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

, a physician of the last century, and a man of a singular and whimsical cast of mind, was born in 1692, and in 1707 was entered of Peterhouse, Cambridge, where he took the degrees, B. A. 1710, M, A. 1714, and M. D. 1721, and soon after settled at Lynn, in Norfolk, where he published v Dr. Gregory’s “Elements of catoptrics and dioptrics,” translated from the Latin original, to which he added: 1. A method for finding the ibcrof all specula, as well as lenses universally; as also magnifying or lessening a given object by a given speculum, or lens> in any assigned proportion. 2. A solution of those problems which Dr. Gregory has left undemonstrated. 3. A particular account of microscopes and telescopes, from Mr. Huygens; with the discoveries made by catoptrics and dioptrics. By an epigram, many of which he provoked, he appears to have been the champion of the fair sex at Lynn, in 1748. On one occasion, a pamphlet having been written against him, he nailed it up against his house-door. Having acquired a competency by his profession, he removed to Queen-square, Ormondstreet, London, where he resided till his death, which happened March 10, 1774, at the age of 82. A great number of lively essays, both in prose and verse, the production of his pen, were printed and circulated among his friends. Among these were: 1. “Ode in imitation of Horace,” ode 3, lib. iii. addressed to the right hon. sir Robert Walpole, on ceasing to be minister, Feb. 6, 1741; designed, he says, as a just panegyric on a great minister, the glorious revolution, protestant succession, and principles of liberty. To which was added the original ode, “defended in commentariolo.” It was inscribed to George carl of Orford, as an acknowledgement of the favours conferred by his lordship as well as by his father and grandfather. On the first institution of the militia, our author was appointed one of the earl’s deputy-lieutenants, and was named in his lordship’s first commission of the peace. 2. Opuscula varia utriusque linguae, medicinam; medicorum collegium; literas, utrasque academias; empiricos, eorum cultores; solicitatorem, prsestigiatorem; poeticen, criticen; patronum, patriam; religionem, libertatem, spectantia. Cum praefatione eorum editionem defendente. Auctore D. Gulielmo Browne, equite aurato, M. D. utriusque et medicorum et physicorum S. R. S. 175, 4to. This little volume (which was dated “Ex area dicta reginali, MDCCLXV. in nonas Januarias, ipso Ciceronis et auctoris natali”) contained, I. Oratio Harveiana, in theatro collegii medicorum Londinensis habita, 1751. II. A vindication of the college of physicians, in reply to solicitorgeneral Murray, 1753. III. Ode in imitation of Horace, Ode I. addressed to the duke of Montague. With a new interpretation, in commentariolo, 1765. IV. The Ode, above-mentioned, to sir Robert Walpole. Some time before, sir William had published odes in imitation of Horace; addressed to sir John Dolben, to sir John Turner, to doctor Askew, and to Robert lord Walpole. 3. Appendix altera ad opuscula; oratiuncula, collegii medicorum Londinensis cathedrae vatedicens. In comitiis, postridie jdivi Michaelis, MDCCLXXVII. ad collegii administrationem renovandam designatis; machinaque incendiis extinguendis apta contra permissos rebelies munitis; habita a D. GuBrowne, equite aurato, praeside? “1768? 4to, This farewell oration contains so many curious particulars of sir William’s life, that the reader will not be displeased to see some extracts from it, and with his own spelling.” The manly age and inclination, with conformable studies, I diligently applied to the practice of physic in the country; where, as that age adviseth, I sought riches and friendships. But afterwards, being satiated witn friends, whom truth, not flattery, had procured; satiated with riches, which Galen, not fortune, had presented; I resorted immediately to this college: where, in further obedience to the same adviser, I might totally addict myself to the service of honour. Conducted by your favour, instead of my own merit, I have been advanced, through various degrees of honour, a most delightful climax indeed, even to the very highest of all which the whole profession of physic hath to confer. In this chair, therefore, twice received from the elects, shewing their favour to himself, he confesseth much more than to the college, your præsident

His concern in the winotrade gave him an opportunity of travelling over a considerable part of Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, but hearing of his father’s death in 1758, he returned to England, and in 1761 withdrew entirely from the wine-trade. He now, from his observation while in Spain, suggested to the prime minister, Mr. Pitt, afterwards lord Chatham, the practicability of a successful expedition against Ferrol, in Galicia, where the Spaniards had a considerable harbour, and generally stationed a part of their navy; but various circumstances, of which perhaps Mr. Pitt’s resignation was the principal, prevented this enterprise from being attempted. Disappointed in this, he resolved to return to his native country, and pass his time as a private gentleman, cultivating his paternal estate. One of the new ministers, however, lord Halifax, diverted him from this design, and suggested Africa to him as a proper field for enterprize and discovery; and that he might go under the protection of a public character, it was proposed to send him as consul to Algiers. Bruce acceded to these proposals, and left England in the end of June 1762. He passed through France and Italy, and carried with him from the latter country an artist to assist him in his drawings. For his subsequent adventures, his travels into Abyssinia, and his discovery of the sources of the Nile, &c. we must refer to his published travels. He returned to his native country in 1773, and in 1776, he married a daughter of Thomas Dundas of Fingask, esq. by whom he had three children, two of whom, a son and daughter, are still living. After he settled at Kinnaird, his time was chiefly spent in managing his estate, in preparing his travels for the press, and other literary occupations; and he was preparing a second edition of his Travels, when death prevented the execution of/ his design. On Saturday, April 26, 1794, having entertained some company at Kinnaird, as he was going down stairs about eight o'clock in the evening, to hand a lady into a carriage, his foot slipt, and he fell from a considerable height. He was taken up in a state of insensibility, and expired early next morning. Mr. Bruce’s figure was above the common size; his limbs athletic, but well proportioned; his complexion sanguine; his countenance manly and good-tempered; and his manners easy and polite. The whole outward man was such as to announce a character well calculated to contend with the many difficulties and trying occasions, which so extraordinary a journey could not but have thrown in his way. His internal characters, the features of his understanding and disposition, seem in a great measure to have corresponded with these outward lineaments. As a country gentleman, though not without a tincture of haughtiness, he exhibited the elegance of a man of fashion, and the hospitality of a Briton. His personal accomplishments fitted him, in a superior manner, for the undertakings in which he engaged. His constitution was robust, and he had inured himself to every kind of fatigue and exercise. In mental accomplishments he equalled, if not surpassed, the generality of travellers. His memory was excellent, and his understanding vigorous and well cultivated. He understood French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, the two first of which he spoke and wrote with facility. Besides Greek and Latin, which he read well, though not critically, he knew the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac; and, in the latter part of his life, compared several portions of the scriptures in those related dialects. He read and spoke with ease, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Amharic. Necessity made him acquainted with these last, and impressed them deeply on his mind. He had applied, during the greatest part of his life, to the study of astronomy, and other practical branches of mathematical learning.

, a Lutheran divine, settled in England, was born in the small island of Cadsand, near the Belgic frontier, Dec. 31, 1726, and was educated with a view to the theological profession, chiefly at the university of Franeker, whence he passed to Leyden, There he obtained a pastorship, and profited by the society of Hemsterhuis, of Valkenäer, and especially of the elder Schultens. His literary acquirements were eminent; he read the Hebrew and the Greek; he composed correctly; and has preached with applause in four languages, Latin, Butch, French, and English. In 1752, Mr. Columbine, of a French refugee family, which had contributed to found, and habitually attended, the Walloon church at Norwich, was intrusted by that congregation, when he was on a journey into Holland, to seek out a fit successor to their late pastor, Mr. Valloton, and applied, after due inquiry, to Mr. Bruckner, who accepted the invitation, and early in 1753 settled as French preacher at Norwich, where he officiated during fifty-one years, with undiminished approbation. About the year 1766, Mr. Bruckner succeeded also to Dr. Van Sarn, as minister of the Dutch church, of which the duties gradually became rather nominal than real, in proportion as the Dutch families died oft', and as the cultivation of their language was neglected by the trading world for the French. The French tongue Mr. Bruckner was assiduous to diffuse, and gave public and private lessons of it for many years. His income was now convenient and progressive. He kept a horse and a pointer, for he took great pleasure in shooting. He drew occasionally, and has left a good portrait of his favourite dog. He cultivated music, and practised much on the organ. In 1767 was printed at Leyden his “Theorie du Systme Animal,” in the seventh and tenth chapters of which there is much anticipation of the sentiments lately evolved in the writings of Mr. Mai thus. This work was well translated into English, under the title “A Philosophical Survey of the Animal Creation,” published for Johnson and Payne in 1768. Mr. Bruckner was married in 1782, to Miss Cooper, of Guist, formerly his pupil. In 1790, he published under the name Cassander, from his birth-place, those “Criticisms on the Diversions of Purley,” which attracted some hostile flashes from Mr. Home Tooke, in his subsequent quarto edition. This pamphlet displays a profound and extensive knowledge of the various Gothic dialects, and states that the same theory of prepositions and conjunctions, so convincingly applied in the “Epea pteroenta” to the northern languages, had also been taught concerning the Hebrew and other dead languages by Schultens. Mr. Wakefield’s pamphlet against Social Worship drew from Mr. Bruckner, in 1792, a learned reply. In the preface to these “Thoughts on Public Worship,” hopes are given of a continuation still desiderated by the friends of religion. Mr. Bruckner began a didactic poem in French verse, which had for its object to popularize in another form, the principles laid down in. his Theory of the Aoimal System. A gradual failure rather of spirits than of health, seems often to have suspended or delayed the enterprise; to have brought on a restless and fastidious vigilance; and to have prepared that termination of his life, which took place on the morning of Saturday, May 12, 1804. He was buried, according to his own desire, at Guist, near the kindred of his respected widow. His society was courted to the last; as his conversation was always distinguished for good sense, for argument, and for humour. He was beloved for his attentions and affability; esteemed for his probity and prudence; and admired for his understanding and learning.

, chevalier and count of Nanay, was born near Livarot, in Normandy, March 2, 1752, and died on his estate at Nangay, Sept. 18, 1787. He was minister plenipotentiary in most of the courts of Germany, and having a great taste -for history, politics, and antiquities, passed much of his time in pursuits calculated to gratify it. He published the following works, all of which were well received by his countrymen: i. “Tableau de gouvernement de PAllemagne,” 1755, 12mo. 2. “Origines, ou Pancien gouvernement de la France, de l‘Allemagne, et de l’Italie,” Hague, 1757, 4 vols. 8vo. 3. “L‘Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Europe,” 1772, 12 vols. 12mo. 4. “Heche rches sur l‘Histoire d’Allemagne,” 1772, 2 vols. fol. 5. “Maximes du gouvernement monarchique,” 1789, 4 vols. 8vo, and several other dissertations on subjects of history and politics. He was also author of a tragedy named “Charlemagne,” printed, and of another, “Rosamond,” which remains in manuscript.

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

, a protestant dissenting minister, was born in London, Oct 18, 1719. His mother was the daughter, by a second wife, of the celebrated Matthew Henry. He was educated first at Chester, from whence he went to Dr. Doddridge’s academy at Northampton in 1736, and commenced preacher in the summer of 1740, his first settlement being at Welford, in Northamptonshire. He appears to have afterwards removed to London, but quitted the presbyterian sect, was baptized by immersion, and joined the general baptists. He preached likewise at Colchester, but how long cannot be ascertained. In 1743, he was chosen minister of a meeting in White’s alley, Moorfields. In 1745, this congregation removed to Barbican, and in 1780 to Worship-street, Shoreditch, where it remained until his death April 15, 1797. Before this event his infirmities had unfitted him for. public service; yet at one period he must have enjoyed great popularity, as he was chosen to succeed Dr. James Foster, in the Old Jewry lecture. Besides several single sermons, preached on particular occasions, he published 1. “Discourses on several subjects,” 1752. 2. “A Vindication of Lord Shaftesbury’s writings,” 1753. 3. “Notes on Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophical Writings,” 1755, 8vo. 4v “Observations on Natural Religion and Christianity, candidly proposed in a Review of the Discourses lately published by the lord bishop of London,” 1757. 5. “Œconomy of the Gospel,” 1764, 4to. 6. “Discourses on the Parables and Miracles of Christ,” 1770, 4 vols. 7. “Catechetical Exercises,” 1774. 8. “Preface to notes on the Bible,” 1791, and after his death, “Notes on the Bible,” 3 vols. 8vo.

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

Whilst he remained minister of this parish, the providence of God wonderfully interposed for the preservation of his life; for his lodgings being near a powder-mill, Mr. Morgan, a gentleman of the parish, represented to him. the danger of his situation, and at the same time invited him to his own house. Mr. Bull, at first, modestly declined the offer, but after some importunity accepted it; and, not many days after his removal to Mr. Morgan’s, the mill was blown up, and his apartment with it. In this part of his life he took a journey once a year to Oxford, where he stayed about two months, to enjoy the benefit of the public libraries. In his way to and from Oxford, he always paid a visit to sir William Masters, of Cirencester, by which means he contracted an intimacy with Mr. Alexander pregory, the minister of the place, and after some time married Bridget, one of his daughters, on the 20th of May, 1658. The same year he was presented by the lady Pool, to the rectory of Suddington St. Mary, near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. The next year, 1659, he was made privy to the design of a general insurrection in favour of king Charles II. and several gentlemen of that neighbourhood who were in the secret, chose his house at Suddington for one of the places of their meeting. Upon the restoration, Mr. Bull frequently preached for his father-in-law, Mr. Gregory, at Cirencester, where there was a large and populous congregation; and his sermons gave such general satisfaction, that, upon a vacancy, the people were very solicitous to have procured for him the presentation; but the largeness of the parish, and the great duty attending it, deterred him Trom consenting to the endeavours they were making for that purpose. In 1662, he was presented by the lord high-chancellor, the earl of Clarendon, to the vicarage of Suddington St. Peter, which lay contiguous to Suddington St. Mary, at the request of his diocesan Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester, both livings not exceeding 100l. a year. When Mr. Bull came first to the rectory of Suddington, he began to be more open in the use of the liturgy of the church of England, though it was not yet restored by the return of the king; for, being desired to marry a couple, he performed the ceremony, on a Sunday morning, in the face of the whole congregation, according to the form prescribed by the book of common -prayer. He took the same method in governing these parishes, as in that of St. George’s, and with the same success; applying himself with great diligence to the discharge of his pastoral functions, and setting the people an admirable example in the government and œconomy of his own family. During his residence here, he had an opportunity of confirming two ladies of quality in the protestant communion, who were reduced to a wavering state of mind by the arts and subtleties of the Romish missionaries. The only dissenters he had in his parish were quakers; whose extravagances often gave him no small uneasiness. In this part of his life, Mr. Bull prosecuted his studies with great application, and composed most of his works during the twenty-seven years that he was rector of Suddington. Several tracts, indeed, which cost him much pains, are entirely lost, through his own neglect in preserving them; particularly a treatise on the posture used by the ancient Christians in receiving the Eucharist; a letter to Dr. Pearson concerning the genuineness of St. Ignatius’ s epistles; a long one to Mr. Glanvil, formerly minister of Bath, concerning the eternity of future punishments; and another, on the subject of popery, to a person of very great quality. In 1669, he published his Apostolical Harmony, with a view to settle the peace of the church, upon a point of the utmost importance to all its members; and he dedicated it to Dn William Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester. This performance was greatly disliked, at first, by many of the clergy, and others, on account of the author’s departing therein from the private opinions of some doctors of the church, and his manner of reconciling the two apostles St. Paul and St. James, as to the doctrine of justification. It was particularly opposed by Dr. Morley, bishop of WinChester; Dr. Barlow, Margaret-professor of divinity at Oxford; Mr. Charles Gataker, a presbyterian divine; Mr. Joseph Truman, a non-conformist minister; Dr. Tully, principal of St. Edmund’s-hall; Mr. John Tombes, a famous anabaptist preacher; Dr. Lewis Du Moulin, an independent; and by M. De Marets, a French writer, who tells us, “that the author, though a professed priest of the church of England, was more addicted to the papists, remonstrants, and Socinians, than to the orthodox party.” Towards the end of 1675, Mr. Bull published his “Examen Censuræ,” &c. in answer to Mr. Gataker, and his “Apologia pro Harmonia,” &c. in reply to Dr. Tully. Mr. Bull’s notion on this subject was “That good works, which proceed from faith, and are conjoined with faith, are a necessary condition required from us by God, to the end that by the new and evangelical covenant, obtained by and sealed in the blood of Christ the Mediator of it, we may be justified according to his free and unmerited grace.” In this doctrine, and throughout the whole book, Mr. Bull absolutely excludes all pretensions to merit on the part of men; but the work nevertheless excited the jealousy of many able divines both in the church and among the dissenters, as appears from the above list. About three years after, he was promoted by the earl of Nottingham, then lord chancellor, to a prebend in the church of Gloucester, in which he was installed the 9th of October, 1678. In 1680, he finished his “Defence of the Nicene Faith,” of which he had given a hint five years before in his Apology. This performance, which is levelled against the Arians and Socinians on one hand, and the Tritheists and Sabellians on the other, was received with universal applause, and its fame spread into foreign countries, where it was highly esteemed by the best judges of antiquity, though of different persuasions. Five years after its publication, the author was presented, by Philip Sheppard, esq. to the rectory of Avening in Gloucestershire, a very large parish, and worth two hundred pounds per annum. The people of this parish, being many of them very dissolute and immoral, and many more disaffected to the church of England, gave him for some time great trouble and uneasiness; but, by his prudent conduct and diligent discharge of his duty, he at last got the better of their prejudices, and converted their dislike iuto the most cordial love and affection towards him. He had not been long at Avening, before he was promoted, by archbishop Sancroft, to the archdeaconry of Landaff, in which he was installed the 20th of June, 1686. He was invited soon after to Oxford, where the degree of doctor in divinity was conferred upon him by that university, without the payment of the usual fees, in consideration of the great and eminent services he had done the church. During the reign of James II. the doctor preached very warmly against popery, with which the nation was then threatened. Some time after the revolution, he was put into the commission of the peace, and continued in it, with some little interruption, till he was made a bishop. In 1694, whilst he continued rector of Avening, he published his “Judicium Ecclesia? Catholicse, &c.” in defence of the “Anathema,” as his former book had been of the Faith, decreed by the first council of Nice. The last treatise which Dr. Bull wrote, was his “Primitive Apostolical Tradition,” &c. against Daniel Zwicker, a Prussian. All Dr. Bull’s Latin works, which he had published by himself at different times, were collected together, and printed in 1703, in one volume in folio, under the care and inspection of Dr. John Ernest Grabe, the author’s age and infirmities disabling him from undertaking this edition. The ingenious editor illustrated the work with many learned annotations, and ushered it into the world with an excellent preface. Dr, Bull was in the seventy-first year of his age, when he was acquainted with her majesty’s gracious intention of conferring on him the bishopric of St. David’s; which promotion he at first declined, on account of his ill state of health and advanced years; but, by the importunity of his friends, and strong solicitations from the governors o*f the church, he was at last prevailed upon to accept it, and was accordingly consecrated in Lambeth-chapel, the 29th of April, 1705. Two years after, he lost his eldest son, Mr. George Bull, who died of the small-pox the 11th of May, 1707, in, the thirty-seventh year of his age. Our prelate took his seat in the house of lords in that memorable session, when the bill passed for the union of the two kingdoms, and spoke in a debate which happened upon that occasion, in favour of the church of England. About July after his consecration, he went into his diocese, and was received with all imaginable demonstrations of respect by the gentry and clergy. The episcopal palace at Aberguilly being much out of repair, he chose the town of Brecknock for the place of his residence; but was obliged, about half a year before his death, to remove from thence to Abermarless, for the benefit of a freer air. He resided constantly in his diocese, and carefully discharged all the episcopal functions. Though bishop Bull was a great admirer of our ecclesiastical constitution, yet he would often lament the distressed state of the church of England, chiefly owing to the decay of ancient discipline, and the great number of lay-impropriations, which he considered as a species of sacrilege, and insinuated that he had known instances of its being punished by the secret curse which hangs over sacrilegious persons. Some time before his last sickness, he entertained thoughts of addressing a circular letter to all his clergy; and, after his death, there was found among his papers one drawn up to that purpose. He had greatly impaired his health, by too intense and unseasonable an application to his studies, and, on the 27th of September, 1709, was taken with a violent fit of coughing, which brought on a spitting of blood. About the beginning of February following, he was seized with a distemper, supposed to be an ulcer, or what they call the inward piles; of which he died the 17th of the same month, and was buried, about a week after his death, at Brecknock/ leaving behind him but two children out of eleven.

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

, a German poet of considerable celebrity in his own country, and known in this by several translations of one of his terrific tales, was born in 1748, at Wolmerswende, in the principality of Halberstadt. His father was a Lutheran minister, and appears to have given him a pious domestic education; but to school or university studies young Burger had an insuperable aversion, and much of his life was consumed in idleness and dissipation, varied by some occasional starts of industry, which produced his poetical miscellanies, principally ballads, that soon became very popular from the simplicity of the composition. In the choice of his subjects, likewise, which were legendary tales and traditions, wild, terrific, and grossly improbable, he had the felicity to hit the taste of his countrymen. His attention was also directed to Shakspeare and our old English ballads, and he translated many of the latter into German with considerable effect. His chief employment, or that from which he derived most emolument, was in writing for the German Almanack of the Muses, and afterwards the German Musaeum. In 1787 he lectured on the critical philosophy of Kant, and in 1789 was appointed professor of belles-lettres in the university of Gottingen. He married three wives, the second the sister of the first, and the third a lady who courted him in poetry, but from whom, after three years cohabitation, he obtained a divorce. Her misconduct is said to have contributed to shorten his days. He died in June 1794. His works were collected and published by Reinhard, in 1798—99, 4 vols. 8vo, with a life, in which there is little of personal history that can be read with pleasure. Immorality seems to have accompanied him the greater part of his course, but he was undoubtedly a man of genius, although seldom under the controul of judgment. His celebrated ballad of “Leonora” was translated into English in 1796, by five or six different poets, and for some time pleased by its wild and extravagant horrors; and in 1798, his " Wild Huntsman’s Chase' 7 appeared hi an English dress; but Burger’s style has obtained, perhaps, more imitators than admirers, among the former of whom may be ranked some caricaturists.

, a dissenting divine of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a wit himself, and “the cause of wit in other men,” particularly dean Swift and his contemporaries, was born in 1645 at Staines in Middlesex, where his father then was minister, but was afterwards, at the restoration, ejected for nonconformity from the living of Collingbourne Ducis, in Wiltshire. Daniel was educated at Westminster school, and in 1660 went to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, but having some scruples of the nonconformist stamp, he left the university without a degree. It would appear, however, that he had taken orders, as we are told that immediately after he was invited to be chaplain to a gentleman of Chute in Wiltshire, and afterwards to a Mr. Smith of Tedworth, where he was tutor to that gentleman’s son. In 1667, the earl of Orrery, lord president of Munster, took Mr. Burgess over to Ireland, and appointed him master of a school which he had established at Charleville for the purpose of strengthening the protestant interest in that kingdom, and Mr. Burgess, while here, superintended the education of the sons of some of the Irish nobility and gentry. After leaving this school, he was chaplain to lady Mervin, near Dublin; but about this time, we are told, he was ordained in Dublin as a presbyterian minister, and married a Mrs. Briscoe in that city, by whom he had a son and two daughters.

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

In 1770, the duke of Grafton, unable to resist the opposition within and without doors, resigned, and was succeeded by lord North, whose measures Mr. Burke uniformly opposed, particularly on the great questions agitated, and measures adopted with regard to America. So determined was he in his opposition to that minister, as to ridicule the proposition for a repeal of the obnoxious laws of the preceding administration, retaining only the duty on tea, as a mark of the authority of parliament over the colonies; although this, if wrong, could not be more so than a similar measure which he supported, and, as already noticed, some say he advised, during the marquis of Rockingham’s administration. The most brilliant of his speeches were made in the course of this disastrous war, during which, although the attempt has been made, we are totally at a loss to reconcile his principles with what he adopted on a subsequent occasion, nor are we of opinion that the question can be decided by selecting detached passages from his speeches (the most important of which he published); but from a consideration, not only of the general tendency of the whole towards the welfare of the state, and the sentiments of the nation, but on the actual effects produced. And it must not be omitted that his opposition to government continued after all Europe had leagued against Great Britain, a conduct consistent enough with the character of a partizan, but which has little in it of true independent patriotism. Much of Burke’s ardour in the course of this long political warfare has been thus accounted for by his old friend Gerard Hamilton: “Whatever opinion Burke, from any motive, supports, so ductile is jiis imagination, that he soon conceives it to be right.” We apprehend also, that Burke was more accustomed to philosophize on certain questions than is usually supposed, and that by revolving the question in every possible light, his mind was often as full of arguments on one side as on the other, neither of which he could on all occasions conceal; and hence it is that men of quite opposite opinions have been equally desirous to quote his authority; and that there are in his works passages that may be triumphantly brought forward by almost any party. Burke’s judgment, had he given it full play, would have rendered him an oracle^ to whom all parties would have been glad to appeal; but his political attachments were unfortunately strong while they lasted, and not unmixed with ambition, which frequently brought the independence of his character into suspicion. No opinion was ever more just than that of his friend Goldsmith, that Burke “gave up to party” what “was meant for mankind.”

The Spring of 1782 opened a new scene of great political importance. The American war had continued seven years, and having been unsuccessful, not only the people, but very nearly a majority of the parliament, became tired of it. The minister was now attacked with great force, and the several motions which the opposition introduced, relative to the extinction of the war, were lost only by a very small minority. Finding the prospect of success brightening, the opposition determined to put the subject at issue. Accordingly on the 8th of March, lord John Cavendish moved certain resolutions, recapitulating the failures, the misconduct, and the expences of ‘the war, the debate on which lasted till two o’clock in the morning, when the house divided on the order of the day. which had been moved by the secretary at war, and which was carried only by a majority often. This defection on the side of administration gave heart to the minority, and they rallied with redoubled force and spirits on the 15th of March, when a motion of sir John Rous, “That the house could have no further confidence in the ministers who had the direction of public affairs,” was negatived only by a majority of nine. The minority followed their fortune, and on the 20th of the same month (the house being uncommonly crowded) the earl of Surrey (now duke of Norfolk) rose to make his promised motion, when lord North spoke to order, by saying, “he meant no disrespect to the noble earl; but as notice had been given that the object of the intended motion was the removal of his majesty’s ministers, he meant to have acquainted the house, that such a motion was become unnecessary, as he could assure the house, on authority, that the present administration was no more! and that his majesty had come to a full determination of changing his ministers; and for the purpose of giving the necessary time for new arrangements, he moved an adjournment,” which was instantly adopted. During this adjournment a new administration was formed under the auspices of the marquis of Rockingham, on whose public principles and private virtues the nation seemed to repose, after the violent struggle by which it had been agitated, with the securest and most implicit confidence. The arrangements were as follow: The marquis of Rockingham first lord of the treasury, the earl of Shelburne and Mr. Fox joint secretaries of state, lord Camden president of the council, duke of Grafton privy seal, lord John Cavendish chancellor of the exchequer, and Mr. Burke (who was at the same time made a privy counsellor) paymaster-general of the forces.

Upon the meeting of parliament after the recess, the new ministry, which stood pledged to the country for many reforms, began to put them into execution. They first began with the affairs of Ireland; and as the chief ground of complaint of the sister kingdom was the restraining power of the 6th of George the First, a bill was brought in to repeal this act, coupled with a resolution of the house, “That it was essentially necessary to the mutual happiness of the two countries tha& a firm and solid connection should be forthwith established by the consent of both, and that his majesty should be requested to give the proper directions for promoting the same.” These passed without opposition, and his majesty at the same time appointed his grace the duke of Portland lord lieutenant of that kingdom. They next brought in bills for disqualifying revenue officers for voting in the election for members of parliament; and on the 15th of April, Mr. Burke brought forward his great plan of reform in the civil list expenditure, by which the annual saving (and which would be yearly increasing) would amount to 72,368l. It was objected by some members that this bill was not so extensive as it was originally framed; but Mr. Burke entered into the grounds of those omissions which had been made either from a compliance with the opinions of others, or from a fuller consideration of the particular cases; at the same time he pledged himself, that he should at all times be ready to dbey their call, whenever it appeared to be the general sense of the house and of the people to prosecute a more complete system of reform. This bill was followed by another for the regulation of his own office; but the lateness of the season did not afford time for the completion of all plans of regulation and retrenchment, which were in the contemplation of the new ministry, and indeed all their plans were deranged by the death of the marquis of Rockingham July 1, 1782. On this event it was discovered that there was not that perfect union of principles among the leaders of the majority, to which the country had looked up; for, lord Shelburne (afterwards marquis of Lansdowne) being appointed first lord of the treasury, a statesman who had incessantly and powerfully co-operated with the party in opposition to the late war, except in the article of avowing the independence of America, this gave umbrage to the Rockingham division of the cabinet, who were of opinion that “by this change the measures of the former administration would be broken in upon.” Mr. Fox, therefore, lord John Cavendish, Mr. Burke, and others, resigned their respective offices, and Mr. Pitt, then a very young man, succeeded lord George Cavendish as chancellor of the exchequer, lord Sidney succeeded Mr. Fox as secretary of state, and colonel Barre Mr. Burke as paymaster of the forces, lord Sherburne retaining his office as first minister.

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

Such a defence as this may very well be admitted in favour of Mr. Burke and others; but Mr. Fox stood pledged upon different ground. He not only inveighed against the minister in the grossest terms of abuse, but against the man; whom, he said, “he would not trust himself in a room with, and from the moment that he ever acted with him, he would rest satisfied to be termed the most infamous of men.” After such a particular declaration as this, emphatically and deliberately announced in a full house of commons, scarce nine months had elapsed when Mr. Fox cordially united with lord North, and brought a suspicion on his character, with regard to consistency, which all the exertions of his future life were not able to remove. In the mean time, however, a new administration bade fair for permanence. It was strong in talents, in rank, and in the weight of landed interest. It seemed nearly such a combination of great families as Mr. Burke had wished in his “Thoughts on the Causes of the present Discontents,” but it wanted what was necessary to complete his plan, “the approbation and confidence of the people,” Suspicion attached to all their measures, and seemed, in the opinion of the people, to be confirmed when they introduced the famous East India bill. This is not the place for discussing the merits of this important bill; it may suffice, as matter of fact, to state that it was considered as trenching too much on the prerogative, as creating a mass of ministerial influence which would be irresistible; and that the vast powers which it gave the house of commons might render the administration too strong for the crown. Had these objections been confined to the ex-ministers and their friends, the coalesced ministers might have repelled them, at least by force of numbers, but it was peculiarly unfortunate for Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, and the whig part of administration, that they were opposed without doors by the voice of the people, and in the writings of all those authors who had the credit of being constitutional authorities. The East India bill, accordingly, although carried in the house of commons, was lost in thai of the lords, and a new administration was arranged, in December 1783, at the head of which was Mr. Pitt.

, a celebrated commentator on the New Testament, the son of the rev. Miles Burkitt, who was ejected for nonconformity, was born at Hitcharn, in Northamptonshire, July 25, 1650. He was sent first to a school at Stow Market, and from thence to another at Cambridge. After his recovery from the small pox, which he caught there a he was admitted of Pembroke-hall, at the age of no more than fourteen years; and upon his removal from the university, when he had taken his degree, he became a chaplain in a private gentleman’s family, where he continued some years. He entered young upon the ministry, being ordained by bishop Reynolds; and the first employment which he had was at Milden, in Suffolk, where he continued twenty-one years a constant preacher (in a plain, practical, and affectionate manner), first as curate, and afterwards as rector of that church. In 1692 he was promoted to the vicarage of Dedham, in Essex, where he continued to the time of his death, which happened in the latter end of October, 1703. He was a pious ancT charitable man. He made great collections for the French Protestants in the years 1687, &c. and by his great care, pains, and charges, procured a worthy minister to go and settle in Carolina. Among other charities, he bequeathed by his last will and testament the house wherein he lived, with the lands thereunto belonging, to be an habitation for the lecturer that should be chosen from time to time to preach the lecture at Dedham. He wrote some books, and among the rest a Commentary upon the New Testament, in the same plain, practical, and affectionate manner in which he preached. This has often been reprinted in folio, and lately with some alterations and improvements, by the rev. Dr. Glasse. Mr. Burkitt’s other works are small pious tracts for the use of his parishioners.

, the first upon record of a very learned family, and professor of divinity at Utrecht, was the son of Peter Burman, a Protestant minister at Frankendal, and was born at Leyden in 1632, where he pursued his studies. At the age of twenty-three he was invited by the Dutch congregation at Hanau, in Germany, to be their pastor, and thence he was recalled to Leyden, and chosen regent of the college in which he had been educated. Before he had been here a year, his high reputation occasioned his removal to Utrecht, where he was appointed professor of divinity, and one of the preachers; Here he acquired additional fame by his learning, and the flourishing state to which he advanced the university. He was reckoned an excellent philosopher, an eminent scholar in the learned languages, and a good preacher. He died Nov. 10, 1679. His principal works are Commentaries on some of the books of the Old Testament, in Dutch, besides which he wrote in Latin: 1. “An Abridgment of Divinity,” Utrecht, 1671, 2 vols. 4to, often reprinted. 2. “De Moralitate Sabbati,” 1665, which occasioned a controversy with Essenius. 3. “Narratio de controversiis nuperius in academia Ultrajectina motis, &c.” Utrecht, 1677, 4to. 4. “Exercitationes Academic^,” Rotterdam, 1683, 2 vols. 4to. 5. “Tractatus de Passione Christi,” 1695, 4to. 6. His “Academical discourses,” published by Grasvius, with some account of the author, Utrecht, 1700, 4to, and the same year they were translated and printed in Dutch.

, one of the sons of the preceding, was born at Utrecht, in 1671, studied polite literature under Graevius, and afterwards went to the university of Leyden, where he entered upon his philosophical, mathematical, and divinity course. After he had finished his academical studies, he was chosen pastor of the church of Condom, in Frieseland, and three years after, in 1698, was invited to that of the Brille. In 1702 he accompanied, as minister, a deputation of his countrymen to England. On his return he preached at Enchuysen, and at Amsterdam, where he remained ten years. In 1715 he was appointed divinity-professor at Utrecht, where he died in 1719, leaving by his wife, Elizabeth Thierrens, four sons, the eldest of whom, John, became in 1738 professor of botany at Amsterdam; the second, Francis, was minister at Nimeguen; the third, Abraham, a merchant at Amsterdam; a.nd Peter, the fourth, professor of humanity at Franeker. His works are: 1. “Burmannorum pietas, gratissimae beati parentis memoriae communi nomine ex^ hibita,” with some letters of Burman and Limborg, Utrecht­1701, 8vo. 2. “A defence of his father,” in Dutch, 1704, against the charge of Spinosism, brought against him by Limborg. His other works are chiefly orations on points of theology, sacred poetry, &c.

As he had always looked upon Confirmation as the likeliest means of reviving a spirit of Christianity, he wrote a short “Directory,” for preparing the youth upon such occasions, and sent copies of it, some months beforehand, to the minister of every parish where he intended to confirm. Every summer, he made a tour, for six weeks or two months, through some district of his bishopric, daily preaching and confirming from church to church, so as, in the compass of three years (besides his triennial visitation), to go through all the principal livings of his diocese. In these circuits he entertained all the clergy that attended upon him, at his own expence, and held conferences with them upon the chief heads of divinity. During his residence at Salisbury, he constantly preached a Thursday’s lecture, founded at St. Thomas’s church: he likewise preached and confirmed, every Sunday morning, in some church of that city, or of the neighbourhood round about it; and, in the evening, he had a lecture in his own chapel, wherein he explained some portion of scripture. Every week, during the season of Lent, he catechised the youth of the two great schools in the cathedral church, and instructed them in order for confirmation. He endeavoured, as much as possible, to reform the abuses of the bishop’s consistorial court.' No part of the episcopal office was more strictly attended to by him, than the examination of candidates for holy orders. He examined them himself as to the proofs of the Christian religion, the authority of the scriptures, and the nature of the gospel covenant; and, a day or two before ordination, he submitted all those whom he had accepted to the examination of the dean and prebendaries. As the qualification of clergymen for the pastoral care was always uppermost in his thoughts, he instituted at Salisbury a little nursery of students in divinity, being ten in number, to each of whom he allowed a salary of thirty pounds a year. Once every day he examined their progress in learning, and gave them a lecture on some speculative or practical point of divinity, or some part of the pastoral function. But this foundation being considered as reflecting upon the method of education at the universities, he was prevailed upon, after some years, to lay it wholly aside. He was a warm and constant enemy to pluralities, where non-residence was the consequence of them, and in some cases hazarded a suspension, rather than give institution. In the point of residence, he was so strict, that he immediately dismissed his own chaplains, upon their preferment to a cure of souls. He exerted the principle of toleration, which was deeply rooted in him, in favour of a nonjuring meeting-house at Salisbury, which he obtained the royal permission to conAive at; and this spirit of moderation brought over several dissenting families of his diocese to the commnnion of the church.

, a puritan divine, was born in 1599, and educated at Cambridge, but was obliged to quit that university for nonconformity. He sheltered himself for some time under the hospitable roof of the earl of Warwick, and afterwards retired to Holland, where he was chosen minister of an English congregation at Rotterdam. In 1642 he returned to England, and became preacher of two of the largest and most numerous congregations in London, Stepney and Cripplegate. It was not his object to spread sedition, but peace, for which he earnestly laboured. His “Irenicum” was one of the last subjects upon which he preached. He was a man of learning, candour, and modesty, and of irreproachable life. A considerable number of his writings are in print, many of Vhich were published after his death, which happened November 14, 1646. When the assembly of divines reformed the church by placing that of Scotland in lieu of that of England, Mr. Burroughes was a dissenter from their decrees, and lamented that after all the mischiefs of rebellion and revolution, men were not allowed to have liberty of conscience any more than before. These divisions are said to have shortened his days. Baxter used to say that if all presbyterians had been like Mr. Marshall, and all independents like Mr. Burroughes, their differences might easily have been compromised. Such men, however, in those distracted times were the “rari nantes in gurgite vasto.” We have before us a list of twelve quartos, and four octavos, mostly published from his Mss. after his death, among which is an “Exposition on Hosea,” 3 vols. but none of them seem, to have attained any great degree of popularity.

, late bishop of Hereford, was born at Hamburgh, probably of English parents, Dec. 1717. In his early days he acted as private tutor in the family of Mr. Child the banker. He was then a popular preacher in London, and possessed of sound parts, indefatigable industry, a good figure, and agreeable manners. Being introduced to Mr. Bilson Legge, he assisted that gentleman in the political controversy with lord Bute^ and rendered him farther services in calculations on public finance. It was probably through this connection that Dr^Hayter, bishop of London, appointed Mr. Butler his first chaplain, who obtained also the living of Everley in Wiltshire, about the same time. On the recommendation of lord Onslow, he was constituted one of the king’s chaplains, and obtained a prebend in Winchester cathedral. Commencing a political writer, he espoused the cause of lord North in all the measures of administration, and particularly in that of the American war, which he endeavoured to justify in several pamphlets. In reward of these services, he was n^ade archdeacon of Surrey, and procured-a Lambeth degree of D. D. from the archbishop of Canterbury. His next promotion was to the see of Oxford, which was given him by the minister (lord North) in 1777, on the advancement of Dn Lowth to the bishoprick of London; and the living of Cuddesden was held by Dr. Butler at the same time, being annexed to the see of Oxford; but this preferment was rendered locally unpleasant from the circumstance of his not having been regularly graduated at either of the universities. He, however, retained it till 1788, when he was advanced to the bishopric of Hereford, over which he presided until his death at his palace at Hereford, Dec. 10, 1802. He was twice married. His first wife was the mistress of a boarding-school in Westminster; his second, the sister and one of the coheiresses of sir Charles Vernon, of Farnham in Surrey; but he had issue by neither. He underwent the operation of lithotomy at the age of sixty, which he long survived, although in his latter days he was kept alive by great care and attention. Although charitable and even munificent in his lifetime, he left a very considerable fortune to his executors and friends. He was an eloquent, pleasing, and impressive preacher, always from short-hand notes, and very distinct and audible in his delivery, although his voice was weak.

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

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

, a puritan divine of considerable eminence in the beginning of the seventeenth century, was the son of Richard Byfield, minister of Stratford-uponAvon, and was born in Warwickshire about the year 1579. He became a servitor of Exeter college, Oxford, in Lent term 1596, and remained at the university upwards of four years, but left it without taking a degree. He was admitted, however, into holy orders, and was soon after invited to be pastor of St. Peter’s church, Chester, which he gladly accepted, and continued there for several years, “much followed and admired,” says Wood, “by the precise party, who esteemed his preaching profitable, and his life pious.” He was a strict observer of Sunday, on which subject he preached and wrote, and this involved him in a controversy, particularly with Edward Brerewood the mathematician. (See Brerewood.) The observation of the Sabbath was at this time a subject of much controversy, and many pamphlets were written on both sides, with the warmth natural at a period of increasing religious dissension. From Chester Mr. Byfield removed, in 1615, to the vicarage of Isleworth, where he died in 1622, leaving behind him an excellent character for learning, success in his ministry, and a pious and peaceable disposition. He was the author of many popular works, which are enumerated by Wood. Of these, his “Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Peter,” 1637, fol. and “on Colossians,” 1628, fol. are held in the highest estimation, and confirm the character which Wood, somewhat reluctantly, gives of him. Dr. Gouge, of Blackfriars, who drew up an account of his death, informs us that on his body being opened, a stone was taken out of his bladder that weighed thirty-three ounces; and was in length and breadth about thirteen inches, and solid, like a flint. A print of him was published by Richardson, in 1790, with an account of this very remarkable case. The noted Adonrram Byfield, a zealous adherent to the commonwealth revolution, was his son; and Richard Byfield, another ejected non-conformist, was his half brother; but neither had his meek, loyal, and submissive spirit. Adoniram is one of the few persons who have been, by name, stigmatized by Butler in his “Hudibras.” He was the father of Dr. Byfield, the noted Sal volatile doctor, who in his epitaph is said to be “Diu volatilis tandem Jfcms.”

, first earl of Cadogan, the son of Henry Cadogan, a counsellor at law, by Bridget, daughter to sir Hardress Waller, knt. was educated to a military life, and in 1701 was made quarter-master-general of the army. In 1703 he was constituted colonel of the second regiment of horse, and on August 25, 1704, brigadiergeneral, having that year behaved with great gallantry at the attack of Schellenberg, and the battle of Hochstet. In June 1705 he was elected member of parliament for Woodstock; and on July 18th of the same year, at the forcing of the French lines near Tirlemont, he behaved with remarkable bravery at the head of his regiment, xvhich first attacking the enemy had such success, that they defeated four squadrons of Bavarian guards, drove them through two battalions of their foot, and took four standards. He was also in the battle of Ramilies, fought on May 12, 1706; after which the duke of Marlborough sent from his camp at Meerlebeck, on June 3, brigadier Cadogan, with six squadrons of horse, and his letter to the governor of Antwerp, to invite him and the garrison to the obedience of king Charles III. and having reported to his grace that ten battalions were in the city and castle of Antwerp, who seemed inclined to surrender on honourable terms, the duke sent him authority to treat with them. And after some conferences, they complied, and the garrison, consisting of six French and six Spanish regiments, were allowed to march out in three days, and be conducted to Quesnoy. But of the Walloon regiment, consisting of 600 men each, only 372 men marched out; the rest entering into the service of king Charles, except some few who were not in condition to serve, and returned to their respective dwellings. Afterwards, towards the close of the campaign that year, he was taken prisoner when on a foraging party, and was carried into Tournay, but he remained there only three days, the duke of Vendosme sending him, on August 19, to the duke of Marl bo rough’s camp, upon his parole and five days after he was exchanged for the baron Palavicini, a major-general in the French service, taken at the battle of Ramilies. On Jan. 1, 1706-7, he was promoted to the rank of major-general of her majesty’s forces. On Mr. Stepney’s decease in 1707, he succeeded him as minister plenipotentiary in the government of the Spanish Netherlands. And he soon after, in conference, brought to a conclusion the negotiation for the speedy exchange of prisoners; and, having shared in the most difficult enterprizes throughout the war, was constituted a lieutenant-general on January 10, 1708-9.

On Feb, 2, 1720, his majesty’s full powers were dispatched to his lordship, for signing, in conjunction with the ministers of the several allies, the treaty of quadruple alliance, and with the ministers of the king of Spain, the proper instruments for receiving his catholic majesty’s acceptance of the terms of peace stipulated in the treaty; and for treating of a cessation of arms between the several powers engaged in the war; which was not brought to a conclusion till June 7 following; when the ratifications were accordingly exchanged with the minister of Spain. The duke of Marlborough departing this life on June 16, 1722, his lordship was, two days afterwards, constituted general and commander in chief of his majesty*s forces, master- general of the ordnance, and colonel of the first regiment of foot-guards, in room of his grace. Also, on June 23, 1723, he was declared one of the lords justices of Great Britain during his majesty’s absence.

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

, an eminent divine of the church of England, was the son of Mr. Edmund Calamy, minister of Aldermanbury before-mentioned, by a second wife, and received the first tincture of learning at St. Paul’s school, from whence he was sent, when very young, to the university of Cambridge, and there entered of Catherine-hall. In 1664-5, he took the degree of bachelor of arts; in 1668, that of master of arts, and became also fellow of that hall, and a very eminent tutor there. April 25, 1677, he was chosen in the room of Dr. Simon Ford, minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury; and soon after appointed one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. In 1680, he took his degree of doctor in divinity. In 1683, he preached in that church his famous sermon, which he afterwards published under the title of “A Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience,” than which no piece of its kind or size gamed more credit to its author, or was more taken notice of by the public. This sermon he preached a second time at Bow church with great effect, and this excited a zealous nonconformist, one Mr. Thomas De Laune, who had been formerly a schoolmaster, to write against it; which he did in such a manner as drew upon him a fatal imprisonment, which he endeavoured by all means to ascribe to Dr. Calamy, though his complaints on this head had little or no foundation. In 1683, Dr. Calamy was admitted to the vicarage of St. Lawrence Jewry, with St. Mary Magdalen Milk-street annexed, to which he was collated by the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s, in the room of Dr. Benjamin Whichcot. June 18, 1685, he was, on the decease of Dr. John Wells, installed into the prebend of Harleston, in the cathedral church of St. Paul. These preferments are abundant proofs of his merit, and of his great interest in the city of London, which he maintained, not by attaching himself to any party, but by living in great intimacy with the best men of all parties. He was particularly acquainted with alderman Cornish, who was his parishioner, and for whom he had so great a respect, that he gave testimony in his favour when he was tried for high-treason, October 16, 1685, which was no ordinary mark of friendship in those times. It is thought, that a sense of public calamities had a great share in bringing his last illness upon our author, who fell into a declining state in the autumn of the year last mentioned, and died of a pleuritic fever in the month of January 1686. He was a man equally valuable for the abilities which he possessed, and the uses to which he applied them. He was a sincere son of the church of England, and very intent on gaining over dissenters of all sorts to her communion; and had an extensive charity, and a just aversion to persecution. He was heartily loyal, but without bitterness or passion; and his loyalty occasioned his grief, when he saw those steps taken which could end in nothing but public confusion. His own virtues, however, exempted him in a great measure from envy and scandal, even in the worst of times; insomuch, that the greatest men of all sects and all parties readily joined in paying a just tribute of praise to his memory. Though few in his situation were either better or more frequent preachers, yet he left behind him very little in print. Some sermons of his were after his decease, published by his brother, which served only to raise a great regret in the world, as that so many more of his excellent performances were buried in oblivion. His sermons are still valued as well for the beauty of their language as the excellent sentiments contained in them.

, a very eminent divine among the nonconformists, grandson to Mr. Edmund Calamy, minister of Aldermanbury, by his eldest son Mr. Edmund Calamy (who was ejected out of the living of Moreton in Essex, on St. Bartholomew’s day, 1662), was born April 5, 1671. Having made a considerable progress in grammar learning at several private schools, and under Mr. Hartcliffe at Merchant Taylors, where he contracted a close friendship with Mr. Dawes, afterwards sir William Dawes, and archbishop of York, as also with Mr. Hugh Boulter, the primate of Ireland, he went through a course of logic, natural philosophy, and metaphysics, under the tuition of Mr. Samuel Craddock at the academy kept by him at Wickham Brook in Suffolk. In March 1688, he went over to the university of Utrecht, where he studied philosophy under De Vries, and civil law under Vander Muyden, and attended Graevius’s lectures upon Sophocles and Puffendorf’s Introduction. His application to his studies at this place was so great, that he spent one whole night every week among his books; and his proficiency gained him -the friendship of two of his countrymen at that university, who rose afterwards to very high stations in church and state, lord Charles Spencer, the famous earl of Sunderland, and his tutor Mr. Charles Trimnell, afterwards successively bishop of Norwich and of Winchester, with both of whom he kept up his acquaintance as long as he and they lived. Whilst he resided in Holland, an oiler of a professor’s chair in the university of Edinburgh was made him by Mr. Carstairs, principal of that university, sent over on purpose to find a person properly qualified lor such an office; which he declined, and returned to England in 1691, bringing with him letters from Graevius to Dr. Pocock, canon of Christ-church, and regius professor of Hebrew, and to Dr. Edward Bernard, Savilian professor of astronomy, who obtained leave for him to prosecute his studies in the Bodleian library; and his resilience at Oxford procured him the acquaintance of the learned Mr. Henry Dodvvell. Having resolved to make divinity his principal study, he entered into an examination of the controversy between the conformists and nonconformists, and was led to join the latter. Coming to London in 1692, he was unanimously chosen assistant to Mr. Matthew Sylvester at Blackfriars; and oa June 22, 1694, was ordained at Mr. Annesley’s meetinghouse in Little St. Helen’s, which was the first public transaction of the kind, after the passing of the act of uniformity, and was not undertaken without some timidity on the part of the elder nonconformists, such as Mr. Howe and Dr. Bates, who seemed afraid of giving offence to government. Six other young ministers were ordained at the same time, and the ceremony lasted from ten o'clock in the morning to six in the evening. He was soon after invited to become assistant to Mr. Daniel Williams in Hand-alley, Bishupsgate-street. Oct. 20, 1702, he was chosen one of the lecturers at Salters’-lmll, and in 1703 succeeded Mr. Vincent Alsop, as pastor of v. congregation in Westminster. He drew up the table of contents to Mr. Baxter’s History of his life and times, which was sent to the press in 1696, made some remarks on the work itself, and added to it an index; and reflecting on the usefulness of the book, he saw the expediency of continuing it, for Mr. Baxter’s history came no lower than 1684. Accordingly he composed an abridgment of it; with an account of many others of those ministers who were ejected after the restoration of Charles II. their apology for themselves and their adherents; containing the grounds of their nonconformity and practice, as to stated and occasional communion witlx the church of England; and a continuation of their history till the year 1691. This work was published in 1702. The following year Mr. Hoadly (afterwards bishop of Winchckter) published the two parts of his “Reasonableness of Conformity to the Church of England, &c. in answer to Mr. Calamy’s Abridgement of Mr. Baxter’s history, &c.” As a reply to these treatises, Mr. Calamy published the same year, “A Defence of moderate Nonconformity;” and soon after Mr. Hoadly sent abroad, “A serious admonition to Mr Calamy,” occasioned by the first part of his “Defence, of moderate Nonconformity.”

, a native of Saint Jean, near Voiron in Dauphiny, was secretary to M. de Lesdiguieres, and minister of the reformed religion, afterwards chancellor of Navarre. Henry IV. had a particular esteem for him, and employed him in affairs of the highest importance. Calignon and Thuanus together drew up the edict of Nantes. He died September 1606, at Paris, aged fiftysix, much lamented. He was a man of great learning, and well skilled in the management of affairs. A satire written by him, entitled “Le Mepris des Dames,” has been preserved to us by du Verdier Vauprivas. “L 7 Histoire des choses plus remarquables advenues en France en Annies 1587, 1588, et 1589, par S. C.” printed 1590, 8vo, is also attributed to him, and contains much information of importance to the protestant cause. His life has been written by Gui Allard, with that of the baron des Adrets, and Dupuy Monbrun, Grenoble, 1675, 12mo.

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

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

In 1776, he was named intendant of the province of the Trois Eveches, and for four years fulfilled the duties of that important office with universal approbation, and greatly to the satisfaction of the inhabitants, by whom he was much beloved, and who expressed the utmost regret at his departure when he quitted that province in 1780, being appointed intendant-general of Flanders and Artois. The same affability and mild and equitable conduct in the administration of public affairs, which had procured him their esteem, conciliated no less the affections of his countrymen in Flanders, to whose commercial interests he shewed particular attention, in promoting the fisheries and every useful establishment, both during the three years of his residence at Dunkirk, and after being appointed in 1783, Comptroller-general of the finances, and minister of state. In this important office he continued until 1787, and during the period of his administration raised and maintained the public credit by a punctuality till then unknown in the payments of the royal treasury, although on his accession he found it drained to the lowest ebb, and had the mortification to perceive that the annual income had long been inadequate to the annual expenditure. To trace the cause of this deficiency, its origin and progress, was the secret work of many an hour, supposed by the public to be devoted to pleasure or repose, as he conceived it of the utmost importance to conceal the deficiency until he had explored its source, and provided such an adequate remedy for it, as might restore the proper equipoise between the annual income and expenditure, and provide a surplus for emergencies without increasing the burthens of the people beyond their ability to support. For this purpose he prevailed on the king to revive the ancient usage of national assemblies, by calling together the Notables of the kingdom; and after laying before them a true state of the finances, he boldly proposed, as a chief remedy for the deficiency, that the pecuniary privileges and exemptions of the nobility, clergy, and magistracy, should be suppressed; and although aware that a measure which appeared to militate so much against the immediate interests of the three most powerful ranks of the community must meet with opposition, he determined to risk the sacrifice of his own situation, rather than longer to conceal or palliate the evil.

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

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

Dr. Campbell continued for twelve years to discharge the offices of principal of Marischal college-, and of one of the ministers of Aberdeen. In the former capacity he was equally esteemed by the professors and students; as he united great learning to a conduct strictly virtuous, and to manners equally gentle and pleasant. lit the latter office he lived in the greatest harmony with his colleagues, over whom he affected no superiority; and by all his hearers was esteemed as a worthy man, a good preacher, and one of the best lecturers they had ever heard. In lecturing, indeed, he excelled, while he rarely composed sermons, but preached from a few, and sometimes without any notes. Yet his discourses on particular occasions, were such as maintained his reputation. In June 1771, he was, on a vacancy by resignation, elected professor of divinity in Marischal college. This appointment was attended with the resignation of his pastoral charge, as one of the ministers of Aberdeen; but as minister of Gray Friars, an office conjoined to the professorship, he had to preach once every Sunday in one of the churches, and besides this, had the offices both of principal and professor of divinity to discharge. In the latter office he increased the times of instructing his pupils, so thak they heard nearly double the number of lectures which were usual with his predecessors, and he so arranged his subjects, that every student who chose to attend regularly during the shortest period prescribed by the laws of the church, might hear a complete course of lectures on thelgy embracing, under the theoretical part, every thing that the student of divinity should know; and under the practical branch, every thing that he should do, as a reader of sacred or church history, a biblical critic, a polemic divine, a pulpit orator, a minister of a parish, and a member of the church courts on the Scotch establishment. Some idea may be formed of the value of his labours, by the canons of scripture criticism, and a few other prelections on the same subject, which are included in preliminary dissertations/printed along with his “Translation of the Gospels,” and by the “Lectures” published after his death. In 1776 Dr. Campbell published his “Philosophy of Rhetoric,” which established his reputation as an excellent grammarian, an accurate and judicious critic, a scholar of delicate imagination and taste, and a philosopher of great acuteness and deep penetration. Our author also published a few occasional sermons, which were much admired, but not equally. That “On the Spirit of the Gospel,” 1771, placed him at variance with many members of his own church, who adhered more closely to the Caivinistic creed than the doctor. That in 1776, a Fast Sermon on account of the American war, inculcating the duty of allegiance, was circulated in an edition of six thousand, in America, but it had no effect, at that period of irritation among the colonies, in persuading the Americans that they had no right to throw off their allegiance. In 1779, when a considerable alarm, followed by riots in Scotland, took place in consequence of a bill introduced into parliament; for the relief of the Roman catholics, Dr. Campbell published an address well calculated to quiet the public mind, at the same time that he took occasion to express his abhorrence of the tenets of Popery. The same year he published a sermon on the happy influences of religion on civil society. It has already been noticed that he did not often, write sermons, but the few which he did compose, were in general highly finished.

In his seventy-second year, he was seized with a severe illness, from which he unexpectedly recovered, and though his bodily strength was impaired, resumed his former occupations. Some years before his death, he made. a dis^ interested and unsolicited offer of resigning his professorship of divinity, provided that any one of three gentlemen whom he named, and to whom he applied for their consent, should succeed him; but this offer not being accepted by the patrons of the professorship, he continued to hold his office, lest an improper person should in his life-time be chosen as his successor. But afterwards application was made to him, and also to the patrons of the professorship, in Lehalf of Dr. William Laurence Brown, late minister of the English church, and professor of moral philosophy, &c. in the university of Utrecht. This gentleman had been driven from these offices by the French invasion of Holland, on account of his attachment to the house of Orange, and his native country; and because, in some of his writings, he had opposed the progress of French principles, and maintained the cause of religion. Dr. Campbell, knowing the excellence of his character, instantly resigned the offices of professor of divinity, and minister of Gray Friars church, which were worth 160l. a year, and soon after his resignation, government, desirous of testifying in a public manner, the high respect so justly entertained of his abilities and services, offered him, on condition of resigning the principalship of Marischal college, a pension of 300l. a year. Dr. Campbell accepted this token of his majesty’s munificence, and was succeeded in the office of principal also by Dr. Brown. This pension, however, he did not long live to enjoy, though he continued writing till within a week of his death; an event which he expected with great tranquillity and composure. On the 31st of March, 1796, after some previous symptoms of uneasiness, he was struck with the palsy, which deprived him of speech, and under which he languished for a few days till he died. He had long accustomed himself to prepare for death; and in a former illness he had given the testimony of a dying man in favour of religion. A funeral sermon was preached on occasion of his death, by Dr. Brown, in which he has given a sketch of his character as a public teacher, as the head of a public seminary of learning, and as a private Christian. His character is thus summed up in a few sentences by his biographer, Dr. Keith: “His imagination was lively and fertile his understanding equally acute and vigorous and his erudition was at once very deep and wonderfully diversified. His piety was unfeigned his morals unimpeached his temper chearful and his manners gentle and unassuming. His love of truth was even more remarkable than the uncommon success with which he sought after it. Where intuitive faculties could be of service to any man, he saw at once if he saw at all. But his deep perspicacity was not satisfied with a superficial view of any thing; his piercing eye darted to the bottom of every sul/ic < i to which discernment could be applied. Where study aud reflection were necessary, he could bestow as much time on patient thinking, as if he had been possessed of no genius at all, and had acquired only a small share of erudition. And when once he began to examine any subject, he was never satisfied till he had viewed it in every light in which it could be seen. He always sought for truth in the love of truth, but he could not bear to be suspected of deviating from it for he neither courted those who might support, nor feared those who did oppose him. The tone of his mind was high, and he would not let it down from the elevation of truth and of virtue. Whether engaged in conversation, or employed in study, he could pass easily from the lightest subject to the most serious one. And the reach of his mind was so great, as to comprehend a great variety of subjects. He could explore the causes of that pleasure which arises in the mind from dramatic entertainments, and lay down the rules of Scripture criticism. He could illustrate the whole theory of evidence, or detect the false reasonings of Mr. Hume. He could explain the spirit of the Gospel, marking the extremes of superstition and enthusiasm; and both as a philosopher and a divine, declare the nature, extent, and importance of the duty of allegiance. While he zealously contended for the faith, he could warn the Christian against imbibing a persecuting spirit, and yet shew the influence of religion upon civil society, warning his countrymen against infidelity, before they had seen its dreadful effects. He could with manly eloquence describe the success of the fishermen of Galilee, while preaching the doctrine of the cross to prejudiced Jews, learned Greeks, and ambitious Romans; and at the same time, with well -applied erudition, he could delineate the characters of the pretended successors of the apostles, and trace the progress of the hierarchy through all the dark and middle ages, until the reformation of religion. As the principal of a college, a professor of divinity, or a minister of the Gospel, as a true patriot, a good man, and a sincere Christian, qwndo ullum invenies 'par tin”

, second duke of Argyle, and duke of Greenwich and baron of Chatham, grandson to the unfortunate earl of Argyle, was born on the 10th of October, 1678. He was son to Archibald, duke of Argyle, by Elizabeth, daughter of sir Lionel Talmash, of Helmingham, in the county of Suffolk. He very early -gave signs of spirit and capacity, and at the age of fifteen, made considerable progress in classical learning, and in some branches of philosophy, under the tuition of Mr. Walter Campbell, afterwards minister of Dunoon, in Argyleshire. It soon, however, appeared, that his disposition was towards a military life; and being introduced at the court of king William, under the title of Lord Lorn, he was preferred by that prince to the command of a regiment of foot in 1694, when he was not quite seventeen years of age; and in that station he gave signal proofs of courage and military capacity during the remainder of king William’s reign, and till the death of his father, the first duke of Argyle, 28th of September, 1703, whom he succeeded in his honours and estate and was soon after sworn of queen Anne’s privy council, appointed captain of the Scotch horseguards, and one of the extraordinary lords of session. He was likewise made one of the knights of the order of the thistle the following year, on the restoration of that order.

When the case of the city of Edinburgh, relative to the affair of Porteus, came to be agitated in parliament in 1737, the duke of Argyle exerted himself vigorously in favour of that city; and in 1739, from whatever cause it proceeded, he repeatedly voted against administration. He spoke against the Spanish convention with great spirit, and against the motion made by the duke of Newcastle, for an unlimited vote of credit. About this time he was removed from all his places, and engaged vigorously in the opposition against sir Robert Walpole. After the removal of that minister in 1741, he was again made master-general of the ordnance, colonel of his majesty’s royal regiment of horse-guards, and field marshal and commander in chief of all the forces in England. But in less than a month he resigned his employments for the last time, being, probably, dissatisfied with some of the political arrangements that took place after the removal of Walpole. About this time he is said fo have received a letter from the pretender, which some of his enemies are supposed to have procured to be written to him, with a view of injuring him; but he prevented any ill effects from it, by immediately communicating it to his majesty’s ministers. He had been for some years afflicted with a paralytic disorder, which now began to increase: and towards the close of his life he was somewhat melancholy and reserved. He died on the 3d of September, 1743, and was interred in Westminster-abbey, where one of the finest monuments in that place, by Roubiliiac, was afterwards erected to his memory. The titles of duke and earl of Greenwich, and baron of Chatham, became extinct at his death; but in his other titles he was succeeded by his brother Archibald earl of Ila.

, an eminent physician and surgeon, the son of Florence Camper, a minister of the reformed church, was born at Leyden May 11, 1722, and was first taught design and painting, which enabled him in his future studies to draw his anatomical preparations. He afterwards studied medicine under Boerhaave, and the other eminent professors of Leyden, and in 1746 took his degree of M. D. In 1748, he attended the hospitals and anatomical lectures in London, and afterwards at Paris. In 1749, he was appointed professor of philosophy, medicine, and surgery at Franeker; and in 1755 taught these sciences at Amsterdam, which he quitted in 1761. After two years’ residence at his country-house in Friesland, he was appointed professor of medicine, surgery, anatomy, and botany at Groningen, where he resided until June 1773, when he settled at Franeker, in order to superintend the education of his sons* In 1762, he had been appointed a representative in the assembly of the province of Friesland; but in 1787, he was nominated one of the council of state, and was therefore obliged to reside at the Hague, where he died in April 1789, in the sixty- seventh year of his age. The immediate cause of his death was a pleurisy, but his eulogist seems to attribute it remotely to his patriotic exertions, and the grief which oppressed him when he saw the independence of his country attacked. Whichever account be true, he was lamented as a learned and ingenious promoter of science, and an ornament to his country. He was at the time of his death a member of the royal society of London, and of the academies of Petersburg!), Berlin, Edinburgh (the college of physicians), Gottingen, Manchester, Haerlem, Rotterdam, &c. and other learned societies in various parts of Europe.

, of an illustrious family in Tartary, and prince of Moldavia, was born in 1673. His father, who was governor of the three cantons of Moldavia, became prince of this province in 1664. Demetrius, being sent early to Constantinople, flattered himself with the prospect of succeeding him; but was supplanted by a rival at the Porte. Being sent in 1710 by the Ottoman minister to defend Moldavia against the czar Peter, he delivered it up to that monarch and, following his new master through his conquests, indemnified himself for all he had lost; for he obtained the title of prince of the empire, with full power and authority over the Moldavians, who quitted their country to attach themselves to his fortunes. He died, 1723, in his territories of the Ukraine, much lamented. He was studious and learned, and is said to have understood eleven languages. He wrote in Latin a “History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire,” A. D. 1300 1683, which was published in an English translation by Tindal, Lond. 1734, fol. Gibbon says it contains strange blunders in Oriental history, though he acknowledges that the author was conversant with the language, annals, and institutions of the Turks. His “System of the Mahometan Religion” was written and printed in the Russian language, by order of czar Peter; his moral dialogues entitled “The World and the Soul,” were printed in Moldavia in Greek and Moldavian “The present state of Moldavia” was printed in Latin his e< Musical Airs with Turkish Words,“and” An Introduction to Music," in Moldavian. He was also the author of other pieces, which were either lost in his shipwreck, or still remain in ms.

, son of the above, was born in 1710. The most skilled at Petersburg in mathematics, physics, history, morality, and polite literature, were employed to continue those lectures, which his father had begun to give him. The academy of Petersburg opened their gates to him, and the ministry initiated him into affairs of state. Successively ambassador to London and Paris, he was equally admired as a minister and man of letters. On his return to Russia, he conducted himself with most consummate wisdom and prudence, during the different revolutions which agitated that country. This accomplished person died in 1744. The Russians before him had nothing in verse but some barbarous songs: he was the first who introduced any civilized poetry among them. Besides a translation of Anacreon and the epistles of. Horace, he gave them of his own, satires, odes, and fables. He made several foreign works known to them; as, 1. The Plurality of worlds. 2. The Persian letters. 3. The dialogues of Algarotti upon light, &c. aqd he printed “Concordance to the Psalms” in the Russian language. The abbe* de Guasco, who translated his Satires, has written his life.

, a dissenting minister of the Socinian persuasion, son of the rev. Joseph Cappe, minister of the dissenting congregation at Mill hill in Leeds, was born in that town Feb. 21, 1732-3, and educated for some time under the care of his father, whom he lost in his sixteenth year. Having at this early age discovered a predilection for nonconformity, he was placed at the academy of Dr. Aikin at Kilvvorth in Leicestershire, in 1743, and the next year removed to that of Dr. Doddridge at Northampton. During his residence here he overcame somescruples that arose in his mintl respecting the evidences of revealed religion, by examining them in the best writers with great attention. After passing two years at Northampton, he was deprived of the benefit of Dr. Doddriclge’s instructions, who was obliged to leave England on account of his health, and in 1752 went to the university of Glasgow, where he continued three years, improving his knowledge with great industry and success, and forming an acquaintance with many eminent men of the day, particularly Dr. Leechman, Dr. Cullen, Dr. Adam Smith, Dr. Moore, and the late Dr. Black. Having completed his studies, he returned in 1755 to Leeds, and within a short time after was chosen co-pastor, and the following year sole pastor of the dissenting congregation at St Saviourgate, York. This situation he retained for forty years, during which he engaged the respect and affection of his hearers, and was distinguished as a preacher of uncommon eloquence, and a man of great learning and amiable manners. In 1791 and 1793 he experienced two paralytic shocks, which ever after affected both his walking and his speech, but was enabled to employ much of his time in preparing those works for the press which appeared after his death. Weakened at length by paralytic affections, he died Dec. 24, 1800. He published in his life-time, 1. “A Sermon upon the king of Prussia’s Victory at Rosbach,” Nov. 5, 1757. 2. “Three Fast-day Sermons, published during the American War.” 3. “A Sermon on the Thanksgiving-day, 1784.” 4. “A Fast-clay Sermon, written during the American War, but first published in 1795.” 5 “A Sermon on the Death of the rev. Edw. Sandercock.” 6. “A selection of Psalms for Social Worship.” 7. “Remarks in vindication of Dr. Priestley, in answer to the Monthly Reviewers. 17 8.” Letters published in the York Chronicle, signed `A. doughty Champion in heavy armour,' in reply to the attack of Dr. Cooper (under the signature of Erasmus) upon Mr. Lindsey on his resigning the living of Catterick, and “Discourses on the Providence and Government of God.” ' In 1802 were published 61 Critical Remarks on many important passages of Scripture, together with dissertations upon several subjects tending to illustrate the phraseology and doctrine of the New Testament." To these were prefixed, memoirs of his life, by the editor Catherine Cappe, his second wife, 2 vols, 8vo. The chief object of these remarks is to attack the Trinitarian doctrine, and to give those explanations and meanings to various parts of the New Testament language which are adopted by the modern Unitarian school. How far he has been successful may be seen in our references.

, afterwards earl of Totness (descended from an ancient family in the West of England, originally so named from Carew-castle in Pembrokeshire) was born in 1557. His mother was Anne, daughter of sir Nicolas Harvey, kiTight, and his father, George, archdeacon of Totness, and successively dean of Bristol, of the queen’s chapel, of Windsor, of Christ Church, Oxon, and of Exeter; besides several other preferments, most of which he resigned before his decease, which occurred in 1585. George Carew in 1572 was admitted gentleman commoner of Broadgate-hall (now Pembroke college) in Oxford; where he made a good proficiency in learning, particularly in the study of antiquitie’s, but being of an active temper, he left the university without a degree; and applying himself to military affairs, went and served in Ireland against the earl of Desmond. In 1580 he was made governor of Asketten-castle, and in 1589 was created master of arts at Oxford, being then a knight. Some time after, being constituted lieutenant-general of the artillery, or master of the ordnance in Ireland, he was one of the commanders at the expedition to Cadiz, in 1596; and again, the next year, in the intended expedition against Spain. Having in 1599 been appointed president of Munster, he was in 1600 made treasurer of the army, and one of the lords justices of Ireland. When he entered upon his government, he found every thing in a deplorable condition; all the country being in open and actual rebellion, excepting a few of the better sort, and himself having for his defence but three thousand foot and two hundred and fifty horse; yet he behaved with so much conduct and bravery, that he reduced many castles and forts, took James Fitz Thomas, the titular earl of Desmond, and O'Connor, prisoners; and brought the Bourkes, Obriens, and many other Irish rebels, to submission. He also bravely resisted the six thousand Spaniards, who landed at Kinsale, October 1, 1601, and had so well established the province of which he was president, by apprehending the chief of those he mistrusted, and taking pledges of the rest, that no person of consideration joined the Spaniards. In 1602 he made himself master of the castle of Donboy, which was a very difficult undertaking, and reckoned almost impracticable; and by this means prevented the arrival of an army of Spaniards, which were ready to sail for Ireland. He had for some time been desirous of quitting his burdensome office of president of Minister, but he could not obtain permission till the beginning of 1603, when, leaving that province in perfect peace, he arrived in England the 21st of March, three days before queen Elizabeth’s death. His merit was so great, that he was taken notice of by the nevr king, and made by him, in the first year of his reign, governor of the isle of Guernsey, and Castle Cornet: and having married Joyce*, the daughter and heir of William Clopton, of Clopton, co. Warwick, esq. he was June 4, J 605, advanced to the degree of a baron, by the title of lord Carew, of Clopton. Afterwards he was made vice-chamberlain and treasurer to king James’s queen; and in 1608 constituted master of the ordnance throughout England for life; and sworn of the privy-council to the king, as he had before been to queen Elizabeth. Upon king Charles Ist’s accession to the crown, he was created, Feb. 1, 1625, earl of Totness. At length, full of years and honours, he departed this life at the Savoy in London, March 27, 1629, aged seventy- three years and ten months and was buried at Stratford upon Avon, near Clopton leaving behind him the character of a faahful subject, a valiant and prudent commander, an honest counsellor, a genteel scholar, a lover of antiquities, and a great patron of learning. A stately monument was erected to his memory, by his widow, with a long inscription reciting his actions.

, Lord Dorchester, an eminent statesman in the beginning of the seventeenth century, the eldest surviving son of Anthony Carleton, esq. of Baldwin Briglitweli, near Watlington,Oxon. was born at his father’s seat, March 10, 1573. He was educated at Westminster school, and at Oxford, where he became a student of Christ church about 1591, and distinguished as a young man of parts. From hence, after taking a bachelor’s degree in 15L<5, he set out on his travels, and on his return to Oxford, was created master of arts in July loOO. In the same year we find him appointed secretary to sir Thomas Parry, our ambassador in France and in 1603 he served in the same capacity in the house of Henry earl of Northumberland. He probably became afterwards a courtier, as he speaks in one of his letters of holding the place of gentleman usher. In the first parliament of James I. he represented the borough of St. Mawes in Cornwall, and was considered as an active member and an able speaker. In April 1605, he accompanied lord Norris intoSpain, but in the latter end of that year was summoned to England, and on his arrival imprisoned, as being implicated in the gunpowder treason but his innocence being proved, he was honourably discharged. In 1607 he married a niece of sir Maurice Carey, with whom he resided some time in Chancery- lane, and afterwards in Little St. Bartholomew’s, near West Smitlitield. At this period he appears to have been unprovided for, as in one of his letters he complains of an “army of difficulties, a dear year, a plaguy town, a growing w if e and a poor purse.” After being disappointed, from political reasons, in two prospects, that of going to Ireland, and that of going to Brussels, in an official capacity, he was nominated to the embassy at Venice, and before setting out, in Sept. 1610, received the honour of knighthood. The functions of this appointment he discharged with great ability, and soon proved that he was qualified for diplomatic affairs. In 1615, he returned to England, sir Henry Wotton being appointed in his room, and on his arrival found all ministerial power and favour centered in sir George Villiers, afterwards duke of Buckingham. Soon after, on the recommendation of sir Ralph Win wood, one of the secretaries of state, he was employed in what was then one of the most important embassiesin the gift of the crown, that to the States General of Holland and in this he continued from 1616 to 1628, and was the last English minister who had the honour of sitting in the council of state for the United Provinces, a privilege which queen Elizabeth had wisely obtained, when she undertook the protection of these provinces, and which was annexed to the possession of the cautionary towns.

In March 1626-7, he was ordered to resume his character of ambassador in Holland, where our interest, from various causes, was on the decline, and required all his address and knowledge to revive it. He had many conversations with the states on the existing differences, his conduct in all which received the approbation of his’royal master, but he had not the same influence with the States as on former occasions; and returned in May or June 1628, leaving as his deputy, Mr. Dudley Carleton, his nephew, who had discharged that trust before during his absence, with diligence and capacity. Soon after his arrival in England, king Charles bestowed an additional mark of his approbation, by creating him viscount Dorchester; and in the mean time he continued to attend the court in his office of vice chamberlain, and was employed in foreign affairs of the most secret nature, as assistant to the duke of Buckingham. When that minister set out for Portsmouth to take the command of the fleet and army, which was preparing for the relief of Rochelle, lord Dorchester accompanied him, and was entrusted by Contarini, the Venetian Ambassador here, to manage the first overtures of an accommodation with France, which was interrupted by the murder of the duke of Buckingham. King Charles, then declared he would, for the future, be his own first minister, and leave the executive part of the administration to every man within the compass of his province. The first question.of importance which came before the council was, whether the parliament should sit on the day appointed, the 20th of October. Some were of opinion, that it would be the most probable method of restoring a happy union between the king and his people; but his majesty declared his pleasure for a further prorogation till the 20th of January, 1628-9, which lord Dorchester says he thought the wisest course.

The king was now determined to give the seals of secretary of state to lord Dorchester; and as the measure^ was taken, though not yet divulged, of making peace as soon as possible both with France and Spain, he judo-ed it of the utmost consequence to have one in that department, whose judgment and skill in negotiation had been exercised in a long course of foreign employment. Lord Conway had for several years discharged that great trust, according to the earl of Clarendon’s expression, with notable insufficiency, and as old age and sickness were now added to his original incapacity, the court and nation must with great satisfaction have seen him succeeded by so able a minister as lord Dorchester, but the parliament, when it Inet on the day appointed, agreed no better with the court than it had done in the preceding session. The lord treasurer Weston, and Dr. Laud, bishop of London, were become as great objects of national dislike as Buckingham had ever been, while the commons shewed their aversion to Weston in the state, and to Laud in the church, by warm remonstrances against the illegal exaction of tonnage and poundage, and the increase of Popisb and Arminian doctrines; on which account the king dissolved the house on the lOth of March. According to some writers, lord Dorchester hi this parliament proposed the laying an excise upon the nation, which was taken so ill, that though he was a privy counsellor, and principal secretary of state, he with difficulty escaped being committed to the Tower. Of this story, which we believe originated in Howel’s letters, and is referred to in Lloyd’s StateWorthies, we find no traces in the parliamentary history, or in thejords and commons journals. It is, however, generally inferred from the authority of the earl of Clarendon, that lord Dorchester was better acquainted with the management of foreign affairs, than with the constitution, laws and customs of his own country. In his capacity of secretary of state, he was a chief agent in carrying on and completing the treaties with France and Spain; and besides these, he directed in the course of the years 1629 and 1630, the negociations of sir Henry Vane in Holland, and sir Thomas Roe in Poland and the maritime parts of Germany. The former was sent to the Hague, to explain to the States the motives of our treaty with Spain, and to sound their dispositions about joining- in it; and the latter was employed as mediator between the kings of Sweden and Poland after which he was very instrumental in persuading the heroic Gustavus Adolphus to undertake his German expedition. Lord Dorchester appears, likewise, to have kept up a private correspondence with the queen of Bohemia, who rising superior to her misfortunes, he used the best offices in his power to prevent misunderstandings between her and the king her brother; and he gave her advice, when the occasion required it, with the freedom and sincerity of an old friend and servant.

With regard to the general abilities and character of lord Dorchester, it appears from alt his political remains, that he was a judicious, faithful, and diligent minister, and better qualified for his department than any who were his immediate predecessors or successors in the same office. King Charles himself, who was a good judge of his servants’ abilities, used to say, as sir P. Warwick relates in his Memoirs, “that he had two secretaries of state, the lords Dorchester and Falkland; one of whom was a dull man in comparison of the other, and yet pleased him the best for he always brought him his own thoughts in his own woreds: the latter cloathed them in so fine a dress, that he did not always know them again.” Allowing for some defects of stiffness and circumlocution, which are common to all the writings of that time, lord Dorchester’s dispatches are drawn up in that plain, perspicuous, and unaffected stile which was fittest for business. Domestic concerns were no part of his province, but entirely managed by the lord treasurer Weston and archbishop Laud. He held the pen singly in foreign affairs, and was regretted by those who were used to receive the instructions of government from a secretary of state, upon whom they could depend that he would make a just report of their services, and that he would not mislead or misrepresent the ministers with whom he corresponded. That he died much lamented by the public in general, and with the reputation of an honest and well-deserving statesman, is declared by sir Thomas Roe, in a manuscript letter to a friend in Holland. The earl of Clarendon’s assertion, that lord Dorchester was unacquainted with the government, laws, and customs of his own country, and the nature of the people, is disputed by Dr. Birch, in his “Review of the Negociations,” who considers it as absolutely incompatible with the experience which he must have acquired in the house of commons. But, not to mention that the noble historian, who had no prejudice against his lordship, could not well be deceived in the fact, it is, we think, confirmed by the figure he made in the parliament of 1626, and by his acquiescence in all the obnoxious measures of Buckingham, Weston, and Laud. The following articles are attributed to his pen, by Anthony Wood and lord Orford: 1. “Balance pour peser en toute equite & droicture la Harangue fait vagueres en L'Assemblee des illustres & puissans Seignoures Messeigneurs les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies du Pais has, &c.” 1618, 4to. 2. “Harangue fait au Counseile de Mess, les Estats generaux des Provinces Unies, touchant le Discord & le Troubles de PEglise & la Police, causes par la Doctrine d'Arminius,” 6 Oct. 1617, printed with the former. 3. Various Letters in the “Cabala, or Scrinia sacra,” London, 1663, fol. 4. Various Letters to George, duke of Buckingham, in “Cabala, or Mysteries of State,” London, 1654, 4to. 5. Several French and Latin Letters to the learned Vossius, printed in “Ger. Jo. Vossii & clarorum Virorum ad.eum Epistoiae,” London, 1690, fol. 6. Several Speeches in Parliament, in 1626, in Rushworth’s Collections. 7. Several Letters in the three volumes of “Sir Ralph Winwood’s Memorials,” published at London, in folio, 1725. 8. A Letter to the earl of Salisbury, printed in “Howard’s Collection.” 9. Memoirs for Dispatches of political Affairs relating to Holland and England, arm. 1618; with several Propositions made to the States. Manuscript. 10. Particular Observations of the military Affairs in the Palatinate, and the Low Countries, annis 1621, 1622. Manuscript. 11. Letters relating to State Affairs, written to the king and viscount Rochester, from Venice, ann. 1613. Manuscript. The manuscript pieces here mentioned, are probably no more than parts of the collections preserved in the Paper office. The letters from and to sir Dudley Carleton, during his embassy in Holland, from January 1615-16, to December 1620, properly selected, and as occasion required, abridged, or only noted, were published by the late earl of Hardwicke, in 1757, in one vol. 4to, with an historical preface. The second edition of the same work, with large additions to the historical preface, appeared in 1775, and has been twice reprinted since. These letters, if some allowances be made for party violences and prejudices, contain more clear, accurate, and interesting accounts of that remarkable period of Dutch history to which they relate, than are anj where extant. There are, likewise, discussed in the course of them, many points of great importance, at that time, to the English commerce. Lord Hardwicke’s excellent preface has furnished the materials of the present sketch.

was born at Glasgow in 1682, and educated in the university of that city, where he took his degrees, and was ordained minister at Monimail in Fifcshire. In 1722 he was promoted to be professor of moral philosophy in the university of Glasgow; and for the use of his students wrote some learned notes on “PufYendorfi de officiis hominis.” He intended to have published a system of moral philosophy on a new plan, but did not live to see it completed, as he died at Glasgow in 1738, aged 56. His son Frederick Carmichael was born at Monimail i<i 1708. He received his education in the Marischal college, Aberdeen, where he took his degrees, and was ordained minister at Monimail in 1737, on the presentation of the earl of Leven. In 1743 he was translated to Inveresk; and in 1747 he was elected one of the ministers of Edinburgh, having previously declined an offer made him of the divinity chair in the Marischal college, Aberdeen. In 1751 he was seized i with a fever, which put an end to his life, aged 45. He has left one volume of sermons, which in justness of sentiment and elegance of expression are equal to the best discourses in the English language.

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

Although, after the death of king William, Carstares was not much employed in public affairs, queen Anne continued him in the office of royal chaplain for Scotland, and obtained for him the offer of an appointment to the vacant place of principal of the university of Edinburgh; which he accepted in 1704, with the first professorship of divinity. After this appointment, whilst he refused any addition to his own salary, he used his influence at courtfor augmenting the very small salaries pertaining to the regents in the several universities of Scotland; and in the execution of his office, as principal, he secured the affection and respect of those that were subject to his authority, by the dignified affability and gentleness of his deportment. In the year of his appointment to the principalship of the university, he was unanimously invited to the pastoral office in one of the parishes of Edinburgh, which he performed with exemplary diligence; and as moderator of the general assembly, which post he occupied four times in eleven years, he maintained great weight in its debates. When the union of the two kingdoms was agitated, it engaged his cordial concurrence, and he was the principal instrument of preventing any public opposition from the presbyterian clergy. His efforts to controul the opinions of this body rendered him unpopular; and with a view of gaining their assistance, he accepted the office of one of the agents sent to London to oppose the bills for the restoration of patronage in Scotland, and for the toleration of the episcopal clergy; though in the latter instance, at least, his opposition must have counteracted his principles. His excuse seems to have been an apprehension that the Scots episcopalians wished the exiled family to be restored. His efforts, however, whether they were sincere or not, proved unsuccessful. To the succession of the house of Hanover hegave his active support and he obtained from the general assembly an address of congratulation to George I. on his accession to the throne and in return for this service his office of royal chaplain was continued. His death happened soon after this event, in December 1715. Some years ago was published a volume, entitled “State papers and letters addressed to William Carstares, confidential secretary to king William during the whole of his reign, afterwards principal of the university of Edinburgh, relating to public affairs in Great Britain, but more particularly in Scotland, during the reign of king William and queen Anne; to which is prefixed the life of Mr. Carstares, published from the originals by Joseph M'Connick, D. D. minister at Preston-pans,” 1774, 4to. This is unquestionably a collection of great importance in illustrating that period of 'the history of Great Britain, and particularly Scotland; and the Ine of Mr. Carstares is Loth interesting and amusing. We have already hinted that his character was not contemplated in the most favourable light by all his contemporaries. It appears, however, by his biographer’s account, that his private character was, in every view of it, amiable and respectable. His religion was not tinctured with the extravagancies of enthusiasm, or debased by the rigours of superstition. He was distinguished for his discharge of the duties of hospitality; and his charity was unbounded. Such of the episcopal clergy as had been deprived of their livings at the Revolution, he always treated with peculiar tenderness and humanity. He often relieved their families when in distress, and was solicitous to dispense his benefactions in the manner that would be the least offensive to the delicacy of their feelings. His ingenuity was sometimes exercised in devising methods of imposing upon the modesty and pride of such as would have rejected his good offices with disdain, if he had not disguised his intentions. Several of the episcopal clergy, who were his annual pensioners, never knew from what channel their relief flowed, till they found by his death that the source of it was dried up.

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

We now come to a part of lord Carteret’s life, including nearly twelve years, from 1730 to 1742, during which he engaged in the grand opposition, that was carried on so long, and with so much pertinacity, against sir Robert Walpole. In this opposition he took a very distinguished part, and was one of its ablest and most spirited leaders. There was scarcely any motion or question on which his eloquence was not displayed. His powers of oratory are allowed to have been eminently great; and it is highly probable, that they were invigorated and increased by that superior ardour which naturally accompanies an attack upon the measures of government. In the session of parliament, 1730-1, he supported the bill against pensioners being permitted to sit in that house; and the motion for discharging the twelve thousand Hessian forces in the pay of Great Britain. In the subsequent session, which opened on the 13th of January, 1731-2, besides speaking in favour of the pension bill, lord Carteret exerted his whole ability against the passing of the act for reviving the salt duty. This tax he asserted to be grievous, pernicious, and insupportable; oppressive to the lower part of the people; and dangerous to public liberty, by the numerous dependents it would create upon the crown. In the next year, the grand objects that engaged the attention of the minority were, the motion for the reduction of the land forces; the produce of the forfeited estates of the SouthSea directors in 1720; and the bill for granting eightythousand pounds for the princess-royal’s marriage settlement, and a sum out of the sinking fund; on which occasions lord Carteret displayed his usual energy and eloquence. In the session which began on the 17th of January, 1733-4, his lordship made the motion for an address to the king, to know who had advised the removal of the duke of Bolton and lord Cobham from their regiments; and took the lead in the memorable debate which arose upon that question, and an, active part in the other matters that were agitated in this and the following sessions. It is observable that, about this time, Dr. Swift had some doubts concerning lord Carteret’s steadiness in the cause of opposition, yet, in the session>f parliament which opened on the 1st of February, 1736-7, his lordship distinguished himself greatly in the several question-s concerning the riots at Edinburgh, and the affair of captain Porteus; and he was the mover, in the house of peers, for the settlement of an hundred thousand pounds a year, out of the civil list, upon the prince of Wales; a matter which excited a very long and violent debate. He exercised the same vigour with regard to all the motions and questions of that busy session; and it is evident, from the records of the times, that he was the prime leader of opposition in the upper house. This character was preserved by lord Carteret in the parliament which met on the 15th of November, 1739; and in the following session, when the minority exerted their whole strength to overturn the administration, he made the motion in the house of peers, Feb. 13, 1740-1, to address his majesty, that he would graciously be pleased to remove sir Robert Walpole from his presence and councils for ever, and prefaced his proposal with the longest, as well as the ablest speech that, he ever appears to have delivered. A year after, when views of opposition were attained, so far as related to the displacing of sir Robert Walpole, lord Carteret, Feb. 12> 1741-42, was appointed one of his majesty’s principal secretaries of state, and then began to change his parliamentary language, opposing the motion for the commitment of the pension -bill, and the bill to indemnify evidences against Robert earl of Orford, not consistently, although with some reason. In September 1742, he was sent to the States General, to concert measures with them, for the maintenance of the liberties of the United Provinces, and the benefit of the common cause and soon after his return, he opposed the motion for discharging the Hanoverian troops in British pay and distinguished himself in favour of the bill for retailing spirituous liquors. In 1743 he waited upon his majesty at Hanover, and attended him through the whole interesting campaign of that year; and the king placed the greatest confidence in his counsels, to which he was the more entitled, as he was eminently ^killed in foreign affairs. On the death of his mother, upon the 18th of October, 1744, he succeeded to the titles of viscount Carteret and earl Granville, and, a few weeks after, resigned the seals as secretary of state, unable to oppose the patriotic party, whom he had suddenly forsaken, and the duke of Newcastle and his brother, Mr. Pelham, who formed analliance with them against him. George II. however, with reluctance parted with a minister who had gained his personal affection by his great knowledge of the affairs of Europe, by his enterprizing genius, and, above all, by his ready compliance with the king’s favourite views. In the beginning of 1746, his lordship made an effort to retrieve his influence in the cabinet, but the duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham, who knew his aspiring disposition, refused to admit him into administration, yet mismanaged their intrigues so much, that at first they were themselves obliged to resign, and earl Granvilie was appointed secretary of state, and resumed the reins of administration, in February 1745-6: finding, however, that he could not counteract the accumulated opposition that preponderated against him, he resigned the seals four days after they had' been put into his hands. Still lord Granville’s political antagonists were not able to prevent his receiving,. personal marks of royal favour. On the 22d of June, 1749J he was elected at Kensington, one of the knights companions of the most noble order of the garter, and next year was again brought into the ministry, in connection with the very men by whom he had been so long and so warmly opposed. He was then constituted president of the council, and notwithstanding the various revolutions of administration, was continued in this high post till his decease. When his majesty went to Hanover, in 17- r >2, earl Granville was appointed one of the lords justices of the kingdom and he was in the commissions for opening and concluding the session of parliament, which began on the 31st of May, 1754, and ended on the 5th of June following. The Ifist time in which he spoke in the house of peers, was in opposition to the third reading of the militia-bill, on the 24th of May, 1756, but not with his usual effect. When, in October 1761, Mr. Pitt proposed in council, an immediate declaration of war with Spain, and urged the measure with his usual energy, threatening a resignation, if his advice should not be adopted; lord Granville is said to have replied to him in terms both pointed and personal. Mr. Wood, in the preface to his “Essay on the original Genius and Writings of Homer,” informs us, that “being directed to wait upon his lordship, a few days before he died, with the preliminary articles of the treaty of Paris, he found him so languid, that he proposed postponing his business for another time; but earl Granville insisted that he should stay, saying, it could not prolong his life to neglect his duty; and repeating a passage out of Sarpedon’s speech in Homer, he dwelled with particular emphasis on one of the lines which recalled to his mind the distinguishing part he had taken in public affairs.” After a pause he desired to hear the treaty read and gave it the approbation of a “dying statesman (his own words) on the most glorious war, and most honourable peace, this nation ever saw.” In other respects, lord Granville so much retained his vivacity to the close of his life, as to be able to break out into sallies of wit and humour. He died Jan. 2, 1763, in. the seventy-third year of his age. He was twice married; first at Long-Leat, on the 17th of October, 1710, to Frances, only daughter of sir Robert Worsley, bart.; and secondly, on the 14th of April, 1744, to lady Sophia, daughter of Thomas earl of Pomfret. By his former wife he had three sons and five daughters; by the latter, only one daughter. Lord Granville’s character has been drawn as follows, by the late earl of Chesterfield: “Lord Granville had great parts, and a most uncommon share of learning for a man of quality. He was one of the best speakers in the house of lords, both in the declamatory and the argumentative way. He had a wonderful quickness and precision in seizing the stress of a question, which no art, no sophistry, could disguise in him. In business he was bold, enterprizing, and overbearing. He had been bred up in high monarchical, that is, tyrannical principles of government, which his ardent and impetuous temper made him think were the only rational and practicable ones. He would have been a great first minister in France, little inferior, perhaps, to Richelieu; in this government, which is yet free, he would have been a dangerous one, little less so, perhaps, than lord Strafford. He was neither ill-natured nor vindictive, and had a great contempt for money. His ideas were all above it. In social life he was an agreeable, good-humoured, and instructive companion; a great but entertaining talker. He degraded himself by the vice of drinking, which, together with a great stock of Greek and Latin, he brought away with him from Oxford, and retained and practised ever afterwards. By his own industry, he had made himself master of all the modern languages, and had acquired a great knowledge of the law. His political knowledge of the interest of princes and of commerce was extensive, and his notions were just and great. His character may be summed up, in nice precision, quick decision, and unbounded presumption.”

Mr. Cartwright vindicated his conduct in a letter to sir William Cecil, dated the 9th of July; in which he declared his extreme aversion to every thing that was seditious and contentious, and affirmed that he had taught nothing but what naturally flowed from the text concerning which he had treated. He observed, that when an occasion offered itself of speaking concerning the habits, he had waved it: though he acknowledged that he had taught, that the ministry of the church of England had declined from the ministry of the ancient and apostolical church, and that he wished it to be restored to greater purity. But these sentiments, he said, he had delivered calmly and sedately, and in such a manner as could give offence to none but the ignorant or the malignant, and those who were eager to catch at something to calumniate him. He asserted, that he had the utmost reason to believe that he should have obtained the testimony of the university in favour of his innocence, had not the vicechancellor denied him a congregation. He solicited the protection of the chancellor, so far as his cause was just; and transmitted to him a testimonial of his innocence, signed by several learned members of the university, and in which his abilities, learning, and integrity, were spoken of in very high terms. After this he was cited to appear before Dr. Mey, the vice-chancellor of the university, and some of the heads of houses, and examined upon sundry articles of doctrine said to be delivered by him in his public lectures, and which were affirmed to be contrary to the religion received and allowed by public authority in the realm of England; and it was demanded of him, whether he would stand to those opinions and doctrines, or whether Le wuuid renounce them. Mr. Cartwright desired that he might be permitted to commit to writing what his judgment was upon the points in controversy; which being assented to, he drew up six propositions to the following purport, and which he subscribed with his own hand: “I. The names and functions of archbishops and archdeacons ought to be abolished. II. The offices of the lawful ministers of the church, viz. bishops and deacons, ought to be reduced to the apostolical institution: bishops to preach the word of God and pray, and deacons to be employed in taking care of the poor. III. The government of the church ought not to be entrusted to bishops chancellors, or the officials of archdeacons; but every church should be governed by its own minister and presbyters. IV. Ministers ought not to be at large, but every one should have the charge of a certain flock. V. No man should solicit, or stand as a candidate for the Ministry. VI. Bishops should not be created by civil authority, but ought to be openly and fairly chosen by the church.” Propositions also which were said to be dangerous and seditious were collected out of Mr. Cartwright’s lectures, and sent to court by Dr. Whitgift, to incense the queen and chancellor against him; and he was forbidden by the vice-chancellor and heads of the university to read any more lectures till they should receive some satisfaction that he would not continue to propagate the same opinions. He was also prevented from taking his doctor’s degree by the authority of the vice-chancellor: which appears to have given great umbrage to many in the university, and to have occasioned a considerable disturbance. In 1571 Dr. Whitgift became vice-chancellor of the university; and by his influence more rigorous statutes were procured for its government; and Mr. Cartwright was deprived of his place of Margaret- professor. But he still continued senior tellow of Trinity-college; though the following year he was also deprived of his fellowship; it being alleged that he had forfeited it by not entering into priest’s orders in due time, in conformity to the statutes. Being thus driven from the university, and out of all employment, he travelled beyond sea, where he became acquainted with the most celebrated divines in the several protestant universities of Europe, with many of whom he established a correspondence. They appear to have entertained a very high esteem for him; and the celebrated Beza, in a letter to one of his English correspondents, expressed himself thus concerning him: “Here is now with us your countryman, Thomas Cartwright, than whom I think the sun doth not see a more learned man.” While he was abroad, he was chosen minister to the English merchants at Antwerp, and afterwards at Middleburgh, where he continued two years, with little or no profit to himself; though his labours as a preacher are said to have been extremely acceptable and successful. But the importunity of his friends in England at length prevailed on him to return again to his native country.

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

, bishop of Chester, and supposed to be grandson to the preceding, was born at Northampton, Sept. 1, 1634. His father was for some time master of the endowed school of Brentwood, in Essex, and he appears to have been educated in the religious principles which prevailed among the anti-episcopal party. He was entered of Magdalen hall, Oxford, but was soon removed to Queen’s college by the power of the parliamentary visitors in 1649; and after taking orders, became chaplain of that college, and vicar of Walthamstow in Essex. In 1659, he was preacher at St. Mary Magdalen’s, Fish-street. After the restoration, he recommended himself so powerfully by professions of loyalty, as to be made domestic chaplain to Henry duke of Gloucester, prebendary of Twyford, in the church of St. Paul; of Chalford, in the church of Wells; a chaplain in ordinary to the king, and rector of St. Thomas Apostle, London, and was created D. D. although not of standing for it. To these, in 1672, was added a prebend of Durham; and in 1677, he was made dean of Rippon. He had likewise a hard struggle with Dr. Womack for the bishopric of St. David’s; but in the reign of James II. in 1686, he succeeded to that of Chester, for boldly asserting in one of his sermons, that the king’s promises to parliament were not binding. The most remarkable event of his life, was his acting as one of the commissioners in the memorable attempt which his infatuated master made to controul the president and fellows of Magdalen college, Oxford, when they rejected a popish president intruded upon them by the king. Upon the revolution he fled to France, where he officiated as minister to the protestant part of the king’s household; and upon the death of Dr. Seth Ward, became titular bishop of Salisbury. He afterwards accompanied the abdicated monarch to Ireland, where he died of a dysentery, April 15, 1689, and was sumptuously interred in the choir of Christ-church, Dublin. The report by Richardson, in his edition of Godwin, of his having died in the communion of the church of Rome, seems doubtful; but on his death-bed his expressions were certainly equivocal. His “Speech spoken to the society of Magdalen college,” his examination of Dr. Hough, and several occasional sermons, enumerated by Wood, are in print. He appears to have been a man too subservient to the will of James, to act with more prudence or principle than his master, who, it is said, looked upon him as neither protestant nor papist, and had little or no esteem for him.

, a very learned critic, was born at Geneva, February 18, 1559, being the son of Arnold Casaubon, a minister of the reformed church, who had taken refuge in Geneva, by his wife Jane Rosseau. He was educated at first by his father, and made so quick a progress in his studies, that at the age of nine he could speak and write Latin with great ease and correctness. But his father being obliged, for three years together, to be absent from home, on account of business, his education was neglected, and at twelve years of age he was forced to begin his studies again by himself, but as he could not by this method make any considerable progress, he was sent in 1578 to Geneva, to complete his studies under the professors there, and by indefatigable application, quickly recovered the time he had lost. He learned the Greek tongue of Francis Portus, the Cretan, and soon became so great a master of that language, that this famous man thought him worthy to be his successor in the professor’s chair in 1582, when he was but three and twenty years of age. In 1586, Feb. 1, he had the misfortune to lose his father, who died at Dil, aged sixty- three. The 28th of April following he married Florence, daughter of Henry Stephens the celebrated printer, by whom he had twenty children. For fourteen years he continued professor of the Greek tongue at Geneva; and in that time studied philosophy and the civil law under Julius Pacius. He also learned Hebrew, and some other of the Oriental languages, but not enough to be able to make use of them afterwards. In the mean time he began to be weary of Geneva; either because he could not agree with his father-in-law, Henry Stephens, who is said to have been morose and peevish; or that his salary was not sufficient for his maintenance; or because he was of a rambling and unsettled disposition. He resolved therefore, after a great deal of uncertainty, to accept the place of professor of the Greek tongue and polite literature, which was offered him at Montpelier, with a more considerable salary than he had at Geneva. To Montpelier he removed about the end of 1596, and began, his lectures in the February following. About the same time, the city of Nismes invited him to come and restore their university, but he excused himself, and some say he had an invitation from the university of Franeker. At his first coming to Montpelier, he was much esteemed and followed, and seemed to be pleased with his station. But this pleasure did not last long; for what had been promised him was not performed; abatements were made in his salary, which also was not regularly paid, and upon the whole, he met there with so much uneasiness that he was upon the point of returning to Geneva, when a journey he took to Lyons in 1598, gave him an opportunity of taking another, that proved extremely advantageous to him. Having been recommended by some gentlemen of Montpelier to M. de Vicq, a considerable man at Lyons, this gentleman took him into his house, and carried him along with him to Paris, where he caused him to be introduced to the first- president de Harlay, the president de Thou, Mr. Gillot, and Nicolas le Fevre, by whom he was very civilly received . He was also presented to king Henry IV. who being informed of his merit, requested him to leave Montpelier for a professor’s place at Paris. Casaubon having remained for some time in suspense which course to take, went back to Montpelier, and resumed his lectures. Not long after, he received a letter from the king, dated January 3, 1599, by which he was invited to Paris in order to be professor of polite literature, and he set out the 26th of February following. When he came to Lyons, M. de Vicq advised him to stay there till the king’s coming, who was expected in that place. In the mean while, some domestic affairs obliged him to go to Geneva, where he complains that justice was not done him with regard to the estate of his father-in-law. Upon his return to Lyons, having waited a long while in vain for the king’s arrival, he took a second journey to Geneva, and then went to Paris; though he foresaw, as M. de Vicq and Scaliger had told him, he should not meet there with all the satisfaction he at first imagined. The king gave him, indeed, a gracious reception; but the jealousy of some of the other professors, and his being a protestant, procured him a great deal of trouble and vexation, and were the cause of his losing the professorship, of which he had the promise. Some time after, he was appointed one of the judges on the protestants’ side, at the conference between James Davy du Perron, bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and Philip du Plessis-Mornay f. As Casaubon was not favourable to the latter, who, some think, did not acquit himself well in that conference, it was reported that he would soon change his religion; but the event showed that this report was groundless. When Casaubon came back to Paris, he found it very difficult to get his pension paid, and the charges of removing from Lyons to Paris, because M. de Rosny was not his friend; and it was only by an express order from the king that he obtained the payment even of three hundred crowns. The 30th of May 1600, he returned to Lyons, to hasten the impression of his “Athenseus,” which was printing there; but he had the misfortune of incurring the displeasure of his great friend M. de Vicq, who had all along entertained him and his whole family in his own house when they were in that city, because he refused to accompany him into Switzerland. The reason of this refusal was, his being afraid of losing in the mean time the place of library-keeper to the king, of which he had a promise, and that was likely soon to become vacant, on account of the librarian’s illness. He returned to Paris with his wife and family the September following, and was well received by the king, and by many persons of distinction. There he read private lectures, published several works of the ancients, and learned Arabic; in which he made so great a progress, that he undertook to compile a dictionary, and translated some books of that language into Latin. In 1601 he was obliged, as he tells us himself, to write against his will to James VI. king of Scotland, afterwards king of England, but does not mention the occasion of it. That prince answered him with great civility, which obliged our author to write to him a second time. In the mean time, the many affronts and uneasinesses he received from time to time at Paris, made him think of leaving that city, and retiring to some quieter place, but king Henry IV. in order to fix him, made an augmentation of two hundred crowns to his pension: and granted him the reversion of the place of his library-keeper. He took a journey to Dauphine in May 1603, and from thence to Geneva about his private affairs; returning to Paris on the 12th of July. Towards the end of the same year he came into possession of the place of king’s library-keeper, vacant by the death of Gosselin. His friends of the Roman catholic persuasion made now frequent attempts to induce him to forsake the protestant religion. Cardinal du Perron, in particular, had several disputes with him, after one of which a report was spread that he had then promised the cardinal he would turn Roman catholic: so that, in order to stifle that rumour, the ministers of Charenton, who were alarmed at it, obliged him to write a letter to the cardinal to contradict what was so confidently reported, and took care to have it printed. About this time the magistrates of Nismes gave him a second invitation to their city, offering him a house, and a salary of six hundred crowns of gold a year, but he durst not accept of it for fear of offending the king. In 1609 he had, by that prince’s order, who was desirous of gaining him over to the catholic religion, a conference with cardinal du Perron, but it had no effect upon him.

, an eminent nonconformist divine, the son of George Case, vicar of Boxley in Kent, was born there in 1598 or 1599, and became student of Christ church, Oxford, upon the recommendation of Toby Mathew, archbishop of York, in 1616. After taking his degrees in arts, he went into the church, and preached for some time in Oxfordshire and Kent, and held the living of Erpingham in Norfolk, from which he was ejected for nonconformity. In 1641, he joined in principle and practice with the parliament, and about that time was minister of St. Mary Magdalen, Milk-street, London, in the room of a sequestered loyalist. One of the party jour nafs of the time informs us that in administering the sacrament, he used to say, instead of “Ye that do truly and earnestly repent, &c.” “Ye that have freely and liberally contributed to the parliament, &c.;” but this was probably the squib of the day. Case, with all his republican zeal, was a man of real piety but the former certainly betrayed him into extreme violence in his discourses, which is poorly excused by his biographer telling us of his having been ejected from his living by bishop Wren. When in London he wasthe institutor of the Morning Exercise, which was kept up in the city many years after, and produced some of the ablest sermons of the nonconformist clergy. From the living of Milk-street he was turned out, for refusing the engagement, and was afterwards lecturer at Aldermanbury and St. Giles’s Cripplegate. He was imprisoned six months in the Tower, for being implicated in Love’s plot, but Love only was made a sacrifice, and Mr. Case and his fellow-prisoners Mr. Jenkyn, Mr. Watson, &c. were released and restored to their livings. He was afterwards rector of St. Giles’s in the Fields. In 1660, he was one of the ministers deputed to wait on the king at the Hague; and in 1661, one of the commissioners at the fruitless Savoy conference. He appears to have retained his living in Milk-street after the restoration, as it was from that he was finally ejected. He died May 30, 1682, and was buried in Christ church, Newgate-street. Dr. Jacomb, who preached his funeral sermon, gives him an excellent and probably a just character: and it is certain that he lived to repent of the intemperance of his harangues at the commencement of the rebellion. This led him to subscribe the two papers declaring against the proceedings of the parliament in 1648, and the bringing king Charles to a trial. His works consist chiefly of sermons preached on public occasions, before the parliament and at funerals, enumerated by Calamy.

, a doctor of divinity, born at Nismes in 1633, was son of Michael Cassagnes, master of the requests to the duke of Orleans, afterwards treasurer to the demesne of the Seneschally of Nismes. He was admitted into the French academy at the age of twenty-seven, in consequence of an ode written in its praise, 1660; and the poem he published the year following, in which he introduces Henry IV. giving instructions to Louis XIV. gained him the friendship of M. Colbert. This minister procured him a pension from the court, appointed him keeper of the king’s library, and nominated him one of the first four academicians, who originally composed the academy of inscriptions. The abbe Cassagnes was preparing to preach at court, when Boileau placed his name by that of Cotin in his third satire: this satirical stroke made him renounce the pulpit, and preyed on a mind probably vain and weak. Imagining, afterwards, that he had entirely lost the esteem of the public, he thought to recover his reputation by publishing a multiplicity of works; but too great application, joined to a morose temper, and many disappointments, impaired his understanding, and his friends were obliged to place him at St. Lazare, where he died, May 19, 1675, aged 46. He left odes, which are printed separately, and in collections a translation of Cicero’s Rhetoric, 12mo, and of Sallust, 12mo, and other forgotten works.

Meanwhile he did not neglect his astronomical studies, but cultivated them with great care. He made many discoveries relative to the planets Mars and Venus, especially the revolution of Mars upon his own axis; but his principal object was to settle an accurate theory of Jupiter’s satellites, which after much labour and watching he happily effected, and published it at Rome, among other astronomical pieces, in 1666. Picard, the French astronomer, getting Cassini’s tables of Jupiter’s satellites, found them so very exact, that he conceived the highest opinion of his skill; and from that time his fame increased so fast in France, that Lewis XIV. desired to have him a member of the academy. Cassini, however, could not leave his station, without leave of his superiors; and therefore Lewis requested of pope Clement IX. and of the senate of Bologna, that Cassini might be permitted to come into France. Leave was granted for six years; and he came to Paris in the beginning of 1669, where he was immediately made the king’s astronomer. When this term was near expiring, the pope and the senate of Bologna insisted upon his return, on pain of forfeiting his revenues and emoluments, which had hitherto been remitted to him; but the minister Colbert prevailed on him to stay, and he was naturalized in the latter end of 1673, in which same year also he married.

When Castiglione was eighteen years of age, he went into military service, under Lewis Sforza, duke of Milan; but his father dying soon after, and some disastrous circumstances overtaking that state, he was obliged to quit the camp, and return to Mantua. He engaged a second time in the service of the duke, and distinguished himself much by his bravery and conduct; but returning soon after, and being desirous to see other courts, particularly that of Rome, he went thither at the very time that Julius II. obtained the popedom. His fame was not unknown to this pontiff; and the high opinion he had of his abilities and merit, made him write to Guido Ubaldo, duke of Urbino, his cousin, that if he would send him to the court of Rome, in his own name, with the character of a public minister, he should take it as a singular obligation. Castiglione was twenty-six years of age; and Guido Ubaldo sent him ambassador to pope Julius, to transact affairs of the highest importance. He was sent upon a second embassy to Lewis XII. of France, and upon a third to Henry VII. of England; whither he went to be invested with the order of the garter, as proxy for the duke his master. On his arrival in England he was received with every mark of honour and esteem, being met at the port where he landed by the earl of Huntingdon, who was then lord of the bedchamber, accompanied by many other lords, and a king at arms. After he had dispatched his business here, and was returned home, to gratify the importunities of Alfonso Ariosto, his particular friend, he began his celebrated work, “The Courtier,” which in a small space of time he completed at Rome, in March 1516. From this work we may perceive how intimate he was with the Greek and Latin authors, having here gleaned together the first flowers of their wit, and treasured up, as it were, in a single cabinet, the richest jewels of antiquity. The book has been universally well received, both in Italy, and abroad; often reprinted, and translated into several languages. It is lull of moral and political instructions; and, it' we wish to study the Italian tongue, it is said that it can no where be found in more purity.

Castiglione was highly esteemed and favoured by the duke Francisco Maria, who constituted him his first minister of state, as well in civil as military affairs; and for his services, particularly at the siege of Mirandola, at which pope Julius was present, made him a free gift of the castle of Nuvolara, in the county of Pesaro, with the most ample privileges to himself, and to his heirs and successors for ever. This was in 1513. Not long after, Leo X. confirmed it to him by two briefs; the one written to him by Peter Bembo, and dated March 14, 1514; the other by Jacomus Sadolet, in May following. Having now reached his thirty-sixth year, he married a noble lady, who was the daughter of the famous Bentivoglio, and very remarkable for her wit and beauty. She brought him a son and two daughters, and then died; having lived no more than four years with him.

late empress of Russia, whose original name was Sophia Augusta Fredeiuca, the daughter of Christian Augustus, prince of Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg, and of the princess of Holstein, was born at Stettin, in Prussian Pomerania, May 2, 1729. In early life she was distinguished by her good humour, intelligence, and spirit, and was fond of reading, reflection, learning, and employment. About the beginning of the year 1744, she was introduced at the court of Petersburg!], where the empress Elizabeth received her very graciously, and formed the scheme of a matrimonial union between her nephew, the grand-duke, afterwards Peter III. and Sophia; who, though instructed under the tuition of her mother in the Lutheran doctrines, embraced the religion of the Greek church, and on this occasion changed her name to that of Catherine Alcxievna. Before the nuptials were celebrated, the grand duke was seized with the small-pox, which so much deformed his face, as to render it for a time almost hideous. This metamorphosis produced a horror in the mind of the young princess at the first Interview, which, however, she had sufficient art to disguise, and which proved no impediment to their marriage, which took place in 1745. At first their attachment appeared to be mutual, but their dispositions and accomplishments were soon discovered to be different. Catherine displayed a superior understanding, which in time Peter felt, and thus the seeds of mutual dislike were very early sown. Their consolations were now also different. Peter had recourse to drinking and gaming, while Catherine entered into all the arcana of political measures, and began to form a party. She also now formed the first of those personal attachments for which she has been so remarkable, with Soltikof, the prince’s chamberlain; and although, when accused, she defended her character with some address and spirit, her intercourse with Soltikof was renewed, and became less secret. At length, the grand chancellor Bestuchef prevailed with the empress to appoint Soltikof minister plenipotentiary from the court of Russia to Hamburgh. For some time Catherine corresponded with him, but in 1755 formed a new connection of the same kind with Stanislaus Poniatowsky, the late king of Poland, and he being appointed plenipotentiary from Poland at the court of Russia, their intimacy was long visible to all, except the grand duke Peter. His jealousy being at length roused, he forbade the grand duchess to be seen with Poniatowsky, and prevailed on the empress to banish Bestuchef, who had been the means of Poniatowski’s mission to the court of Russia, and incensed her majesty against Catherine to such a degree, that it required her utmost cunning to effect a reconciliation, which was however at length brought about, and on the death of the empress Elizabeth, Dec. 25, 1761, Peter III. ascended the throne.

, a celebrated divine of the sixteenth century, was born in 1487 at Sienna, and taught law, till the age of thirty, under the name of Lancelot Politi, but took that of Catharinus upon turning Dominican in 1515. He then applied to the study of divinity, and became very eminent; appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent, was made bishop of Minori 1547, and archbishop of Conza 1551. He died 1553, aged 70, leaving several works, printed at Lyons, 1542, 8vo and at the end of his “Enarrationes in Genesim,” Rome, 1552, fol. in which he maintains singular opinions concerning predestination and other theological points, he says, that St. John the Evangelist is not dead, but has been taken up to heaven, like Enoch and Elijah; that Jesus Christ would have come into the world, even though Adam had not sinned; that the evil angels fell because they would not acknowledge the decree of the incarnation; and that children) who die unbaptized, enjoy a degree of happiness suited to their state. It was he who first warmly defended the opinion, that the exterior intention is sufficient in-him who administers the sacraments, i. e. that the sacrament is valid provided the minister performs such outward ceremonies as are required, though he should in his heart m?.ke a jest of sacred things. Catharinus is very free in other respects in his sentiments, and does not scruple to depart from those of St. Austin, St. Thomas, and other divines. His opinion, however, concerning the exterior intention of the minister who gives the sacrament, has been always followed by the Sorbonne, when cases of conscience were to be decided. He wrote “Commentaries on St. Paul’s,” and the other canonical epistles, Venice, 1551, fol.; and there is a book ascribed to him which is in request, and is entitled, “Remedio alia pestilente Dottrina d'Ochino,” Rome, 1544, 8vo.

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

, son of the above, was born at Wivenhoe, about the year 1637, his father being then minister of the place. The first rudiments of learning he received from his father, whom he attended in his banishment, and lived with him several years in Holland, where he studied the oriental languages under Mr. Robert Sheringham, at Rotterdam, with equal diligence and success. About the year 1656, he was sent to the university of Utrecht, where he distinguished himself by his extraordinary skill in the oriental languages, in such a manner as did honour to his country. On the 14th of December, 1657, he maintained a thesis in relation to the Syriac version of the New Testament, and printed his discourse, as he did some time after another dissertation on the usefulness of the Hebrew language in the study of theoretic philosophy, Utrecht, 1637, 4to; which treatises sufficiently shew both the extent of his learning, and the solidity of his judgment. When he left Utrecht, the celebrated professor. Leusden subscribed an ample testimonial in his favour, and expresses a great regard for his person, as well as his talents. Ou his return to England, he went to Oxford, and was entered of Merton college, for the sake of M,r. Samuel Clark, famous for his thorough knowledge of the oriental languages. Our author shewed his loyalty by writing a copy of Hebrew verses on his majesty’s restoration, having been pretty early in the year 1660, admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts, at which time professor Leusden’s certificate was read publicly. In 1661, he was ordained by the bishop of Oxford; and in 1662, he published the “Life of his Father.” In all probability he might have obtained very considerable preferment, if his principles had not led him to nonconformity. When he retired from the university, he was taken into the family of sir Anthony Irbj a of Lincolnshire, where b officiated for some years as chaplain; but the air of that country disagreeing with him, and the family going down thither on account of the plague in 1665, he was obliged to quit it, and lived afterwards with the lady Armin till about the year 1670, when he gathered a congregation of dissenters in the city of Westminster, to whom be preached with some interruption from the severities of the government, for about seven years, tiil falling into a bad state of health, he died of 4 gradual decay, April 10, 1677, being then about forty years of age. He was buried in the New church in. Tothil-street Westminster, at which time his friend and fellow-collegian, Mr. Henry Hurst, preached his funeral sermon; as did also >lr. Nath. Vincent in another place. He was a man whose learning rendered him admired, and his virtues beloved by all parties. Anthony Wood, speaking of the praises bestowed upon him by Mr. Hurst in his discourse, t>ives them also his sanction; “they were,” he -ays, “deservedly spoken.” His congregation followed the advice he gave them on his death-bed; for he told them that he knew none so proper to be his successor, as a certain Northamptonshire minister, who wrote against Dr. Sherlock, Mr. Vincent Alsop, whom they accordingly chose. The changes of religious opinion in this congregation may be estimated by those who are acquainted with the character of Mr. Alsop’s successors, Dr. Calamy, Mr. Samuel Say, Dr. Obadiah Hughes, and the late Dr. Kippis. The only publication of Mr. Cawton’s, besides those mentioned, was a single sermon entitled “Balaam’s Wish,” London, 1670, and 1675, 8vo.

Count de Caylus was engaged at the same time in another enterprize, still more honourable for the Roman grandeur, and more interesting to the French nation. In, the last age, Des Godetz, under the auspices of Colbert, published the Antiquities of Rome. The work was admired by all Europe, and gave birth to that indefatigable emulation which carried able and ingenious travellers to Spalatra, Balbec, and even to the burning sands of Palmyra, in order to visit the famous ruins of so many magnificent buildings, and to present them to our view. It is this that has made us spectators of the monuments of Athens, that mother of learning, of arts, and sciences; where, in spite of the injuries of time and barbarism, so many illustrious sculptors and architects still live in the ruins of their edifices, in like manner as so many incomparable authors still breathe in the valuable fragments of their writings. The same Colbert had framed the design of engraving the Roman antiquities that are still to be seen in the southern provinces c c France. By his orders, Mignard, the architect, had made drawings of them, which count de Caylus had the good fortune to recover. He resolved to finish the work projected by Colbert, and to dedicate it to that great minister; and so much had he this glorious enterprize at heart, that he was employed in it during his last illness, and recommended it warmly to M. Mariette, by whom it was in part executed.

All this was very gratefully acknowledged by Elizabeth, on her accession to the throne, Norember 16, 1558. The first service that he rendered her was on that day, when he presented her with a paper, consisting of twelve particulars, which were necessary for her to dispatch immediately. At the time of her sister’s decease, queen Elizabeth was at her manor of Hatfield, whither most of the leading men repaired to her; and on the 20th of the same month, her council was formed, when sir William Cecil was first sworn privy-counsellor and secretary of state; and as he entered thus early into his sovereign’s favour, so he continued in it as long as he lived; which if in one sense it does honour to the abilities and services of Cecil, it was in another no less glorious to the queen his mistress, who, in this respect, did not act from any spirit of partiality or of prepossession, but with that wisdom and prudence which directed her judgment in all things. She saw plainly that sir William Cecil’s interests were interwoven with her own, and that he was fittest to be her counsellor whose private safety must depend upon the success of the counsel he gave; and though there were other persons, who were sometimes as great or greater favourites than Cecil, yet he was the only minister whom, she always consulted, and whose advice she very rarely rejected. The first thing he advised was to call a parliament, for the settlement of religion; and caused a plan of deformation to be drawn with equal circumspection and moderation; for, though no man was a more sincere protestant, yet he had no vindictive prejudices against papists, nor did he on the other hand lay any greater weight upon indifferent things, than he judged absolutely necessary for preserving decency and order. It was his opinion that without an established church, the state could not at that time subsist; and whoever considers the share he had in establishing it, and has a just veneration for that wise and excellent establishment, cannot but allow that the most grateful reverence is due to his memory.

The remainder of his administration would in fact be a history of that memorable reign, and in such a sketch as the present, we can advert only to the leading events. He had not been long seated in his high office, before foreign affairs required his care. France, Spain, and Scotland, all demanded the full force of his wisdom and skill. Spain was a secret enemy; France was a declared one, and had Scotland much in her power. By the minister’s advice, therefore, the interest of the reformed religion in Scotland was taken under Elizabeth’s protection. This produced the convention of Leith; and Cecil, as a remuneration for his services in this affair, obtained the place of master of the wards, Jan. 10, 1561, an office which he did not take as a sinecure, but of which he discharged the load of business with patience and diligence to the satisfaction of all. In his management of the house of commons, sir William exhibited equal caution, address, and capacity. The question of the future succession to the crown was often brought forward, sometimes from real and wellfounded anxiety; sometimes from officiousness; and often from factious motives. On this subject both the sovereign and the minister preserved an unbroken reserve, from which neither irritation nor calumny could induce him to depart. Perhaps this reserve, on his part, arose from his deference to the queen, but it seems more likely that his advice influenced her behaviour on this critical point. There were no less than three claimants publicly mentioned, viz. the queen of Scots, the family of Hastings, and the family of Suffolk; and the partizans of each of these were equally vehement and loud, as appears by “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” Doleman’s “Treatise of the Succession,” and other pieces on the same subject. The queen observed a kind of neutrality, but still in such a manner as sufficiently intimated she favoured the first title, or rather looked upon it as the best, notwithstanding the jealousies she had of her presumptive successor. This appeared by her confining John Hales, who wrote a book in defence of the Suffolk line, and by imprisoning one Thornton, upon the complaint of the queen of Scots, for writing against her title. The secretary kept himself clear of all this, and never gave the least intimation of his own sentiments, farther than that he wished the question of the succession might rest during the queen’s life, or till she, thought proper to determine it in a legal way.

Some Spanish ships, having great treasure on board, put into the English ports to secure it from the French, and afterwards landed it, the queen’s officers assisting, and the Spanish ambassador solemnly affirming it was his master’s money, and that he was sending it into the Netherlands for the pay of his army. The secretary, in the mean time, received advice that this was not true, and that it was the money of some Genoese bankers, who were in the greatest terror lest the duke of Alva should convert the same to his master’s use, in order to carry on some great design, which the court of Spain kept as an impenetrable secret. Cecil therefore advised the queen to take the money herself, and give the Genoese security for it, by which she would greatly advantage her own affairs, distress the Spaniards, relieve the Netherlands, and wrong nobody. The queen took his advice, and when upon this the duke of Alva seized the effects of the English in the Netherlands, she made reprisals, and out of them immediately indemnified her own merchants. The Spanish ambassador at London behaved with great violence upon this occasion, giving secretary Cecil ill language at the council-table, and libelling the queen, by appealing to the people against their sovereign’s administration. This produced a great deal of disturbance, and Leicester and his party took care to have it published every where, that Cecil was the sole author of this counsel. While things were in this ferment, Leicester held a private consultation with the lords he had drawn to his interest, wherein he proposed that they should take this occasion of removing a man whom they unanimously bated. Some of the lords inquiring how this could be 4one? sir Nicholas Throgmorton answered, “Let him be charged with some matter or other in council when the queen is not present, commit him to the Tower thereupon, and when he is once in prison we shall find things enow against him.” It so happened, that about this time a flagrant libel being published against the nobility, lord Leicester caused Cecil to be charged before the council, either with being the author of it, or it’s patron; of which he offered no other proof than that it had been seen on Cecil’s table. This the secretary readily confessed, but insisted that he looked upon it in the same light they did, as a most scandalous invective; in support of which he produced his own copy with notes on the margin, affirming that he had caused a strict inquiry to be made after the author and publisher of the work. All this, however, would have been but of little use to him, if the queen had not had private notice of their design. While therefore the secretary was defending himself, she suddenly and unexpectedly entered the council-room, and having in few words expressed her dislike of such cabals, preserved her minister, and shewed even Leicester himself that he could not be overthrown. The affair of the duke of Norfolk’s ruin followed, not long after he had been embarked in the faction against Cecil; and therefore we find this minister sometimes charged, though very unjustly, with being the author of his misfortunes, a calumny from which he vindicated himself with candour, clearness, and vivacity, as equally abhorring the thoughts of revenge, and hazarding the public safety to facilitate his private advantage. Cecil, indeed, had no greater share in the duke’s misfortune, than was necessarily imposed upon him by his office of secretary, and which consequently it was not in his power to avoid; to which we may add, that the duke himself was in some measure accessary thereto, by acting under the delusive influence of his capital enemy as well as Cecil’s. The duke’s infatuated conduct, after having once received a pardon, rendered his practices too dangerous to be again forgiven. It cannot be doubted that this great nobleman was the tool of the views of the catholic party: and there is reason to believe that the previous design of ruining Cecil was to get rid of him before this plan was ripe, from a just fear of his penetration, and his power to defeat it. Cecil’s fidelity was followed by much, public and some severe private revenge. His sonin-law, lord Oxford, put his threat into execution of ruining his daughter, by forsaking her bed, and wasting the fortune of her posterity, if the duke’s life was not spared.

The last memorable act of his life was the attempt to bring about a peace with Spain, in which he was vehemently opposed by Essex, then in the fire of youth, which might animate him to daring deeds to gratify his own ambition. The young soldier was warm in the debate, which induced the venerable minister to pull out a prayer-book, and point to the words " Men of blood shall not live out

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

His indefatigable application to business having ruined his constitution, he died at Marlborough in his return from Bath, May 24, 1612, and was buried at Hatfield. He was undoubtedly a very able minister, but not very popular while living, nor characterised with much praise since his death. Dr. Birch, however, appears his ablest advocate, in his “Historical View of the Negociations,” &c. and his researches being carried farther than perhaps those of any modern writer, what he advances seems more entitled to credit.

It will be but justice, says Dr. Birch, to the character of so eminent a person as the earl of Salisbury, to consider him as he now appears to us from fuller and more impartial lights than the ignorance or envy of his own time would admit of; and which may be opposed to the general invectives and unsupported libels of Weldon and Wilson, the scandalous chroniclers of the last age. He was evidently a man of quicker parts, and a more spirited writer and speaker than his father, to whose experience he was at the same time obliged for his education and introduction into public business, in the management of which he was accounted, and perhaps justly, more subtle, and less open. And this opinion of his biass to artifice and dissimulation was greatly owing to the singular address which he shewed in penetrating into the secrets and reserved powers of the foreign ministers with whom he treated; and in evading, with uncommon dexterity, such points as they pressed, when it was not convenient to give them too explicit an answer. His correspondence with king James, during the life of queen Elizabeth, was so closely and artfully managed, that he escaped a discovery, which would have ruined his interest with his royal mistress, though he afterwards justified that correspondence from a regard to her service. “For what,” says he, “could more quiet the expectation of a successor, so many ways invited to jealousy, than when he saw her ministry, that were most inward with her, wholly bent to accommodate the present actions of state for his future safety, when God should see his time!” He was properly a sole minister, though not under the denomination of a favourite, his master having a much greater awe of than love for him; and he drew all business, both foreign and domestic, into his own hands, and suffered no ministers to be employed abroad but who were his dependents, and with whom he kept a most constant and exact correspondence: but the men whom he preferred to such employments, justified his choice, and did credit to the use he made of his power. He appears to have been invariably attached to the true interest of his country, being above corruption from, or dependence upon, any foreign courts; which renders it not at all surprising, that he should be abused by them all in their turns; as his attention to all the motions of the popish faction made him equally odious to them. He fully understood the English constitution, and the just limits of the prerogative; and prevented the fatal consequences which might have arisen from the frequent disputes between king James I. and his parliaments. In short, he was as good a minister as that prince would suffer him to be, and as was consistent with his own security in a factious and corrupt court; and he was even negligent of his personal safety, whenever the interest of the public was at stake. His post of lord treasurer, at a time when the exchequer was exhausted by the king’s boundless profusion, was attended with infinite trouble to him, in concerting schemes for raising the supplies; and the manner in which he was obliged to raise them, with the great fortune which he accumulated to himself, in a measure beyond perhaps the visible profits of his places, exposed him to much detraction and popular clamour, which followed hi ui to his grave; though experience shewed 1 that the nation sustained an important loss by his death since he was the only minister of state of real abilities during the whole course of that reign. He has been thought too severe and vindictive in the treatment of his rivals and enemies: but the part which he acted towards the earl of Essex, seems entirely the result of his duty to his mistress and the nation. It must, however, be confessed, that his behaviour towards the great but unfortunate sir Walter Raleigh is an imputation upon him, which still remains to be cleared up; and it probably may be done from the ample memorials of his administration in the Hatfield library.

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

, a Jesuit of uncommon abilities, and confessor to Lewis XIV. was born in the chateau of Aix, in 1624, of an ancient but reduced family. He gave early indications of talents when at school, and performed his philosophical exercises under father de Vaux, who was afterwards advanced to the highest employments in his order. When he was arrived at a proper age, he was ordained priest; and became afterwards professor of divinity in the province of Lyons, and rector and provincial of a college there. He spent at several seasons a good deal of time in Paris, where his great address, his wit, and love of letters, made him almost universally known: and in 1663, the bishop of Bayeux introduced him to cardinal Mazarine, who shewed him many marks of favour, and offered him his patronage. In 1665, he presented la Chaise to the king, as a person of whose great abilities and merit he was well convinced, and afterwards got him admitted into the council of conscience, which indeed was no less than to make him coadjutor to the confessor, and when the cardinal died, he was made, in 1675, confessor to the king; and about ten years after, was the principal adviser and director of his marriage with madame de Maintenon. The king was then arrived at an age when confessors have more than an ordinary influence: and la Chaise found himself a minister of state, without expecting, and almost before he perceived it. He did business regularly with the king, and immediately saw all the lords and all the prelates at his feet. He had made himself a master in the affairs of the church; which, by the disputes that often arose between the courts of France and Rome, were become affairs of state. Yet, in spite of all his address and the influence which he had gained over the king, he was sometimes out of favour with his master, and in danger of being disgraced. Provoked at the ill success of the affair concerning the electorate of Cologn in 1689, the king shewed his displeasure to the confessor, by whose counsels he had been influenced. La Chaise excused himself, by laying the blame upon the marquis de Louvois; but the king told him with some indignation, “that an enterprise suggested by Jesuits had never succeeded; and that it would be better if they would confine themselves to teaching their scholars, and never presume to meddle in affairs of state.” La Chaise was very solicitous to establish an interest with madam e de Maintenon; but does not appear to have done it effectually, till that favourite found herself unable, by all her intrigues and contrivances, to remove him from the place of confessor. The Jesuit, it has been said, had not religion enough for this devout lady. He loved pleasures, had a taste for magnificence, and was thought too lukewarm in the care of his master’s conscience. The jealousy and dislike with which she regarded him were expressed in her letters; but her unfavourable representations of his temper and character were counteracted by those of the duke of St. Simon, who describes him as mild and moderate, humane and modest, possessed of honour and probity, and though much attached to his family, perfectly disinterested. La Chaise died Jan. 1709, and possessed to the very last so great a share of favour and esteem with the king, that his majesty consulted him upon his death-­bed about the choice of his successor.

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

, esq. was born about the middle of January 1552, and was educated at Cambridge. To the knowledge of the learned languages, which he cultivated there, he added that of the French and Italian. He enjoyed great intimacy with the most considerable men in England, with sir Henry Savile, bishop Andrews, sir Thomas Boclley, sir Thomas Edmondes, sir Dudley Carleton, and sir Ralph Win wood. In the confidence of the last of these he had a very great share, while that honest and able minister was secretary of state, and the character of the latter appears in a very advantageous light in the letters of Mr. Chamberlain. Having a fortune sufficient to satisfy a quiet and unambitious temper, he enjoyed the satisfactions of private life in the society of his friends till a good old age, dying after the year 1626, and before April 1631, for his name does not appear among those of the commissioners for the repairing of St. Paul’s, in the second commission dated the 10th of that month, though he had been appointed a commissioner in the first. His correspondence is in the British Museum.

, an eminent French protestant divine, was born in Dauphiny, and was long minister at Montelimart, in that province, from whence he removed in 16 12 to Montaubon, to be professor of divinity; and was killed at the siege of that place by a cannon ball in 1621. He was no less distinguished among his party as a statesman than as a divine. No man opposed the artifices employed by the court to distress the protestants with more steadiness and inflexibility. Varillas says it was he who drew up the edict of Nantz. Though politics took up a great part of his time, he acquired a large fund of extensive learning, as appears from his writings. His treatise “De œcumenico pontifice,” and his “Epistolæ Jesuiticæ,” are commended by Scaliger. Hjs principal work is his “Catholica Panstratia, or the Wars of the Lord,” in which the controversy between the protestants and Roman catholics is learnedly handled. It was written at the desire of the synod of the reformed churches in France, to confute Bellarmine. The synod of Privas, in 1612, ordered him 2900 livres to defray the charges of the impression of the first three volumes. Though this work makes four large folio volumes, it is not complete: for it wants the controversy concerning the church, intended for a fifth volume, which the author’s death prevented him from finishing. This body of controversy was printed at Geneva in 1626, under the care of Turretin, professor of divinity. An abridgment of it was published in the same city in 1643, in one vol. folio, by Frederick Spanheim, the father. His “Corpus Theologicum,” and his “Epistolae Jesuiticae,” were printed in a small folio volume, 1693, but there are 8vo editions of the latter, one Genev. 1599, and the “De cecumenico pontifice” was also published in 8vo, Genev. 1601.

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

, a learned English prelate, was the son of Samuel Chandler, esq. of the city of Dublin, by his wife Elizabeth, whose maiden name was Calvert. Our prelate was probably born in that city, but received his academical education at Emanuel college, Cambridge, where at the age of twenty-five, he commenced M. A. was ordained priest, and made chaplain to Lloyd, bishop of Winchester, in 1693. He was prebendary of Pipa Minor, April 27, 1697, and afterwards canon of Lichfield and Worcester. He was nominated to the bishopric of Lichfield, Sept. 5, 1717, and consecrated at Lambeth, Nov. 17. From that see he was translated to Durham, Nov. 5, 1730; and it was then publicly said that he gave 9000l. for that opulent see, which is scarcely credible. He was, it is universally acknowledged, a prelate of great erudition, having rendered himself justly valued and esteemed as a worthy father of the church of England, and patron of the truth, by his learning and convincing writings, particularly “A Defence of Christianity from the prophecies of the Old Testament, wherein are considered all the objections against this kind of proof advanced in a late Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion,” London, 1725, 8vo. This was reckoned a very learned and elaborate work, and compelled Collins to produce in 1727 a second book, particularly in answer to the bishop of Lichfield, which rank our author then held: this was entitled “The Scheme of Literal Prophecy considered,” and this occasioned a second answer from the learned bishop, entitled “A Vindication of the Defence of Christianity, from the prophecies of the Old Testament,” published in 1728: in this he largely and very solidly vindicates the antiquity and authority of the book of Daniel, and the application of the prophecies there contained to the Messiah, against Collins’s objections; and also fully obviates what he had farther advanced against the antiquity and universality of the tradition and expectation among the Jews concerning the Messiah. His other publications were eight occasional Sermons, the “Chronological Dissertation” prefixed to Arnald’s Ecclesiasticus, and a preface to a posthumous work of Dr. Ralph Cudworth’s, entitled “A Treatise concerning eternal and immutable MotaKty.” He died at his house in Grosvenor-square July 20, 1750, of the stone, several large ones being found in his body, when opened, and was buried at Farnham Royal, in the county of Bucks. Whilst he was bishop of Durham, he gave 50l. towards augmenting Monkwearmouth living, also 200l. to purchase a house for the minister of Stockton, and 2000l. to be laid out in a purchase for the benefit of clergymen’s widows in the diocese of Durham; and it is recorded, much to his honour, that he never sold any of his patent offices.

, an eminent dissenting minister, was born at Hungerford, in Berkshire, in 1693, where his father was then pastor of a congregation of protestant dissenters. He early discovered a genius for literature, which was carefully cultivated; and being placed under proper masters, he made a very uncommon progress in classical learning, and especially in the Greek tongue. As it was intended by his friends to bring him up for the ministry, he was sent to an academy at Bridgewater; but was sbort removed to Gloucester, that he might become a pupil to Mr. Samuel Jones, a dissenting minister of great erudition and abilities, who had opened an academy in that city, afterwards transferred to Tewkesbury. Such was the attention of that gentleman to the morals of his pupils, and to their progress in literature, and such the skill and discernment with which he directed their studies, that it was a singular advantage to be placed under so able and accomplished a tutor. Chandler made the proper use of so happy a situation, applying himself to his studies with great assiduity, and particularly to critical, biblical, and oriental learning. Among the pupils of Mr. Jones, were Mr. Joseph Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham, and Mr. Thomas Seeker, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he contracted a friendship that continued to the end of their lives, notwithstanding the different views by which their conduct was afterwards directed, and the different situations in which they were placed.

On leaving the academy, he continued his studies at Leyden, and these being finished, he began to preach about July 1714; and being soon distinguished by his talents in the pulpit, he was chosen, in 1716, minister of the presbyterian congregation at Peckham, near London, in which statioji he continued some years. Here he entered into the matrimonial state, and began to have an increasing family, when, by the fatal South-sea scheme of 1720, he unfortunately lost the whole fortune which he had received with his wife. His circumstances being thereby embarrassed, and his income as a minister being inadequate to his expences, he engaged in the trade of a bookseller, and kept a shop in the Poultry, London, in partnership with John Gray, who afterwards became a dissenting minister, but conformed, and had a living in Yorkshire. Mr. Chandler continued this trade for about two or three years, still continuing to discharge the duties of the pastoral office. It may not be improper to observe, that in the earlier part of his life Mr. Chandler was subject to frequent and dangerous fevers; one of which confined him more than three months, and threatened by its effects to disable him for public service. He was, therefore, advised to confine himself to a vegetable diet, which he accordingly did, and adhered to it for twelve years. This produced so happy an alteration in his constitution, that though he afterwards returned to the usual way of living, he enjoyed an uncommon share of spirits and vigour till seventy.

While Mr. Chandler was minister of the congregation at Peckham, some gentlemen of the several denominations of dissenters in the city, came to a resolution to set up and support a weekly evening lecture at the Old Jewry, for the winter half year. The subjects to be treated in this lecture were the evidences of natural and revealed religion, and answers to the principal objections against them. Two of the most eminent young ministers among the dissenters were appointed for the execution of this design, of which Mr. Chandler was one, and Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Lardner, who is so justly celebrated for his learned writings, was another. But after some time this lecture was dropped, and another of the same kind set up, to be preached by one person only, it being judged that it might then be conducted with more consistency of reason and uniformity of design; and Mr. Chandler was appointed for this service. In the course of this lecture he preached some sermons on the confirmation which miracles gave to the divine mission of Christ, and the truth of his religion; and vindicated the argument against the objections of Collins, in his “Discourse of the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.” These sermons, by the advice of a friend, he enlarged, and threw into the form of a continued treatise, and published in 1725, 8vo, under the following title: “A Vindication of the Christian Religion, in two parts, I. A discourse on the nature and use of Miracles II. An answer to a late book,entitled a Discourse on the grounds and reasons of the Christian religion.” Having presented a copy of this book to archbishop Wake, his grace expressed his sense of the value of the favour, in a letter, which is an honourable testimony to Mr. Chandler’s merit. It appears from the letter, that the archbishop did not then know that the author was any other than a bookseller; for he says: “I cannot but own myself to be surprised to see so much good learning and just reasoning in a person of your profession; and do think it a pity you should not rather spend your time in writing books than in selling them. But I am glad, since your circumstances oblige you to the latter, that you do not wholly omit the former.” Besides gaining the archbishop’s approbation, Mr. Chandler’s performance considerably advanced his reputation in general, and contributed to his receiving an invitation, about 1726, to settle as a minister with the congregation in the Old Jewry, which was one of the most respectable in London. Here he continued, first as assistant, and afterwards as pastor, for the space of forty years, and discharged the duties of the ministerial office with great assiduity and ability, being much esteemed and regarded by his own congregation, and acquiring a distinguished reputation, both as a preacher and a writer.

, minister of the Walloon church at the Hague, died in that city in 1746. He was reputed a man of great piety and learning, and deserves notice here as the editor of the “Bibliotheque Anglaise,” a species of Review, which he carried on from 1716 to 1727, making 15 vols. 12mo, and of the “Bibliotheque raisonnee des Ouvrages des Savans,” from July 1728 to June 1735, 14 vols. In these he had the occasional assistance of other literary men, and they contain many valuable pieces of criticism. He also translated Ditton on the “Resurrection,” and a treatise on the “Necessity of public Worship,” the latter in favour of the protestants of Languedoc.

, dean of the French academy, was born at Paris, Feb. 1620. His early discovery of great acuteness made his friends design him for the bar: but his taste led him to prefer the repose and stillness of the closet, and he became more delighted with languages and antiquity, than with the study of the law. He was made a member of the French academy in 1651, and had the advantage of the best conversation for his improvement. When Colbert became minister of state, he projected the setting up a French East-India company; and to recommend the design more effectually, he thought it proper that a discourse should be published upon this subject. Accordingly he ordered Charpentier to draw one up, and was so pleased with his performance, published in 1664, that he kept him in his family, with a design to place him in another academy which was then founding, and which was afterwards known by the name of “Inscriptions and Medals.” The learned languages, in which Charpentier was a considerable master, his great knowledge of antiquity, and his exact and critical judgment, made him very serviceable in carrying on the business of this newacademy; and it is agreed on all hands, that no person of that learned society contributed more than himself towards that noble series of medals, which were struck of the most considerable events that happened in the reign of Lewis XIV. but his adulation of the king exceeded that of all his contemporaries.

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

, author of a very useful Biographical Dictionary, was descended from the ancient and noble family of the Calfopedi of Florence, which removed into France under Francis I. At the revocation of the edict of Nantz, Samuel de Chaufepié, the representative of the family, and pfotestant minister at Couhé in Poitou, was obliged to take refuge in Friesland, where he died pastor of the church of Leuwarden in 1704. He had ten children by his wife Maria Marbœuf de la Rimbaudiere, of whom the subject of the present article was the youngest, and born at Leuwarden, Nov. 9, 1702. He was educated partly at Franeker, under professor Andala, as appears by his maintaining an academical thesis before that professor, in 1718, on “Innate Ideas,” and probably about the same time, a second on “The punishment of the Cross,” which was afterwards published in a collection by Gerdes, in 1734. After being admitted into the ministry, he preached for some time at Flushing, then at Delft, and lastly at Amsterdam, where he was pastor of the Walloon church, and where he died, highly respected for piety and learning, and much lamented, July 3, 1786. He was not more diligent in the discharge of his professional functions, than attached to studious researches, which he pursued throughout the whole of his long life. In 1736 he published, “Lettres sur divers sujets importans de la Religion,” 12mo, and in 1746 prefixed a life or historical eulogium to the sermons of John Brutel de la Riviere. In 1756 he published three sermons, intended to prove the truth of the Christian religion from the present state of the Jews; and wrote an account of the life and writings of our celebrated poet Pope, which was prefixed to a French translation of his works, printed at Amsterdam in 1758. He also translated from the Dutch an abridgement, in question and answer, of the history of his country; and from the English, part of Shuckford’s works, with additions, and several volumes of the “Universal History,” which he improved very considerably, particularly in the history of Venice. This labour, however, he discontinued in 1771, and does not appear after that to have published any thing of consequence, confining himself to his pastoral duties, if we except his “Life of Servetus,” which in 1771 was translated into English, by James Yair, minister of the Scots church at Campvere, and published at London, 8vo. The chief object of it seems to be to vindicate Calvin from the reproaches usually thrown upon him for the share he had in the prosecution of Servetus; but some will probably think that he has at least been equally successful in throwing new and not very favourable light on the conduct and principles of Servetus.

, an eminent nonconformist, and great uncle to the historian of Hertfordshire, was the fifth and youngest son of George Chauncy, esq. of Yardley-bury and New-place in Hertfordshire, by Agnes, the daughter of Edward Welch, and widow of Edward Humberstone, and was born in 1592. He was educated at Westminster school, from which he went to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he was admitted to his several degrees, till he became bachelor of divinity. His reputation for learning was such as gained him the esteem and friendship of the celebrated Dr. Usher, archbishop of Armagh. In consequence of his distinguished skill in Oriental literature, he was chosen, by the heads of houses, Hebrew professor; but Dr. Williams, the vice-chancellor, preferring a relation of his own, Mr. Chauncy resigned his pretensions, and was appointed to the Greek professorship. He was the author of the sTriKpuris which is prefixed to Leigh’s “Critica Sacra' 7 upon the New Testament. When Mr. Chauncy quitted the university, he became vicar of Ware in Hertfordshire. Being of puritanical principles, he was jnuch offended with the” Book of Sports;“and opposed, although with less reason, the railing in of the Communion table. Besides this, he had the indiscretion to say in a sermon, that idolatry was admitted into the church; that much Atheism, Popery, Arminianism, and Heresy had crept into it; and that the preaching of the gospel would be suppressed. Having by these things excited the indignation of the ruling powers, he was questioned in the high commission; and the cause being referred, by order of that court, to the determination of his ordinary, he was imprisoned, condemned in costs of suit, and obliged to make a recantation; which, as it had been extorted from him through fear, lay heavy on his mind. He continued, indeed, some years in his native country, and officiated at Marston Lawrence, in the diocese of Peterborough; but at length retired to New England, where he made an open acknowledgment of his crime in signing a recantation contrary to the dictates of his conscience. For some considerable time succeeding his arrival at New England in 1637, he assisted Mr. Reyner, the minister of that place; after which he removed to a town at a little distance, called” Scituate," where he continued twelve years in the discharge of his pastoral office. When the republican party became predominant in England, Mr. Chauncy was invited, by his old parishioners at Ware, to return back to his native country, and had thoughts of complying, but was so earnestly pressed by the trustees of Harvard college, in Cambridge, which then wanted a president, to accept of the government of that society, that he could not resist their solicitations. This event took place in 1654; and from that time to his death, which happened on the 19th of February, 1671-2, in the 80th year of his age, Mr. Chauncy continued with great reputation at the head of the college, discharging the duties of his station with distinguished attention, diligence, and ability. So high was the esteem in which he was held, that when he had resided about two years in Cambridge, the church of that town, to whom he was united, and among whom he preached, kept a whole day of thanksgiving to God, for the mercy they enjoyed in their connection with him. Mr. Chauncy, by his wife Catherine, whose life was published, had six sons, all of whom were brought up for the ministry. Isaac the eldest of them, became pastor of a nonconformist society in London, and wrote several treatises . Mr. Charles Chauncy had a number of descendants, who long flourished both in Old and New England. One of them was the late Dr. Chauncy the physician, who died in 1777, well known for his skill and taste in pictures, and for his choice collection of them, afterwards in the possession of his brother, Nathaniel Chauncy, esq. of Castle-street, Leicester-fields, who died in 1790.

Lord Churchill was graciously received by the prince of Orange; and it is supposed to have been in consequence of his lordship’s solicitation, that prince George of Denmark took the same step, as his consort the princess Anne did also soon after, by the advice of lady Churchill. He was entrusted in that critical conjuncture by the prince of Orange, first to re-assemble his troop of guards at London, and afterwards to reduce some lately-raised regiments, and to new model the army, for which purpose he was invested with the rank and title of lieutenant-general. The prince and princess of Orange being declared king and queen of England, Feb. 6, 1689, lord Churchill was on the 14th sworn of their privy council, and one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber to the king; and on the 9th of April following, raised to the dignity of earl of Marlborough in the county of Wilts. He assisted at the coronation of their majesties, and was soon after made commander in chief of the English forces sent over to Holland. He presided at the battle of Walconrt, April 15, 1689, and gave such extraordinary proofs of his skill, that prince Waldeck, speaking in his commendation to king William, declared, that “he saw more into the art of war in a day, than some generals in many years.” It is to be observed, that king William commanded this year in Ireland, which was the reason of the earl of Marlborough’s being at the head of the English troops in Holland, where he laid the foundation of that fame among foreigners, which he afterwards extended all over Europe. He next did great services for king William in Ireland, by reducing Cork and some other places of much importance; in all which he shewed such uncommon abilities, that, on his first appearance at court after his return, the king was pleased to say, that “he knew no man so fit for a general, who had seen so few campaigns.” All these services notwithstanding did not hinder his being disgraced in a very sudden manner: for, being in waiting at court as lord of the bed-chamber, and having introduced to his majesty lord George Hamilton, he was soon followed to his own house by the same lord, with this short and surprising message, “That the king had no farther occasion for his services;” the more surprising, as his majesty just before had not discovered the least coldness or displeasure towards him. The cause of this disgrace is not even at present known; but only suspected to have proceeded from his too close attachment to the interest of the princess Anne. This strange and unexpected blow was followed by one much stranger, for soon after he was committed to the Tower for high treason; but was released, and acquitted, upon the principal accuser being convicted of perjury and punished; yet it is now believed that a correspondence had been carried on between the earl of Marlborough and the exiled king; and during queen Mary’s life, he kept at a distance from court, attending principally, with his lady, on the princess Anne. After queen Mary’s death, when the interests of the two courts were brought to a better agreement, king William thought fit to recall the earl of Marlborough to his privy council; and in June 1698, appointed him governor to the duke of Gloucester, with this extraordinary compliment, “My lord, make him but what you are, and my nephew will be all I wish to see him.” He continued in favour to the king’s death, as appears from his having been three times appointed one of the lords justices during his absence namely, July 16, 1698; May 31, 1699; and June 27, 1700. As soon as it was discerned that the death of Charles II. of Spain would become the occasion of another general war, the king sent a body of troops over to Holland, and made lord Marlborough commander in chief of them. He appointed him also ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to their high mightinesses. The king following, and taking a view of the forces, dined with him at his quarters in Sept. 1700; and this was one of the last favours he received from king William, who died the 8th of March following, unless we reckon his recommendation of him to the princess of Denmark, a little before his death, as the fittest person to be trusted with the command of the army which was to protect the liberty of Europe. About a week after, he was elected knight of the most noble order of the garter, and soon declared captaingeneral of all her majesty’s forces in England and abroad; upon which he was immediately sent over to the Hague with the same character that he had the year before. His stay in Holland was very short, but enough to give the States General the necessary assurances of his mistress’s sincere intention to pursue the plan that had formerly been settled. The States concurred with him in all that he proposed, and made him captain-general of all their forces, appointing him 100,000 florins per annum.

The only personal failing attributed to the duke of Marlborough, upon any fair evidence, was avarice; but how far he owes the imputation of that to himself, or to the misconduct and caprice of one nearly allied to him. and to whom it was his weakness to be too subservient, may admit of a doubt. That Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, brought her husband into frequent trouble and disgrace seems to be generally acknowledged; and Swift was not far wrong when he said that the duke owed to her both his greatness (his promotions) and his fall. No woman was perhaps ever less formed by nature and habit for a court, yet she arrived to such a pitch of grandeur at the court of queen Anne, that her sovereign was, in fact, but the second person in it. Never were two women more the reverse of one another in their natural dispositions, than queen Anne and the duchess of Marlborough; yet never had any servant a greater ascendancy over a mistress, than the latter had over the former. But though the duchess did not rise by a court, yet she rose by a party, of which she had the art to put her mistress at the head, who was merely the vehicle of her sentiments, and the minister of her avarice. Few sovereign princes in Europe could, from their own revenues, command such sums of ready money, as the duchess did during the last thirty-five years of her life. Conscious at length that she had incurred the contempt of the nation, she employed Hooke, the Roman historian, at the price of 5000l. to write a defence of her, which was published in 1742, under the title of “An account of the conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough, from her first coming to court to the year 1710. In a letter from herself to my lord ——————” This work excited considerable

, a writer of eminence among the Quakers, was born at Farmborough, in Warwickshire, in 1649, and after school-education, in which he made considerable proficiency, was entered of Balio-college, Oxford, in 1666, but removed to St. Mary-hall, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1670. He soon after received ordination, and in 1673 was presented to the rectory of Peopleton, in the county of Worcester, although it does not appear that he took his master’s degree until 1676. At Peopleton he lived in good esteem, and was accounted an energetic preacher, but after several years, he entertained many serious scruples, not only on the subject of personal religion, which he was afraid he had recommended to others, while a stranger to it himself, but also respecting certain doctrines and ceremonies of the church of England; and these scruples dwelt so strongly on his mind, that after much deliberation, he voluntarily resigned his benefice in 1691, a step which must have been conscientious, as his living was of considerable emolument, and after quitting it, he does not appear to have possessed any certain income. The same year he joined himself in communion with the Baptists, after submitting to their mode of initiation. An incident on this occasion made a lasting impression on his mind. Immediately after the ceremony of baptism, while his wet clothes were still upon him, a person accosted him thus, “You are welcome, sir, out of one form into another.” But, although this struck him forcibly at the time, it led to no sudden alteration, and he continued for some years in connection with the baptists; till at length his desires after what he conceived to be greater spirituality in religion, induced him to leave their communion; and having adopted the principles of the Quakers, he became one of their society about 1697. With the Quakers he continued in religious fellowship the remainder of his life, and was a well-approved minister amongst them. In 1700 he removed from London, where he had some time resided, to Barking, in Essex. At Barking, and afterwards at Tottenham, in Middlesex, he kept a boarding-school for several years, but in the latter place he met with difficulty from a suit commenced against him. under the Stat. 1 Jac. 1. for teaching school without license from the bishop of the diocese. The cause came to be tried in the court of king’s-bench, before lord chief justice Holt, who at the same time that he discountenanced the prosecution, declined determining whether the defendant was within the reach of the Act, and directed the jury to return a special verdict; upon which the adverse party thought proper not to proceed any further, and Claridge continued his useful occupation unmolested. In 1713, finding his health decline, and having a competency for his subsistence, he gave up the employment of schoolkeeping, and returned into London, where he appears to have passed serenely, but not inactively, the remainder of his time, and where he died, in 1723, in the seventyfourth year of his age. In his last illness, which was short, “he expressed,” says his biographer, “his peace and satisfaction of soul, and an humble resignation to the will of God.” He left some descendants, the children of a daughter who died before him.

In private life Mr. Claridge was a man of very estimable character, and his services to the religious society whose principles he finally espoused, are considered eminent, both as a minister and author. Amongst his writings in explanation and defence of their principles are, “Lux Evangelica attestata,” and “Melius inquirendum,” both, controversial; the former in answer to Keith, the latter to Cockson; also a Treatise concerning the Holy Scriptures, under the title of “Tractatus Hierographicus.” This last was not printed until after his decease. Several others of his Tracts were also not published by himself, but appeared in his “Life and Posthumous Works,” an 8vo volume, printed in 1726. The “Life” is from the pen of his friend Joseph Besse. The “Works” comprise, besides some less considerable pieces, Essays on the following subjects: Baptism and the Supper; the Doctrine of the Trinity; the Doctrine of Satisfaction; Tithes; and, Liberty of Conscience. As a writer, Claridge is said to be methodical and perspicuous, and in his style to have apparently made it his aim to adapt himself to readers in general, by the use of received terms. His works have been repeatedly quoted by the Quakers of the present day, when engaged in vindicating their society from the charge of Socinianism.

, a very industrious and useful writer of the seventeenth century, less known than his services deserved, and particularly entitled to notice in a work of this kind, was born Oct. 10, 1599, at Woolston, in the county of Warwick, of which place his father had been minister for upwards of forty years. Under his tuition he remained until he was thirteen years old, when he was sent to school under one Crauford, an eminent teacher at that time. Here he informs us that he fell into loose practices from keeping bud company, but occasionally felt the reluctance which a pious education usually leaves. At the end of four years he was sent to Cambridge, and entered of Emanuel, which was then, according to his account, the Puritan college. After taking his bachelor’s degree, his father recalled him home, and he was for some time employed as a family-tutor in Warwickshire, after which, being now in orders, he was invited into Cheshire, as assistant to Mr. Byrom, who had the living of Thornton, and with whom he continued almost two years, preaching twice every Sunday during that time. Some scruples respecting the ceremonies occasioned him much trouble, and. he had an intention of removing to London; but happening to receive a pressing invitation from the inhabitants of Wirrall, a peninsula beyond West Chester, he consented to settle among them at Shotwick, where no regular service had been performed, and became here very useful as a preacher, and very popular through an extensive district. After, however, five years’ quiet residence here, a prosecution was instituted against him for the omission of ceremonies (what they were he does not inform us) in the Chancellor’s court; and while about to leave Shotwick in consequence of this, the mayor, aldermen, and many of the inhabitants of Coventry, invited him to preach a lecture in that city, which he accepted, and carried on for some time; but here likewise he excited the displeasure of Dr. Buggs, who held the two principal livings in Coventry, and who prosecuted him before the bishop, Dr. Morton. After this, by the influence of Robert earl of Warwick, he was enabled to preach at Warwick, and although complained of, was not molested in any great degree. Soon after, lord Brook presented him to the rectory of Alcester, where he officiated for nine years, and, as he informs us, “the town, which before was called * drunken Alcester,' was now exemplary and eminent for religion.” When the et c<etcra oath was enjoined, the clergy of the diocese met and drew up a petition against it, which Mr. Clarke and Mr. Arthur Salway presented to his majesty at York, who returned for answer, that they should not be molested for refusing the oath, until the consideration of their petition in parliament. This business afterwards requiring Mr. Clarke to go to London, he was chosen preacher of the parish of St. Bennet Fink, a curacy which is said to have been then, as it is now, in the gift of the canons of Windsor. Walker, from having included this among the livings sequestered by the parliamentary reformers, would seem to intimate that Mr. Clarke must have succeeded to it at the expence of the incumfyent; but the fact is, there was no incumbent at the time. We learn from Clarke’s dedication of his “Mirror” to Philip Holman, esq. of Warkworth in. Northamptonshire, a native of St. Bennet Fink, and a great benefactor to it, that for many years before this time (probably before 1646) the parish had little maintenance for a minister; theif tithes, being impropriated, went another way. They had no stock, no land, no house for the minister, no lecture, nor any one gift sermon in the year. This Mr. Holman, however, had furnished a house for the curate and settled it upon feoffees in trust, and had promised to add something towards his further maintenance. Such was the situation of the parish when Mr. Clarke was elected, and he remained their preacher until the restoration. During the whole of this period, he appears to have disapproved of the practices of the numerous sectaries which arose, and retained his attachment to the constitution and doctrines of the church, although he objected to some of those points respecting ceremonies and discipline, which ranks him among the ejected non-conformists. Most of his works appear to have been compiled, as indeed they are generally dated there, at his house in Threadneedle- street, and it was the sole business of his future life, to enlarge and republish them. In 1660, when Charles II. published a declaration concerning ecclesiastical affairs, the London clergy drew up a congratulatory address, with a request for the removal of re-ordination and surplices in colleges, &,c, Vol. IX. D D which Mr. Clarke was appointed to present. In the following year he was appointed one of the commissioners for revising the book of Common Prayer, but what particular share he took we are not informed; nor are we told more of his history, while in the church, than that he was seven or eight years a governor, and two years president of Sion college. When ejected for non-conformity, such was his idea of schism and separation, that he quietly submitted to a retired and studious life. From the church, which he constantly attended as a hearer, he says, he dared not to separate, or gather a private church out of a true church, which he judged the church of England to be. In this retirement he continued twenty years, partly at Hammersmith, and partly at Isleworth, revising what he had published, and compiling other works, all of which appear to have been frequently reprinted, notwithstand­*ig their size and price. He died Dec. 25, 1682, universally respected for his piety, and especially for his moderation in the contests which prevailed in his time.

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

Claude, as we have observed, was elected minister of the church of Montauban, about 1662; but four years after he was forbid by the court to exercise his functions there, which obliged him to go a second time to Paris, where he continued near nine months, without being able to remove the obstacles of his return to Montauban. During this interval, he was invited to the church of Bourdeaux; but the congregation of Charenton, being unwilling to lose a person of Claude’s abilities, gave him also an invitation in 1666. From that time to the revocation of the edict of Nantz, he did very great service to the cause of the French protestants by his excellent works, and by the minute attention he paid to the affairs which the deputies of provinces communicated to him. No man was ever better qualified to head either a consistory or a synod, or to manage a personal dispute. He discovered this latter talent in the last conference, which Mad. de Duras desired to hear. This lady would not forsake her religion till she had heard Claude and the bishop of Meaux dispute in her presence; and they accordingly disputed at the countess de Roie’s, her sister’s, the 1st of March, 1678. Each disputa'nt wrote the relation of his conference, and ascribed the victory to himself. These relations were at first only handed about in ms. but at last the bishop of Meaux published his in 1682, and that of Claude followed soon after. Claude was distinguished from the rest of the ministers, by the manner in which the court ordered him to leave the kingdom. He, like them, had a fortnight allowed him to leave it: but the Romish clergy found means to shorten even that time. For, Oct. 22, 1685, the day on which the revocation of the edict of Nantz was registered at Paris, Claude at ten in the morning was ordered to leave France in twenty-four hours. He obeyed with the utmost submission; and set out, attended by one of the king’s footmen, who was ordered to conduct him to the frontiers of France; and who, though he executed his orders faithfully, yet treated him with civility. He travelled in the Brussels coach; and his fame flying before him, procured him much kind and hospitable attention during his journey. He passed through Cambray, where he lay; and was there presented with some refreshments by the Jesuits. Even their rector paid him a visit, which Claude returned; and the difference of religion did not interrupt this interchange of civilities.

Claude married in 1648 Elizabeth de Malcare, by whom he had a son, Isaac Claude, born March 5, 1653, of whom he was very fond, and bred him to the ministry. He studied in the universities of France; after which he returned to his father, who completed his education for the pulpit. He was examined at Sedan in 1678, and approved; he was invited by the congregation of the church of Clermont in Beauvoisis; and his father had the satisfaction to impose his hands on him in 1678, and to see him minister of the Walloon church at the Hague, when he retired to Holland in 1685. He died at the Hague, July 29, 1695, after having published many excellent works of his deceased father, particularly 5 vols. 12mo of posthumous theological and controversial treatises, Amst. 1689.Lavocat, a Roman catholic writer, allows that his works are written in a manly, exact, elegant and close style, discover great genius and learning, and an uncommon talent for employing all the subtleties of logic. So candid a critic may be forgiven for adding, “happy had he not talents by writing against the catholic church.” These volumes just mentioned contain “An answer to a treatise on the Sacrament,” supposed to be written by cardinal le Camus, bishop of Grenoble; Four Letters on the same subject; an “Essay on the composition of a Serinon;” a “Body of Christian Divinity;” expositions of parts of Scripture, Letters, &c. His Life, written by M. de la Devaize, was translated into English by G. P. and published Lond. 1688, 4to. His “Historical Defence of the Reformation” was published in English by T. B. Lond. 1683, 4to, and his “Essay on the Composition of a Sermon,” which he wrote about the year 1676, for the use of his son, was translated and published in English, in 1778, by the late rev. Rob. Robinson, of Cambridge, 2 vols. 8vo, with a Life of the author, and notes, all which, as displaying an implacable and unprovoked hostility to the established church, have been very properly omitted in a new edition of the translation published in 1796, by the rev. Charles Simeon, of King’s college, Cambridge.

, son of Isaac Claude, pastor at the Hague, and grandson of the celebrated minister of that name, was born January 16, 1684, in that city, and from his infancy displayed a taste for reading and literary research. At fifteen he wrote a curious Latin dissertation on the manner of saluting among the ancients, and published it at eighteen, with another dissertation, in the same language, on nurses and paedagogues, under the title “J. J. Claudii Dissertatio de Salutationibus Veterum, cui addita est Diatribe de Nutricibus et Paedagogis,” Utrecht, 1702, 12mo. He then studied at Utrecht, under Burman, and devoted himself entirely to the belles lettres; but M. Martin, his relation and tutor, who was minister there, falling dangerously ill, and seeing M. Claude one day by his- bed-side, said to him, among other things, “Behold, my dear child, of what use the belles lettres are, when a man is reduced to my situation.' 7 These words made so deep an impression on the young scholar, that he determined from that time to make divinity his chief study. He afterwards came over to England, and became pastor of the Drench church in London, 1710, where he died of the small-pox, March 7, 1712, lamented by the friends of learning and piety. A volume of his” Sermons" was published by his brother in 1713. They are only ten in number, but were highly praised in the literary journals of the time, and occasioned redoubled regret that the world had been so soon deprived of his talents

, bishop of Clogher, was born at Dublin in 1695, a descendant of the Claytons of Fulwood, in Lancashire, whose estate he became possessed of, by right of inheritance. His father, Dr. Clayton, minister of St. Michael’s, Dublin, and dean of Kildare, sent him to Westminster-school, under the private tuition of Zachary Pearce, afterwards bishop of Rochester, with whom he held a lasting friendship. From Westminster school Dr. Clayton removed his son to Trinity college, Dublin, of which, in due time, he became a fellow, and afterwards made the tour of Italy and France. From whom Mr. Clayton received holy orders, what preferments he had before he was raised to the episcopacy, and when he took his degrees, we are not informed; only we find that he was become D. D. in 1729. In 1728, having come into the possession of an affluent estate, in consequence of his father’s decease, he married Catharine, daughter of lord chief baron Donnellan, and gave her fortune, which was not considerable, to her sister. He behaved with the same generosity to his own three sisters, and gave to each of them the double of what had been bequeathed to them by their father’s will.

Though his exploits will excite the admiration, and receive the plaudits of posterity, yet in his lifetime the same ingratitude was shewn him, which the greatest men, in all ages and countries, have experienced; for, on the pretence “that all acquisitions made under the influence of a military force, or by treaty with foreign powers, do of right belong to the state,” a party in the house of commons, countenanced by the minister, attempted to ruin both his fortune and his fame. A motion was made in this assembly, on the 21st of February, 1773, to resolve, that, “in the acquisition of his wealth, lord Clive had abused the powers with which he was entrusted.” The speech he made on the occasion concluded with the following words “If the resolution proposed should receive the assent of the house, I shall have nothing left that I can call my own, except my paternal fortune of 500l. a year; and which has been in the family for ages past. But upon this I am content to live; and perhaps I shall find more real content of mind and happiness, than in the trembling affluence of an unsettled fortune. But to be called, after sixteen years have elapsed, to account for my conduct in this manner; and after an uninterrupted enjoyment of my property, to be questioned, and considered as obtaining it unwarrantably, is hard indeed! and a treatment of which I should not think the British senate capable. Yet if this should be the case, I have a conscious innocence within me, which tells me that my conduct is irreproachable. Frangas non fades. They may take from me what I have*, they may, as they think, make me poor, but I will be happy. Before I sit down, I have one request to make to the house, that when they come to decide upon my honour, they will not forget their own.” The house of commons rejected the motion, and resolved, “that lord Clive had rendered great and meritorious services to his country.”

, son to the preceding, was born at Francfort on the Oder, towards the close of the seventeenth century, and died in 1755. He rose by his profound knowledge of the civil law, to the post of minister of state, and grand chancellor to the late king of Prussia. That royal philosopher entrusted the baron Cocceius with the reform of the administration of justice throughout his dominions. The “Frederkian Code,” which this minister compiled in 1747, proved him worthy of the choice of his prince, and as much a philosopher as himself. Besides this work, which is in 3 vols. 8vo, the world is indebted to baron Cocceius for a Latin edition of “Grotius de jure belli ac pacis,” more ample than any that had before appeared, printed 1755 at Lausanne, 5 vols. 4to. The first volume, which serves as an introduction to the work, is by Cocceius the father.

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

, professor of the Oriental languages at Paris, was a son of the family of Langton in the Merse, and educated at St. Andrew’s, Scotland, where he studied the belles lettres, philosophy, the Oriental languages, and philosophy. After taking holy orders, he went to the university of Paris, where he taught the Oriental languages for several years with great applause. In 1551, he published a book on the usefulness and excellency of the word of God, “Oratio de utilitate et excellentia Verbi Dei,” Paris, 1551, 8vo; and next year another on the style of the holy Scriptures, “De vulgari Sacrae Scriptura? phrasi,” Paris, 1552, 8vo, which two brought him under the suspicion of favouring the opinions of the reformers, and rendered it necessary for him to leave Paris. The suspicion was fully confirmed when he returned home, and embraced the doctrines of the reformation. He taught the languages for some years at St. Andrew’s, and in 1555, published there some pious meditations on the Lord’s prayer, “In orationem dominicam pia meditatio,” St. And. 1555, 12mo; and afterwards he was chosen minister at Haddingdon, being the first protestant preacher in that place. He died, far advanced in years, in 1559. Dempster and Bale unite in considering him as one of the greatest scholars and ablest divines of his age, and as a reformer, attached to moderate measures. Besides his published works, he left several manuscripts on subjects of divinity, and some letters and orations, of which a treatise on the “Apostles Creed,” was published at London, 1561, 4to.

After this marriage, by which he became allied to some of the noblest houses in the kingdom, preferments flowed in upon him apace. The cities of Coventry and Norwich chose him their recorder; the county of Norfolk, one of their knights in parliament; and the house of commons, their speaker, in the thirty-fifth year of queen Elizabeth. The queen likewise appointed him solicitor-general, in 1592, and attorney-general the year following. Some time after, he lost his wife, by whom he had ten children; and in 1598 he married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Jord.Burleigh, afterwards earl of Exeter, and relipt of sir William Hatto.n. As this marriage was the source of many troubles to both parties, so the very celebration of it occasioned no small noise and disquiet, by an unfortunate circumstance that attended it. There had been the same year so much notice taken of irregular marriages, that archbishop Whitgift had signified to the bishops of his province to prosecute strictly all that should either offend in point of time, place, or form. Whether Coke looked upon his own or the lady’s quality, and their being married with the consent of the family, as placing them above such restrictions, or whether he did not advert to them, it is certain that they were married in a private house, without either banns or license; upon which he and his new married lady, the minister who officiated, Thomas lord Burleigh, and several other persons, were prosecuted in the archbishop’s court; but upon their submission by their proxies, were absolved from excommunication, and the penalties consequent upon it, because, says the record, they had offended, not out of contumacy, but through ignorance of the law in that point. The affair of greatest moment, in which, as attorney-general, he had a share in this reign, was the prosecution of the earls of Essex and Southampton, who were brought to the bar in Westminster-hall, before the lords commissioned for their trial, Feb. 19, 1600. After he had laid open the nature of the treason, and the many obligations the earl of Essex was under to the queen, he is said to have closed with these words, that, “by the just judgment of God, he of his earldom should be Robert the last, that of a kingdom thought to be Robert the first.”

, marquis of Segnelai, one of the greatest statesmen that France ever had, was born at Paris in 1619, and descended from a family that lived at Rheirns in Champaigne, originally from Scotland (the Cuthberts), but at that time no way considerable for its splendour. His grandfather is said to have been a winejuerchant, and his father at first followed the same occupation but afterwards traded in cloth, and at last in silk. Our Colbert was instructed in the arts of merchandize, and afterwards became clerk to a notary. In 1648 his relation John Baptist Colbert, lord of S. Pouange, preferred him to the service of Michael le Tellier, secretary of state, whose sister he had married; and here he discovered such diligence and exactness in executing all the commissions that were entrusted to his care, that he quickly grew distinguished. One day his master sent him to cardinal Mazarine, who was then at Sedan, with a letter written by the queen mother; and ordered him to bring it back after that minister had seen it. Colbert carried the letter, and would not return without it, though the cardinal treated him roughly, used several arts to deceive him, and obliged him to wait for it several days. Some time after, the cardinal returning to court, and wanting one to write his agencte or memoranda, desired le Tellier to furnish him with a fit person for that employment; and Colbert being presented to him, the cardinal had some remembrance of him, and desired to know where he had seen him. Colbert was afraid of putting him in mind of Sedan, lest the remembrance of his behaviour in demanding the queen’s letter should renew his anger. But the cardinal was so far from disliking him for his faithfulness to his late master, that he received him on condition that he should serve him with the like zeal and fidelity.

Colbert applied himself wholly to the advancement of his master’s interests, and gave him so many marks of his diligence and skill that afterwards he made him his intendant. He accommodated himself so dexterously to the inclinations of that minister, by retrenching his superfluous expences, that he was entrusted with the sale of benefices and governments, and it was by Colbert’s counsel that the cardinal obliged the governors of frontier places to maintain their garrisons with the contributions they exacted. He was sent to Rome, to negociate the reconciliation of cardinal de Retz, for which the pope had shewed some concern; and to persuade his holiness to fulfill the treaty concluded with his predecessor Urban VIII. From all these services Mazarine conceived so high an opinion of Colbert’s abilities, that at his death in 1661, he earnestly recommended him to Louis XIV. as the most proper person to regulate the finances, which at that time were in great confusion. Louis accepted the recommendation, and Colbert being appointed intendant of the finances, applied himself to their regulation, and succeeded: though it procured him many enemies. France is also obliged to this minister for establishing at that time her trade with the East and West Indies, from which she once reaped innumerable advantages.

In 1669 he was made secretary of state, and entrusted with the management of affairs relating to the sea: and his performances in this province were answerable to the confidence his majesty reposed in him. He suppressed several offices, which were chargeable and useless: and in the mean time, perceiving the king’s zeal for the extirpation of heresy, he shut up the chamber instituted by the edicts of Paris and Roan. He proposed several new regulations concerning criminal courts; and was extremely severe with the parliament of Tholouse, for obstructing the measures he took to carry the same into execution. His main design in reforming the tedious methods of proceeding at law, was to give the people more leisure to apply themselves to trading: for the advancement of which he procured an edict, to erect a general insurance-office at Paris, for merchants, &c. In 1672 he was made minister of state, and amidst these multiplied employments, it has been observed that he never neglected his own or his family’s interest and grandeur, or missed any opportunity of advancing either. He had been married many years, had sons and daughters grown up; all of whom, as occasion served, he took care to marry to great persons, and thus strengthened his interest by powerful alliances. Business, however, was certainly Colbert’s natural turn; and he not only loved it, but was very impatient of interruption in it. A lady of great quality was one day urging him, when he was in the height of his power, to do her some piece of service; and perceiving him inattentive and inflexible, threw herself at his feet,- in the presence of above an hundred persons, crying, “I beg your greatness, in the name of God, to grant me this favour 1” Upon which, Colbert, kneeling down over against her, replied, in the same mournful tone, “I conjure you, madam, in the name of God, not to disturb me'!”

This great minister died of the stone, Sept. 6, 1683, in his 65th year, leaving behind him six sons and three daughters. He was of a middle stature, his mien low and dejected, his air gloomy, and his aspect stern. He slept little, and was extremely temperate. Though naturally sour and morose, tie knew how to act the lover, and had mistresses. He was of a slow conception, but spoke judiciously of every thing after he had once comprehended it. He understood business perfectly well, and he pursued it with unwearied application. This enabled him to fill the most important places with high reputation and credit^ while his influence diffused itself' through every part of the government. He restored the finances, the navy, the commerce of France; and he erected those various works of art, which have ever since been monuments of his taste and magnificence. He was a lover of learning, though not a man of learning himself, and liberally conferred do r nations and pensions upon scholars in other countries, while he established and protected academies in his own. He invited into France painters, statuaries, mathematicians, and eminent artists of all kinds, thus giving new life to the sciences. Upon the whole, he was a wise, active, generous-spirited minister; ever attentive to the interests of his master, the happiness of the people, the progress of arts and manufactures, and to every thing that could advance the credit and interest of his- country, while his failings were such as could not injure him in the opinion of his age and country.

, one of the members of the French academy, was born at Paris in 1598, and died in the same city February 10, 1659, aged sixty-one, leaving scarcely enough to bury him. Cardinal Richelieu appointed him one of the five authors whom he selected to write for the theatre. Colletet alone composed “Cyminde,” and had a part in the two comedies, the “Blindman of Smyrna,” and the “Tuilleries.” Reading the monologue in this latter piece to the cardinal, he was so struck with six bad lines in it, that he made him a present of 6uO livres; saying at the same time, that this was only for the six verses, which he found so beautiful, that the king was not rich enough to recompense him for the rest. However, to shew his right as a patron, and at the same time his judgment as a connoisseur, he insisted on the alteration of one word for another. Colletet refused to comply with his criticism; and, not content with defending his verse to the cardinal’s face, on returning home he wrote to him on the subject. The cardinal had just read his letter, when some courtiers came to compliment him on the success of the king’s arms, adding, that nothing could withstand his eminence!—“You are much mistaken,” answered he smiling; “for even at Paris I meet with persons who withstand me.” They asked who these insolent persons could be? “It is Colletet,” replied he; “for, after having contended with me yesterday about a word, he will not yet submit, as you may see here by this long letter he has been writing to me.” This obstinacy, however, did not so far irritate the minister as to deprive the poet of his patronage. Colletet had also other benefactors. Harlay, archbishop of Paris, gave him a handsome reward for his hymn on the immaculate conception; by sending him an Apollo of solid silver. Colletet took for his second wife, Claudine his maid servant; and, in order to justify his choice, published occasionally pieces of poetry in her name; but, this little artifice being presently discovered, both the supposititious Sappho, and the inspirer of her lays, became the objects of continual satire. This marriage, in addition to two subsequent ones, to the losses he suffered in the civil wars, and to his turn for dissipation, reduced him to the extreme of poverty. His works appeared in 1653, in 12mo.

Dec. 1709, came out a pamphlet, entitled, “Priestcraft in perfection; or, a detection of the fraud of inserting and continuing that clause, ‘ The church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,’ in the twentieth article of the Articles of the Church of England.” And, Feb. the year following, another called “Reflections on a late pamphlet,entitled, Priestcraft in perfection, &c.” both written by our author. The second and third editions of his “Priestcraft in perfection” were printed, with corrections, in 1710, 8vo. This book occasioned great and diligent inquiries into the subject, and was reflected on in various pamphlets, sermons, and treatises. These were answered by Collins, but not till 1724, in a work entitled, “An historical and critical essay on the 39 Articles of the Church of England: wherein it is demonstrated, that this clause, ‘The Church, &c.’ inserted in the 20th article, is not a part of the article, as they were established by act of parliament in the 13th of Elizabeth, or agreed on by the convocations of 1562 and 1571.” This essay, however, was principally designed as an answer to “The vindication of the Church of England from the aspersions of a late libel, entitled, Priestcraft in perfection, wherein the controverted clause of the church’s power in the 20th article is shewn to be of equal authority with all the rest of the articles, in 1710,” and to “An essay on the 39 Articles by Dr. Thomas Bennet,” published in 1715: “two chief works,” says Collins, “which seem written by those champions who have been supplied with materials from all quarters, and have taken great pains themselves to put their materials into the most artful light.” In the preface he tells us, that he undertook this work at the solicitations of a worthy minister of the gospel, who knew that he had made some inquiries into the “Modern Ecclesiastical History of England;” and, particularly, that he was preparing “An history of the variations of the church of England and its clergy from the reformation down to this time, with an answer to the cavils of the papists, made on occasion of the said variations:” but this work never appeared. The reader may see the whole state of this controversy in Collier’s “Ecclesiastical History,” where particular notice is taken of our author.

reply, that if it pleased God to bring by bandittis or bravoes. estate of 60l. a year, clear of charges, besides lOl. for placing out the boys apprentices. In 1708 he settled his great benefaction of the hospital of St. Augustine in Bristol, consisting of a master, two ushers, and one hundred boys; for the maintenance of which boys, he gave an estate of 138l. 155. 6fd. a year. The charge of first setting up this hospital, and making it convenient for the purpose, amounted, it is said, to about 11,000l. He gave also 6l. yearly to the minister of All- Saints in Bristol, for reading prayers every Monday and Tuesday morning throughout the year, and I/, a year to the clerk and sexton: also 6l. a year for ever, for a monthly sermon and prayers to the prisoners in Newgate there; and 20l. yearly for ever to the clergy beneficed in that city, for preaching fourteen sermons in the time of Lent, on subjects appointed by himself. The subjects are these the Lent fast against atheism and infidelity the catholic church the excellence of the church of England the powers of the church baptism confirmation confession and absolution the errors of the church of Rome; enthusiasm and superstition restitution frequenting the divine service frequent communion the passion of our blessed Saviour. He bestowed, lastly, upwards of 2000l. in occasional charities and benefactions to churches and charity-schools, all within the city of Bristol. Beyond that city his benefactions were equally liberal. He gave 6000l. for the augmentation of sixty small livings, on the following terms: Any living that was entitled to queen Anne’s bounty might have this too, on condition that every parish, which did receive this, should be obliged to raise 100l. to be added to the lOOl. raised by Colston: and many livings have had the grant of this bounty. He gave to St. Bartholomew’s hospital in London 2000l. with which was purchased an estate of 100l. a year, which is settled on that hospital and he left to the same, by will, 500l. To Christ’s hospital, at several times, 1000l. and 1000l. more by will. To the hospitals of St. Thomas and Bethlehem 500l. each. To the workhouse without Bishopsgate, 2001. To the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, 300l. He built an almshouse for six poor people at Shene in Surry, and left very handsome legacies to Mortlake in the same county, where he died: viz. 45l. yearly, to be continued for twelve years after his death, for clothing and educating twelve boys and twelve girls in that place; and also 85l. he being so many years old, to eighty- five poor men and women there, to each 1l. to be distributed at the time of his decease. He gave lOO/. per annum, to be continued for twelve years after his death, and to be distributed by the direction of his executors: either to place out every year ten boys apprentices, or to be given towards the setting up ten young tradesmen, to each 10l. He gave likewise to eighteen charity-schools in several parts of England, and to be continued to them for twelve years after his death, to each school yearly 5l. Finally, he gave towards building a church at Manchester in Lancashire 20l. and towards the building of a church at Tiverton in Devonshire 50l.

, a Scotch divine and poet, was born near St. Andrew’s in Fifeshire, 1620, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, where he took his degree of D. D. and was settled minister at Dysart. In 1662 he complied with the act of uniformity, and was appointed principal of the university of Edinburgh, in the room of Dr. Leighton, promoted to the see of Dumblane. He wrote several controversial tracts, most of which are now forgotten; but that which particularly recommends him to the notice of the public, is a humorous poem entitled “Scotch Hudibras,” written in the manner of Butler. This book gave great offence to the presbyterians but still, although little known in England, is well esteemed in Scotland. He died at Edinburgh 1676, aged 58.

, a celebrated grammarian and protestant divine, was born in Moravia in 1592. Having studied in several places, and particularly at Herborn, he returned to his own country in 1614, and was made rector of a college there. He was ordained minister in 1616, and two years after became pastor of the church of Fulnec: at which time he was appointed master of a school lately erected. He then appears to have projected the introduction of a new method for teaching the languages. He published some essays for this purpose in 1616, and had prepared other pieces on that subject, which were destroyed in 1621, when the Spaniards plundered his library, after having taken the city. The ministers of Bohemia, and Moravia being outlawed by an edict in 1624, and the persecution increasing the year after, Comenius fled to Lesna, a city of Poland, and taught Latin. There he published in 1631, his book entitled “Janua linguarum reserata,” or, “the gate of languages unlocked” of which he gives us an account which is universally allowed to be true “I never could have imagined,” says he, “that this little book, calculated only for children, should have met with universal applause from the learned. This has been justified by the letters I have received from a great number of learned men of different countries, in which they highly congratulate me on this new invention; as well as by the versions which have been emulously made of it into several modern tongues. For it has not only been translated into twelve European languages, namely, Latin, Greek, Bohemian, Polish, German, Swedish, Dutch, English, French, Spanish, Italian, Hungarian; but likewise into the Asiatic languages, as, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and even the Mogul, which is spoken all over the East Indies.” It was afterwards reprinted under the title of “Orbis sensualium pictus,” and is still, according to baron Born, used in the schools of Bohemia, Comenius being particularly skilled in the language of that country.

, doctor of physic, king’s botanist, and member of the faculty of Montpelier, was born at Chatilon les Dombes near Bourgin Bresse, in 1727, He discovered an early propensity to botany and other branches of natural history, which he pursued with unremitting ardour, and, as it is said, with very little delicacy, performing the same tricks in a garden, which coin and print collectors have been known to perform in museums and libraries. When at Montpelier, he made no scruple to pluck the rarest and most precious plants in the king’s botanic garden there, to enrich his herbal; and when on this account the directors of the garden refused him admittance, he scaled the walls by night to continue his depredations. The reputation, however, of a better kind, which he gained during a residence of four years at Montpelier, induced Linnæus to recommend him as a proper person to form the queen of Sweden’s collection of the rarest fishes in the Mediterranean, and to compose accurate descriptions of them; which undertaking he executed with great labour and dexterity, producing a complete Ichthyology, 2 vols. 4to, with a Dictionary and Bibliography, containing accounts of all the authors who had treated that branch of natural history. Among his various productions, is a dissertation entitled “The Martyrology of Botany,” containing accounts of all the authors who lost their lives by the fatigues and accidents incident to the zeal for acquiring natural curiosities; a list, in which his own name was destined to be enrolled. Sometimes he has been found in his closet with a candle burning long after sunrise, with his head bent over his herbal, unconscious of its being day-light; and used frequently to return from his botanical excursions torn with briars, bruised with falls from rocks, and emaciated with hunger and fatigue, after many narrow escapes from precipices and torrents. These ardent occupations did not, however, extinguish sentiments of a more tender nature. M. Commerson married in 1760 a wife who died in childbed two years after, and whose memory he preserved by naming a new kind of plant, whose fruit seemed to contain two united hearts, “Pulcheria Commersonia.” He arrived at Paris in 1764, where he became connected with all the learned botanists, particularly the celebrated Jussieu; and was recommended to the duke de Praslin, minister for the marine department, to accompany M. Bougainville in his voyage round the world. The duke conceived the highest idea of his merit from the skdch he drew of the observations that might be made relative to natural history in such a voyage; and he sailed accordingly, in 1766, making the most industrious use of every opportunity to fulfil his engagements! He died at the Isle of France in 1773, and by his will left to the king’s cabinet all his botanical collections, which, before he engaged in this voyage, amounted to above 200 volumes in folio; those made during the voyage, together with his papers and herbal, were sent home in 32 cases, containing an inestimable treasure of hitherto unknown materials for natural history, and Messrs. Jussieu, D'Aubenton, and Thouin, were commissioned to examine and arrange them.

At length, after eight years 1 serious deliberation upon the nature and lawfulness of conformity, his conscience was satisfied, and he resolved to comply in all parts; and in particular with that about which he had probably most scruple, the being re-ordained. To this, however, he consented, and the ceremony was performed Sept. 28, 1670, by Reynolds bishop of Norwich; whose daughter he had married in August 1651, and by whom he had six sons and as many daughters. Preferments were offered him immediately, and the same year he was elected minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury, in London; but, having spent some years in the town of Northampton, where he was much beloved, he chose rather to accept the invitation of his neighbours to remain among them; and Dr. Simon Ford, who was then minister of All-saints in Northampton, going to St. Mary’s Aldermanbury, he was nominated to succeed him. On Sept. 20, 1675, he had the mortification to see the greatest part of his parish, together with his church, burnt to the ground, though providentially his own house escaped. In 1676, the archdeaconry of Norwich becoming vacant, the bishop offered him that preferment, with this singular compliment, “I do not expect thanks from you, but I will be very thankful to you, if yon will accept of it.” He accepted it after some deliberation, and discharged the office worthily, as long as health permitted him. Dec. 3, 1681, he was installed a prebendary in the church of Worcester. The earl of Radnor, an old friend and contemporary of his at Exeter college, asked it for him from Charles 11. in these terms: “Sir, I come to beg a preferment of you for a very deserving person, who never sought any thing for himself:” and upon naming him, the king very kindly consented. In 1686, after his eyes had been for some time weak, he lost his sight entirely: but he did not die till March 12, 1693, when he was in his 86th year. He was buried in his own parish church of All-saints in Northampton, where a monument was erected over him by his widow, with a suitable inscription.

, D. D. a dissenting divine, was born at Wimple, in Cambridgeshire, June 3, 1714, and educated in London under Dr. Ridgley, an eminent dissenting minister. He was ordained in 1738, and his first settlement was at Cambridge, where he had a considerable congregation for about sixteen years; but having written an essay on the importance of the ministerial character in the independent line, he was in 1755 placed at the head of the academy for preparing young men for the ministry, then situated at Mile End, but since removed to Hommertou. In 1759 he was chosen one of the preachers of the “Merchants’ lecture” at Pinner’s Hall, and in May 1760 assistant to Mr. Hall in the pastoral office in the meeting on the pavement near Moorfields, whom he succeeded in 1763, and where he continued to officiate till the time of his death, May 30, 1781, aged 67. Besides the essay above mentioned, he printed several sermons on public occasions, particularly funerals and ordinations.

The death of lady Killegrevv was lamented in various epitaphs. Her sister, lady Russel, wrote one, partly in Greek and partly in Latin verse. Three others, in Latin verse, were written by Robert Mason Format), minister of the reformed French church in London, by Andrew Melvin, and by William Chark. Such of our readers as are curious to see these productions, may find them in Ballard. It is generally understood that sir Anthony Cooke had only four daughters; but there is some reason to believe that he had, at least, one more. Camden, Fuller, Lloyd, Bohun, and Strype, concur in mentioning a fifth daughter, whose name, they say, is lost. Nevertheless, they all observe that she was married to sir Ralph Rowlet but this seems doubtful.

, one of the most celebrated French poets, and called by his countrymen the Shakspeare of France, was born at Roan, June 6, 1606, of considerable parents, his father having been ennobled for his services by Louis XIII. He was brought up to the bar, which he attended some little time; but having no turn for business, he soon deserted it. At this time he had given the public no specimen of his talents for poetry, nor appears to have been conscious of possessing any such: and they tell us, that it was purely a trifling affair of gallantry, which gave occasion to his first comedy, called “Melite.” The drama was then extremely low among the French; their tragedy fiat and languid, their comedy more barbarous than the lowest of the vulgar would now tolerate. Corneille was astonished to find himself the author of a piece entirely new, and at the prodigious success with which his “Melite” was acted. The French theatre seemed to be raised, and to flourish at once; and though deserted in a manner before, was now filled on a sudden with a new company of actors. After so happy an essay, he continued to produce several other pieces of the same kind; all of them, indeed, inferior to what he afterwards wrote, but much superior to any thing which the French had hitherto seen. His “Medea” came forth next, a tragedy, borrowed in part from Seneca, which succeeded, as indeed it deserved, bul indifferently; but in 1637 he presented the “Cid,” another tragedy, in which he shewed the world how high his genius was capable of rising, and seems to confirm Du Bos’s assertion, that the age of thirty, or a few years more or less, is that at which poets and painters arrive at as high a pitch of perfection as their geniuses will permit. All Europe has seen the Cid: it has been translated into almost all languages: but the reputation which he acquired by this play, drew all the wits of his time into a confederacy against it. Some treated it contemptuously, others wrote against it. Cardinal de Richelieu himself is said to have been one of this cabal; for, not content with passing for a great minister of state, he affected to pass for a wit and a critic; and, therefore, though he had settled a pension upon the poet, could not abstain from secret attempts against his play . It was supposed to be under his influence that the French Academy drew up that critique upon it, entitled, “Sentiments of the French academy upon the tragi-comedy of Cid:” in which, however, while they censured some parts, they did not scruple to praise it very highly in others. Corneille now endeavoured to support the vast reputation he had gained, by many admirable performances in succession, which, as Bayle observes, “carried the French theatre to its highest pitch of glory, and assuredly much higher than the ancient one at Athens;” yet still, at this time, he had to contend with the bad taste of the most fashionable wits. When he read his “Polyeucte,” one of his best tragedies, before a company of these, where Voiture presided, it was very coldly received; and Voiture afterwards told him, it was the opinion of his friends that the piece would not succeed. In 1647 he was chosen a member of the French academy; and was what they call dean of that society at the time of his death, which happened in 1684, in his 79th year.

As the famous dispute between M. Arnauld, of the Sorbonne, and M. Claude, minister at Charenton, concerning the faith of the Greek church in the article of the real presence, was then in its full height, which much interested learned men of all denominations in Europe, and particularly the English clergy, Dr. Cove! was desired, by some of the principal persons of the university of Cambridge, particularly the doctors (afterwards bishops) Gunning, Pearson, and Sancroft, to inquire into this matter at Constantinople. When he arrived there, the controversy was handled with great warmth by the Roman Catholic party, at the head of which was the marquis de Nointel, ambassador from the king of France at the Porte, a man of great learning; but Dr. Covel’s disputes with him were conducted rather in an amicable manner, Nointel being a man of a liberal mind. Dr. Covel remained here, as we have already noticed, for the space of seven years, daring which he had an opportunity of informing himself well of the ancient and present state of the Greek church; and having collected several observations and notices relating thereto, digested them afterwards into a curious and useful book, entitled “Some account of the present Greek church, with reflections on their present doctrine and discipline, particularly in the Eucharist,” &c. Cambridge, 1722, folio. In the preface he informs us, that Arnauld, not content to say that the church in all ages believed transubstantiation, did also positively affirm, that all the eastern churches do at this very day believe it, in the same sense as it was defined by the council of Trent. Claude, in answer to him, brought most authentic proofs of the contrary; upon which Arnauld set all the missionaries of the East at work to procure testimonies for him: these, by bribes and other indirect means, they obtained in such numbers, that there was soon after a large quarto in French, printed at Paris, full of the names of patriarchs, bishops, and doctors of those churches, who all approved the Roman doctrine. But Claude, having had most certain information, by means of a French gentleman at Colchis, that some of those testimonies were mere fictions, and others quite different from what they were represented, sent some queries into the East, and desired the English clergymen residing there to inquire of the Greeks, and other eastern Christians of the best note, who had no connections with the Romanists, “Whether transubstantiation, or the real and natural change of the whole substance of the bread into the same numerical substance as the body of Christ, which is in heaven, be an article of faith amongst them, and the contrary be accounted heretical and impious?” Dr. Covel, having instituted this inquiry, published the result in the volume above mentioned.

, an ingenious French sculptor, born at Lyons, in 1640, died chancellor and regent of the academy of painting and sculpture in 1720. Versailles boasts his best works, except the figure of that great minister, M. Colbert, on his tomb, in the church of S. Eustache; the two groupes of Renown, and Mercury, in the Thuilleries; and the player on the flute, in the same garden. The Neptune and Amphytrite, at Marly, with many very fine busts, are the chief works of this artist, who was endowed with a most fruitful imagination, and an admirable execution.

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

It is not to be supposed that a preacher of such eminence, especially at a time when this mode of preaching was rare, should remain unknown or unnoticed. He soon received a presentation from Mr. Lockhart of Cambusnethan, to be minister of that parish and settled there in the year 1737. About this time great opposition was made by the people of Scotland, and particularly by those of Clydesdale, to the manner of appointing ministers by presentations from lay-patrons, and Mr. Craig encountered considerable opposition. Zealous, however, in the discharge of his duty, and hoping, in the conscious ardour of his endeavours, to reconcile his parishioners to that system of instruction which he thought best suited to their condition, and most consistent with Christianity, he refused a presentation to a church in Airshire, offered him by Mr. Montgomery of Coilsfield; and another offered him by the amiable but unfortunate earl of Kilmarnock. At length he accepted of a presentation to a church in Glasgow, the place of his nativity, where most of his relations resided, where he could have opportunities of conversing with his literary friends, and where the field for doing good was more extensive. He was first appointed minister of the Wyndchurch in that city: and, after the building of St. Andrew’s churrh, one of the most elegant places of public worship in Scotland, he was removed thither. His audience was at no time so numerous, but especially during the last fiveand-twenty years of his life, as those who valued good composition and liberality of sentiment apprehended that he deserved.

, a learned protestant divine, was born at Retz in the new march of Brandenburgh, Jan. 20, 1568, where his father was pastor of the church, and for some time superintended his education. In 1531 he was sent to Lansberg, where he was educated in Greek and Latin by J. M. Capito, and afterwards pursued his studies at other seminaries, particularly Rostock, where he applied to philosophy and mathematics under Dr. Duncan Liddel, a learned native of Scotland, and Gotschovius. Under the presidentship of Dr. Liddel he defended a thesis on the organon of Aristotle with great applause, and lectured on the ethics to some of his fellow-students. About this time, 1590, the son of the prime minister of Denmark, Rosenkranz, being at Rostock for his education, Cramer was appointed his tutor, and afterwards accompanied him to Denmark, and to the university of Whtemberg; here he was appointed professor of logic, and superintendant of the scholars who were exhibitioners. From hence, being invited to Stettin, he was made first dean, and professor, and assessor of the consistory. In 1597 he was appointed pastor at Marienkirk, and inspector of the college. In 1598 he received the degree of doctor of divinity at Wittemberg, where Moreri, blunderingly, makes him die in the following year: on the contrary, after refusing many preferments, he remained here until Oct. 5, 1637, on which day he died, in his sixty-ninth year. His works, both in Latin and German, are very numerous. Freher has given a complete list, in which we find several treatises on Aristotle, “Emblematum Sacrorum Decades X.” with plates, and Latin, German, Italian and French verses,“8vo. ”Isagoge ad libros Propheticos et Apostolicos,“8vo;” Arbor hsereticse consanguinitatis," a history of heresies, divided into four classes, 4to; and various controversial works in favour of the Lutheran opinions.

, was born at Kelso, 1676, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, where he took his degrees, and was ordained minister of a small country parish in the Merse. In 1711 he made a most vigorous opposition to the settlement of ministers by presentations instead of election by the people, in which he was supported by some of the most popular clergy in Scotland. In 1734 he took part with Messrs. Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, in their general sentiments, but did not think proper to join with them in their leaving the established church. He wrote a small work entitled “Dying Thoughts;” and some “Sermons,” which have been published in 2 vols. 12mo. He died 1742, aged sixty-six.

, a native of the marche of Brandenburg, where he was born in 1648, was one of the most laborious compilers of his time. He taught philosophy at Giessen, was minister near Zell, schoolmaster in Hungary, corrector of the press at Rotterdam and Leyden, and finally master of a boarding-school, and private tutor in the last mentioned city, where he died March 29, 1728, aged 80. Amidst all his employments he found time to publish a great number of collections: “Fasciculi Dissertatiomun et Dissertationes Philologicae,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Commentationes in varios Autores,” 3 vols. 12mo; “Musseum Philologicum,” 2 vols. 12fno; “Thesaurus Librorum Philologicorum,” 2 vols. 8vo; “De Furibus Librariis,” Leyden, 1705, 12mo. The most valued among his works are 3 vols. in 4to, the first entitled, “Consilia et Methodi Studiorum optime instituendorum,” Rotterdam, 1692; the second, “De Philologia,” &c. Leyden, 1696; and the third, “DeEruditione comparanda,” Leyden, 1696. This collection contains all the best rules for studying the different sciences.

, an eminent prelate, and third son of the preceding, was born Oct. 18, 1603, at Great Milton near Thame, in Oxfordshire, in the house of sir William Green, his mother being then on a journey to London. In his thirteenth year he was sent to Oxford; but upon his father’s embracing the popish religion, and removing to Doway, he -was taken there, and after some time sent to the English college of Jesuits at St. Omer’s; where he was not only reconciled to the church of Rome, but persuaded also to enter into the order. Some time before his father’s death in 1622, he was sent back into England, to transact some family affairs; and becoming acquainted with Morton, bishop of Durham, he was by him brought back to the church of England. At the desire of Dr. Laud, he went a second time to Oxford, and was admitted a student of Christ-church; and the university generously allowing the time he had spent abroad to be included in his residence, he soon after took the degree of 13. D. entered into orders, and became minister of a church in Gloucestershire, and rector of Harding in Oxfordshire. August 1639 he was collated to a prebend in the church of Salisbury; and the year after took the degree of D. D. being then chaplain in ordinary to the king. The same year he was made a prebendary of Worcester, and the year after a canon of Windsor. In 1644 he was nominated dean of Hereford, where he married Mrs. Anne Brown, the daughter of his predecessor, though in constant peril of his then small fortune, and sometimes of his life. He suffered extremely for his loyalty to Charles I; but at length, in 1659, by the successive deaths of his two elder brothers, became possessed of the family-estate. At the restoration he was reinstated in his preferments; and Dec. 2, 1661, promoted to the see of Hereford, which he never would quit, though he was offered a better see more than once. He became afterward^, about 1667, dean of the royal chapel, which he held to 1669, and then resigned it; being weary of a court life, and finding but small effects from his pious endeavours. He then retired to his diocese, where he lived an example of that discipline he was strict in recommending to others; and was much beloved for his constant preaching, hospitable temper, and extensive charity. He was very intent upon reforming some things in the church, which he thought abuses, and not tending to edification. He was very scrupulous in his manner of admitting persons into orders, and more especially to the priesthood; and he refused to admit any prebendaries into his cathedral church, except such as lived within his diocese, that the duty of the church might not be neglected, and that the addition of a prebend might be a comfortable addition to a small living. In all these resolutions, it is said, he continued inflexible.

, a non-conformist divine, of the family of sir Edward Crofton, was born in Ireland, and for the most part had his education in Dublin. When the Irish troubles broke out, he came over to England; and having but one groat in his pocket, he spent it the first night at his quarters. His first living in the church was at Wrenbury in Cheshire, from whence he was expelled for refusing to take the engagement, 1648. He then came to London, and after being for some time minister at St. James’s Garlike-hithe, obtained the living of St. Botolph’s near Aldgate, where he continued until the restoration, when he was ejected for non-conformity. Not long after he entered into a controversy with bishop Gauden concerning the solemn league and covenant, for his defence of which he was imprisoned in the Tower, until he was obliged to petition for his liberty. He afterwards went into Cheshire, where he was again imprisoned; but obtaining his liberty, took a small farm, or as Calamy says, kept a grocer’s shop, for the support of his family. In 1667 he returned to London, and taught a school near Aldgate, where he died about 1672. He published a great number of controversial pamphlets, and some sermons, few of which have outlived their day. He was a man of learning, and acuteness in controversy; but, Calamy allows, of a warm and hasty temper.

Among all the arts of expediency, says Gilpin, laid up in the cabinets of princes, the readiest is to sacrifice a minister. The death of Cromwell was represented to the king as the best mean of composing the people. But though prudential reasons may necessitate a prince to discard a minister, yet guilt only, and that nicely examined, can authorize an act of blood. The hand of a tyrant, however, generally throws aside the balance. It is a nice machine; and requires pains and temper to adjust it. The sword is an instrument more decisive; and of easier dispatch. Henry’s was always stained with blood often with innocent blood — but never with blood more innocent than that of Essex.

, an American, was the son of an independent minister in Nova Scotia. Being a man of some genius, and impatient of the strict education he received in that country, he resolved upon coming to England to try if he could not make his fortune by his wits. When he first arrived here, his necessities were extremely urgent; and he was obliged to become gentleman usher to an old independent lady; but he soon grew as weary of that office as he was of the discipline of Nova Scotia. He set himself therefore to writing; and presently made himself so known to the court and the town, that he was nominated by Charles II. to write “The Masque of Calisto.” This nomination was procured him by the earl of Rochester, who designed by that preference to mortify Dryden. Upon the breaking out of the two parties, after the pretended discovery of the popish plot, the favour Crowne was in at court induced him to embrace the tory party; about which time he wrote a comedy called the “City Politics,” in order to expose the whigs. The lord chamberlain, Bennet earl of Arlington, though secretly a papist, was unaccountably a friend to the whigs, from his hatred to the treasurer lord Darnley. Upon various pretences the play was withheld from the stage; at last Crowne had recourse to the king himself, and by his majesty’s absolute command the play was acted. Though Crowne ever retained a most sincere affection to his royal master, he was honest enough to despise the servilities of a court. He solicited the payment of money promised him, which as soon as he obtained he became remiss in his attendance at St. James’s. The duchess of Portsmouth observed this conduct, and acquainted the king with it. The gay monarch only laughed at the accusation, and perhaps in his mind justified Crowne’s sincerity.

As a divine, Dr. Croxall seems entitled to little respect. He owed his preferments to his political services. He published, however, six single sermons, and while house chaplain to the palace at Hampton court, preached a sermon on a public occasion, in which, under the character of a corrupt and wicked minister of state, he was supposed to mean sir Robert Walpole, who had intercepted some ecclesiastical dignity which he wished to obtain. It was expected that for this offence he would have been removed from his chaplainship: but the court over-ruled it, as he had always manifesed himself to be a zealous friend to the Hanover succession. To the list of his poems may be added, an “Ode.” inscribed to king George the First, on his landing to receive the crown; and “Colin’s Mistakes,” formerly ascribed to Prior, but printed as Croxall’s in Mr. Nichols’s Collection. His having written the dedications to the “Select Novels,” printed for Watts in 1729, suggested to some bookseller to affix his name to a compilation called “The Tea-table Miscellany,” 1766.

, a learned French writer, was born at Nantes, Dec. 4, 1661. His father, who was a merchant, was also a man of letters, and bestowed much pains on the education of his son, who answered his expectations by the proficiency he made in classical studies. He had, however, provided him with a private tutor, who happened to disgust him by the severity of his manners, and upon this account partly, at the age of fourteen, he desired to take a voyage to some of the West India islands, to which his father traded; but his principal inducement was what he had read in books of voyages, and the conversation of persons who had been in America, all which raised his curiosity to visit the new world. He embarked on board a French ship, with no other books than Erasmus’s Colloquies, and the Gradus ad Parnassum. His passage was not unpleasant, and during his residence at Guadeloupe he borrowed all the Latin books he could discover, and read them with avidity; but the chief advantage he seems to have derived here was an opportunity to learn the English, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese San^uasres. To these he afterwards added an acquaintance with the German, Sclavonic, and AngloSaxon; and studied with much attention the ancient and modern Greek, the Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Hebrew, Arabic, and even the Chinese. On his return to Nantes in 1677, he found his father’s affairs somewhat deranged, and was obliged to take a part in the business. Medicine appears to have been first suggested to him as a profession, but he found little inclination for that study; and some conferences he happened to have with the Benedictines of the congregation of St. Maur determined him to enter their society. He accordingly made his noviciate in 1673, and applied himself to the study of theology. In 1682 he formally became a member of the congregation. His residence at Paris, in the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, the vast number of books within his reach, and particularly of manuscripts, increased his knowledge and his thirst for knowledge, and some of his earliest labours were bestowed in preparing materials, collecting Mss. &c. for new editions of the works of St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. But these were interrupted by certain differences which occurred in the abbey to which he belonged, and of which we have various accounts. The prior of St. Germain, father Loo, had a great aversion to the study of classical and polite literature, and was for confining the members to the strict religious duties of the house. This could not fail to be disgusting to a man of La Croze’s taste: but, according to other accounts, which seem more prohable, he began to entertain religious scruples about this time (lr.96), which induced him to withdraw himself. It is said that his superiors found among his papers a treatise against transubstantiation in his hand-writing, and which they believed to be his composition; but they discovered afterwards that it uas a translation from the English of Stillingfleet. Some other manuscripts, however, sufficiently proved that he had changed his opinion on religious matters; and the dread of persecution obliged him to make his escape to Basil, which he successfully accomplished in May 1696. Here he renounced the Roman catholic religion, and as his intention was to take up his residence, he was matriculated as a student of the college of Basil. He remained in this place, however, only till September, when he departed, provided with the most honourable testimonies of his learning and character from Buxtorf, the Hebrew professor, and Werenfels, dean of the faculty of theology. He then went to Berlin, where his object was to secure a iixed residence, devote himself to study, and endeavour to forget France. In order to introduce himself, he began with offering to educate young men, the sons of protestant parents, which appears to have answered his purpose, as in 1697 we find him appointed librarian to the king of Prussia; but his biographers are not agreed upon the terms. To this place a pension was attached, but not sufficient to enable him to live without continuing his school; and some assert that he was very poor at this time. The probability is, that his circumstances were improved as he became better known, and his reputation among the learned was already extensive. In June of 1697 he went to Francfort to visit the literati of that place, and their fine library, and visited also Brandenburgh for the same purpose. In November 1697 (or, as Chaufepie says, in 1702), he married Elizabeth Rose, a lady originally of Dauphiny, and thus, adds one of his Roman catholic biographers, completed the abjuration of the true religion. In 1698 he first commenced author, and from time to time published those works on which his fame rests. Soon after he became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, with whom he carried on an intimate correspondence. In 17 13 he went to Hamburgh, where he paid many visits to the learned Fabricius, and in his letters speaks with great warmth of the pleasure this journey afforded; but this year, 17 J 3, was not in other respects a vei'y fortunate one to La Croze, and he formed the design of quitting Germany. He had been appointed tutor to the margrave of Schwel, and this employment terminating in 1714, he lost the pension annexed to it, and was reduced to considerable difficulties, of which he wrote to Leibnitz, as to a friend in whom he could confide. Leibnitz, by way of answer, sent him a copy of a letter which he had written to M. BernsdorfT, prime minister to the elector of Hanover, in his behalf. The object likely to be attained by this interest was a professorship at Helmstadt; but as it required subscription to the articles of the Lutheran church, M. la Croze, notwithstanding the persuasions Leibnitz employed, declined accepting it. His affairs, however, soon after wore a more promising aspect, partly in consequence of a prize he gained in the Dutch lottery. In 1717 he had the honour to be engaged as private tutor to the princess royal of Prussia, afterwards margravine of Bareoth. In 1724, for several months his studies were interrupted by a violent fit of the gravel; and on his recovery, the queen of Prussia, who always patronized La Croze, obtained for him the professorship of philosophy in the French college at Berlin, vacant by the death of M. Chauvin. This imposed on him the necessity of drawing up a course of philosophy, but as he never intended to print it, it is said not to have been executed with the care he bestowed on his other works. In 1713 father Bernard Pez, the Benedictine, made him liberal offers if he would return to the church he had forsaken, but this he declined with politeness, offering the arguments which influenced his mind to remain in the protestant church. In 1739 an inflammation appeared on his leg, which inApril put on appearances of mortification, hut did not prove fatal until May 21. About a quarter of an bour before his death he desired his servant to read the 51st and 77th psalms, during which he expired, in the seventy -first year of his age. He was reckoned one of the most learned men of his time, and was frequently called a living library. So extensive was his reading, and so vast iiis memory, that no one ever consulted him without obtaining prompt information. In dates, facts, and references he was correct and ready. We have already noticed how many languages he had learned, but it appears that he made the least progress in the Chinese, to which Leihnitz, in his letters, is perpetuiiy iirging him. The greater part of his life was employed in study, and he had no other pleasures. There was scarcely a book in his library whicli he had not perused, and he wrote ms notes on most of them. His conversation could not fail to be acceptable to men of literary research, as his memory was stored with anecdotes, which he told in a very agreeable manner. He was conscientiously attached to the principles of the reformed religion. He had always on his table the Hebrew Psalter, the Greek Testament, and Thomas a Kempis in Latin: the latter he almost had by heart, as well as Buchanan’s Psalms. His consistent piety and charity are noticed by all his biographers.

, a learned German scholar and antiquary, was born at Grebern, in the bishopric of Bamberg, Sept. 19, 1526, and after some elementary instruction from his father, a minister of the Lutheran church, was sent to Dim, where he studied Greek and Latin under Gregory Leonard, and by his diligence and progress obtained a pension from the senators of UJm, which enabled him to pursue his studies without expense to his father. In 1545 he went to Strasburgh, where, after applying for some time to polite literature, he learned Hebrew, and went through a course of divinity, Still liberally maintained by the city of Ulm; and in 1547 was appointed tutor to a person of rank. Some years after, he presided over the school at Memmingen, and raised its reputation very considerably. In 1559 he was chosen professor of moral philosophy and Greek at Tubingen; but in 1566 was obliged to leave it on account of the plague, and did not return, along with the other professors, until 1568. At the age of eighty -one, perceiving that he was near his end, he assembled the whole university, with the rector at its head, and after entertaining them sumptuously, gave them a goblet worth an hundred florins. He died Feb. 25, 1607, leaving a library which was valued at 2000 florins. Besides the learned languages, he was a good French scholar, but was most distinguished for his acquairt nee with the modern Greek, and was the first who taught it in Germany. Of his numerous works, the following are the most important: 1. “Turco-Graecias libri octo, utraque lingua edita. Quibus Graecorum status sub imperio Turcico, in politia et ecclesia, ceconomia et scholis, jam hide ab amissa Constantinopoli, ad haec usque tempora, luculenter describitur,” Basil, 1584, folio. 2. “Acta et Scripta Theologorum Wirtembergensium, et Patriarchs Constantinopolitani D. Hieremiae quas utrique ab anno 1576 usque ad annum 1581 de Augustana Confessione inter se miserunt,” Gr. & Lat. 1584, fol. 3. “ Germano-Graeciae libri sex > in quorum prioribus tribus, Orationes, in reliquis Carmina, Gr. & Lat. continentur,” fol. without date, but from the dedication, probably 1585. 4. “Annales Suevici, sive Chronica rerum gestarum antiquissimae et inclytae Suevicas Gentis quibus quicquid fere de ea haberi potuit, ex Lat. & Graec. aliarumque linguarum auctoribus, scriptisque plurimis, non editis, comprehenditur, &c.” 1595 and 1596, 2 vols. fol. These works, which are now rare, are highly esteemed, and throw much light on history, and particularly on the history of the modern Greeks. One other work of Martin Crusius may be mentioned as a curiosity: “Corona Anni, hoc est, explicatio Evangeliorum et Epistolarum quae diebus dominicis et festis in ecclesia proponuntur; e Tubingeiisium, et aliorum Theologorum eonckmibus, conscripta,” Wittemberg, 1602, 4 vols. 4to. From 1563 he had been accustomed to write in the church the sermons of the preachers of Tubingen, which he did first in Latin, but when professor of Greek, he thought it his duty to use that language, and with such indefatigable perseverance, that, "between 1563 and 1601, he had made a collection of those discourses, amounting to 6174, and published some of them in other volumes, and would have published more, if he could have found any persons who would defray the expence. The work before us he had in vain offered to the booksellers at different times for seven years, and at length the court of Saxony bore the expence of printing. It contains 516 sermons in Greek and Latin, in double columns. This singular undertaking had not, as may be supposed, much success; and the few copies which exist are considered rather as objects of curiosity than utility.

During the alarm of invasion he headed two companies of volunteer infantry, and received the commission of major-commandant. So beloved was he by his corps, that they honoured him with a sword as a mark of their esteem; and at the conclusion of the peace, agreed to serve under him without receiving their customary pay. His last days were spent chiefly in London, where he died May 7, 1811, after a few days illness, at the house of his friend, Mr. Henry Fry, Bedford-place. The last act of his life was the publication of a poem called “Retrospection,” a kind of legacy of opinions concerning the “men and things” more fully handled in his Memoirs. In appreciating the personal character of Mr. Cumberland, the reader may be very safely directed to these “Memoirs,” where the disguise of self-esteem is too thin to hide what is attempted to be hidden. It was Mr. Cumberland’s misfortune to be bred a courtier, and never to have attained his degrees in that school. In a subordinate station, the duties of which were technical and formal, he performed them like others, but was peculiarly unfortunate in venturing to act the minister, Mr. Cumberland having associated with almost all the eminent literary characters of his day, has introduced many striking sketches and anecdotes of them in his “Memoirs.” In company his aim was to please by retailing these, and in the art of pleasing in conversation lew men have In-*, n more successful, and few would have been more praiseworthy, had he been more sincere in his compliments to those who were present, or less bitter in his sarcasms on them after they had taken their leave. By this, however, although it occasionally administered to mirth, he lost more than he gained; and his address, polite, studied, and courtier-like, soon became depreciated beyond all recovery.

, bart. a man of considerable talents, unhappily, in some respects, misapplied, was the son of Alexander Cuming of Coulter, who was created a baronet in 1695, and was born probably about the beginning of the last century. It appears by his Journal, which was in the possession of the late Isaac Reed, esq. that he was bred to the law of Scotland, but was induced to quit that profession in consequence of a pension of 300l. per annum being assigned him by government, either, as he intimates, for services done by his family, or expected from himself. This pension was withdrawn in 1721, at the instance, according to his account, of sir Robert Walpole, who had conceived a pique against his father, for opposing him in parliament. It is mors probable, however, that he was found too visionary a schemer to fulfil what was expected from him. In 1129 he was induced, by a dream of lady Cunaing’s, to undertake a voyage to America, for the purpose of visiting the Cherokee nations. He left England on Sept. 13, and arrived at Charlestown Dec. 5. On March 11 following, he set out for the Indians country; and on April 3, 1730, he was crowned commander, and chief ruler of the Cherokee nations in a general meeting of chiefs at Nequisee among the mountains; he returned to Charlestown April 13, with six Indian chiefs, and on June 5, arrived at Dover. On the 18th he presented the chiefs to George II. at Windsor, where he laid his crown at his majesty’s feet: the chiefs also did homage, laying four scalps at the king’s feet, to show that they were an overmatch for their enemies, and five eagles’ tails as emblems of victory. These circumstances are confirmed by the newspapers of that time, which are full of the proceedings of the Cherokees whilst, in England, and speak of them as brought over by sir Alexander Cuming. Their portraits were engraved on a single sheet. Sir Alexander says in his Journal, that whilst he was in America in 1729, he found such injudicious notions of liberty prevail, as were inconsistent with any kind of government, particularly with their dependence on the British nation. This suggested to him the idea of establishing banks in each of the provinces dependent on the British exchequer, and accountable to the British parliament, as the only means of securing the dependency of the colonies. But it was not till 1748 (as it appears) that he laid his plans before the minister (the right hon. Henry Pelham) who treated him as a visionary enthusiast, which his journal indeed most clearly indicates him to have been. He connected this scheme with the restoration of the Jews, for which he supposed the time appointed to be arrived, and that he himself was alluded to in various passages of Scripture as their deliverer. He was not, like a late enthusiast, to conduct them to the Holy Land, but proposed to take them to the Cherokee mountains: wild as his projects were, some of the most learned Jews (among whom was Isaac Netto, formerly grand rabbi of the Portuguese synagogue) seem to have given him several patient hearings upon the subject. When the minister refused tollsten to his schemes, he proposed to open a subscription himself for 500,000l. to establish provincial banks in America, and to settle 300,000 Jewish families among the Cherokee mountains. From one wild project he proceeded to another; and being already desperately involved in debt, he turned his thoughts to alchemy, and began to try experiments on the transmutation of metal. He was supported principally by the contributions of his friends: till at length, in 1766, archbishop Seeker appointed him one of the pensioners in the Charter-house, where he died at a very advanced age in August 1775, and was buried at East Bavnet, where lady Cuming had been buried in 1743. He appears to have been a man of learning., and to have possessed talents, which, if they had not been under a wrong bias, might have been beneficial to himself and useful to his country. His son, who succeeded him in his title, became deranged in his intellects, and died some years ago, in a state of indigence, in the neighbourhood of Red-lionstreet, Whitechapel. He had been a captain in the army: the title became extinct at his death.

, an historian, was born in Scotland, in the time of Cromwell’s usurpation, in 1654; his father was minister at Ettrick, in the shire and presbytery of Selkirk. He was educated, according to the custom of the Scotch gentlemen of those times who. were of the presbyterian sect, in Holland, where we may suppose he imbibed his principles of government, and was much with the Scotch and English refugees at the Hague before the revolution, particularly with the earls of Argyle and Sunderland. He came over to England with the prince of Orange; and was honoured with the confidence and intimacy of many leading men among the friends of king William and the revolution. We find him employed, at different times, in the character of a travelling companion or tutor; first to the earl of Hyndford and his brother Mr. William Carmichael, solicitor-general in the reign of queen Anne for Scotland; secondly, with the lord Lome, afterwards so well known under the name of John duke of Argyle; and thirdly, with the lord viscount Lonsdale. In 1703 we find him at Hanover with the celebrated Atldison, and graciously received by the elector and princess Sophia.

Mr. Cunningham, both when he travelled with the noblemen abovementioned, and on other occasions, was employed by the English ministry in transmitting secret intelligence to them on the most important subjects. He was also on sundry occasions employed by the generals of the confederate armies to carry intelligence and to make representations to the court of Britain. In Carstares’ State papers, published by Dr. Macormick, principal of the united college of St. Andrew’s, in 1774, there are two letters from our author, dated Paris the 22d and 26th of August 1701, giving an account of his conferences with the marquis de Torcy, the French minister, relative to the Scotch trade with France. This commercial negotiation, from the tenor of Cunningham’s letters compared with his history, appears to have been only the ostensible object of his attention for he sent an exact account to king Willliam, with whom he was personally acquainted, of the military preparations throughout all France.

, M. D. an eminent physician of Liverpool, was born at Kirkpatrick-Flemming, in Dumfriesshire, on May 31st, 1756, where his father was the established minister, but afterwards removed to that of Middlebie. He received the rudiments of learning at the parish school of his native place, whence he was removed to the grammar-school of Dumfries. His original destination was for a commercial life, and he passed some years of his youth in Virginia, in a mercantile station. Disliking this profession, and unwilling to be a witness of the impending troubles in the American colonies, he quitted that country in 1776, and in the following year commenced a course of medical study at the university of Edinburgh, which occupied him almost without interruption for three years. A prospect of an appointment in the medical staff of the army, which would not admit of the usual delay of an Edinburgh graduation, induced him to take the degree of doctor of physic at Glasgow. He arrived, however, in London, too late for the expected place; but still determining to go abroad, he had taken his passage in a ship for Jamaica, when a severe indisposition prevented his sailing, and entirely changed his lot in life. He renounced his first intention; and, after some consideration respecting an eligible settlement, he fixed upon the commercial and rapidly-increasing town of Liverpool, which became his residence from 1781, and where he soon rose into general esteem. Indeed, it was not possible, even upon a casual acquaintance, for a judge of mankind to fail of being struck by his manly urbanity of behaviour, by the elegance and variety of his conversation, by the solid sense and sagacity of his remarks, and by the tokens of a feeling heart, which graced and dignified the qualities of his understanding. No man was ever more highly regarded by his friends; no physician ever inspired more confidence and attachment in his patients.

, professor of history and rhetoric at Marpurg, was born Aug. 18, 1724, at Techentin, in the duchy of Mecklenburg, of which place his father was minister. Alter his decease, his mother married his successor, John Frederic Aepin; and it was from him that her son’s mind received its first cultivation. He was then placed in the schools at Parchim anil Schwerin, and in 1742 repaired to the university of Rostock. Having completed his academical studies, he accepted the situation of private tutor in the family of the superintendant Paul Rehfeld, of Stralsund. Here he remained till the minister of state, baron von Schwicheidt, of Hanover, became acquainted with him, and entrusted him with the education of his children. That gentleman gave Curtius many proofs of the regard he entertained for him. Among other things, during the seven years’ war, at a time when he himself was overwhelmed with business, he once charged Curtius with an important commission to the duke of Brunswick, who then commanded the allied army. He likewise gained the entire confidence of that excellent minister, the baron von Miinchhausen, who had become acquainted with him by means of Schwicheidt. He held his situation in the house of the latter till 1759, when he was appointed regular professor at the academy of Lilneburg, where he taught logic, metaphysics, history, &c. In 1767 he was appointed professor of history, rhetoric, and poetry, at Marburg, and about this time published his “Commentarii de Senatu Romano, sub iniperatoribus, &c.” In 1769, he also published a translation of Columella on agriculture, with notes.

, originally of Thessaly, the disciple of Demosthenes and minister of Pyrrhus, equally celebrated as a philosopher and as an orator, flourished in the 125th olympiad, about 280 B. C. Pyrrhus said of him, “that he had taken more towns by his eloquence, than he had by his arms.” This prince sent him to Rome to solicit a peace, which was nearly granted him, when Appius Claudius and Fabricius, who were not to moved by the flowers of rhetoric, influenced the senate to adopt other measures. Cyneas, being returned to the camp of Pyrrhus, described Rome to him as a temple, the senate as an assembly of kings, and the Roman people as a hydra, which recruited its vigour as often as it was defeated. Pliny cites the memory of Cyneas as a prodigy, at least in remembering persons; for the day after his arrival at Rome, he saluted all the senators and knights by their several names. He abridged the book of Ericas the tactician, on the defence of places, which Casaubon published with a Latin version, in the Paris edition of Polybius, 1609, folio, and M. de Beausobre translated it into French, with comments, 1757, 4to.

, a French critic and philologer, was born of protestant parents at Castres in Upper Languedoc April 6, 1651, and began to be educated in the college there; but, when by a decree of the council the direction of it was given, in 1664, to the Jesuits alone, his father sent him to the university of Puylaurens, and afterwards to that of Saumur, that he might finish his classical studies under Tannegui le Fevre, or Tanaquil Faber. This eminent scholar was so pleased with Dacier’s inclination for learning, that he kept him alone in his house, after he had dismissed the rest of the pupils; and here he conceived that affection for le Fevre’s celebrated daughter, which ended at length in marriage. On le Fevre’s death in 1672, Dacier returned to his father; and after some time went to Paris, in order to gain a settlement, and cultivate the acquaintance and friendship of the learned: in the former of these objects he did not at first succeed; but on a second visit to Paris, he procured an introduction to the duke of Montausier, governor to the dauphin, who put him on the list of the commentators for the use of the dauphin, and engaged him in the edition of Pompeius Festus, and Marcus Verrius Flaccus. This he published at Paris, 1681, in 4to; and it was again published at Amsterdam, 1699, in 4to, which edition is preferable to that of Paris, because there are added to it the entire notes of Joseph Scaliger, Fulvius Ursinus, and Anthony Augustinus, and the new fragments of Festus. His Horace, with a French translation, and notes critical and historical, came out at Paris, 1681, in 10 vols. 12mo, and has often been printed since. The best edition of this work is that of Amsterdam, 1726, consisting of the same number of volumes in the same size. Another edition was printed at Amsterdam in 8 vols. 12mo, to which were added the translation and notes of father Sanadon, published at Paris, 1728, in 2 vols. 4to, Mr. John Masson, a refugee minister in England, made several animadversions upon Dacier’s notes on Horace, in his life of that poet, printed at Leyden in 1708; which occasioned Dacier to publish new explications upon the works of Horace, with an answer to the criticisms of Mr. Masson, in which he treats Masson’s book with great contempt; and, speaking of verbal criticism, styles it “the last effort of reflection and judgment.” These were afterwards added to Sanadon’s edition of Dacier’s Horace.

, a minister of the church of Paris, and one of the ablest advocates the protestants ever had, was born at Chatelleraut, Jan 6, 1594; but carried soon after to Poitiers, where his father usually lived, on account of the office which he bore of receiver of the deposits there. His father designed him for business, and proposed to leave him his office; but his strong attachment to books made him prefer a literary education, and when his son had attained his eleventh year, he sent him to S. Maixent in Poitou, to learn the first rudiments of learning. He continued his studies at Poitiers, Chatelleraut, and Saumur; and, having finished his classical course in the last of those towns, he entered on logic at Poitiers, at the age of sixteen, and finished his course of philosophy at Saumur under the celebrated Mark Duncan. He began his theological studies at Saumur in 1612; which, says his son, was indisputably one of the most fortunate years in his whole life, as in October of it, he was admitted into the family of the illustrious mons. du Plessis Mornay, who did him the honour to appoint him tutor to two of his grandsons. Here, though he discharged the trust he had undertaken very well, yet it is said that he received more instruction from the grandfather than he communicated to the grandsons. Mornay was extremely pleased with him, frequently read with him, and concealed from him nothing of whatever he knew; so that some have been ready to impute the great figure Mr. Daillc afterwards made, to the assistance he received here; and it is but reasonable to suppose, that Mornay’s advice and instructions contributed not a little to it.

Daille was received minister in 1623, and first exercised his office in the family of du Plessis Mornay: but this did not last long; for that lord fell sick a little after, and died the same year, in the arms of the new pastor. Daille spent the following year in digesting some papers of his, which were afterwards published in two volumes, under the title of “Memoirs.” In 1625 he was appointed minister of the church of Sauinur; and the year after removed to that of Paris. Here he spent the rest of his life, and diffused great light over the whole hody, as well by his sermons, as by his books of controversy. In 1628 he wrote his celebrated book, “De l'usage des Peres,” or, “Of the Use of the Fathers;” but, on account of some troubles which seemed to be coming upon the protestants in France, it was not published till 1631. Bayle has pronounced this work a master-piece; but it has been attacked with great seventy by some, as tending to lessen the just respect due to the fathers, and to the views of religious opinions which they exhibit, and which are at least important in point of historical evidence. On the other hand, some eminent scholars, and orthodox churchmen in England have acknowledged its high worth and merit; and so early as 1651 an English translation of it was published by the learned Thomas Smith, B. D. fellow of Christ’s college in Cambridge. An advertisement is prefixed to it, from which we transcribe a passage or two, as illustrating the translator’s opinion and views of the work: “The translation of this tract,” says Mr. Smith, “hath been often attempted, and oftener desired by many noble personages of this and other nations: among others by sir Lucius Gary late lord viscount Falkland, who, with his dear friend Mr. Chillingworth, made very much use of it in all their writings against the Romanists. But the papers of that learned nobleman, wherein this translation was half finished, were long since involved in the common loss. Those few, which have escaped it, and the press, make a very honourable mentipn of this monsieur, whose acquaintance the said lord was wont to say, was worth a voyage to Paris. In page 202 of his Reply, he hath these words: ‘This observation of mine hath been confirmed by consideration of what hath been so temperately, learnedly, and judiciously written by M. Daille, our protestant Perron.’ I shall add but one lord’s testimony more, namely, the lord George Digby*S in his late Letters concerning Religion, in these words, p. 27, 28: 'The reasons prevalent with me, whereon and enquiring and judicious person should be obliged to rely and acquiesce, are so amply and so learnedly set down by M. Daille in his `Emploi des Peres,‘ that I think little, which is material and weighty, can he said on this subject, that his rare and piercing observation hath not anticipated.’ And for myself, I must ingenuously profess, that it was the reading of this rational book, which first convinced me that my study in the French language was not ill employed; which hath also enabled me to commend this to the world, as faithfully translated by a judicious hand.” Mr. Mettayer, who was minister of St. Quintin, published a Latin translation of this work; which translation was revised and augmented with new observations, by Daille himself, and was printed at Geneva in 1656.

He married in the Lower Poitou, in May 1625; and his wife died the 31st of that month, 1631, leaving him only one son, born in the house of the Dutch ambassador, Oct. 31, 1628. She had taken refuge there, because the. protestants were afraid lest the news of the taking of Rochelle might excite popular tumults. This only son, whose name was Hadrian Daille, was received a minister in 1653. He had continued his theological studies with his father for several years, when the consistory of Rochelle invited him. thither. Five years after, that is, in 1658, he was chosen a minister of Paris, and became a colleague with his father. He was alive at the revocation of the edict of Nantz, and, then retiring to Switzerland, died at Zurich in May 169O. All his Mss. among which were several works of his father’s, were carried to the public library. He wrote that abridgement of his father’s life, from which we have chiefly collected the materials of this article.

, elder brother of Christopher just mentioned, was born at Coventry in 1597, and sent from thence with his brother to Merton-college in 1613; but while Christopher went to Doway, and became a catholic, John went to London, and became a puritan. He was minister of St. Stephen’s in Coleman-street, and esteemed by his brethren a person of excellent gifts in preaching, and in other qualities belonging to a divine. About 1630 he was appointed one of the feoffees for the buying in impropriations, which involved him in a dispute with archbishop Laud; but that project miscarrying, he left his pastoral charge about 1633, under pretence of opposition from the bishops, and went to Amsterdam. Here, endeavouring to be a minister in the English congregation, and to join with them in all duties, he was opposed by John Paget, an elder, on account of some difference between them about baptism; upon which he wrote, in his own defence, “A Letter to the Dutch Classis, containing a just complaint against an unjust doer; wherein is declared the miserable slavery and bondage that the English church at Amsterdam is now in, by reason of the tyrannical government and corrupt doctrine of Mr. John Paget, their minister,” Amst. 1634. Two or three more pieces relating to this controversy were published by him afterwards; and such were his parts and learning, that he drew away from them many of their congregation, to whom he preached and prayed in private houses.

, a very eminent statesman, and secretary of state in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was, if not a native of Scotland, at least descended from those who were, as himself professed to sir James Mel vile. At what time he came into the court of queen Elizabeth, or in what state, is uncertain. It is most probable, that his parts and learning, together with that extraordinary diligence and wonderful address for which he was always distinguished, recommended him to Mr. Killigrew, afterwards sir Henry Kiiligrew, with whom he went in quality of secretary, at the time he was sent into Scotland, to compliment queen Mary upon the birth of her son. This was in 1566, and there is a good reason to believe that he remained from that time about the court, and was employed in several affairs of great consequence. In 1575, when the states of Brabant and Flanders assumed to themselves the administration of all affairs till his catholic majesty should appoint a new governor of the Low Countries, Mr. Davison was sent over with a public character from the queen to those states, under the plausible pretence of exhorting them to continue in their obedience to his catholic majesty; but, in reality, to see how things actually stood in that part of the world, that her majesty might be the better able to know how to proceed in respect to the several applications made to her from the prince of Orange, and the people of Holland. He executed this commission very successfully, and therefore the queen sent him over as her minister, to pacify the troubles that had arisen at Ghent; and when his presence was no longer necessary there, he was commissioned on her behalf to the States of Holland, in 1579. His conduct there gave equal satisfaction to the queen his mistress, and to those with whom he negotiated. He gave them great hopes of the queen’s assistance and support, and when a sum of money was desired, as absolutely necessary towards providing for their defence, he very readily undertook to procure it upon reasonable security; in consequence of which, a very considerable sum was sent from England, for which all the valuable jewels and fine plate that had been pledged by Matthias of Austria to the States of Holland, and which were the remains of the magnificence of the house of Burgundy, were transported to England. These journies, and the success attending them, gave Mr. Davison great reputation at court, insomuch, that in all matters of a nice and difficult nature, Davison was some way or other continually employed. Thus in 1583, when matters wore a serious aspect in Scotland, he was sent thither as the queen’s ambassador, in order to counteract the French ministers, and to engage the king of Scots and the people, both to slight the offers made them from that country, and to depend wholly upon assistance from England. Affairs in the Low Countries coming at last to a crisis, and the states resolving to depend upon queen Elizabeth, in the bold design they had formed of defending their freedom by force of arms, and rendering themselves independent, Mr. Davison, at this time clerk of the privy council, was chosen to manage this delicate business, and to conclude with them that alliance which was to be the basis of their future undertakings. In this, which, without question, was one of the most perplexed transactions in that whole reign, he conducted things with such a happy dexterity, as to merit the strongest acknowledgments on the part of the States, at the same time that he rendered the highest service to the queen his mistress, and obtained ample security for those expences which that princess thought necessary in order to keep danger at a distance, and to encourage the flames of war in the dominions of her enemy, whom at that juncture she knew to be meditating how he might transfer them into her own. Upon the return of Mr. Davison into England, after the conclusion of this treaty, he was declared of the privy-council, and appointed one of her majesty’s principal secretaries of state, in conjunction with sir Francis Walsingham; so that, at this time, these offices may be affirmed to have been as well filled as in any period that can be assigned in our history, and yet by persons of very different, or rather opposite dispositions; for Walsingham was a man of great art and intrigue, one who was not displeased that he was thought such a person, and whose capacity was still deeper than 'those who understood it best apprehended it to be. Davison, on the other hand, had a just reputation for wisdom and probity; and, though he had been concerned in many intricate affairs, yet he preserved a character so unspotted, that, to the time he came into this office, he had done nothing that could draw upon him the least imputation. It is an opinion countenanced by Camden, and which has met with general acceptance, that he was raised in order to be ruined, and that, when he was made secretary of state, there was a view of obliging him to go out of his depth in that matter, which brought upon him all his misfortunes. This conjecture is very plausible, and yet there is good reason to doubt whether it is well founded. Mr. Davison had attached himself, during the progress of his fortunes, to the potent earl of Leicester; and it was chiefly to his favour and interest that he stood indebted for this high employment, in which, if he was deceived by another great statesman, it could not be said that he was raised and ruined by the same hands. But there is nothing more probable than that the bringing about such an event by an instrument which his rival had raised, and then removing him, and rendering his parts useless to those who had raised him, gave a double satisfaction to him who managed this design. It is an object of great curiosity to trace the principal steps of this transaction, which was, without doubt, one of the finest strokes of political management in that whole reign. When the resolution was taken, in the beginning of October 1586, to bring the queen of Scots? to a trial, and a commission was issued for that purpose, secretary Davison’s name was inserted in that commission; but it does not appear that he was present when that commission was opened at Fotheringay castle, on the llth of October, or that he ever assisted there at all. Indeed, the management of that transaction was very wisely left in the hands of those who with so much address had conducted the antecedent business for the conviction of Anthony Babington, and his accomplices, upon the truth and justice of which, the proceedings against the queen of Scots entirely depended. On the 25th of October the sentence was declared in the star-chamber, things proceeding still in the same channel, and nothing particularly done by secretary Davison. On the 29th of the same month the parliament met, in which Serjeant Puckering was speaker of the house of commons; and, upon an application from both houses, queen Elizabeth caused the sentence to be published, which, soon after, was notified to the queen of Scots; yet hitherto all was transacted by the other secretary, who was considered by the nation in general as the person who had led this prosecution from beginning to end. The true meaning of this long and solemn proceeding was certainly to remove, as far as possible, any reflection upon queen Elizabeth; and, that it might appear in the most conspicuous manner to the world, that she was urged, and even constrained to take the life of the queen of Scots, instead of seeking or desiring it. This assertion is not founded upon conjecture, but is a direct matter of fact; for, in her first answer to the parliament, given at Richmond the 12th of November, she complained that the late act had brought her into a great strait, by obliging her to give directions for that queen’s death; and upon the second application, on the 24th of the same month, the queen enters largely into the consequences that must naturally follow upon her taking that step, and on the consideration of them, grounds her returning no definitive resolution, even to this second application. The delay which followed after the publication of the sentence, gave an opportunity for the French king, and several other princes, to interpose, but more especially to king James, whose ambassadors, and particularly sir Robert Melvile, pressed the queen very hard. Camden says, that his ambassadors unseasonably mixing threatenings with intreaties, they were not very welcome; so that after a few days the ambassadors were dismissed, with small hopes of succeeding. But we are elsewhere told, that, when Melvile requested a respite of execution for eight days, she answered, “Not an hour.” This seemed to be a plain declaration of her majesty’s final determination, and such in all probability it was, so that her death being resolved, the only point that remained under debate was, how she should die, that is, whether by the hand of an executioner, or otherwise. In respect to this, the two secretaries seem to have been of different sentiments. Mr. Davison thought the forms of justice should go on, and the end of this melancholy transaction correspond with the rest of the proceedings. Upon this, sir Francis Walsingham pretended sickness, and did not come to court, and by this means the whole business of drawing and bringing the warrant to the queen to sign, fell upon Davison, who, pursuant to the queen’s directions, went through it in the manner that Camden has related. But it is very remarkable, that, while these judicial steps were taking, the other method, to which the queen herself seemed to incline, proceeded also, and secretary Walsingham, notwithstanding his sickness, wrote the very day the warrant was signed, which was Wednesday, February 1st, 1586-7, to sir Amiss Pawlet and sir Drew Drury, to put them in mind of the association, as a thing that might countenance, at least, if not justify, this other way of removing the queen of Scots. It is true, that Mr. Davison subscribed this letter, and wrote another to the same persons two days after; but it appears plainly from the anssver, that the keepers of the queen of Scots considered the motion as coming from Walsingharn. The warrant being delivered to the lords of the council, they sent it down by Mr. Beale, their clerk, a man of sour and stubborn temper, and who had always shewn a great bitterness against the queen of Scots. The day of his departure does not appear; but queen Mary had notice given her on the Monday, to prepare for death on the Wednesday, which she accordingly suffered. As soon as queen Elizabeth was informed of it, she expressed great resentment against her council, forbad them her presence and the court; and caused some of them to be examined, as if she intended to call them to an account for the share they had in this transaction. We are not told particularly who these counsellors were, excepting the lord treasurer Burleigh, who fell into a temporary disgrace about it, and was actually a witness against Mr. Davison. As for the earl of Leicester and secretary Walsingharn, they had prudently withdrawn themselves at the last act of the tragedy, and took care to publish so much, by their letters into Scotland; but secretary Davison, upon whom it was resolved the whole weight of this business should fall, v.-deprived of his office, and sent prisoner to the Tower, at which nobody seerus to have been so much alarmed as the lord treasurer, who, though himself at that time in disgrace, wrote to the queen in strong terms, and once intended to have written in much stronger. This application bad no effect, for the queen having sent her kinsman Mr. Cary, son to the lord Hunsdon, into Scotland, to excuse the matter to king James, charged with a letter to him under her own hand, in which she in the strongest terms possible asserted her own innocence, there was a necessity of doing something that Davison[?] carry an air of evidence, in support of the turn she had now given to the death of that princess. On the 28th of March following, Davison, after having undergone various examinations, was brought to his trial in the star chamber, for the contempt of which he had been guilty, in revealing the queen’s counsels to her privy counsellors, and performing what he understood to be the duty of his office in quality of her secretary. We have several accounts of this trial, which, in a variety of circumstances, differ from each other. In this, however, they all agree, that the judges, who fined him ten thousand marks, and imprisonment during the queen’s pleasure, gave him a very high character, and declared him to be, in their opinions, both an able ana an honest man. One thing is very remarkable, that, in the conclusion of this business, sir Christopher Wray, chief justice of the queen’s bench, told the court, that though the queen had been offended with her council, and had left them to examination, yet now she forgave them, being satisfied that they were misled b? this man’s suggestions. Sir James Melvile, who wrote at that time, and who seems to have had some prejudice against Davison, said very candidly and fairly upon this occasion, that he was deceived by the council. As soon as the proceeding was over, the queen, to put it out of doubt with the king of Scots, that his mother was put to death without her privity or intention, sent him the judgment given against Davison, subscribed by those who had given it, and exemplified under the great seal, together with another instrument, under the hands of all the judges of England, that the sentence against his mother could not in the least prejudice his title to the succession. As for Mr. Davison, now left to a strange reward for his past services, a long imprisonment, which reduced him to indigence, he comforted himself with the thoughts of his innocence; and, to secure his memory from being blasted by that judgment which had withered his fortune, he had long before written an apology for his own conduct, which he addressed to secretary Walsingham, as the man most interested in it, and who could best testify whether what he affirmed was truth or not. In this he gave a very clear and natural detail of the transaction which cost him all his sufferings. It is allowed by all who have written on this subject, and especially by Camden, that he was a very unhappy, though at the same time a very capable and honest man. As such we have seen him recommended to queen Elizabeth by the treasurer Burleigh, and as such he was strongly recommended by the earl of Essex to king James I. It seems, that noble person stuck fast by him under his misfortunes, which plainly shews the party to which he had always adhered. That lord lost no opportunity of soliciting the queen in his favour, and never let slip any occasion of testifying for him the warmest and thesincerest affection. At length, it seems he was not altogether unsuccessful; for though, upon the death of secretary Walsingham, the queen absolutely rejected his motion, that Mr. Davison should come into his place, yet, afterwards, it seems that she yielded in some degree, as plainly appears by the earl’s letter to king James. That we are under an incapacity of tracing him farther, is owing to the profound silence of the writers of those times.

, a celebrated Austrian general, prince of Tiano, knight of the golden fleece, and of the order of Maria Theresa, field marshal, minister of state, and president of the Aulic council of war, was born in 1705, of an ancient and illustrious family. He was colonel of a regiment of infantry in 1740, and distinguished himself in the war which Maria Theresa carried on for the preservation of the dominions which were left her by Charles VI. The succeeding war procured him a still more brilliant fame. Prince Charles of Lorraine being besieged in Prague, Daun, at the headof an army collected in haste, took the resolution to force the enemy to raise the siege, gave battle to the king of Prussia at Chotchemitch, the 18th of June, 1757, and gained a complete victory. It was on this occasion that the empress-queen instituted the military order that bears her name. The battle of Hochkirchen, in 1758, added fresh laurels to those of the deliverer of Prague. In 1758, by a series of judicious movements he delivered Olmutz, and attacked the Prussians in 1759 at Pirna, took the whole army commanded by general Finck, and made them prisoners of war. He had not the same success at Siplitz near Torgau, in 1760, where the enemy, after the marshal had been obliged to retire from the field on account of a dangerous wound, gained the superiority. This was followed by the peace of Hubertsbourg in 1763. He died at Vienna, the 5th of February 1766, with the reputation of an experienced, brave, circumspect general, humane and compassionate, uniting the virtues of the Christian with those of the soldier. Occasions where prudence was more necessary than activity, were particularly favourable to him. His perceptions were quick and sure; but, when the urgency of the moment excluded maturity of reflection, he found it difficult to take a vigorous determination. Accordingly his victories were often without effect, and the vanquished, by bold and rapid manoeuvres, sometimes were enabled almost instantly to repair their defeat.

, another son of the celebrated printer, and himself a printer, was educated at Eton school, and in 1571 elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of M. A. and became fellow, and being ordained, supplied the place of minister at Ryegate in Surrey, in the room of the martyrologist, Fox. He afterwards appears to have turned his thoughts to his father’s trade, as he was called on the livery of the stationers’ company in 1578. He carried on business in his father’s house in Aldersgate-street, and had an exclusive privilege jointly with him during their lives, and that of the longest liver, to print the Psalms of David in metre. The books he printed himself are dated from 1578 to 1581, after which his copies were printed by his assigns as far as 1597. When he died is not known. He wrote some verses, “Contra papistos incendiaries,” in Fox’s Martyrology, 1576, which Herbert informs us are omitted in the subsequent editions. He translated Fox’s “De Christo triumphante comoedia,” to which he wrote a preface, and two dedications; one in the edition of 1579, to Mr. William Kyllegrewe; the other in the edition of 1607, to William lord Howard, of Effingham. He wrote also a preface and conclusion to the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and a short Latin preface to P. Baro’s treatises “De fide, &c.” It was in this work that he first introduced a typographical reform in the distinct use of the letters j and i, v and u, which, however, did not generally take place until the following century.

, vicar of St. Alkmond’s parish, Shrewsbury, was a native of Ireland, and descended from a very ancient and respectable family in that country, being distantly related to the family of lord Kinsale, to whom he was ordained chaplain. He was educated at Trinity college, Dublin; and his acquaintance with several eminent clergymen brought him to England. In 1770 he accepted the curacy of Shawbury in Shropshire, of which the rev, Mr. Stillingfleet was rector. In January, 1774, he was presented by the lord chancellor to the vicarage of St. Alkmond, which was the subject of a satirical poem, entitled “St. Alkmond’s Ghost,” by an inhabitant of the parish. This was owing to a prejudice conceived against him, as being a methodist, which, however, he soon overcame by his general conduct and talents. To a fund of information derived from reading and reflection, he added a degree of sprightliness and humour, which always rendered his conversation agreeable on every subject. la principle, he was warmly attached to the doctrines of our excellent church, as set forth in her articles and homilies. In the pulpit he was a laborious servant, preaching generally twice, and for some time before his death, three times, every Sunday, and a lecture on Wednesday evening, besides reading the regular service. His sermons were extempore, but in language dignified, in reasoning perspicuous, embellished by apposite allusions, and ornamented with many of the graces of oratory, and he never appealed to the passions of his auditors, but through the medium of the understanding. To the dogmas of Socinus he was an able and unwearied adversary, both from the pulpit and the press, as may be seen by referring to his “Christ Crucified,” 2 vols. 12mo. He was particularly attached to our venerable constitution, and when those pernicious doctrines were broached, which, under the delusive and fascinating title of “Rights of Man,” hurled the monarch of France from his throne, and threatened to involve this country in the same dreadful scenes of ruin and devastation, he strenuously defended the cause of religion and social order. His natural constitution was good, and supported him under many painful fits of rheumatic gout, which weakened his knees so much, as to render it necessary sometimes to sit in the pulpit. Among many temporal losses, none seemed to affect him so much as the death of his youngest son in August, 1803, after serving some time as midshipman under his relation the hon. capt. De Courcy. In the close of his last sermon from Revelation, chap. vi. v. 2. on the evening of the fast day, an allusion to the memory of those whom “we had resigned into the rcy arms of Death,” so far affected him, as to cause an involuntary flow of tears, and obliged him abruptly to conclude. A slight cold taken on that day brought on a return of his disorder, from which he gradually recovered, until a few hours before his death, when a sudden attack in his stomach rendered medical aid useless. Having commended his soul into the hands of his Redeemer, he sunk back, and expired, Nov. 4, 1803. His memory will be long esteemed by his parishioners, and many others who attended his ministry, during a period of thirty years. His remains were interred at Shawbury, on the 9th, and on that occasion a great number of his friends voluntarily joined the funeral procession, and rendered to his memory their last tribute of respect and gratitude. His published works are “Jehu’s Eye-glass on True and False Zeal;” “Nathan’s Message to David, a Sermon;” two Fast Sermons, 1776; “A Letter to a Baptist Minister;” “A Reply to Parmenas,” 1776 “The Rejoinder,” on Baptism, 1777; “Hints respecting the Utility of some Parochial Plan for suppressing the Profanation of the Lord’s Day,” 1777; two Fast Sermons, 1778; “Seduction, or the Cause of injured Innocence pleaded, a Poem,” 1782; “The Seducer convicted on his own Evidence,” 1783; “Christ Crucified,” 1791, 2 vols.; and a Sermon preached at Hawkstone chapel, at the presentation of the standard to the two troops of North Shropshire yeomanry cavalry, in 1798. In 1810, a volume of his “Sermons” was published, with a biographical preface and portrait.

The historian of his college says very justly, that whether Dr. Denne is to be considered as the minister of a parish, or as a governor in the church, he never failed, by an uncommon degree of application, to acquit himself with credit in each station. His abilities as a scholar and divine maybe estimated from his printed sermons, amounting to sixteen, preached on occasional subjects; a “Concio ad Clerum,” 174-5; “Articlesof inquiry for a parochial Visitation,” 1732; “The State of Bromley College, in Kent” and “A Register of Benefactions to the parish of Shoreditch,” drawn up in 1745, with notes, but not printed till 1772, 4to. His assiduityand usefulness in promoting what he conceived to be for the interest and credit of this parish, were conspicuous, in his successful researches after the benefactions, and the application of them 5 in the business of rebuilding the church from its origin to the completion; and in establishing upon the present plan the vegetable lecture founded by Mr. Faircliild.

In 1755 he was employed under the chevalier Douglas, in transacting a negociation of the most delicate and important nature at the court of Petersburg!), by which, after many years suspension of all intercourse, a reconciliation was effected between the courts of France and Russia. After some years residence at Petersburg!], D‘Eon joined his regiment, then serving under marshal Broglio on the Rhine, and during the campaign of 1762, acted as aid-ducamp to that celebrated olKcer. When the duke de Nivernois came over to England, as ambassador, to negociate the peace of 1763, D’Eon appeared as his secretary; and so far procured the sanction of the government of England, that he was requested to carry over the ratiticat.on of the treaty between the British court and that of Versailles, in consequence of which the French king invested him with the order of St. Louis. He had also behaved, in the character of secretary, so much to the satisfaction of the duke, that that nobleman, upon his departure for France, in May 1763, procured D‘Eon to be appointed minister-pleriiputeutiary in his room. In October following, however, the count de Guerchy having arrived here as ambassador from the court of Versailles, the chevalier received orders, or rather was requested, to act as secretary or assistant to the new ambassador. This, we are told, mortified him to such a degree, that, asserting that the letter of recall, which accompanied it, was a forgery, he refused to deliver it; and by this step drew on himself the censure of his court. On this, either with a view of exculpating himself, or from a motive of revenge, he published a succinct account of all the negociations in which he had been engaged, exposed some secrets of the French court, and rather than spare. his enemies, revealed some things greatly to the prejudice of his best friends. Among other persons very freely treated in this publication was the count de Guerchy, for which D’Eon was prosecuted and convicted in the court of King’s Bench, in July 1764. It was but natural that this conduct should draw down the resentment of the court of France, and the chevalier either feared or affected to fear the greatest danger to his person. Reports were spread, very probahly by himself, that persons were sent over here to apprehend him secretly, and carry him to France. On this occasion he wrote four letters, complaining of these designs, as known to him by undoubted authority. The one he sent to lord chief justice Mansfield, the second to the earl of Bute, the third to earl Temple, and the fourth to Mr Pitt. Of these personages he requested to know, whether, as he had contracted no debt, and behaved himself in all things as a dutiful subject, he might not kill the first man who should attempt to arrest him, &c. In March 1764 he took a wiser step to provide for his safety, if there had been any cause for his fears, by indicting the count de Guerchy for a conspiracy against his life, but this came to nothing; and the chevalier, not having surrendered himself to the court of King’s-bench to receive judgment for the libel on the count de Guerchy, was, in June 1765, declared outlawed. The chevalier, however, still continued in England until the death of Louis XV.

, a French nobleman, born at Paris in 1602, was, like the English lord Rochester, a great wit, a great libertine, and a great penitent. He made a vast progress in his studies under the Jesuits, who, perceiving his genius, endeavoured to get him into their society; but his family would not listen to their proposal, and he soon himself began to treat them with ridicule. While very young, his father procured him the place of a counsellor in the parliament of Paris, where his wit was aumired but he would never report a cause; for he used to say that it was a sordid occupation, and unworthy of a man of parts, to read wrangling papers with attention, and to endeavour to understand them. It is said, indeed, that on one occasion, when his clients were urgent for a decision, he sent for both parties, burnt the papers before them, and paid down the sum that was the cause of the dispute, to the amount of four or five hundred livres. One account says, that he left this place from the following cause. Cardinal Richelieu falling in love with the celebrated beauty Marion de Lorme, whose affections were entirely placed on our Des Barreaux, proposed to him by a third hand, that if he would resign his mistress, he should have whatever he should desire. Des Barreaux answered the proposal in a jesting way, feigning to believe the cardinal incapable of so much weakness. This enraged the minister so highly, that he persecuted Des Barreaux as long as he lived, and forced him not only to quit his place, but even to leave the kingdom. But another account says that his resignation of the bar was voluntary, and with a view to become a man of pleasure, which appears to be more probable. During his career, however, he made a great number of Latin and French verses, and. some pleasing songs; but never pursued any thing seriously, except good cheer and diversions, and being very entertaining in company, he was in high request with men of wit and taste. He had his particular friends in the several provinces of France, whom he frequently visited, and it was his practice to shift his quarters, according to the seasons of the year. In winter, he went to seek the sun on the coasts of Provence; and passed the three worst months in the year at Marseilles. The house which he called his favourite, was that of the count de Clermont de Lodeve, in Languedoc; where, he used to say, good cheer and liberty were on their throne. Sometimes he went to Balzac, on the banks of the Charante but his chief residence was at Chenailles on the Loire. His general view in these ramblings was to search out the best fruits and the best wines in the climates: but sometimes, to do him justice, his object was more intellectual, as, when he went into Holland, on purpose to see Des Cartes, and to improve hr the instructions of that great genius. His friends do not deny that he was a great libertine; but pretend, that fame, according to custom, had said more of him than is true, and that, in the latter part of his life, he was convinced of the reality of religion. They say, that he did not disapprove the truths of Christianity, and wished to be fully convinced of them; but he thought nothing was so dim'cult to a man of wit as to be a true believer. He was born a catholic, but paid little attention either to the worship or doctrines of the Romish religion; and he used to say, that if the Scriptures are to be the rule of our actions and of our belief, there was no better religion than the protestant. Four or five years before his death, we are told that he entirely forsook his vicious courses, paid his debts, and, having never been married, gave up the remainder of his estate to his sisters; reserving to himself for life an annuity of 4000 livres. He then retired to Chalon on the Soane, which he said was the best and purest air in France; hired a small house, and was visited by the better sort of people, particularly by the bishop, who afterwards spoke well of him. He died in that city, May 9. 1673, having made the famous devout sonnet two or three years before his death, which begins, “Grand Dieu, tes jugemens,” &c. But Voltaire has endeavoured to deprive him of the merit of this, by ascribing it to the abbe de Levau. It is, however, the only one of Des Barreaux’s poems, which in general were in the style of Sarazin and Chapelle, that has obtained approbation, Dreux du Radier, in his “Recreations historiques,” asserts that it is an imitation of a sonnet by Desportes, who published it in 1G03; and if so, the imitation must be allowed greatly to surpass the original.

, a French writer, who might have been an able coadjutor, in the cause of infidelity, to the D'Alemberts, Diderots, and Voltaires of France, was born at Pondicherry in 1690. His father, who resided here, was a director of the French East India company, and died at St. Domingo in the office of commissary-general of the marine. He was the author of a work entitled “Remarques historiques, critiques, et satiriques d'un cosmopolite,” printed by his son at Nantes, although Cologne is on the title, 1731, 12mo. His son, the object of this article, became commissary-general of the marine at Rochefort and Brest, and a member of the royal academy of Berlin. These employments and honours he resigned in his latter days, and died at Paris in 1757. In 1713 he came to London, for what reason we have not been able to discover, where he was seized with the small pox. In that year he published in London his “Litteraturn Otium,” in which he has very successfully imitated Catullus. He had previously printed at Paris his “Reflexions sur les grands homines qui sont morts en plaisautant,” which was immediately translated by Boyer, and published at London under the title of “A Philological Essay, or Reflections on the death of Freethinkers, with the characters of the most eminent persons of both sexes, ancient and modern, that died pleasantly and unconcerned,” 1714, IL'mo. It would appear from an article in the Guardian, No. 39, that he had expressed some compunction during his sickness for having written this book; but on his recovery he took equal pains to prove that he was as unconcerned as ever. The work itself is sufficiently contemptible, and in the opinion even of his countrymen, some of his great men are very little men: and, what is of more importance, he confounds the impiety of Boletus and Vanini with the intrepidity and firmness of Thuanus and Montmorency, and others, whose heroism was founded on religion. At the conclusion he has some random thoughts on suicide, and the gallantry of it, and informs us of a curious fact, that at one time a poisonous draught was kept at Marseilles, at the public expence, ready for those who desired to rid themselves of life. All the absurdities and impiety in this work are said to have been refuted by the author himself, who on his death-bed, by a solemn act in writing, manifested his sincere repentance. Such is the report in an edition printed at Rochefort in 1758, but this is flatly contradicted by the editors of the-Dict. Hist, who assure us that he persevered in his infidelity to the last, which they prove by some despicable verses written by him when near his death. His other works were, 1. “Histoire critique de la Philosophic,” 4 vols. 12mo, the first three published at Amsterdam in 1737. In this, which is poor in respect of style, and not to be depended on in point of fact, he grossly misrepresents the opinions of the philosophers in order to accommodate them to his own. 2. “Kssai snr la Marine et le Commerce,” which was translated and published at London, under the title, “Essay on Maritime Power and Commerce,” 1743, and was rather more valued here than in France. 3. “Recueil de differents traites de physique et d'histoire naturelle,” 3 vols. 12mo, an useful collection. 4. “Histoire de Constance, minister de Siam,” 1755, 12mo. This missionary he represents as a mere adventurer, the victim of his ambition, contrary to the representation given by father Orleans, who, in the life of Constance, published in 1690, maintains that he was a pious zealot. Deslandes’ other works, less known, are “Pygmalion,” 12mo; “Fortune,” 12mo; “La Comtesse de Montserrat,” 12mo; all of the licentious kind.

, an eminent French dramatic writer, was born at Tours, in 1680, of a reputable family, which he left early in life, apparently from being thwarted in his youthful pursuits. This, however, has been contradicted; and it is said that after having passed through the rudiments of a literary education at Tours, he went, with the full concurrence of his father, to Paris, in order to complete his studies; that being lodged with a bookseller in the capital, he fell in love at sixteen with a young person, the relation of his landlord, the consequences of which amour were such, that young Destouches, afraid to face them, enlisted as a common soldier in a regiment under orders for Spain; that he was present at the siege of Barcelona, where he narrowly escaped the fate of almost the whole company to which he belonged, who were buried under a mine sprung by the besieged. What became of him afterwards, to the time of his being noticed by the marquis de Puysieulx, is not certainly known, but the common opinion was, that he had appeared as a player on the stage; and having for a long time dragged his wretchedness from town to town, was at length manager of a company of comedians at Soleure, when the marquis de Puysieulx, ambassador from France to Switzerland, obtained some knowledge of him by means of an harangue which the young actor made him at the head of his comrades. The marquis, habituated by his diplomatic function to discern and appreciate characters, judged that one who could speak so well, was destined by nature to something better than the representation of French comedies in the centre of Switzerland. He requested a conference with Destouches, sounded him on various topics, and attached him to his person. It was in Switzerland that his talent for theatrical productions first displayed itself; and his “Curieux Impertinent” was exhibited there with applause. His dramatic productions made him known to the regent, who sent him to London in 1717, to assist, in his political capacity, at the negotiations then on foot, and while resident here, he had a singular negociation to manage for cardinal Dubois, to whom, indeed, he was indebted for his post. That minister directed him to engage king George I. to ask for him the archbishopric of Cambray, from the regent duke of Orleans. The king, who was treating with the regent on affairs of great consequence, and whom it was the interest of the latter to oblige, could not help viewing this request in a ridiculous light. “How!” said he to Destouches, “would you have a protestant prince interfere in making a French archbishop? The regent will only laugh at it, and certainly will pay no regard to such an application.” “Pardon me, sire,” replied Destouches, “he will laugh, indeed, but he will do what you desire.” He then presented to the king a very pressing letter, ready for signature. “With all my heart, then,” said the king, and signed the letter; and Dubois became archbishop of Cambray. He spent seven years in London, married there, and returned to his country; where the dramatist and negociator were well received. The regent had a just sense of his services, and promised him great things; but dying soon after, left Destouches the meagre comfort of reflecting how well he should have been provided for if the regent had lived. Having lost his patron, he retired to Fortoiseau, near Melun, as the properest situation to make him forget the caprices of fortune. He purchased the place; and cultivating agriculture, philosophy, and the muses, abode there as long as he lived. Cardinal Fleury would fain have sent him ambassador to Petersburg; but Destouches chose rather to attend his lands and his woods, to correct with his pen the manners of his own countrymen; and to write, which he did with considerable effect, against the infidels of France. He died in 1754, leaving a daughter and a son; the latter, by order of Lewis XV. published at the Louvre an edition of his father’s works, in 4 vols. 4to. Destouch.es had not the gaiety of Regnard, nor the strong warm colouring of Moliere; but he is always polite, tender, and natural, and has been thought worthy of ranking next to these authors. He deserves more praise by surpassing them in the morality and decorum of his pieces, and he had also the art of attaining the pathetic without losing the vis comica, which is the essential character of this species of composition. In the various connections of domestic life, he maintained a truly respectable character, and in early life he gave evidence of his filial duty, by sending 40,000 livres out of his savings to his father, who was burthened with a large family.

The ear) met with nothing in Ireland but disappointments, in the midst of which, an army was suddenly raised in England, under the command of the earl of Nottingham; nobody well knowing why, but in reality from the suggestions of the earl’s enemies to the queen, that he rather meditated an invasion on his native country, than the reduction of the Irish rebels. This and other considerations made him resolve to quit his post, and come over to England; which he accordingly did, and presented himself before the queen. He met with a tolerable reception; but was soon after confined, examined, and dismissed from all his offices, except that of master of the horse. In the summer of“1600, he recovered his liberty; and in the autumn following, he received Mr. Cuffe, who had been his secretary in Ireland (See Cuffe), into his councils. Cuffe, who was a man of his own disposition, laboured to persuade him, that submission would never do him any good; that the queen was in the hands of a faction, who were his enemies; and that the only way to restore his fortune was to obtain an audience, by whatever means he could, in order to represent his case. The earl did not consent at first to this dangerous advice; but afterwards, giving a loose to his passion, began to declare himself openly, and among other fatal expressions let fall this, that” the queen grew old and cankered; and that her mind was become as crooked as her carcase.“His enemies, who had exact intelligence of all that he proposed, and had provided effectually against the execution of his designs, hurried him upon his fate by a message, sent on the evening of Feb. 7, requiring him to attend the council, which he declined. This appears to have unmanned him, and in his distraction of mind, he gave out, that they sought his life kept a watch in Essex-house all night; and summoned his friends for his defence the next morning. Many disputes ensued, and some blood was spilt; but the earl at last surrendered, and was carried that night to the archbishop’s palace at Lambeth, and the next day to the Tower. On the 19th, he was arraigned before his peers, and after a long trial was sentenced to lose his head: upon which melancholy occasion he said nothing more than this, viz.” If her majesty had pleased, this body of mine might have done her better service; however, I shall be glad if it may prove serviceable to her any way.“He was executed upon the 25th, in his thirty-fourth year, leaving behind him one only son and two daughters. As to his person, he is reported to have been tall, but not very well made; his countenance reserved; his air rather martial than courtly; very careless in dress, and a little addicted to trifling diversions, He was learned, and a lover of learned men, whom he always encouraged and rewarded. He was sincere in his friendships, but not so careful as he ought to have been in making a right choice; sound in his morals, except in point of gallantry, and thoroughly well affected to the protestant religion. Historians inform us, that as to his execution, the queen remained irresolute to the very last, and sent sir Edward Carey to countermand it but, as Camden says, considering afterwards his obstinacy in refusing to ask her pardon, she countermanded those orders, and directed that he should die. There is an odd story current in the world about a ring, which the chevalier Louis Aubrey de Mourier, many years the French minister in Holland, and a man of great parts and unsuspected credit, delivers as an undoubted truth; and that upon the authority of an English minister, who might be well presumed to know what he said. As the incident is remarkable, and has made much noise, we will report it in the words of that historian:” It will not, I believe, be thought either impertinent or disagreeable to add here, what prince Maurice had from the mouth of Mr. Carleton, ambassador of England in Holland, who died secretary of state so well known under the name of lord Dorchester, and who was a man of great merit. He said, that queen Elizabeth gave the earl of Essex a ring, in the height of her passion for him, ordering him to keep it; and that whatever he should commit, she would pardon him when he should return that pledge. Since that time the earl’s enemies having prevailed with the queen, who, besides, was exasperated against him for the contempt he had shewed her beauty, now through age upon the decay, she caused him to be impeached. When he was condemned, she expected to receive from him the ring, and would have granted him his pardon according to her promise. The earl, finding himself in the last extremity, applied to admiral Howard’s lady, who was his relation; and desired her, by a person she could trust, to deliver the ring into the queen’s own hands. But her husband, who was one of the earl’s greatest enemies, and to whom she told this imprudently, would not suffer her to acquit herself of the commission; so that the queen consented to the earl’s death, being full of indignation against so proud and haughty a spirit, who chose rather to die than implore her mercy. Some time after, the admiral’s lady fell sick; and, being given over by her physicians, she sent word to the queen that she had something of great consequence to tell her before she died. The queen came to her bedBide i and having ordered all her attendants to withdraw, the admiral’s lady returned her, but too late, that ring from the earl of Essex, desiring to be excused for not having returned it sooner, since her husband had prevented her. The queen retired immediately, overwhelmed with the utmost grief; she sighed continually for a fortnight, without taking any nourishment, lying in bed entirely dressed, and getting up an hundred times a night. At last she died with hunger and with grief, because she had consented to the death of a lover who had applied to her for mercy." Histoire de Hollancle, p. 215, 216.

Thus fell this zealous patron of the glory and liberty of his native country, in his 47th year; the greatest genius of his time, and the ablest politician in war as well as peace. He was a frank sincere man, without fraud or artifice, unless his silence might be thought so. Sir W r illiam Temple, who was well acquainted with his character, speaks of him, on various occasions, with the utmost esteem, and with the highest testimonies of praise and admiration. He observes, that when he was at the head of the government, h differed nothing in his manner of living from an ordinary citizen. When he made visits, he was attended only by a single footman; and on common occasions he was frequently seen in the streets without any servant at all. His office, for the first ten years, brought him in little more than 300l. and in the latter part of his life not above 700l. per annum. He refused a gift of 10,000l. from the States, because he thought it a bad precedent in the government. His fortune was much inferior to what, in our times, we see commonly raised by an underclerk in a high office. With great reason, therefore, sir William Temple, speaking of his death, observes, that he “deserved another fate, and a better return from his country, after eighteen years spent in their ministry, without any care of his entertainments or ease, and little of his fortune. A man of unwearied industry, inflexible constancy, sound, clear, and deep understanding, and untainted integrity; so that, whenever he was blinded, it was by the passion he had for that which he esteemed the good and interest of his state. This testimony is justly due to him from all that were well acquainted with him; and is the more willingly paid, since there can be as little interest to flatter, as honour to reproach the dead.” Hume, with equal truth, describes him as “a minister equally eminent for greatness of mind, for capacity, and for integrity. Though moderate in his private deportment, he knew how to adopt in his public councils that magnanimity winch suits the minister of a great state. It was ever his maxim, that no independent government should yield to another any evident point of reason or equity; and that all such concessions, so far from preventing war, served no other purpose than to provoke fresh claims and insults.”

, an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, the son of John Dickson, a merchant in Glasgow, was born about 1583, and educated at the university of his native city. After taking the degree of M. A. he was admitted regent, or professor of philosophy, an office which, at that time, somewhat after the manner of the foreign universities, was held only for a term of years (in this case, of eight years) after which these regents received ordination. Accordingly, in 1618, Mr. Dickson was ordained minister of the town of Irvine, which preferment he held about twenty-three years, and became a very popular preacher. Although always inclined to the presbyterian form of church-government, he had shewn no great reluctance to the episcopal forms until the passing of what are known, in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland, by the name of the Perth articles; five articles, which enjoined kneeling at the sacrament; private adtninistratioa of it in extreme sickness; private baptism, if necessary; episcopal confirmation; and the observation of Epiphany, Christmas, &c. These, however harmless they may appear to an English reader, were matters not only of objection, but abhorrence to a great proportion of the Scotch clergy; and Mr. Dickson having expressed his dislike in strong terms, and probably in the pulpit, was suspended from his pastoral charge, and ordered to remove to Turriff, in the north of Scotland, within twenty days. After much interest, however, had been employed, for he had many friends among persons of rank, who respected his talents and piety, he was allowed in 1623 to return to Irvine. As during the progress of the rebellion in England, the power of the established church decayed also in Scotland, Dickson exerted himself with considerable effect in the restoration of the presbyterian form of church-government, and there being a reluctance to this change on the part of the learned divines of Aberdeen, he went thither in 1637, and held solemn disputations with Doctors Forbes, Barron, Sibbald, &c. of that city, which were afterwards published. In 1641 he was removed from Irvine to be professor of divinity in the university of Glasgow; and in 1643 he assisted in drawing up some of those formularies which are contained in the “Confession of Faith,” a book which is still subscribed by the clergy of Scotland. The “Directory for public worship,” and “The sum of saving knowledge,” were from his pen, assisted, in the former, by Henderson and Calderwood and in the latter, by Durham. Some years after, probably about 1645, he was invited to the elmir of professor of divinity at Edinburgh, which he held until the restoration, when he was ejected for refusing the oath of supremacy. He did not survive this long, dying in 1662. He was esteemed one of the ablest and most useful men of his time, in the promotion of the church of Scotland as now established, and his writings have been accounted standard books with those who adhere to her principles as originally laid down. His principal works are, I. “A Commentary on the Hebrews,” 8vo. 2. “On Matthew,” 4to. 3. “On the Psalms,” 1655, 3 vols. 12mo. 4. “On the Epistles,” Latin and English, folio and 4to. 5. “Therapeutica Sacra, or Cases of Conscience resolved,” Latin 4to, English 8vo. 6. “A treatise on the Promises,” Dublin, 1630, 12mo. Besides these he wrote some pieces of religious poetry for the common people, and left several Mss. As he had had a considerable hand in the “Confession of Faith,” he lectured, when professor of divinity, on that book, the heads of which lectures were afterwards published, as he had delivered them, in Latin, under the title “Prelectiones in Confessionem Fidei,” folio but they have been since translated and often reprinted, under the title of “Truth’s Victory over Error,” one of the most useful, and now, we believe, the only one of his works which continues still popular in Scotland. Prefixed is a life of the author by Woodrow, the ecclesiastical historian, from which we have extracted the above particulars.

, the son of John Conrad, first minister of the church of Butzbach, and afterwards superintendent of Giessen, and nephew of Conrad Dieterk, another learned German divine, was born at Butzbach, Jan. 19, 1612. After having studied at Marpurg, Jena, and Strasburgh, he maintained a thesis, in 1635, under professor Dilher, on the utility of profane authors in the study of the Holy Scriptures. He then went into Holland, where he became acquainted with the learned Vossius, Boxborn, Barlaeus, Heinsius, and other eminent scholars. Thence he travelled into Denmark and Prussia, remaining some time at Konigsberg. On his return, George II. landgrave of Hesse, appointed him professor of Greek and history in 1639. From the observations which he left on the aphorisms of Hippocrates, he appears to have in some early part of his life studied medicine. On certain disputes arising between the princes of the house of Hesse, prince George invited him to his court to arrange the papers and documents preserved in the archives. In 1647, he obtained leave to go to Hamburgh, where he remained until these family-disputes were adjusted. In 1653, when the college of Giessen was founded, which had brought many visitors from Marpnrg, he became one of the professors, and remained in this office, with great reputation, until his death in 1669. The letters which John Christian, baron of Boinebourg, wrote to him, and which were printed in 1703, evince the high esteem which that nobleman entertained for him. He was editor of a work written by Henry of Bunau, entitled “Historia imperatorum Germanicorum familise Saxonies, Henrici I. Ottonis magni; Ottonis II. Ottonis III. et Henrici II.” Giessen, 1666, 4to. His own works are, 1. “Breviarium historicum et geographicum.” 2. “Breviarium pontificum.” 3. “Discursus historico-politicus de perigratione studiorum,” Marpurg, 1640, 4to. 4. “Graecia exulans, seu de infelicitate superioris sseculi in Greecarum litterarum ignoratione.” 5. “Antiquitates llomanai.” 6. “latraeum Hippocraticum,” Ulm, 1661, 4to. 7. “Breviarium ha3reticorurn et conciliorum.” 8. “Index in Hesiodum.” 9. “Lexicon Etymologico-Graecum.” 10. “Antiquitates Biblicue, in quibus decreta, prophetiae, sermones, consuetudincs, ritusque ac dicta veteris Testamenti de rebus Judaeorum et Gentilium, qua sacris, qua profanis, expenduntur; ex editione Joannis-Justi Pistorii,” Giessen, 1671, folio, which, with the following, was posthumous, 11. “Antiquitates Nov. Testamenti, seu illustramentum Nov. Test, sive Lexicon philologico-theologicum Græco-Latinum,” Francfort, 1680, folio.

, protestant minister of Leyden, and professor in the Walloon college of that city, a man of great abilities, and uncommonly versed in the oriental languages, was born April 7, 1590, at Flushing, where his father Daniel de Dieu was minister. Daniel was a man of great merit, and a native of Brussels, where he had been a minister twenty: two years. He removed from thence in 1585, to serve the church at Flushing, after the duke of Parma had taken Brussels. He understood Greek and the oriental languages, and could preach with the applause of his auditors in German, Italian, French, and English. The churches of the Netherlands sent him, in 1588, over to queen Elizabeth, to inform her of the designs of the duke of Parma, who secretly made her proposals of peace, while the king of Spain was equipping a formidable fleet against England. Lewis, his son, studied under Daniel Colonius, his uncle by his mother’s side, who was professor at Leyden in the Walloon college. He was two years minister of the French church at Flushing; and might have been court-minister at the Hague, if his natural aversion to the manners of a court had not restrained him from accepting that place. There are some circumstances relating to that affair which deserve to be remembered. Prince Maurice, being in Zealand, heard Lewis de Dieu preach, who was yet but a student; and some time after sent for him to court. The young man modestly excused himself, declaring, that he designed to satisfy his conscience in the exercise of his ministry, and to censure freely what he should find deserved censure; a liberty, he said, which courts did not care to allow. Besides, he thought the post which was offered him more proper for a man in years than a student. The prince, conscious that he was in the right, commended his modesty and prudence. He was called to Leyden in 1619 to teach, with his uncle Colonius, in the Walloon college; and he discharged the duty of that employment with great diligence till his death, which happened in 1642. He refused the post, which was offered him, of divinity-professor in the new university of Utrecht; but, if he had lived long enough, he would have been advanced to the same post in that of Leyden. He married the daughter of a counsellor of Flushing, by whom he had eleven children.

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

, professor of the law of nature and nations, and of history, at Francfort on the Oder, and a member of the royal society of Berlin, was born March 13, 1677, at Rottenburgh, in Hesse. His father was rector of that place, and became afterwards minister and dean. His son was at first educated under his care, which he amply repaid by a proficiency far beyond his years. In his seventeenth year he went to Marpurg, and studied under Otto, the celebrated orientalist, and Tilemann, professor of divinity, with whom he lodged, and who afterwards procured him the appointment of tutor to the two young barons of Morrien. Dithmar executed this office with general satisfaction, and when he went afterwards to prosecute his studies at Leyden, he was maintained at the expence of the landgrave of He^r Cusstl. He afterwards travelled over some parts of Germany and Holland, as tutor to the son of M. the great president Dancklemann. The learned Perizonius, with whom he became acquainted at Leyden, and who had a great esteem for him, procured him the offer of a professorship at Leyden, with a liberal salary but Dithmar thought himself obliged first to return M. Dancklemann’s sun to his father, who was so sensible of the value of his services, as to procure him a settlement at Francfort on the Oder. Here he was appointed professor of history, then of the law of nature and nations, and lastly, gave lectures on statistics and finance. He had been before this admitted a member of the royal society of Berlin, and was created a counsellor of the order of St. John. His situation at Francfort was in all respects so agreeable, that he refused many offers to remove, and in 1715 again declined a very honourable opportunity of settling at Leyden. He died at Francfort March 13, 1737, after a short illness; and with the reputation of one of the most learned men of his time.

, usually styled the Decalogist, from his Commentary on the commandments, and called by Fuller, the “last of the Puritans,” was a native of Shotledge, in. Cheshire; in which county there were several ancient families of the Dods; but to which of them he belonged, we have not been able to ascertain. He was born, the youngest of seventeen children, in 1547, and sent to school at WestChester, but Mr. Cole says he was educated at Winchester, a name which he probably transcribed hastily for the other. In 1561, when he was fourteen years of age, he was entered of Jesus college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow in 1585, according to a ms note of Mr. Baker; and Mr. Cole adds, that he was junior proctor in 1614; both which dates must belong to some other person, as it does not appear that he remained in all more than sixteen years at college. At what time he took his master’s degree is uncertain, but a few years after, being appointed to oppose in the philosophy act at the commencement, he exhibited such a display of talents, as highly gratified his hearers, and in consequence, he had liberal offers to remove to Oxford. These he declined, but was incorporated M. A. in that university in 1585. Associating much with Drs. Fulke, Chaclerton, and Whitaker, he imbibed the principles and strictness for which they were famous, and conceived an early dislike to some of the ceremonies or discipline of the church, but to what we are not told. After taking orders, he first preached a weekly lecture at Ely, until invited by sir Anthony Cope to be minister of Hanwell, in Oxfordshire, in 1577, where he became a constant and diligent preacher, and highly popular. Nor was his hospitality Jess conspicuous, as he kept an open table on Sundays and Wednesdays lecture days, generally entertaining on these occasions from eight to twelve persons at dinner. At Hanwell he remained twenty years, in the course cf which he married, and had a large family; but, owing to his nonconformity in some points, he was suspended by Dr. Bridges, bishop of Oxford. After this, he preached for some time at Fenny-Compton, in Warwickshire, and from thence was called to Cannons Ashby, in Northamptonshire, where he was patronized by sir Erasmus Dryden but here again he was silenced, in consequence of a complaint made by bishop Neale to king James, who commanded archbishop Abbot to pronounce that sentence. During this suspension of his public services, he appears to have written his Commentary on the Decalogue and Proverbs, which he published in conjunction with one Robert Cleaver, probably another silenced puritan, of whom we can find no account. At length, by the interest of the family of Knightley, of Northamptonshire, after the death of king James, he was presented in 1624, to the living of Fawesley, in that county. Here he recommended himself as before, not more by his earnest and affectionate services in the pulpit, than by his charity and hospitality, and particularly by his frequent visits and advice which last he delivered in a manner peculiarly striking. A great many of his sayings became almost proverbial, and remained so for above a century, being, as may yet be remembered, frequently printed in a small tract, or on a broad sheet, and suspended in every cottage. On the commencement of the rebellion he suffered considerably, his house being plundered, as the house of a puritan, although he was a decided enemy to the proceedings of the republicans. When they were about to abolish the order of bishops, &c. Dr. Brownrig sent to Mr. Dod, for his opinion, who answered, that “he had been scandalized with the proud and tyrannical practises of the Marian bishops; but now, after more than sixty years’ experience of many protestant bishops, that had been worthy preachers, learned and orthodox writers, great champions for the protestant cause, he wished all his friends not to be any impediment to them, and exhorted all men not to take up arms against the king; which was his doctrine, he said, upon the fifth commandment, and he would never depart from it.” He died in August, 1645, at the very advanced age of ninety-seven, and was buried on the I9th of that month, at Fawesley, in Northamptonshire. Fuller says, “with him the Old Puritan seemed to expire, and in his grave to be interred. Humble, meek, patient, charitable as in his censures of, so in his alms to others. Would I could truly say but half so much of the next generation!” “He was,” says the same author, “a passive nonconformist, not loving any one the worse for difference in judgment about ceremonies, but all the better for their unity of affections in grace and goodness. He used to retrench some hot spirits when inveighing against bishops, telling them how God under that government had given a marvellous increase to the gospel, and that godly men might comfortably comport therewith, under which learning and religion had so manifest an improvement.” He was an excellent scholar, particularly in the Hebrew language, which he taught to the celebrated John Gregory, of Christchurch, Oxford. The no less celebrated Dr. Wilkins was his grandson, and born in his house at Fawesley, in 1614, a date which seems to interfere with that given above as the date of Mr. Dod’s presentation to Fawesley, which we have taken from the register in Bridges’s Northamptonshire, but he might probably have resided there previous to the living becoming vacant. Of his works we know only that which conferred on him the name of the Decalogist, “A plain and familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments,” London, 1606, 4to; and “A plain and familiar Exposition” of certain chapters of the Book of Proverbs, 1606, 4to, published at different times; and the prefaces signed by Dod and Cleaver. There are some original letters by Dod in the British Museum, (Ayscough, No. 4275), addressed to lady Vere. They consist chiefly of pious exhortations respecting the confused state of public affairs. In one of them, dated Dec. 20, 1642, he says, he is “not far off ninety-five years old,” which has enabled us to ascertain his age, hitherto incorrectly given by his biographers.

At this period Dodington closely connected himself with sir Robert Walpole, and in 1726 published a poetical epistle addressed to that minister, which is remarkable only for its servility, and which he afterwards, changing the name, addressed to lord Bute. In 1734 he was elected member for Weymouth, and in 1737 he took a very decided part in the contest between George II. and the prince of Wales, in the question about the augmentation of his allowance, and a jointure for the princess. This transaction forms one of the best parts of his “Diary,” lately published. At this time he appears to have acted with some coolness towards sir Robert Walpole, in consequence of which he was, in 1740, dismissed from his seat in the treasury, and joined the ranks of opposition; but although his new friends succeeded in procuring the dismissal of the Walpole administration, Dodington was probably disappointed, since he became principally concerned in that opposition which brought about the downfall of this new administration. On their succession to power in 1745, he was made treasurer of the navy, and sworn of the privycouncil, but his versatility would not permit him to remain steady to this party. In March 1749, the prince of Wales offered him a full return to his favour, and the principal direction of his affairs, to which Dodington agreed, and resigned his office of treasurer of the navy. He now fancied himself at the head of a formidable band, whom he was about to muster and train, when almost immediately an opposition was formed against him in the prince’s household, and, as he informs us, he foresaw there was no prospect of “doing any good.” He continued, however, in the household until the prince’s death, which put an end to the hopes of all his highness’s dependents. For some time, Mr. Dodington, although desirous of regaining his influence at court, found all his efforts unsuccessful but at length, on the sudden change which took place in 1755, he accepted his former post of treasurer of the navy under the duke of Newcastle, which he retained until, another change taking place the following year, he was again left alone, and gave up all hopes of establishing himself at court during that reign. On the accession of his present majesty he was very early received into the confidence of lord Bute, and in 1761 was advanced to the peerage by the title of lord Melcombe, yet he attained no ostensible post, nor indeed did he long survive his baronial honours, as he died at his house at Hammersmith, July 28, 1762.

, an eminent dissenting divine, great-grand-nephew to the preceding, was the son of the nonconformist rector of Shepperton in Middlesex, and was born in London, June 26th, 1702. At his birth he was so weakly that he was regarded as dead; but by attention and care he recovered some degree of strength. His constitution, however, was always feeble, and probably rendered more so by the assiduity with which he prosecuted his studies and public services. To his pious parents he was indebted for early instruction in religion, and for those salutary impressions which were never erased from his mind. His classical education commenced in London, but being left an orphan in his thirteenth year, he was removed to a private school at St. Alban’s, where he had the happiness of commencing an acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Samuel Clark, the dissenting minister of the place; and having lost his whole patrimony after his father’s death, the protection of this friend enabled him to pursue the course of his studies. In 1715 he left St. Alban’s, and retired to the house of his sister, the wife of Mr. John Nettleton, a dissenting minister at Ongar, in Essex, and while deliberating on the course of life which he should pursue, he received offers of encouragement and support from the duchess of Bedford, if he chose to be educated in one of the universities for the church of England; but could not conscientiously comply with the terms of conformity. Others advised him to devote himself to the profession of the law; but before he had finally determined, he received a letter from Mr. Clark, with generous offers of assistance, if he chose the ministry among the dissenters. These offers he thankfully accepted; and after continuing for some months at St. Alban’s in the house of his benefactor, he was placed, in October 1719, under the tuition of the reverend John Jennings, who kept an academy for the education of nonconformist ministers at Kibworth in Leicestershire. Here he paid particular attention to classical literature, and cultivated an acquaintance with the Greek writers, and also with the best authors of his own country. In 1722, having obtained an ample testimonial from a committee of ministers, by whom he was examined, he became a preacher at Kibworth, which he preferred, because it was an obscure village, and the congregation was small, so that he could pursue his studies with little interruption. During his residence at this place, from June 1723 to October 1725, he is said to have excelled as a preacher. At first he paid particular attention to his compositions, and thus acquired a habit of delivering his sentiments usually with judgment, and always with ease and freedom of language, when he was afterwards, by a multiplicity of engagements, reduced to the necessity of extempore speaking. In 1725, he removed to Market-Harborough, to enjoy the conversation and advice of Mr. Some, the pastor of the congregation in that place and after the year 1727, when he was chosen assistant to Mr. Some, he preached alternately at Kibworth and MarketHarborough. He received several invitations from congregations much more numerous than these; but he determined to adhere to the plan, which he had adopted, of pursuing his schemes of improvement in a more private residence. When he left the academy, his tutor, Mr. Jennings, not long before his death, which happened in 1723, advised him to keep in view the improvement of the course of lectures on which he had attended; and this advice he assiduously regarded during his retirement at Kibworth. Mr. Jennings foresaw, that, in case of his own death, Mr. Doddridge was the most likely of any of his pupils to complete the schemes which he had formed, and to undertake the conduct of a theological academy. Mr. Doddridge’s qualifications for the office of tutor were generally known and approved, in consequence of a plan for conducting the preparatory studies of young persons intended for the ministry, which he had drawn up at the desire of a friend, whose death prevented his carrying it into effect. This plan was shewn to Dr. Watts, who had then no personal acquaintance with the author; but he was so much pleased with it, that he concurred with others in the opinion, that the person who had drawn it up was best qualified for executing it. Accordingly he was unanimously solicited to undertake the arduous office; and after some hesitation, and with a very great degree of diffidence, he consented to undertake it. Availing himself of all the information and assistance which he could obtain from conversation and correspondence with his numerous friends, he opened his academy at Midsummer, in 1729, at Market- Harborongh. Having continued in this situation for a few months, he was invited by a congregation at Northampton; and he removed thither in December 1729; and in March of the following year, he was ordained according to the mode usually practised among dissenters. In this place he engaged, in a very high degree, the love and attachment of his congregation; and he observes, in his last will, “that he had spent the most delightful hours of his life in assisting the devotions of as seuious, as grateful, and as deserving a people, as perhaps any minister had ever the happiness to serve.”

, an English barrister, was the son of the Rev. John Dodson, M. A. a dissenting minister of Marlborough, in Wiltshire, and of Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Mr. Foster, an attorney-at-law of the same place. He was born at Marlborough on the 20th or 21st Sept. 1732, and educated partly under the care of his father, and partly at the grammar-school of that town; and under the direction of his maternal uncle, sir Michael Foster, he was brought up to the profession of the law. After being admitted of the Middle Temple, London, August 31, 1754, he practised many years with considerable reputation, as a special pleader. His natural modesty and cliffiJence discouraged him from attending the courts, and therefore he did not proceed to be called to the bar till July 4, 1783. This measure contributed, as was intended, more to the diminution than to the increase of professional business. He was appointed one of the commissioners of bankrupts in 1770, during the chancellorship of lord Camden, and was continued in that situation till the time of his death. On December 31, 1778, Mr. Dodson married miss Elizabeth Hawkes, his cousin-german, and eldest daughter of Mr. Hawkes, of Marlborough. He enjoyed a life of uninterrupted good health, and indeed little alteration was observeable in his strength or general habits till nearly the last year of his life. It was not till the month of October 1799, that he began more sensibly to feel the effect of disease; and, after a confinement to his room of about a fortnight, he died of a dropsy in his chest, at his house in Boswell-court, Carey-street, London, on the 13th of November of that year; and was buried in Bunhillfields the 21st of the same month. Mr. Dodson’s legal knowledge and discrimination were deservedly estimated by those to whom he was known, and who had occasion to confer with him upon questions of law. He was deliberate in forming his opinion, and diffident in delivering it, but always clear in the principles and reasons on which it was founded. His general acquaintance with the laws, and veneration for the constitution of his country, evinced his extensive acquaintance with the principles of jurisprudence, and his regard for the permanence of the liberties of Britain. In 1762, Mr. Justice Foster published his book, entitled, “A Report of some proceedings on the commission for the trial of the Rebels in the year 1746, in the county of Surrey; and of other crown cases; to which are added, Discourses upon a few branches of the Crown Law.” This work will be to him, said Mr. Dodson, “monumeutum aere perennius.” The impression being large, and a pirated edition being made in Ireland, a new edition, was not soon wanted in England; but in 1776 Mr. Dodson published a second edition with some improvements, and with remarks in his preface on some objections made by Mr. Barrington in his “Observations on the more ancient Statutes.” In 1792 he published a third edition, with an appendix, containing three new cases, which the author had intended to insert in the first edition, and had caused to be transcribed for that purpose. In 1795 Mr. Dobson drew up a life of his truly learned and venerable uncle sir Michael Faster, which was to have formed a part of the sixth volume of the new edition of the Biographia Britannica. It has since been printed separately in 1811, 8vo. But the public are in possession of more ample documents of Mr. Dodson’s deep research and critical judgment in biblical literature, than in legal disquisitions. He had very attentively and dispassionately examined th evidences of revelation, and was firmly convinced of the truth of its pretensions. He was zealous for the true and rational interpretation of its scriptures, because he was strongly persuaded of the great influence such interpretation would have on its reception in the world, and on the consequent happiness of mankind. But having a turn for biblical criticism, and having embraced the principles of the Unitarians, he published many papers in a work entitled “Commentaries and Essays,” written by the members of a small “Society for promoting the knowledge of the Scriptures.” Mr. Dodson was a very early member of this society, not only communicating some papers of his own, but conducting through the press some of the contributions of others. In 1790 he laid before the public, as the result of many years’ study, “New translation of Isaiah, with notes supplementary to those of Dr. Lowth, late bishop of London, and containing remarks on many parts of his Translation and Notes, by a Layman.” In this he has taken more freedoms than can be justified by the principles of sound criticism; which drew forth an able answer from the pen of Dr. Sturges, in “Short remarks on a new Translation of Isaiah,” 8vo. To this Mr. Dodson replied, with urbanity and candour, in “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Sturges, &c.” 8vo, 179 1.

, an eminent French botanist and traveller, was born at Macon, Feb. 22, 1742. He was brought up to the study of medicine, and took the degree of doctor of physic in the university of Montpellier. He there imbibed, under the celebrated professor Gouan, a taste for natural history, more especially for botany. To this taste he sacrificed his profession, and all prospect of emolument from that source, and cultivated no studies but such as favoured his darling propensity. Whatever time was not devoted to that, was given to the pleasures and dissipation incident to his time of life, his gay and agreeable character, and the society with which he was surrounded. To this dissipation he perhaps sacrificed more than prudence could justify; and it was fortunate for his moral character and worldly interest, probably also for his scientific success, that he removed to Paris in 1772, to improve his botanical knowledge. In 1775, while returning from a visit to Haller at Berne, he was informed that M. Turgot, the French minister, had chosen him to go to Peru, in search of plants that might be naturalized in Europe. On this he immediately returned to Paris, was presented to the minister, and received his appointment, with a salary of 3000 livres. Part of this was obliged to be mortgaged to pay his debts, and he was detained until the Spanish court had consented to the undertaking, which was not until next year. On arriving at Madrid, in November 1776, he found that the Spanish court had encumbered his expedition with futile instructions, and had added four companions, who, although of very little use, had each a salary of 10,000 livres. He accomplished his voyage, however, in six months, arriving at Lima April 8, 1778, where he obtained a favourable reception from the viceroy of Peru, Don Emanuel de Guirrior, and from M. de Bordenave, one of the canons of Lima.

, an eminent nonconformist, was born at Kidderminster in Worcestershire, in 1730. Having discovered an early inclination to learning, he was sent to Cambridge, and admitted of Pembroke-hall, where he studied with a view to the church, or rather to the meeting, as the church was then under the controul of the republican party. His first destination, however, was to the law, and he wont for some time to receive instructions in an attorney’s office; but his master having employed him to copy some writings on a Sunday, he relinquished the business. It appears to have been after this that he went to the university, and having taken his degrees in arts, became a preacher. His first settlement was at St. Alphage, London-wall. This living being then vacant, Mr. Doolittle appeared as a candidate, with several others, and the parishioners preferring him, he became their pastor in 1654, and remained a very popular preacher, until 1662, when he was ejected for nonconformity. From this he removed to Moorfields, and opened a kind of boarding-school, in which he was so successful as to be obliged to hire a larger house in Bunhillfields, where he continued until the great plague, and then he removed to Woodford. After the plague abated, he returned to London, and saw it laid in ashes by the great fire. On this occasion he and some other nonconformists resumed their preaching, and were for some time unmolested. Mr. Doolittle has the credit of projecting the first meeting-house, which was a hired place in Bunhillfields, but that proving toe small, when the city began to be rebuilt, he erected a more commodious place of worship in Mugwell, or Monkwell-street, Cripplegate, which remains until this day. Here, however, he was occasionally interrupted by the magistrates, who put the laws in execution; but in 1672 he obtained a licence from Charles II. which is still suspended in the vestry-room of the meeting, and for some time continued to preach, and likewise kept an academy at Islington for the education of young men intended for the ministry among the nonconformists. On the corporation-act being passed, when his licence became useless, he was again obliged to leave London, and resided partly at Wimbledon, and partly at Battersea, where, although his house was rifled, he escaped imprisonment. At the revolution he was enabled to resume his ministry in Monkwell-street, and here he closed the public labours of fifty-three years, on May 24, 1707^ the seventyseventh year of his age. Much of this time was spent in writing his various works, many of which attained a high degree of popularity; as, 1. “A Treatise concerning the Lord’s Supper,” 1665, 12mo, which has perhaps been oftener prii ted than almost any book on that subject. 2. “Directions how to live after a wasting plague” (that of London), 1666, 8vo. 3. “A Rebuke for Sin, by God’s burning anger” (alluding to the great Fire). 4. “The Young Man’s Instructor, and the Old Man’s Remembrancer,” 1673, 8vo. 5. “A Call to delaying Sinners,” 1683, 12mo, of which there have been many editions. 6. “A Complete Body of Practical Divinity,” fol. 1723, &c. &c. His son, Samuel, was settled as a dissenting minister at Reading, where-he died in 1717.

, a writer of the fifteenth century, was born at Kiritz, in the marche of Brandenburgh, and was very young when he became a monk of the order of St. Francis. After studying philosophy and theology with distinguished success, he became eminent not only as a preacher, but as a lecturer on the scriptures at Erfurt, and professor of theology at Magdeburgh. He was likewise made minister of his order in the province of Saxe, and held that office in 1431, at which time the Landgrave of Thuringia wrote several letters to him, instructing him to introduce some reform amono 1 the Franciscans of Eisenac. About the same time he was sent as one of the deputies to the council of Basil, by that party of his order who adhered to that council. It was either then, or as some think, ten years later, that he was raised to be general of his order. Whether he had been dismissed, or whether he resigned the office of minister of Saxe, he held it only six years, and went afterwards to pass the rest of his days in the monastery of Kiritz, where he devoted himself to meditation and study, and wrote the greater part of his works. The time of his death is a disputed point. Casimir Oudin gives 1494 as the date of that event, which Marchand, with some probability reduces to 1464.

, a celebrated enthusiast, was born about 1587, at Straiisiiitz, in Moravia, where his father was burgomaster. He was admitted minister in 1616, and exercised his function at Drakotutz; and when he was obliged to seek a retreat in foreign countries, on account of the severe edicts of the emperor against the protestant religion, he retired to Leidnitz, a town in Hungary, in 1629. Having no hopes of being restored to his church, he turned woollen-draper; in which occupation his wife, who was the daughter of one, was of great service to him. Afterwards he forgot the decorum of his former character so much, that he decame a hard drinker; and the other ministers, justly scandalized at his conduct, informed their superiors of it, who, in a synod called in Poland, examined into the affair, and resolved that Drabicius should be suspended from the ministry, if he did not live in a more edifying manner. This obliged him to behave himself with more decency, in public at least.

, minister of the Calvinist church of Paris, was born July 1595, at Sedan; where his father had a considerable post. He passed through the study of polite literature and divinity at Sedan, but was sent to Saumur, to go through a course of philosophy there under professor Duncan. He was admitted minister in 1618, and discharged his function near Langres, till he was called by the church of Paris in 1620. He had all the qualifications requisite to a great minister. His sermons were very edifying; he was assiduous and successful in comforting the sick; and he managed the atTairs of the church with such skill, that he never failed of being consulted upon every important occasion. His first essay was a “Treatise of Preparation for the Lord’s Supper.” This, and his “Catechism,” the “Short View of Controversies,” and “Consolations against the fears of Death,” have, of all his works, been the most frequently reprinted. Some of them, his book upon death in particular, have passed through above forty editions; and have been translated into several languages, as German, Dutch, Italian, and English. His “Charitable Visits,” in 5 volumes, have served for a continual consolation to private persons, and for a source of materials and models to ministers. He published three volumes of sermons, in which, as in all the forementioned pieces, there is a vein of piety very affecting to religious minds. His controversial works are 1. “The Jubilee” 2. “The Roman Combat” 3. “The Jesuit’s Owl” 4. “An Answer to father Coussin” 5. “Disputes with the bishop of Bellai, concerning the honour due to the Holy Virgin” 6. “An answer to La Milletierre” 7. “Dialogues, against the Missionaries,” in several volumes 8. “The False Pastor Convicted,” 9. ; 'The False Face of Antiquity;“10.” The Pretended Nullities of the Reformation;“11.” An Answer to prince Ernest of Hesse;“12.” An Answer to the speech of the clergy spoken by the archbishop of Sens;“13.” A Defence of Calvin." He wrote some letters, which have been printed; one to the duchess of Tremouille, upon her husband’s departure from the protestant religion; one of consolation, addressed to Madam de la Tabariere; one upon the restoration of Charles II. king of Great Britain; some upon the English episcopacy, &c. He published also certain prayers, some of which were made for the king, others for the queen, and others for the dauphin. Bayle tells us, that what he wrote against the church of Rome, confirmed the protestants more than can be expressed; for with the arms with which he furnished them, such as wanted the advantage of learning, were enabled to oppose the monks and parish priests, and to contend with the missionaries. His writings made him considered as the scourge of the papists; yet, like mons. Claude, he was much esteemed, and even beloved by them. For it was well known that he had an easy access to the secretaries of state, the first president, the king’s advocate, and the civil lieutenant; though he never made any other use of his interest with them than to assist the afflicted churches. He was highly esteemed by the great persons of his own religion; by the duke de la Force, the marshals Chatillon, Gascon, Turenne, and by the duchess of Tremouille. They sent for him to their palaces, and honoured him from time to time with their visits. Foreign princes and noblemen, the ambassadors of England and France, did the same; and he was particularly esteemed by the house of Hesse, as appears from the books he dedicated to the princes and princesses of that name. He died Nov. 3, 1669.

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

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

, an eminent French writer and critic, secretary, and one of the forty members of the French academy, censor-royal, &c. was born at Beauvais, in December, 1670. After some elementary education at home, he came to Paris in 1686, and pursuing his studies, took his bachelor’s degree in divinity in 1691. One of his uncles, a canon of the cathedral of Beauvais, being attacked by a dangerous illness, resigned his canonry to him in 1695, but on his recovery chose to revoke his resignation. The nephew appears to have felt this and other disappointments in his view of promotion so keenly, as to determine to change his profession. He accordingly left Beauvais in the last-mentioned year, returned to Paris, and soon was distinguished as a man of abilities. The same year he acquired a situation in the office for foreign affairs, and became patronized by M. de Torcy, by whose means he accompanied the French plenipotentiaries to Ryswick, in 1696, where peace was concluded. After his return to France, he was sent to Italy in 1699, although without an ostensible character, to negociate some affairs of importance in the Italian courts, which occupied him until 1702. Some time after, he went to England, as charge d'affaires, and while the war occasioned by the contest about the crown of Spain was at its height, and had involved all Europe, he was the only minister France had at the court of St. James’s, where he resided without rank or character. He then went to the Hague, and to Brussels, and at this latter place wrote the manifesto of the elector of Bavaria, which did him so much credit. In 1707 we find him at Neufchatel, and in 1710 at Gertruydenburgh, and he appears to have had a considerable hand in the treaties of peace concluded at Utrecht, Baden, and Rastadt. All these services were recompensed in 1705, by the priory of Veneroles, and in 1714 by a canonry of the church of Beauvais. Having been employed in other state affairs by the regent and by cardinal Dubois, he was rewarded in 1716 by a pension of 2000 livres, and in 1723 was promoted to the abbey of Notre-Dame de Ressons, near Beauvais. As it was now his intention to execute the duties of these preferments, he received in 1724 the orders of subdeacon and deacon, and was about to have taken possession of his canonry, when he was seized with a disorder at Paris, which proved fatal March 23, 1742. In 1720 he was elected into the French academy, and in 1723 was appointed their secretary.

, a learned dissenting minister, was born in Ireland 1697. He had his early education under the direction of an uncle his preparatory studies were greatly assisted by the well-known Mr. Abernethy and he finished his course of study at the universitv or Glasgow which, in- testimony of his merit, conferred en him the degree of D.D. He resided for ten or eleven years at Cambridge, as the pastor of a small congregation there; where he enjoyed the advantage of books, and of learned conversation, which he improved with the greatest diligence. On Mr. Abernethy’s removal from Antrim, he succeeded him in that place; and on the death of that gentleman, was chosen to be minister to the protestant dissenting congregation of Wood-street, Dublin, in which situation he continued to his death, which happened in 1761.

, born at Paris, Oct. 29, 1668, was the son of a gentleman of the bedchamber to the French king. His father took great pains in his education; but left him scarcely any property, and he soon had recourse to his pen as the means of gaining a subsistence. The marchioness de Maintenon, having seen some of his essays, made choice of him to furnish her pupils at St. Cyr with sacred sonnets, and recommended him so strongly to Pontchartrain, the secretary of state, that the minister, taking the poet for some considerable personage, went and made him a visit. Duche, seeing a secretary of state enter his doors, thought he was going to be sent to the Bastille^; but he was soon relieved from his fright by the civilities of the minister. Duche had as much gentleness in his disposition as charms in his wit, and never indulged in any strokes of satire. Rousseau and he were the delight of the companies they frequented; but the impression made by Duche, though less striking at first, was most lasting. He was also admired for the talent of declamation, which he possessed in no common degree. The academy of inscriptions and belles lettres were pleased to admit him of their body; but he died in the prime of life, Dec. 14, 1704. Duche presented the French theatre with three tragedies, Jonathan, Absalom, and Deborah, of which the second, containing several pathetic scenes, still keeps its ground on the stage; and also wrote some ballets, tragedies, &c. for the opera. Of these last, his “Iphigenia” is his best performance and in the opinion of his countrymen, has many of the excellencies of the Grecian tragedies. There is likewise by this author a collection of edifying stories, which used to be read at St. Cyr with no less edification than pleasure, but which has sometimes been confounded with the pious and moral stories of the abbé de Choisi. The two works are indeed written in the same design, that of disengaging youth from frivolous reading but the collection of the poet is less known than that of the abbé yet is not inferior to it, either in elevation of sentiment, in truth of character, or even in elegance of style. His hymns and his sacred canticles were also sung at St. Cyr.

, born at Dinant in Bretagne, about the close of 1705, the son of a hatter, received a distinguished education at Paris. His taste for literature obtained him admission to the most celebrated academies of the metropolis, of the provinces, and of foreign countries. Being chosen to succeed Mirabaud, as perpetual secretary of the French academy, he filled that post as a man who was fond of literature, and had the talent of procuring it respect. Though domesticated at Paris, he was appointed in 1744 mayor of Dinant; and in 1755 had a patent of nobility granted him by the king, in reward for the zeal which the states of Bretagne had shewn for the service of the country. That province having received orders to point out such subjects as were most deserving of the favours of the monarch, Duclos was unanimously named by the tiers-6tat. He died at Paris, March 26, 1772, with the title of historiographer of France. His conversation was at once agreeable, instructive and lively. He reflected deeply, and expressed his thoughts with, energy, and illustrated them by well selected anecdotes. Lively and impetuous by nature, he was frequently the severe censor of pretensions that had no foundation. But age, experience, intercourse with society, a great fund of good sense, at length taught him to restrict to mankind in general those hard truths which never fail to displease individuals. His austere probity, from whence proceeded that bluntness for which he was blamed in company, his beneficence, and his other virtues, gave him a right to the public esteem. “Few persons,” says M. le prince de Beauvau, “better knew the duties and the value of friendship. He would boldly serve his friends and neglected merit on such occasions he displayed an art which excited no distrust, and which would not have been expected in a man who his whole life long chose rather to shew the truth with force, than to insinuate it with address.” At first he was of the party which went under the name of the philosophers; but the excesses of its leader, and of some of his subalterns, rendered him somewhat more circumspect. Both in his conversation and in his writings he censured those presumptuous writers, who, under pretence of attacking superstition, undermine the foundations of morality, and weaken the bands of society. Once, speaking on this subjert, “these enthusiastic philosophers,” said he, “will proceed such lengths, as at last to make me devout.” Besides, he was too fond of his own peace and happiness to follow them in their extravagancies, and placed no great value on their friendship or good will. “Duclos est a la fois droit et adroit,” said one of his philosophical friends, and it was in consequence of this prudence, that he never would publish any tiling of what he wrote as historiographer of France. “Whenever I have been importuned,” said he, “to bring out some of my writings on the present reign, I have uniformly answered, that I was resolved neither to ruin myself by speaking truth, nor debase myself by flattery. However, I do not the less discharge my duty. If I cannot speak to my contemporaries, I will shew the rising generation what their fathers were.” Indeed, we are told that he did compose the history of the reign of Lewis XV. and that after his death it was lodged in the hands of the minister. The preface to this work may be seen in the first vol. of the “Pieces inte>essantes” of M. de la Place. Duclos’s works consist of some romances, which have been much admired in. France; 1. “The Confessions of count ***.” 2. “The baroness de Luz.” 3. “Memoirs concerning the Manners of the eighteenth Century;” each in 1 vol. 12mo. 4. <l Acajou;“in 4to and 12mo, with plates. In the Confessions he has given animation and action to what appeared rather dry and desultory in his” Considerations on the Manners.“Excepting two or three imaginary characters, more fantastical than real, the remainder seems to be the work of a master. The situations, indeed, are not so well unfolded as they might have been; the author has neglected the gradations, the shades; and the romance is not sufficiently dramatical. But the interesting story of madame de Selve proves that M. Duclos knew how to finish as well as to sketch. His other romances are inferior to the” Confessions.“The memoirs relating to the manners of the eighteenth century abound in just observations on a variety of subjects. Acajou is no more than a tale, rather of the grotesque species, but well written. 5.” The History of Lewis XI.“1745, 3 vols. 12mo; and the authorities, an additional volume, 1746, contain curious matter. The style is concise and elegant, but too abrupt and too epigrammatical. Taking Tacitus for his model, whom, by the way, he approaches at a veryhumble distance, he has been less solicitous about the exact and circumstantial particularization of facts, than their aggregate compass, and their influence on the manners, laws, customs, and revolutions of the state. Though his diction has been criticised, it must be confessed that his lively and accurate narration, perhaps at the same time rather dry, is yet more supportable than that ridiculous pomp of words which almost all the French authors have employed in a department where declamation and exaggeration are the greatest defects. 6.” Considerations on the Manners of the present Century,“12mo; a book replete with just maxims, accurate definitions, ingenious discussions, novel thoughts, and well-drawn characters, although the style is sometimes obscure, and there is here and there an affectation of novelty, in which a writer of consummate taste would not have indulged; but these defects are amply compensated by a zeal for truth, honour, probity, beneficence, and all the moral and social virtues. Lewis XV. said of this book,” It is the work of a worthy man.“7.” Remarks on the general Grammar of PortRoyal.“In these he shews himself a philosophical grammarian. 7.” Voyage en Italie,“1791, 8vo. This trip he took in 1767 and 1768. 8.” Memoirs secrets sur les regnes de Louis XIV et Louis XV. 1791," 2 vols. 8vo, in which are many curious anecdotes and bold facts. He wrote also several dissertations in the Memoirs of the academy of belles-lettres, which contain much eruuiti Hi, qualified by the charms of wit, and ornamented by a diction clear, easy, correct, and always adapted to the subject. Duclos had a greater share than any other in the edition of 1762 of the Dictionary of the French Academy; in which his usual accuracy and judgment are everywhere apparent and he had begun a continuation of the history of that society. His whole works were collected for the first time, and printed at Paris in 1806, 10 vols. 8vo, with a life by M. Auger, and many pieces left by him in manuscript. This edition appears to have revived his fame in France, and made him be enrolled among her standard authors.

, son of the preceding, baron of Maipas, viscount L‘Isle, earl of Warwick, and duke of Northumberland, was born in 1502, and afterwards became one of the most powerful subjects this kingdom ever saw. At the time his father was beheaded, he was about eight years old; and it being known that the severity exercised in that act was rather to satisfy popular clamour than justice, his friends found no great difficulty in obtaining from the parliament, that his father’s attainder might be reversed, and himself restored in blood; for which purpose a special act was passed in 1511. After an education suitable to his quality, he was introduced at court in 15-23, where, having a line person, and great accomplishments, he soon became admired. He attended the king’s favourite, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, in his expedition to France; and distinguished himself so much by his gallant behaviour, that he obtained the honour of knighthood. He attached himself to cardinal Wolsey, whom he accompanied in his embassy to France; and he was also in great confidence with the next prime minister, lord Cromwell. The fall of these eminent statesmen one after another, did not at all affect the favour or fortune of sir John Dudley, who had great dexterity in preserving their good graces, without embarking too far in their designs; preserving always a proper regard for the sentiments of his sovereign, which kept him in full credit at court, in the midst of many changes, as well of men as measures. In 1542, he was raised to the dignity of viscount L’Isle, and at the next festival of St. George, was elected knight of the garter. This was soon after followed by a much higher instance both of kindness and trust; for the king, considering his uncommon abilities and courage, and the occasion he had then for them, made him lord high admiral of England for life; and in this important post he did many singular services. He owed all his honours and fortune to Henry VII L and received from him, towards the close of his reign, very large grants of church lands, which, however, created him many enemies. He was also named by king Henry in his will, to be one of his sixteen executors; and received from him a legacy of 500l. which was the highest he bestowed on any of them.

, baron of Carlscroon, historiographer to the emperor, who was forced to fly to Holland on account of religion, after having served without much benefit in France, is known by several writings, although we know little of his personal history. The chief of them are 1. “Des Memoires Politiques, pour servir a Pintelhgence de la paix de Ilyswic,” Hague, 1699, 4 vols. 12mo, the authorities of which are comprised also in 4 vols. 1705, 12mo. This instructive and interesting performance contains an abstract of every thing of moment that passed from the peace of Minister to the end of the year 1676. 2. “Voyages en France, en Italie, en Aiiemagne, aMalte, et en Turkic,” 1699, 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Corps univers^lle diplomatique du droit des gens;” containing the treaties of alliance, of peace, and of commerce, from the peace of Munster to 1709, Amsterdam, 1726, 8 vols. folio. This work is not exempt from fanlts, but neither is it without utility. With the addition of the treaties made before the Christian n>ra, published by Barbeyrac, Rousset, and Saint-Priest, and those of Munster and Osnaburg, they together form a collection of 19 volumes in folio. 4. “Hist, militaire du prince Eugene de Savoie, du prince et due de Marlborough, &c.” Hague, 1729 1747, 3 vols, folio. 5. “Lettres Historiques,” from January 1652 to 1710. Another person, of less ability than Dumont, has continued them. 6. Other collections, tolerably numerous. This author wrote in a languid and incorrect manner; but there is a great deal of industrious inquiry in all he has left us. He died about the year 1726, in an advanced age.

In the summer of 1732, Mr. Buncombe’s tragedy of “Lucius Junius Brutus” was read and approved by“the author’s friend, Mr. Mills senior, and by him introduced to the theatrical triumvirate, Booth, Gibber, and Wilks, who also approved it, and promised it should be performed. Booth regretted he could not act in it; and Wilks undertook the part of Titus; unfortunately he died in September following; and the revolt of the players, with the confusion that ensued, prevented its being brought on the stage till two years after, when Mr. Duncombe, unadvisedly, consented to Mr. Fleetwood’s proposal of bringing it on at Drury-lane in November, when the town was empty, the parliament not sitting, and Farinelli, the singer, highly popular at the Hay-market. The consequence was natural and obvious.” The quavering Italian eunuch (to use our author’s own words) proved too powerful for the rigid Roman consul.“Yet it was acted six nights with applause, and repeated in February following, and at the same time was printed in 8vo, with a dedication to lord chief justice Hardwicke. A second edition, in 12mo, with a translation of M. de Voltaire’s” Essay on Tragedy“prefixed, was published in 1747. In April 1735, Mr. Duncombe published, by subscription, in two volumes 12rno, the” Poems,“&c. of his deceased brother-in-law, John Hughes, esq. which were received by his friends and the public with the esteem due to Hughes’s merit. In January, 1735-6, our author’s domestic happiness received a severe shock by the death of his wife, which happened at Spring Grove, in Middlesex, the seat of his first cousin, Mrs. Ofley. In 1737 he collected and published, in one volume 8vo, the” Miscellanies in verse and prose“of Mr. Jabez Hughes, for the benefit of his widow, but the dedication (in her name) to the duchess of Bedford, was drawn up by the rev. Mr. Copping, dean of Clogher. In 1743, on the death of his learned friend, Mr. Samuel Say, a dissenting minister in Westminster, Mr. Duncombe undertook, for the benefit of his widow and daughter, to revise and prepare for the press some of his poems, and two prose essays, which were accordingly published in one volume 4to, in 1745. In 1744, the” Siege of Damascus,“and some other moral plays, having been acted by several persons of distinction for their amusement, Mr. Duncombe was induced to publish” An Oration on the usefulness of Dramatic Interludes in the education of youth,“translated from the Latin of M. Werenfels, by whom it was spoken before the masters and scholars of the university of Basil. On the breaking-out of the rebellion in 1745, our author endeavoured to second his honoured friend, the archbishop of York, by reprinting” A Sermon“(now known to have been written by Dr. Arbuthnot), supposed to be” preached to the people at the Mercat- cross of Edinburgh, on the subject of the union in 1706,“and to the sermon prefixed a preface, without his name, setting forth the advantages which have accrued to the kingdom of Scotland by its union with England. About the same time he also printed, with a preface, a tract, entitled,” The complicated Guilt of the Rebellion,“which had been written by Mr. Hughes in 1716, but was then suppressed, as the insurrection it related to was soon after quelled: this tract was judged by Mr. Duncombe to be equally applicable to the transactions of 1740. In the summer of 1749, being with his relation, Mr. Brooke, at York, Mr. Duncombe was accidentally instrumental to the detection of Archibald Bower, by transmitting to archbishop Herring an account of that adventurer’s escape from the inquisition, taken by memory from his own mouth, which being published the year following by Mr. Barron, a dissenting minister, was disavowed by Bower; though, when called upon, the mistakes which he was able to specify, were found to be few and trifling. This was the first impeachment of his integrity, and exposed him to the attacks of Dr. Douglas, who had before detected Lauder. To the periodical publication called” The World,“Mr. Duncombe contributed one paper, No. 84,” Prosperity and Adversity, an allegory." la

pains to conquer his native pronunciation, which, as it frequently provoked a smile from his hearers, would have proved of the greatest disadvantage in the heat and acrimony of debate, had he not evinced by the fluency and acuteness of his arguments that he was deserving of serious attention, and was an opponent not to be despised. For declamatory speaking, and addresses to the passions, he had neither taste nor talent; his mind was intent on the practical part of every measure, and in every debate that concerned what maybe termed business, he had few equals, and his speeches were perhaps the more attended to, as he made it a point to reserve them for such occasions. During lord North’s administration he was introduced to no ostensible station; but when that nobleman and his colleagues were obliged to retire in 1782, and a few months after, by the death of the marquis of Rockingham, their successors were obliged to resign, Mr. Dundas joined the young minister, Mr. Pitt, and was sworn into the privy council, and appointed treasurer of the navy. During Mr. Pitt’s first administration the general peace was concluded, which, however necessary, did not add much popularity to the ministry, and lord North and Mr. Fox, with their respective friends, or the greater part of them, having formed what was termed the coalition, Mr. Pitt’s administration was obliged to give way to a host of opponents, which was considered as invincible. On this occasion, in 1783, Mr. Dundas was deprived of his offices as treasurer of the navy, and lord advocate for Scotland.

Lord Melville possessed all the natural talents of his relatives and ancestors, but like them was deficient in literary taste or acquirements. He was completely a man of business; in office regular and systematic, and to applicants affable and attentive; he made no parade of professions, and those who sought admittance on business, or courted his patronage, were never deluded by false hopes. With many brilliant examples before him of men who had become great by popularity, or were admired for the refinements of courtesy, he had no ambition to emulate them. His acquisitions from keeping the best company were so few, that he knew little of the language, and nothing of the eloquence of the country in which he was destined to flourish; and although he acquired an unprecedented share of power and patronage, it would be difficult to say whom he courted or pleased. The arts of what is termed popularity, he neither practised, nor understood. He never was at any period of his life, a popular minister, yet few men had more friends, for he could rank among that number many of his public opponents, who, amidst all the bitterness of party spirit, paid homage to the friendly, liberal, and we may add, convivial tenor of his private life; and to his open and undisguised avowal of sentiments and principles to which he adhered without a single breach of consistency. The extent of his patronage was perhaps his misfortune, for while it brought upon him the envy of those who would have had no scruple to share it, it also rendered him liable to more serious censure. A minister who is pestered by solicitations from those whom, he wishes not to refuse, soon loses the power of discrimination; and lord Melville was peculiarly unfortunate in some of the objects of his bounty, whose faults were placed to his account, and whom his friendship led him to screen after they had forfeited their character with the public. Upon the whole, whatever may be thought of his character during the present generation of parties, it cannot, even now, be denied that his great talents for business, both in parliament and in council, his indefatigable industry, and his benevolent and social temper, justly rank him among the most eminent of our political leaders, and will secure for him a large portion of the approbation of future historians.

was born of noble parents at Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, in the year 925. Under the patronage of his uncle Aldhelm, archbishop of Canterbury, he was instructed in the literature and accomplishments of those times, and in consequence of his recommendation invited by king Athelstan to court, who bestowed on him lands near Glastonbury, where he is said to have spent some years in retirement. Edmund, the successor of Athelstan, appointed him abbot of the celebrated monastery which he began to rebuild in that place in the year 042, and by the munificence of the king, who gave him a new charter in the year 944, he was enabled to restore it to its former lustre. Among other legendary stories reported of St. Dunstan we are told that he had been represented to the king as a man of licentious manners; and dreading the ruin of his fortune by suspicions of this nature, he determined to repair past indiscretions by exchanging the extreme of superstition for that of licentiousness. Accordingly he secluded himself altogether from the world; and he framed a cell so small that he could neither stand erect in it, nor stretch out his limbs during his repose; and here he employed himself perpetually in devotion or manual labour. In this retreat his mind was probably somewhat deranged; and he indulged chimeras which, believed by himself and announced to the credulous multitude, established a character of sanctity among the people. He is said to have fancied that the devil, among the frequent visits which he paid him, was one day more earnest than usual in his temptations; till Dunstan, provoked hy his importunity, seized him by the nose with a pair of red-hot pincers as he put his head into the cell, and he held him there till the malignant spirit made the whole neighbourhood resound with his bellowings. The people credited and extolled this notable exploit, and it ensured to Dunstan such a degree of reputation, that he appeared again in the world, and Edred, who had succeeded to the crown, made him not only the director of that prince’s conscience, but his counsellor in the most important affairs of government. He was also placed at the head of the treasury; and being possessed of power at court, and of credit with the populace, he was enabled to attempt with success the most arduous enterprizes. Taking advantage of the implicit confidence reposed in him by the king, Dunstan imported into England a new order of monks, the Benedictines, who, by changing the state of ecclesiastical affairs, excited, on their first establishment, the most violent commotions. Finding also that his advancement had been owing to the opinion of his austerity, he professed himself a parti zan of the rigid monastic rules; and after introducing that reformation into the convents of Glastonbury and Abingdon, he endeavoured to render it universal in the kingdom. This conduct, however, incurred the resentment of the secular clergy; and these exasperated the indignation of many courtiers, which had been already excited by the haughty and over-bearing demeanour which Dunstan assumed. Upon the death of Edred, who had supported his prime-minister and favourite in all his measures, and the subsequent succession of Edwy, Dunstan was accused of malversation in his office, and banished the kingdom. But, on the death of Edwy, and the succession of Edgar, Dunstan was recalled and promoted first to the see of Worcester, then to that of London and about the year 959, to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. For this last advancement it was requisite to obtain the sanction of the pope; and for this purpose Dunstan was sent to Rome, where he soon obtained the object of his wishes, and the appointment of legate in England, with very extensive authority. Upon his return to England, so absolute was his influence over the king, he was enabled to give to the Romish see an authority and jurisdiction, of which the English clergy had been before in a considerable degree independent. In order the more effectually and completely to accomplish this object, the secular clergy were excluded from their livings, and disgraced; and the monks were appointed to supply their places. The scandalous lives of the secular clergy furnished one plea for this measure, and it was not altogether groundless; but the principal motive was that of rendering the papal power absolute in the English church; for, at this period, the English clergy had not yielded implicit submission to the pretended successors of St. Peter, as they refused to comply with the decrees of the popes, which enjoined celibacy on the clergy. Dunstan was active and persevering, and supported by the authority of the crown, he conquered the struggles which the country had long maintained against papal dominion, and gave to the monks an influence, the baneful effects of which were experienced in England until the era of the reformation. Hence Dunstan has been highly extolled by the monks and partizans of the Romish church; and his character has been celebrated in a variety of ways, and particularly by the miracles which have been wrought either by himself or by others in his favour. During the whole reign of Edgar, Dunstan maintained his interest at court; and upon his death, in the year 975, his influence served to raise his son Edward to the throne, in opposition to Ethelred. Whilst Edward was in his minority, Dunstan ruled with absolute sway, both in the church and state, but on the murder of the king, in the year 979, and after the accession of Ethelred, his credit and influence declined; and the contempt with which his threatenings of divine vengeance were regarded by the king, are said to have mortified him to such a degree, that on his return to his archbishopric, he died of grief and vexation, May 19, 988. A volume of his works was published at Doway, in 1626. His ambition has given him a considerable place in ecclesiastical and civil history; and he appears to have been a man of extraordinary talents. Dr. Burney, in his history, notices his skill in music, and his biographers also inform us that he was a master of drawing, engraved and took impressions from gold, silver, brass, and iron, and that he even practised something like printing. Gervase’s words are, “literas formare,” which however, we think, means no more than that he cut letters on metal.

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, who wrote several pieces in vindication of the Church of England, was born at St. Helier’s in the Isle of Jersey, in 1625. About the end of 1640, he was entered of Merton-college in Oxford; but when that city came to be garrisoned for king Charles I. he retired into France: and, having studied for some time at Caen in Normandy, took the degree of master of arts, in the Sylvanian college of that place, on the 8th of July 1664. Then he applied himself to the study of divinity, for above two years, at Saumur, under the celebrated Amyrault, divinity reader in that Protestant university. In 1647 he returned to Jersey, and continued for some time until the reduction of that island by the parliament-forces in 1651, when on account of his being in the defence of it for the king, he was forced to withdraw, or rather was expelled thence. He then went to Paris, and received episcopal ordination in the chapel of sir Richard Browne, knt. his majesty’s resident in France, from the hands of Thomas, bishop of Galloway. From Paris, he removed to St. Malo’s, whence the reformed church of Caen invited him to be one of their ministers, in the absence of the learned Samuel Bochart, who was going into Sweden. Not long after, the landgrave of Hesse having written to the ministers of Paris, to send him a minister to preach in French at his highness’s court, he was by them recommended to that prince, but preferred being chaplain to the duke de la Force, father to the princess of Turenne; in which station he continued above eight years. Upon the restoration he came over to England, and was very instrumental in setting up the new episcopal French church at the Savoy in London, in which he officiated first on Sunday, 14 July, 1661, and continued there for some years after, much to the satisfaction of his hearers. In April 1663, he was made prebendary of North Auiton, in the cathedral of Salisbury, being then chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; and, the llth of February following, succeeded to a canonry of Windsor. On the 1st of July, 1668, he was installed into the fourth prebend of Durham, and had a rich donative conferred on him. The 28th of February, 1669-70, he was actually created doctor of divinity, by virtue of the chancellor’s letters. In 1677, king Charles II. gave him the deanery of Windsor, vacant by the death of Dr. Bruno Ryves, into which he was installed July 27. He had also the great living of Witney in Oxfordshire conferred on him, all which preferments he obtained, partly through his own qualifications, being not only a good scholar, but also “a perfect courtier, skilful in the arts of getting into the favour of great men;” and partly through his great interest with king Charles II., to whom he was personally known both in Jersey and France. Mr. Wood thinks, that, had he lived some years longer, he would undoubtedly have been promoted to a bishopric. He published several things; and, among the rest, 1. “The Liturgy of the Church of England asserted, in a Sermon, preached [in French] at the chapel of the Savov, before the French Congregation, which usually assembles in that place, upon the first day that divine service was there celebrated according to the Liturgy of the Church of England.” Translated into English by G. B. doctor in physic, Lond. 1662, 4to. 2. “A View of the Government and public Worship of God in the reformed churches of England, as it is established by the act of uniformity,” Lond. 1662, 4to. Exceptions having been made to this book by the nonconformists, partly m a book called “Apologia pro ministris trt Anglia (vulgo) noneonformistis,” by an anonymous author, supposed to be Henry Hickman, he published, 3. “Sanctae Ecclesise Anglicanao ad versus iniquas atque inverecundas Schismaticorum Criminationes, Vindiciae.” The presbyterians, taking great offence at it, published these answers: 1. “Bonasus Vapulans or some castigations given to Mr. John Durel for fouling himself and others in his English and Latin book,” Loud. 1672, 8vo, reprinted in 1676 under this title, “The Nonconformists vindicated from the Abuses put upon them by Mr. Durel and Mr. Scrivner.” 2. Dr. Lewis Du Moulin published also this answer thereto: “Patronus bonre fidei, in causa Puritanorum,” &c Lond. 1672, 8vo. Besides these, Dr. Durel published his “Theoremata philosophise,” consisting of some theses maintained at the university of Caen; a French and Latin edition of the Common Prayer Book; and a French translation of the Whole Duty of Man, partly written by his wife.

, an eminent Scotch divine of the seventeenth century, the eldest son of John Durham of Easter-Powrie, esq. and descended from the ancient family of Grange Durham in the county of Angus, was born about 1622, and educated at the university of St. Andrew’s, which he left without taking a degree, as he had then no design of following any of the learned professions. When the civil wars broke out, he served in the army, with the rank of captain, but was so much affected by his narrow escape from being killed in an engagement with the English, that, encouraged by Dr. David Dickson, professor of divinity at Glasgow, he determined to devote himself to the church. With this view he went to Glasgow, studied divinity under Dr. Dickson, and in 1646 was licensed by the presbytery of Irvine to preach. In the following year he was ordained minister of the Black-friars 7 church in Glasgow, where he became one of the most popular preachers of his time. In 1650 he was chosen to succeed Dr. Dickson as professor, and about the same time attended Charles II. when in Scotland, as one of his chaplains. In 1651, when Cromwell and his army were at Glasgow, Durham preached before the usurper, and upbraided him to his face for having invaded the country. Next day Cromwell sent for him, and told him he thought he had been a wiser man than to meddle with public affairs in his sermons. Durham answered that it was not his common practice, but that he could not help laying hold of such an opportunity of expressing his sentiments in his presence. Cromwell dismissed him with a caution, but met with so many other instances of similar rebuffs from the Scotch clergy, that he thought it unadvisable to pursue any more severe course. Durham was a man of such moderation of temper and sentiment, as to be able to conduct himself without giving much offence in those troublesome times, and gained the favour of all parties by the conscientious discharge of his pastoral duties. This character gave him unusual authority in the country where he lived; but his incessant labours both as a preacher and writer brought on a consumptive disorder, of which he died June 25, 1658, in the prime of life. He wrote, 1. “A Commentary on the Revelations.” 2. “Sermons on the liii. of Isaiah.” 3. “Sermons on the Song of Solomon.” 4. “A treatise on Scandal.” 5. “An Exposition of the Commandments:” the two latter posthumous; with some single sermons and pious tracts, which have been often reprinted.

, a dissenting minister of considerable note, was born about 1676, and educated among the dissenters. Of his personal history we have little information. He officiated in the meetings in London between sixty and seventy years, and died in 1768. During this long life, he had never experienced a moment’s ill health. He would scarcely have known what pain was, had he not once broke his arm. He preached to the last Sunday of his life, and died suddenly in his chair, without a ^roan or sigh. All his faculties continued in great perfection, excepting his eye-sight, which failed him some time before his death. He was remarkable for a vivacity and cheerfulness of temper, which never forsook him to his latest breath; and he abounded in pleasant stories. He had published in his earlier days several occasional sermons, some of them preached at Sailers’-hall meeting, a “Treatise on the Sacrament,” 1707, 8vo, and a small collection of poems, in Latin and English. His chief excellence, as a scholar, was in classical learning. When he was above ninety years old, he would repeat, with the greatest readiness and fluency, a hundred verses or more from Homer, Virgil, . Horace, Juvenal, or others of the ancient poets, upon their being at any time occasionally mentioned.

, an English divine, reckoned by some the founder of Antinomianism, was a native of Kent, where he was born in 1575, and studied at Oxford, being the first of Blount’s exhibitioners in Trinity-college, to which he was admitted in 1590. He took his degree of M. A. in 1603, and entering into holy orders, officiated as a curate for several years, and at length, in 1625, was made minister and preacher at Wickbam Market, in Suffolk, where he died and was buried in 1641. His works are, 1. ‘.’ The discovery of a most dangerous dead faith,“Lond. 1641, 12mo; and 2.” The Honeycomb of free justification,“Lond. 1642, 4to, published by Robert Lancaster, who informs us in his preface that” the author’s faith, zeal, and diligence in doing his calling, and his faith, patience, and cheerfulness in suffering for the same," were highly exemplary. It appears that he was imprisoned in the Gate-house, Westminster, for his book on justification; and Neal admits that he committed some mistakes in his assertions about the doctrines of grace. Ecbard gives him in other respects a favourable character.

, the very able and accurate historian of the West Indies, was born May 21, 1743, at Westbury in Wiltshire. His father inherited a small paternal estate in the neighbourhood, of about 100l. per annum, which proving insufficient for the maintenance of a large family, he undertook to deal in corn and malt, in which he had but little success. He died in 1756, leaving a widow and six children in distressed circumstances. Mrs. Edwards, however, had two opulent brothers in the West Indies, one of them a wise and worthy man, of a liberal mind, and princely fortune. This was Zachary Bayly, of the island of Jamaica, who took the family under his protection; and as the subject of this article was the eldest, directed that he should be well educated. He had been placed before by his father at the school of a dissenting minister in Bristol, waere he learned writing, arithmetic, and English grammar. His master, whose name was Foot, had an excellent method of making the boys write letters to him on different subjects, such as the beauty and dignity of truth, the obligation of a religious life, the benefits of good education, the mischiefs of idleness, &c. previously stating to them the chief arguments to be used; and insisting on correctness in orthography and grammar. In this employment Mr. Edwards sometimes excelled the other boys, and on Such occasions, his master never failed to praise him very liberally before them all 1; and would frequently transmit his letters to his father and mother. This excited in his mind a spirit of emulation, and gave him the first taste for correct and elegant composition, in which Mr. Edwards, it must be confessed, attained considerable facility. All this time, however, he informs us that he attained but very little learning, and when his uncle took him under his protection, his agent in Bristol considered him as neglected by Mr. Foot, and immediately removed him to a French boarding-school in the same city, where he soon obtained the French language, and having access to a circulating library, acquired a passion for books, which afterwards became the solace of his life.

, an eminent English divine and voluminous writer, the son of the preceding Thomas Edwards, was born at Hertford, February 26, 1637. His father, as we have already noticed, died in 1647, and by his wife, who was an heiress of a very considerable fortune, he left one daughter and four sons, the second of whom was John, the subject of the present narrative. After having received his grammatical education at Merchanttaylors’ school, in London, he was removed in 1653 to the university of Cambridge, and was admitted of St. John’s college, then under the government of Dr. Anthony Tuckney, a presbyterian divine of acknowledged character and learning, and particularly distinguished for the wise and exact discipline of his college. Mr. Edwards, soon after his admission, was chosen scholar of the house, and was quickly taken notice of for his exercises, both in his tutor’s chamber, and in his college-hall. Towards the close of his undergraduateship, the senior proctor being then of the college, he was appointed one of the moderators for the year. Whe: he was middle bachelor, he was elected a fellow of his college, for which he was principally indebted to the exertions of Dr. Tuckney in his behalf. During the time of his senior bachelorship he was again chosen moderator in the schools, and his performances were long remembered with esteem and praise. In 1661 he was admitted to the degree of M. A.; and soon after sir Robert Carr presented him to Dr. Sanderson, bishop cf Lincoln, who conferred upon him the order of deacon. That learned prelate engaged him, at the same time, to preach a sermon at the next ordination, when with the other candidates, he was ordained priest. In 1664, he undertook the duty of Trinity-church, in Cambridge, and went through the whole both parts of the day. In his preaching, without affecting eloquence, he studied to be plain, intelligible, and practical; and his church was much frequented by the gown, and by persons of considerable standing in the university. Dr. Sparrow, master of Queen’s, Dr. Beaumont, master of Peterhouse, and Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, were often heard to applaud his pulpit performances. In 1665, during the time of the plague, he quitted his residence in the college, and dwelt all that year, and part of the next, in the town, that he might devote himself entirely to the edification and comfort of the parishioners of Trinity church, in that season of calamity. A little after this, sir Edward Atkins offered him a good living near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire, but he chose to continue in his station at Cambridge. In 1668 he was admitted to the degree of B. D. About the same time, through the interest of sir Robert Carr with sir Thomas Harvey, Mr. Edwards was unanimously chosen lecturer at St. Edmund’s Bury, with a salary of loo/, a year. This office he discharged with great reputation and acceptance, notwithstanding which, after a period of twelve months, he resigned it, and returned to his college, where, however, his situation was uneasy to him. He had not been upon the best terms with Dr. Peter Gunning, the former master of St. John’s, and being still more dissatisfied with Dr. Francis Turner, Gunning’s successor, who had somehow offended him, he determined to resign his fellowship. On quitting his college, he was presented by the fellows with a testimonial of his worthy and laudable behaviour among them. From St. John’s he removed to Trinity-hall, where he entered himself as a fellow-commoner, and performed the regular exercises in the civil Jaw. Being willing to be employed in the offices of jits clerical function, he accepted of the invitation of the parishioners of St. Sepulchre, in Cambridge, to be their minister; and his sermons there were as much attended by persons of consequence in the university as they had formerly been at Trinity church. In 1676 Mr. Edwards married Mrs. Lane, the widow of Mr. Lane, who had been ati alderman, a justice of peace, and an eminent attomey in the town. “This gentlewoman,” says his biographer, “was an extraordinary person, of unusual accomplishments and singular graces but had the unhappiness (as some others of that sex) to be misrepresented to the world. She being naturally of a high and generous spirit, and not framed to low observances and vulgar compliances, incurred thereby the imputation of pride and superciliousness among vulgar minds. But those who were no strangers to good breeding, and knew how to make distinction of persons, admired the agreeableness of her conversation, and saw those excellent and worthy things in her deportment which they could find but in very few of her sex. She understood herself and her duty, and all the rules of civil and religious behaviour.”

, president of the college of New Jersey, and a divine of very considerable fame in America, was descended from English parents who emigrated in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and was born, Oct. 5, 1703, at Windsor, in the province of Connecticut in North- America. In 1716 he became a student of Yale college, and received the degree of B. A. in 1720, before he had completed his seventeenth year. His mental powers are said to have opened themselves so early and so strong, that he read Locke’s “Essay on the Human Understanding” with delight, in his second year at this college. After taking his bachelor’s degree he remained two years more at college preparing himself for the ministry, and after the usual trials, was licensed to preach. In August 1722 he was invited to preach to the English presbyterians at New York, where he continued with approbation above eight months; but as this society was too small to maintain a preacher, he returned in the spring of 1723 to his father’s house at Connecticut, where, for some time, he applied to his studies with great industry and perseverance; and severe application became habitual to him, although he was of a delicate constitution. In the spring of 1724, having taken his master’s degree, he was appointed tutor of Yale college, and notwithstanding his youth, and the time necessary to be devoted to his own improvement, he filled this office for two years in a manner which afforded his superiors no reason to repent of their choice. He would probably have remained longer here, had he not received, in Sept. 1726, an invitation from the people of Northampton in Connecticut, to become assistant to his mother’s father, Mr. Stoddard, who was the settled minister of the town. Having accepted this offer, he was ordained colleague to Mr. Stoddard, Feb. 15, 1727, when only in his twenty-fourth year, and continued pastor of this congregation until June 1750, at which time his congregation dismissed him with every mark of contempt and insult. This, however, will appear to reflect no discredit on Mr. Edwards, when the reader is told that the first cause of complaint against him was, his having detected and endeavoured to expose a combination of youths who had imported obscene books, and were corrupting one another’s principles with great eagerness. So many of these young men were connected with the best families, that the parents declared their children should not be called to an account, and all inquiry was stifled. Still, however, they could not have proceeded to expel their preacher, if they had not soon afterwards laid hold of another pretext, which arose from Mr. Edwards’s refusing to administer the sacrament to persons of notoriously loose lives. Meetings were held, in which he endeavoured to justify his opinions; but upon a decision, on the question of continuing him their pastor, he was left in a minority of 180, after a residence among them of twenty-four years, and a character of unimpeachable integrity and piety. As it is impossible to suppose that all his hearers joined in the above decision, he appears to have been supported for some time, by the kindness of those who admired his character, until sent on a mission to the Indians at Stockbridge, in the western part of Massachusett’s bay, about sixty miles from his former residence. Here he arrived in 1751, and enjoying a quiet retirement, employed himself at his leisure hours in composing the principal part of his works, until 1757, when, on the death of Mr. Aaron Burr, he was chosen president of New Jersey college. He had not, however, long commenced the business of his new office when the small-pox raging with great virulence, he caught the infection, although after inoculation, and died of the disorder March 22, 1758. Mr. Edwards was a man of extensive learning, principally in theology, and his avidity for knowledge was insatiable. He commonly spent thirteen hours a day in his study, and yet did not neglect the necessary exercises of walking and riding. He read all the books, especially in divinity, that he could procure, from which he could hope to get any help in his pursuit of knowledge. And in this, he did not confine himself to authors of any particular sect or denomination; but took much pains to procure the works of the most noted writers who advanced a scheme of divinity most contrary to his own, which was nearly that termed Calvinistic.

To the ample employment which his skill in architecture furnished; he added that of a farmer during the whole of his life, and on Sunday exercised the functions of a spiritual pastor among the independent dissenters; He was ordained in their communion in 1750, and officiated for forty years as minister of a congregation in his native parish. In his principles he was what is termed a moderate Calvinist. From his flock he regularly received his stipulated salary, but as regularly distributed the whole among the poori with a considerable addition, where necessary, from his private fortune. Thus highly respected by all sects and parties, for his extraordinary talents, piety, and probity, he died, much lamented, in 1789, and was buried in the church-yard of Kglwysilan. He left a numerous family, of which David, his second son, inherits his father’s skill in bridge-building, and the others are men of talents and worth.

, lord Ellesmere, an eminent English statesman and lawyer, the son of Richard Egerton, of Ridley, in Cheshire, was born in Cheshire, about the year 1540. In 1556 he was admitted a commoner of Brasencse college, in Oxford, where he continued about three years; and having laid a good foundation of classical and logical learning, he removed thence to Lincoln’s-inn, and applied himself with such success to the study of the law, that he soon became a noted counsellor. The superior abilities he displayed in the line of his profession, and his distinguished eminence at the bar, attracted the notice of queen Elizabeth, and on June 28, 1581, she appointed him her solicitor-general: the year after he was chosen Lent reader of the society of Lincoln’s-inn, and was made also one of the governors of that society, in which office he continued for twelve years successively. His conduct and proficiency in the law, promoted him on June 2, 1594, to the office of attorney-general, and he was knighted soon after. On the 10th of April, 1593, he was appointed master of the rolls, when he shewed his great friendship to Mr. Francis Bacon, afterwards lord Verulam, by assisting him with his own observations in regard to the office of solicitor-general, then likely to become vacant by the advancement of Mr. Edward Coke to that of attorneygeneral, which was acknowledged by sir Robert Cecil as a favour done personally to himself. Upon the death of sir John Puckering, he had the great eal of England delivered to him at Greenwich on the 6th of May, 1596, with the title of lord keeper, by the special choice and favour of the queen, without any mediator or competitor, and even against the interest of the prime minister and his son; and at the same time he was sworn of her majesty’s privycouncil. He was permitted to hold the mastership of the rolls till May 15, 1603, when James I. conferred it on Edward Bruce, afterwards baron of Kmloss.

Elizabeth had scarcely been proclaimed queen, when Philip, king of Spain, the widower of Mary, who still hoped, by means of Elizabeth, to obtain over England that dominion of which he had failed in espousing Mary, immediately dispatched orders from the Low Countries to the duke of Feria, his ambassador at London, to make her proposals of marriage, and he offered to procure from Rome a dispensation for that purpose. This, however, she rejected, although in a polite manner. Philip appears to have secretly resented the rejection, and some years after, the coolness between the two sovereigns became more visible, and some petty hostilities aided to bring their mutual dislike to a crisis. The Spaniards, on their part, had sent into Ireland a body of 70,0 of their nation, with some Italians, who built there a fort, but were soon after cut off to a man by the duke of Ormond. On the other hand, the English, under the conduct of sir Francis Drake, attacked the Spaniards in their settlements in South America. Amidst such hostilities, the queen began to look out for an alkance that might support her against so dangerous an adversary. The duke of Anjou, a powerful prince, had long made pretensions to the queen and though he was younger by twenty- five years, he took the resolution to prefer his suit in person, and paid her a private visit at Greenwich. It appears that though his figure was not very advantageous, his address was so pleasing, that the queen ordered her minister to fix the terms of the contract and a day was appointed for the solemnization of their nuptials but as the time approached, Elizabeth became more and more irresolute, and at length declared against changing her condition. Capricious as this conduct may have appeared, it is certain that her principal cou 1 tiers were hostile to a match which threatened to endanger the kingdom and the established religion.

In 1601, Elizabeth held a conference with the marquis de Rosni, who is better known in history as s the celebrated Sully, for the purpose of establishing, in concurrence with England, a new system of European power, with a view of controlling the vast influence of the house of Austria, and producing a lasting peace. The queen coincided with his projects, and the French minister departed in admiration of the solidity and enlargement of her political views. The queen, having suppressed an insurrection in Ireland, and obliged all the Spanish troops sent to its assistance to quit the island, she turned her thoughts towards relieving the burdens of her subjects; she abolished a number of monopolies, and became extremely popular. But the execution o her favourite, the earl of Essex, gave a fatal blow to her happiness. When she learnt from the countess of Nottingham, that he had solicited her pardon, which had been concealed from her, she at first became furious with rage, and when the violence of anger subsided, she fell into the deepest and most incurable melancholy, rejecting all consolation, and refusing food and sustenance of every kind. She remained for days sullen and immoveable, “feeding,” says the historian, “her thoughts on her afflictions, and declaring life and existence an insufferable burden to her.” Few words she uttered, and they were all expressive of some inward grief, which she cared not to reveal: but sighs and groans were the chief vent which she gave to her despondency, and which, though they discovered her sorrows, were never able to ease or assuage them. Ten days and nights she lay upon the carpet, leaning on cushions which her maids brought her, and her physicians could not persuade her to allow herself to be put to bed, much less to make trial of any remedies which they prescribed to her. Her anxious mind at last had so long preyed on her frail body, that her end was visibly approaching; and the council being assembled, sent the keeper, admiral, and secretary, to know her will with regard to her successor. She answered with a faint voice, that, as she had held a regal sceptre, she desired no other than a royal successor. Cecil requesting her to explain herself more particularly, she subjoined, that she would have a king to succeed her, and who should that be, but her nearest kinsman, the king of Scots Being then advised by the archbishop of Canterbury to fix her thoughts upon God, she replied, that she did so, nor did her mind in the least wander from him. Her voice soon after left her her senses failed she fell into a lethargic slumber, which continued some hours, and she expired gently, without farther struggle or convulsion, in the 70th year of her age, and forty-fifth of her reign.

He received several donations towards his subsistence at Oxford from unknown hands, with anonymous letters informing him that those sums were in consideration of his father’s sufferings, and to encourage his progress in his studies; and he received several such presents and letters, both before and after his heingin orders, without his knowing whence they came; but after the restoration, he had some reason to believe he owed them to. Dr. Jeremy Taylor, and Dr. Hammond, being part of those collections of money put into their hands by charitable and welldisposed persons for the support and encouragement of such as had been plundered or oppressed by the republican government. Mr. Ellis, when he had taken orders, was patronized by William, marquis, and afterwards duke of Newcastle, who presented him to the rectory of Kirkhy in Nottinghamshire, of which he was a most laborious, useful, and exemplary minister. In 1693 he was appointed, by archbishop Sharp, a prebendary in the collegiate church of Southwell, merely in reward of his merits and usefulness. He died in 1700, aged about seventy. His writings in practical theology are distinguished for eminent and fervent piety, soundness of doctrine, and a vigorous, unaffected, and manly style. The principal are, 1. “The Gentile Sinner, or England’s brave gentleman characterised, in a letter to a friend,” 1660, 12mo, a work which was written in a fortnight, in the early part of the author’s life, and has considerable merit both in design and exe^ cution. It has gone through many editions. 2. A “Ca^ techism,” 1674, reprinted in 1738, 8vo, by ibr Rev. John Veneer, rector of St. Andrews, Chichester, with a life of the author, and other additions, by Veneer. 3. “The vanity of Scoffing-, in a letter to a witty gentleman,” 1674, 4to. 4. “Christianity in short, or the short way to be a good Christian,” 1682, 12mo, oftener reprinted than any of his works. He published some other pious, and some controversial tracts of less importance, enumerated by Wood, several single sermons, and two pieces of poetry, one on the death of George Pitt, esq. Oxford, 1653, 4to, the other on the Restoration, London, 1660, fol.

When the earl of Richmond came to the crown of England as Henry VII. bishop Elphinston was sent to his court, with other ambassadors, to arrange the terms of a truce, which was accordingly settled for three years on July 3, 1486. The discontent of the nobles threatening to involve the country in a civil war, Elphinston mediated between them and the king; but, finding it impossible to reconcile their jarring interests, he went to England about the latter end of 1487, to solicit the friendly interposition of Henry, as the ally of the Scotish king; and although he did not succeed as he wished and expected, king James was so sensible of the value of his services, that he advanced him in February 1488, to the office of lord high chancellor of Scotland, which he enjoyed until the king’s death, when he retired to his diocese. During the time he remained at Aberdeen, he was occupied in correcting the abuses that had prevailed in the diocese, and in composing a book of canon law. But he was not long permitted to enjoy the calm of retirement, and was again called to the parliament that assembled at Edinburgh, Oct. 6, 1488, to assist at the coronation of James IV. The earl of Bothwell, who then ruled as prime minister, suspecting that bishop Elphinston would not concur in an act of indemnity in favour of those who were concerned in the rebellion of the last reign, contrived to send him on an embassy to the court of Maximilian of Germany, with a proposal for a marriage between the king, and Margaret, the emperor’s daughter; but the mission was ineffectual, as that lady had been previously promised to the prince of Spain, and was married accordingly, before Elphinston arrived at Vienna. Yet although the bishop did not succeed in this embassy, he performed a lasting service to the country in his way home, by settling a treaty of peace and amity between the states of Holland and the Scotch. In 1492, when the bishop returned, he was made lord privy-seal, and the same year appointed one of the commissioners on the part of Scotland, for the prolongation of the truce with England. But the truce was not strictly observed by the Scotch, and a new commission was found to be necessary for the more effectual settlement of all differences. Bishop Elphinston was included in this commission, and the Scotch deputies meeting with the English at Edinburgh, June 2l, they agreed to prolong the truce till fhe last day of April, 1501.

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

When James II. bad fled from Ireland to France, and affairs were tending to a settlement in the former kingdom, the protestant congregations began to re-assemble in large numbers. Upon this occasion, Mr. Boyse again pressed Mr. Emlyn to accept the pastoral care, jointly with himself, of the dissenting society in Wood-street, Dublin. The invitation being earnestly recommc'nded by Mr. Nathanael Taylor, an eminent minister in London, Mr. Emlyn thought proper to comply with it, after having taken a considerable time for deliberation. Accordingly, in May 1691, he removed to Dublin. Here he soon came into great reputation as a preacher. He had not only a portly presence, a strong clear voice, and a graceful delivery, but his discourses were for the most part rational and persuasive, and always accompanied with something serious and pathetic. Controversial points he scarcely ever introduced into the pulpit. Few excelled him in prayer; and he was exemplary in the private duties which were incumbent upon him as a Christian minister. Mr. Emlyn being thus settled in Dublin, contracted an acquaintance there with Mrs. Esther Bury, who, though an usual attendant on the church-service, had been induced, by the fame of his preaching, to become his hearer. She was one of the daughters and coheiresses of Mr. David Sollom, a gentleman of good estate in the county of Meath. At this time she was the wife of Richard Cromleholme Bury, esq. who was possessed of a large estate near Limerick, and who, dying on the 23d of November, 1691, left her a widow, with a handsome jointure. In this state, though she had many admirers, Mrs. Bury continued till 1694, when she was married to Mr. Emlyn. He was now arrived to the utmost height of his desires. Being possessed of an easy fortune, he lived in affluence, was highly beloved by his people, and well respected by all who knew him. In 1697 he had some thoughts of openly declaring his sentiments in relation to the Trinity, and of breaking off from the congregation; but, on mature deliberation, he determined not to proceed abruptly in so important an affair, but embrace the first fair occasion of declaring his opinion. Towards the end of 1701 he began to experience a very afflictive change in his condition. His first calamity was of a domestic nature; for, on the 13th of October, he lost his wife, which event was succeeded, in a very few weeks, by the decease of his mother; and he had a little before been deprived of a young son. The death of his wife, in. particular, inflicted a deep and tender wound upon his heart, as may be perceived in the sermon which he preached upon the occasion; and which was printed at Dublin, in 1703, under the title of “Funeral Consolations,” and from its popularity, several times reprinted. In it Mr. Emlyn never once mentions his wife, but, towards the conclusion of the discourse, has covertly and delicately delineated her character.

In less than nine months after Mrs. Emlyn’s decease, he began to be involved in prosecutions on account of his opinions in relation to the Trinity. The first occasion was given by Dr. Duncan Cummins, a noted physician in Ihibiin, and a leading member of the congregation in Wood-street. This gentleman had been brought up to the study of divinity, but afterwards chose the medical profession; he had done many kind offices to Mr. Emlyn, but, having observed that Mr. Emlyn avoided expressing the common opinion, and those arguments which are supposed to support it, he strongly suspected that his judgment was against the Supreme Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This suspicion he communicated to Mr. Boyse, the consequence of which was, that, in June 1702, they jointly waited upon Mr. Emlyn, acquainting him with their jealousies, and earnestly desiring to know his real sentiments in the matter. Being tlius applied to, he thought himself bound to declare openly his faith in so great a point. Accordiugly he freely owned himself to be convinced, that the God and father of Jesus Christ is alone the Supreme Being, and superior in excellence and authority to his son, who derives all from him. At the same time, Mr. Emlyn told the gentlemen that he did not aim to make any strife among the people of the congregation, but was willing to leave them peaceably, that, if they pleased, they might choose another minister. This, however, was not to be permitted him. Mr. Boyse, not willing to take such a weighty matter upon himself, brought it before the Dublin ministers, namely, Mr. Weld, Mr. Travers, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Iredel, and Mr. Tate. At an interview with them, he candidly explained his sentiments, the only resuli of which was, that, on that very day, they agreed to cast him off, and that he should not be permitted to preach any more: and this they did without consulting his congregation, who, as yet, were entire strangers to the affair. Mr. Emlyn, however, directed the deacons and chief managers of the church to be called together, when he informed them, that a difference of opinion relative to the Trinity had rendered him offensive to some who were present, and to the ministers of Dublin; upon which account, thankfully acknowledging the kindness and respect they had shewn him for so many years, he desired his dismission. At this declaration the gentlemen assembled were greatly surprised and grieved; and Dr. Cummins himself then wished he had not begun the business. It was proposed that Mr. Emlyn should lie by for some time without preaching; but to this he would not consent without a declaration of the cause, lest he should be suspected of having been guilty of some immorality. The next proposition, was, that he should retire for a while to England, provided it was approved of by the ministers. To this they agreed, accompanying their agreement with a curious message, sent by two of their number, charging him not to preach any where, to whatever place he went. Mr. Emlyn embarked for England the next day, with great inconvenience to himself and family; and, no sooner was he gone, than a loud clamour was raised against him and his opinions. When he came to London, he found some persons who were disposed to treat him with candour and charity. This, however, when they heard of it, was so offensive to the Dublin ministers, that they endeavoured, by their letters, to render him as odious as possible. While he was in London, he published a short account of his case.

, a learned professor of Groningen, was born at Gretha, a village in East Friesland, Dec. 5, 1547. He was the son of Emmo Diken, a minister of that village, who had been Luther’s and Melancthon’s disciple; and at nine years of age was sent to study at Embden. He continued there till he was eighteen, and was then sent to Bremen, to improve under the famous John Molanus. Returning to his father, he did not go immediately to the university, but passed some time at Norden. Being turned of twenty-three, he was sent to Rostock, a flourishing university, where he heard the lectures of David Chytraeus, a celebrated divine and historian; and of Henry Bruce, an able mathematician and physician. The death of his father obliged him to return to East Friesland, after he had continued above two years at Rostock.; and his mother’s excessive grief upon this occasion hindered his taking a journey into France, as he had wished, and induced him to continue with her three years, after which he went to Geneva, where he staid two years. Being returned into his own country, he had the choice of two preferments, either to be a minister or the rector of a college: but, from a great degree of natural timidity, he could not venture to engage in the ministry, thoagh it was very much his inclination. He chose therefore to be rector of a college, which was that of Norden and was admitted into that post in 1579. He made his college flourish exceedingly but was turned out of his employment in 1587, through the zeal of some Lutherans, because he would not subscribe the confession of Augsburg. He was chosen the year after to be rector of the college of Leer, whose reputation he raised so high, that it surpassed that of Norden; which the Lutherans could never retrieve from the declining state into which it fell after Emmius was deposed. They had banished from Groningen several persons who followed Calvin’s reformation; and those of the exiles who retired to Leer, meeting with the same fate as Emmius, engaged in a particular friendship with him: so that, when the city of Groningen confederated with the United Provinces, and the magistrates resolved to restore their college, Emmius being recommended by several persons, they chose him to be the rector of that college, and gave him a full power to make or abrogate there such statutes as he should think proper.