, with Ed. Campion Jesuite, &c.” Lond. 1583, 4 to. In 1588 Nowell quitted the prebend (Willand) he had so long held in St. Paul’s for another, that of Tottenham in the same church, and upon this occasion resigned his living of Hadham. In the following year the queen gave him the next presentation to a canonry of Windsor, “in consideration of his constant preaching of the word of God, during the space of almost forty years;” and because he had lately resigned the rectory of Hadham and prebend of Willand, as being, through age and imbecility of body, not equal to the duties of them; nor likely, on account of his extreme age and infirm health, long to enjoy either his present or any future preferment. He lived, however, to succeed to a canonry of Windsor in 1594. In 1595, on the death of Mr. Harris, the fourth principal of Brasennose college, Nowell was chosen to succeed him. This election of a man now on the verge of ninety was perhaps intended or accepted rather as a compliment, than with a view to the performance of much actual service, and ac-r cordingly he resigned it in a few months.

Dean Nowell died Feb. 13, 1601-2, in the ninety-fifth year of his age, almost forty years after he had begun to reckon himself an old man. “But notwithstanding his very great age and frequent sicknesses, such was the original strength of his constitution, and such the blessing of providence on a life of piety, peace, and temperance, that neither his memory nor any of his faculties were impaired; and to the last, it is said, he was able to read thesmallest print without the help of glasses.” He was interred in St. Mary’s chapel, at the back of the high altar in St. Paul’s, in the same grave where, thirty-three years before, he had buried his beloved brother Robert Nowell. He was twice married, but had no issue by either of his wives. ii For the minutiae of his character, the reader will find ample gratification in the elaborate life lately published by Mr. Archdeacon Churton. It concerns a long period of our ecclesiastical history, and in every history indeed mention is made of Nowell’s eminent services in promoting and establishing the reformed religion. Endowed, says Mr. Churton, with excellent parts, he was soon distinguished by the progress he made in the schools of Oxford; where he devoted thirteen years, the flower of his life and the best time for improvement, to the cultivation of classical elegance and useful knowledge. His capacity for teaching, tried first in the shade of the university, became more conspicuous when he was placed at the head of the first seminary in the metropolis; and at the same time his talents as a preacher were witnessed and approved by some of the principal auditories of the realm. Attainments such as these, and a life that adorned them, rendered him a fit object for Bonner’s hatred; but Providence rescued him from the fangs of the tyger, in the very act of springing upon his prey. Retirement, suffering, and study, in the company of Jewell, Grindal, and Sandys, stimulated by the conversation and example of Peter Martyr, and other famed divines of Germany, returned him to his native land, with recruited vigour and increasing lustre, when the days of tyranny were overpast. Elizabeth, and her sage counsellor Burghley, placed him at once in an eminent situation among those of secondary rank in the church, and accumulated other preferments upon him; and would probably have advanced him to the episcopal bench, had not his real modesty, together with the consciousness of approaching old age, been known to have created in him a fixt determination not to be raised to a station of greater dignity which, however, all things considered, could scarcely, in his case, have been a sphere of greater usefulness. Near to his friend and patron, the excellently pious and prudent archbishop Parker, and not distant from the court, he was an able coadjutor to each and to alj, in bringing forward and perfecting, what they all had at heart, the restoration of true and pure religion.

, younger brother to the preceding, and dean of Lichfield, was entered of Brasen-nose college, Oxford, in 1536, the same year in which his elder brother in the same college became B. A. After a little while, Wood says, he went to Cambridge, was admitted to the degree of B. A. in that university, and reincorporated at Oxford in July 1542, where he proceeded M. A. March 18, 1544. In 1546 he was appointed master of the grammar-school at Sutton Colfield, in Warwickshire; but was not yet, as Wood makes him, in sacred orders; for he was not ordained a deacon till 1550. He was not suffered to continue long in quiet possession of the school; for articles of complaint were exhibited against him by the corporation, as patrons of the school, in the court of chancery, upon a pretence of neglect of duty; though the real ground of offence appears to have been his zeal for the reformation; and therefore, on appeal to the king in council, he justified his character and conduct so well, that letters were issued to the warden and fellows of the King’s town of Sutton, not to remove him from his place of schoolmaster, nor to give him any farther molestation or disturbance.

During the troubles in Mary’s days he was concealed for some time in the house of sir John Perrot, at Carewcastle in Pembrokeshire; but before the queen died, he went to his brother Alexander and the exiles in Germany. On his return he was made archdeacon of Derby and dean of Lichfield, in April 1559; had the prebend of Ferring in the cathedral of Chichester in August 1563, and of Ampleford in York in 1566, and the rectory of Haughton and Drayton Basset, in the county of Stafford. He died in or about the month of October, 1576. He was, as Wood justly observes, “a most diligent searcher into venerable antiquity.” He bad also this peculiar merit, that he revived and encouraged the neglected study of the Saxon language, so essential to the accurate knowledge of our legal antiquities, as well as to the elucidation of ecclesiastical and civil history. In these studies, while he resided, as is said, in the chambers of his brother Robert Nowell (the queen’s attorney- general of the court of wards), he had the celebrated William Lambarde for his pupil, who availed himself of his notes and assistance in composing his learned work on the ancient laws of England. He wrote a Saxon vocabulary or dictionary, still extant in manuscript, which he gave to his pupil Lambarde, from whom it passed to Somner, the learned antiquary of Canterbury, who made use of it in compiling his Saxon dictionary. It then came into the hands of Mr. Selden, and is now, with other books of that great man, printed and manuscript, reposited in the Bodleian library at Oxford. Mr. Thoresby, the historian of Leeds, had a quarto ms. entitled “Polychronicon,” a miscellaneous collection, as it seems, containing perambulations of forests and other matters, in the hand-writing of Lawrence Nowell, 1565. There are also “Collectanea” by him, relating chietiy to ecclesiastical affairs, in the Cotton library. He appears to have been in learning, piety, and meekness of spirit, the worthy brother of the dean of St. Paul’s.

, one of a family' of physicians of considerable eminence, was born at Augsburgh, Oct. 17, 1524. When he had finished his medical studies under his father, a physician of Augsburgh, who died in 1572, and at the university, he soon became noted as a practitioner, and in 1564 was appointed inspector of the apothecaries, and perpetual vicar to the dean of the college of physicians. He died in 1605. He published a “Pharmacopoeia” in 1574, which continued to be reprinted as late as 1734; and “Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata a Pompeio M. ad Heraclium,” Strasburgh, 4to and folio. This is an excellent book of general reference, being a list of all the coins in every reign, digested into the years in which they were apparently struck. It was first printed in 1579, and again in 1600, which is the best edition. One afterwards published by Mezzabarba is not so highly valued, as this editor’s additions are of doubtful authority. Among Gesner’s letters is a learned “Epistola Graeca de Oxymeli helleborato, aiiisque ad rem medicam spectantibus,” written by Occo, who was an excellent Greek scholar.

Several eminent divines of the establishment expressed their high approbation of the “Sacramental Meditations*” among whom were the rev. Mr. Hunter, vicar of Weaverham, in Cheshire, Dr. Tucker, dean of Gloucester, and Dr. Adams, master of Pembroke college, Oxford.

In 1700, the clergy of Neufchatel chose Mr. Ostervald for their dean, an annual office to which he was frequently re-elected, and held it at one time for three successive years. In 1700, also, the London society for the propagation of the Gospel chose him a member, and had before so far honoured him as to cause his “Abridgment of the Sacred History” prefixed to his Catechism, to be translated into Arabic, in order to be sent to the East Indies. The year that he was first chosen dean was distinguished by the introduction of a new version of the Psalms in the churches, and various regulations of great utility in the modes of theological study and discipline, in all which he took an active part. He began also from this time to give a complete course of instructions to divinity students, which he carried on for forty-five years with great success and approbation. Such indeed was the fame of his lectures, that some of his pupils, eager to diffuse their usefulness more extensively, published some part of them, without either his knowledge or consent. In this way his “Ethica Christiana” was published in Latin, at London, in 1727, and often reprinted both in Dutch and French. A “Compendium Theologiae,” and “Trait4 du Ministere Sacre,” were also published in the same manner. Against all these Ostervald advertised, that they were published without his knowledge, and that he would not be responsible for their errors. Even this, however, had very little effect on the sale, so highly was every thing valued of which he was the reputed author; and, after all, there were not any errors faund in them which could affect his reputation. The last mentioned treatise was published in English in 1781, by the rev. Thomas Stevens, who considered it as the most complete that had then appeared, under the title of “Lectures on the exercise of the Sacred Ministry.”

In Sept. 1650, Cromwell required Mr. Owen to go with him to Scotland and when he found him averse to another absence from his flock at Coggeshall, he procured an order of parliament, which could not be disobeyed. He remained at Edinburgh about half a year, and returning to Coggeshall, expected, as his biographers say, to have passed the remainder of his days there. But the general reputation he had acquired, and his favouritism with Cromwell, pointed him out for a higher station, that of dean of Christ church, in room of Dr. Reynolds, afterwards bishop of Norwich, who had been placed in this office by the authority of the parliamentary visitors. Mr. Owen appears to have owed his promotion to the parliament itself, as appears by the following document “The House, taking into consideration the worth and usefulness of Mr. John Owen, student of QueenVcollege, M. A. has ordered that he be settled in the deanry of Christ-church, Oxford, in the room of,” &c. This was the first intimation Mr. Owen had of his appointment; but he afterwards received a letter from the principal students of the college, signifying their great satisfaction, and a commission from Cromwell, who was at this time chancellor of the university, to act as vicechancellor. Accordingly he went to Oxfprd in 1651, and on Sept. 26 of the following year, was admitted vicechancellor. About the same time he took his degree of D. D. His rise seems calculated to have gratified the ambition he acknowledged in his youthful days, for he had not been above twelve or fourteen years absent from Oxford, and was now only in his thirty-sixth year.

During his vice-chancellorship, he was a frequent preacher at St. Mary’s, and other places in the county, and published some of his numerous works, particularly in 1654, his “Saint’s Perseverance,” in answer to Goodwin’s “Redemption redeemed;” and in 1655, his “Vindiciæ Evangelicæ, or, the Mystery of the Gospel vindicated, and Socinianism examined,” against Biddle, who had published two Socinian Catechisms. In the preface to this work, which he wrote at the desire of the heads of houses and many other divines of Oxford, is a succinct and perspicuous history of Spcimanism from its first appearance. This was followed by his more popular treatise, often reprinted till this day, on Communion with God." In 1657 he was succeeded as vice-chancellor by Dr. Conant, and in 1659, as dean of Christ-church by Dr. Reynolds. For these changes his biographers no otherwise account than as parts of that general change which the restoration was about to effect. Dr. Owen, however, lost his vicechancellorship on the death of Oliver Cromwell, whose successor, Richard, appointed Dr. Conant. The latter was evidently an ejectment, and it is supposed the presbyterians had a hand in it.

In 1519, Maximilian died, and the kings of France and Spain immediately declared themselves candidates for the Imperial throne. Henry, encouraged by the pope, was also induced to offer himself as a candidate, and Pace was ordered to attend the diet of the empire, sound the opinions of the electors, and endeavour to form a judgment of the likelihood of his success. Pace, however, soon discovered that his royal master had started too late, and that tven the electors of Mentz, Cologn, and Triers, who were disposed to favour his pretensions, pleaded, with a shew of regret, that they were pre-engaged. The election fell on Charles V. In 1516, Pace was instituted treasurer of Lichfield, which he resigned in 1522, on being made dean of Exeter. In 1511), he succeeded Colet as dean of St. Paul’s; and some say, held also the deanery of Sarum, but this is not quite clear, although he is called dean of Salisbury by Herbert, in his “Life and Reign of Henry VIII.” In 1521, he was made prebendary of Combe and Harnham, in the church of Sarum, and we find mention of some other church preferments he held from 1516 to 1522, but they are so dubiously related that it is difficult to give them in due order.

While at Appleby, he published a small volume selected from the Book of Common Prayer, and the writings of some eminent divines, entitled “The Clergyman’s Comr panion in visiting the Sick.” This useful work at first appeared without his name, but it has passed through nine editions, and is now printed among his works. In June 1780, he was collated to the fourth prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Carlisle, and thus became coadjutor in the chapter to his friend Mr. Law, who was now archdeacon; but in 1782, upon Dr. Law’s being created an Irish bishop, Mr. Paley was made archdeacon of the diocese, and in 1785, he succeeded Dr. Burn, author of “The Justice of Peace,” in the chancellorship. For these different preferments he was indebted either to the venerable bishop of Carlisle, Dr. Law, or to the dean and chapter of the cathedral church. While his residence was divided between Carlisle and Dalston, Mr. Paley engaged in the composition of his celebrated work, “The Elements of Moral and Political Philosophy;” but hesitated long as to the publication, imagining there would be but fewreaders for such a work; and he was the more determined on this point after he had entered on the married state, thinking it a duty that he owed his family to avoid risking any extraordinary expense. To remove this last objection, Dr. John Law presented a living then in his gift to Mr. Paley, on the promise that he would consider it as a compensation for the hazard of printing, and he immediately set about preparing his work for the press, which appeared in 1785, in quarto. Of a work * so generally known and admired, and so extensively circulated, it would be unnecessary to say much. Although the many editions which came rapidly from the press stamped no ordinary merit on it, yet some of his friends appear to have not been completely gratified. They expected, that from his intimacy with Jebb, and the latitudinarian party at Cambridge, he would have brought forward those sentiments which Jebb in vain endeavoured to disseminate while at the university; and they were surprized to find that his reasoning on subscription to articles of religion, and on the British constitution, in which he not only disputes the expediency of reform in the House of Commons, but vindicates the influence of the crown in that branch of parliament, was diametrically opposite to their opinions and wishes.

On the death of the venerable bishop of Carlisle in 1787, Mr. Paley drew up a short memoir of him. (See Law, Edmund). His next work places him in a high rank among the advocates for the truth and authenticity of the Christian Scriptures. It is entitled “Horae Paulina; or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul evinced, by a comparison of the Epistles which bear his name with the Acts of the Apostles, and with one another,” which he dedicated to his friend Dr. John Law, at that time bishop of Killala. The principal object of this work is to shew, that by a comparison of several indirect allusions and references in the Acts and Epistles, independently of all collateral testimony, their undesigned coincidence affords the strongest proof of their genuineness, and of the reality of the transactions to which they relate. Instead of requiring the truth of any part of the apostolic history to be taken for granted, he leaves the reader at liberty to suppose the writings to have been lately discovered, and to have come to our hands destitute of any extrinsic or collateral evidence whatever. The design was original, and the execution admirable. Soon after he compiled a small work, entitled “The Young Christian instructed in Reading, and the Principles of Religion.” This having brought upon him a charge of plagiarism, he defended himself in a good-humoured letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine. Previously to the appearance of these works he was offered by Dr. Yorke, bishop of Ely, the mastership of Jesus college, Cambridge, which, after due deliberation, he declined. In May 1792, he was instituted to the vicarage of Addingham, near Great SaJ-j kcld, on the presentation of the dean and chapter of Carlisle. During the political ferment excited by the French, revolution, he published “Reasons for Contentment, addressed to the labouring classes,” and the chapter in his “Moral Philosophy,” on the British Constitution. In 1793, he vacated Dalston, on being collated by the bishop of Carlisle (Dr. Vernon) to the vicarage of Stanwix. His biographer informs us that, " beiug afterwards asked, by a clerical friend, why he quitted Dalston, he answered with a frankness peculiar to him, for he knew no deceit, 'Why, Sir, I had two or three reasons for taking Stanwix in exchange: first, it saved me double house-keeping, as Stanwix was within a twenty minutes walk of my house in Carlisle: secondly, it was fifty pounds a -year more in value: and, thirdly, I began to find my stock of sermons coming over again too fastV

, a French historian, and laborious writer of the sixteenth century, was still living in 1581, and was then turned fourscore. He was the author of many works, among which the following are remarkable: 1. “The History of Aristseus, respecting the version of the Pentateuch,” 4 to. 2. “Historia sui temporis,” written in Latin, but best known by a French version which was published in 1558. 3. “Annales de Bourgogne,” 1566, folio. This history, by no means well digested, begins at the year 378, and ends in 1482. 4. “De moribus Gallic, Historia,” 4to. 5. “Memoires de l'Histoire de Lyon,” 1625, folio. 6. “De rehus in Beigio, anno 1543 gestis,”l:>4:i, 8vo. 7. “LaChroniquede Savoie,” 1602, fol. 8. “Histuna Galliae, a Fraiu isci I. coronatione ad annum 1550.” 9. “Historia Ecclesiae Gallicanae.” 10. “Memoralia insignium Francis Famiiiarum.” He was an ecclesias.ic, and became dean of Beaujeu.

In 1552 the king presented him to the canonry and prebend of Covingham, in the church of Lincoln, where he was soon after elected dean, upon Dr. Taylor’s promotion to that see. He had before been nominated to the mastership of Trinity-college, probably on the death of Dr. Redman in 1551, but this did not take effect. It is also said that he declined a bishopric in this reign. On the accession of queen Mary, however, the scene was changed, and he, with all the married clergy who would not part with their wives, and conform to those superstitious rites and ceremonies they had so lately rejected, were stript of their preferments. He bore this reverse of fortune with pious resignation. “After my deprivation” (he says, in his private journal) “I lived so joyful before God in my conscience, and so neither ashamed nor dejected, that the most sweet leisure for study, to which the good providence of God has now recalled me, gave me much greater and more solid pleasures, than that former busy and dangerous kind of life ever afforded me. What will hereafter befall me, I know not; but to God, who takes care of all, and who will one day reveal the hidden things of men’s hearts, I commend myself wholly, and my pious and most chaste wife, with my two most dear little sons.” It appears also by a ms. in the college, quoted by Strype, that Dr. Parker “lurked secretly in those years (the reign of queen Mary) within the house of one of his friends, leading a poor life, without any men’s aid or succour; and yet so well contented with his lot, that in that pleasant rest, and leisure for his studies, he would never, in respect of himself, have desired any other kind of life, the extreme fear of danger only excepted. And therein he lived as all other good men then did. His wife he would not be divorced from, or put her away all this evil time (as he might, if he would, in those days, which so rigorously required it), being a woman very chaste, and of a very virtuous behaviour, and behaving herself with all due reverence toward her husband.”

In 1561, archbishop Parker and some of the other prelates made an application to the queen against the use of images, to which her majesty still discovered a very great inclination, and it may be inferred that they induced her to change her opinion on this matter, from the anecdote given in our account of dean Nowell, who incurred her displeasure by only presenting her with a prayer-book, illustrated with engravings. In other respects she adhered to many of her father’s notions, and when about this time she took a journey into Essex and Suffolk, she expressed great displeasure at finding so many of the clergy married, and at observing so many women and children in cathedrals and colleges. She had, indeed, so strong an aversion to matrimony in the clergy, that it was owing to Cecil’s courage and dexterity, as appears by a letter of his to Parker, that she did not absolutely prohibit the marriage of all ecclesiastics. He was, however, obliged to consent to an injunction, “that no head or member of any college or cathedral, should bring a wife, or any other woman, into the precincts of it, to abide in the same, on pain of forfeiture of all ecclesiastical promotions.” Archbishop Parker took the liberty to remonstrate with the queen against this order, and on this interview she treated the institution of matrimony with contempt, declared to him that she repented her making any of them bishops, and wished it had been otherwise; nay, threatened him with injunctions of another nature, which his grace understood to be in favour of the old religion. In his letter to Cecil on this occasion, he assures him that the bishops have all of them great reason to be dissatisfied with the queen; that he repents his having engaged in the station in which he was; and that the reception which he had from her majesty the day before, had quite indisposed him for all other business, and he could only mourn to God in the bitterness of his soul; but if she went on to force the clergy to any compliance, they must obey God rather than men, and that many of them had conscience and courage enough to sacrifice their lives in defence of their religion.

His works have not much connexion with his profession, all, except his letters, being Latin poetry on sundry occasions. He was indeed one of the translators of the Bishops’ Bible, of which his share was the Apocrypha from the book of Wisdom to the end; but he is best known to the curious by his “Ludicra, sive Epigrammata juvenilia.” In T572 he sent a copy of these to his old and dear friend Dr. Wilson, master of St. Catherine’s, as a new-year’s gift, and styled them his “good, godly, and pleasant epigrams;” and they were in the following year printed by Day, in a small 4to volume. Why Anthony Wood should give the report that these epigrams were as indecent as Martial’s, when he adds at the same time that “he cannot perceive it,” seems unaccountable; but even Blomefield has adopted this false accusation. Many of them appear to have been first printed at Zurich in 1558, where they were written, and republished now. Among the commendatory verses is a copy by dean Nowell, to whom two of the epigrams are addressed, and who was not likely to have commended indecencies, if we could suppose our pious prelate capable of publishing such. “His epigrams,” says archdeacon Churton, “affording notices of persons and things not elsewhere easily found, are on the Grecian rather than the Roman model, not sparkling with wit, but grave and didactic.” The other works attributed to bishop Parkhurst are, 1. “Epigrammata in mortem duorum fratrum Suffolciensium, Caroli et Henrici Brandon,” Lond. 1552, 4to. These were the sons of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, and died of the sweating-sickness. 2. “Epigrammata seria,” ibid. 1560, which seem to be a part of his larger collection; and some of them had been long before published at Strasburgh, along with Shepreve’s “Summa et synopsis Nov. Test, distichis ducentis sexaginta comprehensa.” 3. “Vita Christi, carm. Lat. in lib. precum privat.” ibid. 1578. He also addressed Henry VIII. and queen Catherine in some complimentary verses, when they were about to visit Oxford in 1543; and there is an epitaph of his on queen Catherine in the chapel of Sudley-castle. Several of his letters have been published by Strype, and more in ms. are in the British Museum.

, in both which ways he wrote his name, a celebrated English Jesuit, was the son of a blacksmith, at Nether Stowey, near Bridgewater in Somersetshire, where he was born in 1546; and, appearing to be a boy of extraordinary parts, was taught Latin by the vicar of the parish, who conceived a. great affection for him t, and contributed to his support at Oxford, where he was admitted of Baliol college in 1563. In the university he became so remarkable, as an acute disputant in scholastic exercises, then much in vogue, that, having taken his first degree in arts in 1568, he was the same year made probationer fellow of his college. He soon after became the most famous tutor in the society, and when he entered into orders, was made socius sacerdos, or chaplain fellow. In 1572 he proceeded M. A. was bursar that year, and the next dean of the college; but it is said that being charged by the society with incontinency, and embezzling the college-money, to avoid the shame of a formal expulsion, he was permitted, out of respect to his learning, to resign, which he did in Feb. 1574, obtaining leave to keep his chamber and pupils as long as he pleased, and to have his commons also till the ensuing Easter. These last circumstances have induced some writers to think that it was merely a change of religious principles which occasioned his resignation.

His works are, 1. “A brief Discourse, containing the Reasons why Catholics refuse to go to Church,” with a Dedication to Queen Elizabeth, under the fictitious name of John Howlet, dated Dec. 15, 1530. 2. “Reasons for his coming into the Mission of England, &c.” by some ascribed to Campian. 3. “A brief Censure upon two Books, written against the Reasons and Proofs.” 4.“A Discovery of John Nichols, misreported a Jesuit” all written and printed while the author was in England. 5. “A Defence of the Censure given upon his two Books, &c.” 1583. 6. “De persecutione Anglicana epistola,” Rome and Ingolstadt, 1582. 7. “A Christian Directory,” 1583. 8. “A Second Part of a Christian Directory, &c.” 1591. These two parts being printed erroneously at London, Parsons published an edition of them under this title: “A Christian Directory, guiding men to their Salvation, &c. with m.my corrections and additions by the Author himself.” This book is really an excellent one, and was afterwards put into modern English by Dr. Stanhope, dean of Canterbury; in which form it has gone through eight or ten editions. 9. “Responsio ad Eliz. Reginse edictum contra Catholicos,” Romae, 1593, under the name of And. Philopater. 10. “A Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England, &c.” 1594, under the feigned name of Doleman. This piece was the production of cardinal Allen, Inglefield, and others, who furnished the materials, which Parsons, who had a happy talent this way, put into a proper method. Parsons’s style is among the best of the Elizabethan period. 11. “A temperate Wardword to the turbulent and seditious Watchword of sir Fr. Hastings, knight, 7 ' &c. 1599, under the same name. 12.” A Copy of a Letter written by a Master of Arts at Cambridge, &c.“published in 1583. This piece was commonly called” Father Parsons’s Green Coat,“being sent from abroad with the binding and leaves in that livery, but there seems reason to doubt whether this was his (see Ath. Ox. vol. II. new edit, note, p. 74). 13.” Apologetical Epistle to the Lords of her Majesty’s Privy Council, &c.“1601. 14.” Brief Apology, or Defence of the Catholic Ecclesiastical Hierarchy erected by pope Clement VIII. &c.“St. Omers, 1601. 15.” A Manifestation of the Folly and bad Spirit of secular Priests,“1602. 16.” A Decachordon often Quodlibetical Questions/' 1602. 17. “De Peregrinatione.” 18. “An Answer to O. E. whether Papists or Protestants be true Catholics,” 1603. 19. “A Treatise of the three Conversions of Paganism to the Christian Religion,” published (as are also the two following) under the name of N. D. (Nicholas Doleman), in 3 *6ls. 12mo, 1603, 1604. 20. “A Relation of a Trial made before the king of France in 1600, between the bishop of Evreux and the lord Plessis Mornay/' 1604. 21.” A Defence of the precedent Relation, &c.“22.” A Review of ten public Disputations^ &c. concerning the Sacrifices and Sacrament of the Altar,“1604. 23.” The Forerunner of Bell’s Downfall of Popery,“1605. 24.” An Answer to the fifth Part of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke, &c.“1606, 4to, published under the name of a Catholic Divine. 25.” De sacris alienis non adeundis, questiones duae,“1607. 26.” A Treatise tending to Mitigation towards Catholic subjects in England, against Thomas Morton (afterwards bishop of Durham),“1607. 27.” The Judgment of a Catholic Gentleman concerning king James’s Apology, &c.“1608. 28.” Sober Reckoning with Thomas Morton,“1609. 29.” A Discussion of Mr. Barlow’s Answer to the Judgment of a Catholic Englishman concerning the Oath of Allegiance,“1612. This book being left not quite finished at the author’s death, was afterwards completed and published by Thomas Fitzherbert. The following are also posthumous pieces: 30.” The Liturgy of the Sacrament of the Mass,“1620. 31.” A Memorial for Reformation, &c.“thought to be the same with” The High Court and Council of the Reformation,“finished after twenty years’ labour in 1596, but not published till after Parsons’s death; and republished from a copy presented to James II. with an introduction and some animadversions by Edward Gee, under the title of,” The Jesuits Memorial for the intended Reformation of the Church of England under their first Popish Prince,“1690, 8vo. 32. There is also ascribed to him,” A Declaration of the true Causes of the great Troubles pre-supposed to be intended against the Realm of England, &c. Seen and allowed, anno 1581.“33. Parsons also translated from the English into Spanish,” A Relation of certain Martyrs in England,“printed at Madrid 1590, 8vo.Several of his Mss. are preserved in Baliol college library, particularly a curious one entitled” Epitome controversiarum, hujus temporis."

In 1650 he was chosen dean of the faculty of medicine, and afterwards succeeded Riolan, the younger, in the professorship of medicine in the Royal-college, where he taught with great reputation. The disputes which took place in his time respecting the use of antimony roused all his spleen, as he regarded this medicine as a poison, and had even made out a list of patients, which he called the martyrology of antimony. Great, however, was his mortification when, in 1666, a majority of the faculty decided to admit emetic wine into the list of prescriptions. He was quite inconsolable.

In the interim, in July 1672 he was made prebendary of Westminster, and dean of Peterborough in Aug. 1679. Here he completed the “History of the Church of Peterborough,” which had been compiled by Simon Gunton, who was a native and prebendary of Peterborough. Gunton died irr 1676; and Patrick published, in 1686, his manuscript in folio, with a large “Supplement,” from page 225 to 332, containing a fuller account of the abbots and bishops of Peterborough, than had been given by Gunton. In 1680, the lord-chancellor Finch offered him the living of St. Martin’s in the Fields; but he refused it, and recommended Dr. Thomas Tenison. In 1682, Dr. Lewis de Moulin, who had been history-prqfessor at Oxford, and had written much against the church of England, sent for Patrick upon his death-bed, and solemnly declared, before Dr. Burnet also, his regret upon that account; which declaration being signed, was published after his death.

Such is the account given of this debate by Kennet in his “Complete History of England:” bishop Burnet’s account is somewhat different. He says, “That the king desired of the earl, he would suffer himself to be instructed in religion. He answered, he was fully satisfied about his religion; but, upon the king’s pressing it that he would hear his priests, he said he desired then to have some of the English clergy present, to which the king consented; only he excepted to Tillotson and Stillingfleet. Lord Rochester said he would take those who should happen to be in waiting; for the forms of the chapel were still kept up. And Drs. Patrick and Jane were the men.” “Patrick,” adds Burnet, “told me, that at the conference there was no occasion for them to say much. The priests began the attack. And when they had done, the earl said, if they had nothing stronger to urge, he would not trouble those learned gentlemen to say any thing; for he was sure he could answer all that he had heard. And so answered all with much heat and spirit, not without some scorn, saying, Were these grounds to persuade men to change their religion? This he urged over and over again with great vehemence. The king, seeing in what temper he was, broke off the conference, charging all that were present to say nothing of it.” The king had often taken pains to gain over Patrick, sent for him, treated him kindly, desired him to abate his zeal against his church, and quietly enjoy his own religion: but the dean replied, with proper courage, “That he could not give up a religion so well proved as that of the Protestants.” Conformably to this principle, he opposed the reading of his majesty’s declaration for liberty of conscience; and assisted Dr. Tenison in setting up a school at St. Martin’s, in opposition to the popish one, opened at the Savoy, in order to seduce the youth of the town into popery; and this was the origin of the ward and parish schools of London. He had also a great share in the comprehension projected by archbishop SanCroft, in order to bring over the dissenters, which, it is well known, was unsuccessful.

At the Revolution in 1688, great use was made of the dean, who was very active in settling the affairs of the church: he was called upon to preach before the prince and princess of Orange; and was soon after appointed one of the commissioners for the review of the liturgy. He was thought to have excellent talents for devotional composition, and his part now was to revise the collects of the whole year, in which he introduced some amendments and improvements of style. In October 1689, he was made bishop of Chichester; and employed, with others of the new bishops, to compose the disorders of the church of Ireland. In July 1691, he was translated to the see of Ely, in the room of Turner, who was deprived for refusing the oaths to government. Here he continued to perform all the offices of a good bishop, as well as a good man, which he had ever proved himself on all occasions. He died at Ely, May 31, 1707, aged eighty; and was interred in the cathedral, where a monument is erected to his memory, with an inscription said to have been written by Dr. Leng, afterwards bishop of Norwich.

In 1739, in consequence of the late queen Caroline’s having recommended him to sir Robert Walpole, Dr. Pearce was appointed dean of Winchester. He informs us in his memoirs of what led to this promotion. When vicar of St. Martin’s, lord Sundon was one of his parishioners, and one of the members of parliament for Westminster. These two circumstances brought them acquainted together, and Dr. Pearce was sometimes invited to dinner, where he became acquainted with lady Sundon, queen Caroline’s farourite, and by her means was introduced to her majesty, who frequently honoured him with her conversation at the drawing-room, The subjects which her majesty started were not what are often introduced in that circle. One day she asked him if he had read the pamphlets published by Dr. Stebbing, and Mr. Foster, upon the sort of heretics meant by St. Paul, whom in Titus iii. 10, 11, he represents as self-condemned. “Yes, madam,” replied the doctor, “I have read all the pamphlets written by them on both sides of the question.” “Well,” said the queen, “which of the two do you think to be in the right” The doctor answered, “I cannot say, madam, which of the two is in the right, but I think that both of them are in the wrong.” She smiled, and said, “Then what is your opinion of the text?” “Madam,” said the doctor, “it would take up more time than your majesty can spare at this drawing-room, for me to give my opinion and the reasons of it; but if your majesty should be pleased to lay your commands upon me, you shall know my sentiments of the matter in the next sermon which I shall have the honour to preach before his majesty.” “Pray do then,” said the queen, and he accordingly prepared a sermon on that text, but the queen died a month before his term of preaching came about, and before he was promoted to the deanry of Winchester. In 1744 the dean was elected prolocutor of the lower house of convocation for the province of Canterbury, the archbishop having signified to some of the members, that the choice of him would be agreeable to his grace.

In 1748 dean Pearce was promoted to the see of Bangor, but the history of this and of his subsequent translation to Rochester, will be best related in his own words: “In the year 1746,” says he, " archbishop Potter being alone with dean Pearce one day at Lambeth, said to him, ‘ Why do you not try to engage your friend lord Bath * to get you made a bishop?’ * My lord,‘ said the dean, ’ I am extremely obliged to your grace for your good opinion of me, and for your kind intentions in my favour; but I have never spoken to him on that subject, nor ever thought of doing so, though I believe he would do what lies in his power; but I will tell your grace very frankly, that I have no thoughts of any bishopric. All that I have in view in this: I am now dean of Winchester; and that deanry is worth upwards of 600l. a year; my vicarage of S,t. Martin’s is about 500l. a year, and this last I should be glad of an opportunity of resigning, on account of the great trouble and little leisure which so large a parish gives me; but if I should out-live my father, who is upwards of eighty years

S‘. Martin’s church, and gradually in the heuie of lords as carl of Ba’.h, ld, I shall come to his estate, being his eldest son, which will enable me to resign my vicarage; and the profits of the deanry alone, with my father’s estate, will make me quite contented.' The archbishop smiled, and said, " Well, if you will not help yourself, your friends must do it for you.' Accordingly he spoke to the earl of Bath, and they two agreed to try what they could do to make the dean of Winchester a bishop.

"In 1748 the bishopric of Bangor became vacant. The dean was then at Winchester, and received there a letter from Mr. Clark (afterwards sir Thomas, and master of the rolls) informing him, that lord chancellor Hardwicke wished to see dean Pearce thought of on that occasion, and that he hoped the dean would answer Mr. Clarke’s letter in such a way, as when seen, might be approved of by the ministry. Dean Pearce answered the letter with acknowledgment of the favour thought of for him; but assuring Mr. Clark, who, as he perceived, was to communicate the answer to lord Hardwicke, that he had long had no thoughts of desiring a bishopric, and that he was fully satisfied with his situation in the church and that as to the ministry, he was always used to think as favourably of them as they could wish him to do, having never opposed any of the public measures, nor designing so to do. In truth, the dean had then fixed upon a resolution to act no otherwise than as he had told the archbishop he should do, upon his father’s death. The dean received no answer to this letter written to Mr. Clark, and he thought that there was an end of that matter.

"About a fortnight after this, the dean went up to his parish in Westminster; but in his way thither, lay one night at his father’s house, in Little Ealing, near Brentford; where, the next morning early, a letter was brought to him from the duke of Newcastle by one of his grace’s servants, signifying that his grace had his majesty’s order to make the dean of Winchester an offer of the bishopric of Bangor, and desiring to see him at the cockpit the next day at 12 o'clock. Accordingly he waited upon him, when, with many kind expressions to the dean, the duke signified the gracious offer of his majesty, which he had the order to make him. The dean asked his grace, whether he might be permitted to hold his deanry of Winchester in commendam with Bangor, to which the answer was, No; but that he might hold the vicarage of St. Martin’s with it. The dean said, that he was desirous to quit the living, which was troublesome to him, and would be more so as he was growing in years; but if that could not be indulged him, he rather chose to continue in his present situation. The duke used some arguments to persuade the dean to accept of the offer with a commendam to hold the living. He could not, however, prevail with the dean any farther, than that he would take three days’ time to consider of it. During that time, the dean had brought his father and lord Bath to consent, that he might decline to accept of that bishopric without their displeasure; but before the dean saw the duke a second time, lord Hardwicke, then chancellor, sent for him, and desired him to be, without fail, at his house, that evening. He went, and lord Hardwicke told him. that he found, by the duke of Newcastle, that he made difficulties about accepting the bishopric which was so graciously offered him. The dean gave his lordship an account of all that had passed between the duke and him; upon which his lordship used many arguments with the dean to induce him to accept the ofter, as intended. Among other things, he said, * If clergymen of learning and merit will not accept of the bishoprics, how can the ministers of state be blamed, if they are forced to fill them with others less deserving?‘ The dean was struck with that question, and had nothing ready in his thoughts to reply to it. He therefore promised lord Hardwicke to consent, the next day, when he was to see the duke of Newcastle. ’ Well then,‘ said lord Hardwicke, * when you consent, do it with a good grace.’ The dean promised to do that too; and accordingly he declared to the duke, the next day, his ready acceptance of his majesty’s offer, with such acknowledgments of the royal goodness as are proper on the occasion; and on Feb. 21, 1748, he was consecrated bishop of Bangor.

“Sometime after, in the same year (the bishop of Rochester declining very fast), the duke of Newcastle sent to the bishop of Bangor, and desired to see him the n x ext day. He went to him, and the duke informed him, that he was told, -that the chancellorship of Bangor was then vacant, and he pressed the bishop so much to bestow it upon one! whom he had to recommend, that the bishop consented to comply with his request. ‘ Well, my lord,’ said the duke, * now I have another favour to ask of you.‘ * Pray, my lord duke,’ said the bishop, e what is that?‘ c Why,’ said the duke, ‘ it is, that you will accept of the bishopric of Rochester, and deanry of Westminster, in exchange for Bangor, in case the present bishop of Rochester should die.’ * My lord,‘ said the bishop, ’ if I had thoughts of exchanging my bishopric, I should prefer what you mention before any other dignities.‘ ’ That is not,‘ said the duke, * an answer to my question: will you accept them in exchange, if they are offered to you?’ ‘ Your grace offers them to me,’ said the bishop, ‘ in so generous and friendly a manner, that 1 promise you to accept them.’ Here the Conversation ended; and Dr. Wilcocks dying in the beginning of the year 1756, the bishop of Bangor was promoted to the bishopric of Rochester and deanry of Westminster.” On the death of Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, lord Bath spoke to the bishop of Rochester, and offered to use his endeavours with his majesty for appointing him to succeed that eminent prelate; but Dr. Fearce told him, that from the earliest time that he could remember himself to have considered about bishoprics, he had determined nevefc to accept the bishopric of London, or the archbishopric of Canterbury, and he begged his lordship not to make any application in his behalf for the vacant see of London. Lord Bath repeated his offer on the death of Dr. Osbaldiston in 1763, but Dr. Pearce again declined the proposal, and was indeed so far from desiring a higher bishopric, that he now meditated the resignation of what he possessed. This is one of the most remarkable circumstances in the Jife of Dr. Pearce. Being now (1763) seventy-three years old, and finding himself less fit for the duties of bishop and dean, he informed his friend lord Bath of his intention to resign both, and to live in a retired manner upon his own private fortune; and after much discourse upon, the subject at different times, he prevailed upon his lordship at last to acquaint his majesty with his intention, and to desire, in the bishop’s name, the honour of a private audience from his majesty for that purpose. This being granted, Dr. Pearce stated his motives as he had done to lord Bath, adding that he was desirous to retire for the opportunity of spending more time in his devotions and studies; and that he was of the same way of thinking with a general officer of the emperor Charles V. who, when he desired a dismission from that monarch’s service, told him, ‘.’ Sir, every wise man would, at the latter end of life, wish to have an interval between the fatigues of business and eternity.“The bishop then shewed the king, in a written paper, instances of its having been done several times, and concluded with telling his majesty, that he did not expect or desire an immediate answer to his request, but rather that his majesty would first consult some pf his ministers as to the propriety and legality of it. This the king consented to do; and about two months after, he sent for the bishop and told him, that he had consulted with two of his lawyers, lord Mansfield and lord Northington, who saw no objection to the proposed resignation, and in consequence of their opinion, his majesty signified his own consent. The interference, however, of lord Bath, in requesting that his majesty would give the bishopric and deanry to Dr. Newton, then bishop of Bristol, alarmed the ministry, who thought that no dignities in the church should be obtained from the crown, but through their hands. Lord Northington suggested to his majesty some doubts on the subject, and represented that the bishops in general disliked the design; and at length Dr. Pearce was told by his majesty, that he must think 110 more about resigning Vtae bishopric but” that he would have all the merit of having done it." In 1768, however, he was permitted to resign his deanry, which was nearly double in. point of income to the bishopric which he was obliged to retain.

Bishop Pearce married, in Feb. 22, the daughter of Mr. Adams, an eminent distiller in Holborn, with a considerable fortune, and lived with her upwards of fifty-one years in the highest degree of connubial happiness. Their children all dying young, he made his brother William Pearce, esq. his heir and executor. He bequeathed his library to the dean and chapter of Westminster, except such books as they already had. His manuscripts, with the books not left to Westminster, and the copy-right of all his works, except the Longinus sold to Mr. Tonson, he gave to his chaplain, the rev. John Derby. Besides some legacies to individuals, and some to various public charities, he left a noble bequest of five thousand pounds Old South Sea Annuities, towards the better support of the twenty widows of clergymen, who are maintained in the college of Bromley, the funds of which had become too seamy for that kind of genteel provision intended by the founder, bishop Warner. Bishop Pearce’s benefaction raised the widow’s pensions to 30l. per ann. and the chaplain’s salary to 60l. His heir, William Pearce, esq. who died in 1782, left a reversionary legacy of 12,Ooo/. for the purpose of building ten houses for clergymen’s widows, in addition to bishop Warner’s college, and endowing them. This legacy falling in a few years ago, the houses were completed in 1802.

The diligence of bishop Pearce’s early studies, says his biographer, appeared by its effects; he was first known to the public by philological learning, which he continued to cultivate in his advanced age. Cicero “De Oratore” was published by him, when he was bachelor of arts, and Cicero “De Omciis, when he was dean of Wiucheste in 1745. The edition of Cicero undertaken by Olivet, produced a correspondence between him and Dr. Pearce, in which Olivet expresses, in terms of great respect, his esteem, of his learning, and his confidence in his criticism. But Dr. Pearce did not confine his attention to the learned languages: he was particularly studious of Milton’s poetry, and when Dr. Bentley published his imaginary emendations of the” Paradise Lost,“wrote in opposition to them a full vindication of the established text. This was published in 1733, 8vo, under the title of Review of the Text of Paradise Lost,” and is now become very scarce; but many, both of the conjectures and refutations, are preserved in bishop Newton’s edition.

Being now possessed of a living, and of some independent personal property inherited from his mother, he married, in April 1732, miss Anne Clarke, the only daughter of Benjamin Clarke, esq. of Stanley, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire. While he resided in Kent, which was for the space of twenty years, he made himself universally acceptable by his general knowledge, his agreeable conversation, and his vivacity. Having an early propensity to the study of antiquities as well as of the classics, he here laid the foundation of what in time became a considerable collection of books, and his cabinet of coins grew in proportion; by which two assemblages, so scarce among country gentlemen in general, he was qualified to pursue those collateral studies, without neglecting his parochial duties, to which he was always assiduously attentive. Here, however, the placid course of his life was interrupted by the death of Mrs. Pegge, whom he lamented with unfeigned sorrow; and now meditated on some mode of removing himself, without disadvantage, to his native country, either by obtaining a preferment tenable with his present vicarage, or by exchanging this for an equivalent. Having been induced to reside for some time at Surrenden, to superintend the education of Sir Edward Dering’s son, that baronef obtained for him the perpetual curacy of Brampton, near Chesterfield, in the gift of the dean of Lincoln; but the parishioners insisting that they had a right to the presentation, law proceedings took place, before the termination of which in favour of the dean of Lincoln, Mr. Pegge was presented by the new dean of Lincoln, Dr. George, to the rectory of Whittington, near Chesterfield. He was accordingly inducted Nov. 11, 1751, and resided here upwards of forty-four years without interruption. About a fortnight after, by the interest of his friend sir Edward Dering with the duke of Devonshire, he was inducted into the rectory of Brinhill, or Brindle, in Lancashire, on which he resigned Godmersham. Sir Edward also obtained for him in the same year a scarf from the marquis of Hartington (afterwards the fourth duke of Devonshire) who was then called up to the house of peers by the title of baron Cavendish of Hard wick. In 1758 Mr. Pegge was enabled, by the acquiescence of the duke of Devonshire, to exchange Brinhill for Heath, alias Lown, which lies within seven miles of Whittington; a very commodious measure, as it brought his parochial preferments within a smaller distance of each other. The vicarage of Heath he held till his death. His other preferments were, in 1765, the perpetual curacy ofWingerworth; the prebend of Bobenhull, in the church of Lichfield, in 1757; the living of Whittington in Staffordshire, in 1763; and the prebend of Louth, in Lincoln church, in 1772. Towards the close of his life he declined accepting a residentiaryship in the church of Lichfield, being too old to endure, with tolerable convenience, a removal from time to time. His chief patron was archbishop Cornwallis, but he had an admirer, if not a patron, in every dignitary of the church who knew him; and his protracted life, and his frequent and almost uninterrupted literary labours, made him very generally known. In 1791, when on a visit to his grandson, sir Christopher Pegge, of Oxford, he was created LL. D. by that university. He died, after a fortnight’s illness, Feb. 14, 1796, in the ninety-second year of his age, and was buried, according to his own desire, in the chancel of the church of Whittington, near Chesterfield, where his son placed a mural tablet of black marble, over the east window, with a short inscription.

His independent publications on numismatical, antiquarian, and biographical subjects were also very numerous: 1. “A Series of Dissertations on some elegant and very raluable Anglo-Saxon Remains,” 1756, 4to. 2. “Memoirs of Roger de Weseham, dean of Lincoln, afterwards bishop of Lichfield, and the principal favourite of Robert Grossetete, bishop of Lincoln,” 1761, 4to. 3. “An Essay on the Coins of Cunobelin in an epistle to the right rev. bishop of Carlisle (Dr. Lyttelton), president of the society of antiquaries,” 1766, 4to. 4. “An assemblage of coins fabricated by authority of the archbishops of Canterbury. To which are subjoined two Dissertations,” 1772, 4to. 5. “Fitz-Stephen’s Description of the city of London,” &c. 1772, 4to. 6. “The Forme of Cury. A roll of ancient English cookery, compiled about the year 1390, temp. Rich. II. with a copious index and glossary, 7 ' 1780, 8vo. The original of this curious roll was the property of the late Gustavus Brander, esq. who presented it afterwards to the British Museum. Prefixed to this publication is his portrait, engraved at the expence of Mr. Brander. 7.” Annales Eliae de Trickenham, monachi ordinis Benedictini. Ex Bibliotheca Lamethana.“To which is added,” Compendium compertorum; ex bibliotheca ducis Devoniae,“1789, in 4to. Both parts of this publication contain copious annotations by the editor. The former was communicated by Mr. Nichols, to whom it is inscribed,” ad Johannem Nicolsium, celeberrimum typographum;“and the latter was published by permission of the duke of Devonshire, to whom it is dedicated. 8.” The Life of Robert Grossetete, the celebrated bishop of Lincoln,“1793, 4to. This has very justly been considered as the chef-d'oeuvre- of the author. Seldom has research into an obscure period been more successful. It is a valuable addition to our literary history. 9.” An historical account of Beauchief Abbey, in the county of Derby, from its first foundation to its final dissolution,“1801, 4to. 10.” Anonymiana; or Ten centuries of observations on various authors and subjects," 1809, 8vo, a very entertaining assemblage of judicious remarks and anecdotes. It is needless to add that these two last publications were posthumous.

, an eminent dissenting minister, distinguished for his zealous defence of the principles of nonConformity, and a no less zealous latitudinarian in opinion, was born in 1673, at Wapping in London, of reputable parents. By hrs mother, who died last, when he was about seven years old, he, with a brother and sister, both older than himself, was committed to Mr. Matthew Mead, the famous dissenting minister at Stepney, as his guardian, at whose house he lived for some time after his mother’s death, and was taught by the same tutors Mr. Mead kept for his own sons. He was afterwards, by Mr. Mead’s direction, put to other grammar-schools, and at last sent to Utrecht in Holland, where he had his academical institution, and studied under Witsius, Leydecker, Graevius, Leusden, De Vries, and Luyts, and was well known to the celebrated Mr. Hadrian Reland, who was then his fellow student, and afterwards when he was professor corresponded with Mr. Peirce. The latter part of his time abroad Mr. Peirce spent at Leyden, where he attended Perizonius and Noodt especially, hearing Gronovius, Mark and Spanheim, occasionally; and with some of these professors in both universities he afterwards held a correspondence. After he had spent above five years in these two places, he lived privately in England, for some time at London, among his relations, and for some time at Oxford, where he lodged in a private house, and frequented the Bodleian library. After this, at the desire of his friends, he preached an evening lecture on Sundays at the meeting-house in Miles-lane, London, and occasionally in other places, until he settled at Cambridge, where he was treated with great respect and civility by many gentlemen of the university. In 1713 he was removed to a congregation at Exeter, where he continued till 1718, when a controversy arising among the dissenters about the doctrine of the Trinity, from which some of them were at this time departing, three articles were proposed to him, and Mr. Joseph HalJet, senior, another dissenting minister in Exeter, in order to he subscribed; which both of them refused, and were ejected from their congregation. After this a new meeting was opened March 15, 1618-9, in that city, of which Mr. Peirce continued minister till his death, which happened March 30, 1726, in the 53d year of his age. His funeral sermon was preached April the 3d following by Mr. Joseph Hallet, jun. and printed at London, 1726, in 8vo; in which he was restrained by Mr. Peirce himself from bestowing any encomiums on him; but Mr. Hallet observes in a letter, that “he was a man of the strictest virtue, exemplary piety, and great learning; and was exceedingly communicative of his knowledge. He would condescend to converse on subjects of learning with young men, in whom he found any thirst after useful knowledge; and in his discoursing with them would be extremely free, and treat them as if they had been his equals in learning and years.” His works have been divided into four classes. Under the philosophical class, we find only his “Exercitatio Philosophica de Homoeomeria Anaxagorea,” Utrecht, 1692. But he was more voluminous in the controversy between the church of England and the dissenters. Of the latter he has been esteemed a great champion. In their defence he published, 1. “Eight Letters to Dr. Wells,” London, 1706 and 1707. 2. “Consideration on the sixth Chapter of the Abridgment of the London Cases, relating to Baptism and the sign of the Cross,” London, 1708. 3. “Vindiciae Fratrum Dissentientium in Anglia,” London, 1710, 8vo. 4. “An Enquiry into the present duty of a Low Churchman,” London, 1711, 8vo. 5. “Vindication of the Dissenters,” London, 1717, 8vo. 6. “A Letter to Dr. Bennet, occasioned by his late treatise concerning the Nonjurors’ Separation,” &c. London, 1717, 8vo. 7. “Preface to the Presbyterians not chargeable with King Charles’s death,” Exeter, 1717, in 8vo. 8. “Defence of the' Dissenting Ministry and Ordination,” in two parts, London, 1718, 8vo. 9. “The Dissenters’ Reasons for not writing in behalf of Persecution. Designed for the satisfaction of Dr. Snape, in a letter to him,” London, 1718, 8vo. 10. “Interest of the Whigs with relation to the Test- Act,” London, 1718, 8vo. 11. “Reflections on Dean Sherlock’s Vindication of the Corporation and Test Acts,” London, 1718, 8vo. 12. “Charge of misrepresentations maintained against Dean Sherlock,” London, 1719, 8vo. 13. “Loyalty, integrity, and ingenuity of High Church and the Dissenters compared,” London, 1719, 8vo. Relative to his controversy at Exeter, which produced his ejectment, were published by him, 1. “The Case of the Ministers ejected at Exon,” London, 1719, 8vo. 2. “Defence of the Case,” London, 1719, 8vo. 3. “Animadversions on the true Account of the Proceedings at Salter’s Hall: with a Letter to Mr. Eveleigh,” London, 1719, 8vo. 4. “A Second Letter to Mr. Eveleigh, in answer to his Sober Reply,” Exeter, 1719, 8vo. 5. “A Letter to a subscribing Minister in Defence of the Animadversions,” &c. London, 1719, 8vo. 6. “Remarks upon the Account of what was transacted in the assembly at Exon,” London,

Mr. Pell’s eminence, however, in mathematical knowledge, was now so great, that he was thought worthy of a professor’s chair in that science; and, i.pon the vacancy of one at Amsterdam in 1639, sir William Bos -ell, the English resident with the States-general, used his interest, that he might succeed in that professorship; which was not filled up till above four years after, 1643, when Pell was chosen to it. The year following he published, in two pages 4to, “A Refutation of Longomontamis’s Discourse, De vera circuli mensura,” printed at Amsterdam in 1644. In June 1646, he was invited by the prince of Orange to be professor of philosophy and mathematics at Breda, in the college newly founded there by his highness, with the offer of a salary of 1000 guilders a year. This he accepted, but upon his removal to Breda, he found that he was rt quired to teach mathematics only. His “Idea Matheseos,” which he had addressed to Mr. Hartlib, who in 1639 had sent it to Des Cartes and Mersenne, was printed 1650 at London, 12mo, in English, with the title of “An Idea of Mathematics,” at the end of Mr. John Dury’s “Reformed Library-keeper.” On the death of the prince of Orange, in 1650, and the subsequent war between the English and Dutch, he left Breda, and returned to Eng land, in 1652; and, in 1654, was sent by Cromwell as his agent to the protestant cantons in Switzerland, his instructions being dated March 30th of that year. His first speech in Latin to the deputies of Zurich was on the 13th of June; and he continued in that city during most of his employment in Switzerland, in which he had afterwards the title of resident. Being recalled by Cromwell, he took his leave of the cantons in a Latin speech at Zuricu, the 23d of June, 1658; but returned to England so short a time before the usurper’s death, that he had no opportunity of an audience from him. Why Cromwell employed him does not appear, but it is thought that during his residence abroad, he contributed to the interests of Charles Ji. and the church of England; and it is certain that, after the restoration, he entered into holy orders, although at an unusually advanced period of life. He was ordained deacon March 31, 1661, and priest in June following, by Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln; and, on the 16th of that month, instituted to the rectory of Fobbing in Essex, given him by the king. On Dec. the 5th following, he brought into the upper house of convocation the calendar reformed by him, assisted by Sancroft, afterwards abp. of Canterbury. In 1663, he was presented by Sheldon, bishop of London, to the rectory of Laingdon in Essex; and, upon the promotion of that bishop to the see of Canterbury in the next month, became one of his grace’s domestic chaplains. He was then doctor of divinity, and expected, as Wood tells us, “to be made a dean; but being not a person of activity, as others who mind not learning are, could never rise higher than a rector.” The truth is, adds Wood, “he was a helpless man as to worldly affairs; and his tenants and relations dealt so unkindly by him, that they defrauded him of the profits of his rectory, and kept him so indigent, that he was in want of necessaries, even ink and paper, to his dying day.” He was for some time confined to the King’s-bench prison for debt; but, in March 1682, was invited by Dr. Whistler to live in the college of physicians. Here he continued till June following, when he was obliged, by his ill state of health, to remove to the house of a grandchild of his in St. Margaret’s church-yard, Westminster. From this too he was again removed, for we find that he died at the house (in Dyot street) of Mr. Cothorne, reader of the church of St. Giles’s in the Fields, Dec. the 12th, 1685, and was intecred by the charity of Busby, master of Westminster school, and Sharp, rector of, St. Giles’s, in the rector’s vault under that church. Besides what have been mentioned, Dr. Pell was the author of, 1. “An Exercitation concerning Easter,” 1644, in 4to. 2. “A Table of 10,000 square numbers,” &c. 1672, folio. 3. An Inaugural Oration at his entering upon the Professorship at Breda. 4. He made great alterations and additions to “Rhonius’s Algebra,” printed at London 1668, 4to, under the title of “An Introduction to Algebra; translated out of the High Dutch into English by Thomas Branker, much altered and augmented by D. P. (Dr. Pell).” Also a Table of odd numbers, less than 100,000, shewing those that are incomposite, &c. supputated by the same Thomas Branker. 5. His Controversy with Longomontanus concerning the Quadrature of the Circle, Amsterdam, 1646, 4to. He likewise wrote a Demonstration of the 2d and 10th books of Euclid; which piece was in ms. in the library of lord Brereton in Cheshire: as also'Arrhimedes’s Arenarins, and the greatest part of Diophantus’s six books of Arithmetic; of which author he was preparing, Aug. 1644, a new edition, with 2 corrected translation, and new illustrations. He designed likewise to publish an edition of Apollonius, but laid it aside, in May, 1645, at the desire of Golius, who was engaged in an edition of that author from an Arabic manuscript given him at Aleppo 18 years before. This appears from the letters of Dr. Pell to sir Charles Cavendish, in the Royal Society.

, or the Eater, a celebrated writer in the twelfth century, was born at Troyes, of which city he was canon and dean, afterwards chancellor of the church of Paris. These benefices he resigned to enter as a regular canon of St. Victor at Paris, where he died in October 1198, leaving a work entitled “Scholastica historia super Nov. Test.” which contains an abridgment of the sacred history, from Genesis to the Acts, first printed at Utrecht in 1473, small folio, and reprinted at Vienna in the same year, and several times since. He dedicated this work to cardinal William de Champagne, archbishop of Sens. He is the author likewise of “Sermons,” published by Buse'e, under the name of Peter de Blois, 1600, 4to; and a “Catena temporum,” or universal history, is attributed to him, which was printed at Lubec, 1475, 2 vols, folio, and translated in French under the title of “Mer des Histoires,” Paris, 1488, 2 vols. folio.

Besides Pope, there were some other writers who have written in burlesque of Philips’s poetry, which was singular in its manner, and not difficult to imitate; particularly Mr. Henry Carey, who by some lines in Philips’s style, and which were once thought to be dean Swift’s, fixed on that author the name of Namby Pamby. Isaac Hawkins Browne also imitated him in his Pipe of Tobacco. This, however, is written with great good humour, and though intended to burlesque, is by no means designed to ridicule Philips, he having made the same trial of skill on Swift, Pope, Thomson, Young, and Gibber. As a dramatic writer, Philips has certainly considerable merit, and one of his plays long retained its popularity. This was “The Distressed Mother,” from the French of Racine, acted in 1711. The others were, “The Briton,” a tragedy, acted in 1721; and “Humfrey Duke of Gloucester,” acted also in 1721. The “Distrest Mother” was concluded with the most successful Epilogue, written by Budgell, that was spoken in tin: English theatre. It was also highly praised in the “Spectator.” Philips’s circumstances were in general, through his life, not only easy, but rather affluent, in consequence of his being connected, by his political principles, with persons of great rank and consequence. He was concerned with Dr. Hugh Boulter, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, the right honourable Richard West, lord chancellor of Ireland, the rev. Mr. Gilbert Burnet, and the rev. Mr. Henry Stevens, in writing a series of Papers, many of them very excellent, called “The Free Thinker,” which were all published together by Philips, in 3 vols. 8vo. In the latter part of queen Anne’s reign, he was secretary to the Hanover club, a set of noblemen and gentlemen who had formed an association in honour of that succession, and for the support of its interests; and who used particularly to distinguish in their toasts such of the fair sex as were most zealously attached to the illustrious house of Brunswick. Mr. Philips’s station in this club, together with the zeal shewn in his writings, recommending him to the notice and favour of the new government, he was, soon after the accession of king George I. put into the commission of the peace, and in 1717, appointed one of the commissioners of the lottery. On his friend Dr. Boulter’s being made primate of Ireland, he accompanied that prelate, and in Sept. 1734, was appointed registrar of the prerogative court at Dublin, had other considerable preferments bestowed on him, and was elected a member of the house of commons there, as representative for the county of Armagh. At length, having purchased an annuity for life, of 400l. per annum, became over to England sorne time in 1748, but did not long enjoy his fortune, being struck with a palsy, of which he died June 18, 1749, in his seventy -eighth year, at his house in Hanover-street; and was buried in Audley chapel. “Of his personal character,” says Dr. Johnson, “all I have heard is, that he was eminent for bravery and skill in the sword, and that in conversation he was somewhat solemn and pompous.” He is somewhere called Qunker Philips, for what does not appear. Paul Whitehead relates, that when Mr. Addison was secretary of state, Philips applied to him for some preferment, but was coolly answered, “that it was thought that he was already provided for, by being made a justice for Westminster.” To this observar tion our author with some indignation replied, “Though poetry was a trade he could not live by, yet he scorned to owe subsistence to another which he ought not to live by.” “Among his poems,” says Dr. Johnson, the * Letter from Denmark,‘ may be justly praised; the Pastorals,’ which by the writer of the Guardian were ranked as one of the four genuine productions of the rustic muse, cannot surely he despicable. That they exhibit a mode of life which did not exist, nor ever existed, is not to be objected; the supposition of such a state is allowed to Pastoral. In his other poems he cannot be denied the praise of lines sometimes elegant; but he has seldom much force, or much comprehension. The pieces that please best are those which, from Pope and Pope’s adherents, procured him the name of Namby Pamby, the poems of short lines, by which he paid his court to all ages and characters, from Walpole, the “steerer of the realm,” to Miss Pulteney in the nursery. The numbers are smooth and sprightly, and the diction is seldom faulty. They are not loaded with much thought, yet, if they had been written by Addison, they would have had admirers: little things are not valued but when they are done by those who can do greater. In his translations from Pindar he found the art of reaching all the obscurity of the Theban bard, however he may fall below his sublimity; he will be allowed, if he has less fire, to have more smoke. He has added nothing to English poetry, yet at least half his book deserves to be read: perhaps he valued most himself that part which the critick would reject."

, an English wit and poetess, of no very eminent rank, was the daughter of Dr. Van Lewen, a gentleman of Dutch extraction, who settled in Dublin, by a lady of good family; and born there in 1712. She had early a strong inclination and taste for letters, especially for poetry; and her performances were considered as extraordinary for her years. This, with a lively manner, drew many admirers; and at length she became the wife of the rev. Matthew Pilkington, a gentleman once known in the poetical world by his volume of Miscellanies, revised by dean Swift, who had reason afterwards to be ashamed of the connection. In a short time Mr. Pilkington grew jealous, as she relates, not of her person, but of her understanding; and her poetry, which when a lover he admired with raptures, was changed now he was become her husband, into an object of envy. During these jealousies, Mr. Pilkington, in 1732, went into England, in order to serve as chaplain to Mr. Barber, lord mayor of London; and absence having brought him into better humour with his wife, he wrote her a very kind letter, in which he informed her that her verses were full of elegance and beauty; that Pope, to whom he had shewn them, longed to see the writer; and that he himself wished her heartily in London. She accepted the invitation, went, and returned with her husband to Ireland, where they were soon after separated, in consequence of a gentleman being found in her bed-chamber at two o'clock in the morning. Her apology is rather curious: “Lovers of learning, I am sure, will pardon me, as I solemnly declare it was the attractive charms of a new book, which the gentleman would not lend me, but consented to stay till I read it through, that was the sole motive of my detaining him.” Of her guilt, however, no doubts were entertained. “Dr. Delany,” says dean Swift, in a letter to alderman Barber, “is a very unlucky recommender, for he forced me to countenance Pilkington; introduced him to me, and praised the wit, virtue, and humour of him and his wife; whereas he proved the falsest rogue, and she the most profligate w e in either kingdom. She was taken in the fact by her own husband; he is now suing for a divorce, and will not compass it; she is suing for a maintenance, and he has none to give her.”

, a learned jurist, son of a professor of law of the same name, was born at Bourges in 1612. He was admitted an advocate in the parliament of Paris in 1633, and rose to various honours in his profession; and was, at his death, sub-dean of the company of advocates. He owed his success in life to his great knowledge of the law of benefices, in which he was regarded as the oracle, and which he illustrated by several learned works. Of these were, “Traité des Benefices;” “La Pragmatique Sanction de St. Louis, et celle de Charles VII. avec Commentaires” “Notes sommaires sur les Indults, accorded a Louis XIV. &c.” “Trait^s des Regales,” 2 vols. 4to, which is said to be a very learned and useful performance. This industrious writer died at Paris, Oct. 10, 1691.

His etchings, particularly of landscapes and birds, from Griffier, are admirable. The free style in which he treated the foliage of his trees, proves his judgment and good taste; and his portraits in mezzotinto are excellent. Among the latter, Strutt mentions bishop Crew, archbishop Sterne, Dr. Comber, dean of Durham, Henry Gyles, the artist, and general Lambert. In Thoresby’s Topography of Leeds are some churches drawn by Place; the plates for Godartius’s book of Insects are by him; and he also executed many views in Yorkshire.

, an able physician, was born at Chemnitz, in Misnia, in August 1694. He was first intended for merchandize, but the rapid progress which he made in his studies, induced his father to consent that he should direct his attention to medicine, for which he had manifested a strong inclination. He studied, therefore, at Leipsic, for three years, and afterwards at Halle, where he received the degree of doctor in September 1716. He then travelled through various parts of Europe, for four years, and finally settled at Leipsic in 1720. In 1721 he was appointed professor extraordinary of anatomy and surgery. In 1724 he obtained the chair of physiology, which had become vacant by the death of Rivinus; in 1737 he was promoted to the professorship of pathology and in 1747 to that of therapeutics. He was also nominated perpetual dean of the faculty, and consulting physician to the court of Saxony. He did not live long, however, to 6njoy these flattering distinctions; for he was carried off suddenly on the 19th of December 1747, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, by a paroxysm of asthma.

, D. D. who was distantly related to the preceding, but added the e to his name, was the son of Mr. Richard Pococke, sequestrator of the. church of All-saints in Southampton, and head master of the freeschool there, by the only daughter of the rev. Mr. Isaac Milles, minister of Highcleer in Hampshire, and was born at Southampton in 1704. He received his scbool-learning there, and his academical education at Corpns-Christi college, Oxford, where he took his degree of LL. B. May 5, 1731 and that of LL. D. (being then precentor of Lismore) June 28, 1733 together with Dr. Seeker, then rector of St. James’s, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. He began his travels into the East in 1737, and returned in 1742, and was made precentor of Waterford in 1744. In 1743, he published the first part of those travels, under the title of “A Description of the East, and of some other Countries, vol. I. Observations on Egypt.” In 1744 he was made precentor of Waterford, and in 1745 he printed the second volume under the same title, “Observations on Palestine, or the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, and Candia,” which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, then made lord-lieutenant of Ireland attended his lordship thither as one of his domestic chaplains, and was soon after appointed by his lordship archdeacon of Dublin. In March 1756, he was promoted by the duke of Devonshire (then lord-lieutenant) to the bishopric of Ossory, vacant by the death of Dr. Edward Maurice. He was translated by the king’s letter from Ossory to Elphin, in June 1765, bishop Gore of Elphin bc'ing then promoted to Meath; but bishop Gore finding a great sum was to be paid to his predecessor’s executors for the house at Ardbracean, declined taking out his patent; and therefore bishop Pococke, in July, was translated by the duke of Northumberland directly to the see of Meath, and died in the month of September the same year, suddenly, of an apoplectic stroke, while he was in the course of his visitation. An eulogium of his Description of Egypt is given in a work entitled “Pauli Ernestt Jablonski Pantheon Ægyptiorum, Praetat. ad part, iii.” He penetrated no further up the Nile than to Philse, now Gieuret Ell Hiereff; whereas Mr. Norden, in 1737, went as far as Derri, between the two cataracts. The two travellers are supposed to have met on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Esnay, in Jan. 1738. But the fact, as Dr. Pococke told some of his friends, was, that being on his return, not knowing that Mr. Norden was gone up, he passed by him in the night, without having the pleasure of seeing him. There was an admirable whole length of the bishop, in a Turkish dress, painted by Liotard, in the possession of the late Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter, his first cousin. He was a great traveller, and visited other places besides the East His description of a rock on the westside of Dunbar harbour in Scotland, resembling the GiantsCauseway, is in the Philos. Trans, vol. LII. art. 17; and in Archaeologia,vol. II. p. 32, his account of some antiquities found in Ireland. When travelling through Scotland (where he preached several times to crowded congregations), he stopped at Dingwal, and said he was much struck and pleased with its appearance for the situation of it brought Jerusalem to his remembrance, and he pointed out the hill which resembled Calvary. The same similitude was observed by him in regard to Dartmouth but a 4to volume of his letters, containing his travels ia England and Scotland, was lost. He preached a sermon in 1761 for the benefit of the Magdalen charity in London, and one in 1762 before the incorporated Society in Dublin.

, son of the preceding, was born at Nancy in 1563, and educated at the college of Navarre, at Paris, where he distinguished himself by his rapid advancement in the knowledge of the languages, belles lettres, and philosophy. He received the degree of M. A, in the university of Paris in 1581, and immediately commenced his career in the schools of medicine, which he pursued at Paris, Padua, and other schools of Italy. When he returned to Paris in 1588 he took his bachelor’s degree in medicine, and became a licentiate but having already expended his little income on the previous parts of his medical progress, he was obliged to leave Paris without having taken the degree of doctor. He then returned to his native city, where duke Charles III. of Lorraine appointed him his consulting physician, and Duke Henry II. instituted a faculty of medicine at Pont-aMousson, and nominated him dean and first professor. Being now enabled to take his doctor’s degree, he went to Paris for that purpose and, on his return, commenced the duties of his professorship in November 1598, which he performed for many years with the highest reputation, and enjoyed very extensive practice until his death, which was occasioned by the plague, at Nancy, whither he had gone to administer relief to those afflicted by that disorder, in 1633. His principal publication is entitled “Selectiorum Observationum et Consiliorum de proeteritis hactenus morbis, effectibusque praeter naturam ab aqua, seu scrosa colluvie et deiuvie ortis, Liber singularis,” Pont-a-Mousson, 1618, in quarto'. This work passed through several subsequent editions, one of which, (that of Ley den 1733), was published, with a preface, by the celebrated Boerhaave. A selection from, or an abridgment of it, was also printed in 1639, with the title of “Piso enucleatus,” in 12mo. His other works were, “Physicum Cometae Speculum,” Ponte ad Montionem, 1619, in 8vo and “Discours de la Nature, Causes, et Remedes, tant curatifs que prevservatifs, des maladies populaires, accompagnees de Dysenteric et autres Flux de Ventre,” ibid. 1623, in 12mo. He translated from the. Spanish into Latin, “Ludovici Mercati Institutiones ad usum et examen eorum qui artem luxatoriam exercent,” Francfort, 1625, in folio. He likewise published the following eulogy of his first patron “Caroli III., Serenissimi, Potentissimique Ducis Lotharingiae, &c., Macarismos, seu felicitatis et virtutum egregio Principe dignarum coronse,” 1690.

Pole had acquired a considerable degree of reputation in Italy, which made his mother, now countess of Salisbury, and other friends, desirous of his return, that the same display of his talents might sanction the honours intended for him and it was his design to set out for England in 1525; but being desirous of seeing the jubilee, which was celebrated this year at Rome, he resolved to visit that city first. On his journey to Rome he was, we are told, every where received with great respect but at Rome he contented himself with viewing 1 what was most curious, without appearing at the papal court. On his arrival in England, he was welcomed with great respect by the royal family, and by the public at large, which he seems to have merited by his elegant and accomplished manners, as well as the proficiency he had made in learning. That learning was still his favourite pursuit appears from his requesting from the king a grant of the house dean Colet had built in the Carthusian monastery, where he had first been educated, and where he now devoted himself to study for about two years.

In 1700, when he had attained his twelfth year, he retired with his father to Binfield near Oakingham and for some time was under the care of another priest named Dean, but with so little advantage, that the youth determined to study on a plan of his own, reading all such books as he could procure, but with a decided preference, even at this early age, to poetical works. It does not appear that any of the learned professions were pointed out to him, or that his father attempted in any way to direct his studies. “He was,” says Dr. Warton, “invariably and solely a poet, from the beginning of his life to the end.” Of the poets which he read, Dryden soon became his favourite and model; and we are told that he entreated a friend to carry him to Button’s coffee-house which Dryden. frequented, that he might gratify himself with the hare sight of a man whom he so much admired, and of whom he continued to speak well throughout life.

Towards the end of the above year, 1658, and before his proctorship expired, he obtained leave to travel, but returned probably before 1660, as we then find him dean of Wadham college and when, in the same year Mr. (afterwards, sir) Christopher Wren resigned the professorship of astronomy in Gresham college, Mr. Pope was chosen in his room, and Sept. 12 of that year was created doctor of physic; but the statutes not permitting him to hold both, he was obliged on this occasion to resign his fellowship in Wadham. In May 1663 he was chosen one of the first fellows of the Royal Society along with the other eminent men whom the nation then yielded, and soon after had licence to travel for two years, during which he made the tour of Italy, and remitted to the Royal Society various observations collected on his journey. In 1667 he was chosen into the council of the Royal Society, and in the following year, his half-brother Dr. Wilkins, being promoted to the bishopric of Chester, made him registrar of that diocese. In 1686 he was recovered of an inflammation in his eyes, which endangered the loss of sight, by Dr. Turbervile, an eminent oculist, as he gratefully acknowledged in an epitaph which he wrote upon him after his deatii. In the following year he resigned his Gresham professorship.

, a celebrated divine in the beginning of the seventeenth century, descended from the Prestons, of Preston in Lancashire, was born at Heyford, in Northamptonshire, in Oct. 1587. An uncle on the mother’s side, who resided at Northampton, undertook the care of his education, and placed him at first at the free-school of that town, and afterwards under a Mr. Guest, an able Greek scholar, who resided in Bedfordshire. With him he remained until 1584, when he was admitted of King’s college, Cambridge. Here he applied to what his biographer tells us was at that time the genius of the college, viz. music, studied its theory, and practised on the lute but thinking this a waste of time, he would have applied himself to matters of more importance, could he have remained here, but as not coming from Eton school, he could not be upon the foundation. Being therefore incapable of preferment, he removed to Queen’s college, and by the instructions of Oliver Bowles, an able tutor, he soon became distinguished for his proficiency, especially in the philosophy of Aristotle, and took his degrees with uncommon reputation. Bowles leaving college for a living, his next tutor was Dr. Porter, who, astonished at his talents, recommended him to the notice of the master, Dr. Tyndal, dean of Ely, by whose influence ie was chosen fellow in 1609. This he appears to have thought rather convenient than honourable, for at this time his mind was much set on public life, and on rising at court. He continued, however, to pursue his studies, to which he now added that of medicine; and, although he did this probably without any view to it as a profession, we are told that when any of his pupils were sick, he sometimes took the liberty to alter the physicians’ prescriptions. Botany and astronomy, or rather astrology, also engrossed some part of his attention. But from all these pursuits he was at once diverted by a sermon preached at St. Mary’s by Mr. Cotton, which made such an impression on him, that he immediately resolved on the study of divinity, and began, as was then usual, by perusing the schoolmen. “There was nothing,” says his biographer, “that ever Scotus or Occam wrote, but he had weighed and examined; he delighted much to read them in the first and oldest editions that could be got. I have still a Scotus in a very old print, and a paper not inferior to parchment, that hath his hand and notes upon it throughout yet he continued longer in Aquinas whose sums he would sometimes read as the barber cut his hair, and when it fell upon the place be read, he would not lay down his book, but blow it off,”

Mr. Preston’s part in this singular disputation might have led to favour at court, if he had been desirous of it and sir Futk Greville, afterwards lord Brook, was so pleased with his performance that he settled 50l. per ann. upon him, and was his friend ever after; but he was now seriously intent on the office of a preacher of the gospel, and having studied Calvin, and adopted his religious opinions, he became suspected of puritanism, which was then much discouraged at court. In the mean time his reputation for learning induced many persons of eminence to place their sons under his tuition and Fuller tells us, he was “the greatest pupil- monger ever known in England, having sixteen fellow-commons admitted into Queen’s college in one year,” while he continued himself so assiduous in his studies as considerably to impair his health. When it came to his turn to be dean and catechistof his college, he began such a course of divinity -lectures as might direct the juniors in that study; and these being of the popular kind, were so much frequented, not only by the members of other colleges, but by the townsmen, that a complaint was at length made to the vice-chancellor, and an order given that no townsmen or scholars of other colleges should be permitted to attend. His character for puritanism seems now to have been generally established, and he was brought into trouble by preaching at St. Botolph’s church, although prohibited by Dr. Newcomb, commissary to the chancellor of Ely, who informed the bishop and the king, then at Newmarket, of this irregularity. On the part of Newcomb, this appears to have been the consequence of a private pique; but whatever might be his motive, the matter came to be heard at court, and the issue was, that Mr. Preston was desired to give his sentiments on the 1U turgy at St. Botolph’s church by way of recantation. He accordingly handled the subject in such a manner as cleared himself from any suspicion of disliking the forms of the liturgy, and soon after it came to his turn to preach before the king when at Hinchingbrook. The court that day, a Tuesday, was very thin, the prince and the duke of Buckingham being both absent. After dinner, which Mr. Preston had the honour of partaking at his majesty’s table, he was so much complimented by the king, that when he retired, the marquis of Hamilton recommended him to his majesty to be one of his chaplains, as a man “who had substance and matter in him.” The king assented to this, but remembering his late conduct at Cambridge, declined giving him the appointment.

The following are the works of the abbé Prevot 1. “Memoires d'un Homme de Qualite, qui s’est retire du monde,” 6 vols. 12mo. This romance has been translated into English in 2 vols. 12mo, and in 3 vols. 12mo, under the title of the “Memoirs of the marquis de Bretagne” to which is added, another romance of Prevot' s. See art. 3. 2. “Histoire de M. Cleveland, fils naturel de Cromwell,” 1732, 6 vols. 12mo; an English translation also, 5 vols. J2mo. 3. “Histoire du Chevalier des Grieux, & de Man on Lescaut,” 1733, 12mo. An English translation of this romance has been published separately, and is also affixed to the translation of art. 1. in 3 vols. 4. “Pour & Contre,” a literary journal, 1733, and continued in the following years, 20 vols. 12mo. 5. “The first volume of a translation ofThuanus,” 1733, 4to. 6. “A translation of Dryden’s play, All for Love,” 1735. 7. Le Doyen de Killerine,“1733, 6 vols. 12mo, translated into English, 3 vols. 12mo, under the title of” The Dean of Coleraine.“8.” History of Margaret of Anjou,“1740, 2 vols. 12mu. translated into English, 2 volumes 12mOr 9.” Histoire d'une Grecque Moderne,“1741, 2 vols. 12mo, translated into English, 1 vol. 12mo. 10.” Campagnes Philosophiques, ou Memoires de M. de Montcalm,“1741, 2 vols. 12mo, part history, and part fiction. 11.” Memoires pour servir a Histoire de Malthe,“1742, 12mo. 12.” Histoire de Guillaume le Conquerant Roi d'Angleterre,“1742, 12mo. 13.” Voyages du Captaine R. Lade,“1744, 2 vols. 12mo. 14.” A translation of Cicero’s Letters to Brutus,“with notes, 1744, 12mo; and a translation of his Familiar Letters, 1746, 5 vols. 12mo. 15.” A translation of Middleton’s Life of Cicero,“1743, 4 vols. 12mo. 16.” Memoires d'un honnete homme,“1745. 17.” Histoire generale des Voyages,“1745, &c. 16 vols. 4to, and 64 vols. 12ino. La Harpe has abridged this compilation in 21 vols. 8vo; he has also added, Cook’s Voyages. 18. A Dictionary of the French language, 1751, 8vo, and a new edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 19 and 20.” Clarissa Harlowe,“1751, 12 parts; and,” Sir Charles Grandison,“8 parts, 1755 both translated from Richardson. 21.” Le Monde Moral,“1760, 4 vols. 12mo. 22.” A translation of Hume’s history of the Stuarts,“1760, 3 vols. 4to, and 6 vols. 12mo. 23.” Memoires pour servir a la Histoire de la Vertu,“1762, 4 vols. 12mo, translated from the English. 24.” Almoran and Hamet,“translated from Hawkesworth, 1762, 2 vols. 12mo. And, 25. A posthumous translation from the English, entitled” Letters de Mentor, a une jeune Seigneur," 1764, 12mo.

, a learned English divine, was born at Padstow, in Cornwall, May 3, 1648. He was the son of Edmund Prideaux, esq. of an ancient and honourable family in that county, and was equally well descended by his mother, the daughter of John Moyle, esq. of Bake, in Cornwall. After some elementary education at Liskard and Bodmin, he was placed under Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, and in 1668 admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, by dean Fell. His attainments here must have distinguished him very early: for we find that in 1672, when he took his bachelor’s degree, Dr. Fell employed him to add some notes to an edition of Florus, then printing at the university press: and soon after, he was requested to be the editor of Malela, a Greek historian, from a ms. in the Bodleian library but having represented this as a work not worth the printing, being fabulous and trifling, the design was laid aside, until Dr. Hody, who was of a different opinion, undertook the task. Mr. Prideaux, about the same time, was employed in giving a history of the Arundelian marbles, with a comment, which was published in May 1676, under the title *' Marmora Oxoniensia,“folio. Such a work was well calculated to advance his reputation abroad, as well as at home; and there was such a demand for it, that within a few years it could not be procured but at a very high price. It suffered, however, very much from the carelessness and neglect of a Mr. Bennet, then corrector to the university press, and contained so many typographical errors, that Mr. Prideaux never could speak of it with complacency. A more correct edition was published by Maittaire, in 1732. In 1675 Mr. Prideaux took his degree of M. A. Having, by order, presented one of the copies of the” Marmora“to the lord chancellor Finch, this introduced him to his lordship’s patronage, who soon after placed one of his sons under him, as tutor at Christ Church and in 1679 presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s, in the suburb of Oxford, where he officiated for several years. The same year he published two tracts out of Maimonides in Hebrew, with a Latin translation and notes, under the title ec De Jure pauperis et peregrini apud Judeos.” This he did in consequence of having been appointed Dr. Busby’s Hebrew lecturer in Christ Church, and with a view to teach students the rabbinical dialect, and to read it without points. In 1681, the lord chancellor Finch, then earl of Nottingham, presented him to a prebend in the cathedral of- Norwich. In Nov. 1682, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, and on the death of lord Nottingham, found another patron in his successor sir Francis North; who, in February of the following year, gave him the rectory of Bladen, with Woodstock chapelry, in Oxfordshire; and as Mr. Prideaux had been appointed librarian to Christ Church, to which no salary belongs, he was allowed to hold this living with his student’s place.

He now devoted himself entirely to his studies and the duties of his function, going constantly to Bladen and Woodstock every Sunday; and he kept a resident curate at Woodstock, for the discharge of all parochial duties; for whose convenience, as well as that of his successors, Dr. Fell, now bishop of Oxford, built, at his own expence, a house. The terms of the purchase and building he left to Mr. Prideaux, who completed it in 1685. In college he exerted himself in reforming many abuses, and restoring discipline, which was not very acceptable to many of "the students, but procured him the friendship and esteem of his learned contemporaries at the university, particularly bishop Fell and Drs. Pocock, Marshall, Bernard, Mills, Godolphin, &c. On the death of bishop Fell, when king James imposed a popish dean on Christ Church, Mr. Prideaux determined to quit Oxford, and settle on his cures; and accordingly, having, in 1686, proceeded doctor in divinity, he exchanged his living of Bladen for the rectory of Saham. in Norfolk, and then left Oxford, to which he never returned. A few days before this he attended the funeral of his revered friend, Dr. Fell.

In 1691, on the death of Dr. Pocock, his professorship (of Hebrew) was offered to Dr. Prideaux but he declined it, says his biographer, “for several reasons, which at that time made it inconvenient to him to accept it, but afterwards it proved much to his detriment that he did not.” As after the act of toleration, many people imagined themselves at liberty either to go to church or stay at home, as they thought proper, by which means the churches were much deserted, Dr. Prideaux drew up a circular letter, directed to the ministers of his archdeaconry, which was afterwards published, in 1701, at the end of his “Directions to Churchwardens.” In 1694, rinding his health impaired by the aguish air of Saham, he determined to return again with his family to Norwich but, instead of putting in a curate at Saham, he thought it his duty to give up both benefice and office, which he accordingly did, into the hands of the bishop of the diocese, and informed the warden and fellows of New college, Oxford, the patrons of the living, of his resignation. On his return to Norwich, the care of the cathedral affairs again devolved upon him, in the absence of the dean (Dr. Fairfax), who resided mostly in London. In 1696, the dean and chapter presented him to the vicarage of Trowse, worth about 40l. and situated a mile from Norwich. Here he officiated with the same assiduity and regularity as at Saham, and that purely for the love of duty for, in addition to his other preferments, he had a private fortune, which rendered this last vicarage of no consequence in a pecuniary view.

In 1697 he published his “Life of Mahomet ,” 8vo, of which three editions were printed the first year. He intended to have written a history of the Saracen empire, and with it the decay and fall of the Christian religion but he gave up this design for reasons stated in the preface to the Life of Mahomet. This valuable work was followed by his useful little treatise called “Directions to Churchwardens,” whose negligence he had very much experienced in his archdeaconry this has gone through many editions. In 1702, on the death of the dean of Norwich, Dr. Henry Fairfax, Dr. Prideaux was installed as his successor on June 8th of that year, and a more proper person could not be found. He now continued, with better effect, if possible, that attention to regularity and discipline which he had before paid and although this made him obnoxious to the persons whom he censured or dismissed, the benefit to the general body was too obvious not to be approved. In December 1702, on a public thanksgivingday for the success of the expedition to Vigo, he preached a sermon on the subject, which we notice as the only one he ever printed and, had it been left to his own inclination, would never have been thought of by himself for that purpose. In 1703 he published a tract in vindication of the ecclesiastical law, which gives the successor in any ecclesiastical benefice or promotion, all the profits, from the day of the avoidance. This was occasioned by an alteration in the law which bishop Burnet was about to have introduced; but our author’s arguments carried such weight, that the design was given up.

Being enabled, however, to return to his studies, after improving a new edition of his “Directions to Church Wardens,” in 1712> he proceeded with that greater work, on which his reputation with posterity principally depends. It was entitled “The Connection of the History of the Old and New Testament;” the first part of which was published in 1715, -the second in 17 1, foL Both parts were received with the greatest approbation, and went through eight editions in 4 vols. 8vo, at London, besides two or three at Dublin, before the end of 1720, since which it has been often reprinted, and is indeed accounted a standard book in every theological library. This history takes in the affairs of Egypt, Assyria, and all the other eastern nations, as well as the Jews and likewise those of Greece and Rome, as far as was necessary to give a distinct view of the completion of the prophecies which relate to the times comprehended in the history. The author has also set in the clearest light some passages of prophane history, which before lay dispersed and buried in confusion and there appears throughout the whole work such an amiable spirit of sincerity and candour, as sufficiently atones for the few mistakes which escaped his diligence. Gordon, the author of “Cato’s Letters,” had certainly no prejudices in favour of Prideaux, or of his work yet he styles it “a body of universal history, written with such capacity, accuracy, industry, and honesty, as make it one of the best books that ever came into the world, and shew him to be one of the greatest men in it. No book was ever more universally read and approved it is, indeed, a great public service done to mankind, and entities the author to the highest public gratitude and honour. But though I never saw any great work, to which 1 found fewer objections, yet as a memorable proof how inseparably mistakes and prejudices cleave to the mind of man, the great and candid Dr. Prideaux is not without them. I therefore do not upbraid him with them, but rather admire him for having so few. There are, however, some of his theological observations, which seem to me not only ill-grounded, but to have a tendency to create in his readers wrong notions of the Deity, and to encourage them to mistake the common accidents of life, and the common events of nature, for judgments 4 and to apply them superstitiously as such.” There are letters between the dean, and his cousin Mr. Moyie, concerning some passages in this “Connection,” &c. printed in the “Miscellaneous Works” of the latter, and in Dr. Prideaux’s life. No man could be more willing to listen to reasonable objections, or to correct what could be proved to be wrong. Candour was the distinguishing feature of Dean Prideaux’s character.

, Earl Of Bath, an eminent English statesman, was descended from an ancient family, who took their surname from a place of that appellation in Leicestershire. His grandfather, sir William Pulteney, was member of parliament for the city of Westminster, and highly distinguished himself in the House of Commons by his manly and spirited eloquence. Of his father, little is upon record. He was born in 1682, and educated at Westminster school and Christ-church, Oxford, where his talents and industry became so conspicuous, that dean Aldrich appointed him to make the congratulatory speech to queen Anne, on her visit to the college. Having travelled through various parts of Europe, he returned to his riative country with a mind highly improved, and came into parliament for the borough of Heydon in Yorkshire, by the interest of Mr. Guy, his protector and great benefactor, who left him 40,000l. and an estate of 500l. a year.

His sentiments will further appear by his publishing his “Paraphrase on the Acts, and all the Epistles,” in the manner of Dr. Clarke. This was followed by his “Paraphrase on the Revelation of St. John,” and on the “Historical books of the Old Testament;” all which, comprising what was thought necessary for illustration, within a small compass, and in a plain and perspicuous manner, were much recommended and much read. His writings are generally characterised by perspicuity and manly sense, rather than by any elevation of style yet in the delivery of his sermons, so impressive was his elocution that, both in the metropolis and in the country, he was one of the most admi /ed preachers of his time. His sole aim was to amend or improve his auditors. For this purpose he addressed himself, not to their passions, but to their understandings and consciences. He judiciously preferred a plainness, united with a force of expression, to all affectation of elegance or rhetorical sublimity, and delivered hi* discourses with so just and animated a torie of voice, as never failed to gain universal attention. Although he lived in friendship and familiar correspondence with many eminent churchmen, as bishop Hoadly, Dr. Clarke, Dr. Sykes, &c. yet he remained long in a situation of comparative obscurity. This, according to a passage in one of archbishop Herring’s letters to Mr. Duncomb, was, “in some measure, owing to himself; for that very impetuosity of spirit which, under proper government, renders him the agreeable creature he is, has, in some circumstances of life, got the better of him, and hurt his views.” This probably alludes to his being heterodox with respect to the Trinity, which was common with most of the divines with whom he associated. He continued to be preacher at St. Nicholas, King’s Lynn, till 1732, when he succeeded to the vicarage of St. Margaret, which he held till 1755. Being then no Jonger capable of discharging the duties annexed to it, he gave in his resignation, both to the dean and chapter of Norwich, and also to the mayor and corporation of Lynn, early in the summer of that year. He then retired to SwafFham, where he died, Dec. 31, 1756, aged eighty-two > and was buried in the church of Lynn All Saints.

, or, in French, Cinq-Arbres (John), a learned Hebrew scholar, was born at Aurillac in Auvergne, about the beginning of the sixteenth century. He studied the Oriental languages under Francis Vatable, and became professor of Hebrew and Syriac in the college of France in 1554, and dean of the royal professors, which high office he held at the time of his death in 1587. In 1546 he published his “Hebrew Grammar,” to which was added a short treatise on the Hebrew points. This was often reprinted both in France and elsewhere in 4to, under the title “Linguae Hebraicae institutiones absolutissimae.” The edition of 1609, by father Vignal, besides valuable additions, a treatise on Hebrew poetry and syntax, has the advantage of a most beautiful type, cast by Lebé Quinquarboreus translated into Latin, with notes, the “Targum of Jonathan, son of Uziel, on Jeremiah,” which was published in 1549, and again in 1556, 4to, with additions, and the title “Targum in Osean, Joelem, Amosum,” &c. He also published in 1551 the gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, with the version and notes of Sebastian Munster, and translated into Latin several of the works of Avicenna.

In 1703, Radcliffe was himself taken ill (on Wednesday, March 24), with something like a pleurisy neglected it; drank a bottle of wine at sir Justinian Isham’s on Thursday, took to his bed on Friday and on the 30th was so ill, tiiat it was thought he could not live till the next day. Dr. Stanhope, dean of Canterbury and Mr. Whitfield (then queen’s chaplain, and rector of St. Martin, Ludgate, afterwards vicar of St. Giles, Cripplegate), were sent for by him, and he desired them to assist him. By a will, made the28th, he disposed of the greatest part of his estate to charity; and several thousand pounds, in particular, for the relief of sick seamen set ashore. Mr. Bernard, the serjeant-surgeon, took from him 100 ounces of blood and on the 31st he took a strange resolution of being removed to Kensington, notwithstanding his weakness, from which the most pressing entreaties of his friends could not divert him. In the warmest time of the day he rose, and was carried by four men in a chair to Kensington, whither he got with difficulty, having fainted away in his chair. “Being put to bed,” says Dr. Atterbury, on whose authority we relate these particulars, “he fell asleep immediately, and it is concluded now (April 1) that he may do well so that the town- physicians, who expected to share his practice, begin now to think themselves disappointed.” Two days after, the same writer adds, “Dr. Radclitfe is past all danger: his escape is next to miraculous. It hath made him not only very serious, but very devout. The person who faath read prayers to him often (and particularly this day) tells me, he never saw a man more in earnest. The queen asked Mr. Bernard how he did and when he told her that he was ungovernable, and would observe no rules, she answered, that then nobody had reason to take any thing ill from, him, since it was plain he used other people no worse than he used himself.”

In 1713 he was elected into parliament for the town of Buckingham. In the last illness of queen Anne, he was sent for to Carshalton, about noon, by order of the council. He said, “he had taken physic, and could not come.” Mr. Ford, from whose letter to Dr. Swift this anecdote is taken, observes, “In all probability he had saved her life for I am told the late lord Gower had been often in the same condition, wtth the gout in his head.” In the account that is given of Dr. Radcliffe in the “Biographia Britannica,” it is said, that the queen was struck with death the twenty-eighth of July that Dr. Radcliffe’s name was not once mentioned, either by the queen or “any lord of the council” only that lady Masham sent to him, without their knowledge, two hours before the queen’s death. In this letter from Mr. Ford to dean Swift, which is dated the thirty-first of July, it is said, that the queen’s disorder began between eight and nine the morning before, which was the thirtieth and that about noon, the same day, Radcliffe was sent for by an order of council. These accounts being contradictory, the reader will probably want some assistance to determine what were the facts. As to the time when the queen was taken ill, Mr. Ford’s account is most likely to be true, as he was upon the spot, and in a situation which insured him the best intelligence. As to the time when the doctor was sent for, the account in the Biog. Brit, is manifestly wrong for if the doctor had been sent for only two hours before the queen’s death, which happened incontestably on the first of August, Mr. Ford could not have mentioned the fact on the 31st of July, when his letter was dated. Whether Radcliffe was sent for by lady Masham, or by order of council, h therefore the only point to be determined. That he was generally reported to have been sent for by order of council is certain but a letter is printed in the “Biographia,” said to have been written by the doctor to one of his friends, which, supposing it to be genuine, will prove, that the doctor maintained the contrary. On the 5th of August, four days after the queen’s death, a member of the House of Commons, a friend of the doctor’s, who was also a member, and one who always voted on the same side, moved, that he might be summoned to attend in his place, in order to be censured for not attending on her majesty. Upon this occasion the doctor is said to have written the following letter to another of his friends

, a pious and exemplary bishop of Carlisle, was born April 20, 1608, at Bliton, a village in Lincolnshire near Gainsborough. His father, Thomas, was at this time rector of Bliton, and afterwards of Wintringham in the same county; both which preferments he owed to the Wrays of Glentworth. He married Rebecca Allen, daughter of the rev. David Allen, rector of Ludbrough, a very learned lady, who had been successfully taught Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, by her father. Under such parents he had the advantage of a religious as well as learned education. For the latter purpose he was sent first to Fillingham, and next, in 16 19, to the public school of Gainsborough, whence, in April 1620, he was removed to Peterborough in Northamptonshire, and put under the tuition of Dr. John Williams, afterwards archbishop of York, but then a prebendary of Peterborough, and a good friend of old Mr. Rainbow. In order to have the farther advantage of this gentleman’s protection, he was sent, in June 1621, to Westminster school, Dr. Williams being then dean of Westminster. In all these places his progress was marked by great diligence and proficiency in his studies, and a conduct which did credit to the instructions of his parents.

Kirton school; to which he had now removed, was never much to his liking, and he therefore soon left it, and came to London. When he was admitted to orders does not appear, but we first hear of his preaching at Glentworth in 1632. In London he first took up his residence in Eulier’s Rents, but in three months removed to Sion college for the sake of the library there. He also became a candidate for the preachership of Lincoln’s-inn, but was not successful. In June of that year, however, he was appointed curate at the Savoy, and being invited back to his college by Dr. Smith the master, and some others of the society, he was, in 1634, admitted to a fellowship. After his return to the university, he appears to have resided occasionally, or for some stated time, annually, at London, where, in the year above mentioned, he preached one sermon, printed at the request of his friends, and another in 1639 hut it was at the university that his sermons were most admired, and his hearers most numerous. Here too, as in the case of the tripos, he was suddenly called upon to supply the place of a gentleman who was unexpectedly absent, and acquitted himself with great credit, in an extempore discourse. He does not, however, appear to have reviewed his early sermons with much pleasure, finding that he had indulged too much in a declamatory kind of style, which he did not think becoming in such compositions, nor to be preferred to the plain exposition of the doctrinal parts of the Holy Scriptures. With the same conscientious feeling, when he became a college tutor in 1635, he added to other branches of instruction, a knowledge of the foundation and superstructure of religion and so acceptable was his mode of teaching, that the master of the college recommended to his care, the sons of some noblemen, particularly Theophilus earl of Suffolk. In 1639, he was chosen dean of his college, and the following year attended James earl of Suffolk, son to Theophilus, to the Long parliament. In 1642, on the death of Dr. Smith, he was elected master of Magdalen college, with the concurrence of the earl. In 1646 he took his degree of D. D. and chose for the subject of his thesis a defence of the principles of the church of England, as containing every thing necessary to salvation. For some time he does not appear to have been molested for this attempt to support a church which the majority were endeavouring to pull down. In 1650, however, when he refused to sign a protestation Against the king, he was deprived of the mastership, which he was very willing to give up rather than comply with the party in power. His steady friend, however, the earl of Suffolk, gave him the small living of Little Chesterford near Audley Inn in Essex, in 1652, but this he held only by his lordship’s presentation, as he determined never to submit to an examination by the republican triers, as they were called.

In June 1579, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and in June 1585 that of doctor, and on both occasions maintained theses which had for their subject, the defence of the church of England in her separation from that of Rome. This was a point which he had carefully studied by a perusal of ecclesiastical records and histories. He held also a controversy with Hart, a champion for popery and on this, as well as well as every other occasiqn, acquitted himself with so much ability, that in 1586, when a new divinity lecture watf founded at Oxford by sir Francis Walsingham, principal secretary of state, he desired that Dr. Rainolds might be the first lecturer, and he was accordingly chosen. Wood and Collier, whose prejudices against the reformation are sometimes but thinly disguised, represent the design of the founder and of others in the university with whom he consulted, as being “to make the difference between the churches wide enough”-*-“to make the religion of the church of Rome more odious, and the difference betwixt them and the protestants to appear more irreconcileable,” &c. The intention, however, plainly was, to counteract the industry of the popish party in propagating their opinions and seducing the students of the university, in which they were too frequently successful. And Wood allows that the founder o? this lecture, “that he might not fail of his purpose to rout the papists and their religion,” could not have chosen a fitter person, for Rainolds was a man of infinite reading, and of a vast memory. He accordingly read this lecture in the divinity school thrice a week in full term, and had a crowded auditory. Wood says erroneously, that when appointed to this lecture he was dean of Lincoln; but this dignity was not conferred upon him until 1593, (not 1598 as Wood says). It was the gift of the queen, who was much pleased with the report of his services in opposing popery, and offered him a bishopric but he preferred a college life, where he thought he could do most good by training up a race of defenders of the reformation, a measure then of great importance. That he might have no temptation to relax in this care, he, in 1598, exchanged the deanery of Lincoln for the presidentship of Corpus Christ! college, and was elected Dec. 11 of that year, and soon after removed to the president’s lodgings at Corpus, from some chambers which he had been allowed in Queen’s college. To Corpus Christ! he became an eminent benefactor by restoring their finances, which had been impoverished by the neglect or avarice of some of his predecessors, at the same time that he made more effectual provision for the scholars, chaplains, and clerks, that he might retain in college such as were useful. He also repaired the chapel, hall, and library; but his more particular attention was paid to the rules of discipline, and the proficiency of the students in learning and religion.

In 1603, when the Hampton-court conference took place, we find him ranged on the puritan side; on this occasion, he was their spokesman, and it may therefore be necessary to give some account of what he proposed, as this will enable the reader in some measure to determine how far the puritans of the following reign can claim him as their ancestor. At this conference, he proposed, 1. “That the Doctrine of the Church might be preserved in purity, according to God’s word.” 2. “That good Pastors might be planted in all churches to preach the same.” 3. “That the Church*government might be sincerely ministred according to God’s word.” 4. “That the book of Common Prayer might be fitted to the more increase of Piety.” With regard to the first he moved his majesty, that the book of “Articles of Religion” concluded in 1562, might be explained in places obscure, and enlarged where some things were defective. For example, whereas Art. 16, the words are these, “After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace;” notwithstanding the meaning may be sound, yet he desired, that because they may seem to be contrary to the doctrine of God’s Predestination and Election in the 17th Article, both these words might be explained with this or the like addition, “yet neither totally nor finally v and also that the nine assertions orthodoxall, as he termed them, i. e. the Lambeth articles, might be inserted into that book of articles. Secondly, where it is said in the 23d Article, that it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of preaching or administering the Sacraments” in the. congregation,“before he be. lawfully called, Dr. Rainolds took exception to these words,” in the congregation,“as implying a lawfulness for any whatsoever, * 4 out of the congregation,” to preach and administer the Sacraments, though he had no lawful calling thereunto. Thirdly, in the 25th Article, these words touching “Confirmation, grown partly of the corrupt following the Apostles,” being opposite to those in the collect of Confirmation in the Communion-book, “upon whom after the example of the Apostles,” argue, said he, a contrariety each to other; the first confessing confirmation to be a depraved imitation of the Apostles; the second grounding it upon their example, Acts viii. 19, as if the bishop by confirming of children, did by imposing of hands, as the Apostles in those places, give the visible Graces of the Holy Ghost. And therefore he desired, that both the contradiction might be considered, and this ground of Confirmation examined. Dr. Rainolds afterwards objected to a defect in the 37th Article, wherein, he said, these words, “The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this land,” were not sufficient, unless it were added, “nor ought to have.” He next moved, that this proposition, “the intention of the minister is not of the essence of the Sacrament,” might be added to the book of Articles, the rather because some in England had preached it to be essential. And here again he repeated his request concerning the nine “orthodoxall assertions” concluded at Lambeth. He then complained, that the Catechism in the Common-Prayer-book was too brief; for which/reason one by Nowel, late dean of St. Paul’s, was added, and that too long for young novices to learn by heart. He requested, therefore, that one uniform Catechism might be made, which, and none other, might be generally received. He next took notice of the profanation of the Sabbath, and the contempt of his majesty’s proclamation for reforming that abuse; and desired some stronger remedy might be applied. His next request was for a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. were corrupt and not answerable to the original of which he gave three instances. He then desired his majesty, that unlawful and seditious books might be suppressed, at least restrained, and imparted to a few. He proceeded now to the second point, and desired that learned ministers might be planted in every parish. He next went on to the fourth point relating to the Common -Prayer, and jcomplained of the imposing Subscription, since it was a great impediment to a learned ministry; and in treated, that “it might not be exacted as formerly, for which many good men were kept ont, others removed, and many disquieted. To subscribe according to the statutes of the realm, namely, to the articles of religion, and the king’s supremacy, they were not unwilling. Their reason of their backwardness to subscribe otherwise was, first, the books Apocryphal, which the Common-Prayer enjoined to be read in the church, albeit there are, in some of those chapters appointed, manifest errors, directly repugnant to tjie scriptures. . The next scruple against subscription was, that in the Common-Prayer it is twice set down, ‘Jesus said to his Disciples,’ when as by the text original it is plain, that he spake to the Pharisees. The third objection against subscription were ‘ Interrogatories in Baptism,’ propounded to infants.” Dr. Rainolds owned “the use of the Cross to have been ever since the Apostles time; but this was the difficulty, to prove it of that ancient use in Baptism.” He afterwards took exceptions at those words in the Office of Matrimony, “With my body I thee worship” and objected against the churching of women by the name of Purification. Under the third general head touching Discipline he took exception to the committing of ecclesiastical censures to lay-chancellors. “His reason was, that the statute made in king Henry’s time for their authority that way was abrogated in queen Mary’s time, and not revived in the late queen’s days, and abridged by the bishops themselves, 1571, ordering that the said lay-chancellors should not excommunicate in matters of correction, and anno 1584 and 1589, not in matters of instance, but to be done only by them, who had the power of the keys.” He then desired, that according to certain provincial constitutions, they of the clergy might have meetings once every three weeks first, in rural deaneries, and therein to have the liberty of prophesying, according as archbishop Grindal and other bishops desired of her late majesty. Secondly, that such things, as could not be resolved upon there, might be referred from thence to the episcopal synods, where the bishop with his Presbyteri should determine all such points as before could not be decided. Notwithstanding our author’s conduct at this conference, Dr. Simon Patrick observes, that he professed himself a conformist to the church of England, and died so. He remarks, that Dr. Richard Crakanthorp tells the archbishop of Spalato, that the doctor was no Puritan (as the archbishop called him). “For, first, be professed, that he appeared unwillingly in the cause at Hampton-court, and merely in obedience to the king’s command. And then he spoke not one word there against the hierarchy. Nay, he acknowledged it to be consonant to the word of God in his conference with Hart. And in an answer to Sanders’ s book of the ‘ Schism of England 7 (which is in the archbishop’s library) he professes, that he approves of the book of * consecrating and ordering bishops, priests, and deacons.’ He was also a strict observer of all the orders of the church and university both in public and his own college; wearing tbte square cap and surplice, kneeling at the Sacrament, and he himself commemorating their benefactors at the times their statutes appointed, and reading that chapter of Ecclesiasticus, which is on such occasions used. In a letter also of his to archbishop Bancroft (then in Dr. Crakanthorp’s hands), he professes himself conformable to the church of England, ‘ willingly and from his heart,’ his conscience admonishing him so to be. And thus he remained persuaded to his last breath, desiring to receive absolution according to the manner prescribed in our liturgy, when he lay on his death-bed which he did from Dr. Holland, the king’s professor in Oxford, kissing his hand in token of his love and joy, and within a few hours after resigned up his soul to God.”

, an eminent English divine in the seventeenth century, was second son of sir Carew Ralegh (elder brother of the celebrated sir Walter Ralegh.) His mother was relict of sir John Thynne, of Longleate, in Wiltshire, and daughter of sir William Wroughton, viceadmiral under sir John Dudley (afterwards duke of Northumberland) in the expedition against the Scots in 1544. He was born at Downton, in Wiltshire, in 1586, and educated in Winchester-school, whence he was sent to Magdalen college, Oxford, of which he became a commoner in Michaelmas term, 1602. In June 1605, he took the degree of B. A. and in June 1608, that of master and being a noted disputant, was made junior of the public act the same year, in which he distinguished himself to great advantage. About that time he entered into holy orders, and became chaplain to William earl of Pembroke, in whose family he spent about two years, when he was collated by his lordship to the rectory of Chedzoy, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, in the latter end of 1620. Being settled here, he married Mary, the daughter of sir Richard Gibbs, and sister of Dr. Charles Gibbs, prebendary of Westminster. He was afterwards collated to a minor prebend in the church of Wells, and to the rectory of Streat, with the chapel of Walton in Wiltshire. About the time of the death of his patron, the earl of Pembroke, which happened in 1630, he became chaplain in ordinary to king Charles I, and by that title was created D. D. in 1636. January the 13th, 1641, he was admitted dean of Wells on the death of Dr. George Warburton. During the rebellion he was sequestered on account of his loyalty, and afterwards treated with the utmost barbarity. It being his month to wait on the king as his chaplain, the committee of Somersetshire raised the rabble, and commissioned the soldiers to plunder his parsonage-house at Chedzoy and in his absence they seized upon all his estate spiritual and temporal, drove away his cattle and horses, which they found upon his ground, and turned his family out of doors. His lady was forced to lie two nights in the corn-fields, it being a capital crime for any of the parishioners to afford them lodging. After this she went to Downton, in Wiltshire, the seat of sir Carew Ralegh, where her husband met her. The king’s party having had some success in the West, Dr. Ralegh had an opportunity to return to his family, and resettle at Chedzoy but the parliament party soon gained the ascendant by the defeat of the lord Goring, and he was obliged to take refuge at Bridgewater, then garrisoned by the king. Here he continued till that town was surrendered to Fairfax and Cromwell, when he was taken prisoner, and after much severe usage set upon a poor horse, with his legs tied under the belly of it, and so carried to his house at Chedzoy, which was then the head -quarters of Fairfax and Cromwell and being extremely sick through his former ill treatment, obtained the favour of continuing prisoner in his own house. But as soon as the generals marched, Henry Jeanes, who was solicitous for his rectory of Chedzoy, and afterwards succeeded him in it, entered violently into the house, took the doctor out of his bed, and carried him away prisoner with all his goods. His wife and children were exposed to such necessities, that they must have perished if colonel Ash. had not procured them the income of some small tenements, which the doctor had purchased at Chedzoy, After this Dr. Ralegh wa& sent prisoner to Ilchester, the county-gaol; thence to Banwell-house, and thence to the house belonging to the deanery in Wells, which was turned into a gaol and here, while endeavouring to secrete a letter which he had written to his wife, from impertinent curiosity, he was stabbed by David Barrett, a shoe-maker of that city, who was his keeper, and died of the wound October 10, 1646, and was interred on the 13th of the same month before the dean’s stall, in the choir of the cathedral of Wells. His papers, after his death, such as could be preserved, continued for above thirty years in obscurity, till at last coming into the hands of Dr. Simon Patrick (afterwards bishop of Ely) he published them at London, 1679, in 4to, under this title: “Reliquiae Raleghanae, being Discourses and Sermons on several subjects, by the reverend Dr. Walter Ralegh, dean of Wells, and chaplain in ordinary to his late majesty king Charles the First.” This editor tells us, that “besides the quickness of his wit and ready elocution, he was master of a very strong reason which won him the familiarity and friendship of those great men -who were the envy of the last age, and the wonder of this, the lord Falkland, Dr. Hammond, and Mr. Chillingvvorth the last of which was wont to say (and no man was a better judge of it than himself) that Dr. Ralegh was the best disputant that ever he met withal; and indeed there is a very great acuteness easily to be observed in his writings, which would have appeared more if he had not been led, by the common vice of those times, to imitate too far a very eminent man (meaning, perhaps, bishop Andrews) rather than follow his own excellent genius.” He is said to have been a believer in the millenium, or reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years, and to have written a book on that subject, which is lost. In 1719 the rev. Lawrence Howell published at Lond. 8vo, “Certain Queries proposed by Roman catholics, and answered by Dr. Walter Ralegh,” &c. which appears to be authentic.

Bishop Randolph died suddenly on the 28th of July, 1813. He was one of the governors of the Charter-house; trustee of the British Museum; dean of the Chapel royal; visitor of Sion college; and provincial dean of Canterbury.

, an eminent English natural philosopher, was the son of a blacksmith at Black Notley, near Braintree, in Essex, and was born there Nov. 29th, 1628. He was bred a scholar at Braintree school; and sent thence, in 1644, to Catharine-hall in Cambridge. Here he continued about two years, and then removed, for some reason orother, to Trinity-college with which, says Derham, he was afterwards much pleased, because in Catharine-hall they chiefly addicted themselves to disputations, while in Trinity the politer arts and sciences were principally cultivated. In Sept. 1649 he was chosen a minor fellow along with his ingenious friend Isaac Barrow, and was chosen major fellow, when he had completed his master’s degree. The learned Duport, famous for his skill in Greek, who had been his tutor, used to say, that the chief of all his pupils, and to whom he esteemed none of the rest comparable, were Mr. Ray and Dr. Barrow. In 1651, Mr. Ray was chosen the Greek lecturer of the college; in 1653, the mathematical lecturer; in 1655, humanity-reader; which three appointments shew the reputation he had acquired, in that early period of his life, for his skill in languages, polite literature, and the sciences. After he had been of greater standing, he was chosen into the respective offices of the college, as praelector primarius, in 1657; junior dean in 1658; and twice college-steward, in 1659 and 1660.

Having now left his fellowship, and visited most parts of his own country, he was desirous of seeing what nature afforded in foreign parts; and accordingly, in April, 1663, himself, with Mr. Willoughby,' Mr. Skippon, and Mr. Nathanael Bacon, went from Dover to Calais, and thence through divers parts of Europe; which, however, it is sufficient just to mention, as Mr. Hay himself, in 1673, published the “Observations” they made in that tour. Towards the end of their journey, Mr. Willoughby and Mr. Ray separated; the former passing through Spain, the latter from Montpelier through France, into England, where he arrived in March, 1665-6. He pursued his philosophical studies with his usual ardour, and became so distinguished, that he was importuned to come into the royal society, and was admitted fellow thereof in 1667. Being then solicited by dean (afterwards bishop) Wilkins, to translate his-“Real Character” into Latin, he consented; and the original manuscript of that work, ready for the press, is still extant in the library of the royal society.

In this mission he and his colleagues were at first interrupted by certain enthusiasts among the soldiers, headed by one Erbury, who maintained that the ordination of these divines was unlawful, and that no ordination was necessary for any man who had gifts. This was a favourite topic in those days, and is not yet exhausted. In the following year he was nominated to the more obnoxious office of one of thevisitors of the university, and in Feb. 1 648 was chosen vice-chancellor, on the recommendation of the earl of Pembroke, then chancellor of the university. ID this last office he was to continue until August 1649. He was also, by a mandate from parliament, which now was supreme in all matters, created D. D. In March 1648 he was appointed dean of Christ church, in the room of Dr. Fell, who was ejected with no common degree of violence, Mrs. Fell and her family being literally dragged out of the deanery house by force. Dr. Reynolds being admitted into office in form, Wood says, “made a polite and accurate oration,” in Latin, in which “he spoke very modestly of himself, and how difficult it Was for a man that had sequestered himself from secular employments to be called to government, especially to sit at the stern in these rough and troublesome times; but since he had subjected himself to those that have authority to command him, he did desire that good example and counsel might prevail more in this reformation than severity and punishments.”

, archbishop of Armagh in the fourteenth century, called sometimes Armaciianus, and sometimes Fitz Ralph, which was his family name, is supposed to have been born in Devonshire, or, according to Harris, at Dunda'k, in the county of Louth. He was educated partly at University, and partly at Balliol, college, Oxford, under the tuition of John Baconthorp, whom we have already noticed as an eminent scholar of that age. He made great progress in philosophy, divinity, and civil law, and became so great a philosopher and logician, “and in both sorts of theology so famed, that the whole university ran to his lectures as bees to their hive.” He commenced doctor of divinity at Oxford, and in 1333 was commissary-general of that university, whence some authors have called him chancellor; but, according to Collier, the office he held was only somewhat superior to that of vice-chancellor. His first church promotion was to the chancellorship of the church of Lincoln, in July 1334; he was next made archdeacon of Chester in 1336, and dean of Lichfield in April 1337. These, or some f them, he owed to the favour of Edward III. to whom he was recommended as well deserving his patronage.

, a man of letters, was originally of Hexham in Northumberland; and was entered of St. John’s college, Cambridge, in 1774. Dr. Ferris, the present dean of Battle, and Dr. Pearce, now dean of Ely, were his tutors at the university. Under the superintendance of those two excellent scholars, he acquired sound learning and a correct taste. He possessed, indeed, an excellent understanding, and a sort of intuitive knowledge of mankind. He distinguished himself at college by the elegance, beauty, and vigour, of his prose and poetical compositions; a love of the Muses very early in life took possession of his mind, and often interfered with the laborious duties of his studies. He entered himself a student of the Middle Temple in 1779, and was called to the bar in 1784. But literary pursuits and political connections took up too much of his time to admit of his pursuing, with sufficient diligence, the study of the law; otherwise, it is highly probable that he would have become a distinguished ornament of the bar. The chief works in which he was publicly known to have taken a part were in those celebrated political satires, “The Rolliad,” and the “Probationary Odes,” in the composition of which his talents were conspicuous. He wrote also the comedy of “The Fugi* live,” which was honoured by a considerable share of applause, both on the stage and in the closet. In private life so happily was the suavity of his temper blended with the vigour of his understanding, that he was esteemed by his adversaries in political principles, as well as by a very large circle of private friends. He was brought into parliament by the duke of Northumberland, in whose friendship he held a distinguished place, and by whose loan of 2000l. (which the duke has given up to his family) he was enabled to become proprietor of a fourth part of Drury-Iane theatre. He was suddenly taken ill on June 8, 1803, and died next day, leaving a widow and four daughters, to lament the loss of their affectionate protector. He was interred in Egham churchyard.

His only son, Robert Richardson, D. D. F. R. S. and S. A. was prebendary of Lincoln, rector of St. Anne’s Westminster, and of Wallington in Hertfordshire, which last was given to him by sir Joseph Yorke, with whom he resided as chaplain many years at the Hague. Whilst in that employment, the papers on both sides, previous to the trial of the great cause, Douglas against Hamilton, being sent over to his excellency, Dr. Richardson, for his own curiosity, digested them, and drew up the state of the question, which was printed in 4to for private distribution, and so well approved by the gentlemen of the bar, that it was put into the hands of the counsel for the party he espoused as their brief; of which perhaps there never was a similar instance. He had the honour to see the opinion he supported confirmed by the House of Peers. After the trial he was offered 400l. in the handsomest manner, but declined accepting it. He died Sept. 27, 1781, at his house in Dean-street, Soho, in his fiftieth year. He printed only two occasional sermons.

The greatest part of 1545 Dr. Ridley spent in retirement at Herne. He had, as we have noticed, been hitherto a believer in transubstantiation, influenced by the decrees of popes and councils, the rhetorical expressions of the fathers, and the letter of scripture; but it is supposed that a perusal of the controversy between Luther and the Zuinglians, with the writings of Ratramnus or Bertram, which had fallen into his hands, induced him to examine more closely into the scriptures, and opinions of the fathers; the result of which was, that this doctrine had no foundation. Cranmer also, to whom he communicated his discoveries, joined with him in the same opinion, as did Latimer. In the close of 1545, Cranmer gave him the eighth stall in St. Peter’s, Westminster. When Edward ascended the throne in 1547, Dr. Ridley was considered as a celebrated preacher, and in his sermons before the king, as well as on other occasions, exposed, with boldness and argument, the errors of popery. About this time, the fellows of Pembroke-hall presented him to the living of Soharo, in the diocese of Norwich; but the presentation being disputed by the bishop, Ridley was admitted to the living by command of the king. On Sept. 4 following, he was promoted to the bishopric of Rochester, vacant by the translation of Dr. Holbeach to the bishopric of Lincoln. He was consecrated Sept. 25, in the chapel belonging to Dr. May, dean of St. Paul’s, in the usual form, by chrism, or holy unction, and imposition of hands; and after an ath renouncing the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, was vested, according to the ancient rites, with the robes and insignia appropriated to his dignity. Yet Dr. Brookes, in the subsequent reign, would not allow Ridley to have been a bishop, and only degraded him from his priest’s orders, which is not easy to be accounted for; because if the pretence was that his abjuration of the pope invalidated his consecration, the same objection might be made to Bonner, Tonstall, Gardiner, &c.

, an able French physician, a native of Amiens, and distinguished by his attainments both in literature and science, is said not only to have written and spoken the learned languages with facility, but to have been thoroughly intimate with the contents of almost all the writings of the ancients. We have, however, very few particulars of his life, unless that he gave lessons in natural philosophy at the college of Boncour, at Paris, where he took his degree in 1574, and held the office of dean of the faculty in 1586 and 1587. He died Oct. 18, 1606. He was a strenuous advocate for the doctrine of Hippocrates and the ancients, whom he defended with great ardour against the chemists. His works, which are indicative of genius, were collected and published, together with some posthumous tracts, at Paris, in 1610, under the title of “Opera Omnia,” and some were separately published, particularly one against the ignorance of the practitioners of surgery in his time, entitled “Ad Impudentiam quorundam Chirurgorum, qui Medicis suquari et Chirurgiam publice profiteri volunt; proveteri dignitate Medicinal Apologia philosophica,” Paris, 1567. This was followed by several pieces on both sides.

In 1549 he was associated with other divines, ordered by Edward VIth’s council to form the new liturgy or common prayer; and thus far, as Dodd remarks, he complied with the reformers; but it does not appear that he advanced much further. In queen Mary’s reign, 1557, he was made dean of Durham, and refused a bishopric. This dignity he might have retained when Elizabeth came to the throne, or have obtained an equivalent; but he refused to take the oath of supremacy. Nothing more is known with certainty of his history, unless that he died about 1560. Among the records collected at the end of Burnet’s History of the Reformation, are, of Robertson’s, “Resolutions of some questions concerning the Sacraments,” and “Resolutions of Questions relating to Bishops and Priests.” His grammatical tracts, entitled “Annotationes in Lib. Gulielmi Lilii.de Lat. Norn, generibus,” &c. were printed together at Basil, 1542, 4to. His reputation as a correct grammarian and successful teacher was very great. Strype says, that after refusing the oath of supremacy, he began to propagate his opinions against the reformation, and was overlooked; but Willis thinks he was taken into custody.

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

, a learned divine and schoolmaster, was born in St. Mary’s parish, in the county of Anglesea, and educated at Winchester school, where he was admitted probationary fellow of New college, Oxford, in 1603, and in 1605 perpetual fellow. He completed his master’s degree in 1611, and about three years after, leaving college, became chief master of Winchester school. He was afterwards archdeacon of Winchester, canon of Wei is, D. D. and archdeacon of Gloucester. Having sided with the party that were reducing the church to the presbyterian form, and taken the covenant, he lost the advantages of his canonry and archdeaconry, but obtained the rectory of Hinton, near Winchester, in room of a loyalist. He died March 30, 1655, and was buried in St. GilesVin-the-Fields, London. Wood gives him the character of an excellent linguist, an able divine, and very conversant in ancient history. He wrote for the use of Winchester school, “Preces; Grammaticalis quaedam & Antiquae Historian Synopsis,” printed together at Oxford in 1616, 8vo “Scholar Wintoniensis Phrases Latinse,” Lond. 1654 and 1664, published by his son Nicholas; and “Annalium mundi universalium, &c. Tomus Unicus, lib. 14. absolutus,” &c. Lond. 1677, fol. improved by Dr. Thomas Peirce, dean of Salisbury, by the king’s command. Wood adds, that he wrote a vindication of the covenant, which he had not seen.

, a distinguished English prelate and statesman, was born at Cleasby, in Yorkshire, Nov. 7, 1650, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford, to which he was afterwards a liberal benefactor. After he had completed his master’s degree, and taken orders, he went about 1683 to Sweden, as domestic chaplain to the British ambassador at that court; and in his absence was appointed first resident, then envoy extraordinary, and lastly ambassador. He remained in this rank until 1708. During this time he published his “Account of Sweden, as it was in 1688,” which is generally printed with lord Molesvvorth’s account of Denmark. On his return to England, her majesty, queen Anne, was so sensible of the value of his services, that she made him dean of Windsor, registrar of the order of the garter, and prebendary of Canterbury. He was also in 1710 preferred to the bishopric of Bristol. His political knowledge recommended him to the confidence of the earl of Oxford, then at the head of administration, who resolved to have him of the privy council. For this purpose, he was first made lord privy seal, and afterwards was admitted to a seat at the council board, where he so distinguished himself that queen Anne made choice of him as one of her plenipotentiaries at the memorable treaty of Utrecht. With what spirit he behaved on this occasion, appears from the common histories of the treaty, and Swift’s “Four last years of the Queen.” He was also appointed one of the commissioners for finishing St. Paul’s cathedral, and for building fifty new churches in London; was a governor of the Charter-house, and dean of the chapel royal. On the death of Dr. Compton in 1714, he was translated to the see of London, and the qneen, indeed, had such regard for him, that had she outlived the archbishop of Canterbury, she would have made Dr. Robinson primate.

In the year 1776, during the controversy respecting the divinity of Christ, which had been carried on principally by members of the church of England, Mr. Robinson published “A Plea for the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.” This piece is written with much ingenuity, and it procured the author a number of handsome compliments, not only from dissenting ministers, but also from several dignitaries of the established church. Among the latter were Dr. HinchlirTe, Bishop of Peterborough, Dr. Hallifax, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Beadon, afterwards bishop of Bath and Weils, and Dr. Tucker, dean of Gloucester. Some years after, Mr. Lindsey published, first without, but afterwards with his name, “An Examination of Mr.Robinson’s Plea for the Divinity of Christ;” to which Mr. Robinson, although frequently called upon, declined to reply. To his friends he said, “The anonymous examiner has not touched my arguments, and his spirit is bitter and contemptuous. His faith stands on criticisms; and my argument is, that if the doctrine requires critical proof, it is not popular, and therefore not divine.” This silence, however, occasioned some suspicion that he was not very sincere, which his conduct afterwards continued. In 1777, Mr. Robinson published a small tract, entitled “The History and Mystery of Good Friday,” in which he employed the same “bitter and contemptuous spirit,” which he had just complained of, in ridiculing the commemoration of the death of our Saviour. In 1778, Mr. Robinson published *' A Plan of Lectures on the Principles of Nonconformity, for the instruction of Catechumens.“This piece contains an outline of the whole controversy of the dissenters with the church of England, and of their history, from the period of the reformation, to 1778, which of course appeared highly satisfactory to his brethren. Towards the close of the same year, he published” An Essay on the Composition of a Sermon, translated from the original French of the rev. John Claude, with Notes,“in 2 vols. 8vo. The preface to the first volume of the Cl Essay” consists of memoirs of the life of the author.

, an antiquary, and a man of taste, was born Aug. 2, 1711, in Dean-street, Soho, and received the first rudiments of education at a private school near the Mews, but he did not for some time after this devote himself seriously to literary pursuits. When he did, however, he exerted that innate industry and application, which constituted a striking part of his character; and, with no aid but his own abilities, overcame all other difficulties which stood in the way of an acquaintance with learning and science. In May 1731, he was placed in the Custom-house, where he executed the duties of the several places which he held, with strict attention and integrity, and at length arrived at the office of clerk of the certificates, in which he continued almost to the end of his life.

, an English divine, was born in 1679, at Ensham in Oxfordshire, where his father was vicar and rector of Wick-Rissington, in Gloucestershire. He was educated at New college school, in Oxford; and, in 1693, elected scholar of Corpus Christi college. After taking the degrees in arts, and entering into orders, he waited a long time for a fellowship, by reason of the slowsuccession in the college; but at length succeeded Mr, Edmund Chishull, in 1706, but in the mean time had becti presented to the vicarage of Buchland, in Berkshire, about ten miles from Oxford, in which he continued about five or six years, dividing his’ time usefully between his cure and the university. At the former he became so popular, that the inhabitants entered into a handsome subscription for an afternoon sermon by him, which was discontinued after he left them. Jn 1710, be took a bachelor of divinity’s degree; and, two years after, went to London, to be lecturer of St. Clement’s Danes. He afterwards became lecturer of the united parishes of Christ-church, and St. Leonard’s Foster-lane. In 1716, he was presented to the rectory of Wrington, in Somersetshire; and, the same year, resigning his fellowship, married the hon. Mrs. Lydia Hare, sister to the lord Colerane, who was his pupil in the university. Some time after, he was elected canon residentiary of the church of Wells; in which he also bore the office of sub-dean. In 1719, he engaged in the Bangorian controversy, and published, upon that occasion, “A Discourse of the visible and invisible Church of Christ: in which it is shewn, that the powers, claimed by the officers of the visible church, are not inconsistent with the supremacy of Christ as head, or with the rights and liberties of Christians, as members of the invisible church,” 8vo. The Rev. Dr. Sykes having published an “Answer to this Discourse,” our author replied to him in “A Review of the Discourse of the visible and invisible Church of Christ.”

The same year, 1726, having resigned his lecture of St. Clement’s Danes, he retired from London, with an intention to spend the remainder of his life in the country, chiefly at Wrington: but he had not been there long, when he received an offer, from the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s, of the vicarage of St. Giles’s Cripplegate, in London. Be was instituted to it, Oct. 1728, but with the greatest anxiety and reluctance; for he had set his heart upon the country, and was then, as he had always been from hi youth, remarkably fond of rural exercises and diversions. He did not enjoy his new preferment above six months; for he died May 1, 1729, in his fiftieth year. He was buried in the parish church of Ensham, where a handsome monument is erected to his memory: his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Marshall. After his decease, some volumes of his sermons were published and two tracts, viz. “Reasons against Conversion to the Church of Rome,” and “A Persuasive to Conformity addressed to Dissenters,” never before printed.

He died suddenly, after a lingering illness, at his lodgings in Dean-street, Soho, March 3, 1801, about fiftyeight years of age, and was buried at St. Giles’s-in-theFields. His drawings, of which he left a large collection, produced, at a sale of four days, the sum of 1240l. He was chosen among those who were elected the first associates of the Royal Academy. There was something rough in his manners, but he was a man of integrity.

, archbishop of Rheims in the fourteenth century, was the son of Matthew le Roye, the fourth of that name, grand master of the French archery, descended from an ancient and illustrious family, originally of Picardy. He was first canon of Noyon, then dean of St. Quintin, and lived at the papal court while the popes resided at Avignon; but followed Gregory XI. to Rome, and afterwards attached himself to the party of Clement VII. and of Peter de Luna, afterwards Benedict XIII. Guy le Roye was successively bishop of Verdun, Castres, and Dol, archbishop of Tours, then of Sens, and lastly, archbishop of Rheims in 1391. He held a provincial council in 1407, and set out to attend the council of Pisa two years after; but on his arrival at Voutre, a town situated five leagues from Genoa, one of his suite happened to quarrel with one of the inhabitants, and killed him. This naturally excited a violent tumult among the populace, who in their fury surrounded the prelate’s hous*e and whiie he was endeavouring to appease them, one of the mob wounded him from a cross-bow, of which he died June 8, 1409. He founded the college of Rheims at Paris, in 1399. He left a book, entitled “Doctrinale Sapientiae,” written in 1388, and translated into French the year following, by a monk of Chigni, under the title of “Doctrinal de Sapience,” printed in 4to, black letter, with the addition of examples and short stories, some of which have a species of simple and rather coarse humour; but not ill adapted to the taste of the times. The good archbishop is said to have written it “for the health of his soul, and of the souls of all his people,” and had such an opinion of its efficacy, that he gave it the authority of homilies, commanding that every parish in his diocese should be provided with a copy, and that the curates and chaplains of the said parishes, should read to the people two or three chapters, with promises of pardon for certain readings. Caxton, who seems to have entertained almost as high an opinion of this work, translated and printed it in 1489, in a folio size. According to Mr. Dibdin, who has given a minute description, with specimens, of this “Doctrinal of Sapyence,” there are not more than four perfect copies extant.

, one of the learned divines who was contemporary with Cudworth, Whichcot, Tillotson, and Worth ington, at the university of Cambridge, was a native of that town, and educated at Christ’s college, of which he became fellow, and probably took his degrees at the usual periods, though we do not find his name in the list of graduates published some years ago. Mr. Joseph Glanvil, in his preface to Dr. Rust’s “Discourse of Truth,” tells us that, when at the university, he “lived in great esteem and reputation for his eminent learning and virtues, and was one of the first in the university who overcame the prejudices of the education of the times before the restoration, and was very instrumental to enlarge others. He had too great a soul for the trifles of that age, and saw early the nakedness of phrases and fancies. He out-grew the pretended orthodoxy of those days, and addicted himself to the primitive learning and theology, in which he even then became a great master.” In 1651 he delivered in his own. chapel a discourse upon Proverbs xx. 27, which in 1655 he preached again at St. Mary’s in Cambridge. This piece was first published by Mr. Joseph Glanvil at London in 1682, in 8vo, under the title of “A Discourse of Truth,” in a volume entitled “Two choice and useful Treatises; the one Lux Orientalis: or an inquiry into the opinion of the Eastern sages concerning the pre-existence of souls: being a key to unlock the grand mysteries of Providence in relation to man’s sin and misery.” The other, “A Discourse of Truth, by the late reverend Dr. Rust, lord bishop of Drornore in Ireland. With annotations on them both.” The annotations are supposed to be written by Dr. Henry More, to who-e school Dr. Rust appears to have belonged. On the restoration, bishop Jeremy Taylor, foreseeing the vacancy in the deanery of Connor in Ireland, sent to Cambridge for some learned and ingenious man, who might be fit for that dignity. The choice tell upon Dr. Rust, which corresponding with the great inclination he had to be conversant with that eminent prelate, he gladly accepted of it, hastened to Ireland, and landed at Dublin about August 1661. He was received with great kindness and respect by bishop Taylor, and preferred to the deanery of Connor as soon as it was void, which was shortly after, and in 1662 to the rectory of the island of Magee in the same diocese. Upon the bishop’s death, August 13, 1667, he preached his funeral sermon, which was printed. The bishoprics were now divided; Dr. Boyle, dean of Cork, was nominated bishop of Down and Connor, and Dr. Rust, bishop of Dromore, in which he continued till his death, which was occasioned by a fever in Dec. 1670. He was interred in the choir of the cathedral of Dromore in a va'ult made for his predecessor bishop Taylor, whose body was deposited there. Mr. Glanvil, who was very particularly acquainted with him, tells us “that he was a man of a clear mind, a deep judgment, and searching wit, greatly learned in all the best sorts of knowledge, old and new, a thoughtfql and diligent inquirer^ of a free understanding and vast capacity, joined with singular modesty and unusual sweetness of temper, which made him the darling of all that knew him. He was a person of great piety and generosity, a hearty lover of God and man, an 'excellent preacher, a wise governor, a profound philosopher, a close reasoner, and above all, a true and exemplary Christian. In short, he was one, who had all the qualifications of a primitive bishop, and of an extraordinary man.” Dr. Rust’s other works were, “A Letter of Resolution concerning Origen and the chief of his opinions,” Lond. 1661, 4to; two sermons, one at the funeral of the earl of Mount-Alexander, the other on the death of bishop Taylor; and “Remains,” published by Henry Hallywell, Lond. 1686, 4to.

, a celebrated Dutch admiral, was born at Flushing in 1607, and entered into the naval service of his country very early. Much of the early part of his life was spent in the service in the West Indies, to which he is said to have made eight voyages, and two to Brasil. Jn 1641 he was sent to the assistance of the Portuguese, who had thrown off the yoke of Spain, and on this occasion he was raised to the rank of rear-admiral. He afterwards rendered some important services on the Barbary coast, entering the road of Sallee in a single ship, although five Algerine corsairs disputed the passage. When war broke out, in 1652, between the English and Dutch, Van Tromp having been disgraced, De Ruyter was appointed to the command of a separate squadron, for the purpose of convoying home a rich fleet of merchantmen. He fell in with the English admiral Ayscough, with whom he had an engagement off Plymouth, in the month of August, which lasted two days, and terminated so far to the advantage of the Dutch, that he brought his convoy safe into port. In the following October De Ruyter aud De Witte had an action with Blake and Ayscough on the Flemish coast, which was severely contested; but De Ruyter, being deserted by some of his captains, found it advisable to retreat to his own coast, the loss having been Dearly equal on both sides. Van Tromp was now restored to the chief command, and De Ruyter had a squadron under him in the battle of December, offFolkstone, in which Blake was obliged to take shelter in the Thames. De Ruyter likewise distinguished himself in the terrible battle of three days, fought in February 1653, between Tromp and Blake, near the mouth of the Channel. In the month of June, Tromp and De Ruyter engaged Monk and Dean off Nieuport; and after a battle of two days, in which the two Dutch admirals successively rescued each other from imminent danger, the Dutch confessed their inferiority by retiring behind their own sand-banks, where having received a reinforcement, they were enabled to attack the English under Monk and Lawson, near Scheveling. In the final battle between the two fleets Tromp was killed, and De Ruyter compelled to withdraw his shattered ships to the Meuse. After the peace, which was concluded the following year, De Ruyter was sent to cruize in the Mediterranean, to reinforce Opdam; and this service being effected, he returned to his station, and put an end to the predatory warfare carried on by the French privateers. The Dutch having quarrelled with Portugal, De Ruyter exhibited his vigilance, taking several Portuguese ships at the mouth of the Tagus, and made several prizes from the Brazil fleet, till a want of provisions obliged him to return to Holland. War having recommenced between the Swedes and Danes in 1658, De Ruyter, who was sent with a fleet to the assistance of the latter, made a descent on the island of Funen, defeated the Swedes, and forced them to surrender at discretion in Nyborg, whither they had retired. He then wintered at Copenhagen, where the king of Denmark ennobled him for his services. In 1662 he was sent with a strong squadron to curb the insolence of the Barbary states, who had exercised their piracy upon the Dutch shipping, and succeeded entirely to the satisfaction of his employers. At the commencement of the disputes between Charles II. and the United Provinces, De Ruyter had a command on the coast of Africa, where he recovered the forts which had been taken from the Dutch by the English, and made prizes of some merchant ships. After the defeat of the fleet of Opdam by the duke of York in 1665, D Ruyter returned, and was raised to the rank of lieutenant-admiralgeneral of the Dutch navy. The first service of De Ruyter was to convoy home a fleet of merchantmen; and in June 1666, the great fleets of the two maritime powers met in the Downs; the Dutch commanded by De lluyter and Tromp, the English by prince Rupert, and Monk, now the duke of Albemarle. In the three days’ fight which ensued, the Dutch had the advantage, though the valour of the English rendered the contest very severe; and on the fourth, the English, who had been the greatest sufferers, withdrew to their harbours.

, D. D. a man whose history affords a very striking example of the folly of party spirit, was the son of Joshua Sacheverell of Marlborough, clerk, who died rector of St. Peter’s church in Marlborough, leaving a numerous family in very low circumstances. By a letter to him from his uncle, in 1711, it appears that he had a brother named Thomas, and a sister Susannah. Henry was put to school at Marlborough, at the charge of Mr. Edward Hearst, an apothecary, who, being his godfather, adopted him as his son. Hearst’s widow put him afterwards to^Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he became demy in 1687, at the age of 15. Here he soon distinguished himself by a regular observation of the duties of the house, by his compositions, good manners, and genteel behaviour; qualifications which recommended him to that society, of which he became fellow, and, as public tutor, had the care of the education of most of the young gentlemen of quality and fortune that were admitted of the college. In this station he had the care of the education of a great many persons eminent for their learning and abilities; and was contemporary and chamberfellow with Addison, and one of his chief intimates till the time of his famous trial. Mr. Addison’s “Account of the greatest English' Poets,” dated April 4, 1694, in a farewell-poem to the Muses on his intending to enter into holy orders, was inscribed <c to Mr. Henry Sacheverell,“his then dearest friend and colleague. Much has been said by Sacheverell’s enemies of his ingratitude to his relations, and of his turbulent behaviour at Oxford; but these appear to have been groundless calumnies, circulated only by the spirit of party. In his younger years he wrote some excellent Latin poems, besides several in the second and third volumes of the” Mus as Anglicanae,“ascribed to his pupils; and there is a good one of some length in the second volume, under his own name (transcribed from the Oxford collection, on queen Mary’s death, 1695). He took the degree of M. A. May 16, 1696; B. D. Feb. 4, 1707; D. D. July 1, 1708. His first preferment was Cannock, or Cank, in the county of Stafford. He was appointed preacher of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, in 1705; and while in this station preached his famous sermons (at Derby, Aug. 14, 1709; and at St. Paul’s, Nov. 9, in the same year) and in one of them was supposed to point at lord Godolphin, under the name of Volpone. It has been suggested, that to this circumstance, as much as to the doctrines contained in his sermons, he was indebted for his prosecution, and eventually for his preferment. Being impeached by the House of Commons, his trial began Feb. 27, 1709-10; and continued until the 23d of March: when he was sentenced to a suspension from preaching for three years, and his two sermons ordered to be burnt. This prosecution, however, overthrew the ministry, and laid the foundation of his fortune. To sir Simon Harcourt, who was counsel for him, he presented a silver bason gilt, with an elegant inscription, written probably by his friend Dr. Alterbury. Dr. Sacheverell, during his suspension, made a kind of triumphal progress through various parts of the kingdom; during which period he was collated to a living near Shrewsbury; and, in the same month that his suspension ended, had the valuable rectory of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, given him by the queen, April 13, 1713. At that time his reputation was so high, that he was enabled to sell the first sermon preached after his sentence expired (on Palm Sunday) for the sum of 100l.; and upwards of 40,000 copies, it is said, were soon sold. We find by Swift’s Journal to Stella, Jan. 22, 1711-12, that he had also interest enough with the ministry to provide very amply for one of his brothers; yet, as the dean had said before, Aug. 24, 1711,” they hated and affected to despise him.“A considerable estate at Callow in Derbyshire was soon after left to him by his kinsman George Sacheverell, esq. In 1716, he prefixed a dedication to” Fifteen Discourses, occasionally delivered before the university of Oxford, by W. Adams, M. A. late student of Christ-church, and rector of Staunton upon Wye, in Oxfordshire.“After this publication, we hear little of him, except by quarrels with his parishioners. He died June 5, 1724; and, by his will, bequeathed to Bp. Atterbury, then in exile, who was supposed to have penned for him the defence he made before the House of Peers , the sum of 500l. The duchess of Maryborough describes Sacheverell as” an ignorant impudent incendiary; a man who was the scorn even of those who made use of him as a tool.“And Bp. Burnet says,” He was a bold insolent man, wiih a very small measure of religion, virtue, learning, or good sense; but he resolved to force himself into popularity and preferment, by the most petulant railings at dissenters and low-church men, in several sermons and libels, written without either chasteness of style or liveliness of expression." Whatever his character, it is evident that he owed every thing to an injudicious prosecution, which defeated the purposes of those who instituted it, and for many years continued those prejudices in the public mind, which a wiser administration w r ould have been anxious to dispel.

, an English antiquary, was the son of the rev. Thomas Salmon, M. A. rector of Mepsall in Bedfordshire, by a daughter of the notorious Serjeant Bradshaw. He was admitted of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, June 11, 1690, where his tutors were dean Moss and archdeacon Lunn, and took the degree of LL. B. in 1695. Soon after he went into orders, and was for some time curate of Westmill in Hertfordshire; but, although he had taken the oaths to king William, he had so many scruples against taking them to his successor, queen Anne, that he became contented to resign the clerical profession, and with it a living of 140l. per annum ’offered him in Suffolk. He then applied himself to the study of physic, which he practised first at St. Ives in Huntingdonshire, and afterwards at Bishops Stortford, in the county of Hertford. His leisure time appears to have been employed in studying the history and antiquities of his country, on which subjects he published, 1. “A Survey of the Roman Antiquities in the Midland Counties in England,” 1726, 8vo. 2. “A Survey of the Roman Stations in Britain, according to the Roman Itinerary,” 1721, 8vo. 3. “The History of Hertfordshire, describing the county and its ancient monuments, particularly the Roman, with the characters of those that have been the chief possessors of the lands, and an account of the most memorable occurrences,” 1728, folio. This was designed as a continuation of Chauncey’s History, and was dedicated to the earl of Hertford. 4. “The Lives of the English Bishops from the Restoration to the Revolution, fit to be opposed to the Aspersions of some late Writers of Secret History,” 1733, a work which we have occasionally found very useful, although the author’s prejudices, in some instances, appear rather strong. 5. “A Survey of the Roman Stations in England,” 1731, (an improved edition probably of the first two works above mentioned) 2 vols. 8vo. C. “The Antiquities of Surrey, collected from the most ancient records, and dedicated to Sir John Evelyn, bart. with some Account of the Present State and Natural History of the County,” 1736, 8vo. 7. “The History and Antiquities of Essex, from the Collections of Mr. Strangeman,” in folio, with some notes and additions of his own; but death put a stop to this work, when he had gone through about two thirds of the county, so that the hundreds of Chelmsford, Hinkford, Lexden, Tendring, and Thurstable, were left unfinished.

, a learned English divine, was the eldest son of Dr. Samuel Salter, prebendary of Norwich, and archdeacon of Norfolk, by Anne-Penelope, the daughter of Dr. John Jeffery, archdeacon of Norwich. He was educated for some time in the free-school of that city, whence he removed to that of the Charter-house, and was admitted of Bene't-college, Cambridge, June 30, 1730, under the tuition of Mr. Charles Skottowe. Soon after his taking the degree of B. A. in 1733, he was chosen into a fellowship, and took his master’s degree in 1737. His natural and acquired abilities recommended him to sir Philip Yorke, then lord-chief-jqstice of the King’s-bench, and afterwards earl of Hardwicke, for the instruction of his eldest son the second earl, who, with three of his brothers, in compliment to abp. Herring, was educated at that college. As soon as that eminent lawyer was made Jordehancellor, he appointed Mr. Salter his domestic chaplain, and gave him a prebend in the church of Gloucester, which he afterwards exchanged for one in that of Norwich. About the time of his quitting Cambridge, he was one of the writers in the “Athenian Letters.” Soon after the chancellor gave Mr. Salter the rectory of Burton Goggles, in the county of Lincoln, in 1740; where he went to reside soon after, and, marrying Miss Seeker, a relation of the then bishop of Oxford, continued there till 1750, when he was nominated minister of Great Yarmouth by the dean and chapter of Norwich. Here he performed the duties of that large parish with great diligence, till his promotion to the preachership at the Charter-house in January 1754, some time before which (in July, 1751), abp. Herring had honoured him with the degree of D. D. at Lambeth. In 1756, he was presented by the lord-chancellor to the rectory of St. Bartholomew near the Royal Exchange, which was the last ecclesiastical preferment he obtained; but in Nov. 1761, he succeeded Dr. Bearcroft as master of the Charter-house, who had been his predecessor in the preachership. While he was a member of Bene't college, he printed Greek Pindaric odes on the nuptials of the princes of Orange and Wales, and a copy of Latin verses on the death of queen Caroline. Besides a sermon preached on occasion of a music-meeting at Gloucester, another before the lord-mayor, Sept. 2, 1740, on the anniversary of the fire of London, a third before the sons of the clergy, 1755, which was much noticed at the time, and underwent several alterations before it was printed; and one before the House of Commons, Jan. 30, 1762; he published “A complete Collection of Sermons and Tracts” of his grandfather Dr. Jeffery, 1751, in 2 vols. 8vo, with his life prefixed, and a new edition of “Moral and Religious Aphorisms,” by Dr. Whichcote, with large additions of some letters that passed between him and Dr. Tuckney, “concerning the Use of Reason in Religion,” &c. and a biograpiiical preface, 1751, 8vo. To these may be added, “Some Queries relative to the Jews, occasioned by a late sermon,” with some other papers occasioned by the “Queries,” published the same year. In 1773 jmd 1774, he revised through the press seven of the celebrated “Letters of Ben Mordecai;” written by the rev. Henry Taylor, of Crawley in Hants. In 1776, Dr. Salter printed for private use, “The first 106 lines of the First Book of the Iliad; nearly as written in Homer’s Time and Country;” and printed also in that year, “Extract from the Statutes of the House, and Orders of the Governors, respecting the Pensioners or poor Brethren” (of the Charterhouse), a large single sheet in folio; in 1777, he corrected the proof-sheets of Bentley’s “Dissertation on Phalaris;” and not long before his death, which happened May 2, 1773, he printed also an inscription to the memory of his parents, an account of all which may be seen in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.” Dr. Salter was buried, by his own express direction, in the most private manner, in the common burial-ground belonging to the brethren of the Charter-house.

, a Spanish prelate, admired for his writings in the fifteenth century, was born at Santa Maria de Nieva, in the diocese of Segovia, in 1404. After being instructed in classical learning, and having studied the canon law for ten years at Salamanca, he was honoured with the degree of doctor in that faculty; but afterwards embraced the eqclesiasUca! profession, received priest’s orders, and was made successively archdeacon of Trevino in the diocese of largos, dean of Leon and dean of Seville. The first preferment he held twenty years, the second seven, and the third two years. Ahout 1440, John II. king of Castille, appointed him envoy to the emperor Frederick III. and he was also afterwards employed in similar commissions or embassies to other crowned heads. When Calixtus III. became pope, Henry IV. king of Castille, sent him to congratulate his holiness, which occasioned him to take up his residence at Rome. In all his embassies, he made harangues to the different princes to whom he was sent, which are still preserved in ms. in the Vatican library. On the accession of pope Paul II. he made Sanchez governor of the castle of St. Angelo, and keeper of the jewels and treasures of the Roman church, and afterwards promoted him to the bishoprics of Zamora, Calahorra, and Palencia. These last appointments, however, were little more than sinecures, as he never quitted Rome, and employed what time he could spare from his official duties in that city in composing a great many works, of which a list of twenty-nine may be seen in our authorities. He died at Rome Oct. 4, 1470$ and was interred in the church of St. James of Spain. Although so voluminous a writer, by far the greater part of his works remain in ms. in the Vatican and other libraries ) we know of three only which were published, 1. his history of Spain, “Historiae Hispanise partes quatuor.” This Marchand seems to think was published separately, but it was added to the “Hispania Illustrata” of Bel and Schott, published at Francfort in 1579, and again in 1603. 2. “Speculum vitse humaoce, in quo de omnibus omnium vitte ordinum ac conditionum commodis ac incommodis tractatur,' r Rome, 1468, folio, which, with three subsequent editions, is accurately described in the” Bibliotheca Speuceriana.“This work contains so many severe reflections on the clergy of the author’s time, that some protestant writers have been disposed to consider him as a brother in disguise. It is certainly singular that he could hazard so much pointed censure in such an age. 3.” Epistola de expugnatione Nigroponti>,“folio, without date, but probably before the author’s death. A copy of this likewise occurs in the” Bibl. Spenceriana." Those who are desirous of farther information respecting Sanchez or his works may be amply gratified in Marchand, who has a prolix article on the subject.

, an eminent English prelate, was born at Fresingfield, in Suffolk, Jan. 30, 1616, and educated in grammar-learning at St. Edmund’s Bury, where he was equally remarkable for diligent application to his studies, and a pious disposition . In July 1634, he was sent to Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he became very accomplished in all branches of literature, took his degree of B. A. in 1637, and that of M. A. in 1641, and was in 1642 chosen fellow of his college. His favourite studies were theology, criticism, history, and poetry , but in all his acquirements he was humble and unostentatious. In 1648 he took the degree of B. D. It is supposed he never subscribed the covenant^ and that this was connived at, because he continued unmolested in his fellowship till 1649; at which time, refusing the engagement, he was ejected. Upon this he went abroad, and became acquainted with the most considerable of the loyal English exiles; and, it is said, he was at Rome when Charles II. was restored. He immediately returned to England, and was made chaplain to Cosin, bishop of Durham, who collated him to the rectory of Houghton-le-Spring, and to the ninth prebend of Durham in March 1661. In the same year he assisted in reviewing the Liturgy, particularly in rectifying the Kalendar and Rubric. In 1662 he was created, by mandamus, D. D. at Cambridge, and elected master of Emanuel college, which he governed with great prudence. In 1664 he was promoted to the deanery of York, which although he held but a few months, he expended on the buildings about 200l. more than he had received. Upon the death of Dr. John Barwick he was removed to the deanery of St. Paul’s; soon after which, he resigned the mastership of Emanuel college, and the rectory of Houghton. On his coming to St. Paul’s he set himself most diligently to repair that cathedral, which had suffered greatly from the savage zeal of the republican fanatics in the civil wars, till the dreadful fire in 1666 suggested the more noble undertaking of rebuilding it. Towards this he gave 1400l. besides what he procured by his interest and solicitations among his private friends, and in parliament, where he obtained the act for laying a duty on coals for the rebuilding of the cathedral. He also rebuilt the deanery, and improved the revenues of it. In Oct. 1668, he was admitted archdeacon of Canterbury, on the king’s presentation, which he resigned in 1670. He was also prolocutor of the lower house of convocation; and was in that station when Charles II. in 1677, advanced him, contrary to his knowledge or inclination, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. In 1678 he published some useful directions concerning letters testimonial to candidates for holy orders. He was himself very conscientious in the admission to orders or the disposal of livings, always preferring men of approved abilities, great learning, and exemplary life. He attended king Charles upon his death-bed, and made a very weighty exhortation to him, in which he is said to have used a good deal of freedom. In 1686 he was named the first in James I I.'s commission for ecclesiastical affairs; but be refused to act in it. About the same time he suspended Wood, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, for residing out of and neglecting his diocese. As one of the governors of the Charter-house, he refused to admit as pensioner in that hospital Andrew Popham, a papist, although he came with a nomination from the court. In June 1688, he joined with six of his brethren the bishops in the famous petition to king James, in which they gave their reasons why they could not cause his declaration for liberty of conscience to be read in churches. For this petition, which the court called a libel, they were committed to the Tower; and, being tried for a misdemeanor on the 29th, were acquitted, to the great joy of the nation. This year the archbishop projected the vain expedient of a comprehension with the protestant dissenters. We have the following account of this in the speech of Dr. W. Wake, bishop of Lincoln, in the house of lords, March 17, 1710, at the opening of the second article of the impeachment against Dr. Sacheverell. “The person,” says he, “who 6rst concerted this design was the late most reverend Dr. Sancroft, then archbishop of Canterbury. The time was towards the end of that unhappy reign of king James II. Then, when we were in the height of our labours, defending the Church of England against the assaults of popery, and thought of nothing else, that wise prelate foreseeing some such revolution as soon after was happily brought about, began to consider how utterly unprepared they had been at the restoration of king Charles II. to settle many things to the advantage of the Church, and what happy opportunity had been lost for want of such a previous care, as he was therefore desirous should now be taken, for the better and more perfect establishment of it. It was visible to all the nation, that the more moderate dissenters were generally so well satisfied with that stand which our divines had made agaiust popery, and the many unanswerable treatises they had published in confutation of it, as to express an unusual readiness to come in to us. And it was therefore thought worth the while, when they were deliberating about those other matters, to consider at the same time what might be done to gain them without doing any prejudice to ourselves. The scheme was laid out, and the several parts of it were committed, not only with the approbation, but by the direction of that great prelate, to such of our divines, as were thought the most proper to he intrusted with it. His grace took one part to himself; another was committed to a then pious and reverend dean (Dr. Patrick), afterwards a bishop of our church. The reviewing of the daily service of our Liturgy, and the Communion Book, was referred to a select number of excellent persons, two of which (archbishop Sharp, and Dr. Moore) are at this time upon our bench and I am sure will bear witness to the truth of my relation. The design was in short this: to improve, and, if possible, to inforce our discipline to review and enlarge our Liturgy, by correcting of some things, by adding of others and if it should be thought adviseable by authority, when this matter should come to be legally considered, first in convocation, then in parliament, by leaving some few ceremonies, confessed to be indifferent in their natures as indifferent in their usage, so as not to be necessarily observed by those who made a scruple of them, till they should be able to overcome either their weaknesses or prejudices, and be willing to comply with them.” In October, accompanied with eight of his- brethren the bishops, Sancroft waited upon the king, who had desired the assistance of their counsels; and advised him, among other things, to annul the ecclesiastical commission, to desist from the exercise of a dispensing power, and to call a free and regular parliament. A few days after, though earnestly pressed by his majesty, he refused to sign a declaration of abhorrence of the prince of Orange’s invasion. In December, on king James’s withdrawing himself, he is said to have signed, and concurred with the lords spiritual and temporal, in a declaration to the prince of Orange, for a free parliament, security of our laws, liberties, properties, and of the church of England in particular, with a due indulgence to protestant dissenters. But in a declaration signed by him Nov. 3, 1688, he says that “he never gave the prince any invitation by word, writing, or otherwise;” it must therefore have been in consequence of the abdication that he joined with the lords in the above declaration. Yet when the prince came to St. James’s, the archbishop neither went to wait on him, though he had once agreed to it, nor did he even send any message. He absented himself likewise from the convention, for which he is severely censured by Burnet, who calls him “a poor-spirited and fearful man, that acted a very mean part in all this great transaction. He resolved,” says he, “neither to act for, nor against, the king’s interest; which, considering his higli post, was thought very unbecoming. For, if he thought, as by his behaviour afterwards it seems he did, that the nation was running into treason, rebellion, and perjury, it was a strange thing to see one who was at the head of the church to sit silent all the while that this was in debate, and not once so much as declare his opinion, by speaking, voting, or protesting, not to mention the other ecclesiastical methods that certainly be.came his character.”

Though of considerable abilities and uncommon learning, he published but very little. The first thing was a Latin dialogue, composed jointly by himself and some of his friends, between a preacher and a thief condemned to the gallows; and is entitled, 1. “Fur Prædestinatus sive, dialogismus inter quendam Ordinis proedicantium Calvinistam etFurem ad laqueum damnatum habitus,” &c. 1651, 12mo. It was levelled at the then-prevailing doctrine of predestination. An edition was published in 18 13; and a translation in the following year, by the rev. Robert Boucher Nickolls, dean of Middleham, with an application to the case of R. Kendall executed at Northampton Aug. 13, 1813. 2. “Modern Politics, taken from Machiavel, Borgia, and other modern authors, by an eye-witness,” 3652, 12mo. 3. “Three Sermons,” afterwards re-printed together in 1694, 8vo. 4. He published bishop Andrews’s “Defence of the vulgar Translation of the Bible,” with a preface of his own. 5. He drew up some offices for Jan. 3O, and May 29. 6. “Nineteen familiar Letters of his to Mr. (afterwards sir Henry) North, of Mildenhall, bart. both before, but principally after, his deprivation, for refusing to take the oaths to king William III. and his retirement to the place of his nativity in Suffolk, found among the papers of the said sir Henry North, never before published,” were printed in 1757, 8vo. In this small collection of the archbishop’s “Familiar Letters,” none of which were probably ever designed to be made public, his talents for epistolary writing appear to great advantage. He left behind him a multitude of' papers and coUections in ms. which upon his decease came into his nephew’s hands; after whose death they were purchased by bishop Tanner for eighty guineas, who gave them, with the rest of his manuscripts, to the Bodleian library. From these the Rev. John Gutch, of Oxford, published in 1781, 2 vols. 8vo, various “Miscellaneous Tracts relating to the History and Antiquities of England and Ireland,” &c.

Years were now coming upon him, and a numerous family demanded a provision; but as it was a new and unpopular thing to see the prelates of the church abandoning their cathedrals and palaces, and retiring to obscure manor-houses on their estates, in order to accumulate fortunes for their children, an abundant portion of obloquy fell upon Sandys, who seldom lived at York, and not very magnificently at Southwell. Yet he visited his diocese regularly, and preached occasionally in his cathedral with great energy and effect. In 1577, during a metropolitical visitation, he came in his progress to Durham, the bishopric of which was then vacant, but was refused admittance by Whittingham, the puritan dean. The archbishop, however, with his wonted firmness proceeded to excommunication. The issue of this contest will come to be noticed in our account of Whittingham. In the month of May 1582, being once more in a progress through his dipcese, a diar bolical attempt was made to blast his character. He happened to lie at an inn in Doncaster; whertf, through the contrivance of sir Robert Stapleton, and other enemies, the inn-keeper’s wife was put to bed to him at midnight when he was asleep. On this, according to agreement, the inn-keeper rushed into the room, waked the archbishop with his noise, and offered a drawn dagger to his breast, pretending to avenge the injury. Immediately sir Robert Stapleton came in, as if called from his chamber by the inn-keeper; and putting on the appearance of a friend, as indeed he had formerly been, and as the archbishop then thought him, advised his grace to make the matter up, laying before him many perils and dangers to his name and the credit of religion that might ensue, if, being one against so many, he should offer to stir in such a cause; and persuading him, that, notwithstanding his innocency, which the archbishop earnestly protested, and Stapleton then acknowledged, it were better to stop the mouths of needy persons than to bring his name into doubtful question. With this advice, Sandys unwarily complied; but, afterwards discovering sir Robert’s malice and treacherous dissimulation, he ventured, in confidence of his own innocency, to be the means himself of bringing the whole cause to examination before the council in the star-chamber. The result of this was, that he was declared entirely innocent of the wicked slanders and imputations raised against him; and that sir Robert Stapleton and his accomplices were first imprisoned, and then fined in a most severe manner. This affair is related at large by sir John Harrington, a contemporary writer; and by Le Neve, who gives a fuller account of it, from an exemplification of the decree, made in the star-chamber, 8 May, 25 Eliz. preserved in the Harieian library.

Dr. Whitaker, whose late life of archbishop Sandys we have irs general followed, as the result of much research and reflection, observes that after all the deductions which truth and impartiality require, it will still remain incontestable, that Sandys was a man of a clear and vigorous understanding, of a taste, in comparison, above that of the former age or the next, and, what is more, of his own: that he was a sincere Christian, a patient sufferer, an indefatigable preacher, an intrepid and active ecclesiastical magistrate. W r hat was his deportment in private life, we are no where told. On the other hand, it cannot be denied, that the man who after his advancement to the episcopal order, in three successive stations, either, kindled the flames of discord, or never extinguished them, who quarrelled alike with protestants and papists, with his successor in one see (Aylmer) and with his dean in another, who in his first two dioceses treated the clergy with a harshness which called for the interposition of the metropolitan, and who drew upon himself from two gentlemen of the country, the extremity of violence and outrage, must have been lamentably defective in Christian meekness and forbearance *. In every instance, indeed, he had met with great provocation, and in the last the treatment he received was atrocious; but such wounds are never gratuitously in-, flicted, and rarely till after a series of irritations on both sides. In doctrinal points his biographer attempts, by various extracts from his sermons, to prove archbishop Sandys less inclined to Calvinism than some of his contem­* We know not if Mr. Lodge has be. easy elegance of a courtier trith as

He was censured by some for not making a bold attempt; and such complaints were sent of this to king William, that his majesty wrote twice to him, pressing him on the subject. But the duke saw that the enemy was well posted and well provided, and had several good officers among them; and knew that, if he met with a check, his whole army, and consequently all Ireland, had been lost, since he could not have made a regular retreat. The surest method was to preserve hi’s army; which would save Ulster, and although his conduct exposed him to the reproaches of some persons, better judges thought, that his management of this campaign was one of the greatest actions of his life. At the battle of the Boyne, July 1, 1690, he passed the river in his station, and immediately rallied and encouraged the French Protestants, who had been left exposed by the death of their commander, with this short harangue; “Aliens, messieurs, voila vos persecuteurs,” pointing to the French Papists in the enemy’s army. But these words were scarcely uttered, when a few of king James’s guards, who returned full speed to their main body, after the slaughter of their companions, and whom the French refugees suffered to pass, thinking them to 1 be of their own party, fell furiously upon the duke, and gave him two wounds over the head, which, however, were not mortal. Upon this, the French regiment acknowledged their error by committing a greater; for, firing rashly on the enemy, they shot him through the neck, of which wound he instantly died. He was buried in St. Patrick’s cathedral, where the dean and chapter erected a small monument to his honour, at their own expence, with an elegant inscription by Dr. Swift, which is printed in the Dean’s works.

During the whole time that he was dean of St. Paul’s, he attended divine service constantly in that cathedral twice every day, whether in residence or not and in concert with the three other residentiaries, established the custom of always- preaching their own turns in the afternoon, or exchanging with each other only, which, excepting the case of illness, or extraordinary accidents, was very punctually observed. He also introduced many salutary regulations in the financial concerns of the church, the keeping of the registers, &c. &c. In the summer months he resided constantly at his episcopal house at Ctiddesden, the vicinity of which to Oxford rendered it very pleasing to a man of his literary turn. His house was the resort of those who were most distinguished for academical merit, and his conversation such as was worthy of his guests, who always left him with a high esteem of his understanding and learning. And though in the warm contest in 1754, for representatives of the county (in which it was scarce possible for any person of eminence to remain neuter), he openly espoused that side 'which was thought most favourable to the principles of the revolution; yet it was without bitterness or vehemence, without ever departing from the decency of his profession, the dignity of his station, or the charity prescribed by his religion.

In the year 1741, a monument was erected to our poet in Westminster Abbey, by the direction of the earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martyn. It was the work of Scheemaker (who received 300l. for it), after a design of Kent, and was opened in January of that year. The performers of each of the London theatres gave a benefit to defray the expences, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster took nothing for the ground. The money received by the performers at Drury-Iane theatre amounted to above 200l. but the receipts at Covent-garden did not exceed 100l. From these imperfect notices, which are all we have been able to collect from the labours of his biographers* and commentators, our readers will perceive that less is known of Shakspeare than of almost any writer who has been considered as an object of laudable curiosity. Nothing could be more highly gratifying than an account of the early studies of this wonderful man, the progress of his pen, his moral and social qualities, his friendships, his failings, and whatever else constitutes personal history. But on all these topics his contemporaries and his immediate successors have been equally silent, and if aught can hereafter be discovered, it must be by exploring sources which have hitherto escaped the anxious researches of those who have devoted their whole lives, and their most vigorous talents, to revive his memory and illustrate his writings. In the sketch. we have given, if the dates of his birth and death be excepted, what is there on which the reader can depend, or for which, if he contend eagerly, he may not be involved in controversy, and perplexed with contradictory opinions and authorities

The merit of dean Sharp was now in the highest estimation, and upon the deprivation of those bishops who refused the oaths to William and Mary, he was considered as a proper person to succeed to one of the vacant sees. But neither the favour of his majesty, nor the persuasion of his friends, could prevail on him Ho accept the offer. He declined the promotion, not from any scruple of conscience, but from a delicacy of feeling; for he entertained a particular esteem for the prelates who were deprived. This refusal, however, which reflects equal honour on his disinterestedness and on his sensibility, displeased the king. But his friend, Dr. Tillotson, the day after his nomination to the see of Canterbury, waited on him, and proposed an expedient, by which he might accede, without violating his resolution, to the kind intention of his majesty. This was, that he should promise to accept the see of York, when it should become vacant, and that he should ground his present refusal on his wish to be preferred to his native county. To this he agreed, and Dr. Tillotson acquainted the king with what had passed; when his majesty signified his approbation of Dr. Sharp’s intention. In a few days afterwards, Lamplugh, the archbishop of York, died, and Sharp was consecrated in his room, July 5, 1691. His elevation to this dignity, says Thoresby, the historian of Leeds, was not only to the comfort and honour of his native county and family, but to the universal satisfaction and joy of the whole nation.

, a younger son of the preceding, was born about 1693. He was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1708, and took his degrees of B. A. in 1712, and M. A. 1716. He was also a fellow of his college, and took the degree of D. D. in 1729. He was chaplain to archbishop Dawes; and in July 1720, was collated to the rectory of Rothbury, in the county of Northumberland. He held the prebend of Southwell, and afterwards that of Wistow, in York cathedral. In 1722, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Northumberland; and in 1755, succeeded Dr. Mangey in the officially of the dean and chapter. He died March 6, 175S, and was interred in Durham cathedral, of which also he had held the tenth prebend from the year 1732. He published a “Concio ad Clerum,” when he took his doctor’s decree; and in 1753, “The Rubric in the book of Common Prayer, and the Canons of the church of England, so far as they relate to the Parochial Clergy, considered in a course of visitation sermons,” 8vo. A volume of his “Sermons on several occasions” was published in 1763, 8vo. Dr. Sharp also engaged, but, as Mr. Jones says, much against his will, in the Hutchinsonian controversy, and published two dissertations concerning the etymology of the Hebrew words Elohim and Berith, and “Discourses on the antiquity of the Hebrew tongue and character.”

In 1801 he published the first part of his second volume, which was in all respects equal to the former. He had now succeeded his father, who died at the close of 1799, in the living of Hartshorn, a village rendered remarkable as the birth-place of the celebrated dean Stanhope, whose father enjoyed this preferment. Here he spent the summer, and found some relaxation from his severe studies, in improving his house and garden. But his enjoyments were not uninterrupted. A bilious habit rendered him perpetually subject to slow fevers. The fatigue of exercise in a burning sun now brought on a more fierce attack. He recovered, however, and returned to London in the winter of 1801, and went on with his work. But it was soon perceived that his constitution had received an alarming shock. Early in the spring he found himself unfit for his usual occupations. A new attack of a dreadful and lamentable fever ensued but from this too he was at length restored. All application to books was now prohibited and in June or July it was deemed advisable for him to pay a visit to the Kentish coast, attended by his only relation, an affectionate half-sister, the daughter of his father by a second wife. They went first to Ramsgate, and thence removed to the more quiet seclusion of Sandgate, near Hythe. Here he passed the autumn, and was so well that he joined some friends in a few days expedition to the opposite coast, and visited Boulogne. Towards the end of October 1802 his disorder suddenly returned with more violence than before. After a struggle of ten days, it was deemed right to remove him to London for better advice, where he died on the 28th, aged forty-one, deeply lamented by all vvho knew him, and leaving a chasm in the department of literature which he had embraced, not easy to be supplied

During his majesty’s being at Newmarket that year, and afterwards in the Isle of Wight, Dr. Sheldon attended on him as one of his chaplains. On March 30, 1647-8, he was ejected from his wardenship by the parliament-visitors, and imprisoned with Dr. Hammond, in Oxlord, and other places, that they might not only be no hindrance to the changes going on in the university, but be prevented from attending the king at the Isle of Wight. Dr. Sheldon remained confined above six months, and then the reforming committee set him at liberty, Oct. 24, 1648, on condition that he should never come within five miles of Oxford; that he should not go to the king in the Isle of Wight, and that he should give security to appear before them at fourteen days’ warning, whenever cited. Upon his release he retired to Snelston in Derbyshire, where, at his own expence, and by contributions from his friends, he sent money constantly to the exiled king, and followed his studies until the approach of the restoration. On March 4, 1659-60, Dr. John Palmer, who iiad ^been placed in the wardenship in his room, dying, and there being an immediate prospect of his majesty’s return, there was no election made of a successor, but Dr. Sheldon was restored, though he never took re-possession. On the king’s return he met his majesty at Canterbury, and was soon after made dean of the royal chapel; and upon bishop Juxon’s translation to the see of Canterbury, was made bishop of London, to which he was elected October 9, 1660, and consecrated the 28th of that month. He held the mastership of the Savoy with that bishopric; and the famous conference between the episcopal and presbyterian clergy concerning alterations to be made in the liturgy, in 1661, was held at his loggings in the Savoy, in the course of which he exerted himself much against the presbyterians. Upon archbishop Juxon’s death he was elected to the see of Canterbury Aug. 11, 1663. In 1665, during the time of the plague, he continued at Lambeth, and exerted the utmost benevolence to those who would otherwise have perished in their necessities; and by his letters to all the bishops, procured considerable sums to be returned out of all parts of his province. On December 20, 1667, he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, but on the 31st of July, 1669, resigned that office. He died at Lambeth, November 9, 1677, in the eightieth year of his age, and was interred in Croydon church in Surrey, where a monument was erected to his memory by his heir, sir Joseph Sheldon, then lately lord mayor of London, son of his elder brother Ralph Sheldon of Stanton in Staffordshire.

, D. D. the intimate friend of Dean Swift, is said by Shield, in Cibber’s “Lives of the Poets,” to have been born about 1684, in the county of Cavan, where, according to the same authority, his parents lived in no very elevated state. They are described as being unable to afford their son the advantages of a liberal education; but he, being observed to give early indications of genius, attracted the notice of a friend to his family, who sent him to the college of Dublin, and contributed towards his support while he remained there. He afterwards entered into orders, and set up a school in Dublin, which long maintained a very high degree of reputation, as well for the attention bestowed on the morals of the scholars, as for their proficiency in literature. So great was the estimation in which this seminary was held, that it is asserted to have produced in some years the sum of one thousand pounds. It does not appear that he had any considerable preferment; but his intimacy with Swift, in 1725, procured for him a living in the south of Ireland, worth about 150l. a year, which he went to take possession of, and, by an act of inadvertence, destroyed all his future expectations of rising in the church; for, being at Corke on the first of August, the anniversary of king George’s birth-day, he preached a sermon, which had for its text, “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.” On this being known, he was struck out of the list of chaplains to the lord-lieutenant, and forbidden the castle.

One of the volumes of Swift’s Miscellanies consists almost entirely of letters between him and the dean. He published a prose translation of Persius-, to which he added the best notes of former editors, together with many judicious ones of his own. This work was printed at London, 1739, in 12mo.

During this massacre, Mr. Sidney preserved his life, by taking refuge with several of his countrymen, in the house of sir Francis Walsingham, the English ambassador; and when the danger was over, proceeded on his travels, tinder the tutorage of Dr. John Watson, then dean, and afterwards bishop of Winchester, to whom sir Francis Walsingham recommended him. Having left Paris, he pursued his journey through Lorraine, by Strasburgh and Heidelberg, to Franc fort. At the latter place, he lodged at the house of Andrew Wechel, the celebrated printer, and here was honoured with the friendship of Hubert Languet (See Languet), who was then a resident from the elector of Saxony; and to him he was principally indebted for his extensive knowledge of the customs and usages of nations, their interests, governments, and laws, and nothing could be more honourable to a youth of the age of nineteen, than the choice of such a companion and guide. Sidney has gratefully commemorated Languet in some lines in the third book of his “Arcadia.” When they were separated, Languet renewed in his letters the strongest assurances of his regard, intermixed with the most useful and most endearing lessons of advice.

During this time, Smalridge did not neglect classical literature, in which he excelled, and afforded an excellent specimen of his talent for Latin poetry in his “Auctio Davisiana,” first printed in 1689, 4to, ancNifterwards added to the “Musae Anglicange.” In July of the same year (1689) he proceeded master of arts, entered into holy orders, and about 1692 was appointed by the dean and chapter of Westminster to be minister of Tothill-fields chapel. In 1693 he was collated to a prebend in the church of Lichfield. In 1700 he took his degree of D. D. and frequently supplied the place of Dr. Jane, then regius professor of divinity, with great approbation, in which office it being his duty to present persons of eminence for their degrees in that faculty, we find him, in 1706, presenting the celebrated Dr. Grabe (whose Mss. he afterwards possessed) in a very elegant speech. On Jane’s death he was strongly recommended by the university to the queen, as a proper person to succeed to the professorship; but his tory principles being particularly obnoxious to the Marlborough party, Dr. Potter, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was preferred. The duchess of Marlborough, however, tells us, that this favour was not so easily obtained from her majesty as some others had been, and that it was not till after much solicitation that Dr. Potter was fixed in the professorship.

In the following year, 1711, he resigned the lectureship of St. Dunstan’s, having been made one of the canons of Christ-church, on the same day that Atterbury was made dean; and the latter having resigned the deanery of Carlisle, Dr. Smalridge succeeded him in that preferment, as he did likewise in the deanery of Christ-church, in 17 Is, when Atterbury was made bishop of Rochester. In 1714 Dr. Smalridge was consecrated bishop of Bristol, and the queen soon after appointed him her lord almoner, in which capacity he for some time served her successor George I.; but refusing to sign the declaration which the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops in and about London had drawn up against the rebellion in 1715, he was removed from that place. In this measure he probably was influenced by Atterbury; but he soon regained his favour with the princess of Wales at least, afterwards queen Caroline, who was his steady patron till his death.

He died in 1710, in his forty-second year, at the seat of George Ducket, esq. called Hartham, in Wiltshire; and was buried in the parish church there. Some time before his death, he engaged in considerable undertakings; and raised expectations in the world, which he did not live to gratify. Oldisworth observes, that he had seen of his about ten sheets of Pindar, translated into English; which, he says, exceeded any thing in that kind he could ever hope for in our language. He had drawn out a plan for a tragedy of Lady Jane Grey, and had written several scenes of it; a subject afterwards nobly executed by Mr. Rowe. But his greatest undertaking was a translation of Longinus, to which he proposed a large addition of notes and observations of his own, with an entire system of the art of poetry in three books, under the titles of “thoughts, diction, and figure.” He intended also to make remarks upon all the ancients and moderns, the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, and English poets; and to animadvert upon their several beauties and defects. Oldisworth has represented Smith as a man abounding with qualities both good and great; and that may perhaps be true, in some degree, though amplified by the partiality of friendship. He had, nevertheless, some defects in his conduct one was an extreme carelessness in the particular of dress which singularity procured him the name of “Captain Rag.” The ladies, it is said, at once commended and reproved him, by the name of the “handsome sloven.” It is acknowledged also, that he was much inclined to intemperance which was caused perhaps by disappointments, but led to that indolence and loss of character, which has been frequently destructive to genius, even of a higher order than he appears to have possessed. Dr. Johnson thus draws up his character: “As his years advanced, he advanced in reputation; for he continued to cultivate his mind; but he did not amend his irregularities, by which, he gave so much offence, that, April 24, 1700, the dean and chapter declared ' the place of Mr. Smith void, he having been convicted of riotous misbehaviour in the house of Mr. Cole, an apothecary; but it was referred to the dean when and upon what occasion the sentence should be put in execution. Thus tenderly was he treated; the governors of his college could hardly keep him, and yet wished that he would not force them to drive him away. Some time afterwards he assumed an appearance of decency; in his own phrase, he whitened himself, having a desire to obtain the censorship, an office of honour and some profit in the college; but when the election came, the preference was given to Mr. Foulkes, his junior; the same, I suppose, that joined with Freind in an edition of part of Demosthenes; it not being thought proper to trust the superintendance of others to a man who took so little care of himself. From this time Smith employed his malice and his wit against the dean, Dr. Aldrich, whom he considered as the opponent of his claim. Of his lampoon upon him, I once heard a single line too gross to be repeated. But he was still a genius and a scholar, and OxtV-rd was unwilling to lose him: he was endured, with all his pranks and his vices, two years longer; but on December 20, 1705, at the instance of all the canons, the sentence declared five years before was put in execution. The execution was, I believe, silent and tender; for one of his friends, from whom I learned much of his life, appeared not to know it. He was now driven to London, where he associated himself with the whigs, whether because they were in power, or because the tories had expelled him, or because he was a whig by principle, may perhaps be doubted. He was, however, caressed by tnen of great abilities, whatever were their party, and was supported by the liberality of those who delighted in his conversation. There was once a design, hinted at by Oldisvvorih, to have made him useful. One evening, as he was sitting with a friend at a tavern, he was called down by the waiter, and, having stayed some time below, came up thoughtful. After a pause, said he to his friend, ‘ He that wanted me below was Addison, whose business was to tell me that a history of the revolution was intended, and to propose that I should undertake it. I said, ’ What shall I do with the character of lord Sunderland?‘ And Addison immediately returned, ’ When, Rag, were you drunk last?' and went away. Captain Rag was a name that he got at Oxford by his negligence of dress. This story I heard from the late Mr. Clark, of Lincoln’s Inn, to whom it was told by the friend of Smith. Such scruples might debar him from some profitable employments; but as they could not deprive him of any real esteem, they left him many friends; and no man was ever better introduced to the theatre than he, who, in that violent conflict of parties, had a prologue and epilogue from the first wits on either side. But learning and nature will now-and-then take different courses. His play pleased the critics, and the critics only. It was, as Addison has recorded, hardly heard the third night. Smith had, indeed, trusted entirely to his merit; had insured no band of applauders, nor used any artifice to force success, and found that naked excellence was not sufficient for its own support. The play, however, was bought by Lintot, who advanced the price from fifty guineas, the current rate, to sixty; and Halifax, the general patron, accepted the dedication. Smith’s indolence kept him from writing the dedication, till Lintot, after fruitless importunity, gave notice that he would publish the play without it. Now, therefore, it was written; and Halifax expected the author with his book, and had prepared to reward him with a place of three hundred pounds a year. Smith, by pride, or caprice, or indolence, or bashful ness, neglected to attend him, though doubtless warned and pressed by his friends, and at last missed his reward by not going to solicit it. In 1709, a year after the exhibition of Phaedra, died John Philips, the friend and fellow-collegian of Smith, who, on that occasion, wrote a poem, which justice must place among the best elegies which our language can shew, an elegant mixture of fondness and admiration, of dignity and softness. There are some passages too ludicrous; but every human performance has its faults. This elegy it was the mode among his friends to purchase fora guinea-, and, as his acquaintance was numerous, it was a very profitable poem. Of his ‘ Pindar,’ mentioned by Oldisworth, I have never otherwise heard. His ‘ Longinus’ he intended to accompany with some illustrations, and had selected his instances of * the false Sublime,’ from the works of Blackmore. He resolved to try again the fortune of the stage, with the story of * Lady Jane Grey.' It is not unlikely that his experience of the inefficacy and incredibility of a mythological tale might determine him to choose an action from English history, at no great distance from our own times, which was to end in a real event, produced by the operation of known characters. Having formed his plan, and collected materials, he declared that a few months would complete his design; and, that he might pursue his work with fewer avocations, he was, in June, 1710, invited by Mr. George Ducket, to his house at Hartham in Wiltshire. Here he found such opportunities of indulgence as did not much forward his studies, and particularly some strong ale, too delicious to be resisted. He ate and drank till he found himself plethoric: and then, resolving to ease himself by evacuation, he wrote to an apothecary in the neighbourhood a prescription of a purge so forcible, that the apothecary thought it his duty to delay it till he had given notice of its danger. Smith, not pleased with the contradiction of a shopman, and boastful of his own knowledge, treated the notice with rude contempt, and swallowed his own medicine, which, in July 1710, brought him to the grave. He was buried at Hartham. Many years afterwards, Ducket communicated to Oldmixon, the historian, an account, pretended to have been received from Smith, that Clarendon’s History was, in its publication, corrupted by Aldrich, Smalridge, and Atterbury; and that Smith was employed to forge and insert the alterations. This story was published triumphantly by Oldmixon, and may be supposed to have been eagerly received: but its progress was soon checked for, finding its way into the journal of Trevoux, it fell under the eye of Atterbury, then an exile in France, who immediately denied the charge, with this remarkable particular, that he never in his whole life had once spoken to Smith; hrs company being, as must be inferred, not accepted by those who attended to their characters. The charge was afterwards very diligently refuted by Dr< Burton of Eton a man eminent for literature, and, though not of the same party with Aldrich and Atterbury, too studious of truth to leave them burthened with a false charge. The testimonies which he has collected have convinced mankind that either Smith or Ducket were guilty of wilful and malicious falsehood. This controversy brought into view those parts of Smith’s life which with more honour to his name might have been concealed. Of Smith I can yet say a little more. He was a man of such estimation among his companions, that the casual censures or praises which he dropped in conversation were considered, like those of Scaliger, as worthy of preservation. He had great readiness and exactness of criticism, and by a cursory glance over a new composition would exactly tell all its faults and beauties. He was remarkable for the power of reading with great rapidity, and of retaining with great fidelity what he so easily collected. He therefore always knew what the present question required; and, when his friends expressed their wonder at his acquisitions, made in a state of apparent negligence and drunkenness, he never discovered his hours of reading or method of study, but involved himself in affected silence, and fed his own vanity with their admiration and conjectures. One practice he had, which was easily observed: if any thought or image was presented to his mind that he could use or improve, he did not suffer it to be lost; but, amidst the jollity of a tavern, or in the warmth of conversation, very diligently committed to paper. Thus it was that he had gathered two quires of hints for his new tragedy; of which Howe, when they were put into his hands, could make, as he says, very little use, but which the collector considered as a valuable stock of materials. When he came to London, his way of life connected him with the licentious and dissolute; and he affected the airs and gaiety of a man of pleasure; but his dress was always deficient: scholastic cloudiness still hung about him, and his merriment was sure to produce the scorn of his companions. With all his carelessness, and all his vices, he was one of the murmurers at form tie; and wondered why he was suffered to be poor, when Addison was caressed and preferred: nor would a very little have contented him; for he estimated his wants at six hundred pounds a year. In his course of reading it was particular, that he had diligently perused, and accurately remembered, the old romances of knight-errantry. He had a high opinion of his own merit, and something contemptuous in his treatment of those whom he considered as not qualified to oppose or contradict him. He had many frailties; yet it cannot but be supposed that he had great merit, who could obtain to the same play a prologue from Addison, and an epilogue from Prior; and who could have at once the patronage of Halifax, and the praise of Oldisworth.”

, younger brother of the preceding Dr. John Smith, and the munificent provost of Queen’s college, Oxford, was born at Lowther, Oct. 10, 1670. His father dying when he was five years old, his mother removed with her family to Guisborough in Yorkshire, where he was educated for some time, until his brother placed him under his own eye at the public school at Durham, under Mr. Thomas Battersby, a very diligent master, who qualified him for the university at the age of fifteen. He was not, however, sent thither immediately, but put under the tuition of the rev. Francis Woodman, one of the minor canons of Durham, an excellent classical scholar. The dean also, Dr. Dennis Granville, invited him to his house, and took a lively interest in his education. Here he continued until the revolution, when Dr. Granville, who could not be reconciled to the new government, determined to follow his master, king James, to France, and much solicited young Smith to embark in the same cause, which his party did not think at that time hopeless. But Smith being very eager to commence his university education, and hearing of the arrival of his uncle, Dr. John, from Madrid, preferred going to London to meet and advise with him. This had another happy effect, for he now found a generous patron in his godfather, sir Joseph Williamson, who received him very kindly, and gave him recommendatory letters to Oxford, where he was admitted, May 10, 1689, to a scholarship in Queen’s college. Here he had Mr. William Lancaster for his tutor, and pursued his studies with such zeal and success as to become an honour to the society. Among his contemporaries were, the afterwards well known and highly respected prelates Tanner and Gibson, with both of whom now began an intimacy which subsisted all the-ir lives. In 1693, being chosen a taberder, he took his first degree in arts, and was advancing in his studies, when sir Joseph Williamson removed him from college, by appointing him his deputy keeper of the paper-office at Whitehall; and sir Joseph being soon after one of the plenipotentiaries at Ryswick, took Mr. Smith with him as his secretary.

These promotions requiring a residence in London, Mr. Smith was soon after appointed chaplain to Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, then lord chamberlain, whom he had known at Ryswick, where his lordship was one of the plenipotentiaries. Lord Jersey now introduced him at court, and he preached several times before the' queen, and would have been otherwise promoted by his lordship’s interest had he lived. But he not only lost this patron by death, but another, William Henry Granviile, nephew to dean Granville, and the last earl of Bath of that family, who had a very high esteem for him.

Strype lias computed the value of Dr. Smith’s preferments at this time; according to which, his professorship of civil law brought him in 40l.; the chancellorship of Ely was worth 50l. and a benefice which he had in Cambridgeshire was worth 36l. so that the whole of his preferments amounted to 126l. a year. “And this,” says Strype, “was the port he lived in before his leaving Cambridge. He kept three servants, and three gun-;, and three winter geldings. And this stood him in 3o/. per annum, together with his own board.” A man of his talents and reputation, however, was not destined to continue in a college life. On the accession of Edward \ I. when he could avow his sentiments with freedom, he was invited into the family of the protector duke of Somerset, by whom he was employed in atiairs of state, probably such as concerned the reformation. The duke appointed him his master of requests, steward of the stannenes, provost oi Eton, and dean of Carlisl Strype says that he “was at least in deacon’s orders,” but of this fact we have no evidence, and Strype, in Granger’s opinion, seems to have hazarded the conjecture because he could not otherwise account for the spiritual preferments he enjoyed. We have just mentioned that he had a benefice in Cambridgeshire, which was the rectory of Leverington, and this was conferred on him in the time of Henry VIII.; but a rectory might have been held by any one who was a clerk at large; for though the law of the church was, that in such a case, he should take the order of priesthood within one year after his institution, yet that was frequently dispensed with.

A few years after his being made clerk of the hanaper, he was promoted to the deanery of St. Stephen’s, Westminster, a dignity usually conferred on some favourite chaplain whom the king wished to have near his person. The precise time of his arriving at this preferment cannot be discovered, but it must have, been subsequent to July 28, 1480, when Henry Sharpe- occurs as dean. While, in this office he resided in Canon-row, and was honoured by his i?oyal master with a seat in the privy-council. From these preferments it may be inferred that Smyth’s talents and address had justified the hopes of his family and patrons. He must certainly have been a favourite with the king, and not less so with his mother, the countess of Richmond, who on June 14, 1492, presented him to the rectory of Cheshunt, which he quitted in 1494 for higher preferment. She conferred upon him another mark of her confidence, in appointing him one of the feoffees of those manors and estates, which were to answer the munificent purposes of her will. As to the reports of his former biographers, that he held, at one time, the archdeaconry of Surrey, and the prepositure of Wells, Mr. Churton has clearly proved that they have no foundation.

When the see of Lichfield and Coventry became vacant by the death of bishop Hales, Dec. 30, 1490, the king bestowed it on Smyth, by the style of “Our beloved and faithful Counsellor, Dean of our free chapel within our own palace at Westminster.” The time neither of his election nor consecration is upon record, but the latter is supposed to have taken place between the 12th and 29th of January 1492-3. The cause of so considerable an interval from the death of his predecessor must probably be sought in the capricious proceedings of the court of Rome on such occasions. His final settlement in this see was followed by a visitation of the clergy under his controul, and the performance of those other duties incumbent on his new station. His usual residences were at Beaudesert, and at Pipe, both near Lichfield, or at his palace in London, which stood on the site of Somerset-house.

, a learned English divine and translator, was the son of the rev. Richard Smith, rector of AllSaints, and minister of St. Andrew, both in Worcester, who died in 1726. He was born at Worcester in 1711, and educated at the grammar-school of that city. In 1728 he was admitted of New-college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. A. in 1732, M. A. in 1737, and D. D. in 1758. In 1735 he was presented by his patron, James earl of Derby, in whose family he was reader, to the rectory of Trinity-church, Chester, and by his son and successor’s interest, whose chaplain he was, to the deanery of Chester in 1753. He held the mastership of Brentwood-school in Essex for one year, 1748; and in 1753 was nominated by the corporation of Liverpool one of the ministers of St. George’s church there, which he resigned in 1767. With his deanery he held the parish churches of Handley and Trinity, but in 1780 resigned the last for the rectory of West Kirkby. He died Jan. 12, 1787. His character is thus briefly drawn by his biographer: “He was tall and genteel; his voice was strong, clear, and melodious; he spoke Latin fluently, and was complete master not only of the Greek but Hebrew language; his mind was so replete with knowledge, that he was a living library; his manner of address was graceful, engaging, and delightful; his sermons were pleasing, informing, convincing; his memory, even in age, was wonderfully retentive, and his conversation was polite, affable, and in the highest degree improving.” He is known in the learned world, chiefly by his valuable translations of “Longinus on the Sublime,” 1739, 8vo, which went through four editions, the last of which, with the frontispiece designed by Dr. Wall of Worcester, is said to be the best; “Thucydides,” 1753, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1781, 8vo; “Xenophon’s History of the Affairs of Greece,” 1770, 4to. In 1782 he published “Nine Sermons on the Beatitudes,” 8vo, very elegantly written. In 1791, appeared “The Poetic Works of the rev. William Smith, D. D. late dean of Chester; with some account of the life and writings of the Author. By Thomas Crane, minister of the parish church of St. Olave in Chester, &c.” This work we have not seen, and for the account of Dr. Smith’s life we are indebted to a review of it in the Gent. Mag.

In 1713, he had been installed a canon of Windsor, and on Feb. 21, 1719, was elected provost of King’s college, although the court-interest was in favour of Dr. Waddington. In 1723 he served the office of vice-chancellor of the university, and gave every satisfaction in discharging the duties of both offices. The revenues of the college were greatly augmented in his time, by the assistance of some fellows of the college, his particular friends. It was said that in 1722 he drew up the address to his majesty, George II. upon the institution of Whitehall preachers, “an address,” says Dr. Zachary Grey, “worthy of the imitation of both universities on all occasions of the like kind, as it was thought to have nothing redundant or defective in it.” He was for a short time rector of Knebworth in Hertfordshire, and afterwards, in 1737, of West-Ildesley in Berkshire. This last he retained till his death, which happened at his lodgings at Windsor castle, Dec, 30, 1742. He was buried at the east end of the south aile of the choir of the chapel, near his wife, who died in 1731. She was, when he married her, the opulent widow of sir Joshua Sharpe, knt. and alderman of London. It remains yet to be added to his preferments that he was several years head master of Eton school. He was a man of great learning and acuteness, and of an amiable temper. His zeal for the principles of the church of England was warm and honest, for it procured him many enemies, and probably obstructed his promotron. In 17 15, '3 vols. 8vo. of his “Sermons” were published by Drs. Berriman and Chapman. He had himself been editor of Dean Moss’s Sermons, and gave that divine a character which was thought to resemble his own. Although we seldom notice such matters, it may be worth while to add that there was a 4to mezzotinto print of him, which, after he was out of fashion, the print-sellers imposed on the public as the portrait of orator Henley.

fora g'iceque. Nor did any ri:aii-ever exactness in his family.“ Many are the encomiums which have been bestowed upon this noble and illustrious person. Burnet tells us that” he was very learned in his own profession, with a great deal more learning in other professions; in divinity, philosophy, and history. He had a great capacity for business, with an extraordinary temper; for he was fair and gentle, perhaps to a fault, considering his post: so that he ru:d all the patience and softness, as well as the justice and equity, becoming a great magistrate.“Lord Orford calls him” one of those divine men, who, like a chapel in a palace, remain unprofaned, while all the rest i tyranny, corruption, and folly. All the traditional accounts of him, the historians of the last age, and its best authors, represent him as the most incorrupt lawyer, and the honestest statesman, as a master-orator, a genius of the finest taste, and as a patriot of the noblest and most extensive views; as a man who dispensed blessings by his life, and planned them for posterity.“He was a very great patron of men of parts and learning, and particularly of Mr. Addison, who has drawn his character at large in one of his” Freeholders,“in that of May 4, 1716, where he has chosen -his lordship’s motto for that of his paper,” Prodesse quam conspici.“Lord Somers was one of those who first redeemed Milton’s” Paradise Lost“from that obscurity in which party-prejudice and hatred had suffered it long to lie neglected, and who pointed out the merits of that noble poem. The most unfavourable character of lord Somers is that drawn by Swift, once his friend, as appears by the dedication of the” Tale of a Tub,“if that be Swift’s; and here we may notice that lord Somers’s biographer, Mr. Cooksey, offers some arguments, and combines some facts, to prove that this satire was the production of his lordship, and of his gay young friend lord Shrewsbury. The characters of Peter, Jack, and Martin, are said to have been sketched from living persons, and these sketches of character, after many years remaining in ms. and passing through the hands of lord Shaftesbury and sir William Temple, are said to have been published by dean Swift. That this work was the sportive production of Mr. Somers,” I have no doubt,“says Mr. Cooksey,” from the private tradition of the family, and drawn by him from real life, and originals within his own observation.“Blurton, the uncle of Mr. Somers, a good and pious man, furnished, it is said, the portrait of the church of England man. The character of Jack, the Calvinist, exhibited that of his grandfather, Somers, who was so devoted an admirer of Richard Baxter, of presbyterian memory, as to be induced to spend most of his latter days with him at Kidderminster, and to direct his remains to be deposited under a cross in the church-yard there, as he supposed the ground hallowed by die sanctity of Baxter. Peter had his lineaments from father Petre, the Jesuit. Lord Somers’s later biographer, Mr. Maddock, after examining the probability of this story, discredits it, and leaves the” Tale of a Tub" the property of its generally reputed author, dean Swift; and most readers, we apprehend, will be more inclined to acquiesce in the opinion of Mr. Maddock than in that of Mr. Cooksey.

Somner died March 30, 1669, after having been twice married, and was buried in the north aile of St. iMargaret’s church, Canterbury, where is an inscription to his memory. Dr. Kennet tells us, that “he was courteous, without design wise, without a trick faithful, without a reward humble and compassionate moderate and equal; never fretted by his afflictions, nor elated by the favours of heaven and good men.” Of his “Saxon Dictionary” he says, “For this, indeed, is a farther honour to the work, and the author of it, that it was done in the days of anarchy and confusion, of ignorance and tyranny, when all the professors of true religion and good literature were silenced and oppressed. And yet Providence so ordered, that the loyal suffering party did all that was done for the improvement of letters, and the honour of the nation. Those that intruded into the places of power and profit did nothing but defile the press with lying new and fast sermons, while the poor ejected churchmen did works of which the world was not worthy.” This opinion, which is not strictly just, is yet considerably strengthened by an appeal which Dr. Kennet makes to the “Monasticon, the Decem Scriptores, the Polyglot Bible, the London Critics, the Council of Florence, and the Saxon Dictionary.” Somner’s many well-selected books and choice manuscripts were purchased by the dean and chapter of Canterbury for the library of that church, where they now remain. A catalogue of his manuscripts is subjoined to the life abovementioned. He was a man “antiquis moribus,” of great integrity and simplicity of manners. He adhered to king Charles, in the time of his troubles; and, when he saw him brought to the block, his zeal could no longer contain itself, but broke out into a passionate elegy, entitled “The insecurity of princes, considered in an occasional meditation upon the king’s late sufferings and death,” 1648, 4to. Soon after, he published another affectionate poem, to which is prefixed the pourtraicture of Charles I. before his Ειχων βασιλικη and this title, “The frontispiece of the king’s book opened, with a poem annexed, ‘ The Insecurity of Princes,’ &c.” 4to.

, an English divine of great parts and learning, but of very inconsistent character, was the son of a merchant in London, and born at Hackney, in Middlesex, 1633. He was educated in Westminster-school, under Dr. Busby, where he acquired an uncommon share of grammatical and philological learning. In 1648 he made himself remarkable by reading the Latin prayers in the school, on the day in which king Charles was beheaded, and praying for that prince by name. He continued four years at Westminster, and in 1651 was elected thence student of Christchurch, Oxford. He took a bachelor of arts degree in 1654; and the same year wrote a copy of Latin verses, to congratulate the protector Cromwell upon the peace concluded with the Dutch. They were published in a collection of poems by the university. The year after, he published another Latin poem, entitled “Musica Incantans; sive Poema exprimens Musicse vires juvenem in insaniam abigentis, et?lusici hide periculum.” This was at that time highly appLuded for the beauty of the language, and was printed at the request of Dr. Fell; but it is said that Dr. South, to his dying day, regretted the publication of it, as a juvenile and trifling performance. He commenced M. A. in June 1657, alter performing all the preparatory exercises for it with the highest applause, and such wit and humour, as justly entitled him to represent the Terra: F'dius, in which character he spoke the usual speech at the celebration of the act the same year. He preached frequently, and (as Wood thinks) without any orders. He appeared, at St. Mary’s, the great champion for Calvinism against Sociniuuism and Arminianisir; and his behaviour was such, and his talents esteemed so exceedingly useful and serviceable, that the heads of that party were considering how to give proper encouragement and proportionable preferment to so hopeful a convert. In the mean time the protector Cromwell died and then, the presbyterians prevailing over the independents,South sided with them. He began to contemn, and in a manner to defy, the dean of his college. Dr. Owen, who was reckoned the head of the independent party; upon which the doctor plainly told him, that he was one who “sate in the seat of the scornful.” The author of the memoirs of South’s life tells us, that he was admitted into holy orders according to the rites and ceremonies of the church or England, in 1658. In July 1659, he preached the assize-sermon at Oxford, in which he inveighed vehemently against the independents; and by this greatly pleased the presbyterians, who made him their acknowledgments. The same year, when it was visible that the king would be restored, he appeared someuhat irresolute, yet was still reckoned a member of “the fanatic ordinary,” as Wood expresses it; but, as his majesty’s restoration approached, he began to exercise his pulpittalents, which were very great, as much against the presbyterians, as he had done before against the independents. Such was the conduct and behaviour of this celebrated divine in the earlier part of his life, as it is described by his contemporary in the university, Mr. Anthony Wood; and if Wood was not unreasonably prejudiced against him, he is, doubtless, to be classed among those time-servers, who know no better use of the great abilities God has given them, than to obtain the favour of those who can reward them best .

He seems to have proceeded as he had begun; that is, he pushed himself on by an extraordinary zeal for the powers that were; and he did not succeed amiss. On Aug. 10, 1660, he was chosen public orator of the university , and at the same time “tugged bird,” says Wood, “such was the high conceit of his worth, to be canon of Christcburch, as belonging to that office; but was kept back by the endeavours of the dean. This was a great discontent to him; and not being able to conceal it, he clamoured at it, and shewed much passion in his sermons till he could get preferment, which made them therefore frequented by the generality, though shunned by some. This person, though he was a junior master, and h;id never suffered for the royal cause, yet so great was his conceit, or so blinded he was with ambition, that he thought he could never be enough loaded with preferment; while others, who had suffered much, and had been reduced to a bit of bread for his majesty’s cause, could get nothing.” South’s talents, however, might be of use, and were not to be neglected; and these, together with his ardent zeal, which he was ever ready to exert on all occasions, recommended him effectually to notice and preferment. In 1661 he became domestic chaplain to lord Clarendon, chancellor of England, and of the university of Oxford; and, in March 1663, was installed prebendary of Westminster. On October the 1st following, he was admitted to the degree of D. D.; but this, as Wood relates, not without some commotion in the university. “Letters were sent by lord Clarendon, in behalf of his chaplain South, who was therein recommended to the doctorate: but some were so offended, on account of certain prejudices against South, whom they looked upon as a mere time-server, that they stiffly denied the passing of these letters in convocation.” A tumult arose, and they proceeded to a scrutiny; after which the senior proctor, Nathaniel Crew, fellow of Lincoln-college, and afterwards bishop of Durham, did “according to his usual perfidy, which,” says Wood, “he frequently exercised in his office; for he was born and bred a presbyterian”) pronounce him passed by the major part of the house; in consequence of which, by the double presentation of Dr. John Wallis, Savilian professor of geometry, he was first admitted bachelor, then doctor of divinity.

Afterwards he had a sinecure in Wales bestowed upon him by his patron the earl of Clarendon and, at that earl’s retirement into France in 1G67, became chaplain to James duke of York. In 1670, he was made canon of Christ church, Oxibrd. In 1676, he attended as chaplain Laurence Hyde, esq. ambassador extraordinary to the king of Poland; of which journey he gave an account, in a letter to Dr. Edward Pocock, dated from Dantzick the 16th of Dec. 1677; which is printed in the “Memoirs of his Life.” In 167S, iie was nominated by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the rectory of Islip in Oxfordshire; and, in 16SO, rebuilt the chancel of that church, as he did afterwards the rectory-house. He also allowed an hundred pounds per annum to his curate, and expended the rest in educating and apprenticing the poorer children of the parish. Jn I6bl he exhibited a remarkable example of accommodating his principles to those of the times. Being now one of the king’s chaplains in ordinary, he preached before his majesty upon these words, “The lot is cast into the lap, but the disposing of it is of the Lord.” In this sermon he introduced three remarkable instances of unexpected advancements, those of Agathocles, Massaniello, and Oliver Cromwell. Of the latter he says, “And who that had beheld such a bankrupt beggarly fellow as Cromwell, first entering the parliament house with a threadbare torn cloak, greasy hat (perhaps neither of them paid for), could have suspected that in the space of so few years, he should, by the murder of one king, and the banishment of another, ascend the throne r” At this, the king is said to have fallen into a violent tit of laughter, and turning to Dr. South’s patron, Mr. Laurence Hyde, now created lord Rochester, said, “Odds fish, Lory, your chaplain must be a bishop, therefore put me in mind of him at the next death!”

Wood observes, that Dr. South, notwithstanding his various preferments, lived upon none of them; but upon his temporal estate at Caversham near Reading, and, as the people of Oxford imagined, in a discontented and clamorous condition for want of more. They were mistaken, however, if the author of the Memoirs of his Life is to be depended on, who tells us, that he refused several offers of bishoprics, as likewise that of an archbishopric in Ireland, which was made him in James the Second’s reign, by his patron the earl of Rochester, then lord lieutenant of that kingdom. But this was only rumour; and there is little reason to suppose that it had any foundation. South’s nature and temper were violent, domineering, and intractable to the last degree; and it is more than probable, that his patrons might not think it expedient to raise him higher, and by that means invest him with more power than he was likely to use with discretion. There is a particular recorded, which shews, that they were no strangers to his nature. The earl of Rochester, being solicited by James II. to change his religion, agreed to be present at a dispute between two divines of the church of England, and two of the church of Rome; and to abide by the result of it. The king nominated two for the Popish side, the earl two for the Protestant, one of whom was South; to whom the king objected, saying, that he could not agree to the choice of South, who instead of arguments would bring railing accusations, and had not temper to go through a dispute that required the greatest attention and calmness: upon which Dr. Patrick, then dean of Peterborough, and minister of St. Paul’s, Covent garden, was chosen in his stead.

, an eminent nonjuving divine, was the son of the rev. Edward, or Edmund Spinckes, rector of Castor, Northamptonshire, and was born there in 1653 or 1654. His father came from New Kngland with Dr. Patrick, afterwards bishop of Ely, and, being a nonconformist, had been ejected from Castor and from Overton Longviil in Huntingdonshire. His mother, Martha, was daughter of Thomas Elmes, of Lilford in Huntingdonshire. After being initiated in classical learning under Mr. Samuel Morton, rector of Haddon, he was admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, under Mr. Bainbrigg, March 22, 1670; and matriculated on July 9, the same year. In the following year, by the death of his father, he obtained a plentiful fortune, and a valuable library; and, on the 12th of October, 1672, tempted by the prospect of a Rustat scholarship, he entered himself of Jesus- college, where, in nine days, he was admitted a probationer, and May 20, 1673, sworn a scholar on the Iiustat foundation. “This,” Mr. T. Baker observes in the registers, “was for his honour; for the scholars of that foundation undergo a very strict examination, and afterwards are probationers for a year. And as these scholarships are the best, so the scholars are commonly the best in college, and so reputed.” He became B. A. early in 1674; was ordained deacon May 21, 1676; was M. A. in 1677; and admitted into priest’s orders Dec. 22, 1678. After residing some time in Devonshire, as chaplain to sir Richard Edgcomb, he removed to Petersham, where, in 1681, he was associated with Dr. Hickes, as chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale. On the duke’s death, in 1683, he removed to St. Stephen’s Waibrook, London, where he continued two years, curate and lecturer. In 1685 the dean and chapter of Peterborough conferred on him the rectory of Peakirk or Peaking cum Glynton, in Northamptonshire, where he married Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Rutland, citizen of London. On July 21, 1687, he was made a prebendary of Salisbury; in the same year, Sept. 24, instituted to the rectory of St. Mary, in that town; and three days after, was licensed to preach at Stratford subter Castrum, or Mid en -castle, in Wilts, for which he had an annual stipend of 80l. Being decided in his attachment to the Stuart family, he was deprived of all his preferments in 1690, for refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary. He was, after this period, in low circumstances, but was supported by the benefactions of the more wealthy ftonjurors; and on the third of June, 1713, he was consecrated one of their bishops, receiving that title from the hands of Dr. Hickes. He died July 28, 1727, and was buried in the cemetery of the parish of St. Faith, on the north side of St. Paul’s, London, where an inscription is engraven on a white marble stone. By his wife, who lived but seven days after him, he had many children, of whom two survived their parents: William Spinckes, esq. who, by industry and abilities, acquired a plentiful fortune; and Anne, married to Anthony Cope, esq. Mr. Nelson was the particular friend of Mr. Spinckes, who was a proficient in the Greek, Saxon, and French languages, and had made some progress in the oriental. He is said to have been “low of stature, venerable of aspect, and exalted in character. He had no wealth, few enemies, many friends. He was orthodox in the faith: his enemies being judges. He had uncommon learning and superior judgment; and his exemplary life was concluded with a happy death. His patience was great; his self-denial greater; his charity still greater; though his temper seemed his cardinal virtue (a happy conjunction of constitution and grace), having never been observed to fail him in a stage of thirty-nine years.”. He assisted in the publication of Grabe’s Septuagint, Newcourt’s Repertorium, Howell’s Canons, Potter’s Clemens Alexandrinus, and Walker’s “Sufferings of the Clergy.” His own works were chiefly controversial, as, 1. An answer to “The Essay towards a proposal for Catholic Communion, &c.” 1705. 2. “The new Pretenders to Prophecy re-examined, &c.” 1710. 3. Two pamphlets against HoadJy’s “Measures of Submission,” 1711 and 1712. 4. Two pamphlets on “The Case stated between the church of Rome and the church of England,” as to supremacy, 1714 and 1718. 5. Two pamphlets against “Restoring the prayers and directions of Edward Vlth’s Liturgy,” 1718, &c. &c. His most popular work was “The Sick Man visited, &c.” 1712. A portrait of him, by Vertue, from a painting by Wollaston, is prefixed to this work, of which a sixth edition was published in 1775, containing a short account of his life, and an accurate list of his publications.

, a learned English prelate, was born in 1636, at Tallaton in Devonshire, the son of a clergyman; and having been educated, as he tells of himself, not at Westminster or Eton, but at a little school by the church-yard side, became a commoner of Wadham college, in Oxford, in 1651; and, being chosen scholar next year, proceeded through the usual academical course, and in 1657 became M. A. He obtained a fellowship, and commenced poet. In 1659, his poem on the death of Oliver was published, with those of Dryden and Waller. In his dedication to Dr. Wilkins he appears a very willing and liberal encomiast, both of the living and the dead. He implores his patron’s excuse of his verses, both as falling so “infinitely below the full and sublime genius of that excellent poet who made this way of writing free of our nation,” and being “so little equal and proportioned to the renown of the prince on whom they were written; such great actions and lives deserving to be the subject of the noblest pens and most divine phansies.” He proceeds “Having so long experienced your care and indulgence, and been formed, as it were, by your own hands, not to entitle you to any thing which my meanness produces, would be not only injustice but sacrilege.” He published the same year a poem on the “Plague of Athens;” a subject recommended to him doubtless by the great success of Lucretius in describing the same event. To these he added afterwards a poem on Cowley’s death. After the Restoration he took orders, and by Cowley’s recommendation was made chaplain to the witty and profligate duke of Buckingham, whom he is said to have helped in writing “The Rehearsal,” and who is said to have submitted all his works to his perusal . He was likewise chaplain to the king. As he was the favourite of Wilkins, at whose house began those philosophical conferences and inquiries which in time produced the royal society, he was consequently engaged in the same studies, and became one of the fellows and when, after their incorporation, something seemed necessary to reconcile the public to the new institution, he undertook to write its history, which he published in 1667. This is one of the few books which selection of sentiment and elegance of diction have been able to preserve, though written upon a subject flux and transitory *. The “History of the Royal Society” is now read, not with the wish to know what they were then doing, but how their transactions are exhibited by Sprat. They have certainly been since exhibited far better by Dr. Birch, and more recently by Dr. Thomson. In the next year he published “Observations on Sorbiere’s Voyage into England, in a letter to Mr. Wren.” This is a work not ill performed; but was rewarded with at least its full proportion of praise. In 1668 he published Cowley’s Latin poems, and prefixed in Latin the life of the author, which he afterwards amplified, and placed before Cowley’s English works, which were by will committed to his care. Ecclesiastical dignities now fell fast upon him. In 166S he became a prebendary of Westminster, and had afterwords the church o*f St. Margaret, adjoining to the abbey. He was in 1680 made canon of Windsor, in 1683 dean of Westminster, and in 1684 bishop of Rochester. The court having thus a claim to his diligence and gratitude, he was required to write the “History of the Rye-house Plot;” and in 1685 published “A true account and declaration of the horrid Conspiracy against the late King, his present Majesty, and the present Government;” a performance which he thought convenient, after the revolution, to ex­* This work was attacked by Mr. ing betwixt H. and Dr. Merret;"

royal society, and an apology against More relating unto Henry Sttibbe, physome of their cavils. With- a post- sician at Warwick.“script concerning the quarrel dependtenuate and excuse. The same year, being clerk of the closet to the king, he was made dean of the chapel-royal; and the year afterwards received the last proof of his master’s confidence, by being appointed one of the commissioners for ecclesiastical affairs. On the critical day, when the Declaration distinguished the true sons of the church of England, he stood neuter, and permitted it to be read at Westminster, but pressed none to violate his conscience; and, when the bishop of London was brought before them, gave his voice in his favour. Thus far he suffered interest or obedience to carry him; but farther he refused to go. When he found that the powers of the ecclesiastical commission were to be exercised against those who had refused the Declaration, he wrote to the lords, and other commissioners, a formal profession of his unwillingness to exercise that authority any longer, and withdrew himself from them. After they had read his letter, they adjourned for six months, and scarcely ever met afterwards. When king James was frighted away, and a new government was to be settled, Sprat was otxe of those who considered, in a conference, the great question, whether the crown was vacant, and manfully spoke in favour of his old master. He complied, however, with the new establishment, and was left unmolested; but, in 1692, a strange attack was made upon him by one Robert Young and Stephen Blackhead, both men convicted of infamous crimes, and both, when the scheme was laul, prisoners in Newgate. These men drew up an Association, in which they whose names were subscribed, declared their resolution to restore king James; to seize the princess of Orange, dead or alive; and to be ready with thirty thousand men to meet kingJam.es when he should land. To this they put the name of Sancroft, Sprat, Marlborough, Salisbury, and others. The copy of Dr. Sprat’s name was obtained by a fictitious request, to which an answer” in his own hand“was desired. His hand was copied so well, that he confessed it might have deceived himself. Blackhead, who had carried the letter, being sent again with a plausible message, was very curious to see the house, and particularly importunate to be let into the study; where, as is supposed, he designed to leave the Association. This, however, was denied him, and he dropt it in a flower-pot in the parlour. Young now laid an information before the privy-council; an.d May 7, 16.92, the bishop was arrested, and kept at a 01 essenger’s, under a strict guard, eleven days. His house was searched, and directions were given that the flower-pots should he inspected. The messengers, however, missed the room in which the paper was left. Blackhead went therefore a third time; and, rinding his paper where he had left it, brought it away. The bishop, having been enlarged, was, on June the 10th and I 3th, examined again before the privy-council, and confronted with his accusers. Young persisted with the most obdurate impudence, against the strongest evidence; but the resolution of Blackhead bydegrees gave way. There remained at last no doubt of the bishop’s innocence, who, with great prudence and diligence, traced the progress, and detected the characters of the two informers, and published an account of his own examination and deliverance; which made such an impression upon him, that he commemorated it through lii'e by a yearly day or thanksgiving. With what hope, or what interest, the villains had contrived an accusation which they must know themselves utterly unable to prove, was never discovered. After this, the bishop passed his days in the quiet exercise of his function. When the cause of Sacheverell put the public in commotion, he honestly appeared among the friends of the church. He lived to his seventyninth year, and died May 20, 1713. Burnet is not very favourable to his memory; but he and Burnet were old rivals. On some public occasion they both preached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those days an indecent custom: when the preacher touched any favourite topic in a manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressed by a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure. When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly and so long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with his handkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with the like animating hum but he stretched out his hand to the congregation, and cried,” Peacf, peace, I pray you, pet;ci -.“” This,“says Dr. Johnson,” I was told in my youth by an old man, who had been no careless observer of the passages of those times.“”Burnet’s sermon,“says Salmon,” was remarkable for sedition, and Sprat’s for loyalty. Burnet had the thanks of the house; Sprat had no thanks, but a good living from the King; which,“he said,” was of as much value as the thanks of the Commons.“Sprat was much admired in his day for the elegance of his prose style, but that is not to be measured by the standard of modern times. In his political sentiments he changed so often, and so easily accommodated himself to the varied circumstances of the times in which he lived, that the praise of consistency cannot be given. Yet we have seen that on some occasions he stood almost alone in vindication of conduct which did him honour. The works of Sprat, besides his few poems, are, 2.” The History of the Royal Society.“3.” The Life of Cowley.“4.” The Answer to Sorbiere.“5.” The History of the Rye-house Plot.“6.” The relation of his own Examination.“And, 7. a volume of” Sermons.“Dr. Johnson says,” I have heard it observed, with great justness, that every book is of a different kind, and that each has its distinct and characteristical excellence.“In his poems he considered Cowley as a model; and supposed that as he was imitated, perfection was approached. Nothing therefore but Pindaric liberty was to be expected. There is in his few productions no want of such conceits as he thought excellent; and of those our judgment may be settled by the first that appears in his praise of Cromwell, where he says that Cromwell’s” fame, like man, will grow white as it grows old.“According to Spence, in his Anecdotes, Pope used to call Sprat” a worse Cowley."

, dean of Canterbury, a divine of eminent talents and personal worth, was born March 5, 1660, at Hertishorn in the county of Derby. Of this parish his father, the rev. Thomas Stanhope, was rector, as well as vicar of St. Margaret in the town of Leicester, and chaplain to the earls of Chesterfield and Clare. His mother, whose name was Allestree, was of an ancient family in Derbyshire. His grandfather, Dr. George Stanhope, precentor of York, and rector of Wheldrake in that county, was one of those persecuted ecclesiastics who, for their loyalty to Charles I. experienced the greatest distress; he was dispossessed of his preferments, and (as dean Stanhope told Mr. Walker himself) was driven to the doors with eleven children, and died in 1644.

At the convocation of the clergy in October 1705, he preached the Latin sermon in St. Paul’s cathedral, and was at the same time proposed, with Dr. Binckes, to fill the prolocutor’s chair; but the majority declared for the latter. In Feb. 1713-14, however, he was elected to that office, and was twice afterwards re-chosen. In 1717, when the fierce spirit of controversy raged in the convocation, he checked the Bangorian champion, archdeacon Edward Tenison, in his observations, by reading the schedule of prorogation. The archdeacon, however, not content only to protest against the proceedings of the House, entered into a controversy with the prolocutor himself. In the following year a correspondence commenced between the dean and his diocesan bishop Atterbury, on the increasing neglect of public baptisms; from which it appears, that Stanhope had “long discouraged private baptisms,” and that the prelate expressed himself obliged to him for his attention in this respect, as also for his constant choice of worthy curates. After having lived an example, even from his youth upwards, of cheerful and unaffected piety, he died, universally lamented, at Bath, March 18, 1728, aged sixty-eight.

The mild and friendly temper of dean Stanhope rendered him the delight of all. To the misfortunes of others he was remarkably attentive, and that concern which he expressed, conveyed at once consolation to the heart, and improvement to the understanding. His care as a parish priest, and as a dean, was exemplary. That advice which he gave to others, was the rule of his own practice. In an excellent letter from him to a young clergyman, printed in the Gent. Mag. 1792, he says, “You will do well to demean yourself in all the offices of your function, that people may think you are in very good earnest, and so to order your whole conversation *, that they may be sure you are so.” While he benefited mankind, as a writer, he was no less edifying as a preacher. To a plain and clear style he added the most becoming action, and his manner was peculiarly his own. In his will, among other benevolent legacies, he left the sum of 250l. to found an exhibition for a king’s scholar of Canterbury school. He had been twice married, first to Olivia, daughter of Charles Cotton of Beresford in Staffordshire, esq. by whom he had one sun and five daughters; and secondly to Miss Parker, half-sister of sir Charles Wager, who survived him, dying in 1730, aged about fifty-four. He was buried in the church of Lewisham, where is a memorial on a grave-stone, within the rails of the communion-table.

Dean Stanhope’s literary labours succeeded each other in the following order: 1. His translation of“Thomas a Kempis De Imitatione Christi,” 1696, 8vo. Dean Stanhope was himself somewhat of an ascetic. 2. A translation

been averse to the serin mixta jocis the worthy dean took occasion to tell

* The dean, however, thought it upon Pope’s Works, " that so orthodox

These letters appeared in two vols. 4to. in 1774. His “Miscellaneous works,” also in two vols. 4to. were published in 1777. They consist of papers supplied to Fog’s Journal, to a periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “The World;” all evincing considerable vivacity and skill in writing. Some of his speeches, and other state papers, conclude the first volume. The second contains an ample collection of his Letters, digested into three books. Many of these are written in French, of which language he was, for a foreigner, a very complete master. In 1778 a third volume of “Miscellaneous works” was published, but, as the former had not been eminently successful, this, which appeared in a dubious shape, attracted very little attention, and few copies are supposed to have got abroad. Lord Chesterfield’s entrance into the world, says lord Orford, was announced by his bon-mots, and his closing lips dropped repartees that sparkled with his juvenile fire. Of these witticisms, several are currently repeated in conversation, though on what authority is now uncertain. He appears, by a few specimens, to have possessed considerable talents for the lighter kinds of poetry; some proofs of which appear in the first volume of Dodsley’s collection; but it has been said that he often assumed to himself the credit of verses not his own. As a patron he was distinguished by his steady protection of the elegant, but unfortunate, Hammond; whose poems he published after the author’s death, in 1743, with a preface, but without an avowal of himself as the editor. Encomiums upon him, as the friend of merit and letters, may be found in the writings of this poet, of Pope, and many others; but some of the most elegant compliments to him appear in the third volume of Dodsley’s collection, and proceeded from the pen of Philip Fletcher, dean of Kildare. Applause was his favourite object, and few men have enjoyed it in a greater abundance.

All the steps of his political life were marked with honours. He was chosen one of the privy-council to Edward II. appointed lord treasurer, and employed in embassies, and other weighty affairs of state, in which his abilities and integrity would have been acknowledged, had he not lived in a period of remarkable turbulence and injustice. In 1325 he accompanied the queen to France in order to negociate a peace, but her intentions to depose her husband were no longer to be concealed, and the bishop, whose integrity her machinations could not corrupt, continued to attach himself to the cause of his unfortunate sovereign, and fell an early sacrifice to popular fury. In 1326 he was appointed guardian of the city of London during the king’s absence in the west, and while he was taking measures to preserve the loyalty of the metropolis, the populace attacked him, Oct. 15, as he was walking the streets, and beheaded him near the north door of St. Paul’s, together with sir Richard Stapledon, his brother. Godwin informs us that they buried the bishop in a heap of sand at the back of his house, without Temple-l>ar. Walsingham says they threw it into the river; but the former account seems most consistent with popular malevolence and contempt. Exeter house was founded by him as a town residence for the bishops of the diocese, and is said to have been very magnificent. It was afterwards alienated from the see, and by a change of owners, became first Leicester, and then Essex house, a name which the scite still retains. It appears that the queen soon after ordered the body of the murdered bishop to be removed and interred, with that of his brother, in Exeter cathedral. In the 3d Edward III. 1330, a synod was held at London before Simon, archbishop of Canterbury, to make inquiry into bishop Stapledon’s death; and his murderers, and all who were any way privy or consenting to the crime, were executed. His monument, in the north aile of Exeter cathedral, was erected by the rector and fellows of Exeter college. Among the mu,niments of the dean and chapter of Exeter, there is an account of the administration of his goods, by Richard Braylegh, dean of Exeter, and one of his executors; by which it appears that he left a great many legacies to poor scholars, and several sums of money, from twenty to sixty shillings, for the repairing of bridges in the county, and towards building Pilton churc.i, &c.

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

, a celebrated controversialist on the side of the papists, was born at Henfield, in Sussex, in 1535, of a genteel family from Yorkshire. Having been educated at Canterbury and Winchester, he was removed to New college, Oxford, where he obtained a perpetual fellowship in 1554. In the same reign, which was that of Mary, he was made prebendary of Chichester; but on the accession of Elizabeth, left the kingdom, vith his father and other relations, and settled at Louvain, where he distinguished himself by his controversial writings against Jewel, Home, Whitaker, and other eminent divines of the English church. He also visited Paris and Rome, but returned to Louvain, where he translated Bede’s Church History into English. He then became regius professor of divinity in the new university of Douay, and canon in the church of St. Amoiue. He became a Jesuit, but again relinquished the order, and returning to Louvain, was appointed regius professor in divinity there, canon of St. Peter’s, and dean of Hillerbeck. He died in 1598, and was buried in the church of St. Peter at Louvain. Clement VIII. had invited him to Rome, but he did not choose to go. This pope, it is said, intended to bestow upon him a cardinal’s hat, and that this honour was prevented by his death. He was, however, so great an admirer of Stapleton’s writings, that he ordered them to be read publicly at his table. Cardinal Perron, who was an eminent author himself, esteemed him, both for learning and acuteness, the first polemical divine of his age; and Whitaker himself, seems to allow no less.

Dr. Sterne’s son, John, was educated by him in Trinitycollege, Dublin, and became successively vicar of Trim, chancellor and dean of St. Patrick’s, bishop of Dromore in 1713, and of Clogher in 1717, and vice-chancellor of the university of Dublin. Being a single man, he laid out immense sums on his episcopal palaces, and on the college of Dublin, where he built the printing-house, and founded exhibitions. Most of these were gifts in his life-time, and at his death (June 1745) he bequeathed the bulk of his fortune, about 30,000l. to public institutions, principally of the charitable kind. His only publications were, a “Concio ad clerum,” and “Tractates de visitatione infirmorum,” for the use of the junior clergy, printed at Dublin in 1697, 12mo. Dean Swift appears to have corresponded with bishop Sterne for many years on the most intimate and friendly terms, but at length, in 1733, the dean sent him a letter full of bitter sarcasm and reproach, to which the bishop returned an answer that marks a superior command of temper; but it appears from the life of the rev. Philip Skelton, that his lordship deserved much of what Swift had imputed to him.

Sternhold’s principal successor in carrying on the translation of the Psalms was John Hopkins, who was admitted A. B. at Oxford in 1544, and is supposed to have been afterwards a clergyman of Suffolk. He was living in 1556. Warton pronounces him a raiher better poet than Sternhold. He versified fifty-eight of the Psaims, which are distinguished by his initials. Bishop Tanner styles him “poeta, ut ea ferebant tempora, eximius” ajid Bale, “Britanuicorum poetarum sui temporis non infimus;” and, at the end of the Latin commendatory verses prefixed ix’s “Acts and Monuments,” are some stanzas of his h seem to justify this character. Five other Psalms were translated by William Whitting-ham, the puritan dean of Durham, and he also versified the decalogue, the prayer immediately after it, and very probably the Lord’s prayer, the creed, and the hymn “Veni Creator;” all which follow the singing-psalms in our version. Thomas Norton (See Norton) translated twenty-seven more of the psalms; Robert Wisdome the twenty-fifth, and also wrote that once very popular prayer at the end of the version, “Preserve us, Lord, by thy dear word,” &.c. which is a literal translation of Luther’s hymn upon the same occasion. Eight psalms, which complete the whole series, have the initials W. K. and T. C. but we have no account of either of these authors.

His leisure time, during the whole of his life, he dedicated to study, to intercourse with learned men, and to the duties of benevolence and devotion. His reading was extensive, and his taste may be understood from the plan of his studies. He was well versed in the writings of the fathers of the church of the first three centuries, generally called the Apostolic fathers; he had twice read through Dr. Thomas Jackson’s Body of Divinity, in three large folios; a divine for whose writings bishop Home always expressed the highest respect. The works of bishops Andrews, Jeremy Taylor, and dean Hickes, were quite familiar to Mr. Stevens; and there was hardiy a writer of modern days, at all celebrated for orthodox opinions, who was unknown to him. Such was the esteem in which he was held, as a theologian, that Dr. Douglas, bishop of Salisbury, once said of him, “Here is a man, who, though not a bishop, yet would have been thought worthy of that character in the first and purest ages of the Christian church;” and the late bishop Horsley, who was not given to flattery, when on one occasion Mr. Stevens paid him a compliment on account of his sermon, said, “Mr. Stevens, a compliment from you upon such a subject is of no inconsiderable value.” Mr. Stevens was also, like bishop Home, a great admirer of the works of Mr. John Hutchinson.

, bishop of Bath and Wells, was born in 1543, and was the son of William Still, of Grantham in Lincolnshire. He was admitted at Christ’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. In 1570 he was Margaret professor at Cambridge; in 1571 became rector of Hadleigh, in the county of Suffolk, and archdeacon of Sudbury, and in 1573 was collated to the vicarage of Eastmarham, in Yorkshire. He was also elected master of St. John’s in 1574, and of Trinity college in 1577. In 1588 he was chosen prolocutor of the convocation, by the recommendation of dean Nowell, and preached the Latin sermon. Two years after the death of bishop Godwin, he was appointed to the vacant see of Bath and Wells, in which he continued till his decease, which happened Feb. 26, 1607. Sir John Harrington describes him as a man “to whom he never came, but he grew more religious from whom he never went, but he parted better instructed.” Archbishop Parker had a high opinion of him, and not only gave him a prebend of Westminster, but recommended him very strongly to be appointed dean of Norwich, in which, however, he did not succeed. He had been one of his grace’s chaplains. The bishopric of Bath and Wells having been in his time enriched by some lead mines in Mendip hills, he is said to have left a considerable fortune to his family, and endowed an alms-house in the city of Wells.

, a pious and learned bishop of Chester, was born at Hemel-Hempstead in Hertfordshire, in 1633, and admitted scholar of Trinity college, Oxford, in June 1652, where in 1656 he became fellow and master of arts. After taking orders, he married a relation of Dr. Dolben, bishop of Rochester, and by his interest was made warden of Manchester college in Lancashire. He was aiso in 1670 made prebendary of Leicester St. Margaret in the church of Lincoln; in 1673, dean of St. Asaph, at which time he took his degree of D. D. and was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty. In 1683 y ­he was presented to the rectory of St. Mary Aldermanbury, London, and the following year resigned the wardenship of Manchester college. In 1689, he was consecrated bishop of Chester, over which he presided, in constant residence, and with the most anxious cave for its interests, both spiritual and temporal, for eighteen years. He died Feb. 12, 1707, and was interred in his cathedral, where a long Latin inscription records his character, without exaggeration. Besides some occasional sermons, and a charge to his clergy, his works were chiefly levelled at the doctrines of popery, in which controversy, he published, 1. “Discourse concerning the necessity of Reformation, \ respect to the errors and corruptions of the church of Rome,” Lond. 1685, parti. 4to; a second part followed. 2. “Discourse on the Pope’s Supremacy,” in answer to Dr. Godden, ibid. 1.688, 4to. 3. “The people’s right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted,” ibid. 1688, 4to. 4. “The lay-Christian’s obligation to read the Holy Scriptures,” ibid. 1688, 1689, 4to. 5. “Examination” of Bellarmin’s fourteenth note concerning the unhappy end of the church’s enemies," &c. &c.

Bishop Stratford was one of the first and most zealous promoters of the Societies, established in the beginning of the last century for the “Reformation of manners.” In the “Memoirs of Matthew Henry,” we read that “this good work was first set on foot in that city by those of the established church: they were happy in a bishop and dean, that had the interests of practical religion very much at heart, Dr. Stratford and Dr. Fog, men of great learning and true piety, both excellent preachers, and greatly grieved at the open and scandalous wickedness that abounded in that city, and every where throughout the nation.” It appears that a monthly lecture was established at the cathedral for this purpose, and the bishop preached the first sermon.

, an antiquary of much celebrity, descended from an antient family in Lincolnshire, was born at Holbech in that county, November 7, 1687. After having had the first part of his education at the free-school of that place, under the care of Mr. Edward Kelsal, he was admitted into Bene't-college in Cambridge, Nov. 7, 1703, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Favvcett, and chosen a scholar there in April following. While an under-graduate, he often indulged a strong propensity for drawing and designing; and began to form a collection of antiquarian books. He made physic, however, his principal study, and with that view took frequent perambulations through the neighbouring country, with the famous Dr. Hales, Dr. John Gray of Canterbury, and others, in search of plants; and made great additions to Ray’s “Catalogus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam;” which, with a map of the county, he was solicited to print; but his father’s death, and various domestic avocations, prevented it. He studied anatomy under Mr. Rolfe the surgeon attended the chemical lectures of signor Vigani and taking the degree of M. B. in 1709, made himself acquainted with the practical part of medicine under the great Dr. Mead at St. Thomas’s hospital. He first began to practise at Boston in his native county, where he strongly recommended the chalybeate waters of Stanfield near Folkingham. In 1717 he removed to London, where, on the recommendation of his friend Dr. Mead, he was soon after elected F. R. S. and was one of the first who revived that of the Antiquaries in 1718, to which last he was secretary for many years during his residence in town. He was also one of the earliest members of the Spalding society. He took the degree of M. D. at Cambridge in 1719, and was admitted a fellow of the College of Physicians in the year following, about which time (1720) he published an account of “Arthur’s Oon” in Scotland, and of “Graham’s dyke,” with plates, 4to. In the year 1722, he was appointed to read the Gulstonian Lecture, in which he gave a description and history of the spleen, and printed it in folio, 1723, together with some anatomical observations on the dissection of an elephant, and many plates coloured in imitation of nature. Conceiving that there were some remains of the Eleusinian mysteries in free-masonry, he gratified his curiosity, and was constituted master of a lodge (1723), to which he presented an account of a Roman amphitheatre at Dorchester, in 4to. After having been one of the censors of the College of Physicians, of the council of the Royal Society, and of the committee to examine into the condition of the astronomical instruments of the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, he left London in 1726, and retired to Grantham in Lincolnshire, where he soon came into great request. The dukes of Ancaster and Rutland, the families of Tyrconnel, Gust, &c. &c. and most of the principal families in the country, were glad to take his advice. During his residence here, he declined an invitation from Algernon earl of Hertford, to settle as a physician at Marlborough, and another to succeed Dr. Hunter at Newark. In 1728 he married Frances daughter of Robert Williamson, esq. of Allington, near Grantham, a lady of good family and fortune. He was greatly afflicted with the gout, which used generally to confine him during the winter months. On this account, for the recovery of his health, it was customary with him to take several journeys in the spring, in which he indulged his innate love of antiquities, by tracing out the footsteps of Caesar’s expedition in this island, his camps, stations, &c. The fruit of his more distant travels was his “Itinerarium Curiosum; or, an Account of the Antiquities and Curiosities in his Travels through Great Britain, Centuria I.” adorned with one hundred copper-plates, and published in folio, London, 1724. This was reprinted after his death, in 1776, with two additional plates; as was also published the second volume, (consisting of his description of the Brill, or Caesar’s camp at Pancras,“IterBoreale,” 1725, and his edition of Richard of Cirencester , with his own notes, and those of Mr. Bertram of Copenhagen, with whom he corresponded, illustrated with 103 copper-plates engraved in the doctor’s lifetime. Overpowered with the fatigue of his profession, and repeated attacks of the gout, he turned his thoughts to the church; and, being encouraged in that pursuit hy archbishop Wake, was ordained at Croydon, July 20, 1720; and in October following was presented by lord-chancellor King to the living of All-Saints in Stamford . At the time of his entering on his parochial cure (1730), Dr. Rogers of that place had just invented his Oleum Artbriticum; which Dr. Stukeley seeing oihers use with admirable success, he was induced to do the like, and with equal advantage for it not only saved his joints, but, with the addition of a proper regimen, and leaving off the use of fermented liquors, he recovered his health and limbs to a surprising degree, ind ever after enjoyed a firm and active state of body, beyond any example in the like circumstances, to a good old age. This occasioned him to publish an account of the success of the external application of this oil in innumerable instances, in a letter to sir Hans Sloane, 1733; and the year after he published also, “A Treatise on the Cause and Cure of the Gout, from a new Rationale;” which, with an abstract of it, has passed through several editions. He collected some remarkable particulars at Stamford in relation to his predecessor bishop Cumberland; and, in 1736, printed an explanation, with an engraving, of a curious silver plate of Roman workmanship in basso relievo, found underground at Risley Park in Derbyshire; wherein he traces its journey thither, from the church of Bourges, to which it had been given by Exsuperius, called St. Swithin, bishop of Toulouse, about the year 205. He published also the same yea.- his “Palæographia Sacra, No. I. or, Discourses on the Monuments of Antiquity that relate to Sacred History,” in 4to, which he dedicated to sir Richard Kllys, bart. “from whom he had received many favours.” In this work (uhich was to have been continued in succeeding numbers) he undertakes to shew, how Heathen Mythology is derived from Sacred History, and that the Bacchus in the Poets is no other than the Jehovah in the Scripture, the conductor of the Israelites through the wilderness. In his country retirement he disposed his collection of Greek and Roman coins according to the order of the Scripture History; and cut out a machine in wood (on the plan of an Orrery), which shews the motion of the heavenly bodies, the course of the tide, &c. In 1737 he lost his wife and in 1738, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of Dr. Gale, dean of York, and sister to his intimate friends Roger and Samuel Gale, esquires; and from this time he often spent his winters in London. In 1740, he published an account of Stonehenge, dedicated to the duke of Ancaster, who had made him one of his chaplains, and given him the living of Somerby near Grantham the year before. In 1741, he preached the Thirtieth of January Sermon before the House of Commons; and in that year became one of the founders of the Egyptian society, composed of gentlemen who had visited Egypt. In 1743 he printed an account of lady Roisia’s sepulchral cell, lately discovered at Royston, in a tract, entitled “Palseographia Britannica, No. I.” to which an answer was published by Mr. Charles Parkin, in 1744. The doctor replied in “Palasographia Britannica, No. II.” 1746, giving an account of the origin of the universities of Cambridge and Stamford, both from Croylandabbey; of the Roman city Granta, on the north-side of the river, of the beginning of Cardike near Waterbeach, &c. To this Mr. Parkin again replied in 1748; but it does not appear that the doctor took any further notice of him. In 1747, the benevolent duke of Montagu (with whom he had become acquainted at the Egyptian society) prevailed on him to vacate his preferments in the country, by giving him the rectory of St. George, Queen-square, whence he frequently retired to Kentish-town, where the following inscription was placed over his door: