fear of the traditionary opinion that politics ought not to be introduced into the pulpit. He was a strenuous opponent of the Church of Rome. He was a strong millennarian, and in early life had come under the influence of Edward Irving and Mr. Cunninghame of Lainshaw.
Dr. Anderson published many pamphlets and several books. His larger productions were two volumes of sermons, a volume on Regeneration, one on the ‘Filial Honour of God,’ and two volumes on the Mass and Penance. His theological position was that of a moderate Calvinist.
In social life his wide general knowledge, his humour, his store of anecdotes and memorable sayings, rendered him singularly attractive.
He received the degree of LL.D. from his own university of Glasgow in 1850.
[Life, by the Rev. George Gilfillan, of Dundee, 1873.]
ANDERTON, HENRY (1630–1665?), portrait painter, born 1630, was a pupil of Robert Streater, at one time a famous painter, and in choice of subjects he followed his master. He painted portraits, landscapes, still-life and historical subjects. He made a tour in Italy, and was employed by the court on his return. In 1665, according to Nagler, he stood in high repute. He died soon after. His most celebrated work was a portrait of Mrs. Stuart, afterwards duchess of Richmond. His success with this portrait obtained for him a sitting from Charles II and many of his courtiers. There are no engraved portraits bearing his name, and it is supposed that much of his work may have been ascribed to Sir Peter Lely, of whom he was in some sort the rival.
[Walpole, Anecdotes of Painting; Nagler, Künstler-Lexicon, ed. 1872; Füssli, Allgemeines Künstler-Lexicon; Redgrave, Century of Painters, 2 vols., and Dictionary of Painters of the English School; Bryan, Dictionary of Painters, 2 vols. 1816; S.D.U.K. Biographical Dict.; De Piles, Art of Painting, from the French, with an Essay towards an English School, 1706.]
ANDERTON, JAMES (fl. 1624), was a catholic controversialist, who, in the first quarter of the seventeenth century, published several learned works under the name of ‘John Brereley, Priest.’ Of his personal history hardly anything is known, and the statements concerning him are very conflicting. The Rev. Charles Dodd, in his ‘Church History of England, chiefly with regard to Catholicks,’ published between the years 1737 and 1742, asserts that ‘John Brereley’ is ‘either a fictitious name, or at least assumed by James Anderton of Lostock, in Lancashire, a person of singular parts and erudition, as well as master of a plentiful estate; who, having published several controversial treatises, assumed the name of Brereley in order to conceal his person, and secure himself against the penalties he might incur upon that account. Several authors I meet with positively affirm Mr. Anderton to have been the composer of the said works. Which is confirmed by some circumstances. The manuscripts in his own handwriting are still preserved in the family: where I have also seen a collection of protestant books with marginal notes by Mr. Anderton, and the passages scored with a pen accordingly as he had occasion to transcribe them and insert them in his works.’ Dodd also states expressly and emphatically that Anderton was a layman. According to the pedigree of the family printed in Baines's ‘History of the County Palatine of Lancaster,’ the master of the ‘plentiful estate,’ during the earlier part of the seventeenth century, was Roger Anderton of Birchley, who died in 1640, but he had a brother James, of whom Baines says that he ‘went abroad and became a catholic clergyman.’ On the whole it seems probable, in spite of Dodd's positive assertion to the contrary, that James Anderton was a priest and a younger brother.
The works of Anderton are: 1. ‘The Protestants Apologie for the Roman Chvrch. Deuided into three seuerall Tractes.’ It passed through three editions. In the preface to the second, which appeared in 1608, in the shape of a closely printed quarto of more than 800 pages, the author addresses an ‘Advertisement to him that shall answere this Treatise,’ namely to Dr. Morton, afterwards bishop of Durham, and ‘maketh bould to premonish him hereby of three things. First that in such his answere he would (at the least for so much therof as is yet to do) be pleased to take notice of this edition, and not insist upon advantage of the other firster, which was imperfect: and being (as was at first signified) published without the authors knowledg, was in such and other respects, suppressed by the authors speciall meanes, some few copies therof (which were at first over hastily divulged) onely excepted.’ The first edition thus complained of was published, according to Dodd, in 1604. The same writer states that the third edition was published in 1615; and a Latin translation of it, by William Rayner, a doctor of the Sorbonne, was published at Paris in the same year. The work, on its first appearance, attracted much attention. Dr. Morton, afterwards bishop of Durham, in the preface to his answer to it, acknowledges
