European languages. His latest biographer says, that this work may be considered as the precursor of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and thoso other English philosophers who
, a divine, philosopher, and civilian of the sixteenth century, was born at
Trent, where he was afterwards in orders; but, being disposed to a liberality of sentiment not tolerated there, he
went to Switzerland in 1557, and made profession of the
Protestant religion on the principles of Calvin. From
thence he went to Strasburgh, and lastly to England,
where he was hospitably received. Queen Elizabeth gave
him a pension, not as a divine, but as an engineer. In
gratitude, he addressed to her his book on the “Stratagems
of Satan,
” a work in which are unquestionably many sentiments of greater liberality than the times allowed, but, at
the same time, a laxity of principle which would reduceill
religions into one, or rather create an indifference about
the choice of any. It was first printed at Basle, in 1565,
under the title of “De stratagematibus Satanae in religionis negotio, per superstitionem, errorem, heresim,
odium, calumniam, schisma, &c. libri VIII.
” It was afterwards often reprinted and translated into most European
languages. His latest biographer says, that this work may
be considered as the precursor of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and thoso other English philosophers who have reduced the articles of religion to a very small number, and
maintain that all sects hold its essential principles. Acontius, however, had his enemies and his supporters; and
even the former could allow that, in many respects, he
anticipated the freedom and liberality of more enlightened
times, although he was, in many points, fanciful and unguarded. A better work of his is entitled “De methodo sive
recta investigandarum, tradendarumque artium, ac scientiarum ratione, libellus,
” Basle, De Studiis bene instituejulis,
” Utrecht, Ars muniendorum oppidorum,
” in Italian and Latin, was published
at Geneva in Stratagemata,
” is an excellent epistle by him, on the method of
editing books. He had also made some progress in a treatise on logic, as he mentions in the above epistle, and predicts the improvements of after-times.
ings of the greatest English divines: and a review of the works of the writers called Infidels, from lord Herbert of Cherbury to the late lord viscount Bolingbroke. With
In 1755 he published “Memoirs, containing the lives of
several ladies of Great Britain.
” “A history of antiquities,
productions of nature, and monuments of art.
” “Observations on the Christian religion, as professed by the established church and dissenters of every denomination.
”
“Remarks on the writings of the greatest English divines:
and a review of the works of the writers called Infidels,
from lord Herbert of Cherbury to the late lord viscount
Bolingbroke. With a variety of disquisitions and opinions
relative to criticism and manners; and many extraordinary
actions. In several letters,
” 8vo.
s also of him with high honour, and represents him as one of the great improvers of school-divinity. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in his Life and Reign of Henry VIII. tells
The whole Western world, after his decease, began to load the memory of Thomas Aquinas with honours. The Dominican fraternity removed his body to Thoulouse; pope John XXII. canonized him; Pius V. gave him the title of the Fifth Doctor of the Church; the learned world honoured him with the appellation of The Universal and the Angelic Doctor; and Sixtus Senensis tells us, that he approached so nearly to St. Augustin in the knowledge of true divinity, and penetrated so deeply into the most abstruse meanings of that father, that, agreeably to the Pythagorean metempsychosis, it was a com non expression among all men of learning, that St. Augustin’s soul had transmigrated into St. Thomas Aquinas. Rapin speaks also of him with high honour, and represents him as one of the great improvers of school-divinity. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in his Life and Reign of Henry VIII. tells us, that one of the principal reasons, which induced this king to write against Martin Luther, was, that the latter had spoken contemptuously of Aquinas. The authority of Aquinas indeed has been always very great in the schools of the Roman Catholics. But notwithstanding all the extravagant praises and honours which have been heaped upon this saint, it is certain that his learning was almost wholly confined to scholastic theology, and that he was so little conversant with elegant and liberal studies, that he was not even able to read the Greek language. For all his knowledge of the Peripatetic philosophy, which he so liberally mixed with theology, he was indebted to the defective translations of Aristotle which were supplied by the Arabians, till he obtained, from some unknown hand, a more, accurate version of his philosophical writings. Adopting the general ideas of the age, that theology is best defended by the weapons of logic and metaphysics, he mixed the subtleties of Aristotle with the language of scripture and the Christian fathers; and, after the manner of the Arabians, framed abstruse questions, without end, upon various topics of speculative theology. He excelled, therefore, only in that subtile and abstruse kind of learning which was better calculated to strike the imagination, than to improve the understanding. He maintained what is commonly called the doctrine of free-will, though he largely quoted Augustin, and retailed many of his pious and devotional sentiments. His Aristotelian subtleties enabled him to give a specious colour to the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, which in him found a vehement defender. He held many other erroneous opinions, but it must be acknowledged, there are in his writings, and particularly in the account of his discourses during his last sickness, traces of great devotion, and a strain of piety very similar to that of St. Augustin. Aquinas left a vast number of works, which were printed in seventeen volumes in folio, at Venice in 1490; at Nuremberg in 1496; Rome 1570; Venice 1594; and Cologne 1612; and many times after.
a book, entitled, “Religio Laici,” published in 1683, but which is little more than a translation of Lord Herbert’s treatise under the same title and one may reasonably
, younger son of sir Henry Blount,
and brother to sir Thomas Pope Blount hereafter mentioned,
an eminent writer in the last century, was born at his
grandfather’s seat at Upper Holloway, in the county of
Middlesex, April 27, 1654. He was endowed by nature
with a great capacity, and with a strong propensity to
learning; which excellent qualities were properly cultivated
by the assiduous care of his father, and under so able an
instructor, he quickly acquired an extraordinary skill in
the arts and sciences, without any thing of that pedantry,
which is too frequently the consequence of young men’s
application to study in the common course. His pregnant
parts and polite behaviour brought him early into the
world, so that his father, who was a true judge of men,
thought fit, when he was about eighteen, to marry him to
Eleanora, daughter of sir Timothy Tyrrel, of Shotover in
the county of Oxford, and gave him a very handsome estate, having always respected him as a friend, as well as
loved him with the affection of a father. The year after
his marriage, he wrote a little treatise, which he published
without his name, in defence of Dryden, whose “Conquest of Granada
” was attacked by Richard Leigh, a player.
In Anima
Mnndi,
” in which it is said, and with great probability,
that he had the assistance of his father. It had been long
before handed about in manuscript among the acquaintance
of its author, with several passages in it much stronger than
in that which was transmitted to the press, and licensed by
sir Roger L'Estrange. This, however, did not hinder its
giving great offence, insomuch that complaint was made to
Dr. Compton, then Lord Bishop of London, who, upon
perusal, signified that he expected it should be suppressed,
and intimating, that he would thereupon rest satisfied. But
afterwards, when the Bishop was out of town, an opportunity was taken by some zealous person to burn the book,
which however has been reprinted since. The same year
he published a broad sheet under the title of “Mr.
Hobbes’s last Words and dying Legacy.
” It was extracted
from the “Leviathan,
” and was intended to weaken and
expose his doctrine yet he could be no very warm antagonist, since there is still extant a letter of his to Mr.
Hobbes, wherein he professes himself a great admirer of his
parts, and one who would readily receive his instructions. He
afterwards gave a strong testimony in favour of liberty, in
a pamphlet on the Popish Plot, and the fearof a Popish
successor, entitled, “An Appeal from the country to the
city for the preservation of his majesty’s person, liberty,
property, and the Protestant religion.
” This treatise is
subscribed Junius Brutus, and is the strongest invective
against Popery and Papists that was published even in that
age, when almost all the wit of the nation was pointed that
way. There are in it likewise such express recommendations of the Duke of Monmouth, as might well hinder the
author from owning it, and give it, in the eyes of the lawyers of those times, an air of sedition at least, if not of
treason. In 1680, he printed that work which made
him most known to the world, “The Life of Apollonius
Tyaneus,
” which was soon after suppressed, and only a
few copies sent abroad. It was held to be the most dangerous attempt, that had been ever made against revealed
religion in this country, and was justly thought so, as
bringing to the eye of every English reader a multitude of
facts and reasonings, plausible in themselves, and of the
fallacy of which, none but men of parts and learning can
be proper judges. For this reason it is still much in esteem
with the Deists, and the few copies that came abroad contributed to raise its reputation, by placing it in the lists of
those that are extremely rare. In the same year he published his “Diana of the Ephesians,
” which, as the author
foresaw, raised a new clamour, many suggesting that, under colour of exposing superstition, he struck at all Revelation, and while he avowed only a contempt of the Heathen, seemed to intimate no great affection for the Christian priesthood. The wit, learning, and zeal of our author, had, by this time, raised him to be the chief of his
sect; and he took a great deal of pains to propagate and
defend his opinions in his discourses and familiar letters,
as well as by his books, but he had the usual inconsistency
of the infidel, and we find him owning, in a letter to Dr. Sydenham, that in point of practice, Deism was less satisfactory than the Christian scheme. The noise his former
pieces had made, induced him to conceal, industriously,
his being the author of a book, entitled, “Religio Laici,
”
published in Janus Scientiarum or an Introduction to Geography,
Chronology, Government, History, philosophy, and all
genteel sorts of Learning,
” London, 8vo. He concurred
heartily in the Revolution, and seems to have had very honest intentions of punishing those who were king James’s
evil counsellors, after the government was re-settled, by
declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and
queen. He gave another strong testimony of his sincere
attachment to his principles, and inviolable love to freedom, by a nervous defence of the liberty of the press
wherein he shews that all restraints on it can have no other
tendency than to establish superstition and tyranny, by
abasing the spirits of mankind, and injuring the human understanding. This little piece, therefore, has been always
esteemed one of the best he ever wrote; and has furnished
their strongest arguments to many succeeding writers. The
warmth of Mr. Blount’s temper, his great affection for king
William, and his earnest desire to see certain favourite projects brought about, led him to write a pamphlet, in which,
he asserted king William and queen Mary to be conquerors, which was not well relished by the house of commons. The title of this very singular and remarkable
piece at large, runs thus: “King William and queen
Mary conquerors; or, a discourse endeavouring to prove
that their majesties have on their side, against the late
king, the principal reasons that make conquest a good
title; shewing also how this is consistent with that declaration of parliament, king James abdicated the government, &c. Written with an especial regard to such as
have hitherto refused the oath, and yet allow of the title
of conquest, when consequent to a just war,
”
on, were tried in Westminster-hall. Smeton is said by Dr. Burnet to have confessed the fact; but the lord Herbert’s silence in this matter imports him to have been of
, second wife of king
Henry VIII. was born in 1507. She was daughter of sir
Thomas Bolen, afterwards earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde,
by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk. When she was but seven years of age, she was carried
over to France with the king’s sister Mary, who was married to Lewis XII. And though, upon the B'rench king’s
death, the queen dowager returned to England, yet Anne
Bolen was so highly esteemed at the court of France, that
Claude, the wife of Francis I. retained her in her service
for some years; and after her death in 1524, the duchess
of Alenzon, the king’s sister, kept her in her court during
her stay in that kingdom. It is probable, that she returned
from thence with her father, from his embassy in 1527; and
was soon preferred to the place of maid of honour to the
queen. She continued without the least imputation upon
her character, till her unfortunate fall gave occasion to
some malicious writers to defame her in all the parts of it.
Upon her coming to the English court, the lord Percy,
eldest son of the earl of Northumberland, being then a
domestic of cardinal Wolsey, made his addressee to her,
and proceeded so far, as to engage himself to marry her;
and her consent shews, that she had then no aspirings to
the crown. But the cardinal, upon some private reasons,
using threats and other methods, with great difficulty put
an end to that nobleman’s design. It was prohably about
1528, that the king began to shew some favour to her,
which caused many to believe, that the whole process with
regard to his divorce from queen Catherine was moved by
the unseen springs of that secret passion. But it is not reasonable to imagine, that the engagement of the king’s affec
tion to any other person gave the rise to that affair; for so
sagacious a courtier as Wolsey would have infallibly discovered it, and not have projected a marriage with the
French king’s sister, as he did not long before, if he had
seen his master prepossessed. The supposition is much
more reasonable, that his majesty, conceiving himself in a
manner discharged of his former marriage, gave a full
liberty to his affections, which began to settle upon Mrs.
Bolen; who, in September 1532, was created marchioness
of Pembroke, in order that she might be raised by degrees
to the height for which she was designed; and on the 25th
of January following was married to the king, the office
being performed by; Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield, with great privacy, though in the
presence of her uncle the duke of Norfolk, her father,
mother, and brother. On the 1st of June, 1533, she was
crowned queen of England with such pomp and solemnity,
as was answerable to the magnificence of his majesty’s
temper; and every one admired her conduct, who had so
long managed the spirit of a king so violent, as neither to
surfeit him with too much fondness, nor to provoke with too
much reserve. Her being so soon with child gave hopes of
a numerous issue; and those, who loved the reformation,
entertained the greatest hopes from her protection, as they
knew she favoured them. On the 13th or 14th of September following, she brought forth a daughter, christened
Elizabeth, afterwards the renowned queen of England,
Cranmer, archbishop of Canterb ry, being her god-father.
But the year 1536 proved fatal to her majesty; and her
ruin was in all probability occasioned by those who began
to be distinguished by the name of the Romish party. For
the king now proceeding both at home and abroad in the
point of reformation, they found that the interest which
the queen had in him was the grand support of that cause.
She had risen, not only in his esteem, but likewise in that
of the nation in general; for in the last nine months of
her life, she gave above fourteen thousand pounds to the
poor, and was engaged in several noble and public designs.
But these virtues could not secure her against the artifices
of a bigoted party, which received an additional force
from several other circumstances, that contributed to her
destruction. Soon after queen Catharine’s death in Jan.
1535-6, she was brought to bed of a dead son, which was
believed to have made a bad impression on the king’s mind;
and as he had concluded from the death of his sons by
his former queen, that the marriage was displeasing to
God, so he might upon this misfortune begin to have the
same opinion of his marriage with queen Anne. It was
also considered by some courtiers, that now queen Catharine was dead, his majesty might marry another wife, and
be fully reconciled with the pope and the emperor, and
the issue by any other marriage would never be questioned;
whereas, while queen Anne lived, the ground of the controversy still remained, and her marriage being accounted
null from the beginning, would never be allowed by the
court of Rome, or any of that party. With these reasons
of state the king’s own passions too much concurred; for
he now entertained a secret love for the lady Jane Seymour, who had all the charms of youth and beauty, and
an humour tempered between the gravity of queen Catharine, and the gaiety of queen Anne. Her majesty therefore perceiving the alienation of the king’s heart, used all
possible arts to recover that affection, the decay of which
she was sensible of; but the success was quite contrary to
what she designed. For he saw her no more with those
eyes which she had formerly captivated; but gave way to
jealousy, and ascribed her caresses to some other criminal
passion, of which he began to suspect her. Her chearful
temper indeed was not always limited within the bounds of
exact decency and discretion; and her brother the lord
Rochford’s wife, a woman of no virtue, being jealous of
her husband and her, possessed the king with her own apprehensions. Henry Norris, groom of the stole, William
Brereton, and sir Francis W'eston, who were of the king’s
privy chamber, and Mark Smeton, a musician, were by
the queen’s enemies thought too officious about her; and
something was pretended to have been sworn by the lady
Wingfield at her death, which determined the king; but
the particulars are not known. It is reported likewise,
that when the king held a tournament at Greenwich on the
1st of May, 1536, he was displeased at the queen for
letting her handkerchief fall to one, who was supposed a
favourite, and who wiped his face with it. Whatever the
case was, the king returned suddenly from Greenwich to
Whitehall, and immediately ordered her to be confined to
her chamber, and her brother, with the four persons abovementioned, to be committed to the Tower, and herself to
be sent after them the day following. On the river some
privy counsellors came to examine her, but she made deep
protestations of her innocence; and as she landed at the
Tower, she fell down on her knees, and prayed Heaven
so to assist her, as she was free from the crimes laid to
her charge.“The confusion she was in soon raised a storm
of vapours within her; sometimes she laughejj, and at
other times wept excessively. She was also devout and
light by turns; one while she stood upon her vindication,
and at other times confessed some indiscretions, which
upon recollection she denied. All about her took advantage from any word, that fell from her, and sent it immediately to court. The duke of Norfolk and others, who
came to examine her, the better to make discoveries, told
her, that Morris and Smeton had accused her; which,
though false, had this effect on her, that it induced her to
own some slight acts of indiscretion, which, though no ways
essential, totally alienated the king from her. Yet whether even these small acknowledgments were real truths,
or the effects of imagination and hysterical emotions, is
very uncertain. On the 12th of May, Morris, Brereton,
Weston, and Smeton, were tried in Westminster-hall.
Smeton is said by Dr. Burnet to have confessed the fact;
but the lord Herbert’s silence in this matter imports him to
have been of a different opinion; to which may be added,
that Cromwell’s letter to the king takes notice, that only
some circumstances were confessed by Smeton. However,
they were all four found guilty, and executed on the 17th
of May. On the 15th of which month, the queen, and her
brother the lord Rochford, were tried by their peers in
the Tower, and condemned to die. Yet all this did not
satisfy the enraged king, who resolved likewise to illegitimate his daughter Elizabeth; and, in order to that, to annul his marriage with the queen, upon pretence of a precontract between her and the lord Percy, now earl of Northumberland, who solemnly denied it; though the queen
was prevailed upon to acknowledge, that there were some
just and lawful impediments against her marriage with the
king; and upon this a sentence of divorce was pronounced
by the archbishop, and afterwards confirmed in the convocation and parliament. On the 19th of May, she was
brought to a scaffold within the Tower, where she was
prevailed upon, out of regard to her daughter, to make no
reflections on the hardships she had sustained, nor to say
any thing touching the grounds on which sentence passed
against her; only she desired, that
” all would judge the
best." Her head being severed from her body, they were
both put into an ordinary chest, and buried in the chapel
in the Tower.
M. A. at Oxford, the king being present. He was an associate of that active and romantic character, lord Herbert of Cherbury. and appears to have volunteered his services
, a man of
abilities, succeeded his father William, fourth lord
Chandos, in Nov. 1602. He was a friend of the earl of Essex,
in whose insurrection he was probably involved, for his
name appears on the list of prisoners confined in the Fleet
on that account, Feb. 1600. He was made a knight of the
bath at the creation of Charles duke of York, Jan. 1604,
and in August 1605 was created M. A. at Oxford, the king
being present. He was an associate of that active and
romantic character, lord Herbert of Cherbury. and appears
to have volunteered his services in the Low Countries,
when the prince of Orange besieged the city of Juliers in
1610, and the Low Country army was assisted by four
thousand English soldiers, under the command of sir Edward Cecil. From the great influence which his hospitality
and popular manners afterwards obtained in Gloucestershire, and his numerous attendants when he visited the
court, he was styled king of Cotswould, the tract of country on the edge of which his castle of Sudeley was situated.
On November 18, 1617, he was appointed to receive and
introduce the Muscovite ambassadors, who had brought
costly presents from their master to the king. He died
August 20, 1621. There is no doubt, says sir Egerton
JBrydges (by whom the preceding notices were drawn together) that lord Chandos was a man of abilities as well as
splendid habits of life, and by no means a literary recluse,
although he is supposed to have been the author of “Horae
subsecivas, Observations and Discourses,
” Lond.
ction.” In style and manner it is more obsolete, and antique, than the age of which it treats. It is lord Herbert of Cherbury walking the new pavement in all the trappings
, a gentleman well known by his
indefatigable attention to the works of Shakspeare, was
born at Troston, near Bury, Suffolk, June 11, 1713, and
received his education at the school of St. Edmund’s Bury.
In the dedication of his edition of Shakspeare, in 1768, to
the duke of Grafton, he observes, that “his father and the
grandfather of his grace were friends, and to the patronage
of the deceased nobleman he owed the leisure which enabled him to bestow the attention of twenty years on that
work.
” The office which his grace bestowed on Mr. Capell was that of deputy inspector of the plays, to which a
salary is annexed of 200l. a year. So early as the year
1745, as Capell himself informs us, shocked at the licentiousness of Hanmer’s plan, he first projected an edition of
Shakspeare, of the strictest accuracy, to be collated and
published, in due time, “ex fide codicum.
” He immediately proceeded to collect and compare the oldest and
scarcest copies; noting the original excellencies and defects of the rarest quartos, and distinguishing the improvements or variations of the first, second, and third folios.
But while all this mass of profound criticism was tempering
in the forge, he appeared at last a self-armed Aristarchus,
almost as lawless as any of his predecessors, vindicating
his claim to public notice by his established reputation, the
authoritative air of his notes, and the shrewd observations,
as well as majesty, of his preface. His edition, however,
was the effort of a poet, rather than of a critic; and Mr.
Capell lay fortified and secure in his strong holds, entrenched in the black letter. Three years after (to use his own language) he “set out his own edition, in ten volumes, small octavo, with an introduction,
” 1768, printed
at the expence of the principal booksellers of London, who
gave him 300l. for his labours. There is not, among the
various publications of the present literary aera, a more
singular composition than that “Introduction.
” In style
and manner it is more obsolete, and antique, than the age
of which it treats. It is lord Herbert of Cherbury walking
the new pavement in all the trappings of romance; but,
like lord Herbert, it displays many valuable qualities accompanying this air of extravagance, much sound sense,
and appropriate erudition. It has since been added to the
prolegomena of Johnson and Steevens’s edition. In the
title-page of this work was also announced, “Whereunto
will be added, in some other volumes, notes, critical and
explanatory, and a body of various readings entire.
” The
introduction likewise declared, that these “notes and various readings
” would be accompanied with another work,
disclosing the sources from which Shakspeare “drew the
greater part of his knowledge in mythological and classical
matters, his fable, his history, and even the seeming peculiarities of his language to which,
” says Mr. Capell,
“we have given for title, The School of Shakspeare.
” Nothing surely could be more properly conceived than such
designs, nor have we ever met with any thing better
grounded on the subject of “the learning of Shakspeare
”
than what may be found in the. long note to this part of
Mr. Capell’s introduction. It is more solid than even the
popular essay on this topic. Such were the meditated
achievements of the critical knight-errant, Edward Capell.
But, alas! art is long, and life is short. Three-andtvventy years had elapsed, in collection, collation, compilation, and transcription, between the conception and production of his projected edition: and it then came, like
human births, naked into the world, without notes or commentary, save the critical matter dispersed through the
introduction, and a brief account of the origin of the fables
of the several plays, and a table of the different editions.
Cenain quaintnesses of style, and peculiarities of printing
and punctuation, attended the whole of this publication.
The outline, however, was correct. The critic, with unremitting toil, proceeded in his undertaking. But while
he was diving into the classics of Caxton, and working his
way under ground, like the river Mole, in order to emerge
with all his glories; while he was looking forward to his
triumphs; certain other active spirits went to work upon
his plan, and, digging out the promised treasures, laid
them prematurely before the public, defeating the effect
of our critic’s discoveries by anticipation. Steevens, Malone, Farmer, Percy, Reed, and a whole host of literary
ferrets, burrowed into every hole and corner of the warren
of modern antiquity, and overran all the country, whose
map had been delineated by Edward Capell. Such a contingency nearly staggered the steady and unshaken perseverance of our critic, at the very eve of the completion
of his labours, and, as his editor informs us for, alas! at
the end of near forty years, the publication was posthumous, and the critic himself no more! we say then, as
his editor relates, he was almost determined to lay the
work wholly aside. He persevered, however (as we learn from the rev. editor, Mr. Collins), by the encouragement
of some noble and worthy persons: and to such their Cih
couragement, and his perseverance, the public was, in
1783, indebted for three large volumes in 4to, under the
title of “Notes and various readings of Shakspeare; together with the School of Shakspeare, or extracts from
divers English books, that were in print in the author’s
time; evidently shewing from whence his several fables
were taken, and some parcel of his dialogue. Also
farther extracts, which contribute to a due understanding
of his writings, or give a light to the history of his life, or
to the dramatic history of his time.
”
crossed with cloth of silver, which was afterwards exchanged for one of black say. It is recorded by lord Herbert, in his “History of Henry VIII.” that, from respect
This letter is said to have drawn tears from the king.
In a few days after, she died at Kimbolton. In her will,
she appointed her interment to be private, in a convent of
Observant friars, who had done and suffered much for her:
the king complied with her request in regard to her servants; but would not permit her remains to be buried as
she desired. The corpse was interred in the abbey church
at Peterborough, with the honours due to the birth of Catherine, between two pillars, on the north side the choir,
near the great altar. Her hearse was covered with a pall
of black velvet, crossed with cloth of silver, which was
afterwards exchanged for one of black say. It is recorded
by lord Herbert, in his “History of Henry VIII.
” that,
from respect to the memory of Catherine, Henry not only
spared the abbey church at the general dissolution of religious houses, but advanced it to be a cathedral.
ithout interruption from the republican party; but on the restoration, he was made chaplain to Henry lord Herbert, was created D. D. and had the rectory of Upway, in
, a divine and natural philosopher, was born in 1623, and educated at Rochester,
whence he removed to Magdalen-college, Oxford, in
1640. and became one of the clerks of the house, but appears to have left the university on the breaking out of
the rebellion. When Oxford was surrendered to the
parliamentary forces, he returned and took his bachelor’s
degree, but two years after was expelled by the parliamentary visitors. He then subsisted by teaching school
at Feversham, in Kent, although not without interruption
from the republican party; but on the restoration, he was
made chaplain to Henry lord Herbert, was created D. D.
and had the rectory of Upway, in Dorsetshire, bestowed
upon him. Jn Jan. 1663, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Salisbury, and in June 1664 to the prebend
of Yatminster prima in the same church, by bishop Earle,
who valued him as a learned and pious divine, and a great
virtuoso. He died at Upway, Aug. 26, 1670, and was
buried in the chancel of his church. He published, 1. a
pamphlet entitled “Indago Astrologica,
” Syzygiasticon instauratum, or an Ephemerisof the places
and aspects of the Planets, &c.
” Lond. Britannia Baconica, or the natural rarities,
of England, Scotland, and Wales, historically related, ac$ording to the precepts of lord Bacon,
” &c.“Lond. 1661,
8vo. It was this work which first suggested to Dr. Plot his
” Natural History of Oxfordshire."
.” This work was printed in 1605, and is dedicated to her only daughter, Anne Herbert, wife to Henry lord Herbert, son and heir to Edward earl of Worcester.
Lady Russel translated out of French into English a tract
entitled, “A way of reconciliation of a good and learned
man, touching the true nature and substance of the body
and blood of Christ in the Sacrament.
” This work was
printed in
ine, at Dunstable, May the 23d, 1533, but, according to Parker, married him to Anne Boleyn; although lord Herbert says they were privately married by Rowland Lee, afterwards
, the first Protestant archbishop
of Canterbury, was the son of Thomas Cranmer, esq. and
of Agnes, daughter of Laurence Hatfield, of Willoughby,
in Nottinghamshire. He was born at Aslacton, in that
county, July 2, 1489, and educated in grammar learning,
under a rude and severe parish-clerk, of whom he learned
little, and endured much. In 1503, at the age of fourteen, he was admitted into Jesus college, in Cambridge;
of which he became fellow, and where he studied such
learning as the times afforded, till the age of twenty-two,
For the next four or five years he applied himself to polite
literature; and for three years more, to the study of the
Scriptures. After he was M. A. he married a gentleman’s
daughter named Joan, living at the Dolphin, opposite
Jesus-lane, and having by this match lost his fellowship,
he took up his residence at the Dolphin, and became
reader of the common lecture in Buckingham, now Magdalen college; but his wife dying in child-bed within a
year, he was again admitted fellow of Jesus college. Upon
cardinal Wolsey’s foundation of his new college at Oxford,
Cranmer was nominated to be one of the fellows; but he
refused the offer, or, as some say, was on the road to Oxford, when he was persuaded to return to Cambridge. In
1523, he was made D. D. reader of the theological lecture
in his own college; and one of the examiners of those that
took the degrees in divinity. The most immediate cause
of his advancement to the greatest favour with king Henry
VIII. and, in consequence of that, to the highest dignity
in the church of England, was the opinion he gave in the
matter of that king’s divorce. Having, on account of the
plague at Cambridge, retired to Waltham-abbey, in Essex,
to the house of one Mr. Cressy, to whose wife he was related, and whose sons were his pupils at the university;
Edward Fox, the king’s almoner, and Stephen Gardiner,
the secretary, happened accidentally to come to that house,
and the conversation turning upon what then was a popular
topic, the king’s divorce, Cranmer, whose opinion was
asked, said, that “it would be much better to have this
question, e whether a man may marry his brother’s wife,
or no?' decided and discussed by the divines, and by the
authority of the word of God, than thus from year to year
prolong the time by having recourse to the pope; and that
this might be done as well in England in the universities
here, as at Rome, or elsewhere.
” This opinion being
communicate-d by Dr. Fox to the king, his majesty approved of it much; saying, in his coarse language, that
Cranmer “had the sow by the right ear.
” On this, Cranmer was sent for to court, made the king’s chaplain, ordered to write upon the subject of the divorce, furnished
with books for that purpose, and placed in the family of
Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire and Ormond. When he
had finished his book, he went to Cambridge to dispute upon
that point, and brought several over to his opinion, which
was, that, according to the Scriptures, general councils, and
ancient writers, the pope had no authority to dispense with
the word of God. About this time he was presented to a
living, and made archdeacon of Tauntpn. In 1530 he was
sent, with some others, into France, Italy, and Germany,
to discuss the affair of the king’s marriage. At Rome he
got his book presented to the pope, and offered to dispute
openly against the validity of king Henry’s marriage; but
no one chose to engage him. While he was at Rome, the
pope constituted him his pcenitentiary throughout England,
Ireland, and Wales. In Germany he was sole embassador
on the same affair; and in 1532 concluded a treaty of commerce between England and the Low Countries. He was
also employed on an embassy to the duke of Saxony, and
other Protestant princes. During his residence in Germany, he married at Nuremberg a second wife, named
Anne, niece of Osiander’s wife. Upon the death of
archbishop Warham, in August 1532, Cranmer was nominated for his successor; but, holding still to his opinion
on the supremacy, he refused to accept of that dignity,
unless he was to receive it immediately from the king,
without the pope’s intervention Before his consecration,
the king so far engaged him in the business of his divorce,
that he made him a party and an actor almost in every step
he took in that affair. He not only pronounced the sentence of divorce between king Henry and queen Catherine,
at Dunstable, May the 23d, 1533, but, according to Parker, married him to Anne Boleyn; although lord Herbert
says they were privately married by Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, in the presence
of lady Anne’s father, mother, and brother, Dr. Cranmer,
and the duke of Norfolk. However this may be, on March
30th, 1533, he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury,
by the bishops of Lincoln, Exeter, and St. Asaph, when
he made an unusual protestation. His design was by this
expedient to save his liberty, to renounce every clause in
his oath which barred him doing his duty to God, the
king, and his country. Collier, who often argues as if he
were fee'd by the church of Rome, thinks there was something of human infirmity in this management, because it
was not made at Koine to the pope, nor by Cranmer’s
proxies there, before the obtaining of the bulls, not perceiving that Cranmer’s opposition to the power of the pope
was as uniform as it had been early, and the effect of
conviction. The temporalities of the archbishopric were
restored to Cranmer the 29th of April following. Soon
after, he forbad all preaching throughout his diocese, and
visited it this year in December. The pope threatening
him with excommunication, on account of his sentence
against queen Catherine, he appealed from his holiness to
a general council, and in the ensuing parliaments, strenuously disputed against the pope’s supremacy. All along
he showed himself a zealous promoter of the reformation;
and, as the first step towards it, procured the convocation
to petition the king that the Bible might be translated into
English. When that was obtained, he diligently encouraged the printing and publication of it, and caused it to
be recommended by royal authority, and to be dispersed
as much as he possibly could. Next, he forwarded the
dissolution of the monasteries, which were one of the
greatest obstacles to a reformation *. He endeavoured also
to restore the church of England to its original purity.
In 1535 he performed a provincial visitation, in order to
recommend the king’s supremacy, and preached upon that
subject in several parts of his diocese, urging that the
bishop of Rome was not God’s vicar upon earth, as supposed, and that that see so much boasted of, and by which
name popes affected to be styled, was but a holiness in
name, and that there was no such holiness at Rome, as he
easily proved from the vices of the court of Rome. In
necessary to man’s happiness,” Edinburgh, 1714, 4to. This was written in confutation of the deism of lord Herbert and Mr. Blount. In this elaborate performance he largely
, a pious Scotch divine, and
professor of divinity in the university of St. Andrew’s, was
born at Duplin in the parish of Aberdalgy, near Perth,
Dec. 25, 1674. His father had been minister of that
parish, from which he was ejected after the restoration, for
nonconformity. He died in 1682, and as the country was
still unsafe for those who professed the presbyterian religion, his mother went over to Holland with her son, then
about eight years old. During their stay there, he was
educated at Erasmus’s school, and made great proficiency
in classical literature. On his return to Scotland in 1687,
he resumed his studies, and was also sent to the university.
When he had finished his philosophical course there, he
entered upon the study of divinity; and being, in June
1699, licensed to preach, he was in May 1700, appointed
minister of the parish of Ceres, in which he performed the
part of a zealous and pious pastor; but his labours proving
too many for his health, the latter became gradually impaired. In April 1710, he was appointed by patent from
queen Anne, professor of divinity in the college of St.
Leonard at St. Andrew’s, through the mediation of the
synod of Fife. On this occasion he entered on his office
an inaugural oration, in qua, post exhibitam
rationem suscepti muneris, examinatur schedula nupera, cui
titulus ' Epistola Archimedis ad Regem Gelonem Albae
Graecae reperta anno serae Christianas 1688, A. Pitcarnio,
M. D. ut vulgo creditur, auctoreV Pitcairn’s reputation
as a deist was at that time very common in Scotland, however justly he may have deserved it; and Mr. Halyburton’s
attention had been much called to the subject of deism as
revived in the preceding century. He did not, however,
enjoy his professorship long, dying Sept. 23, 1712, aged
only thirty-eight. It does not appear that he published
any thing in his life-time; but soon after his death two
works were published, which still preserve his memory in
Scotland. 1. “The Great Concern of Salvation,
” Ten Sermons preached before and after the
celebration of the Lord’s Supper,
” Natural Religion insufficient; and
Revealed necessary to man’s happiness,
” Edinburgh, whosoever
carefully examines what this learned and pious author has
offered on these several heads, will find many excellent
things; though the narrowness of his notions in some points
has prejudiced some persons against his work, and hindered them from regarding and considering it so much as
it deserves.
”
s public services were forgotten. In Dec. 1662, his pension was 700l. in arrears; and in a letter to lord Herbert, he complains “he had nothing to keep him alive, with
He was consulted in a book called “Chemical, Medicinal, and Chirurgical Addresses to Samuel Hartlib.
”
Lond. On Motion
by Engines,
” Letters to Hartlib from Flanders,
” German by birth, a good scholar,
and a great traveller,
” was appointed in he had nothing to
keep him alive, with two relations more, a daughter and a
nephew, who were attending his sickly condition.
” About
the same time he presented a petition to the house of commons, by the name of Samuel Hartlib, sen. setting forth
his services, and praying relief; in which, among other
things, he says, that for thirty years and upwards he had
exerted himself in procuring “rare collections of Mss. in
all the parts of learning, which he had freely imported,
transcribed, and printed, and sent to such as were most
capable of making use of them; also the best experiments
in husbandry and manufactures, which by printing he hath
published for the benefit of this age and posterity.
” The
event of these applications, and the time of the death of
this ingenious man, is unknown. Sprat, in his history of
the royal society, says nothing of Hartlib, who seems to
have been an active promoter of that institution. Nor is
it less remarkable, that he never mentions Milton’s “Tractate of Education,
” although he discusses the plan of Cowley’s philosophical college. Harte intended to republish
Hartlib’s tracts, and those with which he was concerned;
and Warton had seen his collection.
, lord Herbert, of Cherbury in Shropshire, an eminent English writer,
, lord Herbert, of Cherbury in
Shropshire, an eminent English writer, was descended
from a very ancient family, and born 1581, at Montgomery-castle in Wales. At the age of fourteen he was entered as
a gentleman-commoner at University college, in Oxford,
where he laid, says Wood, the foundation of that admirable learning, of which he was afterwards a complete
master. In 1600 he came to London, and shortly after the
accession of James I. was created knight of the hath. He
served the office of high sheriff for the county of Montgomery, and divided his time between the country and the
court. In 1608, feeling wearied with the sameness of domestic scenes, he visited the continent, carrying with him
some romantic notions on the point of honour, which, in.
such an age, were likely to involve him in perpetual quarrels. His advantageous person and manners, and the reputation for courage which he acquired, gained him many
friends, among whom was the constable Montmorenci. As
a seat of this nobleman he passed several months practising horsemanship, and other manly exercises, in which
he became singularly expert. He returned to England in
1609, and in the following, year he quitted it again, in.
order that he might have the opportunity of serving with
the English forces sent to assist the prince of Orange at
the siege of Juliers. Here he signalised himself by his
valour, which, in some instances, was carried to the extreme of rashness. After the siege he visited Antwerp and
Brussels, and returned to London, where he was looked
now upon as one of the most conspicuous characters of the
time. An attempt was made to assassinate him, in revenge
for some liberties which he took, or was supposed to have
taken, with a married lady. In 1614 he went into the Low.
Countries to serve under the prince of Orange; after this
he engaged with the duke of Savoy, to conduct from France
a body of protestants to Piedmont for his service. In 1616
he was sent ambassador to Louis XIII. of France, to mediate for the relief of the protestants of that realm, but was
recalled in July 1621, on account of a dispute between
him and the constable de Luines. Camden says that he
had treated the constable irreverently; but Walton tells us
that “he could not subject himself to a compliance with
the humours of the duke de Luines, who was then the
great and powerful favourite at court: so that, upon a
complaint to our king, he was called back into England in
some displeasure; but at his return gave such an honourable
account of his employment, and so justified his comportment to the duke and all the court, that he was suddenly
sent back upon the same embassy.
”
In 1625 sir Edward was advanced to the dignity of a baron of the kingdom of Ireland, by the title of lord Herbert of Castle-Island; and, in 1631, to that of lord Herbert
In 1625 sir Edward was advanced to the dignity of a
baron of the kingdom of Ireland, by the title of lord
Herbert of Castle-Island; and, in 1631, to that of lord Herbert of Cherbury in Shropshire. After the breaking out of
the civil wars, he adhered to the parliament; and, Feb.
25, 1644, “had an allowance granted him for his livelihood, having been spoiled by the king’s forces,
” as Whitelocke says; or, as “Wood relates it,
” received satisfaction
from the members of that house, for their causing Montgomery castle to be demolished.“In the parliamentary
history, it is said that lord Herbert offended the House of
lords by a speech in favour of the king, and that he attended his majesty at York. It appears that when he saw
the drift of the parliamentary party, he quitted them, and
was a great sufferer in his fortune from their vengeance.
He died at his house in Queen-street, London, August
20, 1648; and was buried in the chancel of St. Giles’s in
the Fields, with this inscription upon a flat marble stone
over his grave:
” Heic inhumatqr corpus Edvardi Herbert
equitis Balnei, baronis de Cherbury et Castle-Island, auctoris libri, cui titulus est, De Veritate. Keddor ut herbae;
vicesimo die Augusti anno Domini 1648."
h, he hesitated whether he should suspend the publication: “Being thus doubtful in my chamber,” says lord Herbert, “one fair day in the summer, my casement being open
This noble lord was the author of some very singular
and memorable works: the first of which was his book
“De Veritate,
” which is mentioned in his epitaph. It
was printed at Paris in 1624, and reprinted there in 1633;
after which it was printed in London, in 1645, under this
title; “De Veritate, prout distinguitur a revelatione, a
verisimili, a possibili, a falso. Cui operi additi sunt duo
alii tractatus primus de causis errornm; alter de Religione Laici.
” In this he is said to have been the first
author who formed deism into a system, and endeavoured
to assert the sufficiency, universality, and absolute perfection of natural religion, without the necessity of any extraordinary revelation. He attempted to prove that the
light of reason, and the innate principles planted in the
human mind, are sufficient to discover the great doctrines
of morality, to regulate our actions, and conduct us to happiness in a future state. The fallacy of all this has been
ably displayed by Locke, Leland, and many other writers
of eminence. But the noble author proved himself the
greatest enthusiast, while he affected to combat enthusiasm,
and by his own example evinced the absurdity of his system. Having finished the above treatise “De Veritate,
”
in which revelation is considered as useless, he was desito publish it; but, as the frame of his whole book
differed from all former writings concerning the discovery of
truth, he hesitated whether he should suspend the publication: “Being thus doubtful in my chamber,
” says lord
Herbert, “one fair day in the summer, my casement being open towards the south, the sun shining clear, and no
wind stirring, I took my book * De Veritate‘ in my hands,
and kneeling on my knees, devoutly said these words: ’ O
thou eternal God, author of this light, which now shines
upon me, and giver of all inward illuminations, I do beseech thee, of thine infinite goodness, to pardon a greater
request than a sinner ought to make. 1 am not satisfied
enough, whether I shall publish this book if it be for thy
glory, I beseech thee give me some sign from heaven if
not, I shall suppress it.' I had no sooner spoken these
words, but a loud, though yet gentle noise, came forth
from the heavens, for it was like nothing on earth, which
did so chcar and comfort me, that I took my petition as
granted, and that I had the sign I demanded; whereupon
also I resolved to print my book. This, how strange soever it may seem, I protest before the eternal God, is true:
neither am I any way superstitiously deceived herein, since
I did not only clearly hear the noise, but in the serenest
sky that ever 1 saw, being without all cloud, did, to my
thinking, see the place from whence it came. And now I
sent my book to be printed in Paris, at my own cost and
charges.
” It is not possible to reprove the folly and blindness of his conduct in this instance, in warmer terms than
those which are employed by his noble editor. “There
is no stronger characteristic of human nature than its being
open to the grossest contradictions: one of lord Herbert’s
chief arguments against revealed religion is, the improbability that Heaven should reveal its will to only a portion
of the earth, which he terms particular religion. How
could a man who doubted of partial, believe individual revelation What vanity, to think his book of such importance to the cause of truth, that it could extort a declaration of the divine will, when the interest of half mankind
could not
”
t the desire of Peirescius and Elias Diodati and finished it at Aix, without publishing it: and when lord Herbert paid him a visit in Sept. 1647, Gassendi was surprized
The celebrated Gassendi wrote a confutation of this
book “De Veritate,
” at the desire of Peirescius and Elias
Diodati and finished it at Aix, without publishing it: and
when lord Herbert paid him a visit in Sept. 1647, Gassendi was surprized to find, that this piece had not been
delivered to him, for he had sent him a copy: upon which
he ordered another copy to be taken of it, which that nobleman carried with him to England. It was afterwards
published in Gassendi’s works, under the title of “Ad librum D. Edvardi Herberti Angli de Veritate epistola;
”
but is imperfect, some sheets of the original being lost.
was published in 1649, a year after his death, and has always been much admired. Nicolson says, that lord Herbert “acquitted himself in this history with the like reputation,
His most useful work, the “History of the Life and
Reign of Henry VIII.
” was published in 1649, a year after
his death, and has always been much admired. Nicolson
says, that lord Herbert “acquitted himself in this history
with the like reputation, as the lord chancellor Bacon
gained by that of Henry Vllth. For in the public and
martial part this honourable author has been admirably
particular and exact from the best records that were extant; though as to the ecclesiastical, he seems to have
looked upon it as a thing out of his province, and an undertaking more proper for men of another profession.
” Although it has been considered as a very valuable piece of
history, there is not, perhaps, so much candour displayed
in every part as could be wished. In 1663, appeared his
book “De Religione Gentilium, errorumque apud eos
causis.
” The first part was printed at London, in The ancient Religion of the
Gentiles, and causes of their errors considered. The mistakes and failures of the Heathen Priests and wise men, in
their notions of the Deity and matters of Divine Worship,
are examined with regard to their being destitute of Divine Revelation.
” Lord Herbert wrote also in Expeditio Buckingham! ducis in Ream insulam,
” which
was published in Occasional Verses,
” published in De Veritate,
” has ranked him with
Hobbes and Spinosa, in his dissertation entitled “De
tribus impostoribus magnis, Edvardo Herbert, Thoma
Hobbes, & Benedicto Spinosa, Liber,
” printed at Kilon m
ade use of his pen for translating some of his works into Latin. He was likewise much in favour with lord Herbert of Cherbury; and the celebrated Ben Jonson had such
, an eminent English
philosopher and miscellaneous writer, was born at Malmsbury in Wiltshire, April 5, 1588, his father being minister
of that town. The Spanish Armada was then upon the
coast of England; and his mother is said to have been so
alarmed on that occasion, that she was brought to bed of
him before her time. After having made a considerable
progress in the learned languages at school, he was sent, in
1603, to Magdalen hall, Oxford; and, in 1608, by the
recommendation of the principal, taken into the family of
the right honourable William Cavendish lord Hardwicke,
soon after created earl of Devonshire, as tutor to his son
William lord Cavendish. Hobbes ingratiated himself so
effectually with this young nobleman, and with the peer
his father, that he was sent abroad with him on his travels
in 16:0, and made the tour of France and Italy. Upon
his return with lord Cavendish, he became known to persons of the highest rank, and eminently distinguished for
their abilities and learning. The chancellor Bacon admitted him to a great degree of familiarity, and is said to
have made use of his pen for translating some of his works
into Latin. He was likewise much in favour with lord
Herbert of Cherbury; and the celebrated Ben Jonson had
such an esteem for him, that he revised the first work which
he published, viz. his “English Translation of the History
of Thucyciides.
” This Hobbes undertook, as he tells us
himself, “with an honest view of preventing, if possible,
those disturbances in which he was apprehensive his country would be involved, by shewing, in the history of the
Peloponnesian war, the fatal consequences of intestine
troubles.
” This has always been esteemed one of the best
translations that we have of any Greek writer, and the
author himself superintended the maps and indexes. But
while he meditated this design, his patron, the earl of
Devonshire, died in 1626; and in 1628, the year his work
was published, his son died also. This loss affected him
to such a degree, that he very willingly accepted an offer
of going abroad a second time with the son of sir Gervase
Clifton, whom he accordingly accompanied into France,
and staid there some time. But while he continued there
he was solicited to return to England, and to resume his
concern for the hopes of that family, to which he had
attached himself so early, and owed many and great
obligations.
clined to the match, till her picture, which Holbein had also drawn, was presented to him. There, as lord Herbert of Cherbnry says, she was represented so very charming,
After almost begging his way to England, as Patin tells
us, he found an easy admittance to the lord-chancellor,
sir Thomas More, having brought with him Erasmus’s
picture, and letters recommendatory from him to that great
man. Sir Thomas received him with all the joy imaginable, and kept him in his house between two and three
years; during which time he drew sir Thomas’s picture,
and those of many of his friends and relations. One clay
Holbein happening to mention the nobleman who had some
years ago invited him to England, sir Thomas was very
solicitous to know who he was. Holbein replied, that he
had indeed forgot his title, but remembered his face so
well, that he thought he could draw his likeness; and this
he did so very strongly, that the nobleman, it is said, was
immediately known by it. This nobleman some think was
the earl of Arundel, others the earl of Surrey. The chancellor, having now sufficiently enriched his apartments
with Holbein’s productions, adopted the following method
to introduce him to Henry VIII. He invited the king to
an entertainment, and hung up all Holbein’s pieces, disposed in the best order, and in the best light, in the great
hall of his house. The king, upon his first entrance, was
so charmed with the sight of them, that he asked, “Whether such an artist were now alive, and to be had for money?
” on which sir Thomas presented Holbein to the king,
who immediately took him into his service, with a salary of
200 florins, and brought him into great esteem with the
nobility of the kingdom. The king from time to time manifested the greac value he had for him, and upon the death
of queen Jane, his third wife, sent him into Flanders, to
draw the picture of the duchess dowager of Milan, widowto Francis Sforza, whom the emperor Charles V. had recommended to him for a fourth wife; but the king’s defection from the see of Rome happening about that time,
he rather chose to match with a protestant princess.
Cromwell, then his prime minister (for sir Thomas More had been removed, and beheaded), proposed Anne of
Cleves to him; but the king was not inclined to the match,
till her picture, which Holbein had also drawn, was presented to him. There, as lord Herbert of Cherbnry says, she was
represented so very charming, that the king immediately resolved to marry her; and thus Holbein was unwittingly the
cause of the ruin of his patron Cromwell, whom the king
never forgave for introducing him to Anne of Cleves.
yalists of Charles I. and II.; but his editor has seamed it with some sable strokes, some drawn from lord Herbert, and some from his own stores, which are supplied from
Mr. Lloyd, even by Wood’s account, left an excellent
character behind him: “he was a very industrious and
zealous person, charitable to the poor, and ready to do
good offices in his neighbourhood; he commonly read the
service every day in his church at Northop, when he was
at home, and usually gave money to such poor children as
would come to him to be catechised.
” As an author, however, Wood appears to have been a little jealous of Lloyd;
speaks of him as being “a conceited and confident per*on;
” who “took too much upon him to transmit to posterity the memoirs of great personages;
” by which “he
obtained among knowing men not only the character of a
most impudent plagiary, but a false writer, and a mere
scribbler, especially upon the publication of his * Memoirs,'
wherein are almost as many errors as lines.
” “At length,
”
adds Wood, “having been sufficiently admonished of his
said errors, and brought into trouble for some extravagancies in his books, he left off writing, retired to Wales,
and there gave himself up to the gaining of riches.
” That
all this is not true, modern inquirers of reputation, who
have repeatedly referred to Lloyd, seem to be convinced:
he is in truth a compiler, like others of his contemporaries;
but, although he must rank greatly under, he certainly belongs to the same class with Fuller and Wood himself. la
his style he partakes more of the former than the latter, and
having titled the subject of his pen “Worthies,
” he is,
s, a little too anxious to support their claim, and
regardless- of those circumstances which form ajust, if not a
perfect, character. Lloyd has preserved many minutiae of
eminent men, not to be found, or not easily, to be found,
elsewhere. These remarks apply to his two principal works,
so often quoted by modern biographers, “The Statesmen
and favourites of England since the Reformation, &c.
”
Memoirs of the
Lives, &c.
” of persons who suffered for their loyalty during
the rebellion, Lond. 1668, folio. This last is the more valuable of the two, and is so far from deserving the character Wood has given, of containing as “many errors as
lines,
” that, while we admit it is not free from errors, we
have found it in general corroborated by contemporary
writers, and even by Wood himself. Of the first of these
works, an edition was published by Charles Whitworth,
esq. in 1766, 2 vols. 8vo, with additions from other writers,
with a view to restore the light and shade of character.
“Mr. Lloyd,
” says an anonymous critic, “is professedly
the white-washer of every character and personage that
falls under his brush, particularly of the loyalists of Charles
I. and II.; but his editor has seamed it with some sable
strokes, some drawn from lord Herbert, and some from his
own stores, which are supplied from Rapin, and other republican writers of little credit and less abilities. The true
merit of Lloyd is, that notwithstanding the sameness of
most of his characters, he serves them up to his readers so
differently dressed, that each seems to be a new dish, and
to have a peculiar relish.
”
poet and preacher. There are no other circumstances recorded of his life, except his connection with lord Herbert of Cherbury, whom he assisted in some of his writings.
, or perhaps Masters (Thomas), a poet
and historian, was the son of the rev. William Master,
rector of Cote near Cirencester in Gloucestershire. He
was first educated at the grammar-school of Cirencester,
and afterwards at Winchester-school, from which he entered New college, Oxford, as a probationer fellow in
1622, and was admitted perpetual fellow in 1624. He
took his degrees in arts, that of M. A. in 1629, and being
in orders, was in 1640 admitted to the reading of the sentences. At this time he was considered as a man of great
learning, well-versed in the languages, and a good poet
and preacher. There are no other circumstances recorded
of his life, except his connection with lord Herbert of
Cherbury, whom he assisted in some of his writings. He
died of a putrid fever in 1643, and was buried in the outer
chapel of New-college. Lord Herbert honoured his memory with a Latin epitaph, which is among his lordship’s
poems, but was not inscribed on the place of his burial.
His poems were in Latin and Greek: 1. “Mensa Lubrica,
”
Oxon. Movorfotpnta ei$ mv TsXfi<r7s alavgutriv,
” a Greek poem on the
passion of Christ, which was translated into Latin by Mr.
Jacob of Merton-college, and into English by Cowley, and
published at Oxford, 1658, 4to. His other Latin productions were, an oration delivered in New-college; “Iter
Boreale,
” “Carolus Redux,
” “Ad regem Carolum,
” &c.
We have termed him a historian from his having given
lord Herbert great assistance in his “Life of Henry VIII.
”
He also had a share in the Latin translation of his lordship’s
book “De Veritate.
” He had accumulated a great mass
of historical information and authorities from the public
records; Wood speaks of having four thick volumes in
folio of these, “lying by him,
” but does not mention whether his own property or borrowed. Dr. Fiddes, however,
informs us, in the introduction to his “Life of Wolsey,' 7
that in his time Mr. Master’s
” diligent and faithful collections“were in the library of Jesus-college, Oxford. He
adds that
” Lord Herbert appears to be indebted for
good part of his history to those collections."
to accept of it. In 1620, when he was preparing to go to the national synod of the Gallican church, lord Herbert of Cherbury, then ambassador from Britain at the court
Though Henry IV. did not much relish Du Moulin’s
endeavours to convert his sister, yet he had always a great
regard for him, of which Du Moulin retained a very grateful remembrance; and after the death of Henry, in 1610,
he publicly charged the murder of that monarch upon
Cotton and the whole order of Jesuits. It had been said
that Ravillac was excited to that desperate act by some
opinions derived from the writings of the Jesuits, of Mariana in particular, touching the persons and authority of
kings: upon which account father Cotton published an
“Apologetical Piece,
” to shew that the doctrine of the Jesuits was exactly conformable to the decrees of the council
of Trent. This was answered by Du Moulin in a book
entitled “Anticotton or, a Refutation of Father Cotton
” in which he endeavoured to prove that the Jesuits
were the real authors of that execrable parricide though
some indeed have doubted whether he was the author of
that book. In 1615, James I. who had long corresponded
with Du Moulin by letters, invited him to England; but
this invitation his church at Paris would not suffer him to
accept till he had given a solemn promise, in the face of
his congregation, that he would return to them at the end
of three months. The king received him with great affection took him to Cambridge at the time of the commencement, where he was honoured with a doctor’s degree and,
at his departure from England, presented him with a prebend in the church of Canterbury. Du Moulin had afterwards innumerable disputes with the Jesuits, who, when
they found him deaf to their promises of great rewards,
attempted more than once his life, so that he was obliged
at length always to have a guard. In 1617, when the
United Provinces desired the reformed churches of England, France, and Germany to send some of their ministers
to the synod of Dort, Du Moulin and three others were
deputed by the Gallican church, hut were forbidden to go
by the king upon pain of death. In 1618 he had an invitation from Leyden to fill their divinity chair, which was
vacant, but refused to accept of it. In 1620, when he
was preparing to go to the national synod of the Gallican
church, lord Herbert of Cherbury, then ambassador from
Britain at the court of France, asked him to write to king
James, and to urge him, if possible, to undertake the defence of his son-in-law the king of Bohemia, who then
stood in need of it. Du Moulin at first declined the office;
but the ambassador, knowing his interest with James, would
not admit of any excuse. This brought him into trouble;
for it was soon after decreed by an order of parliament, that
he should be seized and imprisoned, for having solicited a
foreign prince to take up arms for the protestant churches.
Apprised of this, he secretly betook himself to the ambassador lord Herbert, who suspected that his letters to the
king were intercepted; and who advised him to fly, as the
only means of providing for his safety. He went to Sedan,
where he accepted the divinity-professorship and the ministry of the church; both which he held to the time of his
death, which happened March 10, 1658, in his ninetieth
year. He took a journey into England in 1623, when cardinal Perron’s book was published against king James;
and, at that king’s instigation, undertook to answer it.
This answer was published at Sedan, after the death of
James, under the title of “Novitas Papismi, sive Perronii
confutatio, regisque Jacobi, sed magis sacrae veritatis de-<
fensio.
” He was the author of many other learned works,
of whiph the principal are, “The Anatomy of Arminianism;
” “A Treatise on the Keys of the Church
” “The
Capuchin, or History of the Monks
” “A Defence of the
Reformed Churches,
” &c. &c.
edition and translation of part of Hentzner’s Travels, lord Wliitworth’s account of Russia, Life of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, &c. By limiting the number of copies of
This year he set up a printing-press at Strawberry-hill,
at which most of his own performances, and some curious
works of other authors were printed. Its first production
was Gray’s Odes, and this was followed by the edition and
translation of part of Hentzner’s Travels, lord Wliitworth’s
account of Russia, Life of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, &c.
By limiting the number of copies of each work, and parting with them only as presents, he created a species of
fame and curiosity after the productions of his press, which
was then quite new, and unquestionably very gratifying to
himself. We need not analyze this kind of reputation, as
it is now better known in ours than in his days. In this
way, in 1761, he printed at Strawberry-hill two volumes of
his “Anecdotes of Painting in England,
” compiled from
the papers of Mr. George Vertue, purchased at the sale of
the effects of that industrious antiquary. It will be allowed, that the remains of Mr. Vertue could not have
fallen into better hands. In 1763, another volume was
added, and also the Catalogue of Engravers; and, in 1771,
the whole was completed in a fourth volume, to which was
added “The History of the Modern Taste in Gardening.
”
In A
Counter Address to the Public, on the late dismission of a
general officer,
” 8vo.
an engagement, but released soon after, and came to England, where he was appointed tutor to William lord Herbert, eldest son to the earl of Pembroke and Montgomery.
Mr. Wase was afterwards made fellow of King’s-college,
and went out bachelor of arts. In 1650 he published an
English translation in verse of the “Electra
” of Sophocles.
For something offensive in the preface of this translation,
or some other accusation bythe parliamentary party, which
is not quite clear, (Walker says he delivered a feigned letter from the king to Dr. Collins) he was ejected from his
fellowship, and obliged to leave the kingdom. He was
afterwards taken at sea, and imprisoned at Gravesend, from
which he contrived to escape, and served in the Spanish
army against the French. He was taken prisoner in an
engagement, but released soon after, and came to England,
where he was appointed tutor to William lord Herbert,
eldest son to the earl of Pembroke and Montgomery. To
this nobleman he dedicated “Gratii Falisci Cynegeticon,
a poem on hunting by Gratius, &c.
” Lond.