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

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

There have been various editions of the existing writings of Archimedes. The whole of these works, together with the commentary of Eutocius, were found in their original Greek language, on the taking of Constantinople, from whence they were brought into Italy; and here they were foundry that excellent mathematician John Muller, otherwise called Regiomontanus, who brought them into Germany; where they were, with that commentary, published long after, viz. in 1544, at Basil, most beautifully printed in folio, Gr. & Lat. by Hervagius, under the care of Thomas Gechauff Venatorius. A Latin translation was published at Paris, 1557, by Pascalius Hamellius. Another edition of the whole, in Greek and Latin, was published at Paris, 1615, fol. by David Rivaltus, illustrated with new demonstrations and commentaries; a life of the author is prefixed: and at the end of the volume is added some account, by way of restoration, of the author’s other works, which have been lost. In 1675, Dr. Isaac Barrow published a neat edition of the works, in Latin, at London, 4to; illustrated, and succinctly demonstrated in a new method. But the most complete of any, is the magnificent edition, in folio, printed at the Clarendon press, in Oxford, in 1792. This edition was prepared ready for the press by the learned Joseph Torelli, of Verona, who was discouraged by the prospect of the expence that was likely to attend the publication. He had finished it some time before his death; and, while he was demurring in regard to the mode of publishing it, he was induced by the advice and recommendation of the late earl Stanhope, whose zeal in the cause of science reflects distinguished honour on his name and memory, to commence a treaty with the curators of the Clarendon press at Oxford. Torelli, unwilling to give up the charge of superintending the publication, still hesitated, and died before the transaction was completed. The treaty was again renewed by Alberto Albertini, the executor of the learned editor’s will, who entrusted the work to the university of Oxford. Ah th papers which Torelli had prepared with a view to. this edition, Alhertini presented to the university, and transmitted, at the original cost, all the engravings of figures that were necessary for the completion of it. John Strange, esq. the British resident at Venice, was very active in conducting and terminating the business. The arrangement of the papers, the correction of the press, and the whole superintewdance of the edition, were committed by the university to Mr. (now Dr.) Abraham Robertson, of Christ church, a gentleman in every respect qualified for the trust reposed in him. The Latin translation of this edition is a new one. Torelli also wrote a preface, a commentary on some of the pieces, and notes on the whole. An account of the life and writings of Torelli is prefixed by Clement Sibiliati; of this a sketch will be given in its proper place. At the end a large appendix is added, in two parts: the first being a commentary on Archimedes’s paper upon “Bodies that flow on fluids,” by Dr. Robertson; and the latter is a large collection of various readings in the ms works of Archimedes, found in the library of the last king of France, and of another at Florence, as collated with the Basil edition above mentioned.

was descended of a most ancient and honourable family, seated at Parkhall, in Warwickshire. He was born' in 1532, and his father dying when he was an infant of two years old, he became, before he inherited the estate of the family, the ward of sir George Throkmorton, of Coughton, whose daughter Mary he afterwards married. In all probability, it was his engagement with this family, and being bred in it, that made him so firm a papist as he was. However, succeeding his grandfather, Thomas Arden, esq. in 1562, in the familyestate, he married Mary (Throkmorton), and settled in the country, his religion impeding his preferment, and his temper inclining him to a retired life. His being a near neighbour to the great earl of Leicester, occasioned his having some altercations with him, who affected to rule all things in that county, and some persons, though of good families, and possessed of considerable estates, thought it no discredit to wear that nobleman’s livery, which Mr. Arden disdained. In the course of this fatal quarrel, excessive insolence on one side produced some warm expressions on the other; insomuch that Mr. Arden npenly taxed the earl with his conversing criminally with the countess of Essex in that earl’s lite-time; and also inveighed against his pride, as a thing more inexcusable in a nobleman newly created. These taunts having exasperated that minister, he projected, or at least forwarded, his destruction. Mr. Arden had married one of his daughters to John Somerville, esq. a young gentleman of an old family and good fortune, in the same county, but who was a man of a hot rash temper, and by many thought a little insane. He was drawn in a strange manner to plot (if it may be so called) against the queen’s life; and thus the treason is alleged to have been transacted. In the Whitsun-holidays, 1583, he with his wife was at Mr. Arden’s, where Hugh Hall, his father-in-law’s priest, persuaded him that queen Elizabeth being an incorrigible heretic, and growing daily from bad to worse, it would be doing God and his country good service to take her life away. When the holidays were over, he returned to his own house with his wife, where he grew melancholy and irresolute. Upon this his wife wrote to Hall, her father’s priest, to come and strengthen his purpose. Hall excused his coming, but wrote at large, to encourage Somerville to prosecute what he had undertaken. This letter induced Somerville to set out for London, but he proceeded no farther than Warwick, where, drawing his sword and wounding some protestaats, he was instantly seized. While he was going to Warwick, his wife went over to her father’s, and shewed him and her mother Hall’s treasonable letter, which her father threw into the fire; so that only the hearsay of this letter could be alleged against him and his wife, by Hall who wrote it, who was tried and condemned with them. On Somerville’s apprehension, he said somewhat of his father and mother-in-law, and immediately orders were sent into Warwickshire for their being seized and imprisoned. October 30, 1583, Mr. Somerville was committed to the Tower for high-treason. November 4, Hall, the priest, was committed also; and on the seventh of the same month, Mr. Arden. On the sixteenth, Mary the wife of Mr. Arden, Margaret their daughter, wife to Mr. Somerville, and Elizabeth, the sister of Mr. Somerville, were committed. On the twenty-third Mr. Arden was racked in the Tower, and the next day Hugh Hall the priest was tortured likewise. By these methods some kind of evidence being brought out, on the sixteenth of December Edward Arden, esq. and Mary his wife, John Somerville, esq. and Hugh Hall the priest, were tried and convicted of high-treason at Guildhall, London; chiefly on Hall’s confession, who yet received sentence with the rest. On the nineteenth of December, Mr. Arden and his son-in-law, Somerville, were removed from the Tower to Newgate, for a night’s time only. In this space Somerville was strangled by his own hands, as it was given out; but, as the world believed, by such as desired to remove him silently. The next day, being December 20, 1583, Edward Arden was executed at Smithfield with the general pity of all spectators. He died with the same high spirit he had shewn throughout his life. After professing his innocence, he owned himself a papist, and one who died for his religion, and want of flexibility, though under colour of conspiring against the state. He strenuously insisted, that Somerville was murdered, to prevent his shaming his prosecutors; and having thus extenuated things to such as heard him, he patiently submitted to an ignominious death. His execution was according to the rigour of the law, his head being set (as Somerville’s also was) upon London-bridge, and his quarters upon the city gates; but the body of his son-in-law was interred in Moornelds. Mrs. Arden was pardoned; but the queen gave the estate which fell to her, by her and her husband’s attainder, to Mr. Darcy. Hugh Hall, the priest, likewise was pardoned; but Leicester, doubting his secrecy, would have engaged chancellor Hatton to send him abroad; which he refusing, new rumours, little to that proud earl’s honour, flew about. Holinshed, Stowe, and other writers, treat Mr. Arden as a traitor fairly convicted; but Camden. was too honest to write thus, and it may be probable, that he died for being a firm Englishman, rather than a bad subject. His son and heir Robert Arden, esq. being bred in one of the inns of court, proved a very wise and fortunate person: insomuch that by various suits he wrung from Edward Darcy, esq. the grantee, most of his father’s estates, and by marrying Elizabeth, daughter of Reginald Corbet, esq. one of the justices of the king’s bench, he restored the credit and splendour of this ancient family, and was so happy as to see Henry Arden, esq. his eldest son, knighted by king James, and married to Dorothy the daughter of Basil Fielding of Kewnham, esq. whose son became earl of Denbigh. On this account, the last editor of the Biographia Britannica remarks, that the conduct of lord Burleigh in Mr. Arden’s fate is somewhat equivocal. If that great man. was convinced of Mr. Arden’s innocence, it was totally unworthy of his character to charge him with having been a traitor. It is more 'honourable, therefore, to lord Burleigh’s reputation, and more agreeable to probability, to suppose that he believed Mr. Arden to be guilty, at least in a certain degree, of evil designs against the queen. Indeed, Arden was so bigoted a papist, that it is not unlikely but that by some imprudent words, if not by actions, he might furnish a pretence for the accusations brought against him. We can scarcely otherwise imagine how it would have been possible for the government to have proceeded to such extremities. We do not mean, by these remarks, to vindicate the severity with which this unfortunate gentleman was treated; and are sensible that, during queen Elizabeth’s reign, there was solid foundation for the jealousy and dread which were entertained of the Roman catholics.

, of Milan, but born at Cremona about the year 1574, when his father came thereto be appointed podestat, or governor, was then called Caesar, and did not assume the name of Paul until he entered in his sixteenth year among the regular clerks or theatins, after his father’s death. He made such proficiency in his studies that his theological tutor was obliged to prepare himself with more than common care to answer the objections and doubts of his acute pupil, and he became a very celebrated preacher, although neither his voice nor manner were in his favour. He afterwards taught theology, philosophy, and rhetoric, at Rome and Naples. Isabella of Savoy, afterwards duchess of Modena, chose him for her confessor, and appointed him bishop of Tortona. Here he principally resided, and passed his days in an exemplary manner, and employed his leisure in many works, which have been; published, and for a long period uere highly popular. He died June 13, 1644. His principal Latin works were, 1. “In libros Aristotelis de Generation e et Corruptione,” Milan, 1617, 4to. 2. “De Aquæ transmutatione in sacrificio Missæ,” Tortona, 1622, 8vo. 3. “De Cantici Canticorum sensu, velitatio bina,” Milan, 1640, 4to. 4. “Velitationes sex in Apocalypsim,” Milan, 1647, fol. published by P. Sfondrati, with the life of the author. In Italian he wrote, 5. “Arte di predicar bene,” Venice, 1611, 4to, often reprinted. 6. “Impresse sacre con triplicati discorsi illustrate ed arrichite,” Verona, 1613, 4to, and reprinted and augmented by the author, in 7 vols. 4to, 1621—1635, to which he added an eighth, in 1640, under the title of “La Ritroguardia, &c.” 7. “Delia Tribolazione e suoi rimedii,” Tortona, 1624, 2 vols. 4to, and often reprinted. 8. “Panegirici fatti in diversi occasioni,” Milan, 8vo, no date, but the dedication is dated 1644. There was another edition in 1659, 4to. His Latin sermons, which some authors mention, never existed, nor was it usual in the seventeenth century to preach in Italy in any language but Italian.

, an Italian printer, and one of the most learned and laborious editors of his time, was born at Bologna about the end of the year 1685. His family, then one of the most ancient in that city, was originally of Florence. After having begun his studies at Bologna, he went to Florence, and became acquainted with many of the literati of that city, particularly the celebrated Magliabechi. From Florence he went to Lucca, and then to Leghorn, where he meant to embark for France, but the death of one of his uncles rendered it necessary for him to return to his own country. He first projected an edition of the works, already in print, or in manuscript, of Ulysses Aldrovandi, with additions, notes, and corrections, and engaged several learned persons to assist him, but death having removed the greater part of them in a few years, he was obliged to give up the undertaking. He then published a collection of the poems of Carlantonio Bedori, a Bolognese gentleman, at Bologna, 1715, 4to. Two years after, having been elected one of the magistrates of that city, known by the title of the tribunes of the people, when he came to resign his office, he made an eloquent address on the duties of the office, which his successors ordered to be registered among their acts. His next and most important undertaking was an edition of that immense historical collection, entitled “Scriptores Rerum Italicarum.” The learned Muratori having imparted to him the design he had conceived of collecting and publishing the ancient Italian historians, acknowledged at the same time that he had been obliged to abandon the plan from the impossibility of finding a press adequate to such an extensive undertaking, the art of printing, once so highly cultivated in Italy, having now greatly degenerated. Argellati being of opinion that Milan was the only place where a trial might be made with effect, to revive useful printing, immediately went thither, and communicated Muratori’s plan to count Charles Archinto, the patron of letters, and his own particular patron. Archinto formed a society of noblemen of Milan, called the Palatine Society, who undertook to defray the expence of the edition, sixteen of the members subscribing four thousand crowns each. Argellati then took every necessary step to establish a printing-office suited to this liberal patronage, and the “Scriptores Rerum Italicarum” was the first work printed, in which Argellati bore a considerable part, collecting and furnishing Muratori with most of the manuscripts, notices, and dedications of the first volumes. He superintended at the same time, the printing of other works, particularly an edition of Sigonius, 1738/6 vols. fol. The emperor Charles VI. to whom it was dedicated, and who had repaid him for the dedication of the first volume of the Italian historians, by the title of imperial secretary, and a pension of three hundred crowns, now doubled this pension. Argellati continued to publish, with incredible labour and dispatch, various editions of works of importance, as “Opere inedite di Ludovico Castelvetro,” 1727, 4to. “Grazioli, De antiquis Mediolani aedificiis,” 1736, fol. “Thesaurus novus veterum Inscriptionum,” by Muratori, 1739, fol. But we are more particularly indebted to him for, 1. “Bibliotheca scriptorum Mediolanensium,” Milan, 1745, 2 vols. fol. 2. “Biblioteca de' Volgarizzatori Italiani,” Milan, 5 vols. 4to, 1767, besides which he contributed a great number of essays and letters to various collections. He died at Milan Jan. 5, 1755, after having had the misfortune to lose his son, the subject of the following article.

, born at Quiers, in Piedmont, in 1513, made considerable progress in the study of medicine, and arrived at great distinction in the theory of his art, He died at Turin in 1572, at the age of 58. His works were collected after his death in 2 vols. in folio, at Venice, 1592, 1606, and at Hanover in 1610, which is the most complete edition. This physician, however, was of lifetle service to the world out of his library. When he was called to reduce his observation to practice, he discovered that he had neither experience nor knowledge of the living subject; but, devoted to study and theory, he censured the writings of Galen with much acrimony, which procured him the title of Censor Medicorum.

II Doni, an Italian writer, in a register of the manuscript works of several poets, has attributed two pieces to Ariosto, one called “Rinaldo Ardito;” and the other, “Il Termine del Desiderio;” neither of which appears to have been printed. Besides the forty-six books of his Orlando Furioso, he left behind him five books on the same story, which were first printed in addition to the original poem in 1545, twelve years after Ariosto’s death.

In his early life he contracted an intimacy with a noble Florentine called Nicolo Vespucci, whom he accompanied into Florence in 1513, being then thirty-nine years old, to perfect himself in the Tuscan dialect, and to be present at the magnificent ceremony used at the feast of St. Baptist; here he fell violently in love with a kinswoman of Vespucci, whom he found preparing a dress of silver embroidered with purple for her sons to appear in at, the jousts. It has been the opinion of some, that he was privately married, but that he was obliged to keep it secret for fear of forfeiting some church benefices which he enjoyed; some go so far as to say that his wife’s name was Alexandra.

was, according to, the common opinion, a Greek pagan writer, who lived in the fourth century, but his existence has been doubted. If indeed he be the person mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, who lived in that century, there is some foundation to believe that there was such a person. Some think, however, that the name prefixed to the first “Love Epistle” was taken by the publisher for that of the writer. His work, which consists of “Love Epistles,” w:is never known, or certainly not generally known, till Sambucus published it in 1566; since which time there have been several editions of it printed at Paris, where the book seems to have been held in greater estimation than amongst us. As to the real date of its composition, we have nothing but conjecture to offer. By the twenty-sixth epistle it should appear that the author lived in the time of the later emperors, when Byzantium was called New Rome; and in that epistle mention is made of the pantomime actor Caramallus, who was contemporary with Sidonius Apollinaris. The Epistles are certainly terse, elegant, and very poetical, both in language and sentiment; yet they have scarcely any thing original in them, being a cento from the writings of Plato, Lucian, Philostratus, and almost all the ancient Greek authors, whose sentences are pleasingly woven together, and applied to every passion incident to love.

The best editions of Aristsenetus are those of Pauw, printed at Utrecht, 12mo, 1736 7; and of Abresch, 8vo, Zwoll, 1749, a most excellent edition, not only on account of the learned editor’s notes, but also for the emendations of Tollius, d'Orville, and Valckenaer. Abresch published a small volume of supplemental notes and observations at Amsterdam, 1752. About the beginning of the last century the facetious Tom Brown, as he is usually called, translated, or rather imitated, some select pieces of Aristaenetus, but without either fidelity, or poetic beauty. The first part of the epistles, however, were translated with more effect, and published in 1771, 12mo, by two young gentlemen who have since risen to high distinction in the literary and political world. But it is to be regretted that they imbibed rather too much of the licentious spirit of their author; and the offence taken at this by the critics of that time was probably the reason of their not being encouraged to proceed in translating the second part. Yet as the production of one of the first oriental scholars, and one of the first orators of the day, of Halhed and of Sheridan, this translation may be regarded as a literary curiosity.

, surnamed The Just, one of the most virtuous characters in ancient history, was the son of Lysimachus, and a native of Athens. He was educated in the principles of Lycurgus, the Lacedemonian legislator, and had Themistocles for his rival. These two celebrated men, although brought up from their infancy together, discovered very different qualities as they advanced in life. Aristides was all candour and concern for the public good: Themistocles was artful, deceitful, and ambitious. Aristides wished to remove such a character from any share in the government, but the intrigues of his enemy prevailed so far as to procure the banishment of Aristides about the year 483 B. C. The practice of ostracism was employed on this occasion, and it is said that a citizen who did not know Aristides came to him, and asked him to write the name of Aristides on his shell. Surprised at this, he asked the man, if Aristides had ever injured him, “Not at all,” replied the other, “but I am weary of hearing him perpetually called The Just” Aristides immediately wrote his name on the shell, and gave it to the man; The Athenians, however, soon repented having banished such a patriot, and recalled him, upon which he went to Themistocles, to engage him to act in concert for the welfare of the state, and his old enemy received this offer with a better grace than his character promised. Aristides persuaded the Greeks to unite against the Persians, and displayed his personal courage at the battles of Marathon, Salamis, and Platsea. He besides established a military chest for the support of the war, and the equity with which he levied taxes for this purpose made his administration be termed the golden age. He died so poor that the republic found it necessary to defray the expences of his funeral, and provide for his son and daughters. The time of his death is not known. Themistocles, Cimpn, and Pericles, filled Athens with superb buildings, vast porticoes, and rich statues, but Aristides adorned it by his virtues. Such is the testimony of Plato, and of impartial posterity. The name of Just was frequently confirmed to him during his life-time, and he appears by every testimony to have been a man of great and inflexible integrity. Plutarch hints at the only blemish in his character, when he informs us that the enmity between him and Themistocles began first in a love affair.

, a celebrated comic poet, was the son of Philip, and probably an Athenian by birth; but his place of nativity has been contested, his enemies endeavouring to represent him as a stranger. He was contemporary with Plato, Socrates, and Euripides; and most of his plays were written during the Peloponnesian war. His imagination was warm and lively, and his genius particularly turned to raillery: he had also great spirit and resolution, and was a declared enemy to slavery, and to all those who wanted to oppress their country. When the Athenians suffered themselves in his time to be governed by men who had no other view than to make themselves masters of the commonwealth, Aristophanes exposed their artifices with great wit and severity upon the stage. Cleo was the first whom he attacked, in his comedy of the “Equites:” and when none of the comedians would venture to personate a man of his great authority, Aristophanes played the character himself; and with so much success, that the Athenians obliged Cleo to pay a fine of five talents, which were given to the poet. This freedom of his likewise was so well received by the Athenians, that they cast handfuls of flowers upon his head, and carried him through the city in triumph with the greatest acclamation. They made also a public decree, that he should be honoured with a crown of the sacred olive-tree in the citadel, which was the greatest honour that could be paid to a citizen. He described the affairs of the Athenians in so exact a manner, that his comedies are a faithful history of that people. For this reason, when Dionysius king of Syracuse desired to learn the state and language of Athens, Plato sent him the plays of Aristophanes, telling him these were the best representation thereof. He wrote above 50 comedies, but there are only 11 extant which are perfect; these are “Plutus, the Clouds, the Frogs, Equites, the Acharnenses, the Wasps, Peace, the Birds, the Ecclesiazusae or Female Orators, the Thesmophoriazusae or Priestesses of Ceres, and Lysistrata.” The “Clouds,” which he wrote in ridicule of Socrates, is the most celebrated of all his comedies: Socrates had a contempt for the comic poets, and never went to see their plays, except when Alcibiades or Critias obliged him to go thither. He was shocked at the licentiousness of the old comedy; and as he was a man of piety, probity, candour, and wisdom, could not bear that the characters of his fellow-citizens should be insulted and abused. This contempt which he expressed to the comic poets, was the ground of their aversion to him, and the motive of Aristophanes’s writing the “Clouds” against him. Madam Dacier tells us, she was so much charmed with this performance, that after she had translated it, and read it over 200 times, it did not become tedious; and that the pleasure she received from it was so exquisite, as to make her forget all the contempt and indignation which Aristophanes deserved, for employing his wit to ruin a man, who was wisdom itself, and the greatest ornament of the city of Athens. Aristophanes having conceived some aversion to the poet Euripides, satirizes him in several of his plays, particularly in his “Frogs” and his “Thesmophoriazusae.” He wrote his “Peace” in the 10th year of the Peloponnesian war, when a treaty for 50 years was concluded between the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians, though it continued but seven. The “Acharnenses” was written after the death of Pericles, and the loss of the battle in Sicily, in order to dissuade the people from intrusting the safety of the commonwealth to such imprudent generals as Lamachus. Soon after, he represented his “Aves” or Birds, by which he admonished the Athenians to fortify Decelaea, which he calls by a fictitious name Nepheloccoccygia. The “Vespae,” or Wasps, was written after another loss in Sicily, which the Athenians suffered from the misconduct of Chares. He wrote the “Lysistrata” when all Greece was involved in a war, and in this the women are introduced debating on the affairs of the commonwealth, and come a resolution, not to cohabit with their husbands, 'till a peace should be concluded. His “Plutus,” and other comedies of that kind, were written after the magistrates had given orders, that no person should be exposed by name upon the stage. He invented a peculiar kind of verse, which was called by his name, and is mentioned by Cicero in his “Brutus;” and Suidas says, that he also was the inventor of the tetrameter and octameter verse.

, the chief of the peripatetic philosophers, and one of the most illustrious characters of ancient Greece, was born in the first year of the ninety-ninth olympiad, or 384 years before the Christian sera, at Stagyra, a town of Thrace, whence he is usually called the Stagyrite. His father was a physician, named Nicomachus: his mother’s name was Phaestias. He received the first rudiments of learning from Proxenus, of Atarna in Mysia, and at the age of 17 went to Athens, and studied in the school of Plato, where his acuteness and proficiency so attracted the notice of his master, that he used to call him “The mind of the school;” and said, when Aristotle happened to be absent, “Intellect is not here.” His works, indeed, prove that he had an extensive acquaintance with books; and Strabo says, he was the first person who formed a library. At this academy he continued until the death of Plato, whose memory he honoured by a monument, an oration, and elegies, which contradicts the report of his having had a difference with Plato, and erecting a school in opposition to him, as related by Aristoxenus. At the time of the death of Plato, Aristotle was in his thirty-seventh year; and when Speusippus, the nephew of Plato, succeeded him in the academy, our philosopher was so much displeased, that he left Athens, and paid a visit to Hermias, king of the Atarnenses, who had been his fellow-disciple, and now received him with every expression of regard. Here he remained three years, prosecuting his philosophical researches; and when Hermias was taken prisoner and put to death, he placed a statue of him in the temple at Delphos, and married his sister, who was now reduced to poverty and distress, by the revolution which had dethroned her brother. After these events, Aristotle removed to Mitelene, where, after he had resided two years, he received a respectful letter from Philip, king of Macedon, who had heard of his great fame, requesting him to undertake the education of his son, Alexander, then in his fifteenth year. Aristotle accepted the charge, and in 343 B. C. went to reside in the court of Philip.

Aristotle, upon his return to Athens, conceived the design of becoming a leader in philosophy, by founding a new sect, and chose for his school, the Lyceum, a grove in the suburbs of Athens, where he held daily conversation on subjects of philosophy with those who attended him, walking as he discoursed, whence his followers were called Peripatetics. According to the long-established practice of philosophers among the Grecians, Egyptians, and other nations, Aristotle had his public and his secret doctrine, the former of which he called the Exoteric, and the latter the Acroamatic or Esoteric. Hence he divided his auditors into two classes, to one of which he taught his Exoteric doctrine, discoursing on the principal subjects of logic, rhetoric, and policy; the other he instructed in the Esoteric, or concealed and subtle doctrine, concerning Being, Nature, and God. His more abstruse discourses he delivered in the morning to his select disciples, whom he required to have been previously instructed in the elements of learning, and to have discovered abilities and dispositions iuited to the study of philosophy. In the evening he delivered lectures to all young men without distinction; the former he called his Morning Walk, the latter his Evening Walk, and both were much frequented.

, the most ancient musical writer of whose works any remains are come down to us, flourished in the fourth century B. C. He was born at Tarentum, a city in that part of Italy called Magna Graecia, now Calabria. He was the son of a musician, whom some call Mnesias, others Spintharus. He had his first education at Mantinrea, a city of Arcadia, under his father and Lampyrus of Erythrse; he next studied under Xenophilus, the Pythagorean, and lastly, under Aristotle. Suidas, from whom these particulars are taken, adds, that Aristoxenus took offence at Aristotle’s bequeathing his school to Theophrastus, and traduced him ever after, but this has been contradicted by other writers. His “Harmonics,” the defects of which have been very ably pointed out by Dr. Burney, are all that are come down to us, and together with Ptolemy’s Harmonics, were first published by Gogavinus, but not very correctly, at Venice, 1562, 4to, with a Latin version. John Meursius next translated the three books of Aristoxenus into Latin, from the manuscript of Jos. Scaliger, but, according to Meibomius, very negligently. With these he printed at Leyden, 1616, 4to, Nicomachus and Alypius, two other Greek writers on music. After this Meibomius collected these musical writers together, to which he added Euclid, Bacchius senior, Aristides Quintilianus; and published the whole with a Latin version and notes at the Elzivir press, Amst. 1652, dedicated to Christina queen of Sweden. Aristoxenus is said by Suidas to have written 452 different works, some of which are frequently quoted by ancient authors. The titles of several of them, quoted by Athenaeus and others, have been collected by Meursius in his notes upon this author, and by Tonsius and Menage, all which Fabricius has digested into alphabetical order.

With respect to his personal character, he is said to have been grave and serious, yet affable and courteous, with good natural parts, and no inconsiderable share of secular learning of all sorts; he was particularly distinguished by his skill in logic, or the art of disputing. Dr. Lardner, whom we follow in this part of the history of Arius, says that he had at least the outward appearance of piety, and that from all the authorities he was able to recollect, his conduct was unblameable, excepting what relates to his zeal for maintaining his doctrines, and that he is charged with dissembling his real sentiments, upon some occasions, when pressed hard by the prevailing power of his adversaries. His character, however, as may be readily supposed, has been very differently represented by his contemporaries, and will be raised or lowered by succeeding writers as they are more or less disposed to represent his doctrines as truth or error. His works do not appear to have been voluminous, though it is probable he wrote many letters; we have still an epistle written by him to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and another to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, between whom and him the controversy first arose. He also wrote several little poems, fitted for the use of the common people, in order to promote his peculiar opinions. There is a book called Thalia attributed to him by Athanasius, who speaks of it as being written with softness, pleasantry, or buffoonery.

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

His character has been represented in various lights, but it appears upon the whole to have been without reproach. Bertius, Curcellaeus, Episcopius, and others, who were his followers, have amply vindicated him; but Hornbeck and some of the Calvinistic writers represent him as an apostate from his original principles. King James I. whose authority may not perhaps be thought of much consequence, reflected on him with great severity in his letter to the States of the United Provinces in 1611. His principles, however, obtained many friends in England, and during the seventeenth century the divines of England were in general attached to them, particularly after the time of Laud, and more openly after the restoration. Before this period, the Puritans, and afterwards the Nonconformists, adhered to the Calvinistic system. How far the articles of the church of England belong to the one or the other, has lately been the subject of a very elaborate and learned controversy, of which some notice will be taken under the article Calvin. In the mean time, we shall state the distinguishing tenets of the Arminians; but it must be remarked that among modern divines there are many shades of opinion, which renders it difficult to lay down any set of principles which shall be admitted by general conseut. The Arminians, however, hold, That God, from all eternity, determined to bestow salvation on those whom he foresaw would persevere unto the end; and to inflict everlasting punishments on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist his divine succours; so that election is conditional, and reprobation, in like manner, the result of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness: That Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death, made an atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individual in particular: but that none except those who believe in him can be partakers of divine benefits: That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will; since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable either of thinking or doing any good thing: and that, therefore, it is necessary, in order to his conversion and salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ: That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost begins and perfects every thing that can be called good in man, and consequently all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that nevertheless this grace is offered to all, and does not force men to act against their inclinations, but may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse will of the impenitent sinner: That God gives to the truly faithful who are regenerated by his grace the means of preserving themselves in this state, or, according to the more modern Arminians, the regenerate may lose true justifying faith, fall from a state of grace, and die in their sins.

In 1760, he was appointed physician to the army in Germany, where in 1761 he wrote a poem called “Day,” addressed to Mr. Wilkes. It was published in the same year, probably by some person to whom Mr. Wilkes had lent it. The editor, in his prefatory advertisement, professes to lament that it is not in his power to present the public with a more perfect copy of this spirited letter. He ventures to publish it exactly as it came into his hands, without the knowledge or consent of the author, or of the gentleman to whom it is addressed. His sole motive is to communicate to others the pleasure he has received from a work of taste and genius. He thinks himself secure of the thanks of the public, and hopes this further advantage will attend the present publication, that it will soon be followed by a correct and complete edition from the author’s own manuscript.

In this poem he was supposed to reflect on ChurchilJ, but in a manner so distant that few except of Churchill’s irascible temper could have discovered any cause of offence. This libeller, however, retorted on our author in “The Journey,” with an accusation of ingratitude, the meaning of which is said to have been that Dr. Armstrong forgot certain pecuniary obligations he owed to Mr. Wilkes. About the same time a coolness took place between Dr. Armstrong and Mr. Wilkes on political grounds. Armstrong not only served under government, as an army physician, but he was also a Scotchman, and could not help resenting the indignity which Wilkes was perpetually attempting to throw on that nation in his North Briton. On this account they appear to have continued at variance as late as the year 1773, when our author called Wilkes to account for some reflections on his character which he suspected he had written in his favourite vehicle, the Public Advertiser. The conversation which passed on this occasion was lately published in the Gentleman’s Magazine (1792), and is said to have been copied from minutes taken the same afternoon, April 7, 1773, and sent to a friend: but as the doctor makes by far the worst figure in the dialogue, it can be no secret by whom the minutes were taken, and afterwards published.

, a miscellaneous French writer, was born at Paris, Sept. 15, 1716, of a noble family originally from the comtat Venaissin. He had his education among the Jesuits at Paris, and discovered early symptoms of genius, having written some tolerable verses at the age of nine. He composed also in his youth three tragedies, none of which were acted; but one, on the subject of admiral Coligni’s murder on St. Bartholomew’s day, was printed in 1740. These works recommended him to Voltaire, who gave him advice and pecuniary assistance in his studies. Some of his early productions were also favourably noticed by Frederick, king of Prussia, who invited him to Berlin, and in some verses, called him his Ovid. This compliment, however, excited only the ridicule of the wits; and after residing about a year at Berlin, he went to Dresden, where he was appointed counsellor of legation. A wish to revisit his country, and an invitation from the nephew of marshal Saxe, determined him to return to Paris, where he lived many years, enjoying a large circle of acquaintance, from whom he retired by degrees to have leisure for the composition of his numerous works. During the reign of terror he was sent to prison, and on his liberation was exposed to great distresses from want of oecouomy, although not illiberally supplied by government, and by the profits of his works. He died Nov. 8, 1805. His writings, which are very numerous, consist of novels, poems, and plays, of which there are two editions, one in 24 vols. 12 mo, and one in 1-2 vols. 8vo, 1803, neither very complete, nor do his countrymen seem to consider this writer as likely to enjoy a permanent reputation.

The most famous work of Arndt, is his “Treatise of true Christianity,” in the German language. The first book of it was printed separate in 1605 at Jena, by Stegman: he published the three others in 1608. The first is called the “Book of Scripture:” he endeavours in it to shew the way of the inward and spiritual life, and that Adam ought to die every day more and more in the heart of a Christian, and Christ to gain the ascendant there. The second is called “The Book of Life:” he proposes in it to direct the Christian to a greater degree of perfection, to give him a relish for sufferings, to encourage him to resist his enemies after the example of his Saviour. The third is entitled “The Book of Conscience:” in this he recalls the Christian within himself, and discovers to him the kingdom of God seated in the midst of his own heart. The last book is entitled “The Book of Nature:” the author proves here, that all the creatures lead men to the knowledge of their Creator. This work was translated into many different languages, and among the rest into English, the first part, or the Book of Scripture, 1646, 12mo; and afterwards the whole was published at London 1712, 8vo, and dedicated to queen Anne, by Mr. Boehm; but the editions of 1720, one of which is in 3, and the other in 2 vols. 8vo, are the most complete.

, one of our ancient English chroniclers, is a writer concerning whom very little information can now be recovered. Stowe says, “Arnolde was a citizen of London, who, being inflamed with the fervente love of good learninge, travailed very studiously therein, and principally in observing matters worthy to be remembred of the posteritye: he noted the charters, liberties, lawes, eonstitucioris and customes of the citie of London. He lived in the year 1519.” Holinshed, in his enumeration of writers, at the end of the reign of Henry VIII. mentions him. as “Arnolde of London,” who “wrote certayne collections touchyng historical! matters.” From his own work, it appears that he was a merchant of London, trading to Flanders. He is sometimes called a haberdasher, probably from being a member of that ancient company. He resided in the parish of St. Magnus, Lon. don -bridge,, but at one time, from pecuniary embarrassments, was compelled to take shtlter in the sanctuary at Westminster. In the year 1488, he appears to have been confined in the castle of Sluys, in Flanders, on suspicion of being a spy, but was soon liberated; and among the forms and precedents in his work, there is a charter of pardon granted him for treasonable practices at home, but of what description, cannot now be ascertained. It is conjectured that he died about the year 1521, at least seventy years old.

His work, which has been sometimes called “The Custftmesof London,” and sometimes “Arnolde’s Chronicle,” contains a medley of information respecting the magistrates, charters, municipal regulations, assizes of bread, &c. mostly taken from a work of the same kind which is still remaining among the Cottonian Mss. (Julius B. I.) The first edition was printed at Antwerp by John Doesborowe, without date, place, or printer’s name, but probably in 1502. The second was printed by Peter Treveris, about 1520, or 1521, and a third, longo intervallo, at London, 1811, as part of a series of the English chronicles undertaken by some of the principal booksellers of London, and printed with great care and accuracy. It is to the learned preface to this last edition that we are indebted for the preceding particulars respecting Arnolde, and to it likewise we may refer the reader for a discussion on the origin of the celebrated poem, “The Nut-brown Maid,” printed in the same edition.

, or Earnulph, or Ernulph, bishop of Rochester in the reign of king Henry I, was a Frenchman by birth, and for some time a monk of St. Lucian de Beauvais. Observing some irregularities among his brethren, which he could neither remedy nor endure, he resolved to quit the monastery but first he took the advice of Lanfranc archbishop of Canterbury, under whom he had studied in the abbey of Bee. That prelate, who was well acquainted with his merit, invited him over into England, and placed him in the monastery of Canterbury, where he lived till Lanfranc’s death. Afterwards, when Anselm came into that see, Arnulph was made prior of the monastery of Canterbury, and afterwards abbot of Peterborough, and to both places he was a considerable benefactor, having rebuilt part of the church of Canterbury, which had fallen down, and also that of Peterborough, but this latter was destroyed by an accidental fire, and our prelate removed to Rochester before he could repair the loss. In 1115, he was consecrated bishop of that see, in the room of Radulphus or Ralph, removed to the see of Canterbury. He sat nine years and a few days, and died in March 1124, aged eighty-four. He is best known by his work concerning the foundation, endowment, charters, laws, and other things relating to the church of Rochester. It generally passes by the name of Textus Roffensis, and is preserved in. the archives of the cathedral church of Rochester. Mr. Wharton, in his Anglia Sacra, has published an extract of this history, under the title of “Ernulphi Episcopi Roffensis Collectanea de rebus Ecclesise Roffensis, a prima sedis fundatione ad sua tempora. Ex Textu Roffensi, quern composuit Ernulphus.” This extract consists of the names of the bishops of Rochester, from Justus, who was translated to Canterbury in the year 624, to Ernulfus inclusive benefactions to the church of Rochester; of the agreement made between archbishop Lanfranc, and Odo bishop of Bayeux how Lanfranc restored to the monks the lands of the church of St. Andrew, and others, which had been alienated from them how king William the son of king William did, at the request of archbishop Lanfranc, grant unto the church of St. Andrew the apostle, at Rochester, the manor called Hedenham, for the maintenance of the monks and why bishop Gundulfus built for the king the stone castle of Rochester at his own expence a grant of the great king William Of the dispute between Gundulfus and Pichot benefactions to the church of Rochester. Oudm is of opinion, our Arnulph had no hand in this collection; but the whole was printed, in 1769, bj the late Mr. Thorpe, in his “Registrum Roffense.”

, descended of a good family in the county of Salop, from which he inherited a considerable estate, was born in 1601, educated in grammatical learning in his own country, and in 1618 became a commoner of St. Edmund’s hall, in Oxford, where he remained till he had taken his degrees in arts, and had also received holy orders. He then went down again into Shropshire, where, in process of time, he obtained the rectories of Hodnet and Ightfield, which he enjoyed to the breaking out of the civil war. He was a man of much learning and very extensive chanty, so that though his income was considerable, yet he laid up very little. It was his custom to clothe annually twelve poor people according to their station, and every Sunday he entertained as many at bistable, not only plentifully, tyut with delicate respect. His loyalty to his prince being as warm as his charity towards his neighbours, he raised and clothed eight troopers for his service, and always preached warmly against rebellion. The parliament having a garrison in the tuwn of Wem, a detachment was sent from thence who plundered him of every thing, besides terrifying him with the cruellest insults. In 1640 he repaired to Oxford, to serve the king in person, and there was created doctor in divinity, and had also the archdeaconry of Coventry given him, on the promotion of Dr. Brownrig to the bishopric of Exeter. His former misfortunes did not hinder Dr. Arnway from being as active afterwards in the king’s service, which subjected him to a new train of hardships, his estate being sequestered, and himself imprisoned. At length, after the king’s murder, he obtained his liberty, and, like many other loyalists, was compelled by the laws then in being to retire to Holland. While at the Hague, in 1650, he published two little pieces; the first entitled “The Tablet; or, the Moderation of Charles I. the Martyr.” In this he endeavours to wipe off all the aspersions that were thrown on that prince’s memory by Milton and his associates. The second is called “An Alarm to the Subjects of England,” in which he certainly did his utmost to picture the oppressions of the new government in the strongest colours and in this work he gives some very remarkable anecdotes of himself. His supplies from England failing, and his hopes in that country being also frustrated, he was compelled to accept an offer that was made him of going to Virginia, where, oppressed with grief and cares, he died, in 1653, leaving behind him the character of a pious, upright, and consistent loyalist. Tbe tracts above mentioned were reprinted in England, 1661, by the care of Mr. William Rider, of Merton College, who married a relation of the author, but this volume is very scarce.

, of the same family as the preceding, became bishop of Urbino, where he died in 1504, in the sixty- third year of his age. He had been the scholar of Philelphus, under whom he studied the Greek language with great diligence. He wrote, 1. “Gonzagidos,” a Latin poem, in honour of Ludovico, marquis of Mantua, a celebrated general, who died in 1478. 2. “Latin epistles,” with those of James Piccolomini, called the cardinal of Pavia, printed at Milan in 1506. From his Gonzagidos, first printed by Meuschenius in his collection entitled “Vitae summorum dignitate et eruditione virorum,” vol. III. Cobourg, 1738, it appears that the author had been present at many of the victories and transactions which he there relates.

, an English divine and writer, was born at or near Newcastle- upon Tyne, March 29, 1602. He was admitted of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, in 1616, and took his first two degrees from thence in 1619 and 1623. In this last year he was chosen fellow of Katherine hall, where he is supposed to have resided some years, probably engaged in the tuition of youth; but in 1631 he married, and removed to Lynn in Norfolk. He continued in this town, very much esteemed, for about ten or twelve years, being first assistant or curate, and afterwards minister in his own right, of St. Nicholas chapel there. He was afterwards called up to assist in the assembly of divines had a parish in London, and is named with Tuckney, Hill, and others, in the list of Triers, as they were called i. e. persons appointed to examine and report the integrity and abilities of candidates for the eldership in London, and ministry at large. When Dr. Beale, master of St. John’s college, was turned out by the earl of Manchester, Mr. Arrowsmith, who had taken the degree of B. D. from Katherine hall eleven years before, was put into his place; and also into the royal divinity chair, from which the old professor Collins was removed and after about nine years possession of these honours, to which he added that of a doctor’s degree in divinity, in 1649, he was farther promoted, on Dr. Hill’s death, to the mastership of Trinity college, with which he kept his professor’s place only two years his health being considerably impaired. He died in Feb. 1658-9.

, bishop of Constantinople, was called to the metropolitan see, from a private monastic life, in 1255, by the emperor Theodore Lascaris who, a little before his death, constituted him one of the guardians of his son John, an infant in the sixth year of his age. Arsenius was renowned for piety and simplicity but these afforded no security against the ambition and perfidy of the age. Michael Palseologus usurped the sovereignty and Arsenius at length, with reluctance, overpowered by the influence of the nobility, consented to place the diadem on his head, with this express condition, that he should resign the empire to the royal infant when he came to maturity. But after he had made this concession, he found his pupil treated with great disregard, and, probably repenting of what he had done, he retired from his see to a monastery. Sometime after, by a sudden revolution, Palaeologus recovered Constantinople from the Latins and amidst his successes, found it necessary to his reputation to recall the bishop, and he accordingly fixed him in the metropolitan see such was the ascendancy of Arsenius’s character. Palaeologus, however, still dreaded the youth, whom he had so deeply injured and, to prevent him from recovering his throne, he had recourse to the barbarous policy of putting out his eyes. Arsenius hearing this, excommunicated the emperor, who then exhibited some appearance of repentance. But the bishop refused to admit him into the church, and Palaeologus meanly accused him of certain crimes before an assembly, over which he had absolute sway. Arsenius was accordingly condemned, and banished to a small island of the Propontis. Conscious of his integrity, he bore his sufferings with serenity and requesting that an account might be taken of the treasures of the church, he shewed that three pieces of gold, which he had earned by transcribing psalms, were the whole of his property. The emperor, after all this, solicited him to repeal his ecclesiastical censures, but he persisted in his refusal and, it is supposed, died in his obscure retreat. Gibbon, with his usual suspicions respecting the piety and virtue of an ecclesiastic, endeavours to lessen the character of this patriarch.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. was the second son of Robert Fitz-Alan, earl of Arundel and Warren, and brother of Richard earl of Arundel, who was afterwards beheaded. He was but twenty-two years of age when, from being archdeacon of Taunton, he was promoted to the bishopric of Ely, by the pope’s provision, and consecrated April 9, 1374, at Otteford. He was a considerable benefactor to the church and palace of that see. He almost rebuilt the episcopal palace in Holborn, and, among other donations, he presented the cathedral with a very curious table of massy gold, enriched with precious stones which had been given to prince Edward by the king of Spain, and sold by the latter to bishop Arundel for three hundred marks. In the year 1386, the tenth of Richard II. he was made lord high chancellor of England but resigned it in 1389 was again appointed in 1391, and resigned it finally, upon his advancement to the see of Canterbury. After he had sat about fourteen years in the see of Ely, he was translated to the archbishopric of York, April 3, 1388, where he expended a very large sum of money in building a palace for the archbishops, and, besides other rich ornaments, gave to the church several pieces of silver-gilt plate. In 1393, being then chancellor, he removed the courts of justice from London to York and, as a precedent for this unpopular step, he alledged the example of archbishop Corbridge, eighty years before. The see of Canterbury being vacant by the death of Dr. William Courtney, archbishop Arundel was translated thither, January 1396. The crosier was delivered into his hands by Henry Chellenden, prior of Canterbury, in the presence of the king, and a great number of the nobility, and on the 19th of February 1397, he was enthroned with great pomp at Canterbury, the first instance of the translation of an archbishop of York to the see of Canterbury. Soon after he had a contest with the university of Oxford about the right of visitation, which was determined by King Richard, to whom the decision was referred, in favour of the archbishop. At his visitation in London, he revived an old constitution, first set on foot by Simon Niger, bishop of London, by which the inhabitants of the respective parishes were obliged to pay to their rector one halfpenny in the pound out of the rent of their houses. In the second year of his translation, a parliament was held at London, in which the commons, with the king’s leave, impeached the archbishop, together with his brother the earl of Arundel, and the duke of Gloucester, of high-treason, for compelling the king, in the tenth year of his reign, to grant them a commission to govern the kingdom. The archbishop was sentenced to be banished, and had forty days allowed him to prepare for his exile, within which time he was to depart the kingdom on pain of death. Upon this he retired first into France, and then to Rome, where pope Boniface IX. gave him a very friendly reception, and wrote a letter to king Richard, desiring him to receive the archbishop again into favour. But not meeting with success, his holiness resolved to interpose his authority in favour of Arundel. Accordingly he nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrews, and declared his intention of giving him several other preferments in England, by way of provision. The king, upon this, wrote an expostulatory letter to the pope, which induced him not only to withhold the intended favours from Arundel, but likewise, at the king’s request^ to promote Roger Walden dean of York and lord treasurer of England, to the see of Canterbury. That prelate, however, was soon obliged to quit his new dignity for, next year, Arundel returned into England with the duke of Lancaster, afterwards king Henry IV. upon whose accession to the throne, the pope revoked the bull granted to Walden, and restored Arundel and among the articles of mis government brought against king Richard, one was his usage and banishment of this prelate. The throne being vacant by Richard’s resignation, and the duke of Lancaster’s title being allowed in parliament, Arundel had the honour to crown the new king and, at the coronationdinner, sat at his right hand; the archbishop of York being placed at his left. In the first year of king Henry’s reign, Arundel summoned a synod, which sat at St. Paul’s. Harpsfield, and the councils from him, have mistaken this synod for one held during the vacancy of the see. He also by his courage and resolution, preserved several of the bishops, who were in king Henry’s army, from being plundered of their equipages and money. The next year, the commons having moved, that the revenues of the church might be applied to the service of the public, Arundel opposed the motion so vigorously, that the king and lords promised him, the church should never be plundered in their time. After this, he visited the university of Cambridge, where he made several statutes, suppressed several bad customs, and punished the students for their misbehaviour. And, when the visitation was ended, at the request of the university, he reserved all those matters and causes, which had been laid before him, to his own cognizance and jurisdiction. In the year 1408, Arundel began to exert himself with vigour against the Lollards or Wickliffites. To this end, he summoned the bishops and clergy at Oxford, to check the progress of this new sect, and prevent that university’s being farther tinctured with their opinions. But the doctrines of Wickliff still gaining ground, the archbishop resolved to visit the university, attended by the earl of Arundel, his nephew, and a splendid retinue. When he came near the town, he was met by the principal members of the university, who told him, that, if he came only to see the town, he was very welcome, but if he came in the character of a visitor, they refused to acknowledge his jurisdiction. The archbishop, resenting this treatment, left Oxford in a day or two, and wrote to the king on accpunt of his disappointment. After a warm contest between the university and the archbishop, both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the king’s decision who, governing himself by the example of his predecessors, gave sentence in favour of the archbishop. Soon after this controversy was ended, a convocation being held at St. Paul’s in London, the bishops and clergy complained of the growth of Wicklevitism at Oxford, and pressed the archbishop to visit that university. He accordingly wrote to the chancellor and others, giving them notice, that he intended to hold a visitation in St. Mary’s church. His delegates for this purpose were sent down soon after, and admitted by the university, who, to make some satisfaction for their backwardness in censuring Wickliff’s opinions, “wrote to the archbishop, and asked his pardon: after which they appointed a committee of twelve persons, to examine heretical books, particularly those of Wicklitf. These inquisitors into heretical pravity, having censured some conclusions extracted out o'f WicklitPs books, sent an account of their proceedings to the archbishop, who confirmed their censures, and sent an authority in writing to some eminent members of the university, empowering them to inquire into persons suspected of heterodoxy, and oblige them to declare their opinions. These rigorous proceedings made Arundel extremely hated by the Wickliffites, and certainly form the deepest stain on his character. However he went on with the prosecution, and not only solicited the pope to condemn the abovementioned conclusions, but desired likewise a bull for the digging up Wickliff’s bones. The pope granted the first of these requests, but refused the other, not thinking it any useful part of discipline to disturb the ashes of the dead. Arundel’s warm zeal for suppressing the Lollards, or Wickliffites, carried him to several unjustifiable severities against the heads of that sect, particularly against sir John Oldcastle, lord Cobham and induced him to procure a synodical constitution, which forbad the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue. This prelate died at Canterbury, after having sat seventeen years, the 20th of February, 1413. The Lollardsofthose times asserted the immediate hand of heaven in the manner of his death. He died of an inflammation in his throat, and it is said that he was struck with this disease, as he was pronouncing sentence of excommunication and condemnation on the lord Cobham; and from that time, notwithstanding all the assistance of medicine, he could swallow neither meat nor drink, and was starved to death. The Lollards imputed this lamentable end to the just judgment of God upon him, both for his severity towards that sect, and forbidding the scriptures to be translated into English; and bishop Godwin seems to lean to the same opinion. He was buried in the cathedral of Canterbury, near the west end, under a monument erected by himself in his life-time. He was a considerable benefactor to that church, having built the Lanthorn Tower, and great part of the Nave and he gave a ring of five bells, called from him” Arundel’s Ring," several rich vestments, a mitre enchased with jewels, a silver gilt crosier, a golden chalice for the high altar, and another to be used only on St. Thomas Becket’s day. He bestowed also the church of Godmersham, out of the income of which, he ordered six shillings and eight pence to be given annually to every monk of the convent, on the aforesaid festival. Lastly, he gave several valuable books, particularly two Missals, and a collection in one volume of St. Gregory’s works, with anathema to any person who should remove it out of the church. He appears to have possessed a great natural capacity, and was a splendid benefactor to many of our ecclesiastical structures. As a politician, he took a very active share in the principal measures of very turbulent times, and it is perhaps now difficult to appreciate his character in any other particulars than what are most prominent, his zeal for the catholic religion, and his munificence in the various offices he held.

, a Wiltshire gentleman, descended from the family of that name residing at Nashhill in that county, was born in 1565, and admitted a gentleman commoner of Hart hall in Oxford, in 1580. From the university he removed to the Middle Temple, where he was called to the dignity of barrister at law. After some time he travelled into Holland, France, &c. conversing with the learned, and frequenting the public libraries. Being returned into England, he lived many years in the Middle Temple, and honoured the commonwealth of learning with several of his lucubrations. He died in a good old age, the beginning of October 1641, and was buried in the Temple church the 4th of the same month. He gave several books to that society. His principal works were, 1. “A Relation of the kingdom of Cochin China,” Lond. 1633, 4to, which is chiefly taken from an Italian work of Christopher Barri. 2. A Translation from French into Latin verse of Du Bartas’s “Urania, or heavenly muse,” London, 1589, 4to. 3. A Translation from Spanish into English of “Au manzor, the learned and victorious king that conquered Spain, his life and death,” London, 1627, 4to. 4. A Translation from Italian into English of “II Davide perseguitate,” i.e. David persecuted, London, 1637, written originally by the marquis Virgilio Malvezzi. Wood tells us, that part of the impression of this book had a new title put to it, bearing date 1650, with the picture before it of Charles I. playing on a harp, like king David, purposely to carry off the remaining copies.

, an eminent philosopher, chemist, and antiquary, of the seventeenth century, and founder of the noble museum at Oxford, which still bears his name, was the only son of Mr. Simon Ashmole, of the city of Litchfield, in Staffordshire, sadler, by Anne, the daughter of Mr. Anthony Boyer, of Coventry, in Warwickshire, woollen-draper. He was born May 23, 1617, and during his early r education in grammar, was taught music, in which he made such proficiency as to become a chorister in the cathedral at Litchfield. When he had attained the age of sixteen he was taken into the family of James Paget, esq. a baron of the exchequer, who had married his mother’s sister, and as his father died in 1634, leaving little provision for him, he continued for some years in the Paget family, during which time he made considerable progress in the law, and spent his leisure hours in perfecting himself in music and other polite accomplishments. In March 1638, he married Eleanor, daughter of Mr. Peter Manwaring, of Smallwood, in the county Palatine of Chester, and in Michaelmas term the same year, became a solicitor in Chancery. On February 11, 1641, he was sworn an attorney of the court of common pleas, and on December 5th, in the same year, his wife died suddenly, of whom he has left us a very natural and affectionate memorial. The rebellion coming on, he retired from London, being always a zealous and steady loyalist, and on May 9, 1645, became one of the gentlemen of the ordnance in the garrison at Oxford, whence he removed to Worcester, where he was commissioner, receiver, and register of the excise, and soon after captain in the lord Ashley’s regiment, and comptroller of the ordnance. In the midst of all this business he entered himself of Brazen-Nose college, in Oxford, and applied himself vigorously to the sciences, but especially natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; and his intimate acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards sir George) Wharton, seduced him into the absurd mysteries of astrology, which was in those days in great credit. In the month of July, 1646, he lost his mother, who had always been a kind parent to him, and for whom he had a very pious regard. On October 16th, the same year, be was elected a brother of the ancient and honourable society of Free and Accepted Masons, which he looked upon as a high honour, and has therefore given us a particular account of the lodge established at Warrington in Lancashire and in some of his manuscripts, there are very valuable collections relating to the history of the free masons. The king’s affairs being now grown desperate, Mr. Ashmole withdrew himself, after the surrender of the garrison of Worcester, into Cheshire, where he continued till the end of October, and then came up to London, where he became acquainted with Mr. (afterwards sir Jonas) Moore, William Lilly, and John Booker, esteemed the greatest astrologers in 'the world, by whom he was caressed, instructed, and received into their fraternity, which then made a very considerable figure, as appeared by the great resort of persons of distinction to their annual feast, of which Mr. Ashmole was afterwards elected steward. Jn 1647 he retired to Englefield, in Berkshire, where he pursued his studies very closely, and having so fair an opportunity, and the advantage of some very able masters, he cultivated the science of botany. Here, as appears from his own remarks, he enjoyed in privacy the sweetest moments of his life, the sensation of which perhaps was quickened, by his just idea of the melancholy state of the times. It was in this retreat that he became acquainted with Mary, sole daughter of sir William Forster, of Aldermarston, in the county of Berks, bart. who was first married to sir Edward Stafford, then to one Mr. Hamlyn, and lastly to sir Thomas Mainwaring, knt recorder of Reading, and one of the masters in chancery and an attachment took place but Mr. Humphrey Stafford, her second son, had such a dislike to the measure, that when Mr. Ashmole happened to be very ill, he broke into his chamber, and if not prevented, would have murdered him. In the latter end of 1648, lady Mainwaring conveyed to him her estate at Bradfield, which was soon after sequestered on account of Mr. Ashmole’s loyalty but the interest he had with William Lilly, and some others of that party, enabled him to get that sequestration taken off. On the sixteenth of November, 1649, he married lady Mainwaring, and settled in London, where his house became the receptacle of the most learned and ingenious persons that flourished at that time. It was by their conversation, that Mr. Ashmole, who hud been more fortunate in worldly affairs than most scholars are, and who had been always a curious collector of manuscripts, was induced to publish a treatise written by Dr. Arthur Dee, relating to the Philosopher’s stone, together with another tract on the same subject, by an unknown author. These accordingly appeared in the year following but Mr. Ashmole was so cautious, or rather modest, as to publish them by a fictitious name. He at the same time addressed himself to a work of greater consequence, a complete collection of the works of such English chemists, as had till then remained in ms. which cost him a great deal of labour, and for the embellishment of which he spared no expence, causing the cuts that were necessary, to be engraved at his own house in Black-Friars, by Mr. Vaughan, who was then the most eminent artist in that department in England. He imbibed this affection for chemistry from his intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Backhouse, of Swallowfield in the county of Berks, who was reputed an adept, and whom, from his free communication of chemical secrets, Mr. Ashmole was wont to call father, agreeably to the custom which had long prevailed among the lovers of that art, improperly, however, called chemistry for it really was the old superstition of alchemy. He likewise employed a part of his time in acquiring the art of engraving seuls, casting in sand, and the mystery of a working goldsmith. But all this time, his great work of publishing the ancient English writers in chemistry went on and finding that a competent knowlege of the Hebrew was absolutely necessary for understanding and explaining such authors as had written on the Hermetic science, he had recourse to rabbi Solomon Frank, by whom he was taught the rudiments of Hebrew, which he found very useful to him in his studies. At length, towards the close of the year 1652, his “Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum” appeared, which gained him great reputation in the learned world, as it shewed him to be a man of a most studious disposition, indefatigable application, and of wonderful accuracy in his compositions. It served also to extend his acquaintance considerably, and among others the celebrated Mr. Seiden took notice of him in the year 1653, encouraged his studies, and lived in great friendship with him to the day of his death. He was likewise very intimate with Mr. Oughtred, the mathematician, and with Dr. Wharton, a physician of great racter and experience. His marriage with lady -Main-waring, however, involved him in abundance of law-suits with other people, and at last produced a dispute between themselves, which came to a hearing on October 8, 1657, in the court of chancery, where serjeant Maynard having observed, that in eight hundred sheets of depositions taken on the part of the lady, there was not so much as a bad word proved against Mr. Ashrnole, her bill was dismissed, and she delivered back to her husband. He had now for some time addicted himself to the study of antiquity and records, which recommended him to the intimate acquaintance of Mr. (afterwards sir William) Dugdale, whom about this time he attended in his survey of the Fens, and was very useful to him in 'that excellent undertaking. Mr. Ashmole himself soon after took the pains to trace the Roman road, which in Antoninus’s Itinerary is called Bennevanna, from Weeden to Litchfield, of which he gave Mr. Dugdale an account, in a letter addressed to him upon that subject. It is very probable, that after his studies had thus taken a new turn, he lost somewhat of his relish for chemistry, since he discontinued the Theatrum Chemicum, which, according to his first design, was to have consisted of several volumes yet he still retained such a remembrance of it, as induced him to part civilly with the sons of art, by publishing a treatise in prose on the philosopher’s stone, to which he prefixed an admirable preface, in which he wishes to apologize for taking leave of these fooleries. In the spring of the year 1658, our author began to collect materials for his history of the order of the garter, which he afterwards lived to finish, and thereby rendered both the order and himself immortal, the just reward of the prodigious pains he took in searching records in the Tower, and elsewhere, comparing them with each other, and obtaining such lights as were requisite to render so perplexed a subject clear, and to reduce all the circumstances of such a vast body of history into their proper order. In September following he made a journey to Oxford, where he was extremely well received, and where he undertook to make a full and distinct description of the coins given to the public library by archbishop Laud, which was of great use to him in the works which he afterwards composed. He had lodged and boarded sometimes at a house in South Lambeth, kept by Mr. John Tradescant, whose father and himself hud been physic-gardeners there for many years, and had collected avast number of curiosities, which, after mature deliberation, Mr. Tradescant and his wife determined to bestow on Mr. Ashmole, and accordingly sealed and delivered a deed of gift for that purpose, on December 16, 1659. On the restoration of king Charles II. Mr. Ashmole was Dearly introduced into the presence and favour of his majesty, and on June 18, 1660, which was the second time he had the honour of discoursing with the king, he graciously bestowed upon him the place of Windsor herald. A few days after, he was appointed by the king to make a description of his medals, and had them delivered into his hands, and king Henry VHIth’s closet assigned for his use, being also allowed his diet at court. On August 21st, in the same year, he presented the three books which he had published, to his majesty, who, as he both loved and understood chemistry, received them very graciously. On September 3, he had a warrant signed for the office of commissioner of the excise, in consequence of a letter written by his majesty’s express command, to the earl of Southampton, then lord high-treasurer, by Mr. Se^ cretary Morris. About this time, a commission was granted to him as incidental to the care of the king’s medals, to examine the famous, or rather infamous, Hugh Peters, about the contents of the royal library which had fallen into his hands, and which was very carefully and punctually executed, but to very little purpose. On November 2d, he was called to the bar in Middle-Temple hall, and January 15, 1661, he was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. On February 9th following, the king signed a warrant for constituting him secretary of Surinam in the West Indies. In the beginning of the year 1662, he was appointed one of the commissioners for recovering the king’s goods, and about the same time he sent a set of services and anthems to the cathedral church of Litchfield, in memory of his having been once a chorister there, and he gave afterwards twenty pounds towards repairing the cathedral. On June 27, 1664, the White Office was opened, of which he was appointed a commissioner. On Feb. 17, 1665, sir Edward By she sealed his deputation for visiting Berkshire, which visitation he began on the llth of March following, and on June 9, 1668, he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the treasury, accomptant-general, and country accomptant in the excise. His second wife, lady Main waring, dying, April 1, in the same year, he soon after married Mrs. Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to his good friend sir William Dugdale, kht. garter king at arms, in Lincoln’s-inn chapel, on Novembers. The university of Oxford, in consideration of the many favours they had received from Mr. Ashmole, created him doctor of physic by diploma, July 19, 1669, which was presented to him on the 3d of November following, by Dr. Yates, principal of Brazen-Nose college, in the name of the university. He was now courted and esteemed by the greatest people in the kingdom, both in point of title and merit, who frequently did him the honour to visit him at his chambers in the Temple, and whenever he went his summer progress, he had the same respect paid him in the country, especially at his 'native town of Litchfield, to which when he came, he was splendidly entertained by the corporation. On May 8, 1672, he presented his laborious work on the most noble order of the garter, to his most gracious master king Charles II. who not only received it with great civility and kindness, but soon after granted to our author, as a mark of his approbation of the work, and of his personal esteem for him, a privy seal for 400 pounds out of the custom of paper. This was his greatest undertaking, and had he published nothing else, would have preserved his memory, as it certainly is in its kind one of the most valuable books in our language. On January 29, 1675, he resigned his office of Windsor herald, which by his procurement, was bestowed on his brother Dugdale, It was with great reluctancy that the earl marshal parted with him, and it was not long after, that he bestowed on him the character of being the best officer in his office. On the death of sir Edward Walker, garter king at arms, Feb_ 20, 1677, the king and the duke of Norfolk, as earl marshal, contested the right of disposing of his place, on which Mr. Ashmole was consulted, who declared in favour of the king, but with so much prudence and discretion as not to give any umbrage to the earl marshal. He afterwards himself refused this high office, which was conferred on his father-in-law sir -William Dugdale, for whom he employed his utmost interest. About the close of 1677, a proposal was made to Mr. Ashmole to become a candidate for the city of Litchfield, but finding himself poorly supported by the very persons who would have encouraged him to stand, he withdrew his pretensions. On the 26th of January, 1679, about ten in the morning, a fire began in the Middle Temple, in the next chambers to Mr. Aslimole’s,- by which he lost a library he had been collecting thirty-three years; but his Mss. escaped, by their being at his house in South Lambeth. He likewise lost a collection of 9000 coins, ancient and modern but his more valuable collection of gold medals were likewise preserved by being at Lambeth his vast repository of seals, charters, and other antiquities and curiosities, perished also in the flames. In 1683, the university of Oxford having finished a noble repository near the theatre, Mr. Ashmole sent thither that great collection of rarities which he had received from the Tradescants before-mentioned, together with such additions as he had made to them; and to this valuable benefaction he afterwards added that of his Mss. and library, which still remain a monument of his generous love to learning in general, and to the university of Oxford in particular. In the beginning of the year 1685, he was invited by the magistrates, and by the dean of Litchfield, to represent that corporation in parliament but upon king James’s intimating to him, by the lord Dartmouth, that he would take it kindly if he would resign his interest to Mr. Levvson, he instantly complied.

On the death of his father-in-law, sir William Dugdale, Jan. 10, 1686, Mr. Ashmole declined a second time the office of garter king at arms, and recommended his brother Dugdale, in which, though he did not fully succeed, yet he procured him the place of Norroy. This was one of the last public acts of his life, the remainder of which was spent in an honourable retirement to the day of his demise, which happened on May 18, 1692, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. He was undoubtedly a great benefactor to, and patron of, learning. His love of chemistry led him to preserve many valuable Mss. relating to that science, besides those that he caused to be printed and published. He was deeply skilled in history and antiquities, as sufficiently appears by his learned and laborious works, both printed and manuscripts. He was likewise a generous encourager and protector of such ingenious and learned men as were less fortunate in the world than himself, as appears by his kindness to sir'George Wharton in the worst of times, his respect to the memory of his friend Mr. John Booker, and the care he took in the education of the late eminent Dr. George Smalridge. His corpse was interred in the church of Lambeth in Surrey, May 26 1692, and a black marble stone laid over his grave, with a Latin inscription, in which, though there is much to his honour, there is nothing which exceeds the truth. He may be considered as one of the first and most useful collectors of documents respecting English antiquities, but the frequent application of the epithet genius to him, in the Biographia Britannica, is surely gratuitous. His attachment to- the absurdities of astrology and alchemy, and his association with Lilly, Booker, and other quacks and impostors of his age, must ever prevent his being ranked among the learned wise, although he never appears to have been a confederate in the tricks of Lilly and his friends, and certainly accumulated a considerable portion of learning and information on various useful topics. His benefaction to the university of Oxford will ever secure respect for his memory. It was towards the latter end of October 1677, that he made an offer to that university, of bestowing on it all that valuable collection of the Tradescants, which was so well known to the learned world, and which had been exceedingly improved since it came into his possession, together with all the coins, medals, and manuscripts of his own collecting, provided they would erect a building fit to receive them to which proposition the university willingly assented. Accordingly, on Thursday the 15th of May 1679, the first stone of that stately fabric, afterwards called Ashmole’s Museum, was laid on the west side of the theatre, and being finished by the beginning of March 1682, the collection was deposited and the articles arranged by Robert Plott, LL.D. who before had been intrusted with their custody. This museum was first publicly viewed, on the 2 1st of May following, by his royal highness James duke of York, his royal consort Josepha Maria, princess Anne, and their attendants, and on the 24th of the same month, by the doctors and masters of the university. In a convocation held on the 4th of June following (1683) a Latin letter of thanks, penned by him who was then deputy orator, being publicly read, was sent to Mr. Ashmole at South Lambeth, In July 1690, he visited the university with his wife, and was received with all imaginable honour, and entertained at a noble dinner in his museum; on which occasion Mr. Edward Hannes, A. M. the chemical professor, afterwards an eminent physician, made an elegant oration to him. His benefaction to the university was very considerably enlarged at his death, by the addition of his library, which consisted of one thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight books, of which six hundred and twenty were manuscripts, and of them three hundred and eleven folios, relating chiefly to English History, Heraldry, Astronomy, and Chemiftry, with a great variety of pamphlets, part of which had been sorted by himself, and the rest are methodized since, and a double catalogue made one classical, according to their various subjects, and another alphabetical. He bequeathed also to the same place, two gold chains and a medal, the one a filigreen chain of ninety links, weighing twenty-two ounces, with a medal of the elector of Brandenburg, upon which is the effigies of that elector, and on the reverse, a iHew of Straelsund, struck upon the surrender of that important city; a collar of S. S. with a medal of the king of Denmark; and a gold medal of the elector Palatine; and a George of the duke of Norfolk, worn by his grandfather when he was ambassador in Germany. All these he had received as acknowledgments of the honour which he had done the garter, by his labours on that subject. This museum has been since enriched by the Mss. of Anthony Wood, Aubrey, and others. It has been remarked as something extraordinary, that Mr. Ashmole was never knighted for his services as a herald. It is perhaps as extraordinary that the university of Oxford bestowed on him the degree of doctor of physic, who never regularly studied or practised in that faculty, unless we conceive it as a compliment to his chemical studies.

Having finished his travels, he returned to Cambridge, and in the year 1750 commenced M. D. He was soon after admitted fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and of the Royal Society, in London. What time could be afterwards spared from attending his professional engagements was dedicated to the conversation of literary men, and to increasing and arranging his collection of books. He died at Hampstead, in the neighbourhood of London, Feb. 27, 1774. Amongst his books and Mss. was a complete collection of the editions of Æschylus, some illustrated with ms notes, and likewise one or two, if not more, Mss. of the same author; which were collected purposely for the intention of publishing at some future period an edition of JEschylus. In 1746, he printed a specimen of this intended edition in a small quarto pamphlet under the following title “Novae Editionis Tragoediarum Æschyli Specimen, curante Antonio Askew, M. B. Coll. Emman. apud Cantabrigienses hand ita pridem socio commensal!, Lugduni Batavorum, 1746.” This pamphlet, which is now become extremely scarce, was dedicated to Dr. Mead, and consisted only of twenty-nine lines, namely, from v. 563 to v. 596 of the Eumenides (edit. Schultz). It contained various readings from his Mss. and printed books, and the Notse Variorum. Dr. Askew was indeed reckoned one of the best Grecians in England. Dr. Taylor, usually called Demosthenes Taylor, was his great friend, from a similarity of taste and study, and left him his executor, and heir to his noble collection of books and manuscripts.

, a celebrated rabbi, in the year 476, in conjunction with Hammai, another rabbi^ composed the Talmud of Babylon, so called from the place of their residence. This collection of visions has had the honour of two commentators, the rabbi Mair in the year 547, and another Asser, who died in 1328, and was printed by Elzivir at Leyden, in 1630, 4to, and again with all its commentators at Amsterdam in 1644, in 12 vols. folio.

, or Asser, or Asker (called, by Pitts, John,) a learned monk of St. David’s, and historian, was of British extraction, probably of that part of South Wales called Pembrokeshire, and was bred up in the learning of those times, in the monastery of St. David’s (in Latin Menevia), whence he derived his surname of Menevensis. There he is said to have had for his tutor Johannes Patricius, one of the most celebrated scholars of his age, and had also the countenance of Nobis, or Novis, archbishop of that see, who was his relation but it does not appear that he was either his secretary or his chancellor, as some writers would have us believe. From St. David’s he was invited to the court of Alfred the Great, merely from the reputation of his learning, probably about the year 880, or somewhat earlier. Those who had the charge of bringing him to court, conducted him from St. David’s to the town of Dene (Dean) in Wiltshire, where the king received him with great civility, and shewed him in a little time the strongest marks of favour and affection, insomuch that he condescended to persuade him not to think any more of returning to St. David’s, but rather to continue with him as his domestic chaplain and assistant in his studies. Asserius, however, modestly declined this proposal, alledging, that it did not become him to desert that holy place where he had been educated, and received the order of priesthood, for the sake of any other preferment. King Alfred then desired that he would divide his time between the court and the monastery, spending six months at court, and six at St. David’s. Asserius would not lightly comply even with this request, but desired leave to return to St. David’s, to ask the advice of his brethren, which he obtained, but in his journey falling ill at Winchester of a fever, he lay there sick about a year and as soon as he recovered he went to St. David’s, where, consulting with his brethren on the king’s proposal, they unanimously agreed that he should accept it, promising themselves great advantages from his favour with the king, of which, at that time, they appear to have had need, to relieve them from the oppressions of one Hemeid, a petty prince of South Wales. But they requested of Asserius, that he would prevail on the king to allow him to reside quarterly at court and at St. David’s, rather than that he should remain absent six months together. When he came back he found the king at Leoneforde, who received him with every mark of distinction. He remained with him then eight months at once, reading and explaining to him whatever books were in his library, and grew into so great credit with that generous prince, that on Christmas-eve following, he gave him the monasteries of Anigresbyri, and Banuwille, that is, Ambrosbury in Wiltshire, and Banwell in Somersetshire, with a silk pall of great value, and as much incense as a strong man could carry, sending together with them this compliment, “That these were but small things, and by way of earnest of better which should follow them.” Soon after, he had Exeter bestowed upon him, and not long after that, the bishopric of Sherburn, which, however, he seems to have quitted in the year 883, though he always retained the title, as Wilfred archbishop of York was constantly so styled, though he accepted of another bishopric. Thenceforward he constantly attended the court, in the manner before stipulated, and is named as a person, in whom he had particular confidence, by king Alfred, in his testament, which must have been written some time before the year 885; since mention is made there of Esna bishop of Hereford, who died that year. He is also mentioned by the king, in his prefatory epistle placed before his translation of Gregory’s Pastoral, addressed to Wulfsig bishop of London and there the king does not call him bishop of Sherburn, but “my bishop,” acknowledging the help received from him and others in that translation. It appears to have been the near resemblance, which the genius of Asserius bore to that of the king, that gained him so great a share in his confidence and very probably, it was on this account, that Asserius drew up those memoirs of the life of Alfred which we still have, and which he dedicated and presented to the king in the year 893. la this work we have a curious account of the manner in which that prince and our author spent their time together. Asserius tells us, that having one day, being the feast of St. Martin, cited in conversation a passage of some famous author, the king was mightily pleased with it, and would have him write it down in the margin of a book he carried in his breast; but Asserius finding no room to write it there, and yet being desirous to gratify his master, he asked king Alfred whether he should not provide a few leaves, in which to set dawn such remarkable things as occurred either in reading or conversation the king was delighted with this hint, and directed Asserius to put it immediately in execution. Pursuing this method constantly, their collection began to swell, till at length it became of the size of an ordinary Psalter and this was what the king called his “Hand-book, or Manual.” Asserius, however, calls it Enchiridion. In all probability, Asserius continued at court during the whole reign of Alfred, and, probably, several years after but where, or when he died is doubtful, though the Saxon Chronicle positively fixes it to the year 910. The editor of his life in the Biog. Brit, takes Asser the monk, and Asser bishop of Sherburnj for one and the same person, which some however have denied, and asserts him to have been also archbishop of Sk David’s, upon very plausible authority. He admits, however, i that if there was such a reader in the public schools at Oxford as Asser the monk, he must have been some other person of the same name, and not our author but this point rests almost wholly on the authority of Harpsfiekl nor is the account consistent with itself in several other respects,as sir John S'pelman has justly observed. There is no less controversy about the works of Asserius, than about his preferments for some alledge that he never wrote any thing but the Annals of king Alfred whereas, Pitts gives us the titles of no less than five other books of his writing, and adds, that he wrote many more. The first of these is a “Commentary on Boetius,” which is mentioned by Leland, on the authority of the Chronicle of St. Neot’s but he probably only explained this author to king Alfred when he made his Saxon translation. The second piece mentioned by Pitts, is the Anjials of Alfred’s life and reign. The third he styles “Annales Britannia;,” or the Annals of Britain, in one book, mentioned also by Leland and Bale, and which has been since published by the learned Dr. Gale. The fourth piece, he calls “Aurearum Sententiarum Enchiridion, lib. 1” which is without question the Manual or common-placebook made for king Alfred, and reckoned among his works by Pitts himself. Leland has also spoken of this Enchiridion, as an instance of the learning and diligence of Asser, which it certainly was and though the collections he made concerning this author, are much better and larger than those of Bale and Pitts, yet he modestly, upon this subject, apologizes for speaking so little and so obscurely of so great a man. The next in Pitts’ s catalogue, is a “Book of Homilies,” and the last, “A Book of Epistles” but the existence of these seems unsupported by any authority; nor is it known where he was interred. He appears to have been one of the most pious and learned prelates of the age in which he lived.

called the Ape of Scarron, was born at Paris in 1604, the son of an avocat of parleinent. At eight years old he ran away from his father’s house, stopped at Calais, where he gave himself out for the son of Csesar Nostradamus and having set up for a quack, he succeeded in restoring to health a patient who fancied himself sick. The people of Calais, thinking that he derived his medical skill from magic, were upon the point of throwing him into the sea, and it was with difficulty that he saved himself from their fury by flight. After many more adventures at London, at Turin, and in various other places, he came to Montpellier, where some irregular amours drew upon him the notice of the magistrate. He then strolled about from one country to another, and at length arrived at Rome, where his satires upon the court procured him to be imprisoned in the inquisition. Being returned to France, he was sent to the Bastille and afterwards was conducted to the Chatelet for the same crime for which he had been arrested at Montpellier. But, finding protectors, he was liberated at the end of six months. He died in 1679. His poetry was collected into three vols. 12mo, 1678. Among these pieces is a part of the Metamorphoses of Ovid translated, under the title of “Ovid in good humour.” It is a burlesque version, in which, as in all works of that nature, there are a thousand instances of dullness, and a thousand ruore of indecency, for one lively and ingenious turn of wit. We find also the rape of Proserpine, from Claudian, whom he makes harangue in the manner of declaimers. Assouci published also his adventures in a style of buffoonery, 3 vols. 12 mo, 1678. Upon the whole he appears to have been one of those writers that may be passed over with very slight notice, a man, with some talent for humour, but destitute of principle.

, an officer of note in king Charles I-.'s army, was son of sir Arthur Aston of Fulham in Middlesex, who was the second son of sir Thomas Aston, of Aston, of Bucklow-hundred in Cheshire; “an ancient and knightly family of that county.” He was a great traveller, and made several campaigns in foreign countries. Being returned into England about the beginning of the grand rebellion, with as many soldiers of note as he could bring with him, he took part with the king against the parliament. He commanded the dragoons in the battle of Edge- hill, and with them did his majesty considerable service. The king, having a great opinion of his valour and conduct, made him governor of the garrison of Reading in Berkshire, and commissary-general of the horse in which post he three times repulsed the earl of Essex, who, at the head of the parliament army, laid siege to that place. But sir Arthur being dangerously wounded, the command was devolved on colonel Richard Fielding, the eldest colonel in the garrison. Sir Arthur was suspected of taking this opportunity to get rid of a dangerous command. Some time after, he was appointed governor of the garrison of Oxford, in the room of sir William Pennyman deceased. In September following, he had the misfortune to break his leg by a fall from his horse, and was obliged to have it cut off, and on the twenty-fifth of December, he was discharged from his command, which was conferred on colonel Gage. After the king’s death, sir Arthur was employed in the service of king Charles IL and went with the flower of the English veterans into Ireland, where he was appointed, governor of Drogheda, commonly called Tredagk; “at which time (Mr. Wood tells us) he laid an excellent plot to tire and break the English army.” But at length Cromwell having taken the town, about the tenth of August 1649, and put the inhabitants to the sword, sir Arthur the governor was cut to pieces, and his brains beaten out with his wooden-leg. Wood says, that he was created doctor of physic, May 1,

, a brave and loyal gentleman, was the son of John Aston, of Aston in Cheshire, esq. by his wife Maud, daughter of Robert Needham, of Shenton in Shropshire. He was entered a gentleman commoner of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, in 1626-7, but was soon called home by his relations, and, being married, was created a baronet in July 1628. In 1635 he was high-sheriff of Cheshire, and firmly attached to the cause of Charles I. Upon the approach of the rebellion, he wrote some pieces against the Presbyterians, and was afterwards the first man in his county that took part with the king. During the civil war, he raised a party of horse for his majesty’s service, which was defeated by a party of rebels under sir William Breerton of Honford, near Nantwich in Cheshire, July 28, 1642; but sir Thomas escaped with a slight wound. Some time after, he was taken in a skirmish in Staffordshire, and carried prisoner to Stafford, where endeavouring to make his escape, a soldier gave him a blow on the head, which, with other wounds he had a little before received, threw him into a fever, of which he died March 24, 1645. His body was carried to Aston, and interred in the chapel belonging to his own house. His writings were, “A Remonstrance against Presbytery,” Lond. 1641, 4to. “A short survey of the Presbyterian discipline.” “A brief review of the Institution, Succession, and Jurisdiction of the ancient and venerable order of the Bishops.” These two last were printed with the “Remonstrance.” He also made “A collection of sundry Petitions presented to the King and Parliament,” 4to, 1642.

, a physician, born at Attalia, a city of Cilicia, was contemporary with Pliny, in the first century, and was the founder of the Pneumatic sect. His doctrine was, that the fire, air, water, and earth, are not the true elements, as is generally supposed, but that their qualities are so, namely, heat, cold, moisture, and dryness. To these he added a fifth element, which he called spirit ('Evsufta.) whence hisisect had its name. He thought that this spirit penetrated all bodies, and kept them in their natural state this he borrowed from the Stoics, whence Galen calls Chrysippus, one of the most famous of those philosophers, the Father of the Pneumatic sect; but Athenaeus was the first who applied it to physic. He thought that, in the greatest part of diseases, this spirit was the first that suffered and that the pulse was only a motion caused by the natural and involuntary dilatation of the heat in the arteries and heart. We have but very little of this famous author remaining, and must look for a further account of the doctrines of his sect In the writings of Aretseus.

"Sir, I am not without the apprehensions of danger that may arise by advising in, or so much as discoursing of, public affairs yet no fear of danger shall hinder me from performing the duty we owe one to another, to counsel those that need our advice, how to make their just defence when they are called in question for their lives especially if they are persons that have, by their general carriage and conversation, appeared to be men of worth, and lovers of their king and country, and of the religion established among us. I will follow the method you use, and answer what you ask in the order I find it in your letters.

, an Augustin monk, was torn at St. Philip of Agire, or Argire, an ancient town of Sicily, and became professor of church history in the university of Catania, and in 1758 provincial of his order in Sicily and Malta. He wrote, 1. a Bilancia della Verita,“Palermo, 1738, 4to. This was an answer to a book entitled” Paulus apostolus in Mari, quod hunc Venetus sinus dicifcur, naufragus," by P. Ignatius Giorgi, a Benedictine of Hagusa. The dispute respected the name of the island on which St. Paul was shipwrecked, called in Latin Melita. Giorgi was of opinion that it was an island in Dalmatia, now called Melada, while Attardi maintained the more common opinion that it was the well known island of Malta.

, descended of an ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex, was born in 1488. He was by nature endowed with great abilities, from his ancestors inherited an ample fortune, and was happy in a regular education, but whether at Oxford or Cambridge is not certain. At what time he was entered of the Inner-Temple, does not appear, but in 1526 he was autumn reader of that house, and is thought to have read on the statute of privileges, which he handled with so much learniag and eloquence, as to acquire great reputation. This, with the duke of Suffolk’s recommendation, to whom he was chancellor, brought him to the' knowledge of his sovereign, who at that time wanted men of learning and some pliability he was, accordingly, by the king’s influence, chosen speaker of that parliament, which sat first on the third of November, 1529, and is by some styled the Black Parliament, and by others, on account of its duration, the Long Parliament. Great complaints were made in the house of commons against the clergy, and the proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, and several bills were ordered to be brought in, which alarmed some of the prelates. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, inveighed boldly against these transactions, in the house of lords, with which the house of commons were so much offended, that they thought proper to complain of it, by their speaker, to the king, and Fisher had some difficulty in excusing himself. The best historians agree, that great care was taken by the king, or at least by his ministry, to have such persons chosen into this house of commons as would proceed therein readily and effectually, and with this view Audley was chosen to supply the place of sir Thomas More, now speaker of the lords’ house, and chancellor of England. The new house and its speaker justified his majesty’s expectations, by the whole tenor of their behaviour, but especially by the passing of a law, not nowfound among our statutes. The king, having borrowed very large sums of money of particular subjects, and entered into obligations for the repayment of the said sums, the house brought in, and passed a bill, in the preamble of which they declared, that inasmuch as those sums had been applied by his majesty to public uses, therefore they cancelled and discharged the said obligations, &c. and the king, finding the convenience of such a parliament, it sat again in the month of January, 1530-1. In this session also many extraordinary things were done amongst the rest, there was a law introduced in the house of lords, by which the clergy were exempted from the penalties they had incurred, by submitting to the legatine power of Wolsey. On this occasion the commons moved a clause in favour of the laity, many of themselves having also incurred the penalties of the statute. But the king insisted that acts of grace ought to flow spontaneously, and that this was not the method of obtaining what they wanted; and the house, notwithstanding the intercession of its speaker, and several of its members, who were the king’s servants, was obliged to pass the bill without the clause, and immediately the king granted them likewise a pardon, which reconciled all parties. In the recess, the king thought it necessary to have a letter written to the pope by the lords and commons, or rather by the three estates in parliament, which letter was drawn up and signed by cardinal Wolsey, the archbishop of Canterbury, four bishops, two dukes, two marquisses, thirteen earls, two viscounts, twenty-three barons, twenty-two abbots, and eleven members of the house of commons. Thepurport of this letter, dated July 13, above three weeks after the parliament rose, was to iMigage the pope to grant the king’s desire in the divorce business, for the sake of preventing a civil war, on account of the succession, and to threaten him if he did not, to take some other way. To gratify the speaker for the great pains he had already taken, and to encourage him to proceed in the same way, the king made him this year attorney for the duchy of Lancaster, advanced him in Michaelmas term to the state and degree of a serjeant at law, and on the 14th of November following, to that of his own serjeant. In January, 1531-2, the parliament had its third session, wherein the grievances occasioned by the excessive power of the ecclesiastics and their courts, were regularly digested into a book, which was presented by the speaker, Audley, to the king. The king’s answer was, He would take advice, hear the parties accused speak, and then proceed to reformation. Jn this session, a bill was brought into the house of lords, for the better securing the rights of his majesty, and other persons interested in the eare of wards, which rights, it was alleged, were injured by fraudulent wills and contracts. This bill, when it came into the house of commons, was violently opposed, and the members expressed a desire of being dissolved, which the king would not permit but after they had done some business, they had a recess to the month of April. When they next met, the king sent for the speaker, and delivered to him the answer which had been made to the roll of grievances, presented at their last sitting, which afforded very little satisfaction, and they seemed now less subset viciit. Towards the close of the month, one Mr. Themse moved, That the house would intercede with the king, to take back his queen again. The king, extremely alarmed at this, on the 30th of April, 1532, sent for the speaker, to whom he repeated the plea of conscience, which had induced him to repudiate the queen, and urged that the opinion of the learned doctors, &c. was on his side. On the 11th of May the king sent for the speaker again, and told him, that he had found that the clergy of his realm were but half his subjects, or scarcely so much, every bishop and abbot at the entering into his dignity, taking an oath to the pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity to the king, which contradiction he desired his parliament to take away. Upon this motion of the king’s, the two oaths he mentioned were read in the house of commons and they would probably have complied, if the plague bad not put an end to the session abruptly, on the 14th of May; and two days after, sir Thomas More, knt. then lord chancellor of England, went suddenly, without acquainting any body with his intention, to court, his majesty being then at York Place, and surrendered up the seals to the king. The king going out of town to EastGreenwich, carried the seals with him, and on Monday, May 20, delivered them to Thomas Audley, esq, with the title of lord keeper, and at the same time conferred on him the honour of knighthood. September 6, sir Thomas delivered the old seal, which was much worn, and received a new one in its stead, yet with no -higher title: but on January 26, 1533, he again delivered the seal to the king, who kept it a quarter of an hour, and then returned it with the title of lord chancellor. A little after, the king granted to him the site of the priory of Christ Church, Aldgate, together with all the church plate, and lands belonging to that house. When chancellor he complied with the king’s pleasure as effectually as when speaker of the house of commons. For in July 1535, he sat in judgment on sir Thomas More, his predecessor, (as he had before on bishop Fisher,) who was now indicted of high-treason upon which indictment the jury found him gnilty, and the lord chancellor, Audley, pronounced judgment of death upon him. This done, we are told, that sir Thomas More said, that he had for seven years bent his mind and study upon this cause, but as yet he found it no where writ by any approved doctor of the church, that a layman could be head of the ecclesiastical state. To this Audley returned, “Sir, will you be reckoned wiser, or of a better conscience, than all the bishops, the nobility, and the whole kingdom” Sir Thomas rejoined, “My lord chancellor, for one bishop that you have of your opinion, I have a hundred of mine, and that among those that have been saints and for your one council, which, what it is, God knows, I have on my side all the general councils for a thousand years past; and for one kingdom, I have France and all the ether kingdoms of the Christian world.” As our chancellor was very active in the business of the divorce, he was no less so in the business of abbies, and had particularly a large hand in the dissolution of such religions houses as had not two hundred pounds by the year. This was in the twenty-seventh of Henry VIII, and the bill being delayed long in the house of commons, his majesty sent for the members of that house to attend him in his gallery, where he passed through them with a stern countenance, without speaking a word the members not having received the king’s command to depart to their house, durst not return till they knew the king’s pleasure so they stood waiting in the gallery. In the mean time the king went a hunting, and his ministers, who seem to have had better manners than their master, went to confer with the members to some they spoke of the king’s steadiness and severity to others, of his magnificence and generosity. At last the king came back, and passing through them again, said, with an air of fierceness peculiar to himself, That if his bill did not pass, it should cost many of them their heads. Between the ministers’ persuasions and the king’s threats, the matter was brought to an issue the king’s bill, as he called it, passed and by it, he had not only the lands of the small monasteries given him, but also their jewels, plate, and rich moveables. This being accomplished, methods were used to prevail with the abbots of larger foundations to surrender. To this end, the chancellor sent a special agent to treat with the abbot of Athelny, to offer him an hundred marks per annum pension which he refused, insisting on a greater sum. The chancellor was more successful with the abbot of St. Osithes in Essex, with whom he dealt personally and, as he expresses it in a letter to Cromwell, the visitor-general, by great solicitation prevailed with him but then he insinuates, that his place of lord chancellor being very chargeable, he desired the king might be moved for addition of some more profitable offices unto him. In suing for the great abbey of Walden, in the same county, which he obtained, besides extenuating its worth, he alleged under his hand, that he had in this world sustained great damage and infamy in serving the king, which the grant of that should recompense. But if the year 1536 was agreeable to him in one respect, it was far from being so in another; since, notwithstanding the obligations he was under to queen Anne Bullen, he was obliged, by the king’s command, to be present at her apprehension and commitment to the Tower. He sat afterwards with Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, when he gave sentence of divorce on the pre-contract between the queen and the lordPiercy and on the 15th of May, in the same year, he sat in judgment on the said queen, notwithstanding we are told by Lloyd, that with great address he avoided it. The lengths he had gone in serving the king, and his known dislike to popery, induced the northern, rebels in the same year, to name him as one of the evil counsellors, whom they desired to see removed from about the king’s person which charge, however, his majesty, as far as in him lay, wiped off, by his well- penned answer to the complaints of those rebels, wherein an excellent character is given of the chancellor. When the authors of this rebellion came to be tried, the chancellor declined sitting as lord high steward, which high office was executed by the marquis of Exeter, on whom shortly after, viz. in 1538, Audley sat as high-steward, and condemned him, his brother, and several t other persons, to suffer death as traitors. In the latter end of the same year, viz. on the 29th of November, 30 Hen. VIII. the chancellor was created a baron, by the style of lord Audley of Walden in the county of Essex, and was likewise installed knight of the garter. In the session of parliament in 1539, there were many severe acts made, and the prerogative carried to an excessive height, particularly by the six bloody articles, and the giving the king’s proclamation the force of a law. It does not very clearly appear who were the king’s principal counsellors in these matters but it is admitted by the best historians, that the rigorous execution of these laws, which the king first designed, was prevented by the interposition of the lord Audley, in conjunction with Cromwell, who was then prime minister, and the duke of Suffolk, the king’s favourite throughout his whole reign. In the beginning of 1540, the court was excessively embarrassed. What share Audley had in the fall of Cromwell afterwards is not clear, but immediately after a new question was stirred in parliament, viz. How far the king’s marriage with Anne of Cleves, was lawful This was referred to the judgment of a spiritual court and there are yet extant the depositions of Thomas lord Audley, lord chancellor, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, Charles, duke of Suffolk, and Cuthbert, lord bishop of Durham, wherein they jointly swear, that the papers produced to prove the retraction of the lady Anne’s contract with the duke of Lorrain, were inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Other lords and ladies deposed to other points, and the issue of the business was, that the marriage was declared void by this court, which sentence was supported by an act of parliament, affirming the same thing, and enacting, That it should be high-treason to judge or believe otherwise. This obstacle removed, the king married the lady Catherine Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, and cousin -german to Anne Bullen. Nothing is clearer from history, than that the chancellor was closely attached to the house of Norfolk and yet in the latter end of the year 1541, he was constrained to be an instrument in the ruin of the unfortunate queen information of her bad life before her marriage, being laid first before the archbishop of Canterbury, and by him communicated to the chancellor. The king then appointed lord Audley one of the commissioners to examine her, which they did, and there is yet extant a letter subscribed by him and the other lords, containing an exact detail of this affair, and of the evidence on which, in the next session of parliament, the queen and others were attainted. The whole of this business was managed in parliament by the chancellor, and there is reason to believe, that he had some hand in another business transacted in that session which was the opening a door for the dissolution of hospitals, the king having now wasted all that had accrued to him by the suppression of abbies. Some other things of the like nature were the last testimonies of the chancellor’s concern for his master’s interest but next year a more remarkable case occurred. Jn the 34th of Henry VIII. George Ferrers, esq. burgess for Plymouth, was arrested, and carried to the compter, by virtue of a writ from the court of king’s bench. The house, on notice thereof, sent their serjeant to demand their member in doing which, a fray ensued at the compter, his mace was broke, his servant knocked down, and himself obliged to make his escape as well as he could. The house, upon notice of this, resolved they would sit no longer without their member, and desired a conference with the lords where, after hearing the mutter, the lord chancellor Audley declared the contempt was most flagrant, and referred “the punishment thereof to the house of commons whereupon Thomas Moyle, esq. who was then speaker, issued his warrant, and the sheriff of London, and several other persons, were brought to the bar of the house, and committed, some to the Tower, and some to Newgate. This precedent was gained by the king’s want of an aid, who at that time expected the commons would offer him a subsidy the ministry, and the house of lords, knowing the king’s will gave the commons the complimerit of punishing those who had imprisoned one of their members. Dyer, mentioning this case, sap,” The sages of the law held the commitment of Ferrers legal, and though the privilege was allowed him, yet was it held unjust.“As the chancellor had led a very active life, he grew now infirm, though he was not much above fifty years old, and therefore began to think of settling his family and affairs. But, previous to this, he obtained from the king a licence to change the name of Buckingham college in Cambridge, into that of Magdalen, or Maudlin some will have it, because in the latter word his own name is included. To this college he was a great benefactor, bestowed on it his own arms, and is generally 'reputed its founder, or restorer. His capital seat was at Christ-Christ in town, and at Walden in Essex and to preserve some remembrance of himself and fortunes, he caused a magnificent tomb to be erected in his new chapel at Walden. About the beginning of April, 1544, he was attacked by his last illness, which induced him to resign the seals but he was too weak to do it in person, and therefore sent them to the king, who delivered them to sir Thomas Wriothesley, with the title of keeper, during the indisposition of the chancellor a circumstance not remarked by any of our historians. On the 19th of April, lord Audi ey made hU will, and, amongst other things, directed that his executors should, upon the next New-year’s day after his decease, deliver to the king a legacy of one hundred pounds, from whom, as he expresses it,” he had received all his reputations and benefits." He died on the last of April, 1544, when he had held the seals upwards of twelve years, and in the fifty-sixth of his life, as appears by the inscription on his tomb. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas iGrey, marquis of Dorset, by whom he had two daughters, Margaret and Mary; Mary died unmarried, and Margaret became his sole heir. She married first lord Henry Dudley, a younger son of John duke of Northumberland, and he being slain at the battle of St. Quintin’s, in Picardy, in 1557, she married a second time, Thomas duke of Norfolk, to whom she was also a second wife, and had by him a son Thomas, who, by act of parliament, in the 27th of Elizabeth, was restored in blood; and in the 39th of the same reign, summoned to parliament by his grandfather’s title, as baron of Walden, In the 1st of James I. he was created earl of Suffolk, and being afterwards lord hightreasurer of England, he built on the ruins of the abbey of Walden, that nee noble palace, which, in honour of our chancellor, he called Audley-End.

This rapid advancement of Averroes brought upon him the envy of his rivals at Corduba who conspired to lodge an accusation against him, for an heretical desertion of the true Mahometan faith. For this purpose, they engaged several young persons among their dependants, to apply to him for instruction in philosophy. Averroes, who was easy of access, and always desirous of communicating knowledge, complied with their request, and thus fell into the snare that had been laid for him. His new pupils were very industrious in taking minutes of every tenet or opinion advanced by their preceptor, which appeared to contradict the established system of Mahometan theology. These minutes they framed into a charge of heresy, and attested upon oath, that they had been fairly taken from his lips. The charge was signed by an hundred witnesses. The caliph listened to the accusation, and punished Averroes, by declaring him heterodox, confiscating his goods, and commanding him for the future to reside among the Jews, who inhabited the precincts of Corduba where he remained an object of general persecution and obloquy. Even the boys in the streets pelted him with stones, when he went up to the mosque in the city to perform his devotions. His pupil, Maimonides, that he might not be under the necessity of violating the laws of friendship and gratitude, by joining the general cry against Averroes, left Corduba. From this unpleasant situation Averroes at last found means to escape. He fled to Fez, but had been there only a few days, when he was discovered by the magistrate, and committed to prison. The report of his flight from Corduba was soon carried to the king, who immediately called a council of divines and lawyers, to determine in what manner this heretic should be treated. The members of the council were not agreed in opinion. Some strenuously maintained, that a man who held opinions so contrary to the law of the prophet deserved death. Others thought that much mischief, arising from the dissatisfaction of those among the infidels who were inclined to favour him, might be avoided, by only requiring from the culprit a public penance, and recantation of his errors. The milder opinion prevailed and Averroes was brought out of prison to the gate of the mosque, and placed upon the upper step, with his head bare, at the time of public prayers and every one, as he passed into the mosque, was allowed to spit upon his face. At the close of the service, the judge, with his attendants, came to the philosopher, and asked him whether he repented of his heresies. He acknowledged his penitence, and was dismissed without further punishment, with the permission of the king. Averroes returned to Corduba, where he experienced all the miseries of poverty and contempt. In process of time the people became dissatisfied with the regent who had succeeded Averroes, and petitioned the king that their former governor might be restored. Jacob Al-Mansor, not dar.ng to show sucli indulgence to one who had been infamous for heresy, without the consent of the priesthood, called a general assembly, in which it was debated, whether it would be consistent with the safety of religion, and the honour of the law, that Averroes should be restored to the government of Corduba. The deliberation terminated in favour of the penitent heretic, and he was restored, by the royal mandate, to all his former honours. Upon this fortunate change in his affairs, Averroes removed to Morocco, where he remained till his death, which happened, as some say, in 1195, or according to others in 1206.

, a distinguished French critic, was born at Paris, Dec. 12, 1724, embraced the clerical profession, and obtained the chair of the professor of belles lettres in the college of Rouen. The bishop of Lescar No6 made him his grand vicar, and usually called him his grand vicar in partibus Atheniensium, in allusion to his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, from which he had made translations of the greater part of the orators, with much purity. He was received into the academy of Inscriptions, where he was much esteemed for his learning and personal virtues. He lived, it is said, among the great, and told them truth, and to his opponents was remarkable for canckmr and urbanity. In his private character he appears to have been distinguished for a love of letters, and an independent and philosophic spirit which kept him from soliciting patronage or preferment. He died Feb. 7, 1791. His principal works were, “The Orations of Demosthenes and Eschines on the crown,” Rouen,. 1768, 12mo; “The whole works of Demosthenes and Eschines,” 6 vols. 8vo, 1777 and 1788. This is accompanied with remarks upon the genius and productions of these two great orators, with critical notes on the Greek text, a preliminary discourse concerning eloquence; a treatise on the jurisdiction and laws of Athens and other pieces, relative to Grecian laws and literature, which have great merit. His countrymen, however, do not speak highly of his translations, as conveying the fire and spirit of the original. They say he is exact and faithful, but cold. In 1781 he published, in 3 vols. 8vo, “The Works of Isocrates.” This is thought preferable to the former, yet still the French critics considered the translator as better acquainted with Greek than French the truth perhaps is, that the French language is less capable of receiving the fire and sublimity of the great orators than those critics are willing to suspect. In 1783 he published the “Works of Lysias,” 8vo; in 1785 “The homilies, discourses, and letters ef S. John Chrysostom,” 4 vols. 8vo; in 1787, “Select orations of Cicero,” in 3 vols. 8vo; in 1788, “Orations from Herodotus, Thucydides, and the works of Xenophon,” 2 vols. 8vo. In 1789, he published “Projet d' Education Publique” at least such is the title of the work, but we suspect it to be a re-publication of some “Discourses on Education, delivered in the Royal college at Rouen, to which are subjoined, Reflections upon Friendship,” which appeared first in 1775, and were commended for their spirit, taste, and judgment. Some political works were published in his name after his death, and a piece entitled De la Tragedie Grecque,“1792, 8vo. To his works also may be added an edition of” Isocrates, in Gr. and Lat." 3 vols. 8vo, and 4to, a very beautiful book. As an editor and critic, he discovers, in all his editions, much taste and judgment; but perhaps his countrymen do him no injury in supposing that the latter in general predomU nated.

, or by contraction Austin (St.), usually styled the Apostle of the English, and the first archbishop of Canterbury, was originally a monk in the convent of St. Andrew at Rome, and was educated under St. Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory I. who undertook the conversion of the island of Britain. His inducement to this, in the life of St. Gregory, written by John Diaconus, introduces us to a string of puns, which we must refer to the manners and taste of the times, without surely impeaching the seriousness of Gregory, who in his present situation, as well as when pope, had no other visible motive for his zea], than the propagation of Christianity. Walking in the forum at Rome, he haprfened to see some very handsome youths exposed to sale, and being informed that they were of the island of Britain, and that the inhabitants of that island were Pagans, he regretted that such handsome youths should be destitute of true knowledge, and again asked the name of the nation. “Angli” was the answer on which he observed, “In truth they have angelic countenances, and it is a pity they should not be coheirs with angels in heaven.” When informed that they came from the province of Deira (Northumberland), he observed, “It is well, de mz, snatched from the wrath of God, and called to the mercy of Christ and when, in answer to another interrogatory, he was told that the name of their king was Ella, he said,” Alleluia, should be sung to God in those regions." More seriously impressed with a sense of his duty on this occasion, he requested pope Benedict to send some persons to our island on a mission, and offered to be one of the number. He was himself, however, too much a favourite with the Roman citizens to be suffered to depart, and it was not until he became pope, that he was enabled effectually to pursue his purpose. After his consecration in the year 595, he directed a presbyter, whom he had sent into France, to instruct some young Saxons, of seventeen or eighteen years of age, in Christianity, to act as missionaries and in the year 597, he sent about forty monks, including perhaps some of these new converts, with Augustine at their head. Having proceeded a little way on their journey, they began to dread the attempt of committing themselves to a savage and infidel nation, whose language they did not understand. In this dilemma, doubtful whether to return or proceed, they agreed to send back Augustine to Gregory, to represent their fears, and intreat that he would release them from their engagement. Gregory, however/ in answer, advised them to proceed, in confidence of divine aid, undaunted by the fatigue of the journey, or any other temporary obstructions, adding, that it would have been better not to have begun so good a work, than to recede from it afterwards. He also took every means for their accommodation, recommending them to the attention of Etherius, bishop of Aries, and providing for them such assistance in France, that at length they arrived safely in Britain.

It is easy to suppose that a queen, thus sincere in her principles, would be very earnest in persuading her husband to give Augustine and his followers a hospitable reception, and Ethelbert accordingly assigned Augustine an habitation in the isle of Thanet. By means of French interpreters, whom the missionaries brought with them, they informed the king that they were come from Rome, and brought with them the best tidings in the world eternal life to those who received them, and the endless enjoyment of life hereafter. After some days, Ethelbert paid them a visit but being afraid of enchantments, things which, true or false, were then objects of terror, chose to receive them in the open air. The missionaries met him, singing litanies for their own salvation, and that of those for vvhojse sake they came thither; and then, by the king’s direction, unfolded the nature of their mission, and of the religion they wished to preach. The substance of the king’s answer was, that he could not, without further consideration, abandon the religion of his forefathers, but as they had come so far on a friendly errand, he assigned them a place of residence in Canterbury, and allowed them to use their best endeavours to convert his subjects. The place assigned them was in the parish of St. Alphage, on the north side of the High or King’s street, where, in Thorn’s time, the archbishop’s palace stood, now called Stable-gate. Accordingly they entered the city, singing in concert a short litany, recorded by Becle, in these words “We pray thee, O Lord, in all thy merc^, that thine anger and thy fury may be removed from this city, and from thy holy house, for we have sinned. Alleluia.”

Augustine died in the year 604, at Canterbury, and was buried in the church-yard of the monastery that was called after his name, the cathedral not being then finished but after the consecration of that church, his body was taken tip, and deposited in the north porch, where it lay, till, in 1091, it was removed and placed in the church by Wido, abbot of Canterbury. The miracles ascribed by popish writers to Augustine may now be read as other legendary tales, as monuments of weakness and superstition, nor do such writers gain any credit to their cause, by asserting that to be true, which they know to be contrary to the economy of providence and nature, and the appearance of which, for the purposes of conversion, could not be produced without implicating the parties in a charge of wilful delusion.

, Abou-Ali- Alhussein-Ben-Abdoullah, EfiN-SiNA, called Avicenes, the prince of Arabian philosophers and physicians, was born at Assena, a village in the neighbourhood of Bokhara in the year 980. His father was from Balkh in Persia, and had married at Bokhara. The first years of Avicenna were devoted to the study of the Koran, and the belles lettres, and so rapid was his progress that, when he was but ten years old, he was perfectly intelligent in the* most hidden senses of the Koran. Abou-Abdouliah, a uative of Napoulous in Syria, at that time professed philosophy at Bokhara with the greatest reputation. Avicenna studied under him the principles of logic but soon disgusted with the slow manner of the schools, he set about studying alone, and read all the authors that had written on philosophy, without any other help than that of their commentators. Mathematics likewise had great charms for him, and after reading the first six propositions of Euclid, he reached to the last, without a teacher, having made himself perfect master of them, and treasured up all of them equally in his memory.

, son to the senator Isychius, and brother to Apollinaris, bishop of Valentia, was promoted in the beginning of the sixth century to the archbishopric of Vienna, which his father had also held for some years. His principal object was the refutation and conversion of the Arians, and during his conferences, for this purpose with the Arian bishops before Goudeband king of Burgundy, who was an Arian, he converted his son Sigismorid. Cave thinks he converted the king himself, and when he found him concealing his principles, urged him to a public profession of them. He wrote also in defence of pope Symmachus, and died in the year 523. His principal works were Letters, Sermons, and Poems his Letters, 87 in number, contain many curious particulars of the civil and ecclesiastical history of the times. Of his Homilies, one only is extant on Rogation day, in which he gives the origin of the days so called. In all his works, his style is harsh, obscure, and intricate. His poems were printed at Francfort in 1507, and at Paris and Lyons in 1508, 1509, and 1536 but his whole works were published at Paris by father Sirmond, in 1643, fol. and since that Luc d'Achery published in his Spicilegium, the conference with the Arian bishops.

, called also Pamphille, a French poet of the sixteenth century, was born at Beauvais, but we have no particulars of his life, except that he was an advocate of parliament. The editors of the “Annales Poetiques” have inserted his best productions in their collection, and among others his “Tuteur d'Amour,” in four cantos, praised for elegance, tenderness, and fancy. His other works are, 1. “Le cinquante-deuxieme Arret d'Amour, avec les ordonnances sur le fait des masques,” 8vo, 1528. 2. “La genealogie des dieux poetiques,” 12mo, 1545. 3. “Aureus de utraque potestate libellus, in hunc usque diem non visus, Somnium Viridarii yulgariter nuncupatus,” 1516, 4to.

, a French Franciscan of the order called* Minimes, was born at Paris Jan. 1, 1652, and was educated in the Jesuits’ college. In the course of his studies, and after taking orders, he acquired very high reputation for learning, and particularly for his eloquence and zeal as a preacher and devotional writer. He died at Paris, May 16, 1729. Moreri has given a long list of his religious treatises, all of which were frequently reprinted, and admired in France, when religion was more prevalent than now. He also wrote a work on Algebra, but committed it to the flames sometime before his death, and it was with much difficulty he was persuaded to publish his “Genealogie de la maison de Fontaine- Soliers, issue dela Case Solare, souveraine d'Aste en Piemont,” 1680, 4to, which has procured him a place in Le Long’s Bibliotheque of the French historians.

, a French and Latin poet, voluminous enough to require some notice, although his works are now perhaps but little known or valued even in his own couutry, was born at Charolles about the year 1529, the son of Syacre or Fiacre des Autels, a gentleman of the same couutry. He inherited little from this father, except, as he informs us, a chateau, rather noble than rich. For some time he studied law at Valencia, but it does not appear with what view poetry was his favourite pursuit, although he succeeded very seldom but what was wanting in genuine poetry was made up by an obtrusive display of Greek and Latin, in the manner of Ronsard, whom he called his friend. Like other poets, he affected to have a mistress for whom he cherished a Platonic affection, but it appears that he was married at the age of twenty-four. His death is said to have happened about 1580. MorerL enumerates many volumes of his poems, sonnets, elegies, pieces in imitation of Rabelais, Ronsard, &c. The following are of a different description, and respect a controversy on the orthography of the French language. 1. “Traite touchant Pancienne ecriture de la Langue Francoise, et de sa Poesie,” Lyons, 16 mo, published under the anagranmiatical name of Glaumalis de Vezelet. Louis Meigret, las opponent in the controversy, immediately published his “Defenses touchant son Ortographc Francoise centre les censures et calomnies de Glaumalis,” Paris, 1550, 4to. Autels followed this by “Repliqucs aux furicuses defenses de Louis Meigret,” 16mo, Lyons, 1551, which Meigret answered the same year. Griiter thought some of his Latin poetry of sufficient merit to obtain a place in the “Deliciae poetarum Gallorum,” 1609.

, an eminent French musician and composer, was born at Clermont in Auvergne, Oct. 4, 1713. Instead of giving any extraordinary proofs of voluntary application, or early pregnancy of genius, he merely complied with the desire of his father, who was a musician, in turning his thoughts, or rather employing his time, in that pursuit. About his eighteenth year, however, an entire change appeared to have taken place in his mind, which became suddenly seized with the most violent enthusiasm, and such was his application night and day, that he soon became a capital performer on the violin, and was in 1739 thought worthy of the honour of being admitted into his majesty’s chamber band. With no other help in composition than the works of Rameau, he composed a trio for two violins and a bass, which he presented to that celebrated author, who, flattered by such a mark of respect, offered the young composer his advice and friendship. Auvergne began to compose a number of works for the court and the opera, which were much admired. In 1766, having the direction of the spiritual concert entrusted to him, and being unable to treat with Mondonville, who asked an exorbitant price for his Motets, Auvergne, undismayed by the vast reputation which the Orpheus of Languedoc (as Mondonville was called) had acquired in that species of composition, turned his own talents to it, and with such success, that his “Te Deum,” “De Profundis,” and his “Miserere,” were considered as first-rate works. In 1753, he composed the music of the first comic opera that was exhibited in France, and thus prepared the way for that style in which Monsigny, Gretry, and Daleyrac have since so ably distinguished themselves. Auvergne was director of the opera from 1767 to 1775, and from 1785 to 1790. Although in this time he had not Studied to accumulate a fortune, he lived in very easy circumstances until the revolution, when he lost all his places, and was thrown into a state approaching to indigence. Jn 1796, he went to Lyons, and was consoled in liis age and poverty by his sisters and his second wife, and here he died Feb. 12, 1797, justly regretted hy all who knew him. Besides the music already mentioned, he composed the following operas, “Canente,” “Enee et Lavinie,” and “Hercule mourant,” all in his younger days, but the dates not specified “Les Amours de Tempe,” 1752 “Les Fetes d'Euterpe,” 1758; “Polyxene,” 1763; “La Venitienne.” He also retouched some former operas, and composed the music of several ballets performed at Versailles and.Fontainbieau. It seems remarkable that so popular a composer, and one who had contributed so much to “gladden life” in the gay metropolis of France, should have been left to end his days in obscurity and poverty.

, an eminent English prelate, descended from a very ancient and honourable family, seated at Aylmer-hall, in Norfolk, was born in 1521, and being a younger brother, was either recommended by his relations, or recommended himself by his pregnant parts, to the marquis of Dorset (Henry Grey), afterwards duke of Suffolk, who honoured him with the title of his Scholar, and gave him an exhibition at the university of Cambridge. When he had there attained competent learning, the marquis took him home, where he became tutor to his children, amongst whom was the lady Jane, who for some days was styled queen, and who, under Aylmer’s tuition, acquired the Latin and Greek tongues, reading and writing in the latter with ease and elegance, By his care also, she received right principles of religion, as he imbibed the opinions of the primitive reformers and having for his patrons the duke of Suffolk and the carl of Huntingdon, in the reign of Edward VI., was for some time the only preacherin Leicestershire; where he had great success in inculcating the, Protestant religion. When the celebrated Ascliam, in a visit to lady Jane in 1550, asked her how so young a lady (not then ahove fourteen) could have arrived at such perfection both in philosophy and the Greek language, she bore the following testimony to the merit of her tutor “1 will tell you,” said she, “and tell you truth, which, perchance, you will marvel at. One of the greatest benefits which ever God gave me, is that he sent so sharp and severe parents, and so gentle a schoolmaster. For when I am in presence either of father or mother, whether I speak, keep silence, sit, stand, or go eat, drink, be merry or sad be sewing, placing, dancing, or doing any thing else, I must do it, as it were, in such weight, measure, and number, and even so perfectly, as God made the world, or else, I am so sharply taunted, so cruelly threatened, yea, presently sometimes with pinches, nips, and bobs (or other ways, which I will not name, for the honour I bear them), so without measure misordereo”, that I think myself in hell, till time come that I must go to Mr. Elmer, who teachfeth me so gently, so pleasantly, with fair allurements to learning, that I think all the time nothing while I am with him and when I am called from him, 1 fall a weeping, because whatsoever I do else but learning, is full of grief, trouble, fear, and wholly misliking unto me and this my book hath been so much my pleasure, and bringeth daily to me more pleasure, and more yet, in respect to it, all other pleasures, in very deed, be but trifles and troubles unto me." Mr. Ascharn was so affected with this interview, that in a letter to lady Jane, dated the eighteenth of January, 1551, he speaks of it in rapture, and by a beautiful apostrophe, addressing himself to Mr. Ay liner, felicitates him on his having so ingenious a scholar, in a strain of compliment, which he says the great Sturmius made use of to him, speaking of his happiness, in having the lady Elizabeth for his pupil. In this letter it is, that he desires Mr. Aylmer, to whom be foresaw it would be shewn, to engage the lady Jane, to write a letter in Greek to himself, and another to Sturmius, and also desires they might continue to live in the same learned friendship and intercourse, which they had hitherto done.

, an eminent English admiral in the last century, descended from a very good family in Lincolnshire, and entered early into the sea-service, where he obtained the character of an able and experienced officer, and the honour of knighthood from king Charles I. This, however, did not hinder him from adhering to the parliament, when by a very singular intrigue he got possession of the fleet, and so zealous he was in the service of his masters, that when in 1648, the greatest part of the navy went over to the prince of Wales, he, who then commanded the Lion, secured that ship for the parliament, which was by them esteemed an action of great importance. As this was a sufficient proof of his fidelity, he had the command given him in a squadron, that was employed to watch the motions of the prince of Wales and accordingly sailed to the coast of Ireland, where he prevented his highness from landing, and drew many of the seamen to that service from which they had deserted. The parliament next year sent him with a considerable number of ships, and the title of admiral, to the coast of Ireland, which commission he discharged with such vigour, that the parliament continued him in his command for another year, and ordered an immediate provision to be made for the payment of his arrears, and presented him with one hundred pounds. After the war was finished in Ireland, sir George Ayscue had orders to sail with a small squadron, to reduce the island of Barbadoes but his orders were countermanded, as the parliament received information, that the Dutch were treating with sir John Grenville, in order to have the isles of Scilly put into their hands, and therefore it was thought necessary to reduce these islands first. Blake and Ayscue were employed in this expedition, in the spring of 1651, and performed it with honour and success, sir John Grenville entering into a treaty with them, who used him very honourably, and gave him fair conditions, after which Blake returned to England, and Ayscue proceeded on his voyage to Barbadoes. The parliament were at first pleased, but when the conditions were known, Blake and Ayscue were accused of being too liberal. Blake resented this, and threatened to lay down his commission, which he said he was sure Ayscue would also do. Upon this, the articles were honourably complied with, and sir George received orders to sail immediately to the West Indies. Sir George continued his voyage, and arrived at Barbadoes October 26, 1651. He then found his enterprize would be attended with great difficulties, and such as had not been foreseen at home. The lord Willoughby, of Parham, commanded there for the king, and had assembled a body of 5,Ooo men for the defence of the island. He was a nobleman of great parts and greater probity, one who had been extremely reverenced by the parliament, before he quitted their party, and was Dow extremely popular on the island. Sir George, however, shewed no signs of concern, but boldly forced his passage into the harbour, and made himself master of twelve sail of Dutch merchantmen that lay there, and next morning he sent a summons to the lord Willoughby, requiring him to submit to the authority of the parliament of England, to which his lordship answered, that he knew no such authority, that he had a commission from king Charles II. to be governor of that island, and that he would keep it for his majesty’s service at the hazard of his life. On this, sir George thought it not prudent to land the few troops he had, and thereby discover his weakness to so cautious an enemy. In the mean time, he receivect a letter by an advice-boat from England, with the news of the king’s being defeated at Worcester, and one intercepted from lady Willoughby, containing a very particular account of that unhappy affair. He now summoned lord Willoughby a second time, and accompanied his summons with lady Willoughby’s letter, but his lordship continued firm in his resolution. All this time, sir George anchored in Speights bay, and stayed there till December, when the Virginia merchant fleet arriving, he made as if they were a reinforcement that had been sent him, but in fact, he had not above 2000 men, and the sight of the little army on shore made him cautious of venturing his men, till he thought the inhabitants had conceived a great idea of his strength. The Virginia ships were welcomed at their coming in, as a supply of men of war, and he presently ordered his men on shore: 159 Scotch servants aboard that fleet, were added to a regiment of 700 men, and some seamen, to make their number look more formidable. One colonel Allen landed with them on the 17th of December, and found lord Willoughby’s forces well entrenched, near a fort they had upon the sea- coast. They attacked him, however, and, in a sharp dispute, wherein about sixty men were killed on both sides, had so much the advantage, that they drove them to the fort, notwithstanding that colonel Allen, their commander, was killed by a musket shot, as he attempted to land. After other attempts, sir George procured colonel Moddiford, who was one of the most leading men on the place, to enter into a treaty with him, and this negociation succeeded so well, that Moddiford declared publicly for a peace, and joined with sir George to bring lord Willoughby, the. governor, to reason, as they phrased it but lord Willoughby never would have consented if an accident had not happened, which put most of the gentlemen about him into such confusion, that he could no longer depend upon their advice or assistance. He had called together his officers, and while they were sitting in council, a cannon-ball beat open the door of the room, and took off the head of the centinel posted before it, which so frighted all the gentlemen of the island, that they not only compelled their governor to lay aside his former design, but to retire to a. place two miles farther from the harbour. Sir George Ayscue, taking advantage of this unexpected good fortune, immediately ordered all his forces on shore, as if he intended to have attacked them in their entrenchments, which struck such a terror into some of the principal persons about the governor, that, after rhature deliberation on his own circumstances, and their disposition, he began to alter his mind, and thereupon, to avoid the effusion of blood, both parties appointed commissaries to treat. Sir George named captain Peck, Mr. Searl, colonel Thomas Moddiforcl, and James Colliton, esq. the lord Willoughby, sir Richard Peers, Charles Pirn, esq. colonel Ellice, and major Byham, who on the 17th of January agreed on articles of rendition, which were alike comprehensive and honourable. The lord Willoughby had what he most desired, indemnity, and freedom of estate and person, upon which, soon after, he returned to England. The islands of Nevis, Antigua, and St. Christopher, were, by the same capitulation, surrendered to the parliament. After this, sir George, considering that he had fully executed his commission, returned with the squadron under his command to England, and arriving at Plymouth on the 25th of May, 1652, was received with all imaginable testimonies of joy and satisfaction by the people there, to whom he was well known before, as his late success also served not a little to raise and heighten his reputation. It was not long after his arrival, before he found himself again obliged to enter upon action for the Dutch war which broke out in his absence, was then become extremely warm, and he was forced to take a share in it, though his ships were so extremely foul, that they were much fitter to be laid up, than to be employed in any farther service. On the 21st of June, 1652, he came to Dover, with his squadron of eleven sail, and there joined his old friend admiral Blake, but Blake having received orders to sail northward, and destroy the Dutch herring fishery, sir George Ayscue was left to command the fleet in the Downs. Within a few days after Blake’s departure he took five sail of Dutch merchantmen, and had scarcely brought them in before he received advice that a fleet of forty sail had been seen not far from the coast, upon which he gave chace, fell in amongst them, took seven, sunk four, and ran twenty-four upon the French shore, all the rest being separated from their convoy. The Dutch admiral, Van Tromp, who was at sea- with a great fleet, having information of sir George Ayscue’s situation, resolved to take advantage of him, and with no“less than one hundred sail, clapped iji between him and the river, and resolved to surprize such ships as should attempt to go out or, if that design failed, to go in and sink sir George and his squadron. The English admiral soon discovered their intention, and causing a signal to be made from Dover castle, for all ships to keep to sea, he thereby defeated the first part of their project. However, Van Tromp attempted the second part of his scheme, in hopes of better success, and on the 8th of July, when it was ebb, be began to sail towards the English fleet but, the wind dying away, he was obliged to come to an anchor about a league off, in order to expect the next ebb. Sir George, in the mean time, caused a strong platform to be raised between Deal and Sandown castles, well furnished with artillery, so pointed, as to bear directly upon the Dutch as they came in the militia of the county of Kent were also ordered down to the sea-shore notwithstanding which preparation, the Dutch admiral did not recede from his point, but at the next ebb weighed anchor, and would have stood intothe port but the wind coming about south-west, and blowing directly in his teeth, constrained him to keep out, and being straightened for time, he was obliged to sail away, and leave sir George safe in the harbour, with the small squadron he commanded. He was soon after ordered to Plymouth, to bring in under his convoy five East- India ships, which he did in the latter end of July and in the first week of August, brought in four French and Dutch prizes, for which activity and vigilance in his command he was universally commended. In a few days after this, intelligence was received, that Van Tromp’s fleet was seen off the back of the isle of Wight, and it was thereupon resolved, that sir George with his fleet of forty men of war, most of them hired merchantmen, except flag ships, should stretch over to the coast of France to meet them. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, between one and two o'clock at noon, they got sight of the enemy, who quitted their merchantmen, being fifty in number. About four the fight began, the English Admiral with nine others charging through their fleet; his ships received most damage in the shrouds, masts, sails, and rigging, which was repaid the Dutch in their hulls. Sir George having thus passed through them, got the weather-gage, and charged them again, but all his fleet not coming up, and the night already entered, they parted with a drawn battle. Captain Peck, the rear-admiral, lost his leg, of which, soon after, he died. Several captains were wounded, but no ship lost. Of the Dutch, not one was said to be lost, though many were shot through and through, but so that they were able to proceed on their voyage, and anchored the next day after, being followed by the English to the isle of Bassa; but no farther attempt was made by our fleet, on account, as it was pretended, of the danger of the French coasts, from whence they returned to Plymouth- Sound to repair. The truth of the matter was, some of sir George’s captains were a little bashful in this affair, and the fleet was in so indifferent a condition, that it was absolutely necessary to refit before they proceeded again to action. He proceeded next to join Blake in the northern seas, where he continued during the best part of the month of September, and took several prizes and towards the latter end of that month he returned with general Blake into the Downs, with one hundred and twenty sail of men of war. On the 27th of that mojith a great Dutch fleet appeared, after which, Blake with his fleet sailed, and sir George Ayscue, pursuant to the orders he had received, returned to Chatham with his own ship, and sent the rest of his squadron into several ports to be careened. Towards the end of November, 1652, general Blake lying at the mouth of our river, began to think that the season of the year left no room to expect farther action, for which reason he detached twenty of his ships to bring up a fleet of colliers from Newcastle, twelve more he had sent to Plymouth, and our admiral, as before observed, with fifteen sail, had proceeded up the river in order to their being careened. Such was the situation of things, when Van Tromp appeared with a fleet of eighty- five sail. Upon this Blake sent for the most experienced officers on board his own ship, where, after a long consultation, it was agreed, that he should wait for, and fight the enemy, though he had but thirtyseven sail of men of war, and a few small ships. Accordingly, on the 29th of November, a general engagement ensued, which lasted with great fury from one in the afternoon till it was dark. Blake in the Triumph, with his seconds the Victory and the Vanguard, engaged for a considerable time near twenty sail of Dutch men of war, and they were in the utmost danger of being oppressed and destrdyed by so unequal a force. This, however, did not hinder Blake from forcing his way into a throng of enemies, to relieve the Garland and Bonadventure, in doing which he was attacked by many of their stoutest ships, which likewise boarded him, but after several times beating them off, he at last found an opportunity to rejoin his fleet. The loss sustained by the English consisted in five ships, either taken or sunk, and several others disabled. The Dutch confess, that one of their men of war was burnt towards the end of the fight, and the captain and most of his men drowned, and also that the ships of Tromp and Evertson were much disabled. At last, night having parted the two fleets, Blake supposing he had sufficiently secured the nation’s honour and his own, by waiting the attack of an enemy, so much superior, and seeing no prospect of advantage by renewing the fight, retired up the river but sir George Ayscue, who inclined to the bolder but less prudent counsel, was so disgusted at this retreat, that he laid down his commission. The services this great man had rendered his country, were none of them more acceptable to the parliament, than this act of laying down his command. They had long wished and waited for an opportunity of dismissing him from their service, and were therefore extremely pleased that he had saved them this trouble however, to shew their gratitude for past services, and to prevent his falling into absolute discontent, they voted him a present of three hundred pounds in money, and likewise bestowed upon him three hundred pounds per annum in Ireland. There is good reason to believe, that Cromwell and his faction were as well pleased with this gentleman’s quitting the sea-service for as they were then meditating, what they soon afterwards put in execution, the turning the parliament out of doors, it could not but be agreeable to them, to see an officer who had so great credit in the navy, and who was so generally esteemed by the nation, laid aside in such a manner, both as it gave them an opportunity of insinuating the ingratitude of that assembly to so worthy a person, and as it freed them from the apprehension of his disturbing their measures, in case he had continued in the fleet; which it is highly probable might have come to pass, considering that Blake was far enough from being of their party, and only submitted to serve the protector, because he saw no other way left to serve his country, and did not think he had interest enough to preserve the fleet, after the defection of the army, which perhaps might not have been the case, if sir George Ayscue had continued in his command. This is so much the more probable, as it is very certain that he never entered into the protector’s service, or shewed himself at all willing to concur in his measures though there is no doubt that Cromwell would have been extremely glad of so experienced an officer in his Spanish war. He retired after this to his country-seat in the county of Surrey, and lived there in great honour and splendor, visiting, and being visited by persons of the greatest distinction, both natives and foreigners, and passing in the general opinion of both, for one of the ablest sea-captains of that age. Yet there is some reason to believe that he had a particular correspondence with the protector’s second son, Henry; since there is still a letter in being from him to secretary Thurloe, which shews that he had very just notions of the worth of this gentleman, and of the expediency of consulting him in all such matters as had a relation to maritime power. The protector, towards the latter end of his life, began to grow dissatisfied with the Dutch, and resolved to destroy their system without entering immediately into a war with them. It was with this view, that he encouraged the Swedes to cultivate, with the utmost diligence, a maritime force, promising in due time to assist them with a sufficient number of able and experienced officers, and with an admiral to command them, who, in point of reputation, was not inferior to any then living. For this reason, he prevailed on sir George, by the intervention of the Swedish ambassador and of Whitelock, and sir George from that time began to entertain favourable thoughts of the design, and brought himself by degrees to think of accepting the offer made him, and of going over for that purpose to Sweden and although he had not absolutely complied during the life of the protector, he closed at last with the proposals made him from Sweden, and putting every thing in order for his journey, towards the latter end of the year 1658, and as soon as he had seen the officers embarked, and had dispatched some private business of his own, he prosecuted his voyage, though in the very depth of winter. This exposed him to great hardships, but on his arrival in Sweden, he was received with all imaginable demonstrations of civility and respect by the king, who might very probably have made good his promise, of promoting him to the rank of high-admiral of Sweden, if he had not been taken off by an unexpected death. This put an end to his hopes in that country, and disposed sir George Ayscue to return home, where a great change had been working in his absence, which was that of restoring king CharJes It. It does not at all appear, that sir George had any concern in this great affair but the contrary may be rather presumed, from his former attachment to the parliament, and his making it his choice to have remained in Sweden, if the death of the monarch, who invited him thither, had not prevented him. On his return, however, he not only submitted to the government then established, but gave the strongest assurances to the administration, that he should be at all times ready to serve the public, if ever there should be occasion, which was very kindly taken, and he had the honour to be” introduced to his majesty, and to kiss his hand. It was not long before he was called to the performance of his promise for the Dutch war breaking out in 1664, he was immediately put into commission by the direction of the duke of York, who then commanded the English fleet. In the spring of the year 1665, he hoisted his flag as rear-admiral of the blue, under the earl of Sandwich, and in the great battle that was fought the third of June in the same year, that squadron had the honour to break through the centre of the Dutch fleet, and thereby made way for one of the most glorious victories ever obtained by this nation at sea. For in this battle, the Dutch had ten of their largest ships sunk or burned, besides their admiral Opdam’s, that blew up in the midst of the engagement, by which the admiral himself, and upwards of five hundred men perished. Eighteen men of war were taken, four fire-ships destroyed, thirteen captains, and two thousand and fifty private men made prisoners and this with so inconsiderable loss, as that of one ship only, nnd three hundred private men. The fleet being again in a condition to put to sea, was ordered to rendezvous in Southwold-bay, from whence, to the number of sixty sail, they weighed on the fifth of July, and stood over for the coast of Holland. The standard was borne by the gallant earl of Sandwich, to whom was viceadmiral sir George Ayscue, and sir Thomas Tyddiman rear-admiral, sir William Perm was admiral of the white, sir William Berkley vice-admiral, and sir Joseph Jordan rear-admiral. The blue flag was carried by sir Thomas ^Vllen, whose vice and rear, were sir Christopher Minims, and sir John Harman. The design was, to intercept de Ruyter in his return, or, at least, to take and burn the Turkey and East-India fleets, of which they had certain intelligence, but they succeeded in neither of these schemes; de Ruyter arrived safely in Holland, and the Turkey and India fleets took shelter in the port of Bergen in Norway. The earl of Sandwich having detached sir Thomas Tyddiman to attack them there, returned home, and in his passage took eight Dutch men of war, which served as convoys to their East and West India fleets, and several merchantmen richly laden, which finished the triumphs of that year. ^The plain superiority of the English over the Dutch at sea, engaged the French, in order to keep up the war between the maritime powers, and make them do their business by destroying each other, to declare on the side of theweakest, as did the king of Denmark also, which, nevertheless, had no effect upon the English, who determined to carry on the war against the allies, with the same spirit they had done against the Dutch alone. In the spring, therefore, of the year 1666, the fleet was very early at sea, under the command of the joint admirals for a resolution having been taken at Court, not to expose the person of the duke of York any more, and the earl of Sandwich being then in Spain, with the character of ambassador-extraordinary, prince Rupert, and old general Monk, now duke of Albemarle, were appointed to command the fleet; having under them as gallant and prudent officers as ever distinguished themselves in the English navy, and, amongst these, sir William Berkley commanded the blue, and sir George Ayscue the white squadron. Prince Rupert, and the duke of Albemarle, went on board the fleet, the twenty-third of April, 1666, and sailed in the beginning of May. Towards the latter end of that month, the court was informed, that the French fleet, under the command of the duke of Beaufort, were coming out to the assistance of the Dutch, and upon receiving this news, the court sent orders to prince Rupert to sail with the white squadron, the admirals excepted, to look out and fight the French, which command that brave prince obeyed, but found it a mere bravado, intended to raise the courage of their new allies, and thereby bring them into the greater danger. At the same time prince Rupert sailed from the Downs, fthe Dutch put out to sea, the wind at north-east, and a fresh gale. This brought the Dutch fleet on the coast of Dunkirk, and carried his highness towards the Isle of Wight but the wind suddenly shifting to the south-west, and blowing hard, brought both the Dutch and the duke to an anchor. Captain Bacon, in the Bristol, first discovered the enemy, and by firing his guns, gave notice of it to the English fleet. Upon this a council of war was called, wherein it was resolved to fight the enemy, notwithstanding their great superiority. After the departure of prince Rupert, the duke had with him only the red and blue squadrons, making about sixty sail, whereas the Dutch fleet consisted of ninety-one men of war, carrying 4716 guns, and 22,460 men. It was the first of June when they were discerned, and the duke was so warm for engaging, that he attacked the enemy before they had time to weigh anchor, and, as de Ruyter himself says in his letter, they were obliged to cut their cables and in the same letter he owns, that to the last the English were the aggressors, notwithstanding their inferiority and other disadvantages. This day’s fight was very fierce and bloody for the Dutch, confiding in their numbers, pressed furiously upon the English fleet, while the English officers, being men of determined resolution, fought with such courage and constancy, that they not only repulsed the Dutch, but renewed the attack, and forced the enemy to maintain the fight longer than they were inclined to do, so that it was ten in the evening before their cannon were silent. The following night was spent in repairing the damages suffered on both sides, and next morning the fight was renewed by the English with fresh vigour. Admiral Van Tromp, with vice-admiral Vander Hulst, being on board one ship, rashly engaged among the English, and were in the utmost danger, either of being taken or burnt. The Dutch affairs, according to their own account, were now in a desperate condition but admiral de Ruyter at last disengaged them, though not till his ship was disabled, and vice-admiral Vander Hulst killed. This only changed the scene for de Ruyter was now as hard pushed as Tromp had been before; but a reinforcement arriving, preserved him also, and so the second day’s fight ended earlier than the first. The duke finding that the Dutch had received a reinforcement, and that his small fleet, on the contrary, was much weakened, through the damages sustained by some, and the Joss and absence of others of his ships, took, towards the evening, the resolution to retire, and endeavour to join prince Rupert, who was coming to his assistance. The retreat was performed in good order, twenty- six or twentyeight men of war that had suffered least, brought up the rear, interposing between the enemy and the disabled ships, three of which, being very much shattered, were burnt by the English themselves, and the men taken on board the other ships. The Dutch fleet followed, but at a distance. As they thus sailed on, it happened on the third day that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, who commanded the Royal Prince (being the largest and heaviest ship of the whole fleet) unfortunately struck upon the sand called the Galloper, where being threatened by the enemy’s fire-ships, and hopeless of assistance from his friends (whose timely return, the near approach of the enemy, and the contrary tide, had absolutely rendered impossible), he was forced to surrender. The Dutch admiral de Ruyter, in his letter to the States-general, says, in few words, that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, having run upon a sand -bank, fell into their hands, and that after taking out the commanders, and the men that were left, they set the s’mp on fire. But the large relation, collected by order of the States out of all the letters written to them upon that occasion, informs us, that sir George Ayscue, in the Royal Prince, ran upon the Galloper, an unhappy accident, says that relation, for an officer who had behaved very gallantly during the whole engagement, and who only retired in obedience to his admiral’s orders. The unfortunate admiral made signals for assistance but the English fleet continued their route so that he was left quite alone, and without hope of succour in which situation he was attacked by two Dutch fire-ships, by which, without doubt, he had been burnt, if lieutenant-admiral Tromp, who was on board the ship of rear-admiral Sweers, had not made a signal to call off the fire-ships, perceiving that his flag was already struck, and a signal made for quarter, upon which rear-admiral Sweers, by order of Tromp, went on board the English ship, and brought off sir George Ayscue, his officers, and some of his men, on board his own vessel, and the next morning sir George was sent to the Dutch coast, in order to go to the Hague in a galliot, by order of general de Ruyter. The English ship was afterwards got off the sands, notwithstanding which, general de Ruyter ordered the rest of the crew to be taken out, and the vessel set on fire, that his fleet might he the less embarrassed, which was accordingly done. But in the French relation, published by order of that court, we have another circumstance, which the Dutch have thought fit to omit, and it is this, that the crew gave np the ship against the admiral’s will, who had given orders /or setting her on fire. There were some circumstances which made the loss of this ship, in this manner, very disagreeable to the English court, and perhaps this may be the reason that so little is said of it in our own relations. In all probability general de Ruyter took the opportunity of sending sir George Ayscue to the Dutch coast the next morning, from an apprehension that he might be retaken in. the next day’s fight. On his arrival at the Hague he was very civilly treated but to raise the spirits of their people, and to make the most of this dubious kind of victory, the states ordered sir George to be carried as it were in triumph, through the several towns of Holland, and then confined him in the castle of Louvestein, so famous in the Dutch histories for having been the prison of some of their most eminent patriots, and from whence the party which opposed the prince of Orange were styled the Louvestein faction. As soon as sir George Ayscue came to this castle, he wrote a letter to king Charles II. to acquaint him with the condition he was in, which letter is still preserved in the life of the Dutch admiral, de Ruyter. How long he remained there, or whether he continued a prisoner to the end of the war, is uncertain, but it is said that he afterwards returned to England, and spent the remainder of his days in peace. Granger observes very justly, that it is scarcely possible to give a higher character of the courage of this brave admiral, than to say that he was a match for Van Tromp or de Ruyter.

, or Azo Portius, a celebrated lawyer of the twelfth century, distinguished himself first at Bologna, about 1193. He had studied under John Bosiani of Cremona, and acquired such reputation, that he was called “Master of the Law,” and “the Source of Law.” The envy, however, which such merit attracted, made him leave Italy, and go to Montpellier, where he succeeded Placentinus. He was afterwards recalled to Bologna, and became yet more celebrated. It is said that he had a thousand auditors. In the warmth of dispute he threw a candlestick at the head of his antagonist, who died in consequence. Azon was then taken up, and tried, although the accident happened without any evil intent The action, however, might be pardoned according to the intent of the law ad bestias de pœnis, which moderates the punishment to any person who excels in any science or art. Azon, whether from the length of his imprisonment, or from his mind being occupied or abstracted, cried out, ad bestias, ad bestias, meaning that his acquittal would be found in that law. But this being reported to the judges, who were ignorant of it, they imagined that he insulted them, and treated them like beasts, and not only condemned him to death, but deprived him of the honour of burial. This sentence was executed in 1200, or according to some, in 1225. Others deny that this was the end of Azon, and treat the story as what it very much resembles, a fiction. Contius published his Law Commentaries" in 1577.

, commonly called Navarre (doctor Navarrus), was born of a noble family, Dec. 13, 1491, at Varasayn, near Pampeluna in Navarre. He was first educated, and took the habit, in the monastery of regular canons at Roncevaux, and afterwards studied at Alcala and at Ferrara, where he made such progress in law, as to be employed in teaching that science at Toulouse and Cahors. Some time after, he returned to Spain, and was appointed first professor of canon law at Salamanca, an office he filled with high reputation for fourteen years, at the end of which John III. king of Portugal, chose him law-professor of his new-founded university at Coimbra, and gave him a larger salary than had ever been enjoyed by any French or Spanish professor. After filling this chair also, with increasing reputation, for sixteen years, he was permitted to resign, and went first into Castile, and afterwards to Rome, on purpose, although in his eightieth year, to plead the cause of Bartholomew de Caranza, archbishop of Toledo, who was accused of heresy before the inquisition, and whose cause, first argued in Spain, was by the pope’s order removed to Rome. Azpilcueta exerted himself to the utmost, but without success, which we cannot be surprised at when we consider that the inquisitors were his opponents and although they could prove nothing against Caranza, they contrived that he should die in prison. Azpilcueta, however, was honourably received at Rome pope Pius V. appointed him assistant to cardinal Francis Alciat, his vice-penitentiary, and Gregory XIII. never passed his door without a visit, or met him in the street, without enjoying some conversation with him. He was much consulted, and universally esteemed for learning, probity, piety, and chanty. Antonio informs us that he used to ride on a mule through the city, and relieve every poor person he met, and that the creature of itself would stop at the sight of a poor person until its master relieved him. He died June 21, 1586, then in his ninetyfourth year. His works, which are either on morals or common law, were published, Rome, 1590, 3 vols. Lyons, 1591, Venice, 1602.

Such, indeed, was the weight of his character, that he stood in no need of support from the king’s ministers the earl of Salisbury was now dead, and it does not appear that he had any dependance on the earl of Somerset, the reigning favourite, but kept at a distance from him when he was in his highest power. Matters, however, were so mismanaged by Somerset, that the attorney-general had much difficulty and less success in preserving the king’s interest in the house of commons, where an opposition arose to his majesty’s measures so violent, that the parliament was dissolved, and not called again for a considerable time. Voluntary subscriptions were set on foot to supply the wants of government; and this being in some instances; resisted, the attorney-general had to prosecute a Mr. Oliver St. John, who was among the most refractory. But these are circumstances which properly belong to the history of this reign.

Sir Francis held the office of attorney-general for three years, during which he behaved himself with such prudence and moderation, and went through so many difficult and perplexed affairs, with such evenness and integrity, that it does not appear his conduct was ever called in question, nor has malice itself dared to utter any thing to his reproach. On the 7th of March, 1616-17, on the resignation of the lord-chancellor, he was promoted to that high office, which, indeed, he had solicited on a former occasion, when there was a prospect of a vacancy. It is said that when his majesty delivered the seals to him, he gave him three cautions, first, that he should not seal any thing but after mature deliberation secondly, that he should give righteous judgments between parties and lastly, that he should not extend the royal prerogative too far. These precepts he made the ground- work of a long and learned speech which he delivered in court, on the 7th of May following, the day on which he took possession of his high office. He now hegan to experience the truth of the observation that the highest seats are the most exposed for within a little time after the king’s setting out for Scotland, which took place a few days after his appointment to the seals, the Spanish match was, by direction of his majesty, brought upon the carpet, and cost sir Francis very great trouble. The conduct of the favourite Buckingham also occasioned him much perplexity, although the cause was of no more importance than a projected marriage between sir John Villiers, brother to the favourite, and a daughter of sir Edward Coke, which the lord keeper opposed, and of which opposition Buckingham himself afterwards entertained a more favourable opinion.

In consequence of these proceedings, his lordship delivered up the great seal to his majesty, and the house of peers adjudged, that lord viscdunt St. Albans, lord chancellor of England, shall undergo fine and ransom of fortythousand pounds, that he shall be imprisoned in the Tower during the king’s pleasure, that he shall for ever be incapable of any office or employment in the state or commonwealth, and that he shall never sit in parliament, or come within the verge of the court. After a short confinement in the Tower, however, he was discharged, and in some measure regained his favour with the king, who, on the prorogation of parliament, was pleased to consult him, as to the proper methods of reforming the courts of justice, and taking away other grievances which that parliament had inquired into and his lordship accordingly drew up a memorial, which is extant in his works. Other marks of favour and indulgence were shewn him, which, amidst the anguish of a blasted character, so far appeased his troubled mind, that he resumed his studies with his accustomed vigour. In the spring of the succeeding year, 1622, he published his history of, Henry VII. which has not added so much to his reputation as his other works. When the new parliament was called, in which the house of commons shewed great zeal for his majesty’s service, he composed “Considerations of a war with Spain,” and likewise “Heads of a Speech” for his friend sir Edward Sackville, upon the same subject and these services were so well received, that upon an application to the king for a full pardon, he easily obtained it. In the warrant directed for this purpose to the attorney-general, his majesty took notice of his lordship’s having already satisfied justice by his sufferings, and. that himself being always inclined to temper justice with mercy, and likewise calling to remembrance his former good services, and how well and profitably he had spent his time since his troubles, he was graciously pleased to remove from him that blot of ignominy which yet remained upon him, of incapacity and disablement, and to remit to him all penalties whatsoever, inflicted by that sentence.

About the year 1763, he first attempted working in marble, and having never seen that operation performed, he was led to invent an instrument for transferring the form of the model to the marble (technically called, getting out the points), which instrument, from its superior effect, has since been adopted by many other sculptors in England and France. His first regular instructions, however, in his favourite pursuit, were received at the lloyal Academy in 1768, the year of its institution, and such were their effect on a mind already so well prepared by nature, that the first gold medal for sculpture given by the academy, was decreed to him and two years after, he was elected an associate. His fame was at this time well known by his statue of Mars, which induced the late archbishop of York, Dr. Markham, to employ him to execute a bust of his Majesty for the hall of Christ Church college, Oxford. His majesty not only condescended to sit to him upon this occasion, but honoured him with his patronage, and ordered another bust, intended as a present to the university of Got tin gen. He was -soon after employed by the dean and scholars of Christ Church to form several busts for them, particularly those of general Guise, the bishop of Durham, and the primate of Ireland.

Bishop Tanner has enrolled sir Nicholas Bacon among the writers of this country, on account of the following pieces, preserved in different manuscript collections. “An oration to the queen, exhorting her to Marriage;” “a speech to the lord mayor of London” “a speech to the serjeant called to a judge” “an oration touching the queen’s Marriage and Succession to the Crown” “his speech to the queen, when she made him lord keeper” “his speech in the star-chamber, 1568” “his speech to sir Thomas Gargrave, elected speaker for the commons house of parliament;” “his speech at the council table, concerning aid required by the Scots to expel the French out of Scotland” “his speech concerning an Interview between queen Elizabeth and the Scottish queen, 1572;” “his speech to the lords and commons in parliament, in the beginning” “his speech to Mr. Bell when he was called to be judge.” All these are in the Norwich manuscripts of More, 228 and are, we suppose, at present, in the public library of Cambridge. “Several speeches of lord keeper sir Nicholas Bacon, from 1558 to 1571 inclusive,” in Mr. Ralph Thoresby’s collection “a discourse upon certain points touching the Inheritance of the Crown, conceived by sir Anthony Brown, and answered by sir Nicholas Bacon,” published in 1723. “Three letters to Dr. Parker,” in Corpus Christi college, Cambridge mentioned by Strype, in his life of the archbishop. One of these, entitled “a letter of Mr. Nicholas Bacon, counsellor at law, to Parker, dean of Stoke college, in answer to certain cases put to him relating to the said college,” Mr. Strype has published at length. Holinshed, at the end of his second volume, p. 1589, ranks sir Nicholas Bacon in the catalogue of those who have written something concerning the history of England. Mr. Masters refers to a comment of sir Nicholas’s on the twelve minor prophets, dedicated to his son Anthony. And Mr. Strype has printed an excellent letter of advice, which was written by the lord keeper, a little before his death, to the queen, on the situation of her affairs. Many of his apophthegms are among those of lord Verulam, and many of his speeches are in the Parliamentary History.

, rector of Balden in Oxfordshire, and vicar of Bramber in Sussex, was of Magdalen college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. April 17, 1722; B. D. April 29, 1731 D.D. December 7, 1735. He possessed an exquisite fund of humour, was a famous punster, and wrote ai) admirable poem called the “Artificial Kite,” first printed in 1719, and preservedin the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1758. In 1757 he published five dramatic performances, viz. J. “The Taxes.” 2. “The Insignificants.” 3. “The trial of the Time-killers.” 4. “The moral Q,uack.” 5. “The Oculist.” None of these, however, were intended for the theatre. He was also the author of a very humorous ballad, entitled “The Snipe,” in which the friar is himself, and Peter is his fellow-collegian, Peter Zinzam, M.D. who died Nov. 9, 1781. This ballad is preserved in the “Oxford Sausage.” Dr. Bacon died at Balden, Jan. 10, 1783, in the eighty-third year of his age.

, a learned English monk of the Franciscan order, who flourished in the thirteenth century, was born near Ilchester in Somersetshire, in 1214, and was descended of a very ancient and honourable family. He received the first tincture of letters at Oxford, where having gone through grammar and logic, the dawnings of his genius gained him the favour and patronage of the greatest lovers of learning, and such as were equally distinguished by their high rank, and the excellence of their knowledge. It is not very clear, says the Biographia Britannica, whether he was of Merton college, or of Brazen-nose hall, and perhaps he studied at neither, but spent his time at the public schools. The latter is indeed more probable than that he studied at Merton college, which did not then exist. It appears, however, that he went early over to Paris, where he made still greater progress in all parts of learning, and was looked upon as the glory of that university, and an honour to his country. In those days such as desired to distinguish themselves by an early and effectual application to their studies, resorted to Paris, where not only many of the greatest men in Europe resided and taught, but many of the English nation, by whom Bacon was encouraged and caressed. At Paris he did not confine his studies to any particular branch of literature, but endeavoured to comprehend the sciences in general, fully and perfectly, by a right method and constant application. When he had attained the degree of doctor, he returned again, to his own country, and, as some say, took the habit of the Franciscan order in 1240, when he was about twenty-six years of age but others assert that he became a monk before he left France. After his return to Oxford, he was considered, by the greatest men of that university, as one of the ablest and most indefati^ gable inquirers after knowledge that the world had ever produced and therefore they not only shewed him all due respect, but likewise conceiving the greatest hopes from his improvements in the method of study, they generously contributed to his expences, so that he was enabled to lay out, within the compass of twenty years, no less than two thousand pounds in collecting curious authors, making trials of various kinds, and in the construction of different instruments, for the improvement of useful knowledge. But if this assiduous application to his studies, and the stupendous progress he made in them, raised his credit with the better part of mankind, it excited the envy of some, and afforded plausible pretences for the malicious designs of others. It is very easy to conceive, that the experiments he made in all parts of natural philosophy and the mathematics, must have made a great noise in an ignorant age, when scarcely two or three men in a whole nation were tolerably acquainted with those studies, and when all the pretenders to knowledge affected to cover their own ignorance, by throwing the most scandalous aspersions on those branches of science, which they either wanted genius to understand, or which demanded greater application to acquire, than they were willing to bestow. They gave out, therefore, that mathematical studies were in some measure allied to those magical arts which the church had condemned,and thereby brought suspicions upon men of superior learning. It was owing to this suspicion that Bacon was restrained from reading lectures to the young students in the university, and at length closely confined and almost starved, the monks being afraid lest his writings should extend beyond the limits of his convent, and be seen by any besides themselves and the pope. But there is great reason to believe, that though his application to the occult; sciences was their pretence, the true cause of his ill-usage was, the freedom with which he had treated the clergy in, his writings, in which he spared neither their ignorance nor their want of morals. But notwithstanding this harsh feature in the character of the times, his reputation continued to spread over the whole Christian world, and even pope Clement IV. wrote him a letter, desiring that he would send him all his works. This was in 1266, when our author was in the flower of his 4 age, and to gratify his holiness, collected together, greatly enlarged and ranged in some order, the several pieces he had written before that time, and sent them the next year by his favourite disciple John of London, or rather of Paris, to the pope. This collection, which is the same that himself entitled Opus Majus, or his great work, is yet extant, and was published by Dr. Jebb, in 1773. Dr. Jebb had proposed to have published all his works about three years before his edition of the Opus Majus, but while he was engaged in that design, he was informed by letters from his brother at Dublin, that there was a“manuscript in the college library there, which contained a great many treatises generally ascribed to Bacon, and disposed in such order, that they seemed to form one complete work, but the title was wanting, which l,iad been carelessly torn off from the rest of the manuscript. The doctor soon found that it was a collection of those tracts which Bacon had written for the use of pope Clement IV. and to which he had given the title of Opus Majus, since it appeared, that what he said of that work in his Opus Tertium, addressed to the same pope, exactly suited with this; which contained an account of almost all the new discoveries and improvements that he had made in the sciences,. Upon this account Dr. Jebb laid aside his former design, and resolved to publish only an edition of this Opus Majus. The manuscripts which he made use of to complete this edition, are, 1. ms. in the Cotton library, inscribed^” Jul. D. V.“which contains the first part of the Opus Majus, under the title of a treatise” Jl)e utijitate Scientiarnii). “2. Another ms. in the same library, marked” Tib. C. V." containing the fourth part of the Opus Majus, in which is shewn the use of the mathematics in the sciences and affairs of the world in the ms. it is erroneously called the fifth part. 3. A ms. in the library belonging to Corpus Christi in Cambridge, containing that portion of the fourth part which treats of geography. 4. A ms. of the fifth part, containing a treatise upon perspective, in the earl of Oxford’s library. 5. A ms. in the library of Magdalen college, Cambridge, comprehending the same treatise of perspective. 6. Two Mss. in the king’s library, communicated to the editor by Dr. Richard Bentley, one of which contains the fourth part of Opus Majus, and the other the fifth part. It is said that this learned book of his procured him the favour of Clement IV. and also some encouragement in the prosecution of his studies but this could not have lasted long, as that pope died soon after, and then we find our author under fresh embarrassments from the same causes as before; but he became in more danger, as the general of his order, Jerom de Ascoli, having heard his cause, ordered him to be imprisoned. This is said to have happened in 1278, and to prevent his appealing to pope Nicholas III. the general procured a confirmation of his sentence from Rome immediately, but it is not very easy to say upon what pretences. Yet we are told by others, that he was imprisoned by Reymundus Galfredus, who was general of his order, on account of some alchemistical treatise which he had written, and that Galfredus afterwards set him at liberty, and became his scholar. However obscure these circumstances may be, it is certain that his sufferings for many years must have brought him low, since he was sixty-four years of age when he was first put in prison, and deprived of the opportunity of prosecuting his studies, at least in the way of experiment. That he was still indulged in the use of his books, appears very clearly from the great use he made of them in the learned works he composed.

, son of Eric Basngius, a divine, was born at Helsingborg in Sweden, in 1633, and studied first at Stregne,s in Sudermania, and afterwards at UpsaL Colonel Sylver Sparre, hearing of his good character and abilities, appointed him tutor to his son, with whom Bsengius travelled into Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, and visited eleven universities. On his return to his own country, he was called to the theological chair of Abo in Finland, when only in his thirty-second year. In 1682, Charles IX. king of Sweden, appointed him to the bishopric of Wyburgh in Carelia. Baengius introduced many useful regulations in his diocese, particularly with respect to schools, and established a printing-office. He died in 1696. He wrote a commentary, in Latin, on the epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, which was printed at Abo in 1671, 4to the “.Life of St. Anscharius” a work on the ecclesiastical history of Sweden a treatise on the sacraments a Lutheran catechism several disputations, and funeral orations, and a sacred chronology.

, a gentleman of a Derbyshire family, was born in London, and in 1604 became a commoner of Brazen-nose college, Oxford, under the tuition of the pious Mr. Robert Bolton four years after, he took a degree in arts, and then removed to the Middle Temple, where he studied law, became a bencher, and of considerable reputation in his profession. In 1639 he was elected Lent reader, and chose for his first reading an argument very suitable to the growing turbulence of the times, endeavouring to prove that a parliament may be held without bishops, and that bishops ought not to meddle in civil affairs, but the lord keeper Finch, at archbishop Laud’s request, ordered him to desist. This, however, giving bim a character unhappily too popular, he was elected M. P. for the borough of Southwark, in the parliament of 1640; but perceiving the outrages the members were about to commit, beyond all bounds of temperate reformation, he went to Oxford, and sat in the parliament called there by the king. After continuing at Oxford for some time, he was taken prisoner by the rebels in Oxfordshire, and sent to London, where the house of commons committed him to the king’s bench, and he suffered afterwards in his estate in Northamptonshire. On the Restoration we find him treasurer of the Middle Temple. He died in 1662, and was interred in Morton-Pinkney in Northamptonshire, leaving two sons, Henry and Edward, of whom some notice will be taken. He published, 1. “The life and death of Mr. Robert Bolton,” London, 1633, 4to, 2. “Several speeches in parliament,” 1640, 1641, 4to. 3. “Two arguments in parliament, on the Canons and Praemunire,” London, 1641, 4to. 4. “Treatise defending the revenues of the church in Tithes and Glebe,” ib. 1646, 4to. 5. “Treatise maintaining the doctrine, liturgy, and discipline of the Church of England.” The two last written during his imprisonment. 6. “Short censure of the book of Will. Prynne, entitled ‘The university of Oxford’s plea refuted’,” 1648, 4to. 7. “Just vindication of the questioned part of his reading had in the Middle Temple hall, Feb. 24, 1639,” London, 1660, 4to. 8. “True narrative of the cause of silencing him, by the archbishop of Canterbury,” printed with the preceding. See Rushworth’s Collections, p. 990. 9. “The rights of the Crown of England, as it is established by law,” London, 1660, 8vo, written, as most of the others were, during his confinement.

His next design was to direct the operations of a secret society called the “German Union for noting out superstition and prejudices, and for advancing true Christianity.” To forward this project, which was but a branch of the general conspiracy then carrying on by the enemies of religion and government, he published a great many books, containing principles fortunately so wild and extravagant as to prove in some measure an antidote against the intended mischief. When he had laboured in this cause about two years, some of the secrets of the Union transpired his former conduct and his constant imprudence made him suspected his associated friends lodged informations against him his papers were seized, and he himself was sent to prison, first at Halle, and then at Magdeburg. After a year’s confinement he was released, and would probably have concerted some new projects, had he not been attacked by a disorder which put an end to his life, April 23, 1793.

, an eminent French critic, was born at Neuville near Beauvais in Picardy, June 13, 1649. His father, who was poor, and unable to give him a learned education, sent him to a small school in the neighbourhood, where he soon learned all that was taught there, and desirous of more, went frequently to a neighbouring convent, where, by his assiduities in performing little menial offices, he ingratiated himself with them, and by their interest was presented to the bishop of Beauvais. The bishop placed him in the college or seminary of that name, where he studied the classics with unwearied assiduity, borrowing books from his friends, and it is even said he took money privately from his father, in order to buy books. In the course of his reading, which was accurate and even- critical, he formed, about the age of seventeen, a commonplace book of extracts, which he called his “Juvenilia,” in two large volumes, very conducive to his own improvement, and afterwards to that of M. de Lamoignon, his patron’s son. He then studied philosophy, but with less relish, his predilection being in favour of history, chronology, and geography; yet in defending Ins philosophical theses, he always proved his capacity to be fully equal to his subject. In 1670 he went to one of those higher seminaries, formerly established by the French bishops for the study of divinity, which he pursued with his usual ardour and success, although here his early taste discovered itself, in his applying with most eagerness to the fathers and councils, as more nearly connected with ecclesiastical history. So intent was he on researches of this kind, that he fancied himself solely qualified for a life of studious retirement, and had a design of going, along with his brother Stephen, to the abbey La Trappe, but this was prevented by the bishop of Beauvai? bestowing upon him, in 1672, the appointment of teacher of the fifth form in the college, from which, in 1674, he was promoted to the fourth. This produced him about sixty pounds a-year, with part of which he assisted his poor relations, and laid out the rest in books, and had made a very good collection when he left the college. Among other employments at his leisure hours he compiled two volumes of notices of authors who had disguised their names, of which the preface only has been published.

, a statesman of some note in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and Mary, is said to have been the son of Thomas Baker, a Kentish gentleman, but his pedigree in the' college of arms begins with his own name. He was bred to the profession of the laws, and in 1526, when a young man, was sent ambassador to Denmark, in company with Henry Standish, bishop of St. Asaph, according to the fashion of those times, when it was usual to join in foreign negociations, the only two characters which modern policy excludes from such services. At his return he was elected speaker of the house of commons, and was soon after appointed attorney-general, and sworn of the privy council, but gained no farther preferment till 1545, when, having recommended himself to the king by his activity in forwarding a loan in London, and other imposts, he was made chancellor of the exchequer. Henry constituted him an assistant trustee for the minor successor, after whose accession his name is scarcely mentioned in history, except in one instance, which ought not to be forgotten he was the only privy counsellor who steadfastly denied his assent to the last will of that prince, by which Mary and Elizabeth were excluded from inheriting the crown. Sir John married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Thomas Dinely, and widow of George Barret, who brought him two sons sir Richard (whose grandson was created a baronet) and John and three daughters Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Scott; Cecily, married to the lord treasurer Dorset, and Mary to John Tufton, of Heathfield in Kent. He died in 1558, and was bu ied at Sissingherst in Kent, where he had a fine estate, formerly belonging to the family of De Berham; and a noble mansion built by himself, called Sissingherst Castle, which remained with his posterity till the family became extinct about sixty years since, and has since bowed down its battlements to the unfeeling taste of the present day.

His principal work was, his “Chronicle of the kings of England, from the time of the Romans’ government unto the death of king James,” Lond. 1641, fol. again in 1653, and 1658, to which last was added, the reign of Charles I. with a continuation to 1658, by Edward Phillips, nephew to the illustrious Milton. The fourth edition of 1665 has a continuation to the coronation of Charles II. The account of the restoration was principally written by sir Thomas Clarges, although adopted by Phillips. It was most severely criticised by Thomas Blount, in his “Animadversions upon sir Richard Baker’s Chronicle and its continuation,” and many errors are unquestionably pointed out, but it became a popular book, and a common piece of furniture in every ’squire’s hall in the country, for which it was not ill calculated by its easy style and variety of matter, and continued to be reprinted until 1733, when another edition appeared with a continuation to the end of the reign of George I. but still with many errors, although perhaps not of much importance to the “plain folks” who delight in the book. This is called by the booksellers the best edition, and has lately been advancing in price, but they are not aware that many curious papers, printed in the former editions, are omitted in this. The late worthy and learned Daines Barrington gives the most favourable opinion of the Chronicle. “Baker is by no means so contemptible a writer as he is generally supposed to be it is believed that the ridicule on this Chronicle arises from its being part of the furniture of sir Roger de Coverley’s hall” in one of the Spectators. Sir Richard’s own opinion probably recommended it to many readers he says that “it is collected with so great care and diligence, that if all other of our chronicles were lost, this only would be sufficient to inform posterity of all passages memorable, or worthy to be known.” He wrote also several other works 1. “Cato Variegatus, or Cato’s Moral Distichs varied; in verse,” Loud. 1636. 2. “Meditations and Disquisitions on the Lord’s Prayer,” Lond. 1637, 4to. The fourth edition of it was published in 1640, 4to. It was highly praised by sir Henry Wotton, who had studied with him in Hart-hall. 3. “Meditations and disquisitions on the three last Psalms of David,” Lond. 1639. 4. “Meditations and disquisitions on the fiftieth Psalm,” Lond. 1639. 5. “Meditations and disquisitions on the seven penitential Psalms, which are, 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143,” Lond. 1639, 4to. 6. “Meditations and disquisitions on the first Psalm,” Lond. 1640, 4to. 7. “Meditations and disquisitions on the 'seven consolatory Psalms of David, namely, 23, 27, 30, 34, 84, 103, and 116,” Lond. 1640, 4to. 8. “Meditations and prayers upon the seven clays of the week,” Lond. 1640, 16 mo, which is supposed to be the same with his Motive of Prayer on the seven days of the week. 9. “Apology for Laymen’s writing in Divinity,” Lond. 1641, 12mo. 10. “Short meditations on the fall of Lucifer,” printed with the Apology. 11. “A soliloquy of the Soul, or a pillar of thoughts, &c.” Lond. 1641, 12mo. 12. “Theatrum lledivivun), or the Theatre vindicated, in answer to Mr. Pryone’s Histrio-mastrix, &c.” Lond. 1662, 8vo. 13. “Theatrum triumphans, or a discourse of Plays,” Lond. 1760, 8vo. 14. He translated from Italian into English, the marquis Virgilio Malvezzi’s Discourses on Tacitus, being 53 in number, Lond. 1642, fol. And from French into English, the three first parts of the “Letters of Monsieur Balzac,” printed at London, 1638, 8vo, and again in 1654, 4to, with additions, and also in 8vo. The fourth and last part seem to have been done by another hand the preface to it being subscribed F. B. Sir Richard wrote also his own life, and left it in manuscript but it was destroyed by one Smith, who married one of his daughters.

His next step was to select and purchase the best of all the sorts wherever they could be found and this selection, the result of several years experience, was the original stock from which he afterwards propagated his own. This excellent ground- work was alone fostered to its present unrivalled perfection by the persevering ingenuity and industry of Mr. Bakewell. About the year 1760, Mr. Bakewell sold his sheep, by private contract, at not more than two or three guineas each. Some time after he began to let some of his rams, and for a few seasons received only fifteen shillings and a guinea a-piece for them but as the fame of his breed extended itself, he advanced his prices, and by the year 1770 was enabled to let some of his rams for the season for twenty-five guineas. Since that time the prices and credit of his stock have been progressively increasing and of late years single rams have been let for the season for the enormous price of four hundred guineas and upwards. It is a fact which has no former example, that one ram, called the Two Pounder, produced in one season the sum of eight hundred guineas, independent of ewes of Mr. Bakewell' s own stock, which, at the same rate, would have made a total the produce of a single ram of twelve hundred guineas!

, a celebrated Italian poet of the seventeenth century, was distinguished in his youth for his attachment to polite literature, and some verses of acknowledged excellence. He was a native of Palermo, and on account of his talents, very early admitted into the academy of the Reaccensi, but his confined circumstances obliged him to leave his native country in pursuit of better fortune. He went first, for a short time, to Naples, and thence to Rome, where he entered into the army, and served in Hungary in the papal army under the command of John Francis Aldobrandini. He returned afterwards to Rome, and having resumed his studies, was received with great honour into the academy of the Humourists. Here his poetry, his anacreontics, and particularly the encomiastic verses he wrote on the distinguished persons of the court of pope Urban VIII. procured him fame, and might have enriched him, if he had not been deficient in the article of ceconomy, which some of his biographers ascribe to his extravagance, and others to his charity. It is certain, however, that he became poor, and was obliged to enter into the service of some gentlemen in the capacity of secretary, but either from feeling the miseries of dependarpce, or from an unsettled turn, he very frequently changed his masters. Erythraeus relates many stories of the manner in which he shifted for subsistence, which are not much to his credit, but the veracity of Erythneus on this as well as many other occasions, has been called in question by contemporary biographers of good authority, and whatever truth may be in his account, we do not find that Balducci lost the esteem of the learned at Rome. At length he took prders, and officiated as chaplain in the hospital of St. Sixte, but having afterwards been attacked by an illness at the house of a nobleman, who had a high regard for him, and would have administered to all his wants, he caused himself to be removed to the hospital of St. John Latran, where he died in 1642, or according to Crescembini, either in 1645 or 1649. His works were, 1. “Tributo di Parnasso alia Maesta Cesareo di Ferdinando III. d' Austria,” Rome, 1638, 4to. 2. “La Pace Urbana,” Naples, 1632, 4to. 3. “Poesie degli Accademici Fantastici di Roma,” Rome, 1637. 4. “Rime, parte prima,” Rome, 1630, 1645, 12mo. 5. “Rime, parte seconda,” Rome, 1646. All these were collected, and twice published at Venice, 1655 and 1663, 12mo. He also wrote some “Canzoni Siciliane,” and prefaces to part of the works of his friend Stigliani.

In or not long after 1592, he was employed in writing for or to sir John Puckering, lord keeper of the great seal, whose servant he styles himself; and it is certain there were several petitions, letters, &c. about that time, written in the fine small secretary and Italian hands, by Bales, among that lord keeper’s, papers, many of which are still in being. Among the rest there are several letters written by one TopclilFe, who was much employed about the country in marching out the Popish priests and their plots, and he made some discoveries which it was necessary to communicate in a secret manner but disliking the use of multiplied alphabets, as a method too tedious, preferred an invention of Bales’Sj which is called his lineal alphabet, or character of dashes, as the shortest and simplest he had heard of, wherein every letter was expressed by a single straight stroke, only in different postures and places. Bale was also one of the earliest writing-masters who had his specimens engraven on copper-plates, and one of those occurs in Hondius’s “Theatrum Artis Scribendi,” fol. 1614. On Michaelmas day, in 1595, he being then forty-eight years of age, had a great trial of skill in the Blackfryers, with one Daniel Johnson, for a golden pen of twenty pounds value, and won it, though his antagonist was a younger man by above eighteen years, and was therefore expected to have the advantage of a greater steadiness of hand. We are further told by a contemporary author, that he had also the arms of calligraphy given him, which are, Azure, a pen Or, at a prize, where solemn trial was made for mastery in this art, among the best penmen in London, which being a trial among more opponents than one, this, wherein the said arms were given to him, should seem different from that wherein he won the golden pen from Daniel Johnson before-mentioned, That is the first contention we meet with for the golden pen, though other memorable ones have since occurred. In 1597, when here-published his “Writing Schoolmaster,” he was in such high reputation for it, that no less than eighteen copies of commendatory verses, composed by learned and ingenious men of that time, were printed before it. He also, by other exercises of his pen, recommended himself to many other persons of knowledge and distinction, particularly by making fair transcripts of the learned and ingenious compositions of some honourable authors, which they designed as presentation-books to the queen, or others their friends or patrons, of high dignity; some of which manuscripts have been, for the beauty of them, as well as for their instructive contents, preserved as curiosities to these times. “Among the Harleian Mss. (now in the British Museum) No. 2368, there is a thin vellum book in small 4to, called Archeion. At the end of that treatise is a neat flourish, done by command of hand, wherein are the letters P. B. which shews, says a note in that book, that this copy was written by the hand po Peter Bales, the then famous writing-master of London,” We know not very particularly what other branches of the art he cultivated, but he was distinguished also with the title of a scrivener, as if he had some time professed the business of writing contracts, or drawing deeds, or other instruments, unless the signification of that word was not then confined, as it is now, to that particular business.

, an eminent divine of the church of England in the last century, was born on the 12th of August 1686, at Sheffield in Yorkshire. His father, Thomas JBalguy, who died in 1696, was master of the free grammarschool in that place, and from him he received the first rudiments of his grammatical education. After his father’s death he was put under the instruction of Mr. Daubuz, author of a commentary on the Revelations, who succeeded to the mastership of the same school, Sept. 23, 1696, for whom he always professed a great respect. In 1702 he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, under the care of Dr. Edmondson and of Dr. Lambert, afterwards master of that college. He frequent^ lamented, in the succeeding part of his life, that he had wasted nearly two years of his residence there in reading romances. But, at the end of that tinie happening to meet with Livy, he went through him with great delight, and afterwards applied himself to serious studies. In 1705-6, he was admitted to the degree of B. A. and to that of M. A. in 1726. Soon after he had taken his bachelor’s degree, he quitted the university, and was engaged, for a while, in teaching the free school at Sheffield, but whether he was chosen master, oxonly employed during a vacancy, does not appear. On the 15th of July 1708, he was taken into the family of Mr. Banks, as private tutor to his son, Joseph Banks, esq. air terwards of Reresby in the county of Lincoln, and grandfather of the present sir Joseph Banks, K. B. so eminently distinguished for his skill in natural history, and the expences, labours, and voyages, he has undergone to promote that part of science. Mr. Balguy, in 1710, was admitted to deacon’s orders, and in 1711 to priest’s by Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York. By Mr. Banks’ s means, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Mr. Bright of Badsworth, in the county of York, and was by him recommended to his father, sir Henry Liddel, of llavensworth castle, who in 1711 took Mr. Balguy into his family, and bestowed upon him the donative of Lamesly and Tanfield in that county. For the first four years after he had obtained thissmall preferment, he did not intermit one week without composing a new sermon and desfrous that so excellent an example should be followed by his son, he destroyed almost his whole stock, and committed, at one time, two hundred and fifty to the flames. In July 1715, he married Sarah, daughter of Christopher and Sarah Broomhead of Sheffield. She was born in 1686, and by her he had only a son, the late Dr. Thomas Balguy, archdeacon of Winchester. After his marriage he left sir Henry Liddel' s family, and lived at a house not far distant, called Cox close, where he enjoyed, for many years, the friendship of George Liddel, esq. member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, a younger son of sir Henry, who usually resided at Raven sworth castle. The first occasion of Mr. Balguy’s appearance as an author, was afforded by the Bangorian controversy. In 1718 he published, without his name, “Silvius’s examination of certain doctrines lately taught and defended by the. llev. Mr. Stebbing;” and, in the following year, “Silvius’s letter to the Rev. Dr, Sherlock.” Both of these performances were written in vindication of bishop Hoadly. Mr. Stehbing having written against these pamphlets, Mr. Balguy, in 1720, again appeared from the press, in the cause of the-bishop, in a tract entitled “Silvius’s defence of a dialogue between a Papist and a Protestant, in answer to the Rev. Mr. Stebbing; to which are added several remarks and observations upon that author’s manner of writing.” This also being answered by Mr. Stebbing, Mr. Balguy had prepared a farther defence but Dr. Hoadly prevailed Upon him to suppress it, on account of the public’s having grown weary of the controversy, and the unwillingness of the booksellers to venture upon any new works relating to it, at their own risk, For a different reason the bishop persuaded him, though with difficulty, to abstain from printing another piece which he had written, called “A letter to Dr. Clarke/' of whom, through his whole life, he was a great admirer. In 1726 he published” A letter to a deist cocerning the beauty and excellence of Moral Virtue, and the support and improvement which it receives from the Christian revelation.“In this treatise he has attacked, with the greatest politeness, and with equal strength of reason, some of the principles advanced by lord Shaftesbury, in his” Inquiry concerning Virtue.“On the 25th of January, 1727-8, Mr. Balguy was collated, by bishop Hoadly, to a prebend in the church of Salisbury, among the advantages of which preferment was the right of presenting to four livings, and of presenting alternately to two others. The best of them did not fall in his life-time. But two small livings were disposed of by him one to the Rev. Christopher Robinson, who married his wife’s sister; the other to his own son. In 1727 or 1728, he preached an assize sermon at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the subject of which was party spirit. It was printed by order of the judges, and either inscribed or dedicated to Dr. Talbot, bishop of Durham.” The foundation of Moral Goodness, or a farther inquiry into the original of our idea of Virtue,“was published by him in 1728, This performance, which is written in a very masterly and candid manner, was in, answer to Mr. Hutcheson’s” Inquiry into the original of our ideas of Beauty and Virtue“and its design is to shew that moral goodness does not depend solely upon instincts and affections, but is grounded on the unalterable reason of things. Mr. Balguy acquired, about this time, the friendship of Dr. Talbot, bishop of Durham, for which he was chiefly indebted to Dr. llundle, afterwards bishop of Derry though something, perhaps, might be due to his acquaintance with Dr. Benson, Dr. Seeker, and Dr. Butler. Through the assistance of his friends in the chapter of Durham, supported by the good offices of bishop Talbot, he obtained, on the 12th of August 1729, the vicarage of North-AJlerton in Yorkshire, at that time worth only 270l. a year, on which preferment he continued to his death. This was, in some measure, his own fault, for he neglected all the usual methods of recommending himself to his superiors. He had many invitations from Dr. Blackburne, archbishop of York, and Dr. Chandler, bishop of Durham but he constantly refused to accept of them. In the same year he published ”The second part of the foundation of Moral Goodness illustrating and enforcing the principles and reasonings contained in the former being an answer to certain remarks communicated by a gentleman to the author.“The writer of these remarks was lord Darcy. His next publication was” Divine Rectitude or, a brief inquiry concerning the Moral Perfections of the Deity, particularly in respect of Creation and Providence.“A question then much agitated was, concerning the first spring of action in the Deity. This is asserted by our author to be rectitude, while Mr. Grove contended that it is wisdom, and Mr. Bayes, a dissenting minister of Tunbridge, that it is benevolence. The difference between Mr. Grove and Mr. Balguy was chiefly verbal but they both differed materially from Mr. Bayes, as they supposed that God might have ends in view, distinct from, and sometimes interfering with the happiness of his creatures. The essay on divine rectitude was followed by” A second letter to a deist, concerning a late book, entitled ‘ Christianity as old as the Creation,’ more particularly that chapter which relates to Dr. Clarke.“To this succeeded” The law of Truth, or the obligations of reason essential to all religion to which are prefixed some remarks supplemental to a late tract entitled “Divine Rectitude.” All the treatises that have been mentioned (excepting the assize sermon, and the pieces which were written in the Bangorian controversy) were collected, after having gone through several separate editions, by Mr. Balguy, into one volume, and published with a dedication to bishop Hoadly. This dedication was reprinted in the late edition of the works of that prelate, together with two letters of the bishop relating to it, one to Mr. Balguy, and the other to lady Sundon. The greatest regard for our author is expressed by Dr. Hoadly in both these letters, and he acknowledges the pleasure it gave him to receive the sincere praises of a man whom he so highly esteemed. In 1741 appeared Mr. Balguy’s “Essay on Redemption,” in which he explains the doctrine of the atonement in a manner similar to that of Dr. Taylor of Norwich, but Hoadly was of opinion he had not succeeded. This, and his volume of sermons, iittluding six which had been published before, were the last pieces committed by him to the press . A posthumous volume was afterwards printed, which contained almost the whole of the sermons he left behind him. Mr, Balguy may justly he reckoned among the divines and writers who rank with Clarke and Hoadly, in maintaining what they term the cause of rational religion and Christian liberty. His tracts will be allowed to be masterly in their kind, by those who may not entireJy agree with the philosophical principles advanced in them and his sermons have long been held in esteem, as some of the best in the English language. He was remarkable for his moderation to dissenters of every denomination, not excepting even Roman Catholics, though no man had a greater abhorrence of popery. Among the Presbyterians and Quakers he had a number of friends, whom he loved and valued, and with several of them he kept up a correspondence of letters as well as visits. Among other dissenters of note, he was acquainted with the late lord Barrington, and Philips Glover, esq. of Lincolnshire, author of an “Inquiry concerning Virtue and Happiness,” published after his decease in 1751. With the last gentleman Mr. Balguy had a philosophical correspondence. Having always had a weakly constitution, his want of health induced him, in the decline of life, to withdraw almost totally from company, excepting what he found at Harrogate, a place which he constantly frequented every season, and where at last he died, on the 21st of September, 1748, in the sixtythird year of his age. With regard co the letter to Dr. Clarke, which Hoadiy prevented him from publishing, we have the following information from a note in the Biographia Britannica. “From two letters of bishop Hoadly to Mr. Balguy, it appears that both the bishop and Dr. Clarke were exceedingly fearful of any thing’s being published which might be prejudicial to the doctor’s interest so that he could not then (1720) have come to the resolution which he afterwards formed, of declining farther preferment, rather than repeat his subscription to the thirty-nine articles. The solicitude of Dr. Hoadly and Dr. Clarke to prevent Mr. Balguy’s intended publication, was the more remarkable, as it did not relate to the Trinity, or to any obnoxious point in theology; but to the natural immortality of the soul, and such philosophical questions as might have been deemed of an innocent and indifferent nature.”

, a learned French Jesuit, was born at Metz, June 3, 1667, and received into the society of Jesuits, at Nancy, in Nov. 1682. In 1700, when he took the four vows, he was professor of Hebrew in the college of Strasburgh, and before that, when much younger, he taught the lower classes at Dijon, and gave essons on rhetoric at Pont-a-Mousson. In his youth he studied Greek and Latin with ardour, and afterwards applied with equal zeal to Hebrew and Christian antiquities, until his continued study had injured his health. With a view of restoring it by travelling, he was sent from Strasburgh to Dijon, where he had the care of the public library. In 1717 he was called to Rome, and for some time was censor of the press but the air of Rome disagreeing with him, he returned to France, where he was successively rector of the Jesuits colleges at Dijon, at Pont-a-Mousson, and other places. His last employment was that of librarian, at Rheims, where he died, March 9, 1743. He was in very high esteem among his brethren, and acquired considerable reputation by his works, which are, 1. “Oraison funebre de M. Pierre Creagh,” archbishop of Dublin, Strasburgh, 1705, 4to. 2. “Reponse a l'histoire des Onicles de M. de Fontenelle,” Strasburgh, 1707, and 1709, 8vo. It was the general sentiment of the church that the pagan oracles were the work of demons, and that they were silenced by the power of Jesus Christ, until Van Dale, an Anabaptist physician at Haerlem, endeavoured to prove, that these oracles were merely the quackish contrivances of the heathen priests, and that instead of attributing their silence to the power of Christ, we ought to refer it to the destruction of their temples by the Christian emperors. Fontenelle, when writing on this subject, adopted the opinion of Van Dale, and gave it to the public in his own polished and popular style, which induced Baltus to answer him as the chief propagator of this new doctrine, and to address his book to him. Fontenelle made no reply but Le Clerc, in his Bibiiotheque Choisie, for 1707, criticised Baltus’ work in such a manner as to draw from him, 3. “Suite de la Reponse, &c.” Strasburgh, 1708, 8vo, and both the answer and continuation were translated into English by Hickes, and printed 'at London, the first in 1708, and the other in 1709. At the conclusion of the preface to the continuation, he announced another work, in which he promised to examine more closely the platonism attributed to the fathers of the church, and the custom of referring the greatest mysteries of our religion to certain ideas and opinions invented by a pagan philosopher. This he published accordingly under the title 4. “Defense ties Ss. Peres accuses de Platonisme,” Paris, 1711, 4to. Dupin has given a good analysis of this learned work in the second volume of his ecclesiastical authors of the eighteenth century. 5. “Jugement des Ss. Peres sur la morale de la philosophic paienne,” Strasburgh, 1719, 4to. 6. “Reflexions spirituelles et sentimens de piete ciu II. P. Charles de Lorraine,” a trans^ hition from the Italian, Dijon, 1720, 12 mo. 7. “La Vie de Sainte Fabronie,” from the Greek, ib. 1721, 12mo. 8. “Les actes de S. Barlaam,” from the Greek, ib. 1720, 12mo. 9. < Sentimens du R. P. Baltus, sur le traite de la foiblesse de l'esprit humain.“These remarks on M. Huet’s work were addressed to the abbe Olivet, and were printed in the literary and historical memoirs of father Molets. 10. ct La religion Chretienne, prouvee par l‘accomplisserncnt des propheties de l’ancien et du nonveau Testament, suivant la methode des Ss. Peres,” Paris, 1728, 4to. 11. “Defense des propheties de la religion Chretienne,” Paris, 1737, 3 vols. 12mo. In this he examines and refutes the opinions of Grotius at great length, and shews that the most ancient fathers of the church, as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, &c. never thought of interpreting the prophecies of the old Testament in a double sense but applied them in their literal meaning to the Messiah. The same sentiments he defended in a letter inserted in the Memoires deTrevoux, for March, 1738.

Niceron has given a list of twenty-nine articles, of which Baluze was either author or editor. The principal are, 1. “Petri de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperil/' fol. Paris, 1663, 1669, and 1704. 2.” Salviani Massiliensis et Vincentii Lirinensis Opera, cum Notis,“Paris, 1669, and 1684, 8vo, the last the best edition. 3.” Servati Lupi opera/' Paris, 1664, 8vo, with judicious notes. 4. “Agobardi opera et Leidradi et Amulonis, epistolse et opuscula,” Paris, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Petri Castellani vita, auctore Petro Gallandio,” ib. 1674, 8vo. 6. “Marii Mercatoris Opera,” ib. 1684; these two collated with Mss. and enriched by notes illustrative of the history of the middle age. 7. “Miscellanea,” a collection of ancient pieces from manuscripts, 7 vols. 8vo, published in various years from 1678 1715, and reprinted by Mansius in 1761. 8. “Capitularia regum Francorum,” ib. 2 vols. folio. This collection contains several capitularies never published before. Mr. Baluze has corrected them with great accuracy, and has given an account in his preface of the original and authority of the several collections of the capitularies. The kings of France held anciently every year a large assembly, iw which all the public affairs were treated. Jt was composed of all the considerable persons among the clergy and laity, bishops, abbots, and counts. It was in the presence and by the advice of this assembly, that the kings made their constitutions, which were read aloud and after the assembly had given their consent, every person subscribed. These constitutions being abridged and reduced under proper heads were called capitula or chapters, and a collection of several articles was stiled a capitulary. They may be distinguished into three kinds, according to the subjects of them. Those which treat of ecclesiastical affairs were generally taken from the canons, and had the sanction of the bishop’s authority, and therefore might be considered of the same force as the canons. Those which contained general regulations in civil affairs, had properly the real force of laws. And those which related only to certain persons and certain occasions, were only to be considered as particular regulations. The authority of these capitularies was always very great. They were constantly observed in the most exact manner in all the empire of the Francs, that is, in almost all Europe during the reigns of Charlemagne, Lewis the Debonnaire, and his sons. The bishops transcribed them in their councils, and even the popes were ambitious to follow them, as appears by a letter of Leo IV. to the emperor Lotharius, mentioned by Yvo of Chartres and Gratian. They were for a long time in force in Germany as well as in France, and the use of them was not interrupted till the beginning of the third race of the kings of France. Mr. Baluze has added to these capitularies the ancient formularies of Marculfus those of an anonymous author those published by father Sirmond and Mr. Bignon a new Collection of Formularies extracted from divers old Manuscripts; and those of the promotion of bishops published by father Sirmond in the second volume of the Councils of France. 9. “L. C. F. Lactantii Liber, de mortibus persecutorum,” ib. 1680, and Utrecht,

There was another physician named Richard Banister, who wrote, “A treatise of one hundred and thirteen Diseases of the Eyes and Eyelids” commonly called Banister’s Breviary of the Eyes and “An appendant part of a treatise of one hunched and thirteen Diseases of the Eyes and Eyelids, called Cewisia Medicata, Purging Ale, with divers Aphorisms and Principles.” From this book it appears that the author was living in 1617, and 1619, and probably in 1622, when the second edition was published. When it was first published, cannot be found. But in 1622, “The treatise of the one hundred and thirteen Diseases, &c.” was reprinted. In Chapter IV. of the “Appendant part, &c.” he says “In my treatise of the Eyes I have named the best oculists that have been in this land for fifty or sixty years, who were no graduates, either in Cambridge or Oxon.”

, an English miscellaneous writer of some note, was born at Sunning, in Berkshire, in 1709, and put apprentice to a weaver at Reading but accidentally breaking his arm before the expiration of his time, he was unable to follow his trade, and for some time, probably, lived upon charity. Ten pounds, however, being left him by a relation, he came up to London, and set up a book-stall in Spital-nelds, hoping to be as lucky as Duck, who about this time raised himself to notice by his poem called “The Thresher,” in imitation of which Banks wrote “The Weaver’s Miscellany,” but without success, which he afterwards acknowledged was not unjust. He then quitted this settlement, and lived some time with Mr. Montague, a bookseller and bookbinder, employing his leisure hours in the composition of small poems, for a collection of which he solicited a subscription, and sent his proposals, with a poem, to Mr. Pope, who answered him in a letter, and subscribed for two copies. He was afterwards concerned in a large work in folio, intituled the “Life of Christ,” which was drawn up with much piety and exactness. He also wrote the celebrated “Critical Review of the Life of Oliver Cromwell,” 12mo, which has been often printed, and is, upon the whole, an impartial work. Towards the end of his life he was employed in writing the Old England and Westminster Journals, and was now enabled to live in easy circumstances. He died of a nervous disorder at Islington, April 19, 1751. His biographer represents him as a pleasing and acceptable companion, and a modest and unassuming man, free from every inclination to engage in contests, or indulge envy or malevolence.

, who was also surnamed Monnoyer, a painter of some note, who resided many years in England, was born at Lisle, in Flanders, in 1635. He was brought up at Antwerp, where his business was 'history painting but finding that his genius more strongly inclined him to the painting of flowers, he applied his talents, and in that branch became one of the greatest masters. When Le Brim had undertaken to paint the palace of Versailles, he employed Baptist to do the flower part, in which he displayed great excellence. The duke of Montague being then ambassador in France, and observing the merit of Baptist’s performances, invited him over into England, and employed him, in conjunction with La Fosse and Rousseau, to embellish Montague house, which is now the British museum and contains many of the finest productions of Baptist. “His pictures (says Mr. Pilkington in his Dictionary of Painters) are not so exquisitely finished as those of Van Huysum, but his composition and colouring are in a bolder style. His flowers have generally a remarkable freedom and looseness, as well in the disposition, as in pencilling together with a tone of colouring, that is lively, admirable, and nature itself. The disposition of his objects is surp'risingly elegant and beautiful and in that respect his compositions are easily known, and as easily distinguished from the performances of others.” A celebrated performance of this artist is a looking-glass preserved in Kensington palace, which he decorated with a garland of flowers, for queen Mary and it is mentioned as a remarkable circumstance, that her majesty sat by him during the greatest part of the time that he was employed ia painting it. He painted, for the duke of Ormond, six pictures of East India birds, after nature, which were in that nobleman’s collection at Kilkenny in Ireland, and afterwards came into the possession “of Mr. Pilkington. He died in Pall Mall, in the year 1699. There is a print of Baptist, from a painting of sir Godfrey Kneller, in Mr. Walpole’s” Anecdotes." He had a son, named Anthony Baptist, who also painted flowers and, in the style and manner of his father, had great merit. There was also another painter known by the name of John Baptist, whose surname was Caspars, and who was commonly called Lely’s Baptist. He was born at Antwerp, and was a disciple of Thomas Willebores Boschaert. During the civil war he came to England, and entered into the service of general Lambert; but after the restoration he was employed by sir Peter Lely, to paint the attitudes and draperies of his portraits. He was engaged in the same business under Riley and sir Godfrey Kneller. The portrait of Charles II. in Painters’ Hall, and another of the same prince, with mathematical instruments, in the hall of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, were painted by this Baptist, who died in 1691, and was buried at St. James’s.

, was an elegant writer in the sixteenth century but whether he was English or Scotch by birth is disputed. It seems most probable that he was Scotch, but others have contended that he was born in Somersetshire, where there is both a village called Barcley, and an ancient family of the same name, yet there is no such village, except in Gloucestershire, and Mr. Warton thinks he was either a Gloucestershire or Devonshire man. But of whatever country he was, we know nothing of him, before his coming to Oriel college in Oxford, about 1495, when Thomas Cornish was provost of that house. 'Having distinguished himself there, by the quickness of his parts, and his attachment to learning, he went into Holland, and thence into Germany, Italy, and France, where he applied himself assiduously to the* languages spoken in those countries, and to the study of the best authors in them, and made a wonderful proficiency, as appeared after his return home, by many excellent translations which he published. His patron was now become bishop of Tyne, and suftragan under the bishop of Wells, who first made him his chaplain, and afterwards appointed him one of the priests of St. Mary, at Ottery in Devonshire, a college founded by John Grandison bishop of Exeter. After the death of this patron, he became a monk of the order of St. Benedict, and afterwards, as some say, a Franciscan. He was also a monk of Ely, and upon the dissolution of that monastery in 1539, he was left to be provided for by his patrons, of which his works had gained him many. He seems to have had, first, the vicarage of St. Matthew at Wokey, in Somersetshire, on the death of Thomas Eryngton, and afterwards was removed from that small living to a better, if indeed he received not both at the same time. It is more certain, that in Feb. 1546, being then doctor of divinity, he was presented to the vicarage of Much-Badew, or, as it is commonly called, Baddow-Magna, in the county of Essex and diocese of London, by Mr. John Pascal, on the death of Mr. John Clowes; and the dean and chapter of London, upon the resignation of William Jennings, rector of Allhallows, Lombard-street, on the 30th of April 1552, presented him to that living, which he did not however enjoy above the space of six weeks. He was admired in his lite-time for his wit and eloquence, and for a fluency of style not common in that age. This recommended him to many noble patrons though it does not appear that he was any great gainer by their favour, otherwise than in his reputation. He lived to a very advanced age, and died at Croydon in Surrey, in month of June, 15-52, and was interred in the church there. Bale has treated his memory with great indignity he says, he remained a scandalous adulterer under colour of leading a single life but Pits assures us, that he employed all his study in favour of religion, and in reading and writing the lives of the saints. There is probably partiality in both these characters but that he was a polite writer, a great refiner of the English tongue, and left behind him many testimonies of his wit and learning, cannot be denied.

Of his works, we have not a complete catalogue, but the following are best known. 1. “The Castell of Labour, wherein is Rychesse, Vertue, and Honour,” an allegorical poem, in seven- line stanzas, translated from the trench, printed by Wynken de Worde, 1506. 2. “The Shyp of Folys,” or the Ship of Fools, printed by Pynson, in 1509, and Cawood in 1570. 3. “A right frutefu 11 treatyse, intituled, the myrrour of good maneYs, conteyning the four vertues, called cardinal!,” printed by Pynson. 4. “Egloges,” or the miseries of courts and courtiers, five in number, printed by Pynson. 5. His “Answer to John Skelton the poet,” probably in poetry, but not printed, or known to exist in manuscript. Bale and Pits also mention what are as little known, the lives of St. George, of St. Catherine, and other saints, all translations, and a translation of Sallust, which was printed in 1557. His Ship of Fools, an excellent satire on the follies of all ranks, is partly a translation, or imitation of a work of the same title, published in 1494, by Sebastian Brandt, afterwards translated into French, and then into Latin. From this original and the two translations Barclay formed his poem, in the octave stanza, with considerable additions gleaned from the follies of his countrymen. Mr. Warton has given an elaborate account of the whole of Barclay’s writings.

Although Barclay found much civility at Rome, yet it does not appear that he obtained any emolument. Inctimbered with a wife and family, and having a spirit above his fortune, he was left at full leisure to pursue his literary studies. It was at that time that he composed his Latin romance, called “Argenis.” He employed his vacant hours in the cultivating of a flower-garden. Rossi (or Erythrsfeus) relates, in the turgid Italian style, that Barclay cared not for those bulbous roots which produce flowers of a sweet scent; and that he cultivated such as produced flowers void of smell, but having variety 6f colours. Hence we may conclude, that he was among the first of these who were infected with that strange disease, a passion for tulips, which soon after overspread Europe, and is still remembered under the name of the Tulipo-mania. Barclay had it to that excess, that he placed two mastiffs, as centinels, in his garden and rather than abandon his favourite flowers, chose to continue his residence in an ill- aired and unwholesome habitation.

Barclay’s Latin style, in his Argenis, has been much praised, and much censured but upon the whole it is elegant. It is said, that cardinal Richelieu was extremely fond of reading this work, and that from thence he derived many of his political maxims. It is observed in the preface to the last English translation, that “Barclay’s Argenis affords such variety of entertainment, that every kind of reader may find in it something suitable to his own taste and disposition the statesman, the philosopher, the soldier, the lover, the citizen, the friend of mankind, each may gratify his favourite propensity while the reader, who comes for his amusement only, will not go away disappointed.” It is also remarked of this work in the same preface, that “it is a romance, an allegory, and a system of politics. In it the various forms of government are investigated, the causes of faction detected, and the remedies pointed out for most of the evils that can arise in a state.” Cowper, the celebrated poet, pronounced it the most amusing romance ever written. “It is,” he adds in a letter to Sam. Rose, esq. “interesting in a high degree; richer'trt incident than can be imagined, full of surprizes, which the reader never forestalls, and yet free from all entanglement and confusion. The style too appears to me to be such as would not dishonour Tacitus himself.” In this political allegory, “by the kingdom of Sicily, France is described during the time of the civil wars under Henry the Third. and until the fixing the crown upon the head of Henry the Fourth. By the country over-against Sicily, and frequently her competitor, England is signified. By the country, formerly united under one head, but now divided into several principalities, the author means Germany; i. e. Mergania. Several names are disguised in the same manner, by transposing the letters.” As to the principal persons designed, “by Aquilius is meant the emperor of Germany, Calvin is Usinulca, and the Hugenots are called Hyperephanii, Under the person and character of Poliarchus, Barclay undoubtedly intended to describe that real hero, Henry of Navarre, as he has preserved the likeness even to his features and complexion. By his rivals are meant the leaders of the different factions’; by Lycogenes and his friends, the Lorrain party, with the duke of Guise at their head. Some features of Hyanisbe’s character are supposed to resemble queen Elizabeth of England Radirobanes is the king of Spain, and his fruitless expedition against Mauritania is pointed at the ambitious designs of Philip the Second, and his invincible armada. Under Meleander, the character of Henry the Third of France seems intended though the resemblance is very flattering to him.”

, the celebrated apologist for the Quakers, and one of the ablest writers of that sect, was born at Gordonstown, in the shire of Murray, Scotland, in 1648, of an ancient and very honourable family. The troubles in Scotland induced his father, colonel Barclay, to send him while a youth to Paris, under the care of his uncle, principal of the Scots college who, taking advantage of the tender age of his nephew, drew him over to the Romish religion. His father, being informed of this, sent for him in 1664. Robert, though now only sixteen, had gained a perfect knowledge of the French and Latin tongues, and had also improved himself in most other parts of knowle_dge. Several writers amongst the quakers have asserted that colonel Barclay had embraced their doctrine before his son’s return from France, but Robert himself has tixed it to the year 1666. Our author soon after became also a proselyte to that sect, and in a short time distinguished himself greatly by his zeal for their doctrines. His rirst treatise in defence of them appeared at Aberdeen, 1670. It was written in so sensible a manner, that it greatly raised the credit of the quakers. The title runs thus “Truth cleared of calumnies, 'wherein a hook entitled, A dialogue between a Quaker and a stable Christian (printed at Aberdeen, and, upon good ground, judged to be writ by William Mitchel, a preacher near by it, or at least that he had a chief hand in it), is examined, and the disingenuity of the author in his representing the Quakers is discovered here is also their case truly stated, cleared, demonstrated, and the objections of their opposers answered according to truth, scripture, and right reason to which are subjoined queries to the inhabitants of Aberdeen, which might (as far as the title tells us) also be of use to such as are of the same mind with them elsewhere in the nation.” The preface to this performance is dated from the author’s house at Ury, the 19th of the second month, 1670. In a piece he published in 1672, he tells us that he had been commanded by God to pass through the streets of Aberdeen in sackcloth and ashes, and to preach the necessity of faith and repentance to the inhabitants he accordingly performed it, being, as he declared, in the greatest agonies of mind till he had fulfilled this command. In 1675, he published a regular and systematical discourse, explaining the tenets of the quakers; which was well received. This was called “A Catechism and Confession of Faith, &c.” Many of those who opposed the religion of the quakers, having endeavoured to confound them with another sect called the ranters, our author, in order to shewr the difference between those pi his persuasion and this other sect, wrote a very sensible and instructive work called “The Anarchy of the Ranters and other Libertines, &e.” In 1676, his famous < e Apology“for the Quakers was published in Latin at Amsterdam, 4to. His” Theses theologies,“which are the foundation of this work, had been published some time before. He translated his Apology into English, and published it in 1678. The title in the English edition runs thus” An apology for the true Christian divinity as the same is held forth and preached by the people called in scorn Quakers being a full explanation and vindication of their principles and doctrines, by many arguments deduced from scripture and right reason, and the testimonies of famous authors both ancient and modern, with a full answer to the strongest objections usually made against them presented to the king: written and published in Latin for the information of strangers, by Robert Barclay; and now put into our own language for the benefit of his countrymen.“This work is addressed to Charles II. and the manner in which he expresses himself to his majesty is very remarkable. Amongst many other extraordinary passages, we meet with the following:” There is no king in the world, who can so experimentally testify of God’s providence and goodness; neither is there any who rules so many free people, so many true Christians which thing renders thy government more honourable, thyself more considerable, than the accession of many nations rilled with slavish aud superstitious souls. Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity thou knowest what it is to be banished thy native country, to be over-ruled as well as to rule and sit upon the throne and being oppressed, thou hast reason to know how hateful the oppressor is both to God and man if, after all those warnings and advertisements, thou dost not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in thy distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely, great will be thy condemnation.“These pieces of his, though they greatly raised his reputation amongst persons of sense and learning, yet they brought him into various disputes, and one particularly with some considerable members of the university of Aberdeen an account of which was afterwards published, entitled” A true and faithful account of the most material passages of a dispute between some students- of divinity (so called) of the university of Aberdeen, aud the people called Quakers, held in Aberdeen in Scotland, in Alexander Harper his close (or yard) before some hundred of witnesses, upon the 14th day of the second month, called April, 1675, there being John Lesly, Alexander Sherreff, and Paul Gellie master of arts, opponents and defendants upon the Quakers’ part, Robert Barclay and George Keith praeses for moderating the meeting, chosen by them, Andrew Thompson advocate; and by the quakers, Alexander Skein, some time a magistrate of the city published for preventing misreports by Alexander Skein, John Skein, Alexander Harper, Thomas Merser, and John Cowie to which is added, Robert Barclay’s offer to the preachers of Aberdeen, renewed and reinforced.“It appears also that he suffered imprisonment for his principles, which he bore with the greatest meekness. In 1677, he wrote a large treatise on” universal love.“Nor were his talents entirely confined to this abstracted kind of writing, as appears from his letter to the public ministers of Nimeguen. In 1679, a treatise of his was published in answer to John Brown he wrote also the same year a vindication of his Anarchy of the Ranters. His last tract was published in 1686, and entitled” The possibility and necessity of the inward and immediate Revelation of the Spirit of God towards the foundation and ground of true faith, proved in a letter written in Latin to a person of quality in Holland, and now also put into English.' 7 He did great service to his sect by his writings over all. Europe. He travelled also with the famous IVlr. Penn through the greatest part of England, Holland, and Germany, and was every where received with great respect. When he returned to his native country, he spent the remainder of his life in a quiet and retired manner. He died at his own house at Ury, on the 3d of October 1690, in the forty-second year of his age, leaving seven children, all of whom were alive in October 1740, fifty years after their father’s death, and the last survivor, Mr. David Barclay, a merchant of London, died in March 1769, in his eighty-eighth year, a gentleman still remembered for having had the singular honour of receiving at his house in Cheapside, three successive kings, George I. II. and III. when at their accession they favoured the city with their presence. From his windows they witnessed the procession, previous to dining with the lord-mayor and citizens at Guildhall on the lord-mayor’s day.

After Mr. Baretti’s return to England he made several excursions abroad. He particularly attended Dr. Johnson and the Thrale family to Paris; and in February 1769 he made a second tour through part of Spain, from whence he had but just returned, when an accident happened which hazarded his life at the time, and probably diminished, in the event, some of the estimation in which, until then, he had been held amongst his friends. On the 6th of October, returning from the Orange coffee-house between six and seven o'clock, and going hastily up the Haymarket, he was accosted by a woman, who behaving with great indecency, he was provoked to give her a blow on the hand (as he declared) accompanied with some angry words. This occasioned a retort from her, in which several opprobrious terms were used towards him and three men, who appeared to be connected with the woman, mimed lately interfering, and endeavouring to push him from the pavement, with a view to throw him into a paddle, in order to trample on him, he was alarmed for his safety, and rashly struck one of them with a knife. He was then pursued by them all, and another of them collaring him, he again struck the assailant, Evan Morgan, with his knife several times, and gave him some wounds, of which he died in the Middlesex hospital the next day. Mr. Baretti was immediately taken into custody, and at the ensuing sessions tried at the Old Bailey. He refused to accept the privilege of having a jury of half foreigners. The, evidence against him were the woman, the two men, the constable, a patient in Middlesex hospital, and the surgeon. When called upon for his defence, he read a paper which contained a narrative of the unfortunate transaction, with the reasons which obliged him to act with so much violence. “This, my lord, and gentlemen of the jury,” he concluded, “is the best account I can give of my unfortunate accident for what is done in two or three minutes, in fear and terror, is not to be minutely described, and the court and jury are to judge. I hope your lordship, and every person present, will think that a man of my age, character, and way of life, would not spontaneously quit my pen to engage in an outrageous tumult. I hope it will easily be conceived, that a man almost blind could not but be seized with terror on such a sudden attack as this. I hope it will be seen, that my knife was neither a weapon of offence or defence I wear it to carve fruit and sweet-meats, and not to kill my fellowcreatures. It is a general custom in France not to put knives upon the table, so that even ladies wear them in their pockets for general use. I have continued to wear it after my return, because I have found it occasionally convenient. Little did I think such an event would ever have happened let this trial turn out as favourable as my innocence may deserve, still my regret will endure as long as life shall last. A man who has lived full fifty years, and spent most of that time in a studious manner, I hope, will not be supposed to have voluntarily engaged in so desperate an affair. I beg leave, my lord and gentlemen, ta add one thing more. Equally confident of my own innocence, and English discernment to trace out truth, I resolved to wave the privilege granted to foreigners by the laws of this kingdom nor was my motive a compliment to this nation my motive was my life and honour that it should not be thought I received undeserved favour from a jury, part my own countrymen. I chose to be tried by a jury of this country; for, if my honour is not saved, I cannot much wish for the preservation of my life. I will wait for the determination of this awful court with that confidence, I hope, which innocence has a right to obtain. So God bless you all.”

With the indolence which sometimes accompanies old age, he became negligent, inattentive to the state of his finances, spent the principal of his 500l. and, at the conclusion of his life, felt himself scarce out of the gripe of poverty. His pension, from circumstances of public embarrassment well known, was in arrear, and he had received from the booksellers, by whom he was employed to revise his dictionary, as much money as they conceived he was entitled to expect, considering the state the work was then in. An application to them for an immediate supply had not met with a ready acquiescence, and the vexation occasioned by his disappointment is supposed to have had an ill effect on his health. A fit of the gout ensued, which he at first neglected, and apprehended himself to be in no danger until the middle of the day preceding his death, when he consented that the vultures, as he called the medical people, might be called in. He acknowledged his obligations to Dr. Blane who attended him, and by whose means he would probably have been restored to health, if he had continued to follow his prescriptions, as he had before much recovered under his management, until he relapsed in consequence of drinking cold water. Ice and cold water had alone been used by him as medicine for a giddiness in his head.

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

, an artist of great ingenuity, deserves notice as having contributed to “the harmless stock of public pleasure,” although the particulars of his early life may not be interesting. He was the inventor and patentee of the now well-known species of exhibition called a Panorama, by which bird’s-eye views of large cities anti other interesting subjects, taken from a tower, or some other elevated situation, and painted in distemper round the wall of a circular building, produce a very striking effect, and a greater resemblance to reality than was ever before invented, a strong light being thrown on the painting, whilst the place from whence it proceeds is concealed. The deception is also aided by the picture having no frame or apparent boundary. The first picture of this kind was a view of Edinburgh, exhibited to the public in that city by Mr. Barker, in 1788, and in the following year in London, where it did not attract much attention nor was the invention popular, until Mr. Barker named his exhibition a Panorama, a compound word which was not ill contrived to excite curiosity. The first view, under this new title, was one of London from the top of the Albion Mills, which Mr. Barker exhibited at a house in Castle-street, Leicester Fields and although this was confined, Tor want of room, to a half circle, he was soon patronised and encouraged by the liberal praises of sir Joshua Reynolds and other eminent artists. Soon after, partly by means of a subscription, Mr. Barker was enabled to build a large and commodious house in Leicester Fields, calculated to give his exhibition every advantage. Since that time, "views of Dublin, Paris, Constantinople, Cairo, and other cities, with some of the most remarkable sea-fights of the present eventful war, have been exhibited with the greatest success. A more rational, or in many respects a more useful, public exhibition, it would be difficult to conceive. Mr. Barker died in April 1806, at his house in West-square, Southwark, leaving two sons, one of whom continues the exhibition in Leicester-square, with all his father’s skill.

, a monk of the order of St. Basil, in the fourteenth century, was in 1339 sent by the Greek emperor Andronicus the younger, as ambassador to Philip king of France, and Robert king t)f Sicily, to solicit assistance against the Mahometan power; and as there was little prospect that this would be granted without a previous union between the Greek and Latin churches, he was also instructed to treat of this measure. These two princes gave him letters to pope Benedict XII. to whom he proposed the assembling of a general council; but as he desired, in the mean time, that a reinforcement might be sent to the Greek emperor, the pope replied that the procession of the Holy Ghost was a point already settled, and therefore did not require a new council, and as for the assistance required, it could not be granted unless the Greek church would shew more sincerity in its wishes for a junction. Barlaam, at his return from Constantinople, had a controversy with the monks called Quietists, who were charged with reviving the Messalian heterodoxy. These monks pretended to see the light which appeared upon Mount Tabor at our Saviour’s transfiguration. They asserted this light to be uncreated and incorruptible, though not part of the divine essence and held other strange opinions, which induced Barlaani to accuse Palamas and his disciples of this sect, to the emperor and to the patriarch of Constantinople, on which a council was called in that city in 1340, but BarJaain failed in maintaining his charges, and was himself censured. Barlaam beinp; thus condemned in the east, retired to the west, joined himself to the Latins, and was made bishop of Hieracium or Gerace in Calabria, where he died about 1348. As he changed from the Greeks to the Latins, his writings will be found to be both for and against the latter. Against them he wrote a treatise on the pope’s primacy, printed first in Gr. and Lat. at Oxford, 1592, 4to, by Lloyd, and afterwards at Hainault, 1608, 8vo, with notes by Sahnasius, who again reprinted it, along with his own treatise of the primacy of the pope, Amsterdam, 1645. Barlaam wrote also a treatise of the procession of the Holy Ghost, containing eighteen articles, of which Ailatius gives the titles. For the Latins he wrote a discourse of the union of the two churches, and five letters, published by Bzovius, Canisius, and in the Bibl. Patrnm separately also at Strasburgh, 1572; and a treatise on arithmetic and algebra from his pen was published at Paris, 1600.

, a learned and voluminous writer, was born Sept. 28, 1488, at Barland, a village of Zealand, from which he took his name. His father sent him to Ghent at the age of eleven, where he studied the classics under Peter Scot, a man eminently skilled in the ancient orators and poets, who, discovering his pupil’s promising talents, and that he excelled all his schoolfellows, bestowed particular care in cultivating his mind. At the expiration of four years, he went, in compliance with his father’s wish* to Loitvaine, an university which Barland allows to be very celebrated* but where, he says, he passed his time, without much acquisition of knowledge, and had nearly forgot what he had learned at Ghent. Representations of this kind, from young men, are generally to be suspected. Barland does not inform us how he was employed during the four years he passed at this university. It is certain, however, that he was admitted master of arts in his twentieth year, r and soon after returned to his classical studies, which he cultivated with such success, that he was enabled to teach and for more than nine years had a very flourishing school. According to Andreas Valerius, he taught Latin in the college of the three languages, called Busleiden, at Louvaine. In 1518 he went into England, but soon after, we find him at Afflinghem, superintending the studies of one of his Lonvaine pupils. In 152G he was invited to the professorship of rhetoric at Louvaine, which he continued to hold until his death in 1542. In 1603, a collection of some of his works was published at Cologne, under the title of “Historica,” all of which had been published separately, except a letter to one of his friends, in which he gives an account of his early studies. Besides these, he published, 1. “In omnes Erasmi Adagiorum chiliados epitome,” Colon. 1524, fol. 2. “Historica narratio Papiensis obsidionis anni 1525,” printed in the second volume of Schardius’s German writers. 3. “Dialogi ad profligandam e scholis barbariem,” the best edition of which is that of 1530. 4. “De Litteratis urbis Roma principibus opusculum. Elysii Calentii oppido quam elegantes epistolse, a Barlando recognitas et argumentis auctae. Menandri dicta eximia, adnotationibus illustrata,” Louvaine, 1515, 4to. 5. “Epistola de ratione studii.” 6. “Commentarii in Terentii comedias,” added to the Paris editions of Terence, 1522, 1552, and that of Francfort, 1637, fol. 7. “Enarrationes in quatuor libros Eneidos Virgilianse,” Antwerp, 1529 and 1535, 4to. He also published scholia, on some of Pliny’s epistles, and other classical authors.

, a very learned divine and bishop in the seventeenth century, was born at Langhill, in the parish of Orton, in Westmorland, in 1607; being the son <*f Mr. Richard Barlow, descended from the ancient family of Barlow-moore in Lancashire. He had his first education at the free-school at Appleby, in his own country. From thence being removed, in the sixteenth year of his age, to Queen’s college in Oxford, he took his degrees in arts, that of master being completed the 27th of June, 1633, and the same year was chosen fellow of his college. In 1635, he was appointed metaphysic-reader in the university; and his lectures being much approved of, were published in 1637 for the use of the scholars. When the garrison of Oxford surrendered to the parliament in 1646, he submitted to the persons then in power and by tb-^ interest of colonel Thomas Kelsey, deputy governor of that garrison, or more likely by that of Selden or Dr. Owen, preserved his fellowship, notwithstanding the parliamentary visitation, of which he gave a ludicrous account, in a pamphlet entitled “Pegasus.” In 1652 he was elected keeper of the Bodleian library and about the same time, was made lecturer of Church-hill, near Burford, in Oxfordshire. July 23, 1657, he took his degree of bachelor in divinity and, in the latter end of the same year, was chosen provost of his college, on the death of the learned Dr. Langbaine. After the restoration of king Charles II. he procured himself to be one of the commissioners, appointed first by the marquis of Hertford, chancellor of the university, and afterwards by the king, for restoring the members which were ejected in 1648. The 2d of August, 1660, he was not only created doctor in divinity among the royalists, but also chosen Margaret professor of divinity, the 1st of September following, upon the ejection of Henry Wilkinson, senior. He wrote, the same year, “The case of a Toleration in matters of religion,' 7 addressed to the famous Rob. Boyle, esq. in which that subject fs handled with great candour. In 1661, he was appointed archdeacon of Oxford, in the room of Dr. Barten Holiday, deceased but he was not installed till June 13, 1664, owing to a contest between him and Dr. Thomas Lamplugh about thut dignity, which, after having lasted some time, was at length decided in favour of Dr. Barlow, at the assizes held at Oxford, March 1, 1663-4. Being eminent for his skill in the civil and canon law, he was often applied to as a casuist, to resolve cases of conscience, about marriage, &c. And on one of these occasions, in 1671, he wrote” Mr. Cottington’s case of Divorce,“in which is discussed the validity of his marriage with a lady whose former husband was living and some years after, another case of marriage, inserted in his” Genuine remains.“Upon the death of Dr. W. Fuller, bishop of Lincoln, which happened April 22, 1675, he obtained, the same day, a grant of that bishopric, at the recommendation of some of the nobility, and chiefly through the interest of the two secretaries of state, Henry Coventry, esq. and sir Joseph Williamson, both some time of his college, and the first formerly his pupil. The 27th of June following, he was consecrated at Ely-house chapel. Archbishop Sheldon opposed his promotion, though the reasons of it are not assigned. After his advancement to this see, bishop Barlow wrote several curious things. They were generally short, and most of them by way of letter. The most considerable are these: In 1676,” The original of Sine Cures >“concerning” Pensions paid out of Churchlivings“and a” Survey of the numbers of Papists within the province of Canterbury” in 1679, “A letter concerning the Canon Law, allowing the whipping of heretics.” But he was most distinguished by his writings against popery the chief of which were, “Popery, or the principles and positions approved by the Church of Rome, &c. are very dangerous to all,” and “A discourse concerning the Laws ecclesiastical and civil, made against heretics by popes, emperors, and kings, provincial and general councils, approved by the Church of Rome,” evidently levelled against the duke of York. He expressed his zeal against the papists, not only in writing, but in action. For when, in 1678, after the discovery of the popish plot, a bill was brought into parliament, requiring all members of either house, and all such as might come into the king’s court, or presence, to take a test against popery our bishop appeared for that bill in the house of lords, and spoke in favour of it. Notwithstanding which we are told, that after king James II.'s accession to the throne, bishop Barlow took all opportunities to express his affection, or submission, to him for he sent up an address of thanks to him, for his first declaration for liberty of conscience, signed by six hundred of his clergy. He wrote reasons for reading that king’s second declaration for liberty of conscience he caused it to be read in his diocese , nay, he was prevailed upon to assert and vindicate the regal power of dispensing with penal laws, in an elaborate tract, with numerous quotations from canonists, civilians, and divines. And yet, after the revolution, he was one of those bishops who readily voted that king James had abdicated his kingdoms. He took the oaths to his successors and no bishop was more ready than he, to fill the places of such clergymen as refused to take the oaths to king William and queen Mary. There was nothing in this, however, inconsistent in one who held his sentiments *in favour of toleration. It is more doubtful that he was entirely addicted to the Aristotelian philosophy, and a declared enemy to the improvements made by the royal society, and to what he called in general the new philoso'phy. He was, however, a rigid Calvinist, and the school divinity was that which he most admired but when his attachment to Calvin’s notions engaged him in a public opposition to some of Mr. Bull’s works, he declined a public disputation on the subject. He has also been blamed for never appearing in his cathedral, nor visiting his diocese in person, but residing constantly at his manor of Bugden but against this he appears to have vindicated himself. His enemies are willing to allow that he was a good casuist, a man of very exten^ sive learning, an universal lover and favourer of learned me if, of what country or denomination soever, and a great master of the whole controversy between the Protestants and Papists. He died at Bugden, October 8, 1691, in the eighty-fifth year of his age; and was buried the llth of the said month, on the north side of the chancel belonging to that church, near the body of Dr. R. Sanderson, some time bishop of Lincoln, and, according to his own desire, in the grave of Dr. William Barlow, formerly bishop of the same see to whose memory, as well as his own, is erected a monument, with an inscription which he composed himself a few days before his death. He bequeathed to the Bodleian library, all such books of his own, as were not in that noble collection at the time of his death and the remainder he gave to Queen’s college in Oxford, on which the society erected, in 1694, a noble pile of buildings, on the west side of their college, to receive them. All his manuscripts, of his own composition, he left to his two domestic chaplains, William Otfley and Henry Brougham, prebendaries of Lincoln, with a particular desire that they would not make any of them public after his decease. Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote against popery, 1.'“Confutation of the infallibility of the church of Rome,” written in 167S. 2. “A letter to J. Evelyn, esq. concerning invocation of Saints, and adoration of the Cross,” London, 1679, 4 to. 3. The same year he reprinted in 8vo, “The Gun-powder Treason, with a discourse of the manner of its discovery, &c.” printed at first in 1606, and placed in the beginning of it, “A preface touching that horrid conspiracy, dated Feb. 1, 1678-9.” 4. “Brutum Fulmen, or the bull of pope Pius Sextus against queen Elizabeth,” 1681, 4tn. 5. “Whether the pope be Antichrist, &c.” 6. “A few plain reasons why a Protestant of the church of England should not turn Roman catholic,” 1688. Some sheets of this, not being licensed, were omitted. Besides these, he is the author of the following 7. “Pietas in Patrem, or a few tears upon the lamented death of his most dear and loving Father Richard Barlow, late of Langhill in Westmorland, who died December 29, 1636,” Oxford, 1637, 4to. 8. “A letter to Mr. John Goodwin, concerning Universal Redemption, by J. Christ,” 1651. 9. “For toleration of the Jews,” 3655. 10. “A letter to Mr. John Tombes in defence of Anabaptism, inserted in one of Tombes’s books.” 11. “A tract to prove that true grace doth not lie so much in the degree, as in the nature.” This also is inserted in a book, entitled Sincerity and Hypocrisy, &c. written by William Sheppard, esq. 12. “The Rights of the Bishops to judge in capital eases in parliament cleared, &c.” Lond. 1680. Dr. Barlow did not set his name to this, and it was by some ascribed to Tho. Turner of Gray’s-inn. 13. “A letter (to his clergy) for the putting in execution the Laws against Dissenters, written in concurrence to that which was drawn up by the justices of the peace of the county of Bedford, at the quarter-sessions held at Ampthill for the said county, Jan. 14, 1684.” After his decease, sir Peter Pett lisbed in 1692, 8vo, “Several miscellaneous and weighty cases of conscience, learnedly and judiciously resolved by the right rev. father in God, Dr. T ho. Barlow, late lord bishop of Lincoln.” Sir Peter published also in 1693, Lond. 8vo, 14. “The genuine Remains of that learned prelate, Dr. Thomas Barlow, late lord bishop of Lincoln, containing divers discourses, theological, philosophical, historical, &c. in letters to several persons of honour and quality.” But these two volumes being published without the knowledge or consent of the bishop’s two chaplains above-mentioned, to whom he had left all his manuscripts, with orders that they should not be published, they severely Reflected upon the publisher, for the unwarrantable liberty he had taken.

His works, are, 1. “Christian Homilies,” 2. “Cosmography.” 3. He was one of those bishops who compiled “The godly and pious institution of a Christian man,” commonly called “The bishop’s book,” London, 1537. 4. There is in bishop Burnet’s History of the Reformation, “His answers to certain, Queries concerning the Abuses of the Mass.” 5. In Edward Vlth’s reign, he is said to have translated into English, “The Apocrypha,” as far as the book of Wisdom. He is also said to have written “A dialogue describing these Lutheran factions, and many of their abuses,” of which a second edition was published in 1553. This was no doubt written before he became entirely converted to the reformed religion, which was not the case until Mary’s time. He had written, indeed, some pieces against popery in Henry Vlllth’s time, but it appears from a letter in the Cotton library, which he wrote to that monarch, that he was not steady in his belief, and he seems to apologize to Henry for having published “The burial of the Masse,” and some other tracts in favour of protestantism. It is to be remarked too, that Cranmer had very little dependance on Barlowe at that time. He was so indiscreet, so totally unguarded, and his conversation so full of levity, that the primate was always afraid of any communication with him on matters of business, and would sometimes say, on the conclusion of a long debate, “This is all very true but my brother Barlowe, in half an hour, will teach the world to believe it is but a jest.”

, an eminent citizen and alderman of London of the last century, and many years one of its representatives in parliament, will not probably be thought undeserving of a lengthened notice, in these days of political delusion and imposture. He was born at Heading, in Berkshire, in 1685. His parents, who were of the people called Quakers, put him to a school at Wandsworth, in Surrey, which was solely appropriated to the education of persons of that profession. From this school, the master of which was of the same religious principles, young Barnard is said to have derived very iittle advantage in point of classical and polite literature. This loss, however, his native good sense, and love of knowledge, soon led him to supply, as far as possible, by carefully reading, in our own tongue, the best writers of Greece and Rome. By these means, though he could not be fully sensible of the elegance of the classic authors, which was, for the most part, lost in the translations of them, he became well acquainted with every remarkable sect, character, and action, in profane history. Such were the integrity and candour of his mind, when he was a boy, that his playmates used to choose him for their chancellor, in the disputes which they had with each other, and readily submitted to his decisions. When in the fifteenth year of his age, his father, who appears to have been settled in London, and had long been afflicted with bad health, determined to take him into his comptinghouse and, from observing his natural turn, assiduity, and talents, scrupled not to commit to his care the management of a great business in the wine trade, nor was he disappointed in the early confidence which he placed in his son. At this time our young gentleman took peculiar pleasure in the study of figures, which he pursued with such success, that his judgment was afterwards highly valued in affairs which required profound skill in calculation, and his knowledge as an able financier became undisputed. In the midst of these pursuits and engagements, he did not neglect the subject of religion. Some scruples having arisen in his mind with regard to the principles wherein he had been educated, he determined to apply himself to the devout study of the Bible, which he firmly believed to be the sole repository of divine truth. The result of his inquiries was, that he found himself called upon, by the dictates of his conscience, to make the painful sacrifice of openly renouncing the distinguishing tenets of his revered parents. For this purpose, he was introduced to doctor Compton, then bishop of London and, after several conferences with that prelate, was baptized by him, in his chapel at Fulham, 1703. Mr. Barnard was under nineteen years of age when he quitted the society of the Quakers; and from that time he continued, till his death, a member of the established church, an admirer of her liturgy, and an ornament to her communion. There was a peculiarity of character in the early part of his life, which deserves to be noticed. When he was a youth himself, he never chose to associate with those of his own age. Being convinced that he could derive no improvement from an acquaintance with them, he sought out companions among men distinguished by their knowledge, learning, and religion; and such men received, with open arms, a young person who discovered so much good sense and discernment.

As Mr. Barnard was so assiduous in discharging his duty to his constituents, and took so constant a part in every important affair that occurred during a very interesting period, of the British annals, were we to take particular notice of all the business wherein he was engaged, and of all the debates in which he spoke, we should run too far into the general history of the time, but the more distinguished instances of his parliamentary conduct will unavoidably be mentioned in the course of our narrative. Violent disputes having arisen in the city of London, about the choice of sheriffs and aldermen, it was thought necessary to ascertain more clearly than they were then understood, the rights and modes of election for the future. Accordingly, in 1725, a bill was brought into parliament to effect that important purpose. But the citizens apprehending that it invaded their just privileges, formed a strong opposition to it, in which they were supported by three of their representatives, Child, Lock wood, and Barnard. Mr. Barnard objected to it, that, by its making an alteration in the city charter, it established a bad precedent for the crown to violate corporation charters at their pleasure; that.it took away from a number of honest citizens the right they had enjoyed, from time immemorial, of voting at wardmote elections that it abridged the privileges of the common -council and that, by transferring too great a weight of authority and influence to the court of mayor and aldermen, it subverted, in a considerable degree, the ancient constitution of the metropolis. The formal thanks of the citizens were presented, by a deputation of four aldermen and eight commoners, to Mr. Barnard and his two colleagues, for their cgnduct in this affair. The bill, notwithstanding all opposition, passed into a layv and it is the statute by which all elections in the city are now regulated. However, the most obnoxious part of the act, which granted a negative power to the lord mayor and aldermen, was repealed in 1746 and to this sir John Barnard greatly contributed. On the 4th of January 1728, Mr. Barnard was chosen alderman of Dowgate Ward, upon the death of John Crawley, esq. On the 14th of April, 1729, he presented a bill to the house of commons, for the better regulation and gove'rnment of seamen in the merchants service which, having passed in that house on the 6th of May, was sent up to the lords, and received the royal assent on the 14th of the same month. About this time, likewise, he took an active part in the inquiry, which, in consequence of the iniquitous and cruel conduct of Thomas Bambridge, warden of trie Fleet, was made into the state of the gaols in this kingdom. When Bambridge and his agents were committed to Newgate, and the attorney-general was ordered to prosecute them, alderman Barnard was very assiduous as a magistrate, in procuring information concerning the several abuses which had been practised in the Fleet to the oppression of the debtors and he so pathetically represented the grievances under which they laboured, as to be greatly instrumental in obtaining the act of insolvency, and the act for the relief of debtors, with respect to the imprisonment of their persons, which were assented to by the king, at the close of the session, on the 14th of May, 1729. Another occasion which he had of displaying his parliamentary abilities, was, when on the 24th of February 1729-30, the bill was read a second time, “To prevent any persons, his majesty’s subjects, or residing within this kingdom, to advance any sum of money to any foreign prince, state, or potentate, without having obtained licence from his majesty under his privy seal, or some greater authority.” The bill had taken its rise from a negotiation which had been set on foot by the emperor of Germany, to obtain a loan in England, of 400,000/1 Mr. Barnard, who opposed the passing of the act, alleged in the course of the debate, several important reasons against it; which, however, were answered in a masterly manner by sir Philip Yorke. The opposition so far prevailed, that the bill was modified in a certain degree and an expla^ natiort was given by the ministry, that it was not his majesty’s intention to prevent his subjects from lending money to the king of Portugal, or any other prince in alliance with England and that the only reason for not naming the emperor in the bill was, that by making it general, there could be no foundation for an open rupture between the courts of London and Vienna. On the 28th of September, 1732, Mr. Barnard having attended Francis Child, esq. then lord mayor, to Kensington, with an address of congratulation to king George the Second, received from his majesty the honour of knighthood. Towards the beginning of the following year, the famous excise scheme, which met with so vigorous an opposition, was proposed by sir Robert Walpole. As a particular account of this arTair will more properly come under the article of that celebrated statesman, we shall take no other notice of it here than what may be necessary to complete the history of sir John Barnard. No one could exceed him in the ability and zeal with which he oppose^ the design. He spoke several times against it, and condemned it both in a commercial and political light. He considered it as introductory to such general and arbitrary laws of excise as would be absolutely inconsistent with the freedom of the constitution and thought that the question upon the scheme would be, “Whether we shall endeavour to prevent frauds in the collecting of the public revenues, at the expence of the liberties of the people” “For my own part,” said sir John, “I never was guilty of any fraud: I put it to any man, be he who he will, to accuse me of so much as the appearance of a fraud in any trade I was ever concerned in I am resolved never to be guilty of any fraud. It is very true, that these frauds are a very great prejudice to all fair traders and, therefore, I speak against my own interest, when I speak against any methods that may tend towards preventing of frauds. But I shall never put my private interest in balance with the interest or happiness of the nation. I had rather beg my bread from door to door, and see my country flourish, than be the greatest subject of the nation, and see the trade of my country decaying, and the people enslaved and oppressed.” On the 14th of March, 1732-3, in the grand committee of the house of commons “To consider of the most proper methods for the better security and improvement of the duties and revenues, already charged upon, and payable from tobacco and wines,” the excise scheme was proposed. In the course of the long and violent debate which took place on this occasion, sir John Barnard, among other arguments, alledged that the scheme was such as could not, even by malice itself, be represented to be worse than it really was; that it was a pill, which, if the people of England were obliged to swallow, they would find as bitter a pill v as ever was swallowed by them since they were a people that the intended remedy for preventing frauds in the collection of the revenue, was far more desperate than the disease that the constitution of our government, and the liberty of the subject, were never more nearly or more immediately concerned in any question and that it was a dangerous encroachment upon the ancient birthright of Englishmen, the right of trial by jury. A great number of the citizens having come down to the lobby of the house of commons, and some of the crowd who had mixed with them having behaved tumultuously, sir Robert Walpole took notice of the extraordinary concourse of people who were collected together at the door, and declared his disapprobation of the methods which had been used to bring them thither. In doing this, he so far lost the usual moderation of his temper, as to drop an expression which gave the highest offence to the city of London, and was long remembered to his disadvantage. “Gentlemen,” he observed,” might say what they pleased of the multitudes at the door, and in all the avenues leading to the house; they might call them a modest multitude if they would they might give them what names they thought fit; it might be said that they came as humble supplicants but,“added sir Robert,” I know whom the law calls Sturdy Beggars and those who brought them hither could not be certain but that they might have behaved in the same manner.“Sir John Barnard rising up to answer this reflection, the committee, for a while, were in some confusion, in consequence of the question’s being loudly called for. At length, however, order being restored, sir John made the following reply” Sir, I know of no irregular or unfair methods that were used to call people from the city to your door. It is certain, that any set of gentlemen or merchants may lawfully desire their friends, they may even write letters, and they may send those letters to whom they please, to desire the merchants of figure and character to come down to the court of requests, and to our lobby, in order to solicit their friends and acquairitance ngainst any scheme or project, which they think may be prejudicial to them. This is the undoubted right: of the subject, and what has been always practised upon all occasions. The honourable gentleman talks of Sturdy Beggars I do not know what sort of people may be now at our door, because I have not lately been out of the house. But I believe they are the same sort of people that were there when I came last into the house and then, I can assure you, that I saw none but such as deserve the name of Sturdy Beggars as little as the honourable gentleman himself, or any gentleman whatever. It is well known that the city of London was sufficiently apprized of what we were this day to be about. Where they got their information, I do not know but I am very certain that they had a right notion of the scheme which has been now opened to us and they were so generally and zealously bent against it, that whatever methods may have been used to call them together, I am sure it would have been impossible to have found any legal method to have prevented their coming hither." When four resolutions had been formed by the committee, in pursuance of sir Robert WalpoleV motion, relating to the excise-scheme, and were reported to the house on the 16th of March, sir John Barnard took the lead with his usual spirit, in the fresh debate which arose upon the question of agreeing to the first resolution. And the same vigorous opposition was continued by him through the whole progress of the bill, till, as is well known, sir Robert Walpole himself found it necessary to move, on the 11th of April, 1733, that the second reading of it should be deferred for two months.

Hitherto our upright and excellent magistrate and senator had been singularly popular in his undertakings. But in the next great affair he was engaged in, though his purposes were as wise and upright as in any part of his former conduct, he met with a very different fate. On the 14th of March, 1736-7, he made a motion for enabling his majesty to raise money towards redeeming old and new South Sea annuities. This was done with a view of reducing the interest of these annuities from four to three per cent, and thereby to prepare a way for a like reduction of interest with regard to the other funds. In consequence of the debates which arose on this occasion, several resolutions were formed by the committee of the whole house and a bill was ordered in for converting all the public funds, redeemable by law, into an interest or an^ nuity not exceeding three per cent, per annum. The matter, however, was so altered, modified, and refined upon, and rendered so unacceptable, by the artifices of those in power, that, after long and violent debates, it came to nothing. The integrity of sir John Barnard appeared in his moving, about the same time, that the house would, as soon as the annual interest of all the national redeemable debt should be reduced to three per cent, take off some of the heavy taxes which oppress the poor and manufacturers but this proposition was rejected by a considerable majority. Notwithstanding the undeniable uprightness of his intentions, he became, whMe his attempt to reduce the yearly dividends of the funds was depending, very obnoxious to the“public. Instead of receiving the applause which he justly merited, he was insulted with revilings, and exposed to the resentment of the populace. A young man belonging to a public office, headed a mob, who endeavoured to break into sir John Barnard’s house. Though farther violence was prevented, the disturbance continued for some hours. The leader of the rioters, conscious that the assault might easily be proved upon him, consulted his safety by flight into another country. After several months, sir John Barnard was entreated to suffer the criminal to return without molestation to which he generously answered,” that he felt no resentment against the youth that it was enough, if he was sensible or' his fault that no prosecution was ever intended; and that allowances should be made for the effect which inflammatory speeches have upon young minds, from those whom it is their duty to respect and love.“The odium which was excited by the plan of our faithful senator soon subsided. His character shone the brighter from the cloud which had been cast upon it. And when, some years afterwards, Mr. Henry Pelham adopted and carried into execution the scheme which was now rejected, he was greatly aided and encouraged in the undertaking by sir John Barnard. Indeed, sir John was so fully convinced of the wisdom and utility of the design, that he published, though without his name, in February 1749-50, a small tract in defence of it, entitled” Considerations on the Proposal fur reducing the Interest on the National Debt.“This piece is written with great perspicuity and good sense; and the arguments of it were by no means invalidated by an answer to it, called” Annotations on a late pamphlet, entitled Considerations on the Proposals for reducing the Interest on the National Debt.' 7

He bad a prodigious readiness in writing and speaking the Greek tongue and he himself tells us in the preface to his Esther, that “he found it much easier to him to write in that language, than* in Latin or even English, since the ornaments of poetry are almost peculiar to the Greeks, and since he had for many years been extremely conversant in Homer, the great father and source of the Greek Poetry However, that his verses were not mere Cantos from that poet, like Dr. Duport’s, but formed, as far as he was able, upon his style and manner since he had no desire to be considered as a rhapsodist of a rhapsody, but was ambitious of the title of a poet.” Dr. Bentley, we are told, used to say of Joshua Barnes, that “he understood as much Greek as a Greek cobler.” This bon mot, which was first related by Dr. Salter of the Charter-house, has been explained by an ingenious writer, as not insinuating, that Barnes had only some knowledge of the Greek language. Greek was so familiar to him that he could offhand have turned a paragraph in a newspaper, or a hawker’s bill, into any kind of Greek metre, and has often been known to do so among his Cambridge friends. But with this uncommon knowledge and facility in that language, being very deficient in taste and judgment, Bentley compared his attainments in Greek, not to the erudition of a scholar, but to the colloquial readiness of a vulgar mechanic. With respect to his learning, it seems agreed that he had read a great many books, retained a great many words, and could write Greek in what is called the Anacreontic measure readily, but was very far from being a judicious or an able critic. If he had some enemies at first, his abuse and vanity did not afterwards lessen their number, though it is probable, more men laughed at, than either envied or hated him. They said he was ovo$ trfo$ *v%<xv 9 Asinus ad Lyram and perhaps it is not the worst thing Barnes ever said in reply, that they who said this of him, had not understanding enough to be poets, or wanted the b vug Ts%Q$ huqav.

In 1700, he married Mrs. Mason, a widow lady of Hemingford, near St. Ives, in Huntingdonshire, with a jointure of c200 per annum. The common report is, that this lady, who was between forty and fifty, having for some time been a great admirer of Mr. Barnes, came to Cambridge, and desired leave to settle an hundred pounds a year upon him after her death which he politely refused, unless she would condescend to make him happy in her person^ which was none of the most engaging. The lady was too obliging to refuse any thing to “Joshua, for whom,” she said, “the sun stood still” and soon after they were married. This jointure was probably a help to him, but he had no church preferment, and bore a considerable part in the printing of some of his works, particularly his Homer. It appears that he was much involved with the expence of this work, and wrote two supplicating letters on the subject to the earl of Oxford, which are now in the British Museum, and weiae copied some years ago, and printed in the St. James’s Chronicle by George Steevens, esq. What the effect of them was, we know not but it is said that he at one time generously refused c2000 a year which was offered to be settled upon him. Upon the same authority we are told that a copy of verses which he wrote to prove that Solomon was the author of the Iliad, was not so much from the persuasion of his own mind, as to amuse his wife and by that means engage her to supply him with money towards defraying the expences of the edition. On his monument is a Latin inscription, and some Greek anacreontics by Dr. Savage, rather extravagant, but composed by way of pleasantry, and which his widow requested might be inscribed. The English translation, often reprinted, is professedly burlesque but one curious-fact is recorded on this monument, that he “read a small English Bible one hundred and twenty-one times at his leisure,” which, Mr. Cole remarks, is but once more than the learned duke de Montausier had read the Greek Testament. In one of the above-mentioned letters to Harley, he says, “I have lived in the university above thirty years fellow of a college, now above forty years standing, and fifty-eight years of age am bachelor of divinity, and have preached before kings.” How Mr. Barnes was neglected in church preferment cannot now be ascertained, but it seems not improbable that he did not seek it, his whole life being spent in study, and his only wants, those which arose from the expense of his publications. His pursuits were classical, and although from his constant perusal of the Bible, we may infer his piety, we know little of him as a divine. The following is a Jist of Mr. Barnes’s works, published and unpublished; and from the latter, we may at least form a very high opinion of his industry. It is unnecessary, perhaps, to add that his editions of the classics are not now in the highest reputation. Their errors were pointed out in his life-time, and superior critics have in a great measure superseded the use of them. While at Christ-church he published, 1. "Sacred Poems, in five books, viz. I. Κοσμοποὖα, or the Creation of the World. II. The Fall of Adam and the Redemption by Christ. III. An Hymn to the Holy Trinity. IV. A Pastoral Eclogue upon the Restoration of King Charles II. and an Essay upon the Royal Exchange. V. Panegyris, or the Muses, &c.“These pieces are in English, with a Latin dedication, an. 1669. 2.” The Life of Oliver Cromwell, the Tyrant,“an English poem, 1670. 3. Several dramatic pieces, viz. Xerxes, Pythias and Damon, Holofernes, &c. some in English and some in Latin; the former written entirely by himself, the latter in conjunction with others. Also some tragedies of Seneca translated into English. 4.” Upon the Fire of London and the Plague,“a Latin poem in heroic verse. 5.” A Latin Elegy upon the beheading of St. John the Baptist.“He afterwards published, 6.” Gerania, or a new discovery of a little sort of people called Pigmies," 1655, 12mo. 7. Αυλιχοχάτοπτρον, sive Esthers Historia, Poetica Paraphrasi, idque Græco carmine, cui versio Latina opponitur, exornata; una cum Scholiis, seu Annotationibus Græcis; in quibus (ad sacri textus dilucidationem) præter alia non pauca, Gentium Orientalium Antiquitates, Moresque reconditiores proferuntur. Additur Parodia Homerica de eadem hac Historia. Accessit Index rerum ac verborum copiosissimus,“1679, 8vo. 8.” The History of that most victorious monarch Edward III. king of England and France, and lord of Ireland, and first founder of the most noble order of the Garter; being a full and exact account of the Life and Death of the said King; together with that of his most renowned son, Edward Prince of Wales and Acquitain, surnamed the Black Prince; faithfully and carefully collected from the best and most ancient authors domestic and foreign, printed books, manuscripts, and records,“Cambridge, 1688, fol. a very elaborate collection of facts, but strangely intermixed with long speeches from his own imagination, which he thought was imitating Thucydides. Of his judgment as an antiquary, it may be a sufficient specimen that he traced the institution of the order of the garter to the Phenicians, following his predecessor Aylet Sammes, who derives all our customs from the same ancient people. 9. His” Euripides,“1694, fol. 10.” His Anacreon,“1705 and 1721, 8vo, which he dedicated to the duke of Marlborough, who, it has been observed, knew nothing of Anacreon, or of Greek. 11. His Homer,” 2 vols. 1711, 4to. The verses he wrote proving that Solomon wrote the Iliad, are in ms. in the library of Emanuel college.

he was seen within a minute to turn pale and red, in conformity to the verse. He was styled with one consent, the Roseius of his times. He said himself, in one of his enthusiastical fits of vanity, that once in a century we might see a Cæsar, but that two thousand years were requisite to produce a Baron. One day his coachman and his lacquey were soundly chastised by those of the marquis de Biran, with whom Baron lived on those familiar terms which young noblemen frequently allow to players. “Monsieur le marquis,” said he to him, “your people have ill treated mine; I must have satisfaction of you.” This he repeated several times, using always the same expressions, your people and mine. M. de Biran, affronted at the parallel, replied: “My poor Baron, what wouldst thou have me say to thee? why dost thou keep any people?” He was on the point of refusing the pension bestowed on him by Louis XIV. because the order for it ran: “Pay to the within-named Michael Boyrun, called Baron, &c.” This actor, born with the choicest gifts of nature, had perfected them by thq utmost exertions of art: a noble figure, a sonorous voice, a natural gesticulation, a sound and exquisite taste. Racine, versed as he was in the art of declamation, wanting to represent his Andromache to the actors, in the distribution of the parts, had reserved that of Pyrrhus for Baron. After having shewn the characters of several of the personages to the actors who were to represent it, he turned towards Baron:“As to you, sir, I have no-instruction to give you; your heart will tell you more of it than any lessons of mine could explain.” Baron would affirm that the force and play of declamation were such, that tender and plaintive sounds transferred on gay and even comic words, would no less produce tears. He has been seen repeatedly to make the trial of this surprising effect on the well-known sonnet,

, a dissenting minister, but most noted for his zeal as a political writer, was born at Leeds in Yorkshire, and educated at the university of Glasgow, which he quitted in 1740, with very honourable testimonies to his learning and personal character, from the celebrated Hutchinson, and the mathematical professor Simpson. Where he passed his time after this, we know not; but in 1753, he was ordained pastor of the dissenting meeting at Pinners’ hall, Broad-street, London, a congregation, if we are not mistaken, of the Baptist persuasion. What he was as a divine, is not very clear, but tho whole bent of his studies was to defend and advance civil and religious liberty. This zeal led the famous Thomas Hollis, csq. to engage his assistance in editing some of the authors in the cause of freedom, whose works he wished to reprint with accuracy, and in an elegant form. Toland’s Life of Milton, Milton’s Iconoclastes, and afterwards an Edition of Milton’s prose works, were prepared and corrected by Mr. Baron. For this task he was well qualified, being an industrious collector of books on the subject of constitutional liberty, several of which he communicated to Mr. Hollis, with ms notes, or memorandums of his own in the blank pages, in which, we are told, he was not always in the right. Still he was indefatigable in searching for what he reckoned scarce and valuable liberty-tracts, many of which Mr. Hollis bought of him while he lived, and others he bought at the sale of his books after his death. Mr. Baron, we are likewise told, “only breathed, he did not live, in his own estimation, but whilst he was in someway or other lending his assistance to the glorious cause of religious and civil liberty. He wrote, he published, and republished perpetually in its defence. His character was one of the most artless and undisguised in the world. He was a man of real and great learning of fixed and steady integrity and a tender and sympathizing heart.” Yet with such a heart, we are told, not very consistently, that had he been mindful of his domestic concerns, he might have left a competency behind for his wife and family, but his whole soul was engaged in the cause, and he neglected every other concern. For this absurd and unjust train of feeling, we are referred to the natural impetuosity of his temper, and his eccentricities, which indicated occasional derangements of mind. With many virtues, it is added, and a few faults, which must have been of a peculiar kind, since “they only wanted the elevation of a higher station and a better fate to have assumed the form of virtues,” Mr. Baron passed the greatest part of his life in penurious circumstances, which neither abated the generous ardour, or overcame the laudable independency of iiis spirit. These virtues, “with their blessed effects,” were all he left behind him, for the consolation and support of a widow and three children. He died at his house at Blackheath, Feb. 22, 1768. His principal publication was a collection of what he called liberty-tracts, first published in 2 vols. 1752, under the title of “The pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken.” In 1767, he prepared another edition, enlarged to four volumes, to be published by subscription. In his advertisement he describes himself as a man “who has been made a sacrifice to proud bigots, religious rogues, and psalm-singing hypocrites:” and flatters himself that his subscribers will “enable him to express his utter contempt, and everlasting abhorrence of them all.” To this meek wish, he adds an assurance that the *' names of the subscribers shall not be printed." This edition appeared after his death, and was published for the benefit of his family, along with a-new edition of Milton’s Eikonoclastes, and his manuscript sermons and papers.

, born at Grenoble, and died at Paris, July 21, 1772, came early in life to that metropolis, where he took up the employment of a schoolmaster. He wrote, in conjunction with fathers Gaubile and Varra, a “Dictionnaire historique, litteraire, et critique, des homines celebres,” 1758, 6 vols. 8vo, in which he is said to have betrayed too much of the spirit of party. A French wit called it the Martyrdogy of Jansenism, compiled by a Convulsionnaire. Notwithstanding this, his dictionary has some merit, as in the articles of poets, orators, and literary men, he writes with spirit, and generally gives his judgment with taste. There is likewise by him, 1. An abstract of the letters of madame de Sevigne in 12mo, under the title of “Sevigniana.” 2. An abridgment, much esteemed, of the “Dictionnaire des Antiquities Romaiues,” by Pitiscus, in 2 vols. 8vo. 3. “Dictionnaire hist, geographique et moral de la Bible,” 1758, 2 vols. 8vo. 4. “Maximes sur le devoir des Hois, et le bon usage de leur authorité,” Paris, 1754, and reprinted twice. under different titles and 5. “Memoires historiques et litteraires de Pabbe Gouget,” with a correct list of his works. The abbé Barral was a man of erudition, of a lively conversation, and the style of his writings is vigorous and manly, though sometimes negligent and incorrect.

In 1725 he published in 2 vols. 8vo, his “Miscellanea Sacra: or, anew method of considering so much of the history of the Apostles as is contained in scripture; in an abstract of their history, an abstract of that abstract, and four critical essays.” In this work the noble author has traced, with great care and judgment, the methods taken by the apostles, and first preachers of the gospel, for propagating Christianity; and explained with great distinctness the several gifts of the spirit, by which they were enabled to disciiarge that office. These he improved into an argument for the truth of the Christian religion; which is said to have staggered the infidelity of Mr. Anthony Collins. In 1725 he published, in 8vo, “An Essay on the several dispensations of God to mankind, in the order in which they lie in the Bible; or, a short system of the religion of nature and scriptwre,” &c. He was also author of several other tracts, of which the principal were, 1. “.A Dissuasive from Jacobitism; shewing in general what the nation is to expect from a popish king; and, in particular, from the Pretender.” The fourth edition of this was printed in 8vo, in 1713. 2. “A Letter from a Layman, in communion with the church of England, though dissenting from her in some points, to the right rev. the bishop of ———, with a postscript, shewing how far the bill to prevent the growth of schism is inconsistent with the act of toleration, and the other laws of this realm.” The second edition of this was printed in 1714, 4to. 3. “The Layman’s Letter to the bishop of Bangor.” The second edition of this was published in 1716, 4to. 4. “An account of the late proceedings of the Dissenting-ministers at Salters’-hall; occasioned by the differences amongst their brethren in the country: with some thoughts concerning imposition of human forms for articles of faith;” in a letter to the rev. Dr. Gale, 1719, 8vo. 5. “A Discourse of natural and revealed Religion, and the relation they bear to each other,” 1732, 8vo. 6. “Reflections on the 12th query, contained in a paper, entitled Reasons offered against pushing for the repeal of the corporation and test-acts, and on the animadversions on the answer to it,” 1733, 8vo. A new edition of his “Miscellanea Sacra” was published in 1770, 3 vols. 8vo, under the revision of his son, the present learned and munificent bishop of Durham. Lord Barrington sometimes spoke in parliament, but appears not to have been a frequent speaker. He died at his seat at Becket in Berkshire, after a short illness, Dec. 4, 1734, in the 6Gth year of his age. He generally attended divine worship among the dissenters, and for many years received the sacrament at Pinner’s-hall, when Dr. Jeremiah Hunt, an eminent and learned non-conformist divine, was pastor of the congregation. He had formerly been an attendant on Mr. Thomas Bradbury, but quitted that gentleman on account of his zeal for imposing unscriptural terms upon the article of the Trinity. His lordship was a disciple and friend of Mr. Locke, had a high value for the sacred writings, and was eminently skilled in them. As a writer in theology, he contributed much to the diffusing of that spirit of free scriptural criticism, which has since obtained among all denominations of Christians. As his attention was much turned to the study of divinity, he had a strong sense of the importance of what is called free inquiry in matters of religion. In his writings, whenever he thought what he advanced was doubtful, or that his arguments were not strictly conclusive, though they might have great weight, he expressed himself with a becoming diffidence. He was remarkable for the politeness of his manners, and the gracefulness of his address. The only virulent attack we have seen against his lordship, occurs in lord Orford’s works, vol. I. p. 543, which from its contemptuous and sneering notice of the Barrington family, and especially the present worthy prelate, may be safely left to" its influence on the mind of any unprejudiced reader.

, bishop of St.Asaph in the reign of Charles II. was the son of Isaac Barrow of Spiney Abbey irt Cambridgeshire, and uncle of the celebrated mathematician, who will form the subject of the next article. He was born in 1613, admitted July 1639 of Peterhouse, Cambridge, next year chosen scholar, and in 1631, librarian. In Dec. 1641, he was presented to the vicarage of Hin ton, by his college, of which he was a fellow, and resided there until ejected by the presbyterians in 1643. He then removed to Oxford, where his learning and abilities were well known, and where he was appointed one of the chaplains of New College, by the interest of his friend, Dr. Pink, then warden. Here he continued until the surrender of Oxford to the parliamentary army, when he was obliged to shift from place to place, and suffer with his brethren, who refused to submit to the usurping powers. At the restoration, however, he was not only replaced in his fellowship at Peterhouse, but chosen a fellow of Eton college, which he held in commendam with the bishopric of Mann. In 1660, being then D. D. he was presented by Dr. Wren, bishop of Ely, to the rectory of Downham, in the Isle of Ely; and, in 1662, resigned his fellowship of Peterhouse. In July 1663, he was consecrated bishop of Mann, in king Henry Vllth’s chapel, Westminster, on which occasion his nephew, the mathematician, preached the consecration sermon. In April 1664, he was appointed governor likewise of the Isle of Mann, by his patron, Charles earl of Derby; and executed his office with the greatest prudence and honour during all the time in which he held the diocese, and for some months after his translation to the see of St. Asaph. He was ever of a liberal, active mind; and rendered himself peculiarly conspicuous as a man of public spirit, by forming and executing good designs for the encouragement of piety and literature. The state of the diocese of Mann at this time was deplorable, as to religion. The clergy were poor, illiterate, and careless, the people grossly ignorant and dissolute. Bishop Barrow, however, introduced a very happy change in all respects, by the establishment of schools, and improving the livings of the clergy. He collected with great care and pains from pious persons about eleven hundred pounds, with which he purchased of the earl of Derby all the impropriations in the island, and settled them upon the clergy in due proportion, He obliged them all likewise to teach schools in their respective parishes, and allowed thirty pounds per annum for a free-school, and fifty pounds per annum for academical learning. He procured also from king Charles II. one hundred pounds a year (which, Mr. Wood says, had like to have been lost) to be settled upon his clergy, and gave one hundred and thirty-five pounds of his own money for a lease upon lands of twenty pounds a year, towards the maintenance of three poor scholars in the college of Dublin, that in time there might be a more learned body of clergy in the island. He gave likewise ten pounds towards the building a bridge, over a dangerous water; and did several other acts of charity and beneficence. Afterwards returning to England for the sake of his health, and lodging in a house belonging to the countess of Derby in Lancashire, called Cross-hall, he received news of his majesty having conferred on him the bishopric of St. Asaph, to which he was translated March 21, 1669, but he was permitted to hold the see of Sodor and Mann in commendam, until Oct. 167 1, in order to indemnify him for the expences of his translation. His removal, however, from Mann, was felt as a very great loss, both by the clergy at large, and the inhabitants. His venerable, although not immediate, successor, Dr. Wilson, says of him, that “his name and his good deeds will be remembered as long as any sense of piety remains among them.” His removal to St. Asaph gave him a fresh opportunity to become useful and popular. After being established here, he repaired several parts of the cathedral church, especially the north and south ailes, and new covered them with lead, and wainscotted the east part of the choir. He laid out a considerable sum of money in repairing the episcopal palace, and a mill belonging to it. In ] 678 he built an alms-house for eight poor widows, and endowed it with twelve pounds per annum for ever. The same year, he procured an act of parliament for appropriating the rectories of Llanrhaiader and Mochnant in Denbighshire and "Montgomeryshire, and of Skeiviog in the county of Flint, for repairs of the cathedral church of St. Asaph, and the better maintenance of the choir therein, and also for the uniting several rectories that were sinecures, and the vicarages of the same parishes, within the said diocese. He designed likewise to build a free-school, and endow it, but was prevented by death; but in 1687, Bishop Lloyd, who succeeded him in the see of St. Asaph, recovered of his executors two hundred pounds, towards a free-school at St. Asaph.

There is another anecdote told of him, which shewed not only his intrepidity, but an uncommon goodness of disposition, in circumstances where an ordinary share of it would have been probably extinguished. Being once on a visit at a gentleman’s house in the country, where the necessary was at the end of a long garden, and consequently at a great distance from the room where he lodged as he was going to it before day, for he was a very early riser, a fierce mastiff, that used to be chained up all day, and let loose at night for the security of the house, perceiving a strange person in the garden at that unusual time, set upon him with great fury. The doctor caught him by the throat, grappled with him, and, throwing him down, lay upon him once he had a mind to kill him; but he altered his resolution, on recollecting that this would be unjust, since the dog did only his duty, and he himself was in fault for rambling out of his room before it was light. At length he called out so loud, that he was heard by some of the family, who came presently out, and freed the doctor and the dog from the danger they both had been in.

, usually called Giraldus Cambren­sis, or Girald of Wales, was born at the castle of Mainaper, near Pembroke, in 1146. By his mother he was descended from the princes of South Wales and his father, William Barry, was one of the chief men of that principality. Being a younger brother, and intended for the cburch, he was sent to St. David’s, and educated in the family of the bishop of that see, who was his uncle. He acknowledges in his history of his own life and actions, that in his early youth he was too negligent and playful; but his uncle and his masters remonstrated with him so sharply, that he became diligent, and soon excelled his school-fellows. When about twenty years of age, he was sent to the university of Paris, where he continued for three years, acquiring great fame by his skill in rhetoric, and on his return he entered into holy orders, and obtained several benefices in England and Wales. Finding that the Welch were very reluctant in paying tidies of wool and cheese, he applied to Richard, archbishop of Canterburv, and was appointed his legate in Wales for rectifying that disorder, and for other purposes. He executed this commission with great spirit, excommunicating all without distinction, who neglected to pay. He also informed against the old archdeacon of Brechin for being married, and procured him to be deprived of his archdeaconry, which was bestowed on this officious legate. In otherwise discharging the duties of this new office, he acted with great vigour, which involved him in many quarXels; but, according to his own account, he was always in the right, and always victorious. On his uncle’s death, he was elected by the chapter of St. David’s, bishop of that see, but he declined accepting it, owing to the informality of not applying to the king for his licence, although in reality he knew that the king, Henry II. would never have confirmed such an election, and did in fact express his displeasure at it, in consequence of which another person was chosen. Girald, however, was not reconciled to the disappointment, and determined to get rid of his chagrin by travelling, and studying for some time longer at Paris. Here he pursued the civil and canon law, and with his usual vanity he boasts what a prodigious fame he acquired, especially in the knowledge of papal constitutions, or decretals, as they are called. In 1179, he was elected professor of the canon law in the university of Paris; but rejected the honour, expecting more solid advantages in his own country. In 1180, he returned home through Flanders and England, and in his way stopped at Canterbury, where he emphatically describes (what may be well allowed him) the great luxury of the monks of that place. At length he got home, where he found the whole country in a flame, the canons and archdeacons of Menevia having joined with the inhabitants in driving out the bishop of that see, the administration of which was committed to our author, by the archbishop of Canterbury. Under this authority he governed the see of St. David’s for three or four years, and made wonderful reformations in it. The abdicated bishop, whose name was Peter, did not acquiesce in the conduct of his clergy, but by letters suspended and excommunicated the canons and archdeacons, uncited and unheard: and at length, Girald, not having power to redress them, resigned his charge to the archbishop, who absolved the excommunicated. Bishop Peter imputed his disgrace, or at least the continuance of it, to Girald; great contests arose, and appeals were made to Rome: but at length they were reconciled, and the bishop restored. About the year 1184, king Henry II. invited Girald to court, and made him his chaplain, and at times he attended the king for several years, and was very useful to him in keeping matters quiet in Wales’. Yet though the king approved of his services, and in private often coinmended his prudence and fidelity, he never could be prevailed on to promote him to any ecclesiastical benefices, on account of the relation he bore to prince Rhees, and other grandees of Wales. In 1185, the king sent him to Ireland with his son John, in quality of secretary and privy-counsellor to the young prince: but the expedition did not meet with success, because earl John made use only of youthful counsels, and shewed no favour to the old adventurers, who were men experienced in the affairs of Ireland. While Girald thus employed himself in Ireland, the two bishoprics of Ferns and Leighlin fell vacant, which earl John offered to unite, and confer on him; but he rejected the promotion, and employed himself in collecting materials for writing his Topography and history of the conquest of Ireland, which he compiled and published a few years after. In the spring of the year 1186, John Comyn, archbishop of Dublin, convened a synod of his clergy, in Christ-church of that city, at which Girald was one of the preachers, but by the account of it in his life, it appears to have been a turbulent assembly. Having obtained great fame in Ireland, as he tells us himself, between Easter and Whitsuntide 1187, he returned to Wales, and employed all his time in writing and revising his Topography, to which, when he had put, the last hand, he took a journey to Oxford, and repeated it in a public audience of the university; and as it consisted of three distinctions, he repeated one every day of three successively; and in order to captivate the people, and secure their applause, the first day he entertained all the poor of the town, the next day the doctors and scholars of fame and reputation, and the third day the scholars of the lower rank, the soldiers, townsmen, and burgesses. In the year 1188, he accompanied Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, in a journey through the rough and mountainous parts of Wales, in order to preach up to the people the necessity of taking the cross, and engaging in an expedition in defence of the Holy Land. Here our author shews the vast success his eloquence met with, in persuading the greatest part of the country to engage in this adventure, when the archbishop was able to do nothing. Girald himself took the cross at this time, and it afforded him the opportunity of writing his “Itinerarium Cambriae.” The same year he went over into France, in the retinue of king Henry If, which he did by the advice of the archbishop of Canterbury, and Ranulph de Glanville, chief-justice of England; but the king dying the year after, he was sent back by Richard I. to preserve the peace of Wales, and was even joined with the bishop of Ely, as one of the regents of the kingdom. After refusing one or two bishoprics, in hopes to succeed to St. David’s, which was his favourite object, this latter became vacant in 1198, and he was unanimously elected by the chapter. Yet here again he was disappointed, owing to the opposition of Hubert archbishop of Canterbury, and was involved in a contest, which lasted five years, during which he took three journies to Rome, and was at last defeated. Soon after this, he retired from the world, and spent the last seventeen years of his life in study, composing many of his writings. He was unquestionably a man of genius and learning, but as a historian, full of credulity and fable; and as a man, one of the most vain upon record. Ware, and the editor of the Biog. Britannica, have given a long list of his manuscript works, which are in the Cotton and Harleian libraries in the British museum, the archbishop’s library at Lambeth, the Bodleian, Oxford, and the public library and Bene't college library, Cambridge. Those printed are: 1. “Topographia Hibernioe,” Francfort, 1602, and in Holinshed, 2. “Historia Vaticinalis, de expugnatione Hiberniae,” Francfort, 1602, both published by Camden. 3. “Itinerarium Cambriae,” published with annotations by David Powel, 1585, 8vo. 4. “De laudibus Carnbrorum,” also published by Powel. 5. “Gemma Ecclesiastica,” Mentz, 1549, under the title of “Gemma animoe,” without the author’s name. 6. “Liber secundus de descriptione Wallise,” published by Wharton, in Anglia Sacra, part II. p, 447. Camden every where quotes Giraldus as an author of undoubted credit and reputation.

, lord Santry, descended from a Welch family, was the son of a merchant in Dublin, and educated in the profession of the law. When admitted at the bar, he practised for some years with great reputation and success. In 1629, the king conferred upon him the office of his majesty’s serjeant at law, for the kingdom of Ireland, at a yearly fee of twenty pounds ten shillings sterling, and in as full a manner as the same office was granted before to sir John Brereton, knt.; and lord Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford and lord deputy of Ireland, soon discovered his abilities, took him under his protection, and laid hold of the first opportunity he had to promote him. Accordingly, on the 5th of August 1634, he obtained a grant of the office of second baron of the exchequer of Ireland, to hold during pleasure, with such fees, rewards, and profits, as sir Robert Oglethorpe, sir Lawrence Parsons, sir Gerard Lowther, or any other second baron, did or ought to receive; and he soon after received the honour of knighthood. He obtained this favour, notwithstanding a powerful recommendation from England in behalf of another; and it was merely the fruit of the lord Wentworth’s friendship, of which he had occasion, soon after, of making a public acknowledgement. After the year 1640, when the parliament of Ireland were about to send over a committee of their body to England, to impeach the earl of Stratford, he joined all his weight and interest with sir James Ware, and other members of the house of commons, to oppose those measures; though the torrent was so violent, that it was fruitless, nor do we hear much of our baron during the long course of the rebellion, till a little before the restoration of king Charles II. in the year 1660, when he was appointed chairman of the convention, which voted his majesty’s restoration without any previous conditions, in which resolution, no doubt, he was instrumental, since we find his majesty took his merit into consideration a very short time after. For on the 17th of November that year, the king issued a privy seal for advancing him to the office of chief-justice in the king’s bench in Ireland, and another on the 18th of December following, in consideration of his eminent fidelity and zeal shewn in his majesty’s service, for creating him lord baron of San try, in the kingdom of Ireland, to him and the heirs male of his body; and he was soon after called to the privy council. He died in March 1672, and was buried in Christ church, Dublin. His only publication was, “The case of Tenures upon the commission of defective titles, argued by all the judges of Ireland, with the resolution, and reasons of their resolution,” Dublin, 1637, fol. and 1725, 12mo, dedicated to his patron, lord Stratford.

In the year 1792, a visible change took place in his constitution; his health declined, and he became subject to fainting fits, which deprived him of his senses for many hours together. This state of imbecility was rendered more unhappy. On the 30th of August 1793, he, with his nephew and six other persons belonging to the public library, were denounced under pretence of aristocracy, by persons to whom he was an titter stranger. Being then at madame de Choiseul’s, he was removed from her house, and conducted to the prison called Les Magdelonettes. Though, from his great age and bodily infirmities, he was sensible he could not long survive the severity of confinement, stijl he submitted to his fate with that calmness and serenity of mind which innocence only can inspire. So great was the estimation in which he was held, that in prison every attention was paid to his convenience. A separate chamber was allotted to him and his nephew, where they received, on the evening of their imprisonment, an early visit from madame de Choiseul. By her interference, aided by some others, the order for his arrest was revoked, and before midnight he was released and carried back to her house, from whence he had been taken. To compensate, in some degree, for the insult offered him (for even the wretches then in power could not divest themselves of all sense of shame), he in October following was proposed on the execution of Carra, and the resignation of Champfort, to succeed the former as principal librarian; but he chose to decline it, on account of his age and infirmities. These last increased visibly, and about the beginning of 1795, being, then in his eightieth year, his decease appeared visibly approaching, and it was probably hastened by the extreme severity of the season. He died on the 25th of April, with little corporal suffering, preserving his senses so entirely to the lust, that he was reading Horace, in company with his nephew, two hours before his death, and was probably unconscious of his approaching fate.

, commonly called “The holy-­Maid of Kent,” a religious impostor in the reign of Henry VIII. was a servant at Aldington in Kent, and had long been troubled with convulsions, which distorted her limbs and countenance, and threw her body into the most violent agitations; and the effect of the disorder was such, that, even after she recovered, she could counterfeit the same appearance. Masters, the minister of Aldington, with other ecclesiastics, thinking her a proper instrument for their purpose, persuaded her to pretend, that what she said and did was by a supernatural impulse, and taught her to act her part in a manner well calculated to deceive the public. Sometimes she counterfeited a trance; then coming to herself, after many strange contortions, would break out into pious ejaculations, hymns, and prayers, sometimes delivering herself in set speeches, sometimes in uncouth monkish rhymes. She pretended to be honoured with visions and relations, to hear heavenly voices, and the most ravishing melody. She declaimed against the wickedness of the times, against heresy and innovations, exhorting the people to frequent the church, to hear masses, to use frequent confessions, and to pray to our lady and all the saints. All this artful management, together with great exterior piety, virtue, and austerity of life, not only deceived the vulgar, but many far above the vulgar, such as sir Thomas More, bishop Fisher, and archbishop Warham, the last of whom appointed commissioners to examine her. She was now instructed to say, in her counterfeit trances, that the blessed Virgin had appeared to her, and assured her that she should never recover, till she went to visit her image, in a chapel dedicated to her in the parish of Aldington. Thither she accordingly repaired, processionally and in pilgrimage, attended by above three thousand people and many persons of quality of both sexes. There she fell into one of her trances, and uttered many things in honour of the saints and the popish religion; for herself she said, that by the inspiration of God she was called to be a nun, and that Dr. Bocking was to be her ghostly father. This Dr. Bocking was a canon of Christ church in Canterbury, and an associate in carrying on the imposture. In the mean time the archbishop was so satisfied with the reports made to him about her, as to order her to be put into the nunnery of St. Sepulchre, Canterbury, where she pretended to have frequent inspirations and visions, and also to work miracles for all such as would make a profitable vow to our lady at the chapel in the parish of Aldington. Her visions and revelations were also carefully collected and inserted in a book, by a monk called Deering. The priests, her managers, having thus succeeded in the imposture, now proceeded to the great object of it; Elizabeth Barton was directed publicly to announce, howGod had revealed to her, that “in case the king should divorce queen Catherine of Arragon, and take another wife during her life, his royalty would not be of a month’s duration, but he should die the death of a villain.” Bishop Fisher, and others, in the interest of the queen, and of the Romish religion, hearing of this, held frequent meetings with the nun and her accomplices, and at the same time seduced many persons from their allegiance, particularly the fathers and nuns of Sion, the Charter-house, and Sheen, and some of the observants of Richmond, Greenwich, and Canterbury. One Peto, preaching before the king at Greenwich, denounced heavy judgments upon him to his face, telling him that “he had been deceived by many lying prophets’, while himself, as a true' Micaiah, warned him that the dogs should lick his blood, as they had licked the blood of Ahab.” Henry bore this outrageous insult with a moderation not very usual with him; but, to undeceive the people, he appointed Dr. Cunvin to preach before him the Sunday following, who justified the king’s proceedings, and branded Peto with the epithets of “rebel, slanderer, dog, and traitor.” Cur win, however, was interrupted by a friar, and called “a lying prophet, who sought to establish the succession to the crown by adultery;” and proceeded with such virulence, that the king was obliged to interpose, and command him to be silent; yet though Peto and the friar were afterwards summoned before the council, they were only reprimanded for their insolence.

, an eminent English divine, was born at Wetherslack, in Westmoreland, April 20, 1612. His parents were not considerable either for rank or riches; but were otherwise persons of great merit, and happy in their family. John, the third son, was intended for the church, but being sent to school in the neighbourhood, he lost much time under masters deficient in diligence and learning. At length he was sent to Sedberg school, in Yorkshire, where, under the care of a tolerable master, he gave early marks both of genius and piety. In the year 1631, and the eighteenth of his age, he was admitted of St. John’s college, at Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Fothergill, who proved at once a guardian and a preceptor, supplying his necessities, as well as instructing him in learning. By this help Mr. Barwick quickly so distinguished himself, that when a dispute arose about the election of a master, which at last came to be heard before the privy-council, the college chose Mr. Barwick, then little above twenty, to manage for them, by which he not only became conspicuous in the university, but was also taken notice of at court, and by the ministry. In 1635 he became B. A. while these affairs were still depending. April the 5th, 1636, he was created Fellow, without opposition, and in 1638 he took the degree of M. A. When the civil war broke out, and the king wrote a letter to the university, acquainting them that he was in extreme want, Mr. Barwick concurred with those loyal persons, who first sent him a small supply in money, and afterwards their college-plate, and upon information that Cromwell, afterwards the protector, lay with a party of foot at a place called Lower Hedges, between Cambridge and Huntington, in order to make himself master of this small treasure, Mr. Barwick made one of the party of horse which conveyed it through by-roads safely to Nottingham, where his majesty had set up his standard. By this act of loyalty the parliament was so provoked, that they sent Cromwell with a body of troops to quarter in the university, where they committed the most brutal outrages. Mr. Barwick also published a piece against the covenant, entitled “Certain Disquisitions and Considerations, representing to the conscience the unlawfuluess of the oath entitled A Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation, &c. as also the insufficiency of the urgiiments used in the exhortation for taking the said covenant. Published by command,” Oxford, 1644. In this, he was assisted by Messrs. Isaac Barrow, Seth Ward, Peter Gunning, and others. The above is the date of the second edition, the first having been seized and burnt. Having by this time provoked the men in power, he retired to London, and soon after was intrusted with the management of the king’s most private concerns, and carried on with great secrecy a constant correspondence between London and Oxford, where the king’s head-quarters then were, an employment for which there never was a man perhaps better fitted. For with great modesty, and a temper naturally meek, he had a prudence, sagacity, and presence of mind. He lived upon his first coming to town with Dr. Morton, then bishop of Durham, at Durham-house, which being an old spacious building, afforded him great conveniences for hiding his papers, and at the same time his residence with that prelate as his chaplain, countenanced his remaining in London. One great branch of his employment, was the bringing back to their duty some eminent persons who had been misled by the fair pretences of the great speakers in the long parliament. Amongst those who were thus reclaimed by the care of this religious and loyal gentleman, were sir Thomas Middleton and colonel Roger Pope, both persons of great credit with the party, and both very sincere converts. By his application, likewise, Mr. Cresset was convinced of his errors, and became an useful associate in the dangerous employment of managing the king’s intelligence. Even after the king’s affairs became desperate, Mr. Barwick still maintained his correspondence; and when his majesty was in the hands of the army, had frequent access to him, and received his verbal orders. To perform his duty the more effectually, he had the king’s express command to lay aside his clerical habit; and in the dress of a private gentleman, with his sword by his side, he remained without suspicion in the army, and gave the king much useful intelligence; and even when his majesty came to be confined inCarisbrook castle, in the closest manner, Mr. Cresset, who was placed about him through the dexterous management of Mr. Barwick, preserved his majesty a free intercourse with his friends; for this purpose he first deposited with Mr. Barwick a cypher, and then hid a copy of it in a crack of the wall in the king’s chamber. By the help of this cypher, the king both wrote and read many letters every week, all of which passed through the hands of Mr. Barwick. He likewise was concerned in a well-laid design for procuring the king’s escape, which, however, was unluckily disappointed. These labours, though they were very fatiguing, did not hinder him from undertaking still greater; for when Mr. Holder, who had managed many correspondences for the king, was discovered and imprisoned, he had so much spirit and address as to procure admittance to, and a conference with him, whereby his cyphers and papers were preserved, and Mr. Barwick charged himself with the intelligence which that gentleman had carried on. After this he had a large share in bringing about the treaty at the Isle of Wight, and was now so well known to all the loyal party, that even those who had never seen him, readily trusted themselves to his care, in the most dangerous conjunctures. When the king was murdered, and the royal cause seemed to be desperate, Mr. Barwick, though harassed with a continual cough, followed by a spitting of blood, and afterwards by a consumption of his lungs, yet would not interrupt the daily correspondence he maintained with the ministers of king Charles II. At last, when he was become very weak, he was content that his brother, Dr. Peter Barwick, should share in his labours, by attending the post-office, which he did for about six months; and then this office was devolved on Mr. Edward Barwick, another of his brothers. This gentleman had not been engaged two months in this perilous business, before one Bostock, who belonged to the post-office, betrayed both him and Mr. John Barwick, together with some letters which came from the king’s ministers abroad, into the hands of those who were then possessed of the government. These letters were superscribed to Mr. James Vandelft, Dutch merchant in London, which was a fictitious name made use of to cover their correspondence. Upon his examination, Mr. Barwick did all he could to take the blame upon himself, in order to free his brother Edward. Yet so careful he was of offending against truth, that he would not deny his knowledge of the letters, but insisted that he was not bound to accuse himself. Those who examined him were not ashamed to threaten him, though half dead with his distemper, with putting him to the torture if he did not immediately discover all who were concerned with him. To this Mr. Barwick answered with great spirit, that neither himself, nor any of his friends, had done any thing which they knew to be repugnant to the laws; and if by the force of tortures, which it was not likely a dry and bloodless carcase like his would be able to bear, any thing should be extorted which might be prejudicial to others, such a confession ought to go for nothing. Mr. Edward Barwick behaved with the like firmness, so that not so much as one person fell into trouble through their misfortune; and as for Mr. John Barwick, he had the presence of mind to burn his cyphers and other papers before those who apprehended him could break open his door. This extraordinary fortitude and circumspection so irritated president Bradshaw, sir Henry Mildmay, and others of the council who examined them, that, by a warrant dated the 9th of April 1650, they committed both the brothers to the Gate-house, where they were most cruelly treated, and three days afterwards committed Mr. John Barwick to the Tower. The reason they assigned for this change of his prison was, that he might be nearer to the rack, assuring him that in a few days they would name commissioners to examine him, who should have that engine for their secretary. Mr. Francis West, who was then lieutenant of the Tower, put him in a dungeon where he was kept from pen, ink, and paper, and books, with restraint from seeing any person except his keepers and, as an additional punishment, had boards nailed before his window to exclude the fresh air. In this melancholy situation he remained many months, during which time the diet he used was herbs or fruit, or thin water-gruel, made of oatmeal or barley, with currants boiled in it, and sweetened with a little sugar, by which he recovered beyond all expectation, and grew plump and fat. A cure so perfect, and so strange, that Dr. Cheyne, and other physicians have taken notice of it in their writings as a striking instance of the power of temperance, even in the most inveterate diseases. While he was thus shut up, his friends laboured incessantly for his service and relief, and his majesty king Charles II. for whom he thus suffered, gave the highest testimonies of his royal concern for so faithful a subject. After fifteen months passed in confinement, Mr. Otway, and some other friends, procured a warrant from president Bradshaw to visit him, who were not a little surprised to find him in so good health, whom they had seen brought so low, as to engage this very Mr. Otway to take care of his burial. His prudence and patience under this persecution was so great, that they had a happy effect on all who came about him. Robert Brown, who was deputy lieutenant of the Tower, became first exceeding civil to him, and afterwards his convert, so as to have his child baptized by him; and, which was a still stronger proof of his sincerity, he quitted the very profitable post he held, and returned to his business, that of a cabinet-maker. Nay, Mr. West, the lieutenant of the Tower, who treated him so harshly at his entrance, abated by degrees of this rigour, and became at last so much softened, that he was as ready to do him all offices of humanity, removing him out of a noisome dungeon into a handsome chamber, where he might enjoy freer air, and sometimes even the company of his friends. He likewise made assiduous application to the council of state, that while Mr. Barwick remained in the Tower, he might have an allowance granted him for his subsistence; and when he could not prevail, he supplied him from his own table. Indeed, after two years confinement, the commonwealth did think fit to allow him five shillings a week, which he received for about four months. Then, through the same friendly intercession of Mr. West, he was discharged on the 7th of August, 1652, but upon giving security to appear at any time within a twelve-month before the council of state. He then visited his old patron, the bishop of Durham, his aged parents, and the incomparable lady Savile; but the place he chose for his residence was the house of sir Thomas Eversfield, of Sussex, a man of great integrity as well as learning, with whom he lived for many months. After the expiration of the year, to which the recognizance entered into hy himself and his friends, Mr. Thomas Royston, student of Gray’s-inn, and Mr. Richard Royston, of London, bookseller, extended, he began to think of getting up his bond, and entering again into the king’s service. With this view he found it expedient to pay a visit to president Bradshaw, who, as he had now quarrelled with Cromwell, received him civilly, and told him he probably would hear no more of his recognizance. On this assurance, he began to enter again into business, and drew over several considerable persons, such as colonel John Clobery, colonel Daniel Redman, and colonel Robert Venables, to the king’s service, with whom he conferred on several schemes for restoring monarchy, in all which they were long disappointed by Cromwell. His friend, sir Thomas Eversfield, dying, and his widow retiring to the house of her brother, sir Thomas Middleton, at Chirk castle, in Denbighshire, Dr. Barwick accompanied her thither, and remained for some time with sir Thomas, who was his old friend. His own and the king’s affairs calling him back to London, he lived with his brother, Dr. Peter Barwick, in St. Paul’s Church-yard, and there managed the greatest part of the king’s correspondence, with as much care, secrecy, and success as ever. While he was thus engaged, he received some interruption by the revival of that old calumny on the church of England, the Nag’s head ordination, to which he furnished bishop Bramhall with the materials for a conclusive answer. His modesty and private way of living preserved him from much notice, even in those prying times; and yet, when proper occasions called for more open testimonies of his principles, Mr. Barwick did not decline professing them, as appeared by his assisting Dr. John Hewet, while in prison for a plot against Cromwell, and even on the scaffold, when he lost his head. By the death of this gentleman, his branch of intelligence, and the care of conveying some hundred pounds which he had collected for the king’s use, devolved upon Mr. Barwick; who, though he had already so much upon his hands, readily undertook, and happily performed it. The concern Mr. Barwick had for the king and for the state, did not hinder him from attending, when he was called thereto, the business of the church, in which, however, he had a very worthy associate, Mr. Richard Allestrey, who took the most troublesome part on himself. by performing several dangerous journies into Flanders, in order to receive the king’s commands by word of mouth. In the rising of sir George Booth, ue had a principal concern in the managing of the design, and in providing for the safety of such as escaped after it miscarried. Not long after he narrowly missed a new imprisonment, through the treachery of some who were intrusted by the king’s ministers: for by their intelligence, Mr. Allestrey was seized as soon as he landed at Dover, and one of Mr. Barwick’s letters intercepted, but it is supposed to have been imperfectly decyphered. In the midst of these difficulties died the good oid bishop of Durham, whom Mr. Barwick piously assisted in his last moments, preached his funeral sermon, and afterwards wrote his life, whicu he dedicated to the king. All the hopes that now remained of a restoration rested upon general Monk, and though Mr. Barwick had no direct correspondence with him, yet he furnished him with very important assistance in that arduous affair. After there seemed to be no longer any doubt of the king’s return, Mr. Barwick was sent over by the bishops to represent the state of ecclesiastical affairs, and was received by his majesty with cordial affection, preached before him the Sunday after his arrival, and was immediately appointed one of his chaplains. Yet these extraordinary marks of the king’s favour never induced him to make any request for himself, though he did not let slip so fair an opportunity of recommending effectually several of his friends, and procuring for them an acknowledgment suitable to each of their services. On his return he visited the university of Cambridge, where he very generously relinquished his right to his fellowship, in favour of an intruder, because he had the reputation of being a young man of learning and probity. Before he left the university, he took the degree of D. D. upon which occasion he performed his exercise, merely to support the discipline of the university. The thesis on this occasion was very singular, viz. That the method of imposing penance, and restoring penitents in the primitive church was a godly discipline, and that it is much to be wished it was restored. The Latin disputation upon this question has been preserved, and it was chiefly for the sake of inserting it, that Dr. Peter Barwick composed his brother’s life in Latin. When the church of England was restored by king Charles II. the deans and chapters revived, Dr. Barvvick, according to his usual modesty, contented himself with recommending his tutor, old Mr. Fothergill, to a prehend in the cathedral church of York; but as to himself, he would have rested content with the provision made for him by his late patron, the bishop of Durham, who had given him the fourth stall in his cathedral, and the rectories of Wolsingham, and Houghton in le Spring; and used to say that he had too much. Among other extraordinary offices to which he was called at this busy time, one was to visit Hugh Peters, in order to draw from him some account of the person -who actually cut off the head of king Charles I.; but in this neither he nor Dr. Doiben, his associate, had any success. Before the restoration there had been a design of consecrating Dr. Barvvick, bishop of Man; but the countess of Derby desiring to prefer her chaplain, the king, of his own motive, would have promoted him to the see of Carlisle, which the doctor steadily refused, that the world might not imagine the extraordinary zeal he had shewn for episcopacy flowed from any secret hope of his one day being a bishop. Upon this he was promoted to the deanery of Durham, with which he kept the rectory of Houghton. He took possession of his deanery on the feast of All Saints, 1660, and as he enjoyed a large revenue, he employed it in repairing public buildings, relieving the poor, and keeping up great hospitality, both at the house of his deanery and at Houghton. But before the year was out, he was called from these cares, in which he would willingly have spent his whole life, by his being made dean of St. Paul’s, a preferment less in value, and attended with much more trouble than that he already possessed. As soon as he had done this, he put an end to all granting of leases, even where he had agreed for the fine with the tenants, and did many other things for the benefit of his successor, which shewed his contempt of secular advantages, and his sincere concern for the rights of the church. He took possession of the deanery of St. Paul’s, about the middle of October, 1661, and found, as he expected, all in very great disorder with respect to the church itself, and every thing that concerned it. He set about reforming these abuses with a truly primitive spirit, and prosecuted with great vigour the recovery of such revenue’s as in the late times of distraction had been alienated from the church; though with respect to his own particular concerns he was never rigid to any body, but frequently gave up things to which he had a clear title. By his interest with his majesty he obtained two royal grants under the great seal of England, one for the repair of the cathedral, the other for enumerating and securing its privileges. In this respect he was so tender, that he would not^Joermit the lord mayor of London to erect there a seat for himself at the expence of the city, but insisted that it should be done at the charge of the church. Towards the repairing the cathedral, he, together with the residentiaries, gave the rents of the houses in St. Paul’s Church-yard as a settled fund, besides which they advanced each of them 500l. a piece, and, in many other respects, he demonstrated that neither the love of preferment, nor the desire of wealth, had any share in his acceptance of this dignity. He was next appointed one of the nine assistants to the twelve bishops commissioned to hold a conference with the like number of presbyterian ministers upon the review of the liturgy, usually called the Savoy conference, because held at the bishop of London’s lodgings in the Savoy. He was also, by the unanimous suffrage of all the clergy of the province of Canterbury assembled in convocation, chosen prolocutor on the 18th of February, 1661; in which office he added to the reputation he had before acquired. His application, however, to the discharge of so many and so great duties brought upon him his old “distemper, so that in November, 1662, he was confined to his chamber: he heightened his disease by officiating at the sacrament the Christmas-day following, after which he was seized with a violent vomiting of blood. Upon this he was advised to a change of air, and retired to Therfield in Hertfordshire, of which he was rector, but finding himself there too far from London, he returned to Chiswick, where he in some measure recovered his health. As soon as he found he had a little strength, he applied himself there to the putting in order the archives of St. Paul’s church, but this return of active employment was followed by an extraordinary flux of blood, which rendered him very weak, and defeated his favourite design of retiring to Therfield. When he first found his health declining, he made choice of and procured this living, intending to have resigned his deanery and office of prolocutor, to those who had vigour enough to discharge them, and to spend the remainder of his days in the discharge of his pastoral office, to which he thought himself bound by his taking orders. But coming upon some extraordinary occasion to London, he was seized with a pleurisy, which carried him off in three days. He was attended in his last moments by Dr. Peter Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, and as he lived, so he died, with all the marks of an exemplary piety, on the 22d of October, 1664, after he had struggled almost twelve years with this grievous distemper. By hrs will he bequeathed the greatest part of his estate to charitable uses, and this with a judgment equal to his piety. His body was interred in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, with an epitaph composed by Mr. Samuel Howlet. The character of Mr. Barwick may be easily collected from the preceding sketch, but is more fully illustrated in his life published by Dr. Peter Barwick, a work of great interest and amusement. His printed works are very few. Besides the tract on the covenant, before mentioned, we have only his” Life of Thomas Morton, bishop of Durham, and a funeral sermon,“1660, 4to; and” Deceivers deceived,“a sermon at St. Paul’s, Oct. 20, 1661,” 1661, 4to. Many of his letters to chancellor Hyde are among Thurloe’s State Papers.

In 1753, Basedow was chosen professor of moral philosophy and belles lettres at the university of Sorde, where he enjoyed further opportunities of pursuing his favourite object. While in this station, he published several works which were well received, particularly a treatise on practical philosophy, for all classes, in which the particulars of his plan are fully explained; and a grammar of the German language. From Sorde, he was nominated to a professorship at Altona, and now employed his leisure hours in communicating to the world the result of his theological studies, but the world was so little prepared to forsake the principles of their forefathers, that he met with the -most strenuous opposition from every quarter. Among his most distinguished opponents were the rev. Messrs. Gosse, Winkler, and Zimmerman, who represented his doctrines as hostile to religion and morals, while the magistrates prohibited the publishing and reading of his works, and the populace were ready to attack his person. His biographer praises the firmness with which he supported all this, rejoicing in the hopes, that Germany would one day be enlightened with his doctrines, and these hopes have certainly been in a considerable degree realized. The rest of his life appears to have been spent in controversies with his opponents, and in endeavours to establish public schools of instruction on his new plan, in all which he met with some encouragement from men of rank and influence, but not sufficient to enable him to carry any of his plans into execution. With respect to his scheme of education, if we may judge from the outline in our authority, there was nothing of mystery or invention in it. He entertained the idea that the compulsive methods, so generally adopted, are calculated to retard the progress of improvement, while the pupil was under the care of his tutor, and to give him a disgust for learning after he has escaped from the rod, and said that early education is, in some cases, of too abstracted a nature; and, in others, that it is confined merely to words as preparatory to the knowledge of things; while, in reality, the useful knowledge of things ought to be made preparatory to the knowledge of words. Conformably to this idea, he attempted to adapt every branch of science to the capacity of his scholars, by making judgment keep pace with memory, and by introducing them to an engaging familiarity with the objects of pursuit. This he attempted to effect, by the invention, due arrangement, and familar explanation of figures and prints, of which young minds are naturally fond; and by means of which, they have a more perfect impression of an object than the most elaborate description could possibly give. For those who were further advanced, he called in the aid of different species of mechanism, and different models, by means of which the pupil might form precise ideas, obtain accurate knowledge, and, in some instances, acquire address in a manner correspondent with that love of active amusements which characterizes youth.

After many unsuccessful efforts to establish a school which he called his “Philanthropinum,” he finally reliuqnished it, owing to quarrels among the teachers, which afforded no very striking proof of the superior excellence of his system. He then endeavoured to find relief in the bottle, and this hurried him into a train of conduct which completed the destruction of his reputation. He died at Magdeburgh in 1790. His works on religions subjects are very numerous, but little known out of Germany.

, one of the chief leaders of the Egyptian Gnostics, flourished in the second century. These Gnostics blended the Christian doctrine with both the Oriental and the Egyptian philosophy. They did not acknowledge an eternal principle of darkness or evil. They maintained that our Saviour consisted of two persons, Jesus the son of Joseph and Mary, and Christ, the son of God, who entered into him at his baptism, and went out of him when he was apprehended by the Jews some, if not all of them, allowed the reality of his human body. Basilides, who had the ambition to be the founder of a sect, contrived the following modification of the heresy of the Gnostics. He pretended that God, from his own essence, had produced seven angels, or jEons. Two of these, called “power” and “wisdom,” engendered the angels of the highest order, who having formed heaven for their own residence, produced other angels of a subordinate nature, and these again produced others, till three hundred and sixty-five different orders or ranks were successively formed; all of which had one Abraxas for their common head. The lowest order living on the confines of the eternal, malignant, and self-animated matter, created this world, and the inhabitants thereof. God added rational souls to men, and subjected them to the government of angels. At length the angels fell off from their allegiance to God, and into terrible contests among themselves. He who governed the Jewish nation was the most turbulent of all. In pity, therefore, to mankind, who groaned under their oppression and discordant influence, God sent forth his son Christ, a principal JEon, to enter into the man Jesus, and by him restore the knowledge of God, and destroy the dominion of the angels, particularly of him who governed the Jews. Alarmed at this, the god of the Jews caused apprehend and crucify the man Jesus, but could not hurt the Æou who dwelt in him. Such souls as obey Jesus Christ shall at death be delivered from matter, and ascend to the supreme God: but disobedient souls shall successively pass into new bodies, till they at last become obedient.

, a learned divine of the seventeenth century, was born in 1607, in the island of Jersey, according to Wood, which an annotator on the Biog. Britannica contradicts without informing us of the place of his nativity. Grey, in his ms notes, says he was born at Rouen, in Normandy, but quotes no authority, nor do we know in what school or university he received his education. For some time, he was master of the college or free-school at Guernsey, and became chaplain to Thomas Morton bishop of Durham, who gave him the rectory of Stanhope, and the vicarage of EgglesclifF, b.oth in the county of Durham. In July 1640, he had the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon him at Cambridge, by mandate; and was incorporated in the same at Oxford, the November following, about which time he was made chaplain in ordinary to king Charles I.; Dec. 12, 1643, he was installed into the seventh prebend of Durham, to which he was collated by his generous patron bishop Morton. The next year, August 24, he was also collated to the archdeaconry of Northumberland, with the rectory of Howiek annexed. But he did not long enjoy these great preferments, as in the beginning of the civil wars, being sequestered and plundered, he repaired to king Charles at Oxford, before whom, and his parliament, he frequently preached. In 1646, he had a licence granted him under the public seal of the university, to preach the word of God throughout England. Upon the surrender of the Oxford garrison to the parliament, he resolved with all the zeal of a missionary to propagate the doctrine of the EngJish church in the East, among the Greeks, Arabians, &c. Leaving therefore his family in England, he went first to Zante, an island near the Morea, where he made some stay; and had good success in spreading among the Greek inhabitants the doctrine of the English church, the substance of which he imparted to several of them, in a vulgar Greek translation of our church-catechism. The success of this attempt was so remarkable, that it drew persecution upon him from the Latins, as they are called, or those members of the Romish church, throughout the East, who perform their service in Latin. On this he went into the Morea, where the metropolitan of Achaia prevailed upon him to preach twice in Greek, at a meeting of some of his bishops and clergy, which was well received. At his departure, he left with him a copy of the catechism above mentioned. From thence, after he had passed through Apulia, Naples, and Sicily again (in which last, at Messina, he officiated for some weeks on board a ship) he embarked for Syria; and, after some months stay at Aleppo, where he had frequent conversation with the patriarch of Antioch, then resident there, he left a copy of our church-catechism, translated into Arabic, the native language of that place. From Aleppo he went in 1652 to Jerusalem, and so travelled over all Palestine. At Jerusalem he received much honour, both from the Greek Christians and Latins. The Greek patriarch (the better to express his desire of communion with the church of England, declared by the doctor to him) gave him his bull, or patriarchal seal, in a blank, which is their way of credence, and shewed him other instances of respect, while the Latins received him courteously into their convent, though he did openly profess himself a priest of the church of England. After some disputes about the validity of our English ordinations, they procured him entrance into the temple of the sepulchre, at the rate of a priest, that is half of the sum paid by a layman; and, at his departure from Jerusalem, the pope’s vicar gave him his diploma in parchment, under his own hand and public seal, styling him, a priest of the church of England, and doctor of divinity, which title occasioned some surprise, especially to the French ambassador at Constantinople. Returning to Aleppo, he passed over the Euphrates and went into Mesopotamia, where he intended to send the church-catechism in Turkish, to some of their bishops, who were mostly Armenians. This Turkish translation was procured by the care of sir Thomas Bendyshe, the English ambassador at Constantinople. After his return from Mesopotamia, he wintered at Aleppo, where he received several courtesies from the consul, Mr. Henry Riley. In the beginning of 1653, he departed from Aleppo, and came to Constantinople by land, being six hundred miles, without any person with him, that could speak any of the European languages. Yet, by the help of some Arabic he had picked up at Aleppo, he performed that journey in the company of twenty Turks, who used him courteously, because he acted as physician to them and their friends: a study (as he says) to which the iniquity of the times and the opportunity of Padua drove him. After his arrival at Constantinople, the French Protestants there desired him to be their minister, and though he declared to them his resolution to officiate according to the English liturgy (a translation whereof, for want of a printed copy, cost him no little labour) yet they orderly submitted to it, and promised to settle on him, in three responsible men’s hands, a competent stipend: and all this, as they told him, with the express consent of the French ambassador, but still under the roof and protection of the English ambassador. Before he quitted the Eastern parts, he intended to pass into Egypt, in order to take a survey of the churches of the Cophties, and confer with the patriarch of Alexandria, as he had done already with the other three patriarchs, partly to acquire the knowledge of those churches, and partly to publish and give them a true notion of the church of England; but whether he accomplished his design, is not certain. He went next into Transilvania, where he was entertained for seven years by George Ragotzi the Second, prince of that country; who honoured him with the divinity-chair in his new founded university of Alba Julia (or Weissenburg) and endowed him, though a mere stranger to him, with a very ample salary. During his travels he collated the several confessions of faith of the different sorts of Christians, Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites, Maronites, &c. which he kept by him in their own languages. His constant design and endeavour, whilst he remained in the East, was, to persuade the Christians of the several denominations there, to a canonical reformation of some errors; and to dispose and incline them to a communion or unity with the church of England, but his pious intentions were afterwards defeated by the artifices of court of France. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. Dr. Easier was recalled by his majesty to England, in a letter written to prince Ragotzi. But this unfortunate prince dying 'soon after, of the wounds he received in a battle with the Turks at Gyala, the care of his solemn obsequies was committed to the doctor by his relict, princess Sophia, and he was detained a year longer from England. At length returning in 1661 9 he was restored to his preferments and dignities; and made chaplain in ordinary to king Charles II. After quietly enjoying his large revenues for several years, he died on the 12th of Oct. 1676, in the 69th year of his age-, and was buried in the yard belonging to the cathedral of Durham, where a tomb was erected over his grave, with an inscription. His character appears to have been that of a learned, active, and industrious man; a zealous supporter of the church of England; and a loyal subject. His son, John Basire, esq. who had been receiver general for the four western counties, died ou the 2d of June 1722, in the 77th year of his age.

, more commonly known by the name of Basingstochius, or de Basingstoke, was born at Basingstoke, a town in the north part of Hampshire, and thence took his surname. He was a person highly eminent for virtue and learning; a perfect master of the Latin and Greek languages; and also an eloquent orator, an able mathematician and philosopher, and a sound divine. The foundation of his great learning he laid in the university of Oxford, and, for his farther improvement, went to Paris, where he resided some years. He afterwards travelled to Athens, where he made many curious observations, and perfected himself in his studies, particularly in the knowledge of the Greek tongue. At his return to England, he brought over with him several curious Greek manuscripts, and introduced the use of the Greek numeral figures in to this kingdom. He became also a very great promoter and encourager of the study of that language, which was much neglected in these western parts of the world: and to facilitate it, he translated from Greek into Latin a grammar, which he entitled “The Donatus of the Greeks.” Our author’s merit and learning recommended him to the esteem of all lovers of literature: particularly to the favour of Robert Grosteste, bishop of Lincoln, by whom he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Leicester, as he had been some time before to that of London. He died in 1252. The rest of his works are, 1. A Latin translation of a Harmony of the Gospels. 2. A volume of sermons. 3. “Particulue sententiarum per distinctiones,” or a Commentary upon part of Lombard’s Sentences, &c. It was he also that informed Robert, bishop of Lincoln, that he had seen at Athens a book called “The Testament of the XII Patriarchs.” Upon which the bishop sent for it, and translated it into Latin, and it was printed among the “Orthodoxographa,” Basilero, 1555, fol. and afterwards translated into English, and often reprinted, 12mo.

, an eminent English engraver, son of Isaac Basire, who was an engraver and printer, was born Oct. 6, 1730; and bred from infancy to his father’s profession, which he practised with great reputation for sixty years. He studied under the direction of Mr. Richard Dalton; was with him at Rome made several drawings from the pictures of Raphael, &c. at the time that Mr. Stuart, Mr. Brand Hollis, and sir Joshua Reynolds, were there. He was appointed engraver to the society of antiquaries about 1760; and to the royal society about 1770. As a specimen of his numerous works, it may be sufficient to refer to the beautiful plates of the “Vetusta Monumenta,” published by the society of antiquaries, and to Mr. Cough’s truly valuable “Sepulchral Monuments.” With the author of that splendid work he was most deservedly a favourite. When he had formed the plan, and hesitated on actually committing it to the press, Mr. Gough says, “Mr. Basire’s specimens of drawing and engraving gave me so much satisfaction, that it was impossible to resist the impulse of carrying such a design into execution.” The royal portraits and other beautiful plates in the “Sepulchral Monuments” fully justified the idea which the author had entertained of his engraver’s talents; and are handsomely acknowledged by Mr. Gough. The Plate of “Le Champ de Drap d'Or” was finished in 1774; a plate so large, that paper was obliged to be made on purpose, which to this time is called “antiquarian paper. Besides the numerous plates which he engraved for the societies, he was engaged in a great number of public and private works, which bear witness to the fidelity of his burin. He engraved the portraits of Fielding and Hogarth in 1762; earl Camden, in 1766, after sir Joshua Reynolds; Pylades and Orestes, 1770, from a picture by West; portraits of the Rev. John Watson, and sir George Warren’s family; portraits also of dean Swift, and Dr. Parnell, 1774; sir James Burrow, 1780; Mr. Bowyer, 1782; portraits also of Dr. Munro, Mr. Gray, Mr. Thonxpson, Lady Stanhope, Sir George Savile, Bishop Hoadly, Rev. Dr. Pegge, Mr. Price, AlgernonSydney, Andrew Marvell, William Camden, William Brereton,1790,&c. &c.; Captain Cook’s portrait, and other plates, for his First and Second Voyages a great number of plates for Stuart’s Athens (which are well drawn). In another branch of his art, the Maps for general Roy’s” Roman Antiquities in Britain“are particularly excellent. He married, first, Anne Beaupuy; and, secondly, Isabella Turner. He died Sept. 6, 1802, in his seventy-third year, and was buried in the vault under Pentonville chapel. The ingenuity and integrity of this able artist are inherited by his eldest son, of whose works it may be enough to mention only the” Cathedrals," published by the society of antiquaries, from the exquisite drawings by Mr. John Carter. A third James Basirc, born in 1796, has already given several proofs of superior excellence in the arts of drawing and engraving.

, eldest son of the above, was born in 1610, and became minister of Bayeux, and was called to suffer persecution in his old age, being thrown into the prison at Havre de Grace, when he was seventyfive years of age. On the revocation of the edict of Nantz he was set at liberty, and took refuge in Holland, where he probably passed the remainder of his clays in quiet. He died at Zutphen in 1691. His son, Samuel Basnage de Flotmanvllle, succeeded him in his congregation at Bayeux, but was forced to leave France in 1685, and retire to Zutphen, with the reputation of being one of the ablest of the French reformed clergy. He wrote “Exercitations on Baronius,” beginning where Casaubon left off; but changing his purpose, he turned his work into the shape of Ecclesiastical Annals, published in 1706, under the title of ' Annales politico-ecclesiastici," 3 vols. fol. and coming down to the reign of Phocas. This work is, undoubtedly, useful, but has been superseded by that of James Basnage, of whom we are soon to speak. Anthony died in 1721.

de Franquener, son of the preceding, and the most celebrated of his family, was born at Roan in Normandy, Aug. 8, 1653, and received an education suitable to the talents which his father discovered in him. He first studied under the celebrated Tanaquil Faber, who made him his favourite scholar, but endeavoured to dissuade him from engaging in the ministry. At seventeen years of age, after he had made the Greek and Latin authors familiar to him, and learned the English., Italian, and Spanish languages, he went to Geneva, where he passed through a course of philosophy under Mr. Chouet. He began his divinity studies there under Mestrezat, Turretin, and Tronchin, and finished them at Sedan under the professors Juricu and Le Blanc de Beaulieu. But disliking Mr. Jurieu’s less tolerant sentiments, he applied himself more particularfy to the latter, who was a divine of a moderate and pacific temper. He returned afterwards to Roan; and the learned Mr. Le Moine having been called to the professorship of divinity at Leyden, Mr. Basnage succeeded him, as pastor of the church of Roan in 1676, though he was then but twenty three years of age, and here studied ecclesiastical history and the fathers, and went on with the collections which he had begun at Geneva and Sedan. In 1684 he married Susanna du Moulin, daughter of Cyrus du Moulin, first cousin of Charles du Moulin, the Papinian of France, and grand-daughter of the famous Peter du Moulin. The exercise of the protestant religion being suppressed at Roan in 1685, and Mr. Basnage being no longer allowed to perform the functions of his ministry, hedesired leave of the king to retire into Holland, and obtained it for himself, his wife, and a nurse; but upon condition, that the nurse should return into France at the end of two years. He settled at‘Rotterdam, where he was a minister pensionary till 1691, when he was made pastor of the Walloon church of that city. The works which he wrote raised him a great reputation over all Europe and he kept a correspondence with a great many learned men both in the United Provinces, and in foreign countries. His studies employed the greater part of his time, and his only relaxation was a select society of men of learning-, who met once a week at each other’s houses. The principal members of this little society were Messrs. Paatz, Basnage, De Beauval, his brother, Bayle, Lufneu, and Leers. Their contests were sometimes sharp, but friendly, and there was that candid interchange of sentiment from which Basnage confessed that he had derived great advantage. He had frequent disputes with Mr. Jurieu, his brother-in-law, particularly on the subject of the revolt of the Cevennois, which Jurieu approved and Basnage condemned. The author of his life mentions a conference which they had upon that subject, in 1703, in which Jurieu was obliged by the reasons of his antagonist to condemn the cruelties of the Camisars, and he only urged in their justification, that they had been used with rigour, and had lost patience. In 1709 pensionary Heinsius, who had a great regard for him, procured him to be chosen one of the pastors of the Walloon church at the Hague. He was then employed to manage a secret negotiation with mareschal D’Uxelles, plenipotentiary of France at the congress of Utrecht; and he executed it with so much success, that he was afterwards entrusted with several important commissions. Cardinal de Bouillon, dean of the Sacred College, who was then in Holland, imparted to him all his concerns with the States. The abbe Du Bois, who was afterwards cardinal and first minister of France, having arrived at the Hague in 1716, with the character of ambassador plenipotentiary, to negotiate a defensive alliance between France, England, and the States General, was ordered by the duke of Orleans, regent of France, to apply to Mr. Basnage for his advice, the consequence of which was, that they acted in concert, and the alliance was concluded Jan. 14, As a reward for this service, he obtained the restitution of his estate in France. He corresponded with several princes, nohlemen, and statesmen, both catholic and protestant, and with a great many learned men in France, Italy, Germany, and England, upon subjects of a political or literary nature. The catholics appear to have confided as much in his opinion as the protestants, of which we have a remarkable instance in a French archbishop. This prelate, perplexed to know what step to take respecting the bull Unigenitus, the rigours of which put an end to the last hopes of reconciliation between the catholic and protestant churches, consulted Basnage, and requested to know how he would himself act, if in his place. Basnage replied, that it did not perhaps become him to give advice in a case of so much difficulty: but suggested that the archbishop ought to examine himself whether he acknowledged the pope’s authority, or not: that in the first case he was obliged to admit the constitution; that in the second case he might reject it; but he should consider, that if he argued consequentially, this would carry him farther than he would go. Basnage was a man of great sincerity and candour, and had a politeness seldom to be met with among learned men. He was affable and -easy in his behaviour, and always ready to use his interest in favour of the unfortunate. He answered every person who consulted him with the utmost affability and kindness. He was a good friend, a man of great probity, and though he confuted errors with zeal and spirit, yet he treated the persons themselves with peculiar moderation. His constitution, which before had been very firm, began to decline in 1722; and after a lingering illness he died with exemplary piety, Dec. 22, 1723, in the seventy-first year of his age. He left only one daughter, who was married to Mr. de la Sarraz, privy counsellor to the king of Poland.

, a Frenchman, who was, unfortunately for him, sent to Rome as ambassador. At the commencement of the revolution, he was editor of the journal called the “Mercnre,” with Mallet-Dupan, and afterwards of the “Journal d'etat et du citoyen,” begun by Carra. Having made diplomatic affairs his particular study, he was sent to Rome, in 1792, as envoy extraordinary, but was so unpopular as to be insulted in that city whenever he made his appearance. At length, on Jan. 13, 1793, the populace, irritated at his wearing the French cockade, pelted him with stones until he reached the house of the banker, Monette, where he received a wound from one of the mob, which proved fatal in about twenty-four hours. Not content with this murder, the insurgents set fire to the French academy des eleves in Rome, and insulted many of the students. It is said that this insurrection was occasioned by the substitution of a new coat of arms, probably in the taste of the French revolutionists. Basseville was a member of several academies, and wrote 1. “Elemcns de Mythologie,” 8vo. 2. “Precis historique sur la vie du Genevois Lefort, principal ministre de Pierre-le-Grand, grand amiral de Russie,” 178G. 3.“Memoires historiques et politiques sur la Revolution de France,” 1790, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a very industrious French writer, was born at Marseilles, July 15, 1724, and after studying in his own country, came to Paris, where he engaged in a great variety of literary enterprises. He was editor of the “Bibliotheque universelle des Romans,” Paris, 1775 1789, 112 vols. 12mo, and the “Choix des anciens Mercures,” 1757 1764,' in Ids vols. 12mo. He also published, 1. “L'etre pensant,” a kind of romance, Paris, 1755, 12mo. 2. “Les choses comme ont doit les voir,” ibid. 1758, 8vo, in which he endeavours partly to excuse, and partly to reform, what is wrong in morals and manners. 3. “Le Nouveau Spectateur,” 2 vols. 8vo, an attempt at a periodical essay in the manner of the Spectator, but without the materials which a free country furnishes. 4. “Aventures de Victoire Ponty,” Amsterdam and Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “Confessions d'un Fat,”' Paris, 174-9, 12mo. 6. “Le Depit et le Voyage,” a poem with notes, and “Letlres Venitiennes,” Paris, 1771, 8vo. 7. “Le Monde comme il est,” ibid. 1760, 4 vols. 12mo. 8. “Le Tombeau Philosophique,” Amsterdam, 1751, 12rno. 9. “Les Tetes Folles,” Paris, 1753, 12mo. 10. “Varietes Litteraires, Galantes, &c. ibid. 1774, 8vo. 11.” Le Tribunal de l'Amour,“ibid. 1750, 12mo. 12.” La Trentainede Cythere," Paris, 1753, 12mo. In the opinion of his countrymen, there are few of these works which rise above mediocrity, although the author generally pleases by his sprightly manner. The Dict. Hist, to which we are chiefly indebted for this article, does not mention the time of his death. There was another la Bastide, called the elder, who published, in 1773, two volumes of a history of French literature, but how far connected with the author we know not.

, an English physician of the last century, has acquired some celebrity, more from the punishment he suffered for writing, than for the merit of what he has written. He was born at Writtle in Essex, 1595, and studied at Emanuel college, Cambridge, but leaving the university without a degree, he travelled for nine years, and was made doctor of physic at Padua. He printed at Leyden, 1624, a small piece entitled “Elenchus Ileligionis Papisticse, in quo probatur neque Apostolicam, neque Catholic-am, imo neque Romanam esse,” 24mo. Afterwards, in England, he published “Flagellum Pontificis et Episcoporum latialium;” and though he declared, in the preface, that he intended nothing against such bishops as acknowledged their authority from kings and emperors; yet our English prelates imagining that some things in his book were levelled at them, he was cited before the high commission court, fined 1000l. and sentenced to be excommunicated, to be debarred the practice of physic, to have his book burnt, to pay costs of suit, and to remain in prison till he made a recantation. Accordingly he was confined two years in the Gate-house, where he wrote “Apologeticus ad Proesules Anglicanos,” &c. and a book called “The New Litany,” in which he taxed the bishops with an inclination to popery, and exclaimed against the severity and injustice of the high-commission’s proceedings against him. For this he was sentenced to pay a fine of 5000l. to stand in the pillory in the Palace Yard, Westminster, and there lose his ears, and to suffer perpetual imprisonment in a remote part of the kingdom. The same sentence was, the same year, 1637, passed and executed upon Prynne and Burton. Bastwick was conveyed to Launceston castle in Cornwall, and thence removed to St. Mary’s castle in the Isle of Scilly, where his nearest relations were not permitted to visit him. The house of commons, however, in 1640, ordered him, as well as the others, to be brought back to London; and they were attended all the way thither by vast multitudes of people, with loud acclamations of joy. The several proceedings against them were voted illegal, unjust, and against the liberty of the subject; their sentence reversed; their fine remitted; and a reparation of 5000l. each ordered out of the estates of the archbishop of Canterbury, the high-commissioners, and other lords, who had voted against them in the star-chamber.

, bishop of Norwich in the fourteenth century, and founder of Trinity hall in Cambridge, was born at Norwich, the son of a citizen of good repute in that place. He was, from his tenderest years, of a docile and ingenuous disposition, and having made good proficiency in learning, he was sent to the university of Cambridge. There he particularly studied the civil law, in which he took the degree of doctor before he was thirty years of age, a thing then uncommon. On the 8th of December 1328, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Norwich. Soon after this, he went and studied at Rome, for his further improvement; and so distinguished himself by his knowledge and exemplary behaviour, that he was promoted by the pope to the place of auditor of his palace. He was likewise advanced by him to the deanery of Lincoln, and twice sent by him as his nuncio, to endeavour to procure a peace between Edward III. king-of England, and the king of France. Upon the death of Anthony de Beck, bishop of Norwich, the pope conferred that bishopric upon Bateman, on the 23d of January 1343, after which he returned into his native country, and lived in a generous and hospitable manner. Of pope Clement VI. he obtained for himself and successors, the first fruits of all vacant livings within his diocese; which occasioned frequent disputes between hhnsJ.f and his clergy. In 1347, he founded Trinity-hall in Cambridge, for the study of the civil and canon laws, by purchasing certain tenements from the monks of Ely, for which he gave some rectories in exchange, and converted the premises into a hall, dedicated to the holy Trinity. He endowed it with the rectories of Briston, Kymberley, Brimmingham, Woodalling, Cowling, and Stalling, in the diocese of Norwich: and designed that it should consist of a master, twenty fellows, and three scholars; to study the canon and civil law, with an allowance for one divine. But being prevented by death, he left provision only for a master, three fellows, and two scholars. However, by the munificence of subsequent benefactors, it now maintains a master, twelve fellows, and fourteen scholars. Bishop Bateman, from his abilities and address, was often employed by the king and parliament in affairs of the highest importance; and particularly was at the head of several embassies, on purpose to determine the differences between the crowns of England and France. In 1354, he was, by order of parliament, dispatched to the court of Rome, with Henry duke of Lancaster, and others, to treat (in the pope’s presence) of a peace, then in agitation between the two crowns above mentioned. This journey proved fatal to him; for he died at Avignon, where the pope then resided, on the 6th of January 1354-5, and was buried with great solemnity, in the cathedral church of that city. With regard to his person, we are told that he was of an agreeable countenance; and tall, handsome, and well made. He was, likewise, a man of strict justice and piety, punctual in the discharge of his duty, and of a friendly and compassionate disposition. But he was a stout defender of his rights, and would not suffer himself to be injured, or imposed upon, by any one, of which we have the following instance upon record, which perhaps does not more display his resolution than the abject state into which the king and his nobles were reduced by the usurped powers of the church of Rome Robert lord Morley having killed some deer in his parks, and misused his servants, he made him do public penance for the same, by walking uncovered and barefoot, with a wax taper of six pounds in his hands, through the city of Norwich to the cathedral, and then asking his pardon. And all this was done notwithstanding an express order of the king to the contrary, and though his majesty had seized the bishop’s revenues for his obstinacy. But the king was soon after reconciled to him. It remains to be mentioned that bishop Bateman was executor to Edmund Gonville, the founder of the college so called, which gave rise to the report by Godwin and others that he had founded that college or hall, which is evidently a mistake.

, an eminent nonconformist divine of the seventeenth century, was born in November 1625, and after a suitable school education, was sent to Cambridge, where he was admitted of Emanuel college, from which he removed to King’s, in 1644. He commenced bachelor of arts in 1647, and applying himself to the study of divinity, became a distinguished preacher among the Presbyterians. He was afterwards appointed vicar of St. Dunstan’s in the West, London; and joined with several other divines in preaching a morning exercise at Cripplegate church. At this exercise Dr. Tillotson preached, in September 1661, the first sermon which was ever printed by him. Upon the restoration of Charles II. Mr. Bates was made one of his majesty’s chaplains; and, in the November following, was admitted to the degree of doctor in divinity in the university of Cambridge, by royal mandate. The king’s letter to this purpose was dated on the 9th of that month. About the same time, he was offered the deanery of Lichfield and Coventry, which he refused; and it is said that he might afterwards have been raised to any bishopric in the kingdom, if he would have conformed to the established church. Dr. Bates was one of the commissioners at the Savoy conference in 1660, for reviewing the public liturgy, and was concerned in drawing up the exceptions against the Common Prayer. He was, likewise, chosen on the part of the Presbyterian minfoters, together with Dr. Jacomb and Mr. Baxter, to manage the dispute with Dr. Pearson, afterwards bishop of Chester, Dr. Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, and Dr. Sparrow, afterwards bishop of Ely. In 1665, he took the oath required of the nonconformists by the act commonly called the Five Mile Act, and which had passed in the parliament held that year at Oxford, on account of the plague being in London. When, about January 1667-8, a treaty was proposed by sir Orlando Bridgman, lord keeper of the great seal, and countenanced by the lord chief baron Hale, for a comprehension of such of the dissenters as could be brought into the communion of the church, and for a toleration of the rest, Dr. Bates was one of the divines who, on the Presbyterian side, were engaged in drawing up a scheme of the alterations and concessions desired by that party. He was concerned, likewise, in another fruitless attempt of the same kind, which was made in 1674. His good character recommended him to the esteem and acquaintance of lord keeper Bridgman, lord chancellor Finch, and his son, the earl of Nottingham. Dr. Tillotson had such an opinion of his learning and temper, that it became the ground of a friendship between them, which continued to the death of that excellent prelate, and Dr. Bates, with great liberality, used his interest with the archbishop, in procuring a pardon for Nathaniel lord Crewe, bishop of Durham, who, for his conduct in the ecclesiastical commission, had been excepted out of the act of indemnity, which passed in 1690. When the dissenters presented their address to king William and queen Mary, on their accession to the throne, the two speeches to their majesties were delivered hy Dr. Bates, who was much respected by that monarch; and queen Mary often entertained herself in her closet with his writings. His residence, during the latter part of his life, was at Hackney, where he preached to a respectable society of Protestant dissenters, in an ancient irregular edifice in Mare-street, which was pulled down in 1773. He was also one of the Tuesday lecturers at Salter’s hall. He died at Hackney, July 14, 1699, in the 74th year of his age. After his death, his works, which had been separately printed, were collected into one volume fol. besides which a posthumous piece of his appeared in 8vo, containing some “Sermons on the everlasting rest of the Saints.” He wrote, likewise, in conjunction with Mr. Howe, a prefatory epistle to Mr. Chaffy’s treatise of the Sabbath, on its being reprinted; and another before lord Stair’s vindication of the Divine Attributes. Dr. Bates is universally understood to have been the politest writer among the nonconformists of the seventeenth century. It is reported, that when his library came to be disposed of, it was found to contain a great number of romances; but, adds his biographer, it should be remembered that the romances of that period, though absurd in several respects, had a tendency to invigorate

, a learned knight, and eminent justiciary of the thirteenth century, was a younger brother of an ancient family of that name, and born, most probably, at the ancient seat of the family, called Bathe house, in the county of Devon. Being a younger brother, he was brought up to the profession of the law, in the knowledge of which he so distinguished himself, that he was advanced by king Henry III. in 1238, to be one of the justices of the common pleas; and in 1240, was constituted one of the justices itinerant (as they were then called), for the county of Hertford; and in 1248 he was appointed the same for Essex and Surrey; in 1249 for Kent, Berks, Southampton, and Middlesex; and in 1250 for Lincolnshire; at which time he had allowed him out of the exchequer, by a peculiar favour, an hundred pounds a year for his sustentation in the discharge of his office. But the year following he lost the king’s favour, owing to the following crimes being laid to his charge, viz. That he had not exercised his office uprightly, but to his own private gain, having perverted justice through bribes, in a suit betwixt him and one Everard Trumpirigton; and this charge was chiefly supported against him by one Philip de Arcis, knt. who also added treason to that of infidelity in his office. The accused was attached in the king’s court; but one Mansel, who was now become a great favourite at court, offered bail for his appearance: king Henry refused this, the case, as he alledged, not being bailable, but one of high-treason. Fulk Basset, however, then bishop of London, and a great many of De Bathe’s friends interceding, the king at last gave orders that he should be bailed, twenty-four knights becoming sureties for his appearing and standing to the judgment of the court. But De Bathe seems to have been conscious of his own dements, or the prejudices of his judges against him, for he was no sooner set at liberty, than he wrote to all his relations either by blood or marriage, desiring that they would apply to the king in his favour, at first by fair speeches and presents, and if these did not prevail, they should appear in a more warlike manner, which they unanimously promised to do, upon the encouragement given them by a bold knight, one Nicholas de Sandford. But the king, confiding in his own power and the interest of De Bathe’s accusers, appeared inexorable, and rejected all presents from the friends of the accused. De Bathe, convinced that, if Henry persisted in his resolution, he himself must perish, had recourse to the bishop of London, and other special friends, and with a great posse of these went to Richard earl of Cornwall (afterwards king of the Romans), whom by prayer and promises he won over to his interest. The king remaining inflexible, about the end of February, De Bathe was obliged to appear to answer what should be laid to his charge. This he accordingly did, but strongly defended by a great retinue of armed knights, gentlemen, and others, viz. his own and his wife’s friends and relations, among whom was the family of the Bassets and the Sandfords. The assembly was now divided between those who depended upon the king for their preferments, and those who (though a great majority) were so exasperated at the measures of the court, that they were resolved not to find De Bathe guilty. It was not long before the king perceived this, and proclaimed that whosoever had any action or complaint against Henry de Bathe, should come in and should be heard. A new charge was now brought against De Bathe: he was impeached (not only on the former articles, but particularly) for alienating the affections of the barons from his majesty, and creating such a ferment all over the kingdom, that a general sedition was on the point of breaking out; and Bathe’s brotherjusticiary declared to the assembly, that he knew the accused to have dismissed without any censure, for the sake of lucre, a convicted criminal. Many other complaints were urged against him, but they seem to have been disregarded by all, except the king and his party, who was so much exasperated to see De Bathe likely to be acquitted, that he mounted his throne, and with his own mouth made proclamation, That whosoever should kill Henry de Bathe, should have the royal pardon for him and his heirs; after which speech he went out of the room in a great passion. Many of the royal party, upon this savage intimation, were for dispatching De Bathe in court: but his friend Mansel, one of the king’s counsel, and Fulk Basset, bishop of London, interposed so effectually, that he was saved; and afterwards, by the powerful mediation of his friends (among whom was the earl of Cornwall, the king’s brother, and the bishop of London), and the application of a sum of money, viz. 2,000 marks to the king, he obtained not only pardon, but all his former places and favour with the king, who re-established him in the same seat of judicature as he was in before, and rather advanced him higher; for he was made chief-justice of the king’s bench, in which honourable post he continued till the time of his death, as Dugdale informs us: for in 1260, we find that he was one of the justices itinerant for the counties of Huntingdon, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridge, which was the year before he died. Browne Willis in h is Cathedrals (vol.ii. p. 410.) mentions that he was buried in Christ church, Oxford, but the editor of Wood’s colleges and halls, asks how any one can conceive the effigy of a man in armour to have been intended for a justiciary of England? This, however, is not decisive against the effigies on this tomb being intended for Henry de Bathe, because from the king’s threat above, which might be executed by any assassin, it is very probable that he might have been obliged to wear armour, even after the king was reconciled to him.

, an Irish Jesuit, was born in Dublin in 1564. It is said that he was of a sullen, saturnine temper, and disturbed in his mind, because his family was reduced from its ancient splendour. His parents, who were Protestants, having a greater regard to learning than religion, placed him under the tuition of an eminent popish school-master, who fitted him for that station of life which he afterwards embraced. He then removed to Oxford, where he studied several years with indefatigable industry: but the inquisitive Anthony Wood could not discover in what college or hall he sojourned, or whether he took any university degree. The same writer alledges, that growing weary of the heresy professed in England (as he usually called the Protestant faith), he quitted the nation and his religion together, and in 1596 was initiated among the Jesuits, being then between thirty and forty years of age; though one of his own order says he was then but twentyfive, which certainly is erroneous. Having spent some time among the Jesuits in Flanders, Ik; travelled into Italy, and completed his studies at Padua; from whence he passed into Spain, being appointed to govern the Irish seminary at Salamanca. He is said to have had a most ardent zeal for making converts, and was much esteemed among the people of his persuasion for his extraordinary virtues and good qualities, though he was of a temper not very sociable. At length, taking a journey to Madrid to transact some business of his order, he died on the 17th of June 1614, and was buried in the Jesuits 7 convent of that city, bearing among his brethren a reputation for learning; particularly on account of a work which he published to facilitate the acquirement of any language, entitled “Janua Linguarum, seu modus maxime accommodatus, quo patent aditus ad omnes linguas intelligendas,” Salamanca, 1611. Besides one or two tracts on confessions and penance, he wrote, when a youth at Oxford, “An introduction to the art of Music,” London, 1584, 4to. In this work, which is dedicated to his uncle Gerald Fitzgerald earl of Kildare, the author displays a good opinion of his own performance, but thought proper, some years after its first publication, to write it over again in such a manner, as scarcely to retain a single paragraph of the former edition. This latter edition was printed by Thomas Este, without a date, with the title of “A briefe introduction to the skill of Song; concerning the practice; set forth by William Bathe, gent.” From sir John Hawkins’s account of both these productions, and his extracts from them, it does not appear that they have any great merit. The style, in particular, is very perplexed and disagreeable.

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

, ranked among the old English poets of the sixteenth century, was a native of Somersetshire, and born at Bruton, in that county, where he was educated. He afterwards went to Cambridge, and studied philosophy and divinity, and when in orders acquired the character of a learned and pious preacher. It is in his favour that he was long domestic chaplain to archbishop Parker, whom he assisted in the collecting of books and Mss. and informs us himself that within the space of four years, he had added six thousand seven hundred books to the archbishop’s library. This information we have in his “Doom.” Speaking of the archbishop, under the year 1575, the year he died, he adds, “with whom books remained (although the most part, according to the time, superstitious and fabulous, yet) some worthy the view and safe-keeping, gathered within four years, of divinity, astronomy, history, physic, and others of sundry arts and sciences (as I can truly avouch, having his grace’s commission, whereunto his hand is yet to be seen) six thousand seven hundred books, by my own travel, whereof choice being taken, he most graciously bestowed many on Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, &c.” In 1574, he was rector of Merstham in Surrey, and afterwards, being then D. D. chaplain to Henry lord Hunsdon, to whom he dedicated his translation of “BartholomaBus de proprietatibus rerum,” Lund. 1582, fol. The other work above-mentioned is entitled “The Doom, warning all men to judgment: wherein are contained for the most part all the strange prodigies happened in the world, with divers secret figures of revelation, gathered in the manner of a general chronicle out of approved authors, by Stephen Batman, professor in divinity,” London, 1581, 4to. It appears to he a translation of Lycosthenes “De prodigiis et ostentis,” with additions from the English chronicles. He published also “A christall glass of Christian reformation, wherein the godly may behold the coloured abuses used in this our present time,” London, 1569, 4to, with some pieces of poetry interspersed. Mr. Ritson mentions another of his publications in the same year, but without place or printer’s name, called “The travayled Pilgrime, bringing newes from all partes of the worlde, such like scarce harde of before,” 4to. This Mr. Ritson describes as an allegorico-theological romance of the life of man, imitated from the French or Spanish, in verse of fourteen syllables. His other works, enumerated by Tanner, are, “Joyfull news out of Helvetia from Theophrastus Paracelsus, declaring the ruinate fall of the Papal Dignitie; also a treatise against Usury,” Lond. 1575, 8vo. “A preface before John Rogers, displaying of the family of Love,” 1579, 8vo. “Of the arrival of the three Graces into England, lamenting the abuses of this present age,” 'London, 4to, no date. “Golden book of the leaden gods,” Lond. 1577, 4to, mentioned by Mr. Warton as one of the first of those descriptions of the heathen gods, called a Pantheon. “Notes to Leland’s Assertio Arthuri, translated by Rich. Robinson,” Lond. no date. Batman died in 1587. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to add that his works are now rarely to be met with, particularly the “Doom,” which had a great many wooden cuts of monsters, prodigies, &c. His “Christall glass” and the "Golden book are in the British Museum.

, an English physician of considerable eminence, was born at Medbury, in Devonshire, 1704, the son of Edward Battie, and grandson of William Battie, D. D. He received his education at Eton, where his mother resided after her husband’s death, in order to assist her son, on the spot, with that advice, and those accommodations, which would have been more useless and expensive, had she lived at a greater distance. In 1722 he" was sent to King’s college, Cambridge, and on a vacancy of the Craven scholarship, he succeeded to it by a com-1 bination of singular circumstances. The candidates being reduced to six, the provost, Dr. Snape, examined them all together, that they might, as he said, be witnesses to the successful candidate. The three candidates from King’s were examined in Greek authors, and the provost dismissed them with this pleasing compliment, that not being yet determined in his choice, he must trouble them to come again. The other electors were so divided, as, after a year and a day, to let the scholarship lapse to the donor’s family, when lord Craven gave it to Battle. Probably the remembrance continued with him, and induced him to make a similar foundation in the university, with a stipend of 20l. a year, and the same conditions for the beuetit of others, which is called Dr. Battie’s foundation. He nominated to it himself, while living, and it is now filled up by the electors to the Craven scholarships. To Battie this scholarship was of much importance, and, as appears by a letter he wrote in 1725, when he got it, he was enabled to live comfortably. In 1726, he took his bachelor’s, and in 1730, his master’s degree.

In 1746 he published an Harveian oration, and in 1749, being then F.lt. S. published his complete edition of Isocrates, 2 vols. 8vo, a work of which the learned and critical Harles does not speak in the highest terms of commendation, and seems to insinuate that the editor was deficient in judgment and talents. In the dispute which the college of physicians had with Dr. Schomberg, about the year 1750, Dr. Battie was one of the censors, and took a very active part against that gentleman, in consequence of which he was thus severely, but not altogether unjustly ridiculed, in a poem called “The Battiad,” said to be written by Moses Mendez, Paul Whitehead, and Dr. Schomberg, and since reprinted in Dilly’s “Repository,” 1776. The lines are these

In April 1764, he resigned the office of physician to St. Luke’s hospital. In 1767, when disputesran very high between the college of physicians and the licentiates, Dr. Battie wrote several letters in the public papers, in vindication of the college. In 1776, he was seized with a paralytic stroke, which proved fatal, June 13, in his 72d year. The night he expired, conversing with his servant, a lad who attended on him as a nurse, he said to him, “Young man, you have heard, no doubt, how great are the terrors of death. This night will probably afford you some experience; but may you learn, and may you profit by the example, that a conscientious endeavour to perform his duty through life, will ever close a Christian’s eyes with comfort and tranquillity.” He soon after departed, without a struggle or a groan, and was buried by his own direction, at Kingston-upon-Thames, “as near as possible to his wife, without any monument or memorial whatever.” He left three daughters, Anne, Catherine, and Philadelphia, of whom the eldest was married to sir George Young (a gallant English admiral who died in 1810.) This lady sold her father’s house and estate at Marlow, called Court garden, to Mr. Davenport, an eminent surgeon of London. The second was married to Jonathan Rashleigh, esq. and the third to John, afterwards sir John Call, bart. in the hon. East India company’s service. Dr. Battie gave by his will 100l. to St. Luke’s hospital; 100l. to the corporation for the relief of widows and children of clergymen, and twenty guineas to earl Camden, as a token of regard for his many public and private virtues. His books and papers, whether published or not, he gave to his daughter Anne. Among these was a tract on the meaning of 1 Cor. xv. 22, and some others which were printed before his death, but not published, nor have we seen a copy.

Dr. Battie, it may already be surmised, was of that class called humourists, and he had also a turn for speculations a little out of the way of his profession. His house at Harlow was built under his own direction, but he forgot the stair-case, and all the offices below were constantly under water. A favourite scheme of his, for having the barges drawn up the river by horses instead of men, rendered him unpopular among the bargemen, and at one time he narrowly escaped being thrown over the bridge by them, but he pacified them by acting Punch. In this sclu ae he is said to have lost 1000l. and for fear of future insults, he always carried pocket-pistols about him. He affected in the country to be his own day-labourer, and to dress like one, and was, on one occasion, refused admittance to a gentleman’s house, where he was intimate, the servants not knowing him in this disguise, but he forced himself in by main force. Upon the whole, however, he was a man of learning, benevolence, and skill.

, brother of the preceding, was born at Basil, Jan. 17, 1.560, and at the early age of sixteen began to study medicine. In 1577 he went to Padua, where he was instructed in botany and anatomy, and afterwards visited the university of Montpellier, and the most celebrated schools of Germany. On his return to Basil in 1580, he took his doctor’s degree, and was appointed by the faculty to lecture on anatomy and botany. In 1582 he was elected professor of Greek; and in 1588 professor of anatomy and botany. In 1596, Frederick duke of Wirtemberg gave him the title of his physician, which he had before conferred on his brother. He was also, in 1614, principal city physician, and in the course of his life four times rector of the university, and eight times dean of the faculty of medicine. He died Dec. 5, 1624, after establishing a very high reputation for his knowledge in botany and anatomy, in both which he published some valuable works. The principal were his representations of plants, and especially what he called the exhibition of the botanical theatre “Phytopinax,” Basil, 1596, 4to, and “Pinax Theatri Botanici,” ib. 1623, 4to), a work which was the fruit of fourteen years collections and labours, and served much to facilitate the study of botany, and to promote its knowledge. Bauhin was not the creator of a system, but he reformed many abuses and defects, especially the confusion of names. He collected the synonymous terms of six thousand plants, which various authors had capriciously assigned to them. This prevented the many mistakes which till then had been made by botanists, who took several descript plants for non-descripts, and gave them few names, only because they had been described too much and too variously. Bauhin himself made several mistakes in this new method, which, however, considering the whole extent of his merit, candour would overlook. After his time botany stood still for some years, the learned thinking it sufficient if they knew and called the plants by the names which Bauhin had given them. Manget and other writers have given a large list of Bauhin’s other works, which we suspect is not quite oprrect, some being attributed to Gaspar which belong to John, and vice versa. Other branches of this family were physicians of eminence in their time, but did not arrive to the same fame as authors.

, a philosopher of the German school, was born at Berlin, June 17, 1714. He studied divinity at Halle, at a time when it was a crime to read the writings of the celebrated Wolff, but these he perused with avidity, and cultivated the friendship of their author. Mathematics became afterwards his favourite study, and he conceived at the same time the idea of elevating the belles-lettres to a rank among the sciences, and the science according to which he explained his principles on this subject, he called Esthetics. At Halle, he was professor of logic, metaphysics, the law of nature and moral philosophy. He died at Francfort on the Oder, May 26, 1762. His principal works are: 1. “Disputa-io de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus,” Halle, 1735, 4to, in which he discloses the principles of his Esthetics. 2. “Metaphysica,” Halle, 1739, 1743, and 1763, 8vo, a work highly praised by his countrymen. 3. “Etica philosophica,” ibid. 1740, 1751, 1762. 4. “JEsthetica,” Francfort, 1750, 1758, 2 vols. 8vo, but not completed. 5. “Initia philosophise practicae primae,” ibid. 1760, 8vo. His brother Siegmond, was a Lutheran divine, and a most voluminous writer. He died in 1757. One of the best of his works which we have seen, is a supplement to the English Universal History, printed about 1760.

, was born at Schweinfurt, Sept. 30, 1605; his father, Leonard Bausch, a physician in that place, acquired some fame about the beginning of the seventeenth century, by his commentary on two of the books of Hippocrates, which was published at Madrid, 1694, fol. His son was early inclined to his father’s profession, and after studying medicine in Germany, went to Italy, and lastly, took his doctor’s degree at Altdorf, in 1630. He practised afterwards at Schweinfurt, and employed all his leisure time in botanical and chemical pursuits, accumulating a valuable library, and a rich museum of natural history. In 1652 he founded a society called “Collegium Curiosorum naturae,” of which he was the first president. He died at Schweinfurt, Nov. 17, 1665. He was the author of 1. “Schediasmata bina curiosa de lapide hcematite et cetite,” Leipsic, 1665, 8vo, with a dissertation on the blood prefixed. 2. “Schediasma curiosum de unicornu fossili,” Breslaw, 1666, 8vo. 3. “Schediasma posthumum, de cceruleo et chryocolla,” Jena, 1668, 8vo.

In the second volume of his Enquiry, Mr. Baxter has inserted a very copious Essay on the Phenomenon of Dreaming, and what he has advanced on this subject excited much attention at the time of its first publication. He endeavoured to prove, that the scenes presented to the soul in sleep, in which there is so much variety, action, and life, nay oftentimes speech and reason, cannot be the effect of mechanism, or any cause working mechanically: And farther, that the pay?<7/>ea, or what is properly called the vision, is not the work of the soul itself. His conclusion was, that ‘ our dreams are prompted by separate immaterial beings:’ that there are living beings existing separate from matter; that they act in that state; and that they act upon the matter of our bodies, and prompt our sleeping visions. Some observations upon this subject, and several objections to Mr. Baxter’s hypothesis, may be found in Mr. David Fordyce’s ‘ Dialogues concerning Education,’ vol. II. p. 223 257.

In 1640, he was invited to be minister at Kidderminster, which he accepted; and had been here two years when the civil war broke out. He was a favourer of the parliament, which exposed him to some inconveniences, and obliged him to retire to Gloucester; but being strongly solicited, he returned to Kidderminster. However, not finding himself safe in this place, he again quitted it, and took up his residence at Coventry, where he lived in perfect quiet, preaching once every Sunday to the garrison, and once to the town’s people, and contending warmly against the Anabaptists. After Naseby fight, he was appointed chaplain to colonel Whalley’s regiment, and was present at several sieges, but was never in any engagement, although a story was afterwards raised that he had killed a man in cool blood, and robbed him of a medal. This was first told by Dr. Boreman of Trinity college, Cambridge, and became very current until Mr. Baxter refuted it in his “Catholic Communion,” 1684. In 1647 he was obliged to leave the army, by a sudden illness, and retired to sir Thomas Rouse’s, where he continued a long time in a languishing state of health. He afterwards returned to Kidderminster, where he continued to preach with great success. He is said to have impeded, as far as was in his power, the taking of the covenant, and what was called the engagement, and hoth spoke and wrote against the army marching to Scotland to oppose Charles II. And when Cromwell gained the superiority, Mr. Baxter expressed his dissatisfaction to his measures, hut did not think proper to preach against him from the pulpit: once indeed he preached Before the protector, and made use of the following text: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions amongst you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” He levelled his discourse against the divisions and distractions of the church. A while after Cromwell sent to speak with him: when he began a long and serious speech to him of God’s providence in the change of the government, and how God had owned it, and what great things had been done at home and abroad in the peace with Spain and Holland. Mr. Baxter told him, “It was too great condescension to acquaint him so fully with all these matters, which were above him: but that the honest people of the land took their ancient monarchy to be a blessing, and not an evil; and humbly craved his patience, that he might ask him, how they had forfeited that blessing, and unto whom that forfeiture was made r” Upon this question Cromwell became angry, and told him, “There was no forfeiture, but God had changed it as pleased him;” and then he reviled the parliament, which thwarted him, and especially by name four or five members, Mr. Baxter’s particular acquaintances, whom he presumed to defend against the protec tor’s passion. A few days after he sent for him again, under pretence of asking him his opinion about liberty of conscience; at which time also he made a long tedious speech, which took up so much time, that Mr. Baxter desired to offer his sentiments in writing, which he did, but says, he questions whether Cromwell read them.

Mr. Baxter came to London a little before the depositioa of Richard Cromwell, and preached before the parliament the day preceding that on which they voted the king’s return. He preached likewise before the lord mayor at St. Paul’s a thanksgiving sermon for general Monk’s success. Upon the king’s restoration he was appointed one of his chaplains in ordinary, preached once before him, liad frequent access to his majesty, and was always treated by him with peculiar respect. He assisted at the conference at the Savoy, as one of the commissioners, and drew up a reformed Liturgy, which Dr. Johnson pronounced “one of the finest compositions of the ritual kind he had ever seen.” He was offered the bishopric of Hereford by the lord chancellor Clarendon, which he refused, and gave his lordship his reasons for not accepting of it, in a letter; he required no favour but that of being permitted to continue minister at Kidderminster, but could not obtain it. Being thus disappointed, he preached occasionally about the city of London, having a licence from bishop Sheldon, upon his subscribing a promise not to preach any thing against the doctrine or ceremonies of the church. May 15, 1662, he preached his farewell sermon at Blackfriars, and afterwards retired to Acton in Middlesex. In 1665, during the plague, he went to Richard Hampden’s, esq. in Buckinghamshire; and when it ceased, returned to Acton. He continued here as long as the act against conventicles was in force, and, when that was expired, had so many auditors that he wanted room: but, while thus employed, by a. warrant signed by two justices, he was committed for six months to New Prison gaol; having, however, procured an habeas corpus, he was discharged, and removed to Totteridge near Barnet. In this affair, he experienced the sincerity of many of his best friends. As he was going to prison, he called upon serjcant Fountain for his advice, who, after perusing the mittimus, said, that he might be discharged from his imprisonment by law. The earl of Orrery, fche earl of Manchester, the earl of Arlington, and the duke of Buckingham, mentioned the affair to the king, who was pleased to send sir John Baber to him, to let him know, that though his majesty was not willing to relax the law, yet he would not be offended, if by any application to the courts in Westminster-hall he could procure his liberty; upon this an habeas corpus was demanded at the bar of the common pleas, and granted. The judges were clear in their opinion, that die mittimus was insufficient, and thereupon discharged him. This exasperate;! the justices who committed him; and therefore they made a new mittimus in order to hn.ve sent him to the connty-gnol of Newgi-te, which he avoided by keeping out of the way. After the indulgence in 1672, he returned to London, and preached on week-days at Pinner’s hall, at a meeting in. Fetter-lane, and in St. James’s market house and the times appearing more favourable about two years after, he built a meeting-house in Oxenden-street, where he had preached but once, when a resolution was formed to take him by surprise, and send him to the county gaol, on the Oxford act; which misfortune he escaped, but the person who happened to preach for him was sent to the Gate-house, where he was confined three months. After having been three years kept out of his meeting-house, he took another in Swallow-street, but was likewise prevented from preaching there, a guard having been placed for many Sundays to hinder his entrance. Upon the death of Mr. Wadsworth, he preached to his congregation in South wark.

In 1632, he was seized by a warrant, for coming within five miles of a corporation and five more warrants were served upon him to distrain for 195l. as a penalty for five sermons he had preached, so that his books and goods were sold. He was not, however, imprisoned on this occasion, which was owing to Dr. Thomas Cox, who went to five justices of the peace, before whom he swore that Mr. Baxter was in such a bad state of health, that he could not go to prison without danger of death. In the beginning of 1685, he was committed to the king’s bench prison, by a warrant from the lord chief justice Jefferies, for his paraphrase on the New Testament; and on May 18, of the same year, he was tried in the court of king’s bench, and found guilty. He was condemned to prison for two years; but, in 1686, king James, by the mediation of the lord Powis, granted him a pardon; and on Nov. 24, he was discharged out of the king’s bench. After which he retired to a house in Charterhouse-yard, where he assisted Mr. Sylvester every Sunday morning, and preached a lecture every Thursday. Mr. Baxter died Dec. the 8th, 1691, and was interred in Christ-church, whither his corpse was attended by a numerous company of persons of different ranks, and many clergymen of the established church. He wrote a great number of books. Mr. Long of Exeter says fourscore; Dr. Calamy, one hundred and twenty; but the author of a note in the Biographia Britannica tells us he had seen an. hundred and forty-rive distinct treatises of Mr. Baxter’s: his practical works have been published in four volumes folio. Of these his “Saint’s Everlasting Rest,” and his “Call to the Unconverted,” are the most popular, but excepting the last, we know not of any of his works that have been reprinted for a century past, doubtless owing to his peculiar notions on points about which the orthodox dissenters are agreed. Bishop Burnet, in the History of his own times, calls him “a man of great piety” and says, “that if he had not meddled with too many things, he would have been esteemed one of the most learned men of the age; that he had a moving and pathetical way of writing, and was his whole life long a man of great zeal and much simplicity, but was unhappily subtle and metaphysical in every thing.” This character may be justly applied to Mr. Baxter, whose notions agreed with no church, and no sect. The consequence was, that no man was ever more the subject of controversy. Calamy says that about sixty treatises were opposed to him and his writings. What his sentiments were, will appear from the following sketch, drawn up by the late Dr. Kippis. “His Theological System has been called Baxterianism, and those who embrace his sentiments in divinity, are styled Baxterians. Baxterianism strikes into a middle path between Calvinism and Arminianism, endeavouring, in some degree, though perhaps not very consistently, to unite both schemes, and to avoid the supposed errors of each. The Baxterians, we apprehend, believe in the doctrines of election, effectual calling, and other tenets of Calvinism, and, consequently, suppose that a certain number, determined upon in the divine counsels, will infallibly be saved. This they think necessary to secure the ends of Christ’s interposition. But then, on the other hand, they reject the doctrine of reprobation, and admit that our blessed Lord, in a certain sense, died for all; and that such a portion of grace is allotted to every man, as renders it his own fault, if he doth not attain to eternal happiness. If he improves the common grace given to all mankind, this will be followed by that special grace which will end in his final acceptance and salvation. Whether the Baxterians are of opinion, that any, besides the elect, will actually make such a right use of common grace, as to obtain the other, and, at length, come to heaven, we cannot assuredly say. There may possibly be a difference of sentiment upon the subject, according as they approach nearer to Calvinism or to Arminianism. Mr. Baxter appears likewise to have modelled the doctrines of justification, and the perseverance of the saints, in a manner which was not agreeable to the rigid Calvinihts. His distinctions upon all these heads we do not mean particularly to inquire into, as they would not be very interesting to the generality of our readers. Some foreign divines, in the last century, struck nearly into the same path; and particularly, in France, Mons. le Blanc, Mr. Cameron, and the celebrated Mons. Amyrault. For a considerable time, the non-conformist clergy in England were divided into scarcely any but two doctrinal parties, the Calvinists and the Baxterians. There were, indeed, a few direct Arminians among them, whose number was gradually increasing. Of late, since many of the dissenters have become more bold in their religious sentiments, the Baxterians among them have been less numerous. However, they are still a considerable body; and several persons are fond of the name, as a creditable one, who, we believe, go farther than Mr. Baxter did. The denomination, like other theological distinctions which have prevailed in the world, will probably, in a course of time, sink into desuetude, till it is either wholly forgotten, or the bare memory of it be only preserved in some historical production.”

In 1686, he was drawn into a dispute respecting the famous Christina queen of Sweden: in his Journal for April, he took notice of a printed letter, supposed to have been written by her Swedish majesty to the chevalier de Terlon, wherein she condemns the persecution of the protestants in France. He inserted the letter itself in his Journal for May; and in that of June following he says: “What we hinted at in our last month, is confirmed to us from day to day, that Christina is the real author of the letter concerning the persecutions in France which is ascribed to her: it is a remainder of protestantism.” Mr. Bayle received an anonymous letter, the author of which says, that he wrote to him of his own accord, being in duty bound to it, as a servant of the queen. He complains that Mr. Bayle, speaking of her majesty, called her only Christina, without any title; he finds also great fault with his calling the letter, “a remainder of protestantism.” He blames him likewise for inserting the words “I am,” in the conclusion of the letter. “These words, says this anonymous writer, are not her majesty’s; a queen, as she is, cannot employ these words but with regard to a very few persons, and Mr. de Terlon is not of that number.” Mr. Bayle wrote a vindication of himself as to these particulars, with which the author of the anonymous letter declared himself satisfied, excepting as to what related to “the remainder of protestantism.” He would not admit of the defence with regard to that expression; and, in another letter, advised him to retract it. He adds in a postscript, “You mention in your Journal of August, a second letter of the queen, which you scruple to publish. Her majesty would be glad to see that letter, and you will do a thing agreeable to her, if you would send it to her. You might take this opportunity of writing to her majesty. This counsel may be of some use to you; do not neglect it.” Mr. Bayle took ithe hint, and wrote a letter to her majesty, dated the 14th of November 1686; to which the queen, on the 14th of December, wrote the following answer:

This prophecy, however, is called in question by others, who treat it as a story invented after the cardinal’s death. Archbishop Spotswood and Mr. Petrie follow Buchanan in regard to the circumstances of Mr. Wishart’s death and his prophecy. On the other side, Mr. Keith suggests that the story is very doubtful, if not false. “I confess,” says he, “I give but small credit to this, and to some other persons that suffered for religion in our country, and which upon that account I have all along omitted to narrate. I own I think them ridiculous enough, and seemingly contrived, at least magnified, on purpose to render the judges and clergymen of that time odious and despicable in the eyes of men. And as to this passage concerning Mr 1 Wishart, it may be noticed, that there is not one word of it to be met with in the first edition of Mr. Knox’s History; and if the thing had been true in fact, I cannot see how Mr. Knox, who was so good an acquaintance of Mr. Wishart’s, and no farther distant from the place of his execution than East Lothian, and who continued some months along with the murderers of cardinal Beaton in the castle of St. Andrew’s, could either be ignorant of the story, or neglect in history so remarkable a prediction. And it has even its own weight, that sir David Lindsay, who lived at that time, and wrote a poem called ‘ The tragedy of cardinal Beaton,’ in which he rakes together all the worst things that could be suggested against this prelate, yet makes no mention either of his glutting himself inhumanly with the spectacle of Mr. Wishart’s death, nor of any prophetical intermination made by Mr. Wishart concerning the cardinal; nor does Mr. Fox take notice of either of these circumstances, so that I am much of the mind, that it has been a story trumped up a good time after the murder.”

Soon after the death of Mr. Wishart, the cardinal went to Finhaven, the seat of the earl of Crawford, to solemnize a marriage between the eldest son of that nobleman and his daughter Margaret. Whilst he was thus employed, intelligence came that the king of England was making great preparations to invade the Scottish coasts. Upon this he immediately returned to St. Andrew’s; and appointed a day for the nobility and gentry of that country, which lies much exposed to the sea, to meet and consult what was proper to be done upon this occasion. He likewise began to fortify his own castle much stronger than ever it had been before. Whilst he was busy about these matters, there came to him Norman Lesley, eldest son to the earl of Rothes, to solicit him for some favour; who, having met with a refusal, was highly exasperated, and went away in great displeasure. His uncle Mr. John Lesley, a violent enemy to the cardinal, greatly aggravated this injury to his nephew; who, being passionate and of a daring spirit, entered into a conspiracy with his uncle and some other persons to cut off the cardinal. The accomplices met early in the morning, on Saturday the 29th of May. The first thing they did was to seize the porter of the castle, and to secure the gate: they then turned out all the servants and several workmen. This was performed with so little noise, that the cardinal was not waked till they knocked at his chamber door upon which he cried out, “Who is there?” John Lesley answered, “My name is Lesley.” “Which Lesley?” replied the cardinal, “Is it Norman?” It was answered, “that he must open the door to those who were there,” but being afraid, he secured the door in the best manner he could. Whilst they were endeavouring to force it open, the cardinal called to them, “Will you have my life?” John Lesley answered, “Perhaps we will.” “Nay,” replied the cardinal, “swear unto me, and I will open it.” Some authors say, that upon a promise being given that no violence should be offered, he opened the door; but however this be, as soon as they entered, John Lesley smote him twice or thrice, as did likewise Peter Carmichael; but James Melvil, as Mr. Knox relates the fact, perceiving them to be in choler, said, “This work and judgment of God, although it be secret, ought to be done with greater gravity; and, presenting the point of his sword, said, Repent thee of thy wicked life, but especially of the shedding the blood of that notable instrument of God, Mr. George Wishart, which albeit the flame of fire consumed before men, yet cries it for vengeance upon thee; and we from God are sent to revenge it. For here, before my God, I protest, that neither the hatred of thy person, the love of thy riches, nor the fear of any trouble thou couldst have done to me in particular, moved or moveth me to strike thee; but only because thou hast been, and remainest, an obstinate enemy against Christ Jesus and his holy gospel.” After having spoken thus, he stabbed him twice or thrice through the body: thus fell that famous prelate, a man of great parts, but of pride and ambition boundless, and withal an eminent instance of the instability of what the world calls fortune. This event is said to have taken place May 29, 1546. Though cardinal Beaton’s political abilities were undoubtedly of the highest kind, and some false stories may have been told concerning him, it is certain that his ambition was unbounded, that his insolence was carried to the greatest pitch, and that his character, on the whole, was extremely detestable. His violence, as a persecutor, must ever cause his memory to be held in abhorrence, by all who have any feelings of humanity, or any regard for religious liberty. It is to the honour of Mr. Guthrie, that, in his History of Scotland, he usually speaks of our prelate with indignation.

The story of Wishart’s prediction, concerning the fate of his malignant persecutor, seems to be controverted on good grounds. If there be any thing in the fact, it certainly was not a prophecy properly so called, but a mere denunciation of the divine vengeance, which Wishart might naturally think would fall upon the cardinal for his iniquities. He could not but know, too, how hateful Beaton was to many persons, and that he might be expected to become a victim to his arrogance and cruelty. Mr. Hume, who admits the prediction, says that it was probably the immediate cause of the event which it foretold. Whatever becomes of this part of the story concerning Wishart’s martyrdom, the other part of it, relative to the cardinal’s viewing the execution from a window, is highly credible, and perfectly suitable to his character.

When this work was completed, so many difficulties occurred in procuring it to be published, that his friends, sir William Forbes and Mr. Arbuthnot, were obliged to become the-pnrchasers, unknown to him, at a price with which they thought he would be satisfied. Sir William accordingly wrote to him that the manuscript was sold for fifty guineas, as the price of the first edition. This edition was published in an octavo volume in 1770, and bought up with such avidity that a second was called for, and published in the following year. The interval was short, but as the work had excited the public attention in an extraordinary degree, the result of public opinion had reached the author’s ear, and to this second edition he added a postscript, in vindication of a certain degree of warmth of which he had been accused.

, in Latin Belcarius Plguilio, bishop of Metz, a man of some note in the sixteenth century, was born April 15, 1514, of one of the most ancient families of the Bourbonnois. The progress he male in polite literature induced Claude de Lorraine, the h'rst duke of Guise, to choose him to be preceptor to cardinal de Lorraine, his second son, an appointment which very naturally, we will not say very justly, attached him to the family of Guise, and made him too partial in his writings to their character. He attended his pupil to Rome, where he became acquainted with Paul Jovius, in whose history he afterwards pointed out some errors. On his return from Italy, the cardinal of Lorraine procured him in 1555 the bishopric of Metz, but according to Beza (Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. xvi. p. 439), this was little more than a titular preferment, the cardinal reserving the revenues, or the greater part of them, to himself. According to the same author, Beaucaire, with two other bishops, came to Metz, and occasioned an alarm among the inhabitants of the reformed religion, some of whom thought proper to retire for safety from the city. Beza, however, adds that Beaucaire only wrote a small tract in Latin on “Sanctification,” and “The Baptism of Infants,” which was soon answered. Some time after his promotion, his patron, the cardinal, carried him with him to the council, on the day that the fathers of the council had appointed as a thanksgiving for the battle of Dreux, fought Jan. 3, 1563, and here Beaucaire pronounced an oration, which was much applauded, and is inserted at the end of the thirtieth book of his “History of his own times.” This work he began in 1568, when he resigned his bishopric to his patron, and retired to his castle of la Chrete in Bourbonnois. He died Feb. 14-, 1591. His history, which extends from 1461 to 1580, or according to Bayle from 1462 to 1567, according to either account is not very properly called a history of his own times. The title of the publication, however, is “Rerum Gallicarum Coramentaria, ab. A. 1462 usque ad A. 1566,” Lyons, 1625, fol. Saxius doubts whether he be the same Francis Bellicarius, who translated the first book of the Greek Anthology into Latin, as asserted by Fabricius, and which was published at Paris, 1543, 4to. His other works are so differently and confusedly spoken of, that we shall refer our readers to his biographers, rather than attempt to reconcile them. His tract on the baptism of infants, above alluded to by Beza, may perhaps be “Traité des enfans morts dans le sein de leurs meres,” 1567, 8vo, the question being, whether children dying in the womb, and consequently without baptism, are saved, which he was disposed to answer in the negative. The Calvinists held that children dying in infancy are saved, an opinion, we presume, that will seldom be denied.

The virtues of this lady are exceedingly celebrated. Her humility was such, that she would often say, “on condition that the princes of Christendom would combine themselves, and march against the common enemy the Turks, she would most willingly attend them, and be their laundress in the camp.” For her chastity, the rev. Mr. Baker, who republished bishop Fisher’s “Funeral Sermon” on her, in 1708, informs us in a preface, that, as it was unspotted in her marriage, so in her last husband’s days, and long before his death, she obtained a licence of him to live chaste; upon which she took upon her the vow of celibacy from Fisher’s hands, in a form yet extant in the registers of St. John’s-college in Cambridge; and for this reason, as Baker supposes, her portrait is usually taken in the habit of a nun. All thw for a lady who had had three husbands, and was now advanced in life, will not, we are afraid, be considered as any very violent degree of constraint. Her education, however, had qualified her for a studious and retired way of life. She understood the French language perfectly, and had some skill in the Latin; but would often lament that in her youth she did not make herself a perfect mistress of it. This affection for literature no doubt induced her mother-in-law, the duchess of Buckingham, to give her the following legacy in her last will “To her daughter Richmond, a book of English, being a legend of saints; a book of French, called Lucun another book of French, of the epistles and gospels and a primer with clasps of silver gilt, covered with purple velvet.” This was a considerable legacy of its kind at that time, when few of her sex were taught letters; for it has often been mentioned as an extraordinary accomplishment in Jane Shore, the darling mistress of Edward IV. that she could write and read.

Lady Margaret, however, could do both; and there are some of her literary performances still extant. She published, “The mirroure of golde for the sinful 1 soule,” translated from a French translation of a book called, * Speculum aureum peccatorum,' very scarce. She also translated out of French into English, the fourth book of Gerson’s treatise “Of the imitation and following the blessed life of our most merciful Saviour Christ,” printed at the nd of Dr. William Atkinson’s English translation of the three first books, 1504. A letter to her son is printed in Howard’s “Collection of Letters.” She also made, -by her son’s command and authority, the orders, yet extant, for great estates of ladies and noble women, for their precedence, &c. She was not only a lover of learning, but a great patroness of learned men; and did more acts of real goodness for the advancement of literature in general, than could reasonably have been expected from so much superstition. Erasmus has spoken great things of her, for the munificence shewn in her foundations and donations of several kinds; a large account of which is given by Mr. Baker, in the preface prefixed to the “Funeral Sermon.” What adds greatly to the merit of these donations is, that some of the most considerable of them were performed in her life-time; as the foundation of two colleges in Cambridge. Her life was checquered with a variety of good and' bad fortune: but she had a greatness of soul, which seems to have placed her above the reach of either; so that she wasneither elated with the former, nor depressed with the latter. She was most affected with what regarded her only child, for whom she had the most tender affection. She underwent some hardships on his account. She saw him from an exile, by a wonderful turn of fortune, advanced to the crown of England, which yet he could not keep without many struggles and difficulties; and when he had reigned twenty-three years, and lived fifty-two, she saw him carried to his grave. Whether this might not prove too great a shock for her, is uncertain; but she survived him only three months, dying at Westminster on the 29th of June, 1509. She was buried in his chapel, and had a beautiful monument erected to her memory, adorned with gilded brass, arms, and an epitaph round the verge, drawn up by Erasmus, at the request of bishop Fisher, for which he had twenty shillings given him by the university of Cambridge. Upon this altar-tomb, which is enclosed with a grate, is placed the statue of Margaret countess of Richmond and Derby, in her robes, all of solid brass, with two pillars on each side of her, and a Latin inscription, of which the following is a translation: “To Margaret of Richmond, the mother of Henry VII. and grandmother of Henry VIII. who founded salaries for three monks in this convent, for a grammar-school at Wymborn, and a preacher of God’s word throughout England; as also for two divinity-lecturers, the one at Oxford, the other at Cambridge; in which last place she likewise built two colleges, in honour of Christ and his disciple St. John. She died in the year of our Lord 1509, June the 29th.” This lady was the daughter and sole heiress of John Beaufort duke of Somerset, who was grandson to John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, fourth son of Edward the Third. Her mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was daughter and heiress of the lord Beauchamp of Powick. Bishop Fisher observes, “that by her marriage with the earl of Richmond, and by her birth, she was allied to thirty kings and queens, within the fourth degree either of blood or affinity; besides earls, marquisses, dukes, and princes: and since her death,” as Mr. Baker says, “she has been allied in her posterity to thirty more.” Her will, which is remarkably curious, is printed at length in the “Collectioii of Royal and Noble Wills,” 1780, 4to, p. 376.

He now cultivated literature in peace, and settled himself in the comforts of domestic life by marrying the daughter of M. Lavaisse, an advocate of great practice at Thoulouse. A lady of the court called him to Paris about the year 1772, and wished to fix him there, by procuring him the place of librarian to the king; but he did not long enjoy this* promotion; a dropsy in the chest proved fatal the following yean. He left a son and a daughter. His works are: 1. “A Defence of Montesquieu’s ' Esprit des Loix,” against the author of the “Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques,” which is inferior to that which the president de Montesquieu published himself, but for which that writer expressed his thanks. 2. “Mes Pense*es, ou, Le Qu'en dira-t-on?” 1751, 12mo; a book which has not kept up its reputation, though containing a great deal of wit; but the author in his politics is often wide of the truth, and allows himself too decisive a style in literature and morals. The passage in this book which embroiled him with Voltaire is this: “There have been better poets than Voltaire; but none have been ever so well rewarded. The king of Prussia heaps his bounty on men of talents exactly from the same motives as induce a petty prince of Germany to heap his bounty on a buffoon or a dwarf.” 3. “The <f Memoirs of Madame de Maintenon,” 1756, 6 vols. 12mo. which were followed by 9 vols. of letters. In this work many facts are given on conjecture, and others disfigured; nor is Madame de Maintenon made to think and speak as she either thought or spoke. The style has neither the propriety nor the dignity that is proper to history, but the author occasionally writes with great animation and energy, discovering at times the precision and the force of Tacitus, of whose annals he left a translation in manuscript. He had bestowed much study on that philosophic historian, and sometimes is successful in the imitation of his manner. 4. “Letters to M. de Voltaire,” 1761, 12mo, containing sarcastic remarks on Voltaire’s “Age of Louis XIV.” Voltaire refuted these remarks in a pamphlet entitled “Supplement to the age of Louis XIV.” in which he shews it to be an odious thing to seize upon a work on purpose to disfigure it. La Beaumelle in 1754 gave out an “Answer to this Supplement,” which he re-produced in 1761, under the title of “Letters.” To this Voltaire made no reply; but shortly after stigmatized it in company with several others, in his infamous poem the “Pucelle,” where he describes la Beaumelle as mistaking the pockets of other men for his own. The writer, thus treated, endeavoured to cancel the calumny by a decree of the parliament of Thoulouse but other affairs prevented him from pursuing this. Voltaire, however, had some opinion of his talents; and the writer of this article has seen a letter of his in which he says’: “Ce pendard a bien de Pesprit.” “The rascal has a good deal of wit.” La Beaumelle, on the other hand, said: “Personne n'ecrit mieux que Voltaire.” “No one writes better than Voltaire.” Yet these mutual acknowledgments of merit did not prevent their passing a considerable part of their life in mutual abuse. The abb Irail informs us, that la Beaumelle being one day asked why he was continually attacking Voltaire in his books “Because,” returned he, “he never spares me in his and my books sell the better for it.” It is said, however, that la Beaumelle would have left off writing against the author of the Henriade; and even would have been reconciled with him, had he not imagined that it would be impossible to disarm his wrath, and therefore he preferred war to an insecure peace. 5. “Penses de Seneque,” in Latin and French, in 12mo, after the manner of the “Pensees de Ciceron,” by the abbe d'Olivet, whom he has rather imitated than equalled. 6. “Commentaire sur la Henriade,” Paris, 1775, 2 vols. 8vo. Justice and taste are sometimes discernible in this performance, but too much severity and too many minute remarks. 7. A manuscript translation of the Odes of Horace. 8. “Miscellanies,” also in ms. among which are some striking pieces. The author had a natural bent towards satire. His temper was frank and honest, but ardent and restless. Though his conversation was instructive, it had not that liveliness which we perceive in his writings.

As soon as Beausobre became settled at Berlin, he resumed his favourite studies, and particularly his “History of the Reformation,” which he carried down to the Augsburgh confession, and left it in manuscript. In this state it remained until 1784, when it was published at Berlin in 4 vols. 8v6. Its principal object is the origin and progress, of Lutheranism, in treating of which the author has availed himself of Seckendorfl’s history, but has added many vainable materials. It contains also very curious and ample details relative to the progress of the reformation in France and Swisserland; but it nevertheless is not free from objections, both on the score of impartiality and accuracy. In the mean time, the Prussian court having desired M. Beausobre and his friend M. Lenfant to prepare a translation of the New Testament, they shared the labour between them, M. Lenfant taking the Evangelists, Acts, Catholic epistles, and the Apocalypse, and M. Beausobre the epistles of St. Paul. The whole was published in 2 vols. 4to, Amst. 1718, with prefaces, notes, c. A second edition appeared in 1741, with considerable additions and corrections. Their “Introduction” was published separately at Cambridge (translated into English) in 1779; and Dr. Watson, bishop of Llandaff, who inserted it in the third volume of his “Theological Tracts,” pronounces it a work of extraordinary merit, the authors Laving left scarcely any togic untouched, on which the voting student in divinity may he supposed to wunt information. Their only opponent, at the time of publication, was a Mr. Dartis, formerly a minister at Berlin, from which he had retired, and who published a pamphlet, to which Beausobre and Lenfant made separate replies. Beausobre was one of the principal members of a society of literary men of Berlin, who called them the “Anonymi,” and this connection led 'him to be a contributor to the “Bibliothcque Gcrmanique,” of which he was editor from vol. IV. to the time of his death, excepting vol. XL. One of the pieces he wrote for this journal was translated into English, and published at London, 1735, 8vo, under the title of “St. Jatzko, or a commentary on a passage in the plea for the Jesuits of Thorn”. But his most celebrated work was his “Histoire critique de Mauicheisme,” Amst. 1734, 1739, 2 vols. 4to. Of the merit of this work it may, perhaps, be sufficient to give the opinion of a man of no religion, Gibbon, who says that “it is a treasure of ancient philosophy and theology. The learned historian spins, with incomparable art, the systematic thread of opinion, and transforms himself by turns into the person of a saint, a sage, or an heretic. Yet his refinement is sometimes excessive: he betrays an amiable partiality in favour of the weaker side, and while he guards against calumny, he does not allow sufficient scope for superstition and fanaticism,” things, or rather words, which Gibbon js accustomed to use without much meaning. The journalists of Trevoux having attacked this work, gave Mr. IjJeausobre an opportunity of showing his superiority in ecclesiastical history, by an answer published in the BibL Germanique, which perhaps is too long. He wrote also a curious preface to the “Memoirs of Frederick-Henry, prince of Orange,” Amst. 1733. These are all the works which appeared in the life-time of our author, but he left a great many manuscripts, dissertations on points of ecclesiastical history, and sermons, none of which, we believe, have been published, except the “History of the Reformation,” already noticed. M. Beausobre reached the period of old age, without experiencing much of its influence. He preached at the age of eighty with vigour and spirit. His last illness appears to have come on in October 1737, and although it had many favourable intermissions, he died June 5, 1738, in the full possession of his faculties and recollection, and universally regretted by his Hock, as well as by the literary world. The most remarkable encomium bestowed on him, is that of the prince, afterwards Frederick king of Prussia, in a letter to Voltaire, published in the works of the latter. “We are -about to lose one of the greatest men of Germany. This is the famous M. de Beausobre, a man of honour and probity, of great genius, a taste exquisite and delicate, a great orator, learned in the history of the church and in general literature, an implacable enemy of the Jesuits, the best writer in Berlin, a man full of fire and vivacity, which eighty years of life have not chilled; has a little of the weakness of superstition, a fault common enowgh with people of his stamp, and is conscious enough of his abilities to be affected by applause. This loss is irreparable. We have no one who can replace M. de Beausobre; men of merit are rare, and when nature sows them they do not always come to maturity.” The applause of such a man as Beausobre, from Frederick of Prussia to Voltaire, is a curiosity.

, a very eminent physician, was born in 1682 at Bononia. He received the first rudiments of education among the Jesuits. He then proceeded to the study of philosophy, in which he made great progress; but cultivated that branch of it particularly which consists in the contemplation and investigation of nature. Having gone through a course of philosophy and mathematics, he applied himself to medicine. Being appointed teacher of natural philosophy at an academy in Bononia, in consequence of his ardent pursuits in philosophy, his fellow citizens conferred on him the office of public professor. His first step in this chair was the interpretation of the Dialectics. He kept his house open to students, who found there a kind 6*f philosophical society. Here it was his practice to deliver his sentiments on the different branches of science, or to explain such metaphysical subjects as had been treated of by Descartes, Malebranche, Leibnitz, and others of the moderns. Among the frequenters of this little Society we find the names of John Baptist Morgagni, Eustathius Manfred, and Victorius Franciscus Stancarius, who, in concurrence with Beccaria, succeeded in shaking oil the old scholastic yoke, and formed themselves into an academy, adopting a new and more useful method of reasoning. In this institution it was thought fit to elect twelve of their body, who were called ordinarii, to read the several lectures In natural history, chemistry, anatomy, medicine, physics, and mathematics, in which partition the illustration of natural history fell to the share of Beccaria; who gave such satisfaction, that it was difficult to determine which was most admired, his diligence or his ingenuity. In 1712 he was called to give lectures in medicine, in which he acquired so great a reputation, that he found it scarcely practicable to answer the desires of the incredible number of those who applied to him for instruction. At the beginning of the year 1718, while entirely occupied in this station, and in collecting numberless anatomical subjects to exhibit and to explain to his auditors, he was attacked by a putrid fever, which brought his life in imminent danger, and from which he did not recover till afte.r a confinement of eight months; and even then it left him subject to intermitting attacks, and a violent pain in his side. But the vigour of his mind triumphed over the weakness of his body. Having undertaken to demonstrate and explain his anatomical preparations, he would not desist; and went on patiently instructing the students that frequented his house. On the death of Antonio Maria Valsalva, who was president of the institution, Beccaria, already vice-president, was unanimously chosen by the academicians to succeed him, in which post he did the academy much signal service; and to this day it adheres to the rules prescribed by Beccaria. He now practised as well as taught the art of medicine, and in this he acquired an unbounded fame; for it was not confined to his owa countrymen, but was spread throughout Europe. He communicated to the royal society of London several barometrical and meteorological observations; with others on the ignis fatuus, and on the spots that appear in stones, and in acknowledgement he was chosen a member of that learned body in 1728. He confesses thai in his constitution he was not without some igneous sparks, which were easily kindled into anger and other vehement emotions; yet he was resolved to evince by example what he had constantly taught, that the medicine of the mind is more to be studied than that of the body; and that they are truly wise and happy who have learnt to heal their distorted and bad affections. He had brought himself to such an equal temper of mind, that but a few hours before his death he wanted to mark the heights of the barometer and thermometer, which was his usual practice three times every day. Thus, after many and various labours, died this learned and ingenious man, the 30th of Jan. 1766, and was buried in the church of St. Maria ad Baracanum, where an inscription is carved en his monument. He published the following works: 1. “Lettere al cavaliere Tommaso Derham, intorno la nieteora chiamata fuoco fatuo. Edita primum in societatis Lond. transact.” 1720. 2. “Dissertatio mctheorologicamedica, in qua ae'ris temperies et morbi Bononizegrassantes annis 1729, et sequent! describuntur.” 3. “Pa re re intorno al taglio delia macchiadi Viareggio,” Lucca, 1739, 4to. 4. “De longis jejuniis dissertatio.” Patavii, 1743, fo'l. 5. “De quamplurimis phosphoris nunc primum detectis commentarius,” Bononia?,“1744, 4to. 6.” De quamplurim. &c. commentarius alter.“7.” De motu intestino corporum fluidorum.“8.” De medicatis Recobarii aquis.“9.” De lacte.“10.” Epistolrc tres mediciP ad Franciscum lloncalium Parolinum,“Brixiir, 1747, fol. 11.” Scriptura medico-legalis," 1749; and some others. He left behind him several manuscripts.

, a monk of the EcolesPies, or Pious Schools, was born at Mondovi, and died at Turin, May 22, 1781. He was professor of mathematics and philosophy, first at Palermo, then at Rome; and by his experiments and discoveries was so successful as to throw great light on natural knowledge, and especially on that of electricity. He was afterwards called to Turin to take upon him the professorship of experimental philosophy. Being appointed preceptor to the two princes, Benedict duke of Chablais, and Victor Amadscus duke of Ctirignan, neither the life of a court, nor the allurements of pleasure, were able to draw him aside from study. Loaded with benefits and honours, he spared nothing to augment his library, and to procure the instruments necessary for his philosophical pursuits. His dissertations on electricity would have been more useful, if he had been less strongly attached to some particular systems, and especially that of Mr. Franklin. He published, 1. “Experimenta quibus Electricitas Vindex late constituitur, &c.” Turin, 1771, 4to. 2. “Electricismo artificiale,” 1772, 4to, an English translation of which was published at Lond. 1776, 4to. We have also by him an “Essay on the cause of Storms and Tempests,” where we meet with nothing more satisfactory than what has appeared in other works on that subject; several pieces on the meridian of Turin, and other objects of astronomy and physics. Father Beccaria was no less respectable for his virtues than his knowledge.

Becket now betook himself to a quite different manner of life, and put on all the gravity and austerity of a monk. He began likewise to exert himself with great zeal, in defence of the rights and privileges of the church of Canterbury; and in many cases proceeded with so much warmth and obstinacy, as raised him many enemies. Pope Alexander III. held a general council of his prelates at Tours in April 1163, at which Becket was present, and was probably animated by the pope in his design of becoming the champion for the liberties of the church and the immunities of the clergy. It is certain that on his return he prosecuted this design with such zeal that the king and he came to an open rupture Henry endeavoured to recall certain privileges of the clergy, who had greatly abused their exemption from the civil courts, concerning which the king had received several complaints; while the archbishop stood up for the immunities of the clergy. The king convened a synod of the bishops at Westminster, and here demanded that the clergy, when accused of any capital offence, might take their trials in the usual courts of justice. The question put to the bishops was, Whether, in consideration of their duty and allegiance to the king, and of the interest and peace of the kingdom, they were willing to promise a submission to the laws of his grandfather, king Henry? To this the archbishop replied, in the name of the whole body, that they were willing to be bound by the ancient laws of the kingdom, as far as the privileges of the order would permit, salvo ordine suo. The king was highly displeased with this answer, and insisted on having an absolute compliance, without any reservation whatever; but the archbishop would by no means submit, and the rest of the bishops adhered for some time to their primate. Several of the bishops being at length gained over, and the pope interposing in the quarrel, Becket was prevailed on to acquiesce; and soon after the king summoned a convention or parliament at Clarendon, in 1164, wheje several laws were passed relating to the privileges of the clergy, called from thence, the Constitutions of Clarendon. But before the meeting of this assembly, Becket had again changed his rnind, and when he appeared before the council, he obstinately refused to obey the laws as he had before agreed. This equally disappointed and enraged the king, and it was not until after some days debate, and the personal entreaties, and even tears, of some of his particular friends, that Becket was again softened, and appearing before the council, solemnly promised and swore, in the words of truth and without any reserve, to obey all the royal laws and customs which had been established in England in the reign of his majesty’s grandfather Henry L The constitutions of Clarendon were then put in writing, read in the council, and one copy of them delivered to the primate, another to the archbishop of York, and a third deposited among the records of the kingdom. By them ecclesiastics of all denominations were reduced to a due subjection to the laws of their country; they also limited the jurisdiction of spiritual courts, guarded against appeals to Rome, and the pronouncing of interdicts and excommunications, without the consent of the king or his judiciary.

On the other hand, Mr. Berington, in his “History of the reign of Henry If.” has attempted a vindication of Becket, in which he differs considerably from lord Lyttelton and other protestant historians, but for this w must refer to the book itself. Few men have had more biographers, if reliance could be placed on them, than Becket, but unfortunately the greater part of them were his panegyrists, and not his historians, and too much under the influence of the monkish principles of their days, to deserve much credit. The following list, however, of his biographers may afford some information to the curious inquirer, taken from Leland, Bale, Pits, and others. 1. Herbert Bosenham, or Bosscham, or de Hoscham, who was this archbishop’s secretary, and also present at the slaughter of him. 2. Edward, a monk, of Canterbury, the martyr’s most intimate friend. 3. Johannes Sarisburiensis, who accompanied Becket in his exile, but never countenanced his behaviour towards the king, being as sharp a writer against the encroachments of the papal see, as any man of his time. 4. Bartholomseus Iscanus, or Exonensis, bisiiop of Exeter, where he died in 118k 5. E. a monk of Eveshatn, who dedicated his book, or wrote it by way of epistle, to Henry, abbot of Croyland. 6. William Stephens, or Fitz-Stephen, a monk of Canterbury, and, for at reason, usually called Gulielmus Cantuariensis. He said to have written three several treatises of the life, martyrdom, and miracles of St. Thomas Becket; which are now in the Cotton library: But that, which there carries his name, seems to have been penned by Johannes Carnotensis, who is the same person with Sarisburiensis above mentioned, since, in the Quadripartite History, what we have from him is often to be found, in the same words, in the life there ascribed to Fitz-Stephen. 7. Benedictus Petroburgensis, abbot of Peterborough, who died in 1200. 8. Alanus Teukesburiensis, abbot of Tewkesbury, who died about the same time. 9. Roger, a monk of Croyland, who lived about 1214. It is observed, that St. Thomas’s miracles were become so numerous in this writer’s time, that he had matter for seven large volumes, in composing of which he spent no less than fifteen years. 10. Stephen Langton, a famous successor of Becket’s in the see of Canterbury, whose work on this subject is said be in the library of Bene't college. 11. Alexander de Hales, so called from the monastery of Hales in Gloucestershire, where he was educated, one of the most eminent schoolmen of his age, and master to Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, &c. 12. John Grandison, or Graunston, who died in 1369. 13. Quadrilogus, or the author of a book, entitled “De vita et processu S.Thomae Cantuariensiset Martyris super Libertate Ecclesiastica.” It is collected out of four historians, who were contemporary and conversant with Becket, viz. Herbert de Hoscham, Johannes Carnotensis, Gulielmus Canterburiensis, and Alanus Teukesburiensis, who are introduced as so many relaters of facts interchangeably. This book was first printed at Paris in 1495, and is often quoted by our historians, in the reign of Henry II. by the name of Quadripartita Historia. 14. Thomas Stapleton, the translator of Bede, in whose book De tribus Thomis, or Of the three Thomas’s, our saint makes as considerable a figure as either Thomas the Apostle, or Thomas Aquinas. 15. Laurence Vade, or Wade, a Benedictine monk of Canterbury, who lived and died we know not when, or where; unless perhaps he be the same person with 16. An anonymous writer of Becket’s life, who appears to have been a monk of that church, and whose book is said to be in the library at Lambeth. 17. Richard James, nephew of Dr. Thomas James, some time keeper of the Bodleian library; a very industrious and eminent antiquary, who endeavoured to overthrow the great design of all the above-mentioned authors, in his “Decanonizatio Thomse Cantuariensis et suorum,” which, with other manuscript pieces by the same hand, is in the public library at Oxford. These are the principal writers of our archbishop’s life besides whom, several other historians have spoken largely of him as John Bromton, Matthew Paris, Gervase, &c.

Bishop Beckington was well skilled in polite learning and history, and very conversant in the holy Scriptures; a goo-d preacher, and so generous a patron and favourer of all learned and ingenious men, that he was called the Mxcenas of his age. His works of munificence and charity were numerous. He contributed to the completion of Lincolncollege, which had been left imperfect by its founder, Richard Flemming, bishop of Lincoln, and got the manor of Newton-Longueviile settled upon New college, Oxford, in 1440. He also laid out six thousand marks upon the houses belonging to his see; built an edifice, called New-buildings, and the west side of the cloisters at Wells; and erected a conduit in the market-place of that city. By his will, dated Nov. 3, 1464, and procured to be confirmed under the great seal, he left several charitable legacies. He died at Wells, Jan. 14, 1464-5, and was buried in his cathedral, where his monument is still to be seen. His panegyric was written by Thomas Chandler, warden of New college, who had been preferred by him to the chancellorship of Wells. He does not appear to have ever been chancellor of the university of Oxford. His book on the right of the kings of England to the crown of France is in the Cottonian library, with some other of his pieces, and a large collection of his letters is in the Lambeth library.

As this epistle throws much light on the state of ecclesiastical affairs at the time, and, what is more important for our present purpose, affords many proofs of the superior wisdom and good sense of Beda, we shall avail ourselves of the following sketch of it. Amongst other heads of advice, he recommends the finishing St. Gregory’s model to this prelate, by virtue of which York was to have' been a metropolis with twelve Suffragans. He insists upon this plan, the rather, because in some woody, and almost impassable, parts of the country, there were seldom any bishops came either to confirm, or any priests to instruct the people; and, therefore, he is of opinion that the erecting new sees would be of great service to the church. For this purpose he suggests the expedient of a synod to form: the project, and adjust the measures; and that an order of court should be procured to pitch upon some monastery, ani turn it into a bishop’s see and to prevent opposition; from the religious of that house, they should be softened with some concessions, and allowed to choose the bishop out of their own society, and that the joint government of the monastery and diocese should be put into his hands. And if the altering the property of the house should make the increasing the revenues necessary, he tells him there are monasteries enough that ought "to spare part of their estates for such uses; and, therefore, he thinks it reasonable that some of their lands should be taken from them, 'and laid to the bishopric, especially since many of them full short of the rules of their institution. And since it is commonly said, that several of these places are neither serviceable to God nor the commonwealth, because neither the exercises of piety and discipline are practised, nor the estates possessed by men in a condition to defend the country; therefore if the houses were some of them turned into bishoprics, it would be a seasonable provision for the church* and prove a very commendable alteration. A little after he intreats Egbert to use his interest with king Ceolwulf, to reverse the charters of former kings for the purposes above-mentioned: For it has sometimes happened, says he, that the piety of princes has been over-lavish, and directed amiss. He complains farther, that the monasteries were frequently filled with people of unsuitable practices; that the country seemed over-stocked with those foundations; that there were scarcely estates enough left /or the laity of condition; and that, if this humour increased, the country would grow disfurnished of troops to defend their frontiers. He mentions another abuse crept in of a higher nature: that some persons of quality of the laity, who had neither fancy nor experience for this way of living, used to purchase some of the crown-lands, under pretence of founding a monastery, and then get a charter of privileges signed by the king, the bishops, and other great men in church and state; and by these expedients they worked up a great estate, and made themselves lords of several villages, And thus getting discharged from the service of the commonwealth, they retired for liberty, took the range of their fancy, seized the character of abbots, and governed the monks without any title to such authority; and, which is still more irregular, they sometimes do not stock these places with religious, properly so called, but rake together a company of strolling monks, expelled for their misbehaviour; and sometimes they persuade their own retinue to take the tonsure, and promise a monastic obedience. And having furnished their religious houses with such ill-chosen company, they live a life perfectly secular under a monastic character, bring their wives into the monasteries, and are husbands and abbots at the same time. Thus for about thirty years, ever since the death of king Alfred, the country has run riot in this manner; insomuch, that there are very few of the lord-lieutenants, or governors of towns, who have not seized the religious jurisdiction of a monastery, and put their ladies in the same post of guilt, by making them abbesses without passing through those stages of discipline and retirement that should qualify them for it; and as ill customs are apt to spread, the king’s menial servants have taken up the same fashion: and thus we find a great many inconsistent offices and titles incorporated; the same persons are abbots and ministers of state, and the court and cloister are unsuitably tacked together; and men are trusted with the government of religious houses, before they have practised any part of obedience to them. To stop the growth of this disorder, Beda advises the convening of a synod; that a visitation might be set on foot, and all such unqualified persons thrown out of their usurpation. In short, he puts the bishop in mind, that it is part of the episcopal office to inspect the monasteries of his diocese, to reform what is amiss both in head and members, and not to suffer a breach of the rules of the institution. It is your province, says he, to take care that the devil does not get the ascendant in places consecrated to God Almighty; that we may not have discord instead of quietness, and libertinism instead of sobriety.

His first business was to compose divisions among the fellows, to rectify disorders, and to restore discipline; and as he was a great promoter of religion, he catechised the youth once a week, and divided the church catechism into fifty -two parts, one for every Sunday, and explained it in a way so mixed with speculative and practical matters, that his sermons were looked upon as lectures of divinity. He continued about two years in this employment, when, by the interest of sir Thomas Jermyn, and the application of Laud, bishop of London, he was advanced to the sees of Kilmore and Ardagh, and consecrated on the 13th of September, 1629, at Drogheda, in St. Peter’s church, in the fifty-ninth year of his age. In the letters for his promotion, the king made honourable mention of the satisfaction he took in the services he had done, and the reformation he had wrought in the unirersity. He found his dioceses tinder vast disorders, the revenues wasted by excessive dilapidations, and all things exposed to sale in a sordid manner. The cathedral of Ardagh, and the bishop’s houses, were all flat to the ground, the parish churches in ruins, and the insolence of the Popish clergy insufferable; the oppressions of the ecclesiastical courts excessive; and pluralities and non-residence shamefully prevailing. Yet he had the courage, notwithstanding these difficulties, to undertake a thorough reformation; and the first step he took was, to recover part of the lands of which his sees had been despoiled by his predecessors, that he might be in a condition to subsist, while he laboured to reform other abuses. In this he met with such success, as encouraged him to proceed upon his own plan, and to be content with nothing less than an absolute reformation of those which he esteemed capital and enormous abuses, particularly with regard to pluralities, showing an example in his own case by resigning the bishopric of Ardagh, which he had the satisfaction to see followed in instances of a more flagrant nature. On the arrival of the lord-deputy Wentworth in 1633, our prelate had the misfortune to fall under his displeasure, for setting his hand to a petition for redress of grievances and so high and open was the lorddeputy’s testimony of this displeasure, that the bishop did not think fit to go in person to congratulate him (as others did) upon his entering into his government. It is, however, very improbable, that he should write over to sir Thomas Jermyn and his friends in England, or procure, by their interest, injunctions to the lord-deputy, to receive him into favour, a report which suits very ill with the character either of the men or of the times. On the contrary, it appears from his own letter to the lord deputy, that it was he, not the bishop, who had complained in England; that he meant to justify himself to the deputy, and expected, on that justification, he should retract his complaints. One may safely affirm, from the perusal of this single epistle, that our prelate was as thorough a statesman as the deputy, and that he knew how to becurne all things to all men, without doing any thing beneath him, or inconsistent with his dignity. This conduct had its effect, and in three weeks it appears that he stood well with the deputy, and probably without any interposition but his own letter before mentioned. He then went on cheerfully in doing his duty, and for the benefit of the church, and was very successful. His own example did much: he loved the Christian power of a bishop, without affecting either political authority or pomp. Whatever he did was so visibly for the good of his fiock, that he seldom failed of being well supported by his clergy; and such as opposed him did it with visible reluctance, for he had the esteem of the good men of all parties, and was as much reverenced as any bishop in Ireland. In 1638 he convened a synod, and made some excellent canons that are yet extant, and when offence was taken at this, the legality of the meeting questioned, and the bishop even threatened with the star-chamber, archbishop Usher, who was consulted, said, “You had better let him alone, for fear, if he should be provoked, he should say much more for himself than any of his accusers can say against him.” Amongst other extraordinary things he did, there was none more worthy of remembrance than his removing his lay-chancellor, sitting in his own courts, hearing causes, and retrieving thereby the jurisdiction which anciently belonged to a bishop. The chancellor upon this filed his bill in equity, and obtained a decree in chancery against the bishop, with one hundred pounds costs. But by this time the chancellor saw so visibly the difference between the bishop’s sitting in that seat and his own, that he never called for his costs, but appointed a surrogate, with orders to obey the bishop in every thing, and so his lordship went on in his own way. Our bishop was no persecutor of Papists, and yet the most successful enemy they ever had; and if the other bishops had followed his example, the Protestant religion must have spread itself through every part of the country. He laboured to convert the better sort of the Popish clergy, and in this he had great success. He procured the Common-prayer, which had been translated into Irish, and caused it to be read in his cathedral, in his own presence, every Sunday, having himself learned that language perfectly, though he never attempted to speak it. The New Testament had been also translated by William. Daniel, archbishop of Tuam, but our prelate first procured the Old Testament to be translated by one King; and because the translator was ignorant of the original tongues, and did it from the English, the bishop himself revised and compared it with the Hebrew, and the best translations, He caused, likewise, some of Chrysostom’s and Leo’s homilies, in commendation of the scriptures, to be rendered both into English and Irish, that the common people might see, that in the opinion of the ancient fathers, they had not only a right to read the scriptures as well as the clergy, but it was their duty so to do. He met with great opposition in this work, from a persecution against the translator, raised without reason, and carried on with much passion by those from whom he had no cause to expect it. But, however, he got the translation finished, which he would have printed in his own house, and at his own charge, if the troubles in Ireland had not prevented it; and as it was, his labours were not useless, for the translation escaped the hands of the rebels, and was afterwards printed at the expence of the celebrated Robert Boyle.

The bishop was very moderate in his sentiments, and in. his methods of enforcing them; he loved to bring men into the communion of the church of England, but he did not like compelling them; and it was his opinion, that Protestants would agree well enough if they could be brought to understand each other. These principles induced him to promote Mr. Drury’s design, of endeavouring to reconcile the Lutherans to the Calvinists, a project which had beea encouraged by many other worthy persons, and towards which he subscribed twenty pounds a year, to defray the expences of Mr. Drury’s negociations. The bishop himself, it must be mentioned, was a Calvinist, which Burnet thinks was the cause of his having so little preferment in England. He gave another instance, not only of his charity towards, but his ability in, reconciling those of other communions, to the churches of England and Ireland. There were some Lutherans at Dublin, who, for not coming to church and taking the sacrament, were cited into the archbishop’s consistory, upon which they desired time to write to their divines in Germany, which was given them, and when their answers came, they contained some exceptions to the doctrine of the church, as not explaining the presence of Christ in the sacrament, suitable to their sentiments; to which bishop Bedell gave so full and clear, and withal so moderate and charitable, an answer, as entirely satisfied their objections, insomuch that those divines advised their countrymen to join in communion with the church, which they accordingly did. In this mild and prudent way our prelate conducted his charge, with great reputation to himself, and with the general approbation of all good men, who were perfectly pleased with his doctrine, and edified by his example. When the bloody rebellion broke out in October 1641, the bishop did not at first feel the violence of its effects; for even those rebels, who in their conduct testified so little of humanity, professed a great veneration for him, and openly declared he should be the last Englishman they would drive out of Ireland. His was the only English house in the county of Cavan that was unviolated, notwithstanding that it, and its out-buildings, the church, and the church-yard, were filled with people who fled to him for shelter, whom, by his preaching and prayers, he encouraged to expect and endure the worst with patience. In the mean time, Dr. Swiney, the Popish titular bishop of Kilmore, came to Cavan, and pretended great concern and kindness for bishop Bedell. Our prelate had converted his brother, and kept him in his house till he could otherwise provide for him; and Dr. Swiney desired likewise to lodge in his house, assuring him in the strongest terms of his protection. But this bishop Bedell declined, in a very civil and well-written Latin letter, urging the smallness of his house, the great number of people that had taken shelter with him, the sickness of some of his company, and of his son in particular, but above all, the difference in their ways of worship, which could not but be attended with great inconveniency. This had some effect for a time; but about the middle of December, the rebels, pursuant, to orders they had received from their council of state at Kilkenny, required him to dismiss the people that were with him, which he absolutely refused to do, declaring that he would share the same fate with the rest. They signified to him upon this, that they had orders to remove him; to which he answered, in the words of David, “Here I am, the Lord do unto me as seemeth good to him; the will of the Lord be done.” Upon this they seized him, his two sons, and Mr. Clogy, who had married his step-daughter, and carried them prisoners to the castle of Cloughboughter, surrounded by a deep water, were they put them all but the bishop in irons. They did not suffer any of them to carry any thing with them; and the moment the bishop was gone, Dr. Swiney took possession of his house and all that belonged to it, and said mass in the church the Sunday following. After some time the rebels abated of their severity, took the irons off the prisoners, and suffered them to be as much at their ease as they could be in so wretched a place; for the winter was very rigorous, and the castle being old and ruinous, they would have been exposed to all the severity of the weather, if it had not been for an honest carpenter who was imprisoned there before them, and who made use of a few old boards he found there, to mend a part of the roof, the better to defend them from the snow and sleet. While thus confined, the bishop, his sons, and Mr Clogy, preached and prayed continually to their small and afflicted congregation, and upon Christmas day his lordship administered the sacrament to them. It is very remarkable, that.rude and barbarous as the Irish were, they gave them no disturbance in the performance of divine service, and often told the bishop they had no personal quarrel to him, but that the sole cause of their confining him was, his being an Englishman. After being kept in this manner for three weeks, the bishop, his two sons, and Mr. Clogy, were exchanged for two of the O'Rourkes; but though it was agreed that they should be safely conducted to Dublin, yet the rebels would never suffer them to be carried out of the country, but sent them to the house of Dennis Sheridan, an Irish minister, and convert to the Protestant religion, to which though he steadily adhered, and relieved many who fled to him for protection, yet the Irish suffered him to live quietly among them, on account of the great family from which he was descended. While our prelate remained there, and enjoyed some degree of health, he every Sunday read the prayers and lessons, and preached himself, though there were three ministers with him. The last Sunday he officiated was the 30th of Jan. and the day following he was taken ill. On the second day it appeared that his disease was an ague; and on the fourth, apprehending a speedy change, he called for his sons and his sons’ wives, spoke to them a considerable time, gave them much spiritual advice, and blessed them, after which he spoke little, but slumbered out most of his time, only by intervals he seemed to awake a little, and was then very cheerful. At length, on the 7th of February, 1641, about midnight, he breathed his last, in the seventy-first year of his age, his death being chiefly occasioned by his late imprisonment, and the weight of sorrows which lay upon his mind. The only care now remaining to his friends was, to see him buried according to his desire; and since that could not be obtained but by the new intruding bishop’s leave, Mr. Clogy and Mr. Sheridan went to ask it, and Mr. Dillon was prevailed with by his wife, to go and second their desire. They found the bishop in a state of beastly intoxication, and a melancholy change in that house, which was before a house of prayer. The bishop, when he was awakened out of his drunkenness, excepted a little to their request, and said the church-yard was holy ground, and was no more to be defiled with heretics’ bodies; yet he consented to it at last. Accordingly, February L>, he was buried next his wife’s coffin. The Irish did him unusual honours at his burial, for the chief of the rebels gathered their forces together, and with them accompanied his body from Mr. Sheridan’s house to the church-yard of Kilmore in great solemnity, and they desired Mr. Clogy to bury him according to the office prescribed by the church. But though the gentlemen were so civil as to offer it, yet it was not thought advisable to provoke the rabble so much, as perhaps that might have done; so it was passed over. But the Irish discharged a volley of shot at his interment, and cried out in Latin, “Requiescat in pace ultimus Anglorum,” ‘ May the last of the English rest in peace;’ for they had often said, that as they esteemed him the best of the English bishops, so he should be the last that should be left among them. What came from Edmund Farilly, a Popish priest, at the interment of the bishop, is too remarkable, and is too well attested, to be passed over, who cried out, “O sit anima mea cum Bedello,” ‘ I would to God my soul were with Bedell’s.’ Our prelate had long before prepared for death, as appears by his will, dated the 15th of February, 1640, in which there are several legacies, that shew he had recollected all the memorable passages of his life before he made it, and seriously considered the several blessings which God had bestowed upon him. He married a lady of the ancient and honourable family of L‘Estrange, who was the widow of the recorder of St. Edmundsbury, a woman exemplary in her life, humble and modest in her behaviour, and singular in many excellent qualities, particularly in an extraordinary reverence to him. She bore him three sons and a daughter. One of the sons and the daughter died young; only William and Ambrose survived, for whom he made no provision, but a benefice of eighty pounds a-year for the eldest and worthy son of such a father, and an estate of sixty pounds a-year for the youngest, who did not take to learning. This was the only purchase he made. His wife died three years before the rebellion broke out, and he preached her funeral sermon himself, with such a mixture both of tenderness and moderation, that he drew tears from all his auditors. He was an enemy to burying in the church, thinking that there was both superstition and pride in it, and believing it was a great annoyance to the living, to have so much of the steam of dead bodies rising about them. One of the canons in his synod was against burying in churches, and he often wished that burying’ places were removed out of all towns. He chose the least frequented place of the church-yard of Kilmore for his wife to lie in, and by his will ordered, that he should be placed next to her, with this inscription:

, better known on account of his actions than his writings, having been a principal and useful evidence in the discovery in the popish plot, in the reign of Charles II. See the Eng. Hist, for that period; and the “Life of capt. Bedloe,” which contains nothing extraordinary but the aforesaid discovery, written by an unknown hand, and published 1681, 8vo. He was an infamous adventurer of low birth, who had travelled over a great part of Europe, under different names, as well as disguises. Encouraged by the success of Gates, he turned evidence, and gave an account of Godfrey’s murder, to which he added many circumstances of villainy. A reward of 500l. was voted to him by the commons. He is said to have asserted the reality of the plot on his death-bed; but it abounds with absurdity, contradiction, and perjury and still remains one of the greatest problems in the British annals. He died Aug. 20, 1680. Jacob informs us, he wrote a play called the “Excommunicated Prince,” printed 1679, but Wood says it was written by one Thomas Walter, M. A. of Jesus college, Oxford.

, the rabbi Jedaia, son of Abraham, called also Happenini Aubonet-Abram, but better known by the name of Bedraschi, is supposed to have been a nalive of Languedoc, and flourished in Spain towards the close of the thirteenth century. He left several Hebrew works, the principal of which, written at Barcelona in 1298, is entitled “Bechinat-Olem,” or an examination or appreciation of the world, and was printed at Mantua, in 1476, at Soncino in 1484, at Cracow in 1591, at Prague in 1598, and at Furth in 1807, with a German translation. Uchtmann also published a Latin translation at Leyden in 1630, and a French translation was published at Paris in 162y, by Philip d' Aquino. M. Michel Berr, a Jew of Nanci, published at Metz in 1708 another translation, on which M. Sylvestre de Sacy wrote many valuable remarks in the “Magazin Encyclopedique.” Bedraschi’s work is a mixture of poetry, theology, philosophy, and morals. His style is somewhat obscure, but the numerous editions and translations of his work form no inconsiderable evidence of its merit.

Filled with this great idea, in 1459 he paid a visit to Isabella, daughter of John I. king of Portugal, at that time regent of the duchy of Burgundy and Flanders; and having informed her of his designs, he procured a vessel, in which, sailing westward, he was the first European who is known to have landed on the island of Fayal. He there established in 1460 a colony of Flemings, whose descendants yet exist in the Azores, which were for some time called the Flemish islands. This circumstance is proved, not only by the writings of contemporary authors, but also by the manuscripts preserved in the records of Nuremberg; and although this record is contrary to the generally received opinion, that the Azores were discovered by Gonsalva Velho, a Portuguese, yet its authenticity seems unquestionable. It is confirmed not only by several contemporary writers, and by Wagenseil, one of the most learned men of the last century, but likewise by a note written on parchment in the German language, and sent from Nuremberg, a few years ago, to M. Otto, who was then investigating the discovery of America. The note contained, with other things, the following facts: “Martin Beham, esq. son of Mr. Martin Beham, of Scoperin, lived in the reign of John II. king of Portugal, in an island which he discovered, and called the island of Fayal, one of the Azores, lying in the western ocean.”

After having obtained from the regent a grant of Fayal, and resided there about twenty years, Behem applied in 1484 (eight years before Columbus’s expedition), to John II. king of Portugal, to procure the means of undertaking a great expedition towards the south-west. This prince gave hitn some ships, with which he discovered that part of America which is now called Brazil; and he even sailed to the straits of Magellan, or to the country of some savage tribes whom he called Patagonians, from the extremities of their bodies being covered with a skin more like bear’s paws than human hands and feet. A fact so little known, and apparently so derogatory to the fame of Columbus, ought not to be admitted without sufficient proof; but the proofs which have been urged in support of its authenticity are such as cannot be controverted. They are not only the letters of Behem himself, written in 1486, and preserved in the archives of Nuremberg, but likewise the public records of that city; in which we read that “Martin Behem, traversing the Atlantic ocean fenseveral years, examined the American islands, and discovered the strait which bears the name of Magellan before either Christopher Columbus or Magellan sailed those seas; whence he mathematically delineated, on a geographical chart, for the king of Lusitania, the situation of the coast around every part of that famous and renowned strait, long before Magellan thought of his expedition.”

This wonderful discovery has not escaped the notice of contemporary writers. A confirmation of it occurs in the Latin chronicle of Hartman Schedl, and in the remarks made by Petrus Mateus on the canon law, two years before the expedition of Columbus. These passages demonstrate that the first discovery of America is due to the Portuguese, and not to the Spaniards; and that the chief merit belongs to a German astronomer. The expedition of Frederick Magellan, which did not take place before the year 1519, arose from the following fortunate circumstance: This person being in the apartment of the king of Portugal, saw there a chart of the coast of America, drawn by Behem, and at once conceived the bold project of following the steps of our great navigator. Jerome Benzon, who published a description of America in 1550, speaks of this chart; a copy of which, sent by Behem himself, is preserved in the archives of Nuremberg. The celebrated astronomer Riccioli, though an Italian, yet does not seem willing to give his countryman the honour of this important discovery. In his “Geographia Reformata,” book III. p. 90, he says, “Christopher Columbus never thought of an expedition to the West Indies until his arrival in the island of Madeira, where, amusing himself in forming and delineating geographical charts, he obtained information from Martin Bcehm, or, as the Spaniards say, from Alphonsus Sanchez de Huelva, a pilot, who had chanced to fall in with the islands afterwards called Dominica.” And in another place, “Boehm and Columbus have each their praise they were both excellent navigators but Columbus would never have thought of his expedition to America, had not Bcehm gone there before him. His name is not so much celebrated as that of Columbus, Americus, or Magellan, although he is superior to them all.”

, better known under the name of Ebn Beithar, was likewise called Aschab, which signifies, botanist or herbalist. He was an African by birth, and died in the 646th year of the hegira. We have of him the “Giame al adviat al mofredat,” in 4 vols. which is a general history of simples or of plants ranged in alphabetical order. He has likewise written “Mogni si adviat al Mofredat,” in which he treats of the use of simples in the cure of every particular part of the body. Ebn Beithar also answered in a book which he called Taalik, to a work of Ebn Giazlah, who accused his works of many imperfections.

, author of a book entitled “De Supremo et Absolute Regis Imperio,” was born at Broadchalke in Wiltshire, and educated at Wykeham’s school near Winchester: from whence he was sent very early to New-college in Oxford; where, having served two years of probation, he was admitted perpetual fellow in 1520. In 1526 he took the degree of master of arts, being that year (as one of the university registers informs us) “about to take a journey beyond the seas for the sake of study.” In his college he distinguished himself by his extraordinary skill in the Greek language. In 1538 he resigned his fellowship, and married. What preferment or employment he had afterwards is uncertain. He was familiarly acquainted with, and highly esteemed by, the most learned men of the nation, particularly Leland, who has bestowed an encomium on him. He was also in good esteem with king Henry VIII. and king Edward VI. When queen Mary came to the crown, and endeavoured to destroy all that her father and brother had done towards the reformation of the church, Bekinsau became a zealous Roman catholic. After Queen Elizabeth’s accession, he retired to an obscure village in Hampshire, called Sherbourne; where he spent the remainder of his life in great discontent, and was buried in the church of that place, the 20th of Dec. 1559, aged sixty-three years; leaving behind him this character among the Roman catholics, that, “as he was a learned man, so might he have been promoted according to his deserts, if he had been constant to his principles.” The work abovementioned is a defence of the king’s supremacy against the claims of the church of Rome, and is dedicated by the author to king Henry VIII. He did not venture to publish it, till he saw that the pope’s power was wholly exterminated in England. It was printed at London in 1546, in 8vo, and afterwards in the first volume of “Monarchia Romani Imperil,” &c. by Melchior Goldast Hamensfeldius, at Francfort, 1621, fol.

In 1674 he was chosen minister at Loenen, a Tillage near Utrecht; but he did not continue here long, being about two years after called to Wesop, and in 1679 chosen minister at Amsterdam. The comet which appeared in 1680 and 1681, gave him an opportunity of publishing a small book in Low Dutch, entitled “Ondersock over de Konietei,” that is, “An inquiry concerning Comets,” wherein he endeavoured to shew, that comets are not the presages or forerunners of any evil. This piece gained him great reputation, as did likewise his Exposition on the prophet Daniel, wherein he gave many proofs of his learning and sound judgment; but the work which rendered him most famous, is his “De betover Wereld,” or the “World bewitched,” published in 1691, 4to and 8vo. In this work he took occasion, from the Cartesian definition of spirit, to deny boldly, all the accounts we have in scripture of the seduction, influence, and operations of the devil and his infernal emissaries, and combines with this, the denial of all that has been said in favour of the existence of ghosts, spectres, and magicians. He modifies and perverts, with the greatest ingenuity, but also with equal temerity and presumption, the accounts given by the sacred writers of the power of Satan, and wicked angels, and of persons possessed by evil spirits: he affrrms, likewise, that the unhappy and malignant being, who is called in scripture, Satan, or the devil, is chained down with his infernal ministers in hell: so that he can never come forth from this eternal prison to terrify mortals, or to seduce the righteous from the paths of virtue. The substance of his argument, as far as it is founded on the Cartesian definition of mind or spirit, is this: “The essence of mind is thought, and the essence of matter extension. Now, since there is no sort of conformity or connection between thought and extension, mind cannot act upon matter, unless these two substances be united, as soul and body are in man; therefore no separate spirits, either good or evil, can act upon mankind. Such acting is miraculous, anel miracles can be performed by God alone. It follows, of consequence, that the scriptural accounts of the actions and operations of good and evil spirits must be understood in an allegorical sense.” Such an argument does little honour to Bekker’s acuteness and sagacity. By proving too much, it proves nothing at all: for if the want of a connection or conformity between thought and extension renders the mind incapable of acting upon, matter, it is difficult to see how their union should remove this incapacity, since the want of conformity and of connection remains, notwithstanding this union. Besides, according to this reasoning, the supreme being cannot act upon material beings. In vain does Bekker maintain the affirmative, by having recourse to a miracle: for this would imply, that the whole course of nature is a series of miracles, that is to say, that there are no miracles at all.

Vol. IV. B B to solve them. He was not endowed with the external gifts of preaching, and though he was skilled in mathematics, the best logic in the world, yet his sermons were not very methodical; but then they were suited to the capacity of the vulgar, and he was always ready to preach extempore, without preparation. He was of a very facetious temper, and sometimes could not forbear to jest even in the pulpit. It seems he had the vanity of becoming the head of a sect; and has had the pleasure to see that his followers were called from his name Bekkerians. Mr. Bayle calls him a rank rationalist, who, preferring philosophical arguments before the authority of the scripture, put such a sense upon the words and expressions of the holy writers, as favoured his hypothesis." The reader will readily perceive much in this character that applies to free-thinkers of all nations and ages.

, was born in 1613, atBelingstown, in the barony of Balrothery in the county of Dublin, the son of sir Henry Beling, knight, and was educated in his younger years at a grammar-school in the city of Dublin, but afterwards put under the tuition of some priests of his own religion, which was Popish, who so well cultivated his good genius, that they taught him to write in a fluent and elegant Latin style. Thus grounded in the polite parts of literature, his father removed him to Lincoln’s Inn, to study the municipal laws of his country, where he abode some years, and returned home a very accomplished gentleman, but it does not appear that he ever made the law a profession. His natural inclination inclining him to arms, he early engaged in the rebellion of 1641, and though but about twenty-eight years old, was then an officer of considerable rank. He afterwards became a leading member in the supreme council of the confederated Roman catholics at Kilkenny, to which he was principal secretary, and was sent ambassador to the pope and other Italian princes in 1645, tocraveaid for the support of their cause. He brought back with him a fatal present in the person of the nuncio, John Baptist Rinuccini, archbishop and prince of Fermo; who was the occasion of reviving the distinctions between the old Irish of blood, and the old English of Irish birth, which split that party into factions, prevented all peace with the marquis of Ormond, and ruined the country he was sent to save. When Mr. Beling had fathomed the mischievous schemes of the nuncio and his party, nobody was more zealous than he in opposing their measures, and in promoting the peace then in agitation, and submitting to the king’s authority, which he did with such cordiality, that he became very acceptable to the marquis of Ormond, who intrusted him with many negociations. When the parliament army had subdued the royal army, Mr. Beling retired to France, where he continued several years. His account of the transactions of Ireland during the period of the rebellion, is esteemed by judicious readers more worthy of credit than any written by the Romish party, yet he is not free from a partiality to the cause he at first embarked in. He returned home upon the restoration, and was repossessed of his estate by the favour and interest of the duke of Ormond. He died in Dublin in September 1677, and was buried in the church-yard of Malahidert, about five miles from that city. During his retirement in France, he wrote in Latin, in two books, “Vindiciarum Catholicorum Hiberniae,” under the name of Philopater Irenacus, the first of which gives a pretty accurate history of Irish affairs, from 1641 to 1649, and the second is a confutation of an epistle written by Paul King, a Franciscan friar and a nunciotist, in defence of the Irish rebellion. This book of Mr. Beling’s being answered by John Ponce, a Franciscan friar also, and a most implacable enemy to the Protestants of Ireland, in a tract entitled “Belingi Vindiciae eversae,” our author made a reply, which he published under the title of “Annotationes in Johannis Poncii librum, cui titulus, Vindiciae Eversae: accesserunt Belingi Vindiciae,” Parisiis, 1654, 8vo. He wrote also a vindication of himself against Nicholas French, titular bishop of Ferns, under the title of “Innocentiae suae impetitae per Reverendissimum Fernensem vindiciae,” Paris, 1652, 12mo, dedicated to the clergy of Ireland; and is reported to have written a poem called “The Eighth Day,” which has escaped our searches. When a student, however, at Lincoln’s Inn, he wrote and added a sixth book to sir Philip Sidney’s Arcadia, which was printed with that romance, London, 1633, folio, with only the initials of his name.

, a celebrated French poet, cousin to the Bellays to be noticed afterwards, was born about 1524 at Lire, a town about eight leagues from Angers. Being left an orphan at a very early age, he was committed to the guardianship of his elder brother, who neglected to cultivate the talents he evidently possessed, and although he soon discovered an equal turn for literature and for arms, he was kept in a sort of captivity, which prevented him from exerting himself with effect; and the death of his brother, while it freed him from this restraint, threw him into other embarrassments. No sooner was he out of the care of a guardian himself, than he was charged with the tuition of one of his nephews, and the misfortunes of his family, which had brought it to the brink of ruin, and certain law-suits in which he was forced to engage, occasioned solicitudes and vexations but little suited to the studies he wished to pursue, while a sickness no less dangerous than painful confined him two years to his bed. Nevertheless he courted the muses; he studied the works of the poets, Latin, Greek, and French; and the fire of their genius enkindled his own. He produced several pieces that procured him access to the court, where Francis I. Henry II. and Margaret of Navarre, admired the sweetness, the ease, and the fertility of his vein. He was unanimously called the Ovid of France. The cardinal John du Bellay, his near relation, being retired to Rome, in 1547, after the death of Francis I. our poet followed him thither within two years afterwards, where he enjoyed both the charms of society and those of study. The cardinal was a man of letters, and the hours they passed together were real parties of pleasure. His stay in Italy lasted but three years, as his illustrious kinsman wanted him in France, where he gave him the management of his affairs; but his zeal, his fidelity, and attachment to his interests, were but poorly repaid; some secret enemies having misrepresented him to his patron. His most innocent actions were turned to his reproach sinister meanings were given to his verses; and at length he was accused of irreligion and these mortifications brought on him again his old complaints. Eustache du Bellay, bishop of Paris, moved at his misfortunes, and sensible of his merit, procured him, in 1555, a canonry of his church, which, however, he enjoyed not long; a stroke of apoplexy carried him off in the night of the 1st of Jan. 1560, at the age of thirty-seven. Several epitaphs were made on him, in which he is styled “Pater elegantiarum, Pater omnium leporum.” His French poems, printed at Paris in 1561, 4to, and 1597, 12mo, established his reputation, and are certainly very ingenious; but the author was as certainly neglectful of decorum and the proprieties of his station, and imitated the ancients, not so much in what deserves imitation, as in the liberties they sometimes take. His Latin poems published at Paris, 1569, in two parts, 4to, though far inferior to his French verses, are not destitute of merit.

, an elegant Scottish writer of the sixteenth century, was descended from an ancient and very honourable family in that kingdom, where his father, Mr. Thomas Bellenden of Auchiiioul, was director to the chancery in 1540, and clerk of accounts in 1541. It does not appear when our author was born, or where educated but from his writings (frequently intermixed with words of Gallic derivation) it was probably in France. In his youth he served in the court, and was in great favour with king James V. as himself informs us, which he might very probahly owe to his fine vein in poetry, that prince being a great admirer, and a proficient in poetical studies. Having this interest with his prince, he attained extraordinary preferment in the church, being made canon of Ross, and archdeacon of Murray, to which last dignity perhaps he opened his passage, by taking the degree of doctor of divinity at the Sorbonne. He likewise obtained his father’s employment of clerk of accounts, which was very considerable, in the minority of the king before mentioned; but he was afterwards turned out by the struggle of factions, in the same reign. We have no direct authority to prove that he had any share in the education of king James V. but from some passages in his poems, and from his addressing many of them to that king, he appears to have been in some measure particularly attached to his person; and from one of them, we may infer that he had an interest beyond that of bare duty, in forming a right disposition, and giving wholesome instructions to that prince. But the work which has transmitted his name to posterity, is his translation of Hector Boethius, or, as his countrymen call him, Hector Boeis’s History, from the Latin into the Scottish tongue, which he performedat the command of his royal master admirably, but with a good deal of freedom, departing often from his author, although generally for the sake of truth, and sometimes also adding circumstances, which perhaps might not be known to Hector Boece. This version, as he called it, was very well received both in Scotland and England. It does not appear either from his own writings or otherwise, how he came to lose his office of clerk of accounts; but he certainly recovered it in the succeeding reign, was likewise made one of the lords of session; and had credit then at court, perhaps from his zeal in respect to his religion, for he was a very warm and inflexible Romanist, and laboured assiduously, in conjunction with Dr. Laing, to impede the progress of the reformation. It may with great probability be conjectured, that the disputes into which he plunged himself on this subject, made him so uneasy, that he chose to quit his native country, that he might reside in a place, where that disposition, instead of being an hindrance, would infallibly recommend him. This (as it is supposed) carried him to Rome, where, as Dempster tells us, he died in 1550. He was unquestionably a man of great parts, and one of the finest poets his country had to boast, and notwithstanding the obsolete language of his works, they are not slightly imbued with that enthusiasm which is the very soul of poesy. His great work appeared in folio at Edinburgh, in 1536, entitled “The History and Chronicles of Scotland, compilit and newly correctit and amendit be the reverend and noble clerk Mr. Hector Boeis, chanon of Aberdene, translated lately be Mr. John Bellenden, archdene of Murray, and chanon of Rosse, at command of James the Fyfte, king of Scottis, imprintet in Edinburgh be Thomas Davidson, dwelling fornens the Fryere-Wynde.” This translation, as has been observed, was very far from being close, our author taking to himself the liberty of augmenting and amending the history he published as he thought proper. He, likewise, distinguished it into chapters as well as books, which was the only distinction employed by Boethius; which plainly proves, that it was this translation, and not the original, that Richard Grafton made use of in penning his chronicle, which Buchanan could scarcely avoid knowing, though he never misses any opportunity of accusing Grafton, as if he had corrupted and falsified this author, in order to serve his own purposes and abuse the people of Scotland; 1 which, however, is a groundless charge. Our author’s work was afterwards taken into the largest of our British histories, of which the bishop of Carlisle has given us the following account: “R. Holinshed published it in English, but was not the translator of it himself: his friend began the work and had gone a good way in it, but did not, it seems, live to finish it. In this there are several large interpolations and additions out of Major, Lesley, and Buchanan, by Fr. Thinne, who is also the chief author of the whole story after the death of king James the First, and the only penman of it from 1571 to 1586. Towards the latter end, this learned antiquary occasionally intermixes catalogues of the chancellors, archbishops, and writers of that kingdom.”

I. bishop of London in the reign of Henry I. was advanced to that sea through the interest of Roger Montgomery, earl of Shropshire, and consecrated 26th July, 1108. Immediately after his consecration, he was appointed, by the king, warden of the marches between England and Wales, and lieutenant of the county of Salop which offices he held about three years, residing for the most part of the time at Shrewsbury. This prelate expended the whole revenues of his bishopric in the structure of St. Paul’s cathedral, for which purpose he purchased several adjoining houses of the owners, which he pulled down, and converted the ground they stood upon into a church-yard, and this he surrounded with a very high wall. Bishop Godwin thinks this wall remained entire in his time, though no part of it was to be seen by reason of the houses, with which it was on all sides covered. Despairing, however, of seeing it finished, he turned the stream of his liberality another way; and, exchanging the manor of Landsworth for a place in the diocese of London called St. Osith de Chich, near Colchester in Essex, he built there a convent of regular canons. Being seized with a dead palsy, and thereby disqualified for the exercise of his episcopal functions, he intended to have resigned his bishopric, and to have spent the remainder of his life in the monastery of his own foundation: but whilst he delayed his purpose from day to day, he died Jan. 16, 1127 and he was buried in the convent of St. Osith. Tanner informs us, that, in the monastery of Peterborough there was formerly a treatise, written in verse, by bishop Belmeis, and addressed to Henry I.

, commonly called Joannes Eboracensis, or John of York, an eminent divine in the twelfth century, was born of a good family. After having laid the foundation of learning in his own country, he travelled abroad, and visited the most famous universities of France and Italy, where he acquired the reputation of being the most learned man of his age. He then returned home, and was made a canon, and treasurer of the cathedral church of York: but he soon quitted this post, and went back again into Italy, lived a considerable time at Rome, and had the honour of conversing familiarly with pope Adrian IV. who was an Knglishman by birth. Alexander III. who succeeded Adrian in 1159, made him bishop of Poitou in France, and he was consecrated at the abbey of Dole, in the diocese of Berry. He sat there above twenty years, and was translated to the archbishopric of Lyons, and became thereby primate of all France. He was archbishop of that city nearly eleven years. It is said, he returned into England in 1194, being then a very old man; but we are not told when or where he died. Bale informs us, that he vehemently opposed archbishop Becket in the contests he had with king Henry II. and that he was very expert in controversial writing. Bale and Pits mention the titles of some of his works, but it does not appear that any of them are extant. Leland could not discover any thing certainly written by him.

After the lapse of a few years, which he spent partly at Venice and partly at Padua in the prosecution of his studies, his father being appointed vicedomino of Ferrara, young Bembo accompanied him thither, where he had an opportunity of attending the philosophical lectures of Nicolao Leoniceno, and commenced an acquaintance with Sadoleto, other learned men. He was also favourably received court, but did not desist from the prosecution of his studies. When about twenty -eight years of age, he began his “Asolani,” so called from its having been finished at Asolo, a town in the Venetian territory. This work, in which the subject of love is attempted in a moral and philosophical point of view, soon became so popular as to contribute much to his fame. It was first printed at the Aldine press in 1505, 4to, and was often reprinted. He afterwards returned with his father to Venice, where, and at Padua, he continued his studies principally with a view of improving his native language. At length, unwilling to continue burthensome to his father, he determined to try his fortune at the court of Urbino, at that time the centre of genius, fashion, and taste, and where Castiglioni laid the scene of his “II Cortegiano,” and introduced Bembo as one of the speakers. Bembo was recommended here in 1506, and soon became admired for his address, eloquence, and manners, while he still prosecuted his favourite studies, and produced his “Rime,” and various Latin compositions. He also occasionally visited the court of Rome, where the duchess of Urbino Elizabetha Gonzaga zealously endeavoured to promote his interest. In the last year of the pontificate of Julius II. he accompanied Sadoleto and other persons of distinction to that city; and among other literary services rendered by him to the pope, he decyphered an ancient manuscript written in abbreviated characters, a task which others had in vain attempted, and which the pope appears to have rewarded by some ecclesiastical preferments of the sinecure kind.

, a brave English admiral, descended of an ancient Shropshire family, reduced in fortune by its adherence to Charles I. was born about the year 1650, at Coton-hill, Shrewsbury, an ancient house now occupied by Mr. Bishop, a maltster of that place. His father, colonel John Benbow, dying when he was very young, this son had no other provision than being bred to the sea, a profession which he eagerly adopted, and in which he was so successful, that before he was thirty he became master, and partly owner, of a ship called the Benbow frigate, employed in the Mediterranean trade, in which he would have probably acquired a good estate, if an accident had not brought him to serve in the British navy. In the year 1686, he was attacked in his, passage to Cadiz by a Sallee rover, against whom he defended himself, though very unequal in' the number of men, with the utmost bravery, and, although the Moors boarded him, they were quickly beat out of the ship again, with the loss of thirteen men, whose heads captain Benbow ordered to be cut off, and thrown into a tub of pork pickle. When he arrived at Cadiz, he went ashore, and ordered a negro servant to follow him, with the Moors heads in a sack. He had scarcely landed before the officers of the revenue inquired of his servant, what he had in his sack? The captain answered, “Salt provisions for his own use.” The officers insisted upon seeing them, which captain Benbow refused. The officers told him that the magistrates were sitting, and he might appeal to them, but that it was not in their power to act otherwise. The captain consented to the proposal, and the magistrates treated him with great civility, told him they were sorry to make a point of such a trifle, but that since he had refused to shew the contents of his sack to their officers, the nature of their employments obliged them to demand a sight of them; and that as they doubted not they were salt provisions, the shewing them could be of no great consequence. “I told you,” said the captain sternly, “they were salt provisions for my own use. Caesar, throw them down upon the table, and, gentlemen, if you like them, they are at your service.” The Spaniards were exceedingly struck at the sight of the Moors’ heads, and no less astonished at the account of the captain’s adventure, who with so small a force had been able to defeat such a number of barbarians. This anecdote, in our opinion, reflects but little credit on the feelings of our seaman, nor does it clearly appear why he should think this barbarous display necessary for his reputation. These magistrates, however, sent an account of the matter to the court of Madrid, and Charles II. then king of Spain, invited Benbow to court, where he was received with great respect, dismissed with a handsome present, and his Catholic majesty wrote a letter in his 'behalf to king James, who, upon the captain’s return, gave him a ship, which was his introduction to the royal navy. After the revolution he was constantly employed, and frequently at the request of the merchants, was appointed to cruize in the channel, where he ably protected our own trade, and annoyed and distressed that of the enemy. He was likewise generally made choice of for bombarding the French ports, in which he shewed the most intrepid courage, by going in person in his boat to encourage and protect the engineers, sharing in all their hardships. It is certain that several of those dreadful bombardments spoiled several ports, and created a terror on the French coast, notwithstanding all the precautions their government could take to keep up their spirits. This vigour and activity recommended Benbow so effectually to king William, that he was very early promoted to a flag, and intrusted with the care of blocking up Dunkirk; the privateers from thence proving extremely detrimental to our trade during all that war. In 1695, we find him thus employed with a few English and Dutch ships, when the famous Du Bart had the good luck to escape him, with nine sail of clean ships, with which he did a great deal of mischief, both to our trade and to that of the Dutch. Rearadmiral Benbow, however, followed him as well as he could; but the Dutch ships having, or pretending to have no orders, quitted him, which hindered from going to the Dogger-bank, as he intended, and obliged him to sail to Yarmouth roads; and here he received advice that Du Bart had fallen in with the Dutch fleet of seventy merchantmen, escorted by five frigates, and that he had taken all the latter, and thirty of the vessels under their convoy; which might probably have been prevented, if the rear-admiral could have persuaded the Dutch to have continued with him. As it was, he safely convoyed a great English fleet of merchantmen to Gottenburgh, and then returned to Yarmouth roads, and from thence to the Downs, for a supply of provisions. He afterwards resumed his design of seeking Du Bart; but his ships being much cleaner than the rear-admiral’s, he escaped him a second time, though once within sight of him. In 1697, he sailed the 10th of April, from Spithead, with seven third-rates and two fireships, and after some time returned to Portsmouth for provisions; after which he had the good fortune to convoy the Virginia and West-India fleets safe into port. He then repaired to Dunkirk, where he received from captain Bowman two orders or instructions from the lords of the admiralty; one to pursue M. Du Bart, and to destroy his ships if possible, at any place, except under the forts in Norway and Sweden; the other to obey the king’s commands, pursuant to an order from his majesty for that purpose. On the 30th of July, rear-admiral Vandergoes joined him with eleven Dutch ships, when he proposed that one of the squadrons should be so placed, as that Dunkirk might be south of them, and the other in or near Ostend road, that if Du Bart should attempt to pass, they might the better discover him: but the Dutch commander objected that his ships being foul, they were not in a condition to pursue him. Rear-admiral Benbow being disappointed in this project, immediately formed another; for, observing in the beginning of August that ten French frigates were hauled into the bason to clean, he judged their design was to put to sea by the next spring-tide; and therefore, as his ships were all foul, he wrote up to the board, to desire that four of the best sailers might be ordered to Sheerness to clean, and that the others might come to the Downs, not only to take in water, but also to heel and scrub, which he judged might be done before the next spring-tide gave the French an opportunity of getting over the bar. But this was not then thought advisable, though he afterwards received orders for it, when it was too late. By this unlucky accident, the French had an opportunity of getting ut with five clean ships; which, however, did not hinder the admiral from pursuing them as well as he was able, and some ships of his squadron had the good luck to take a Dunkirk privateer of ten guns and sixty men, which had done a great deal of mischief. This was one of the last actions of the war, and the rear-admiral soon after received orders to return home with the squadron under his command. It is very remarkable, that as the disappointments we met with in the course of this war occasioned very loud complaints against such as had the direction of our maritime affairs, and against several of our admirals, there was not one word said, in any of the warm and bitter pamphlets of those times, to the prejudice of Mr. Benbow. On the contrary, the highest praises were bestowed upon him in many of those pieces, and his vigilance and activity made him equally the favourite of the seamen and the merchants; the former giving him always the strongest marks of their affection, and the latter frequently returning him thanks for the signal services he did them, and for omitting no opportunity that offered of protecting their commerce, even in cases where he had no particular orders. With respect to political parties, he never seems to have had any attachments, which probably made him be respected by them all. On one occasion king William consulted him about a question agitated in those times, respectingthe expediency of preferring tars, as they were called, or gentlemen in the navy; and though Mr. Benbow considered himself, and was considered by all the world, as one of the former, yet he told the king it was safest to employ both, and that the danger lay in preferring gentlemen without merit, and tars beyond their capacities.

Rear-admiral Benbow sailed in the month of November 1698, and did not arrive in the West Indies till the Feb. following, where he found that most of our colonies were in a bad condition, many of them engaged in warm disputes with their governors, the forces that should have been kept up in them for their defence so reduced by sickness, desertion, and other accidents, that little or nothing was to be expected from them; but the admiral carried with him colonel Collingwood’s regiment, which he disposed of to the best advantage in the Leeward Islands. This part of his charge being executed, he began to think of performing the other part of his commission, and of looking into the state of the Spanish affairs, as it had been recommended to him by the king; and a proper occasion of doing this very speedily offered, for, being informed that the Spaniards at Carthagena had seized two of our ships, with an intent to employ them in an expedition they were then meditating against the Scots at Darien, he resolved to restore those ships to their right owners. With this view he stood over to the Spanish coast, and coming before Boccacbica castle, he sent his men ashore for wood and water, which, though he asked with great civility of the Spanish governor, he would scarcely permit him to take. This highly incensed the admiral, who sent his own lieutenant to the governor, with a message, importing that he not only wanted those necessaries, but that he came likewise for the English ships that lay in the harbour, and had been detained there for some time, which, if not sent to him immediately, he would come and take by force. The governor answered him in very respectful terms, that if he would leave his present station, in which he seemed to block up their port, the ships would be sent out to him. With this request the admiral complied, but finding the governor trifled with him, and that his men were in danger of falling into the country distemper, he sent him another message, that if in twenty-four hours the ships were not sent him, he would have an opportunity of seeing the regard an English officer had to his word. The Spaniards immediately sent out the ships, with which the admiral returned to Jamaica. There he received an account, that the Spaniards at PortoBello had seized several of our ships employed in the slavetrade, on the old pretence, that the settlement at Darien was a breach of peace. At the desire of the parties concerned, the admiral sailed thither also, and demanded these ships, but received a rude answer from the admiral of the Barlovento fleet, who happened to be then at Porto-Bello. Rear-admiral Benbow expostulated with him, insisting, that as the subjects of the crown of England had never injured those of his Catholic majesty, he ought not to make prize of their ships for injuries done by another nation. The Spaniards replied shrewdly, that since both crowns stood on the same head, it wa; no wonder that he took the subjects of the one crown for the other. After many altercations, however, and when the Spaniards saw the colony at Darien received no assistance from Jamaica, the ships were restored. On his return to Jamaica, towards the latter end of the year, he received a supply of provisions from England, and, soon after, orders to return home, which he did with six men of war, taking New England in his way, and arrived safe, bringing with him from the Plantations sufficient testimonies of his having discharged his duty, which secured him from all danger of censure; for, though the house of commons expressed very high resentment at some circumstances that attended the sending this fleet, the greatest compliments were paid to his courage, capacity, and integrity, by all parties; and the king, as a signal mark of his kind acceptance of his services, granted him an augmentation of arms, which consisted in adding to the three bent bows he already bore, as many arrows. His majesty also consulted him as much or more than any man of his rank, and yet without making the admiral himself vain, or exposing him in any degree to the dislike of the ministers. When the new war broke out, his majesty’s first care was to put his fleet into the best order possible, and to distribute the commands therein to officers that he could depend upon, and to this it was that Mr. Benbow owed his being promoted to the rank of vice-admiral of the blue. He was at that time cruising off Dunkirk, in order to prevent an invasion; but admiral Benbow having satisfied the ministry that there was no danger on this side, it was resolved to send immediately a strong squadron to the West Indies, consisting of two third-rates and eight fourths, under the command of au officer, whose courage and conduct might be relied on. Mr. Benbow was thought on by the ministry, as soon as the expedition was determined, but the king would not hear of it. He said that Benbow was in a manner just come home from thence, where he had met with nothing but difficulties, and therefore it was but fit some other officer should take his turn. One or two were named and consulted; but either their health or their affairs were in such disorder, that they mo^t earnestly desired to be excused. Upon which the king said merrily to some of his ministers, alluding to the dress and appearance of these gentlemen, “Well then, I find we must spare our Beans, and send honest Benbow” His Majesty accordingly sent for him upon this occasion, and asked him whether he was willing to go to the West Indies, assuring him, that if he was not, he would not take it at all amiss if he desired to be excused. Mr. Benbow answered bluntly, that he did not understand such compliments, that bethought he had no right to druse his station, and that if his majesty thought fit to send him to the East or West Indies, or any where else, he would cheerfully execute his orders as became him. To conceal, however, the design of this squadron, and its force, sir George Rooke, then admiral of the fleet, had orders to convoy it as far as the Isles of Scilly, and to send a strong squadron with it thence, to see it well into the sea, aH which he punctually performed. It is certain that king William formed great hopes of this expedition, knowing well that Mr. Benbow would execute, with the greatest spirit and punctuality, the instructions he had received, which were, to engage the Spanish governors, if possible, to disown ling Philip, or in case that could not be brought about, to make himself master of the galleons. In this design it is plain that the admiral would have succeeded, notwithstanding the smallness of his force; and it is no less certain, that the anxiety the vice-admiral was under about the execution oi his orders, was the principal reason for his maintaining so strict a discipline, which proved unluckily the occasion of his coming to an untimely end. The French, who had the same reasons that we had to be very attentive to what passed in the West Indies, prosecuted their designs with great wisdom and circumspection, sending a force much superior to ours, which, however, would have availed them little, if admiral Benbow’s officers hatl done their duty. Bis squadron, consisting of two third and eight fourth rates, arrived at Barbadoes on the 3d of November, 1701, from whence he sailed to the Leeward Islands, in order to examine the state of the French colonies and our own. He found the former in some confusion, and the latter in so good a situation, that he thought he ran no hazard in leaving them to go to Jamaica, where, when he arrived, his fleet was in so good a condition, the admiral, officers, and seamen being most of them used to the climate, that he had not occasion to send above ten men to the hospital, which was looked upon as a very extraordinary thing. There he received advice of two French squadrons being arrived in the West Indies, which alarmed the inhabitants of that island and of Barbadoes very much. After taking 'care, as far as his strength would permit, of both places, he formed a design of attacking Petit Guavas; but before he could execute it, he had intelligence that Monsieur du Casse was in the neighbourhood of Hispaniola, with a squadron of French ships, in order to settle the Assiento in favour of the French, and to destroy the English and Dutch trade for negroes. Upon this he detached rear-admiral Whetstone in pursuit of him, and on the 11 th of July, 1702, he sailed from Jamaica, in order to have joined the rear-admiral; but having intelligence that du Casse was expected at Leogane, on the north side of Hispaniola, he plied for that port, before which he arrived on the 27th. Not far from the town he perceived several ships at anchor, and one under sail, who sent out her boat to discover his strength, which coming too near was taken; from the crew of which they learned that there were six merchant ships in the port, and that the ship they belonged to was a man of war of fifty guns, which the admiral pressed so hard, that the captain seeing no probability of escaping, ran the ship on shore and blew her up. On the 28th the admiral came before the town, where he found a ship of about eighteen gnns hauled under the fortifications, which, however, did not hinder his burning her. The rest of the ships had sailed before day, in order to get into a better harbour, viz. Cui de Sac. But some of our ships between them and that port, took three of them, and sunk a fourth. The admiral, after alarming Petit Guavas, which he found it impossible to attack, sailed for Donna Maria Bay, where he continued till the 10th of August, when, having received advice that Monsieur du Casse was sailed for Carthagena, and from thence was to sail to Porto Bello, he resolved to follow him, and accordingly sailed that day for the Spanish coast of Santa Martha. On the 19th of August, in the afternoon, he discovered ten sail near that place, steering westward along the shore, under their topsails, four of them from sixty to seventy guns, one a great Dutch-built ship of about thirty or forty, another full of soldiers, three small vessels, and a sloop. The vice-admiral coming up with them, about four the engagement began. He had disposed his line of battle in the following manner: viz. th^ Defiance, Pendennis, Windsor, Breda, Greenwich, Ruby, and Falmouth. But two of these ships, the Defiance and Windsor, did not stand above two or three broadsides before they loofed out of gun-shot, so that the two ster.imost ships of the enemy lay on the admiral, and galled him very much; nor did the ships in the rear come up to his assistance with the diligence they ought to have done. The fight, however, lasted till dark, and though the firing then ceased, the vice-admiral kept them company all night. The next morning, at break of day, he was near the French ships, but none of his squadron except the Ruby was with him, the rest being three, four, or five miles a-stern. Notwithstanding this, the French did not fire a gun at the vice-admiral, though he was within their reach. At two in the afternoon the French drew into a line, though at the same time they made what sail they could without fighting. However, the vice-admiral and the Ruby kept them company all night, plying their chase-guns. Thus the viceadmiral continued pursuing, and at some times skirmishing with the enemy, for four days more, but was never duly seconded by several of the ships of his squadron. The 23d, about noon, the admiral took from them a small English ship, called the Anne Galley, which they had taken off Lisbon, and the Ruby being disabled, he ordered her to Port Royal. About eight at night the whole squadron was up with the vice-admiral, and the enemy not two miles off. There was now a prospect of doing something, and the vice-admiral made the best of his way after them, but his whole squadron, except the Falmouth, fell astern again. At two in the morning, the 24th, the vice-admiral came up with the enemy’s stern most ship, and fired his broadside, which was returned by the French ship very briskly, and about three the vice-admiral’s right leg was broken to pieces by a chain-shot. In this condition he was carried down to be dressed, and while the surgeon was at work, one of his lieutenants expressed great sorrow for the loss of his leg, upon which the admiral said to him, “I am sorry for it too, but I had rather have lost them both, than have seen this dishonour brought upon the English nation. But, do ye hear, if another shot should take me off, behave like brave men, and fight it out.” As soon as it was practicable, he caused himself to be carried up, and placed, with his cradle, upon the quarter-deck, and continued the fight till day. They then discovered the ruins of one of the enemy’s ships, that carried seventy guns, her main-yard down and shot to pieces, her fore top-sail yard shot away, her mizen-mast shot by the board, all her rigging gone, and her sides tore to pieces. The admiral, soon after, discovered the enemy standing towards him with a strong gale of wind. The Windsor, Pendennis, and Greenwich, ahead of the enemy, came to the leeward of the disabled ship, fired their broadsides, passed her, and stood to the southward. Then came the Defiance, fired part of her broadside, when the disabled ship returning about twenty guns, the Defiance put her helm a-weather, and run away right before the wind, lowered both her top-sails, and ran. in to the leeward of the Fahnouth, without any regard to the signal of battle. The enemy seeing the other two ships stand to the southward, expected they would have tacked and stood towards them, and therefore they brought their heads to the northward; but when they saw those ships did not tack, they immediately bore down upon the admiral, and ran between their disabled ship and him, and poured in all their shot, by which they brought down his main top-sail yard, and shattered his rigging very much, none of the other ships being near him or taking the least notice of his signals, though captain Fogg ordered two guns to be fired at the ship’s head, in order to put them in mind of their duty. The French, seeing things in this condition, brought to, and lay by their own disabled ship, remanned, and took her into tow. The Breda’s rigging being much shattered, she was forced to lie by till ten o'clock, and being then refitted, the admiral ordered the captain to pursue the enemy, then about three miles to the leeward, his line of battle signal out all the while; and captain Fogg, by the admiral’s orders, sent to the other captains, to order them to keep the line and behave like men. Upon this captain Kirkby came on board the admiral, and told him, “He had better desist, that the French were very strong, and that from what had passed he might guess he could make nothing of it.” The brave admiral Benbow, more surprised at this language than at all that had hitherto happened, said very calmly, that this was but one man’s opinion, and therefore made a signal for the rest of the captains to come on board, which they did in obedience to his orders; but when they came, they fell too easily into captain Kirkby’s sentiments, and, in conjunction with him, signed a paper, importing, that, as he had before told the admiral, there was nothing more to be done; though at this very time they had the fairest opportunity imaginable of taking or destroying the enemy’s whole squadron; for ours consisted then of one ship of seventy guns, one of sixty-four, one of sixty, and three of fifty, their yards, masts, and in general all their tackle, in as good condition as could be expected, the admiral’s own ship excep-ted, in which their loss was considerable; but in the rest they had eight only killed and wounded, nor were they in any want of ammunition necessary to continue the fight. The enemy, on the other hand, had but four ships of between sixty and seventy guns, one of which was entirely disabled and in low, and all the rest very roughly handled; so that even now, if these officers had done their duty, it is morally certain they might have taken them all. But vice-admiral Benbow, seeing himself absolutely without support (his own captain having signed the paper before mentioned) determined to give over the fight, and to return to Jamaica, though he could not help declaring openly, that it was against his own sentiments, in prejudice to the public service, and the greatest dishonour that had ever befallen the English navy. The French, glad of their escape, continued their course towards the Spanish coasts, and the English squadron soon arrived safe in Port-Royal harbour, where, as soon as the vice-admiral came on shore, he ordered the officers who had so scandalously misbehaved, to be brought out of their ships and confined, and immediately after directed a commission to rear-admiral Whetstone to hold a court-martial for their trial, which was accordingly done, and upon the fullest and clearest evidence that could be desired, some of the most guilty were condemned, and suffered death according to their deserts. Although now so far recovered from the fever induced by his broken leg, as to be able to attend the trials of the captains who deserted him, and thereby vindicate his own honour, and that of the nation, yet he still continued in si declining way, occasioned partly by the heat of the climate, but chiefly from that grief which this miscarriage occasioned, as appeared by his letters to his lady, in which he expressed much more concern for the condition in which he was like to leave the public affairs in the West Indies, than for his own. During all the time of his illness, he behaved with great calmness and presence of mind, having never flattered himself, from the time his leg was cut off, with any hopes of recovery? but shewed an earnest desire to be as useful as he could while he was yet living, giving the necessary directions for stationing the ships of his squadron, for protecting commerce, and incommoding the enemy. He continued thus doing his duty to the last moment of his life. His spirits did not fail him until very near his end, and he preserved his senses to the day he expired, Nov. 4, 1702. He left several sons and daughters; but his sons dying without issue, his two surviving daughters became coheiresses, and the eldest married Paul Calton, esq. of Milton near Abington in Berkshire, who contributed much of the admiral’s memoirs to the Biographia Britannica. One of his sons, John, was brought up to the sea, but in the year his father died was shipwrecked on the coast of Madagascar, where, after many dangerous adventures, he was reduced to live with, and in manner of the natives, for many years, and at last, when he least expected it, he was taken on board by a Dutch captain, out of respect to the memory of his father, and brought safe to England, when his relations thought him long since dead. He was a young gentleman naturally of a very brisk and lively temper, but by a long series of untoward events, his disposition was so far altered that he appeared very serious or melancholy, and did not much affect speaking, except amongst a few intimate friends. But the noise of his remaining so long, and in such a condition, upon the island of Madagascar, induced many to visit him; for though naturally taciturn, he was very communicative on that subject, although very few particulars relating to it can now be recovered. It was supposed by Dr. Campbell, jn his life of the admiral, that some information might have been derived from a large work which Mr. John Benbow composed on the history of Madagascar, but it appears from a letter in the Gent. Mag. vol. XXXIX. p. 172, that this was little more than a seaman’s journal, the loss of which may perhaps be supplied by Drury’s description of Madagascar, one of the fellow-sufferers with Mr. Benbow, of which work a new edition was published a few years ago, Mr. Benbow’s ms. was accidentally burnt by a fire which took place in the house, or lodgings, of his brother William, a clerk in the Navy office, who died in 1729. The whole family is now believed to be extinct, and a great part of the admiral’s fortune is said to remain in the bank of England, in the name of trustees, among the unclaimed dividends. One William Briscoe, a hatter, and a member of the corporation of Shrewsbury, who was living in 1748, was supposed to be his representative, but was unable to substantiate his pretensions.

, was a native of Sienna, which circumstance has procured him to be recorded in some biographical works under the name of Hugo Senensis, and Freher, otherwise a correct biographer, has given these as distinct persons. He became one of the most celebrated physicians of the fifteenth century, and not less esteemed as a philosopher and divine. In such admiration was he held, that his contemporaries hailed him as another Aristotle and a new Hippocrates; and such was his memory, that he could readily and promptly give answers to any questions or doubts that were propounded from the works of Plato or Aristotle. He was, according to Ghilini, professor of medicine at Ferrara, and was a member of the council called to adjust the religious disputes between the Greeks and Latins. Castellanus informs us, that when Nicholas of Este founded the university of Parma, Bencius was appointed one of its first professors, and this Bencius himself confirms in the introduction to his commentary on Galen. He died at Rome in 1438, according to Castellanus, or in 1448, according to Ghilini. tjis principal works are, 1, “In aphorismos Hippocratis,” &c. expositio,“ Venice, 1498, folio, reprinted 1.517, 1523. 2.” Consilia saluberrima ad omnes Ægritudines,“Venice, 1518, folio. 3.” In tres libros Microtechni Galeni luculentissimi expositio,“ibid. 1523, fol. 4.” In primi canonis Avicennufc Fen primam expositio,“ibid. 1523, fol. 5.” Supra quarta Fen primi Avicennae expositio,“ib. 1717. 6.” In quarti canonis Avicennse Fen primam expositio," ibid. 1523. There is an edition of his works, Venice, 2 vols, folio, 1518, but whether it includes the above is not mentioned in our authorities.

, a famous abbot in the seventh century, was born of a noble family among the English Saxons, and flourished under Oswi and Egfrid kings of Northumberland. In the twenty-fifth year of his age, he abandoned all temporal views and possessions, to devote himself wholly to religion, and for this purpose travelled to Rome in the year 653, where he acquired a knowledge of ecclesiastical discipline, which, upon his return home, he laboured to establish in Britain. In the year 665, he took a second journey to Rome; and after some months stay in that city, he received the tonsure in. the monastery of Lerins, where he continued about two years in a strict observance of the monastic discipline. He was sent back by pope Vitalian, and upon his return, took upon himself the government of the monastery of Canterbury, to which he had been elected in his absence. Two years after, he resigned the abbey to Adrian, an abbot, and went a third time to Rome, and returned with a very large collection of the most valuable books. Then he went to the court of Egfrid, king of Northumberland, who had succeeded Oswi. That prince, with whom he was highly in favour, gave him a tract of land on the east side of the mouth of the river Were; where he built a large monastery, called, from its situation, Weremouth; in which, it is said, he placed three hundred Benedictine monks. The church of this convent was built of stone after the Roman architecture, and the windows glazed by artificers brought from France, in the year of Christ 674, and the fourth of king Egfrid; and both the monastery and the church were dedicated to St. Peter. In the year 678, Benedict took a fourth journey to Rome, and was kindly received by pope Agatho. From this expedition he returned loaded with books, relics of the apostles and martyrs, images, and pictures, when, with the pope’s consent, he brought over with him John, arch-chanter of St. Peter’s, and abbot of St. Martin’s, who introduced the Roman manner of singing mass. In the year 682 kingEgfrid gave him another piece of ground, on the banks of the Tyne, four miles from Newcastle where he built another monastery called Girwy or Jarrow, dedicated to St. Paul, and placed therein seventeen monks under an abbot named Ceolfrid. About the same time he appointed a Presbyter named Easterwinus to be a joint abbot with himself of the monastery of Weremouth soou after which, he took his fifth and last journey to Rome, and, as before, came back enriched with a farther supply of ecclesiastical books and pictures. He had not been long at home before he was seized with the palsy, which put an end to his life on the 12th of January, 690. His behaviour during his sickness appears to have been truly Christian and exemplary. He was buried in his own monastery of Weremouth. He wrote some pieces, but Leland ascribes to him only a treatise on the Agreement of the rule of the Monastic life. Bale and Pits give this book N the title of “Concordia Regularum,” and the last-mentioned author informs us, that the design of this book was to prove, that the rules of all the holy fathers tallied exactly with that of St. Benedict, founder of the Benedictines. He wrote likewise “Exhortationes ad Monachos;” “De suo Privilegio.” And “De celebratione Festorum totius anni.” Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, mentions Benedict Biscop as one of the most distinguished of the Saxon ecclesiastics. The library which he added to his monastery, was stored with Greek and Latin volumes. Bede has thought it worthy to be recorded, that Ceolfrid, his successor in the government of Weremouth abbey, augmented this collection with three volumes of Pandects, and a book of cosmography, wonderfully enriched with curious workmanship, and bought at Rome. The historian Bede, who wrote the lives of four of the abbots of Weremouth and Jarrow, was one of the monks in those convents, and pronounced a homily on the death of Benedict. His body was deposited in the monastery of Thorney, in Cambridgeshire.

, was a native of Trevigi, belonging to the state of Venice, and the son of a shepherd, or, as some say, of a notary. His name was Nicholas Bocasini. For some time he earned a livelihood by teaching children at Venice, but becoming afterwards a Dominican, he applied himself diligently to his studies, and acquired such superiority among his order, that in 1298 he was appointed general; and, by Boniface VIII. created cardinal bishop of Sabina, from which he was soon after translated to that of Ostia. He discharged likewise several embassies with great reputation, and having returned from Hungary when Boniface was taken and imprisoned in his own palace at Anagni, he was one of the two cardinals who remained with him, when all the others fled. On the death of that pope, in 1303, our cardinal bishop was chosen to succeed him, and took the name of Benedict, the Christian name of his predecessor, in honour of him who had been the cause of his advancement from a low station. Among his first measures he granted absolution to the king of France, and annulled the decrees of Boniface against him, which restored peace to that country, and this he farther promoted by reinstating the Colonna family in all their honours and possessions. He made it his study to quiet the disturbances that his predecessor had raised, not only in France, but in most other kingdoms, and to regain by conciliatory measures those whom the haughty and imperious behaviour of his predecessor had alienated from the apostolic see; but his pontificate was short. He died the year following his election, July 6, 1304, not without suspicion of poison, administered, as some think, by the relations of Boniface? in revenge for his having received that pope’s enemies into favour, but others impute this crime to the Florentines, whose city he had laid under an interdict, when it was distracted by two barbarous factions, called the Neri and the Bianchi. The writers of Benedict’s time concur in reporting that he was a man exemplary in every respect, inclined to peace and conciliation, and one who had no desire to enrich his family. One trait of his character seems to support this last instance of forbearance. His mother approaching him in a very rich dress to congratulate him on his promotion, he affected to consider her as an impostor, and said: “My mother is not a princess, but a poor woman;” but next day, when she returned in her ordinary dress, he embraced her with affection, and treated her with every mark of respect. He wrote comments on the gospel of St. Matthew, the book of Job, and the Revelations, besides several sermons, and letters to the king of France and other princes, concerning the reformation of abuses that had crept into the church in their respective kingdoms; but of his works, the only one printed is a comment on the fifth chapter of Matthew, and some letters in Rainald, Wadding, and Cherubini.

Benedict was as much surprised as any of his brethren, and either out of humility, or because he was conscious he knew little of public affairs, candidly told them that they had elected an ass. His actions, however, did not justify this comparison. He was indeed a stranger to the arts of the court, but he was a learned divine, well versed in the civil and canon law, and a man of exemplary life and probity. His first act was that of liberality. The day after his election, he distributed among the cardinals 100,000 florins out of the treasure left by his predecessor; and a few days after gave 50,000 for repairing the churches of Rome. In nis first public sermon he preached on the beatific vision, and maintained that the just on their death saw God face to face, before the day of the general resurrection, contrary to the doctrine held by his predecessor; and he was so impressed with the necessity of establishing this doctrine, that he published in 1336 a constitution, as it was called, directly in opposition to the notion of purgatory in any shape. The whole of his political administration appears to have been of the pacific kind, and in providing for the interests of the church, he preferred men of merit to vacant benefices, and was an enemy to pluralities; and in some of the religious orders he introduced reformations which we may be certain were beneficial and wise, because they raised the indignation of the monks, who have on that account painted his character in, the blackest colours. His last effort for the peace of Europe was to reconcile the kings of France and England, then at war, but while employed on this, he died of a short illness, the consequence of suppressed evacuation, April 25, 1342. Like his predecessor, he avoided aggrandizing his family, as most other popes had done, and could scarcely be prevailed upon to admit his relatives into his presence, when they came to congratulate him on his promotion. He used to say “James Fournier had relations, but pope Benedict has none,” and contented himself with ordering the expences of their journey to be defrayed out of the apostolic chamber. The monks whom he had reformed, however, contrary to all contemporary evidence, have accused him of avarice, debauchery, and in particular, of an intrigue with the sister of the celebrated Petrarch. On the other hand, all the best historians havei extolled him as a man of sanctity and a pattern of every virtue. He wrote two volumes on the state of the soul before the general judgment; eleven questions upon the same subject sermons for the chief festivals of the year; all which are in ms. in the Vatican library. He wrote, likewise, several constitutions relating to the reformation of some religious orders, commentaries upon the psalms, various letters, and some poetical pieces.

, archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, was the immediate successor of St. Patrick in that see, anno 455 though it must be confessed, that this is a point which lias afforded some controversy. Writers differ as to his name: some call him Stephen, some Beneneus, others Beona, and by an Irish termination of the word Benin, in Latin Benignus. It is probable that St. Patrick baptized him by the name of Stephen, and that he obtained the name of Benin from his sweet disposition, and his great affection to St. Patrick, the word bin, in the Irish language, signifying sweet; and that from thence the other names flowed. He was the son of Sesgnen, a man of wealth and power in Meath, who, in the war in 433, hospitably entertained St. Patrick in his journey from the port of Colp, where he landed, to the court of king Leogair at Tarah, and, with his whole family, embraced Christianity and received baptism. The youth grew so fond of his father’s guest, that he could not be separated from his company. St. Patrick took him away with him at his departure, and taught him his first rudiments of learning and religion: Benin profited greatly under such a master, and became afterwards a man eminent for piety and virtue, whom St. Patrick thought worthy to fill the see of Armagh, which he resigned to him in the year 455. Benin died in the year 468, on the ninth of November, having also resigned his see three years before his death. The writers of the dark ages, however different they are from one another in other particulars, yet in the main agree as to the succession of St. Benin in the government of the see of Armagh, but there is some discordance among them as to the place of his death and burial, which we shall not attempt to reconcile; some contending he died and was buried at Armagh, and others at Glastonbury. The following writings are ascribed to him 1 “A book partly in Latin, and partly in Irish, on the virtues and miracles of St. Patrick” to which Jocelin confesses he was indebted. 2. “An Irish Poem, written on the Conversion of the people of Dublin to the Christian Faith.” 3. “The Minister Book of reigns,” called by some Leabhar Bening, or Bening’s Book, and by others Leabhar na Geart, qu. d. the book of Genealogy, which is ascribed to him by Nicolson.

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

, a dissenting minister of considerable note in the beginning of the last century, was born at Temple-hall, in the hamlet of Whellesburgh in Leicestershire, in 1674; and educated, it is believed, at the neighbouring free-school of Market Bosworth. After going through a course of theological studies, he was first settled as a preacher at a meeting-house, erected in 1710, on Temple Farm, the place of his nativity, from which he was called to succeed Dr. Gilpin at Newcastle upon Tyne, where he continued until his death, Sept. 1, 1726, exercising his ministerial functions with success and popularity, and acquiring a high character among hi* brethren for his talents and piety. He wrote several books, 1. “A memorial of the Reformation,” 1721, 8vo, an historical sketch of that event, full of prejudice against the church of England. 2. “A Defence” of the same, 1723, 8vo. 3. “Discourses on Popery,” 1714, 8vo. 4. “Irenicum, or a review of some late controversies about the Trinity, &c.” 1722, 8vo. Of this work one of his biographers says, that, “like many other good men, he was not aware of the pernicious effects of Arianism, and entertained a more favourable idea of the sentiments of some of the dissenting ministers than they deserved. The general principles of the book are good, but not suitably applied.” 5. “Sermons on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.” But his most popular work, and which has gone through many editions, is his “Christian Oratory,” which the biographer just quoted calls the “Dissenters’ Whole Duty of Man.” Job Orton, a very emiitent divine among the dissenters, appears by one of his letters, to have read this book at least ten times.

, earl of Arlington, was descended from an ancient family, and was second son of sir John Bennet of Arlington in Middlesex, by Dorothy, daughter of sir John Crofts of Saxham in the county of Norfolk. He was born in 1618, and educated at Christ-church in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of master of arts, and distinguished himself by his poetical compositions, several of which were occasionally inserted in books of verses published under the name of the university, and in others in that time. In the beginning the civil war, when king Charles I. fixed his chief residence at Oxford, he was appointed under-secretary to lord George Digby, secretary of state; and afterwards entered himself as a volunteer in the royal cause, and served very bravely, especially at the sharp encounter near Andover in Hampshire, where he received several wounds. When the wars were ended, he did not leave the king, when success did, but attended his interest in foreign parts; and, in order to qualify himself the better for his majesty’s service, travelled into Italy, and made his observations on the several countries and states of Europe. He was afterwards made secretary to James, duke of York, and received the honour of knighthood from king Charles II. at Bruges in March, 1658, and was soon after sent envoy to the court of Spain; in which negociation he acted with so much prudence and success, that his majesty, upon his return to England, soon called him home, and made him keeper of his privy purse. On the 2d of October, 1662, he was appointed principal secretary of state in the room of sir Edward Nicholas; but by this preferment some advances were evidently made towards the interest of Rome; since the new secretary was one who secretly espoused the cause of popery, and had much influenced the king towards embracing-that religion, the year before his restoration, at Fontarabia on Which' account he had been so much threatened by lord Culpepper, that it was believed he durst not return into England, till after the death of that nobleman.

Mr. Voltaire is of opinion that these inscriptions were the best of his productions, and he regrets that they have not been collected. Benserade suffered at last so much from the stone, that, notwithstanding his great age, he resolved to submit to the operation of cutting. But his constancy was not put to this last proof, for a surgeon letting him blood by way of precaution, pricked an artery, and, instead of endeavouring to stop the effusion of blood, Fan away Commire, his friend and confessor, was called in, who arrived in time to witness his death, Oct. 19, 1691. He had been a member of the French academy from 1674. Pascal says he was the repeater of many bad bons-mots, and those which his biographers have recorded are certainly of that description. His theatrical pieces, Cleopatra, the death of Achilles, &c. were printed singly from 1636 to 1641, 4to; but his whole works, including a selection from his rondeaus taken from Ovid, were printed at Paris, 1697, 2 vols. 12mo.

In the introduction the authorthought it might be useful to give some account of Saxon, Norman, and what is usually called Gothic architecture. The many novel and ingenious remarks, which occurred in this part of the work, soon attracted the attention of those who had turned their thoughts to the subject. This short essay was favourably received by the public, and has been frequently cited and referred to by most writers on Gothic architecture. By a strange mist-ike, these observations were hastily attributed to the celebrated Mr. Gray, merely because Mr. Bentham has mentioned his name among that of others to whom he conceived himself indebted for communications and hints. Mr. Bentham was never informed of this extraordinary circumstance till the year 1783, when he accidentally met with it in the Gentleman’s Magazine for the month of February in that year; upon which he immediately thought it necessary to rectify the mistake, and to vindicate his own character and reputation as an author from the charge of having been obliged to Mr. Gray for that treatise, when he had published it as his own; and this he was enabled to do satisfactorily, having fortunately preserved the only letter which he had received from Mr. Gray on the subject. The truth was, that Mr. Bentham had written the treatise long before he had the honour of any acquaintance with Mr. Gray, and it was that which first introduced him to Mr. Gray. What his obligations were will appear by reference to a copy of that letter, which he received from Mr. Gray when he returned the six sheets which Mr. Bentham had submitted to him at his own request. It happened that the two last sheets, though composed, were not worked off, which gave Mr. Bentham an opportunity of inserting some additions alluded to in Mr. Gray’s letter. In the Magazine for July 1784, may be seen the full and handsome apology which this explanation produced from a correspondent, who, under the signature of S. E. had inadvertently ascribed these remarks to Mr. Gray. These remarks have been since printed in an excellent collection of “Essays on Gothic Architecture,” published by Mr. Taylor, of Holborn. When the dean and chapter of Ely had determined upon the general repair of the fabric of their church, and the judicious removal of the choir from the dome to the presbytery at the east end, Mr. Bentham was requested to superintend that concern as clerk of the works. With what indefatigable industry and attention he acquitted himself in that station, and how much he contributed to the improvement and success of the publ.c works then carrying on, appears as well by the minutes of those transactions, as by the satisfaction with which the body recognized his services. This employment gave him a thorough insight into the principles and peculiarities of these antient buildings, and suggested to him the idea of a general history of antient architecture in this kingdom, which he justly considered a desideratum of the learned and inquisitive antiquary. He was still intent upon this subject, and during the amusement of his leisure hours continued almost to the last to make collections with a view to some further illustration of this curious point, though his avocations of one kind or another prevented him from reducing them to any regular form or series. But he did not suffer these pursuits to call him off from the professional duties of his station, or from contributing his endeavours towards promoting works of general utility to the neighbourhood. To a laudable spirit of this latter kind, animated by a zeal for his native place, truly patriotic, is to be referred his steady perseverance in recommending to his countrymen, under all the discouragements of obloquy and prejudice, the plans suggested for the improvement of their fens by draining, and the practicability of increasing their intercourse with the neighbouring counties by means of turnpike roads; a measure till then unattempted, and for a long time treated with a contempt and ridicule due only to the most wild and visionary projects, the merit of which he was at last forced to rest upon the result of an experiment made by himself. With this view, in 1757, he published his sentiments under the title of “Queries offered to the consideration of the principal inhabitants of the city of Ely, and towns adjacent, &c.” and had at length the satisfaction to see the attention of the public directed to the favourite object of those with whom he was associated. Several gentlemen of property and consideration in the county generously engaged in contributing donations towards setting on foot a scheme to establish turnpike roads. By the liberal example of lord-chancellor Hardwicke, lord Royston, and bishop Mawson, and the seasonable bequest of 200l. by Geo. Riste, esq. of Cambridge, others were incited to additional subscriptions. In a short time these amounted to upwards of 1000l. and nearly to double that sum on interest. The scheme being thus invigorated by these helps, and by the increasing loans of those whose prejudices began now to wear away, an act was obtained in 1763 for improving the road from Cambridge to Ely. Similar powers and provisions were in a few years obtained by subsequent acts, and the benefit extended to other parts of the isle in all directions, the success of which hath answered the most sanguine expectations of its advocates. With the same beneficent disposition, Mr. Bentham in 1773 submitted a plan for inclosing and draining a large tract of common in the vicinity of Ely, called Gruntiten, containing near 1300 acres, under the title of “Considerations and Reflections upon the present state of the fens near Ely,” &c. Cambridge, 1778, 8vo. The inclosure, however, from whatever cause, did not then, take place; but some of the hints therein suggested have formed the groundwork of many of the improvements which have since obtained in the culture and drainage of the fens. Exertions of this kind could not fai^o procure him the esteem and respect of all who knew him, especially as they were wholly unaccompanied with that parade and ostentation by which the best public services are sometimes disgraced. Mr. Bentham was naturally of a delicate and tender constitution, to which his sedentary life and habits of application were very unfavourable; but this was so far corrected by rigid temperance and regularity, that he was rarely prevented from giving clue attention either to the calls of his profession or to the pursuits of his leisure hours. He retained his faculties in full vigour to the last, though his bodily infirmities debarred him latterly from attendance upon public worship, which he always exceedingly lamented, having been uniformly exemplary in that duty. He read, with full relish and spirit, most publications of note or merit as they appeared, and, till within a few days of his death, continued his customary intercourse with his friends. He died Nov. 17, 1794, in the eightysixth year of his age. He left only one son, the Rev. James Bentham, vicar of West Braddenham in Norfolk, a preferment for which he was indebted to the kind patronage of the late bishop of Ely, the hon. Dr. James Yorke. Mr. Joseph Bentham, brother to the Historian and to Dr. Bentham, and an alderman of Cambridge, was many years printer to the university, and died in 1778. The History of Ely being the last work he printed, this circumstance is recorded on the last page by the words “Finis hie officii atque laboris.” A fourth brother, the Rev. Jeffery Bentham, precentor of the church of Ely, &c. died in 1792, aged seventy two. A fifth, the Rev. Edmund Bentham, B.D. rector of Wootton-Courtnay, Somersetshire, died in Oct. 1781, at Moulsey Grove, near Hampton. Mr. Cole, who in his ms Athenae, gives some account of the Benthams, with a mixture of spleen and respect, remarks that this Edmund died in a parish in which he was not buried, was buried in a parish with which he had no connexion, and has a monument in a church (Sutton) where he was not buried, but of which he had been curate for near forty years.

, earl of Portland, &c. one of the greatest statesmen of his time, and the first that advanced his family to the dignity of the English peerage, was a native of Holland, of an ancient and noble family in the province of Guelderland. After a liberal education, he was promoted to be page of honour to William, then prince of Orange (afterwards king William III. of England), in which station his behaviour and address so recommended him to the favour of his master, that he preferred him to the post of gentleman of his bedchamber. In this capacity he accompanied the prince into England, in the year 1670, where, going to visit the university of Oxford, he was, together with the prince, created doctor of civil law. In 1672, the prince of Orange being made captain-general of the Dutch forces, and soon after Stadtholder, M. Bentinck was promoted, and had a share in his good fortune, being made colonel and captain of the Dutch regiment of guards, afterwards esteemed one of the finest in king William’s service, and which behaved with the greatest gallantry in the wars both in Flanders and Ireland. In 1675, the prince falling ill of the small-pox, M. Bentinck had an opportunity of signalizing his love and affection for his master in an extraordinary manner, and thereby of obtaining his esteem and friendship, by one of the most generous actions imaginable: for the small-pox not rising kindly upon the prince, his physicians judged it necessary that some young person should lie in the same bed with him, imagining that the natural heat of another would expel the disease. M. Bentinck, though he had never had the small-pox, resolved to run this risque, and accordingly attended the prince during the whole course of his illness, both day and night, and his highness said afterwards, that he believed M. Bentinck never slept; for in sixteen days and nights, he never called once that he was not answered by him. M. Bentinck, however, upon the prince’s recovery, was immediately seized with the same distemper, attended with a great deal of danger, but recovered soon enough to attend his highness into the field, where he was always next his person; and his courage and abilities answered the great opinion his highness had formed of him, and from this time he employed him in his most secret and important affairs. In 1677, M. Bentinck was sent by the prince of Orange into England, to solicit a match with the princess Mary, eldest daughter of James, at that time duke of York (afterwards king James II.) which was soon after concluded. And in 1685, upon the duke of Monmouth’s invasion of this kingdom, he was sent over to king James to offer him his master’s assistance, both of his troops and person, to head them against the rebels, but, through a misconstruction put on his message, his highness’s offer was rejected by the king. In the year 1688, when the prince of Orange intended an expedition into England, he sent M. Bentinck, on the elector of Brandenburgh'a death, to the new elector, to communicate to him his design upon England, and to solicit his assistance. In this negociation M. Bentinck was so successful as to bring back a more favourable and satisfactory answer than the prince had expected; the elector having generously granted even more than was asked of him. M. Bentincfc had also a great share in the revolution; and in this difficult and important affair, shewed all the prudence and sagacity of the most consummate statesman. It was he that was applied to, as the person in the greatest confidence with the prince, to manage the negociations that were set on foot, betwixt his highness and the English nobility and gentry, who had recourse to him to rescue them from the danger they were in. He was also two months constantly at the Hague, giving the necessary orders for the prince’s expedition, which was managed by him with such secrecy, that nothing was suspected, nor was there ever so great a design executed in so short a time, a transport fleet of 500 vessels having been hired in three days. M. Bentinck accompanied the prince to England, and after king James’s abdication, during the interregnum, he held the first place among those who composed the prince’s cabinet at that critical time, and that, in such a degree of super-eminence, as scarcely left room for a second: and we may presume he was not wanting in his endeavours to procure the crown for the prince his master; who, when he had obtained it, was as forward on his part, in rewarding the faithful and signal services of M. Bentinck, whom he appointed groom of the stole, privy purse, first gentleman of the royal bedchamber, and first commoner upon the list of privy counsellors. He was afterwards naturalised by act of parliament; and, by letters patent bearing date the 9th of April 1689, two clays before the king and queen’s coronation, he was created baron of Cirencester, viscount Woodstock, and earl of Portland. In 1690, the earl of Portland, with many others of the English nobility, attended king William to Holland, where the earl acted as envoy for his majesty, at the grand congress held at the Hague the same year. In 1695, king William made this nobleman a grant of the lordships of Denbigh, Bromtield, Yale, and other lands, containing many thousand acres, in the principality of Wales, but these being part of the demesne thereof, the grant was opposed, and the house of commons addressed the king to put a stop to the passing it, which his majesty accordingly complied with, and recalled the grant, promising, however, to find some other way of shewing his favour to lord Portland, who, he said, had deserved it by long and faithful services. It was to this nobleman that the plot for assassinating king William in 1695 was first discovered; and his lordship, by his indefatigable zeal, was very instrumental in bringing to light the whole of that execrable scheme. The same year another affair happened, in which he gave such a shining proof of the strictest honour and integrity, as has done immortal honour to his memory. The parliament having taken into consideration the affairs of the East India company, who, through mismanagement and corrupt dealings, were in danger of losing their charter, strong interest was made with the members of both houses, and large sums distributed, to procure a new establishment of their company by act of parliament. Among those noblemen whose interest was necessary to bring about this affair, lord Portland’s was particularly courted, and an extraordinary value put upon it, much beyond that of any other peer; for he was offered no less than the sum of 50,000l. for his vote, and his endeavours with the king to favour the design. But his lordship treated this offer with all the contempt it deserved, telling the person employed in it, that if he ever so much as mentioned such a thing to him again, he would for ever be the company’s enemy, and give them all the opposition in his power. This is an instance of public spirit not often mst with, and did not pass unregarded; for we find it recorded in an eloquent speech of a member of parliament, who related this noble action to the house of commons, much to the honour of lord Portland. It was owing to this nobleman, also, that the Banquetting-house at Whitehall was saved, when the rest of the Palace was destroyed by fire. In February 1696, he was created a knight of the garter, at a chapter held at Kensington, and was installed at Windsor on the 25th of March, 1697, at which time he was also lieutenant-general of his majesty’s forces: for his lordship’s services were not confined to the cabinet; he likewise distinguished himself in the field on several occasions, particularly at the battle of the Boyne, battle of Landen, where he was wounded, siege of Limerick, Namur, &c. As his lordship thus attended his royal master in his wars both in Ireland and Flanders, and bore a principal command there, so he was honoured by his majesty with the chief management of the famous peace of Ryswick; having, in some conferences with the marshal BoufHers, settled the most difficult and tender point, and which might greatly have retarded the conclusion of the peace. This was concerning the disposal of king James; the king of France having solemnly promised, in an open declaration to all Europe, that he would never lay down his arms tilt he had restored the abdicated king to his throne, and consequently could not own king William, without abandoning him. Not long after the conclusion of the peace, king William nominated the earl of Portland to be his ambassador extraordinary to the court of France; an, honour justly due to him, for the share he had in bringing about the treaty of Hysvvick; and the king could not have fixed upon a person better qualified to support his high character with dignity and magnificence. The French likewise had a great opinion of his lordship’s capacity and merit; and no ambassador was ever so respected and caressed in France as his lordship was, who, on his part, filled his employment with equal honour to the king, the British nation, and himself. According to Prior, however, the earl of Portland went on this embassy with reluctance, having been for some time alarmed with the growing favour of a rival in king William’s affection, namely, Keppel, afterwards created earl of Albermarle, a DutchmLin, who had also been page to his majesty. “And,” according to Prior, “his jealousy was not ill-grounded for Albemarle so prevailed in lord Portland’s absence, that he obliged him, by several little affronts, to lay down all his employments, after which he was never more in favour, though the king always shewed an esteem for him.” Bishop Burnet says “That the earl of Portland observed the progress of the king’s favour to the lord Albemaiie with great uneasiness they grew to be not only incompatible, as all rivals for favour must be, but to hate and oppose one another in every thing; the one (lord Portland) had more of the confidence, the other more of the favour. Lord Portland, upon his return from his embassy to France, could not bear the visible superiority in favour that the other was growing up to; so he took occasion, from a small preference given lord Albemarle in prejudice of his own post, as groom of the stole, to withdraw from court, and lay down all his employments. The king used all possible means to divert him from this resolution, but could not prevail on him to alter it: he, indeed, consented to serve his majesty still in his state affairs, but would not return to any post in the household.” This change, says bishop Kennet, did at first please the English and Dutch, the earl of Albermarle having cunningly made several powerful friends in both nations, who, out of envy to lord Portland, were glad to see another in his place; and it is said that lord Albemarle was supported by the earl of Sutherland and Mrs. Villiers to pull down lord Portland: however, though the first became now the reigning favourite, yet the latter, says bishop Kennet, did ever preserve the esteem and affection of king William. But king William was not one of those princes who are governed by favourites. He was his own minister in all the greater parts of government, as those of war and peace, forming alliances and treaties, and he appreciated justly the merit of those whom he employed in his service. It is highly probable, therefore, that lord Portland never Jost the king’s favourable opinion, although he might be obliged to give way to a temporary favourite. The earl of Albemarle had been in his majesty’s service from a youth, was descended of a noble family in Guelderland, attended king William into England as his page of honour, and being a young lord of address and temper, with a due mixture of heroism, it is no wonder his majesty took pleasure in his conversation in the intervals of state business, and in making his fortune, who had so long followed his own. Bishop Burnet says, it is a difficult matter to account for the reasons of the favour shewn by the king, in the highest degree, to these two lords, they being in all respects, not only of different, but of quite opposite characters; secrecy and fidelity being the only qualities in which they did in any sort agree. Lord Albetnarle was very cheerful and gay, had all the arts of a court, was civil to all, and procured favours for many; but was so addicted to his pleasures that he could scarcely submit to attend on business, and had never yet distinguished himself in any thing. On the other hand, lord Portland was of a grave and sedate disposition, and indeed, adds the bishop, was thought rather too cold and dry, and had not the art of creating friends; but was indefatigable in business, and had distinguished himself on many occasions. With another author, Mackey, his lordship has the character of carrying himself with a very lofty mien, yet was not proud, nor much beloved nor hated by the people. But it is no wonder if the earl of Portland was not acceptable to the English nation. His lordship had been for ten years entirely trusted by the king, was his chief favourite and bosom-friend, and the favourites of kings are seldom favourites of the people, and it must be owned king William was immoderately lavish to those he personally loved. But as long as history has not charged his memory with failings that might deservedly render him obnoxious to the public, there can be no partiality in attributing this nobleman’s unpopularity partly to the above reasons, and partly to his being a foreigner, for which he suffered not a little from the envy and malice of his enemies, in their speeches, libels, &c. of which there were some levelled as well against the king as against his lordship. The same avereion, however, to foreign favourites, soon after shewed itself against lord Albemarle, who, as he grew into power and favour, like lord Portland, began to be looked upon with the same jealousy; and when the king gave him the order of the garter, in the year 1700, we are told it was generally disliked, and his majesty, to make it pass the better, at the same time conferred the like honour on Jord Pembroke (an English nobleman of illustrious birth). Yet it was observed, that few of the nobility graced the ceremony of their installation with their presence, and that many severe reflections were then made on his majesty, for giving the garter to his favourite. The king had for a long time given the earl of Portland the entire and absolute government of Scotland; and his lordship was also employed, in the year 1698, in the new negociation set on foot for the succession of the Crown of Spain, called by the name of the partition treaty > the intention of which being frustrated by the treachery of the French king, the treaty itself fell under severe censure, and was looked upon as a fatal slip in the politics of that reign; and lord Portland was impeached by the house of commons, in the year 1700, for advising and transacting it, as were also the other lords concerned with him in it. This same year, lord Portland was a second time attacked, together with lord Albemarle, by the house of commons, when the affair of the disposal of the forfeited estates in Ireland was under their consideration; it appearing upon inquiry, that the king had, among many other grants, made one to lord Woodstock (the earl of Portland’s son) of 135,820 acres of land, and to lord Albemarle two grants, of 108,633 acres in possession and reversion; the parliament came to a resolution to resume these grants; and also resolved, that the advising and passing them was highly reflecting on the king’s honour; and that the officers and instruments concerned in the procuring and passing those grants, had highly failed in the performance of their trust and duty; and also, that the procuring or passing exorbitant grants, by any member now of the privy-council, or by any other that had been a privy -counsellor, in this, or any former reign, to his use or benefit, was a high crime and misdemeanour. To carry their resentment still farther, the commons, immediately impeached the earls of Portland and Albemarle, for procuring for themselves exorbitant grants. This impeachment, however, did not succeed, and then the commons voted an address to his majesty, that no person who was not a native of his dominions, excepting his royal highness prince George of Denmark, should be admitted to his majesty’s councils in England or Ireland, but this was evaded by the king’s going the very next day to the house of lords, passing the bills that were ready, and putting an end to the session. The partition treaty was the last public transaction we find lord Portland engaged in, the next year after his impeachment, 1701, having put a period to the life of his royal and munificent master, king William III.; but not without having shewn, even in his last moments, that his esteem and affection for lord Portland ended but with his life: for when his majesty was just expiring, he asked, though with a faint voice, for the earl of Portland, but before his lordship could come, the king’s voice quite failed him. The earl, however, placing his ear as near his majesty’s mouth as could be, his lips were observed to move, but without strength to express his mind to his lordship; but, as the last testimony of the cordial affection he bore him, he took him by the hand, and carried it to his heart with great tenderness, and expired soon after. His lordship had before been a witness to, and signed his majesty’s last will and testament, made at the Hague in 1695; and it is said, that king William, the winter before he died, told lord Portland, as they were walking together in the garden at Hampton court, that he found his health declining very fast, and that he could not live another summer, but charged his lordship not to mention this till after his majesty’s death. We are told, that at the time of the king’s death, lord Portland was keeper of Windsor great park, and was displaced upon queen Anne’s accession to the throne: we are not, however, made acquainted with the time when his lordship became first possessed of that post. After king William’s death, the earl did not, at least openly, concern himself with public affairs, but betook himself to a retired life, in a most exemplary way, at his seat at Bulstrode in the county of Bucks, where he erected and plentifully endowed a free-school; and did many other charities. His lordship had an admirable taste for gardening, and took great delight in improving and beautifying his own gardens, which he made very elegant and curious. At length, being taken ill of a pleurisy and malignant fever, after about a week’s illness he died, November 23, 1709, in the sixty-first year of his age, leaving behind him a very plentiful fortune, being at that time reputed one of the richest subjects in Europe. His corpse being conveyed to London, was, on the third of December, carried with, great funeral pomp, from his house in St. James’s square to Westminster-abbey, and there interred in the vault under the east window of Henry the Seventh’s chapel.

, third duke of Portland, was born in 1738, and educated at Christchurch, Oxford, where he was created M. A. Feb. 1, 1757. He afterwards travelled for some time on the continent, and on his return was elected M. P. for Weobly, but in 1762 was called up to the house of peers on the death of his father. From that period, we find him generally dividing on important questions with the minority, and having connected himself with the late marquis of Rockingham, during that nobleman’s short-lived administration in 1765, he held the office of lord chamberlain. In 1767-8, his grace was involved in a long dispute with government respecting the grant of the forest of Inglewood to sir James Lowther, which had been part of the estates belonging to the duke’s ancestors, but by a decision of the court of exchequer in 1771, the grant was declared to be illegal. During the progress of the Ameiican war, his grace continued invariably to vote with the party who opposed the measures of administration, and became perhaps more closely united to them by his marriage with lady Dorothy Cavendish, sister to the duke of Devonshire. When the administration of lord North, which had conducted that unfortunate war, was dissolved in 1782, and replaced by the marquis of Rockingham, and his friends, the duke of Portland was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, but owing to the death of the marquis, he remained in this office only about three months. In consequence of the same event, some of the party were for earl Fitzwilliam, and some for the duke of Portland, as the ostensible head of the new arrangement, but in the mean time his majesty preferred the earl of Shelburne, Mr. Pitt, &c. The memorable coalition then took place between lord North and Mr. Fox, supported by many of the friends of the latter; but soon was not more unacceptable to his majesty than to the nation, whose confidence in public professions was shaken to a degree of indifference from which perhaps it has never since recovered. The coalition-ministry, however, having the voice of the house of commons in their favour, his majesty determined to appeal to the people by a general election, the issue of which was completely unfavourable to his grace’s friends; and Mr. Pitt, who had been appointed first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, found a decided majority of the parliament and of the country on his side. An attempt was indeed made to engage Mr. Pitt and the duke in the same administration, but as the latter insisted as a preliminary, that Mr. Pitt should resign, the negociation was soon broken off.

On the 4th of July, 1.689, being already M.A. in the university of Cambridge, he was incorporated as such in the university of Oxford, in Wadham college, and is mentioned by Anthony Wood (though then but a young man, a good deal under thirty) as a genius that was promising, and to whom the world was likely to be obliged, for his future studies and productions. In 1691 he published a Latin epistle to John Mill, D.D. containing some critical observations relating to Johannes Malala, Greek historiographer, published at the end of that author, at Oxon, in 1691, in a large 8vo. This was the first piece that our author published. Nor was religion less indebted to him than learning, for in 1691-2, he had the honour to be selected as the first person to preach at Boyle’s lectures (founded by that honourable gentleman, to assert and vindicate the great fundamentals of natural and revealed religion), upon which occasion he successfully applied sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica,” to demonstrate the being of God, and altogether silenced the Atheists, who, in this country, have since that time, for the most part, sheltered themselves under Deism. The subject of his discourses was the folly of atheism, even with respect to the present life, and that matter and motion cannot think; or a confutation of atheism from the faculties of the soul, from the structure and origin of human bodies, and the origin and trame of the world itself; and though he was bnt young, and even only in deacon’s orders, he laid the basis and foundation upon which all the successors to that worthy office have since built. Though this was a task of great extent, and no small difficulty, yet Mr. Bentley acquitted himself with so much reputation, that the trustees not only publicly thanked him for them, but did moreover, by especial command and desire, prevail upon him to make the said discourses public, upon which he gave the world a volume, 1693, 4to, containing eight sermons, which have not only undergone a number of editions, but have been translated abroad into several languages. On the 2d of October, 1692, he was installed a prebendary of Worcester by bishop Stillingfleet. Upon the death of Mr. Justel, Mr. Bentley was immediately thought upon to succeed him, as keeper of the royal library at St. James’s; and accordingly, a few months after his decease, he had a warrant made out for that place, from the secretary’s office, December 23, 1693, and had his patent for the same in April following. Soon after he was nominated to that office, before his patent was signed, by his care and diligence he procured no less than a thousand volumes of one sort or other, which had been neglected to be brought to the library, according to the act of parliament then subsisting, which prescribed that one copy of every book printed in England, should be brought and lodged in this library, and one in each university library. It was about this time and upon this occasion of his being made library-keeper, that the famous dispute between him and the honourable Mr. Boyle, whether the epistles of Phalaris were genuine or riot, in some measure, at first took rise, which gave occasion to so maiw books and pamphlets, and has made so much noise in the world. This controversy upon a point of learning, in itself not very entertaining, was managed with a wit and humour which rendered it interesting to the public. The world was at that time a little biassed in favour of the production of the young nobleman, at least as to the genteel raillery of his pieces; for as to the dispute itself, viz. the genuineness of the Epistles of Phalaris, the best judge^s almost universally now give the preference to Dr. Bentley; nor does he much, if at all, fall short of Mr. Boyle, in throwing a deal of life and spirit into the controversy, particularly in his answer to Mr. Boyle, which is interspersed, as well as Mr. Boyle’s piece, with abundance of wit and humour, and is, upon the whole, reckoned much the best book. When, in 1696, he was admitted to his degree of D. D. he preached, on the day of the public commencement, from 1 Peter iii. 15. “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” About this time the university entered upon a design of publishing some editions, in 4to, of some classic authors, for the use of the duke of Gloucester. Dr. Bentley, who was consulted upon the occasion, advised Laughton, to whose care the edition of Virgil was committed, to follow Heinsius very close, but his advice was not complied with. Terence was published by Leng, Horace byTalbot, and Catullus, Tibnllus, and Propertius, by Mr. Annesley, afterwards earl of Anglesey. Dr. Bentley procurecUfrom Holland the types with which these books were printed. At the express desire of his friend Mr. Graevius, he published his “Animadversions and remarks on the poet Callimachus,” making, at the same time, a collection of some scattered pieces or fragments of that author. These he finished and sent over to Mr. Grarmus, towards the latter end of his dispute with Mr. Boyle, and Mr. Graevius published them abroad in 1697. in 1700, upon the death of Dr. Montague, he was by the crown presented to the mastership of Trinity-college, Cambridge, which is reckoned worth near 1000l. per annum, upon obtaining which preferment he resigned his prebend of Worcester; but June 12, 1701, on Dr. Say well’s death, he was collated archdeacon of Ely. What next employed his critical genius were the two first comedies of Aristophanes. Upon these he made some curious annotations, which were published at Amsterdam in 1710; as was much about the same time, at Rheims, his emendations, &c. on the fragments of Menancler and Philemon, in the feigned name of “Philcleutherus Lipsiensis.” Under this character he appeared again, in 1713, in remarks upon Collins’s discourse of free-thinking, a book which had made no small noise in the world at that time. This he handles and confutes in a critical, learned, and yet familiar manner. Before his Remarks on Freethinking, in 1711, came forth his so long-expected and celebrated edition of Horace. What he intended, was not properly to explain his author, but only to correct what he judged remained still corrupted in the text, as he himself tells us in his preface; and this by the help and assistance, either of ancient manuscripts, old editions, or by conjecture. This, it must be confessed, was a nice and dangerous undertaking, but he succeeded at least in correcting a much greater number of passages than any, or all his former interpreters, ever had done; furnishing us, in this his new edition of our elegant Roman poet, with a great number of very plausible, and probable, and unquestionably, some genuine emendations. Le Clerc abroad was Bentley’s chief opponent in this edition. At home, in the year following the doctor’s edition, viz. 1712, came out, by various hands, the odes and epodes of Horace, in sixpenny numbers, making in the whole two volumes in 8vo; the titles of which are “The odes and epodes of Horace in Latin and English, with a translation of Dr. Bentley’s notes. To which are added notes upon notes, done in the Bentleian style and manner.” In the preface they “humbly hope that the reader will encourage the following essays, upon several accounts. First, as they are designed to shew him the best author of Augustus’s age in his native purity. Secondly, to give him a further proof how far all attempts to render him into English, even after the best version now extant has succeeded no better, must fall short of the original. Thirdly, to convince him how ridiculous it is to presume to correct Horace without authority, upon the pretended strength of superior judgment in poetry. And lastly, how easily such a presumption may be turned upon the authors, and sufficiently expose them in their own way.” This last paragraph seems indeed to express the greatest part of the design of this work, which is executed with a great deal of spirit and humour. On the 5th of November, 1715, the doctor preached a sermon before the university against popery, on which somebody soon after published remarks, which occasioned Dr, Bentley’s answer, entitled “Reflections on the scandalous aspersions cast on the Clergy, by the author of the Remarks on Dr. Bentley’s Sermon on Popery, &c.” This was printed in 1717, in 8vo. In 1716, at which time he succeeded to the chair of Regius professor of divinity, the doctor had two printed letters inscribed to him, dated Jan. 1, to which also was added his answer, concerning his intended edition of the Greek Testament, giving some account of what was to be expected in that edition; and in them we are informed, that he intended to make no use of any manuscript in this edition that was not a thousand years old or above; of which sort he had got at that time twenty together in his study, which made up, one with another, 20,000 years. After having had this affair in agitation for about four years, he at last published proposals for it, which met with great encouragement. But soon after came out Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, on these proposals, by Dr. Conyers Middleton, as it afterwards appeared, who sets out by assuring his reader, that it was neither personal spleen, nor envy to the author of the Proposals, that drew the following remarks from him, but a serious conviction that Dr. Bentley had neither talents nor materials proper for the work, and that religion was much more likely to receive detriment than service from it. “The time, manner, and other circumstances of these proposals,” says he, “make it but too evident, that they were hastened out to serve quite different ends than those of common Christianity; and I think it my duty to obviate, as far as I am able, the influence they might have on some, whom big words, and bold attempts, are apt to lead implicitly into an high opinion and admiration of the merit and abilities of the undertaker.” Dr. Middleton then proceeds to criticise, paragraph by paragraph, Dr. Bentley’s proposals. Soon after these Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, the Proposals appeared, with a pamphlet entitled “A full answer to all the Remarks of a late pamphleteer, by a member of Trinity college, Cambridge,” 1721, signed J. E. This Dr. Middleton, and all, imagined could be none but the doctor himself, as well from the style, as the letters J. E. the two first vowels of Richard Bentley: and, upon this supposition, Dr. Middleton and others, in their future remarks, make that one great handle for abusing him. It is, however, somewhat uncertain, whether Dr. Middleton might not be as much mistaken as to the author of those Remarks, as the very author of those Remarks was with respect to the author of the Remarks paragraph by paragraph, who supposed them to be made by Dr. Colbatch. Soon after this came out a pamphlet, with some further “Remarks, &c. containing a full answer to the editor’s late defence -of his Proposals, as well as all his objections there made against my former remarks, by Conyers Middleton, D. D.” As also, an anonymous letter to the reverend master of Trinity college, Cambridge, editor of a new Greek Testament. We also find, under the Catalogue of the doctor’s works in the Bibliotheca Bodleiana,-much about this time, another publication, somewhat analogous, and relating to this affair, viz. “An enquiry into the authority of the primitive Complutensian edition of the New Testament, in a letter to archdeacon Bentley,” 1722, 8vo. As to these proposals, Dr. Middleton takes upon him to say, that they were only published with a view “that some noise should be made in the world in his favour, to support his declining character by something great and popular, to recover esteem and applause to himself, and throw an odium and contempt upon his prosecutors, &c.” In 1725, at a public commencement on the 6th of July, the doctor made an elegant Latin speech, on creating seven doctors of divinity, in which, at the several periods, by little notes below, is set forth the whole form of the creation of a doctor of divinity. This piece is usually joined to his edition of Terence and Phsedrus: at least it is added to the Amsterdam edition of them in 1727, a very neat edition, corrected for the press by the doctor. To these notes on Terence, he has also added those of the learned Gabriel Faernius, and taken great pains in amending and correcting the author, not only from those ancient manuscripts which Gabriel Faernius had procured, but also from whatever manuscripts the royal library, those of Cambridge, or any of his friends, could afford; some of which, he assures us, were of great antiquity, and at least next, and very little inferior, to those of Faernius, the orthography of which, as the most ancient manuscript, he altogether follows. He has likewise altered the text in abundance of places, and assigns in the notes the reason for such alteration. Then follows the Schediasma of the metre and accents of Terence, by which the doctor proves that Terence is written all in Verse. This, however', was a matter of some controversy betw-een the learned bishop Hare and our author; and during the warmth of the debate. Will. Whiston remarked how intolerable it was, that while Grotius, Newton, and Locke, all laymen, were employing their talents on sacred studies, such clergymen as Dr. Bentley and bishop Hare were fighting about a play-book. About 1732, the doctor published his Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” when he was, as he says in his preface, about seventy years old. This is a very elegant and beautiful edition of that poem, but cannot be said to have contributed much to the editor’s deputation. Dr. Bentley tells us, that he had prepared a new edition of the poet Manillas for the press, which he would have published, had not the clearness of paper, and the want of good types, and some other occasions, hindered him. He had also some design of publishing an edition of Hesychius, as we find by Mr. Graevius’s letter to him, and assured Dr. Mill, he could, if he pleased, correct five thousand faults in that author. His emendations on the Tusculan Questions of Cicero are adjoined to Mr. Davis’s edition of that author. From this produce of his studious, we must now pass to that of his more active, life, in the memorable complaints of rrial -administration urged against him by the college, which were the occasion of a long suit, whether the Crown‘ or the bishop of Ely was general visitor. A party in the college, displeased at some of his regulations, began to talk of the fortieth statute, de Magistri (si res exigat) Amotionc, and meditated a complaint to the bishop of Ely. The master hearing this, went to bishop Patrick, then at Ely, who told him, he had never heard before, that, as bishop of Ely, he had any thing to do in the royal college of Trinity; called his secretary to him, and bid him seek if there was any precedent for it in the bishop’s archives; but not one was found, nor so much as a copy of Trinity college statutes. Upon that, the doctor lent him one; and during that bishop’s time the matter was dropped. But in his successor Dr. Moore’s time, the party were encouraged to apply to the bishop, in 1709, and avast number of articles about dilapidations, but not one of immorality, bribery, or fraud, were exhibited against the master. These were, however, the subject of many pamphlets on both sides. His lordship received the charge, intending to proceed upon it, which he conceived himself sufficiently authorised to do, and required Dr. Bentley’ s answer, which he declined for some time to give, pleading want of form in the charge; because other members of the college, besides the seniors, had joined in the accusation, and the seniors themselves, as he alleged, had never yet admonished him; from whence he inferred, that all proceedings on such a charge, and whatsoever should follow on the same foot, would be ipso facto null and void. The bishop, however, did not, it seems, think this plea to be material; for he insisted upon Dr. Bentley’s answer to the charge; who, upon that, began to question what authority his lordship had over him; and, by a petition presented to queen Anne, prayed “that her majesty would take him and the college into her protection, against the bishop’s pretensions, and maintain her sole power and jurisdiction over her royal foundation, and the masters thereof.” This petition was referred to the then attorney and solicitor-general, and they were ordered fully to consider the matter, and report their opinions. Notice was given at the same time to the bishop, that her majesty having taken this affair into her cognizance, his lordship was to stay proceedings till the queen’s pleasure was farther known. Mr. attorney and solicitor-general took some time to consider; and were of opinion, the bishop had power over the master. But this report not proving satisfactory to some persons then in administration, a letter was brought to the bishop from Mr. secretary St. John, dated 18th June, 1711, acquainting him, “that the matter of the petition of Dr. Richard Bentley, master of Trinity-college in Cambridge, together with the report of Mr. attorney and Mr. solicitorgeneral, being then before the queen, and ordered to be taken into consideration by my lord keeper, assisted by her majesty’s counsel learned in the law, her majesty thought it to be a business of such weight and consequence, that she had commanded him (the secretary) to signify her pleasure to his lordship, that he should stop all further proceedings, according to her majesty’s direction.” But the master seeing that all discipline and studies would be lost in the college, if that controversy were not one way or other decided, requested of the ministry that he might be permitted to take his trial under any visitor the queen should appoint; or if none could be so appointed, that he might have leave, salvo jure regio, to be voluntarily tried under the bishop. Upon this the inhibition was taken off by Mr. secretary St. John, by order of the queen, signifying, “that his lordship was at liberty to proceed, so far as by the law he might.” But his lordship did not think fit to proceed, till he was served uith a rule of court from the king’s-bench, in Easter-term 1714, to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue out against him. The bishop, being then at Ely, was applied to by joint messengers on both sides, to go to the college, where he might have ended the matter in two days. But this was not thought so proper, and Ely-house at London was pitched on, where, instead of two days, the trial lasted at least six weeks, and the college paid a thousand pounds for it; three learned lawyers, who could know but very little of the matter, being admitted on each side, to make eloquent harangues, answers, and replies, upon questions arisingfrom above fifty articles, in which there was scarcely any thing material that might not easily be determined upon a bare inspection of the college statutes, registers, and books of accounts. The trial being ended, and the cause ripe for sentence, the bishop’s death prevented his giving judgment. Thus the matter dropped for the present; but was afterwards revived in 1728, when new articles of complaint against Dr. Bentley, charging him with having in many instances made great waste of the college revenue, and violated the statutes, all founded on the 40th of Elizabeth, were again exhibited to the bishop of Ely, as specially authorised and appointed to receive the same, and to proceed thereupon; though the matter had been long before decided in favour of the crown, as having the general visitatorial power. Upon this, a petition was subscribed by the college, and presented to his majesty under the common-seal, the 10th of August 1728, and the cause carried before the king in council for the college itself now engaged as party in the cause against the bishop, and above fifteen hundred pounds out of the revenues of the college, were spent in carrying it on. This being referred to a committee of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council, Dr. Fleetwood, the lord bishop of Ely, on the 2nd of November, 1728, also presented a petition to his majesty, to be heard touching his right, which was likewise referred to the said committee. The lords committee, just before the clay appointed for a hearing, viz. March 13, 1728, had a printed pamphlet put into their hands, entitled, “The Case of Trinity-college; whether the Crown or the Bishop of Ely be General Visitor;” at the end of which, as well as in their petition, the college applied to the king, to take the visitatorial power (as by the opinion of council he might with their consent) into his own hands, that they might b0 only visited by the crown, but not with a view or intent of avoiding a visitation or inquiry into the state of the society, for which they were very pressing, both in their petition, and at the end of this pamphlet. On the fifteenth the cause came on before the lords of the committee of privy-council, but was from thence referred to the king’s bench, where the May following it was tried by way of prohibition, and after a long pleading, the judges unanimously determined it in favour of the bishop, as to his visitatorial power over the doctor; and the June following, the fellows exhibited their articles of complaint against him before the bishop of Ely, his lordship having two assistants, viz. sir Henry Penrice, and Dr. Bettesworth. But it being urged, that the bishop was going to exercise a general visitatorial power, another petition was preferred to his majesty and council, by the master and fellows, and a farther hearing appointed in the cause, in the court of king’s bench, in November, 1729, &c. and in November, 1731, we find the cause had gone against the bishop of Ely, by his taking out a writ of error, for carrying the' cause by appeal into the house of lords. The crown, however, at last, to put an end to the dispute and disturbance, (as fully impowered to do) took both college and master, according to their petition, into its own jurisdiction and visitation, and here the matter ended.

The proceedings of the university against Dr. Bentley in 1717 also, which were represented as violent and unjustifiable, as the effects of a power falsely usurped, or scandalously abused, and as arising from the malice of a party disaffected to the government, were the cause of great ferment and uneasiness in the university, and raised the curiosity, and drew the eyes of the whole nation upon them; for which reason we shall be a little particular in our account, that we may give the reader a just idea of the affair. In October 1717, the day after his majesty’s visit to the university, when several doctors in divinity, named by mandate, were attending in the senate-house to receive their degrees, Dr. Bentley, on creation, made a demand of four guineas from each of them, as a fee due to him as professor, over and above a broad -piece, which had by custom been allowed as a present on this occasion; and absolutely refused to create any doctor till this fee was paid him. This occasioned a long and warm dispute, till at last many of the doctors, and Dr. Middleton among the rest, consented to pay the fee in question, upon this condition, that Dr. Bentley should restore the money if it wasjiot afterwards determined to be his right. In the next meeting, those who had paid the fee were created, but he refused, to create such as would not pay it; upon which Dr. Grigg, then vice-chancellor, gave orders that some other doctor should perform the ceremony instead of him; and accordingly Dr. Fisher, the master -of Sydney-college, created several for the usual gratuity of a broad-piece. Upon this, they sent a state of the case to the chancellor, the duke of Somerset. Dr. Bentley still insisted upon his claim; but at last, instead of money, was content with a note from the rest, promising the payment of it, if it should be determined for him by the king, or any authority delegated from him; and at last submitted to create one of the king’s doctors, who came last, and some others who commenced afterwards, without either fee or note. Matters went on thus for near a twelvemonth, the doctor being in quiet possession of the money and notes: but nothing being determined about his right or title to it, Dr. Middleton thought he had reason to expect his money again; and accordingly (as it is said) he made a demand of it, first by letter, which was taken no notice of, and afterwards in person, and then applied to the vice-chancellor for a decree, which, from the tender regard the vice-chancellor had for Dr. Bentley, he was some time before he could obtain. At length, however, the decree was granted, and a known enemy of Dr. Bentley’s employed to serve it, who went to Trinity-lodge on Tuesday the 23d of September; but whether through ignorance in his own business, or that he believed Dr. Bentley, who told him that it signified nothing, not having the consent of nine heads to it, or that he had some other design than that of arresting him, he left the arrest, decree, &c. with theloctor, and came away without executing the vice-chancellor’s orders at all. Dr. Bentley was afterwards arrested by another beadle, on the 1st of October, with a second decree, which doubtless argued the invalidity of the first. The professor supposing the authority of the arrest not sufficient, refused to submit to it; but on farther consideration obeyed the writ, and put in bail. Every one, but such as were let into the secret, expected this four guineas affair would end here. Friday, the 3d of October, being appointed for the trial, the doctor only appeared there by his proctor, which was looked upon as a contempt of the vice-chancellor’s jurisdiction. Dr. Middleton, therefore, by the leave of the court, appointed Mr. Cook his proctor, who accused Dr. Bentley of contempt for not appearing, and moved for some censure upon it, and called for the beadle to make a return of the first decree. But he being confined in his chamber by a lit of the gout, there made an affidavit, by improving some circumstantial talk he had with the doctor and some other gentlemen, the subject of which was, a complaint of the ill usage he had met with in his attending at Dr. Bentley’s lodgings. Among other things, the beadle deposed, That Dr. Bentley said to him, “I will not be concluded by what the vice-chancellor and two or three of his friends shall determine over a bottle;” (thereby reflecting on the clandestine way in which they had proceeded against him, without the formal consent of such a number of heads as he thought necessary to make a statutable arrest). For this expression, the vice-chancellor suspended the doctor from all his degrees, who had no citation, no hearing, not so much as any notice, from any hand, of what was then doing; and the vice-chancellor declared that he would vacate the doctor’s professorship in two or three days, if he did not make his humble submission. Three court days are allowed for this submission, viz. the 7th, 9th, and 15th of October. On the two former days his name was not mentioned, and on the last, the vice-chancellor would certainly have forgot to summon him, if he had not been reminded by his brother the clean of Chichcster. That same day the vice-chancellor required the professor to submit, and own himself rightly suspended, which he refused, but had recourse to the only remedy that was now left, viz. an appeal to the delegates of the university which was arbitrarily refused him. On this the vice-chancellor, thinking it prudent to have the sanction of the university to back him, called a congregation, and on the third court day after the suspension, informed the university of the steps he had taken, and the message he had sent the professor, which was, that he required him to come and acknowledge his crime, the legality of his suspension, and humbly beg to be restored to his degrees; to which the gentleman (he said) had returned no answer; and then he commanded it to be registered, that he would deliberate farther of what was to be done, towards the maintenance of the university privileges and his own authority. Eight heads were present in the consistory, viz. two visitors of Bene't-college, Dr. Cove! and Dr. Balderston three late chaplains to his majesty, Dr. Laney, Dr. Adams, and Dr. Sherlock; the rival professor, Dr. Fisher; the masters of Clhre-ha!l and St. John’s college, Dr. Grigg and Dr. Jenkin. These gentlemen, at a consultation the same afternoon, in the master of Peterhouse’s lodge, appointed a congregation the next morning to degrade the professor. But,“”when the time came, a friend of the professor’s being that day one of the caput, other business was proposed, but not concluded. On Friday morning, no mention was made, as ought to have been, of the proceedings at the last congregation; but, in the afternoon, Oct. 3, 1718, a vote of the body deprived Dr. Bentley of all the privileges, honours, and degrees, that he had received from it. Upon this, Dr. Bentley drew up a petition, which he presented to his majesty Oct. 30, 1718, complaining of the proceedings of the vice-chancellor and university, and begging his majesty’s relief and protection, as supreme visitor of the university. The king in council taking the said petition into consideration, was pleased to order the same to be sent to the reverend Dr. Gooch, vice-chancellor; who was thereby directed to attend his majesty in council on Thursday the 6th of November 1718, to give an account of the proceedings which occasioned this complaint. On this day the case was heard between the university and the doctor, before the king and council, and afterwards referred to a committee of council; but the ministry being unwilling to interpose their authority with regard to the proceedings, the matter was farther referred, in a judicial way, to the court of king’s bench, where it was kept some time in agitation. At length, however, the proceedings of the university were reversed by that court; and on February the 7th, 1723-4, the court of king’s bench sent down a mandamus to the university of Cambridge, to restore Mr. Bentley, master of Trinity college, to all his degrees, and whatever he had been deprived of, &c. This was agreeable to a prophetic passage at the end of one of the pamphlets, at that time printed in his defence: “When our present heats are over, I question not but our professor’s case will be looked upon with another eye, if it be not already seen, that the honour of the university was made a pretext only to cover the resentments of some particular persons amongst its members. As the determination of it lies at present before a judgment where merit and not malice is likely to be regarded, we shall in a little time, I make no doubt, with a more scholar-like pleasure than can be perceived in this usage of the learned Bentley, congratulate ourselves upon his restoration to his well -merited honours.”

, an Italian surgeon, or rather physician, was born in the territory of Lucca, about the year 1728. He received the degree of doctor, began practice at Sarzano in 1755, as a member of the faculty; in 1756 was chosen member of the German imperial society; and in 1758 of the royal society of Gottingen, while he was practising at the baths of Lucca. In 1753, he happened to be at a place in that republic, called Brandeglio, where an epidemic fever of a particular kind prevailed, which he treated with great success by means of mercury. This formed the subject of his treatise, entitled “Dissertatio historico-epistolaris, &c.” Lucca, 1754, 8vo, ably defending the preference he found it necessary to give to mercury over the bark, and vindicating Dr. Bertini, of whom he learned that method, against certain opponents. Benvenuti’s other works are, 1. “De Lucensium Thermarum sale tractatus,” Lucca, 1758, 8vo. This he also translated into Italian, with a letter on the virtues of these waters. 2. “Riflessioni sopra gli effetti del moto a cavallo,” Lucca, 1760, 4to. 3. “Dissertatio physica de Lumine,” Vienne, 1761, 4to. 4. “De rubiginis frumentum corrumpentis causa et medela,” Lucca, 1762. 5. “Observationum medicarum quse anatomise superstructae sunt, collectio prima,” Lucca, 1764, 12mo. He also promoted the publication of the first volume of the “Dissertationes et Quaestiones medicae magis celebres,” Lucca, 1757, 8vo. Our authority does not give the date of his death.

, archbishop of Upsal, was born in Sweden in 1642, at a village called Benzeby, whence he took his name. His parents were of mean condition, but an uncle enabled him to pursue his studies at Upsal, where he was appointed tutor to the children of the count de la Gardie, grand chancellor of the kingdom, He afterwards travelled in Germany, France, and England, and on his return to his country, was appointed professor of history and morals. Having also made great progress in theological studies, he was created doctor of that faculty and appointed professor. In 1677 he was promoted to the bishopric of Strengnes, and in 1700, to the archbishopric of Upsal, which he held until his death, Feb. 17, 1709. He was twice married, and by his first wife had thirteen children, of whom three of the sons became archbishops of Upsal. Benzelius instructed Charles XII. in theological studies, and that prince preserved always a high esteem for him. The archbishop wrote an “Abridgment of Ecclesiastical History,” several dissertations on subjects of theology and ecclesiastical history, and a Latin translation, with notes, of many of the homilies of St. Chrysostom, which he made from manuscripts in the Bodleian library. He had also the superintendance of the edition of the Bible, in the Swedish language, which Charles XII. ordered to be published in 1703, with engravings, and which still bears the name of that monarch. Very few alterations, however, were introduced in this edition, as the divines of the time could not agree on certain disputed passages, and an entire new translation was reserved for the reign of Gustavus III.

, whose name we find disguised under Bercheure, Berchoire, Bercorius, Bercherius, &c. was born in the beginning of the fourteenth century, at St. Pierre-du-Chemin, near Mailiezais, in Poitou. He entered the order of the Beredictines, and became celebrated for his learning, and attached hi n self to cardinal Duprat, archbishop of Aix, whose advice was very useful to him in his writings. Among his other accomplishments, he is said to have been so well acquainted with his Bible, as to be able to quote texts and authorities on all subjects without any assistance but from memory. He died at Paris in 1362, prior of the monastery of St. Eloy, since occupied by the Barnabites, which has induced some biographers to think him a member of that order, but the Barnabites were not an order until a century after this period. Berchorius wrote several works which are lost those which remain are in 3 vols. fol. under the title of “Reductorium, Repertorium, et Dictionarium morale utriusque Testamenti, Strasburgh,” 1474; Nuremberg, 1499; and Cologne, 1631—1692. “Whoever,” says Warton, in his “History of Poetry,” “shall have the patience to turn over a few pages of this immense treasure of multifarious erudition, will be convinced beyond a doubt, from a general coincidence of the plan, manner, method, and execution, that the author of these volumes, and of the” Gesta Romanorum,“must be one and the same. The” Reductorium“contains all the stories and incidents in the Bible, reduced into allegories. The” Repertorium“is a dictionary of things, persons, and places all which are supposed to be mystical, and which are therefore explained in their moral or practical sense. The” Dictionarium Morale“is in two parts, and seems principally designed to be a moral repertory for students in theology.” Mr. Warton successfully pursues this argument in his” Dissertation on the Gesta Romanorum,“to which we refer the reader. He mentions also that Berchorius was author of a comment on a prosody called” Doctrinale metricum,“which was used as a schoolbook in France, till Despauter’s manual on that subject appeared. Some biographers mention his” Tropologia,“his” Cosmographia,“and his” Breviarium“but the” Tropologia“is nothing more than his” Reductorium“on the Bible, and probably the” Breviarium“is the same. The” Cosmographia“seems to be the fourteenth book -of his” Repefforiom Moraie.“He is said by his biographers to have written other smaller pieces, which they have not named nor described. Among these, Mr. Warton thinks his” Gesta" is comprehended which we may conceive to have been thus undistinguished, either as having been neglected or proscribed by graver writers, or rather as having been probably disclaimed by its author, who saw it at length in the light of a juvenile performance, abounding in fantastic and unedifying narrations, which he judged unsuitable to his character, studies, and station. Besides the works above-mentioned, Berchorius translated Livy, by order of king John, of which there was a beautiful ms. in the library of the oratory of Troyes, and other copies, not less beautiful, are in the imperial library at Paris. This translation was published in 1514 1515, at Paris, 3 vols. fol.

, a physician and anatomist of the sixteenth century, was a native of Carpi in Modena, whence some biographers have called him by the name of Carpius, or Carpensis. He took his doctor’s degree at Bologna, and first taught anatomy and surgery at Pavia. He afterwards returned to Bologna in 1520, and taught the same studies. He was there, however, accused of having intended to dissect two Spaniards who had the venereal disorder, and had applied to him for advice, which, it was said, he meant to perform while they were alive, partly out of his hatred to that nation, and partly for his own instruction. Whatever may be in this report, it is certain that he was obliged to leave Bologna, and retire to Ferrara, where he died in 1550. By his indefatigable attention to the appearances of disease, and especially by his frequent dissections, which in his time, were quite sufficient, without any other demerit, to raise popular prejudices against him, he was enabled to advance the knowledge of anatomy by many important discoveries. His works were, 1. “Commentaria, cum amplissimis additionibus, super anatomia Mundini,” Bologna, 1521, 1552, 4to, and translated into English by Jackson, London, 1664. 2. “Isagogtc breves in anatomiam corporis humani, cum aliquot figuris anatomicis,” Bologna, 1522, 4to, and often reprinted. 3. “De Cranii fractura, tractatus,” Bologna, 1518, 4to, also often reprinted. He was one of the first who employed mercury in the cure of the venereal disease.

, or Berenger, the celebrated archdeacon of Angers, was born at Tours in the beginning of the eleventh century, of an opulent family, and became the disciple of the famous Fulbert of Chartres, under whom he made rapid progress in grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, and what were then called the liberal arts. On his return to his country in 1030, he was appointed scholastic, or master of the school of St. Martin. His reputation soon reaching foreign parts, the number of his scholars greatly increased, and many of them were afterwards advanced to high rank in the church; nor did he quit his school when made archdeacon of Angers in 1039. The opinions, which have given him a name in ecclesiastical history, were said to have been first occasioned by a pique. In a dispute with Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, on a very trivial question, he happened to be defeated, and what was worse, his scholars began to go over to that rival. Berengarius, on this, took Erigena for his model, and attacked the mystery of the eucharist, as the popish writers term it, but in plain language, the doctrine of transubstantiation. Bruno, bishop of Angers, Hugh, of Langres, and Adelman, of Brescia, in vain endeavoured to cure him of his heresy, and his writings, which were taken to Rome, were condemned in two councils held by pope Leo IX. in 1050, and himself excommunicated. He then went to the abbey of Preaux in Normandy, hoping to be protected by duke William, surnamed the Bastard, but that young prince summonsed a meeting of the ablest bishops and divines, who again condemned Berengarius, and the council of Paris, in Oct. 1050, deprived him of all his benefices. This loss he is said to have felt more severely than their spiritual inflictions, and it disposed him to retract his sentiments in the council of Tours, in 1055, in consequence of which he was received into church-communion. In 1059 he was cited to the council at Rome, by pope Nicholas II. and having been confuted by Abbo and Laniranc, he abjured his errors, burnt his books, yet had no sooner reached France, than he protested against his recantation, as extorted by fear, and returned to his studies with the same spirit of inquiry. At length, however, Gregory VII having called a new council at Rome in 1078, Berengei more seriously abjured his opinions, returned to France, and passed the remaining years of his life in privacy and penance. He died Jan. 6, 1088, aged ninety. There have been many disputes betwixt protestant and popish authors, as to the reality or sincerity of his final recantation. His sentiments, however, did not perish on his recantation, or his death, and he may be considered as having contributed to that great reformation in the church which afterwards was carried into lasting effect by his successors. The greater part of his works are lost, but some are preserved among the works of Lanfranc, in the collections of d'Acheri and Martenne; and, in 1770, Lessing discovered and published his answer to Lanfranc, “De corpore et sanguine Jesu Christi.”

, a French miscellaneous writer, was born at Geneva in 1740, and in early life quitted the mechanical employment to which he had been deslined by his parents, for those studies to which he was invited by the political troubles of his country. As by birth he was classed among those who are at Geneva called natives, but who do not acquire the rank of citizens, because born of foreign parents, his first effort was to establish, in some of his writings, the necessity of equal political rights. This dispute being referred to arms, Berenger, after his party was defeated, was banished, along with many others, by a decree of the sovereign power, February 10, 1770. On this he retired to Lausanne, and employed his time in various literary undertakings, until his return to Geneva, where he died in June, 1807. He published, 1. An edition of the works of Abauzit. 2. “Histoire de Geneve, depuis son origine jusqu'a nos jours,” 1772 75, 6 vols. 12 mo. In this, the more distant ages are given in a summary manner, having been sufficiently detailed by Spon, but much light is thrown upon the political history of the last century, which he brings down to 1761, and to which sir F. D'Yvernois’ work, “Tableau historiquede revolutions de Geneve,” may be considered as a sequel. 3. “Geographic de Busching abregee, &c.” Busching’s work is here abridged in some parts and enlarged in others, Lausanne, 1776 79, 12 vols. 8vo. 4. “Collection de tous les voyages faits autour de monde,” 1788 90, 9 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1795. 5. “Amants Republicains, ou Lettrea de Nicias et Cynire,” 1782, 2 vols. 8vo, a political romance relating to the troubles of Geneva. 6. “Cours de geographic historique, ancienne et moderne de feu Ostervald,” 1803 and 1805, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. An edition of the “Dictionnaire geographique” of Vosgien (Ladvocat), 1805, 8vo. 8. Translations from the English of “Laura and Augustus,” and of“Cook’s Voyages.” 9. “J. J. Rousseau justifie envers sa patrie” and some lesser pieces mentioned in Ersch’s “France Litteraire.” M. Bourrit attributes to him a translation of Howard’s history of Prisons, but this, it is thought, was executed by mademoiselle Keralio.

, esq. many years gentleman of the horse to his majesty, a man of considerable literary talents, and for his personal accomplishments called, by Dr. Johnson, “the standard of true elegance,” published, in 1771, “The History and Art of Horsemanship,” 2 vols. 4to, illustrated with plates. The history, which occupies the first volume, displays much research and acquaintance with the classics and with other writers of remote antiquity. Previously to this, Mr. Berenger contributed three excellent papers, No. 79, 156, and 202, to the “World,” and in Dodsley’s collection are a few of his poems, written with ease and elegance. He died in his sixty-second year, Sept. 9, 1782.

, an Italian monk of the order of the minorite conventuals, was born at Palermo, and in 1650, when he officiated during Lent at Bologna, acquired high reputation as a preacher. He was professor of philosophy and divinity in the convents of his order, provincial in Sicily, and superintendant of the great convent of Palermo, where he died, November 17, 1679. He published a philosophical work, or at least a work on philosophy, entitled “De objecto philosophise,” Perug. 1649, 4to; and it is said that he wrote an Italian epic poem called “Davidiade,” a collection entitled “Poesis miscellanea,” and an elementary work on medicine, “Tyrocinium medicoe facultatis” but these have not been printed.

, the author of a poem, in praise of printing, written in Latin hexameters and pentameters, has escaped tlfe researches of biographers as to much personal history. It is, however, conjectured, that his proper name was Arnold or Arnold i, and that he was called Bergellauus from his country. It is supposed also that he came to Mentz, and was employed there, either? as a workman, or as a corrector of the press. John Conrad Zeltner, who is of this last opinion, has accordingly asigned him a short article in his Latin history of the correctors of the press, p. 79, 80, where he calls him John Anthony, instead of John Arnold. Struvius (Introd. in not. rei litterariae, p. 892) considers Bergellanus as the first historian of printing, but in this he is mistaken. Mentel, in his “Paraenesis de vera origine Typographic, p. 52, says that Bergellanus’s poem was printed in 1510, which could not be the case, as mention is made in it of Charles V, who was not emperor until 1519. Walkius, who wrote in 1608, asserts that Bergellanus wrote or published his poem eighty years before, which brings us to 1528, but in tact it was not written or published until 1540 and 1541, as appears clearly by the author’s dedication to cardinal Albert, archbishop of Mentz and marquis of Brandebourg. There have been six editions of it, separate or joined to other works on the subject. The two last are by Prosper Marchand in his History of Printing, Hague, 1740, 4to, and by Woltius in his” Monumenta typographica."

, was born about 1620, in the castle of Bergerac in Perigord, and was at first very indifferently educated by a poor country priest. He afterwards came to Paris, and gave himself up to every kind of dissipation. He then entered as a cadet in the regiment of guards, and endeavoured to acquire reputation on the score of bravery, by acting as second in many duels, besides those in which he was a principal, scarce a day passing in which he had not some affair of this kind on his hands. Whoever observed his nose with any attention, which was a very remarkable one, was sure to be involved in a quarrel with him. The courage he shewed upon these occasions, and some desperate actions in which he distinguished himself when in the army, procured him the name of the Intrepid, which he retained to the end of his life. He was shot through the body at the siege of Mouzon, and run through the neck at the siege of Arras, in 1640; and the hardships he suffered at these two sieges, the little hopes he had of preferment, and perhaps his attachment to letters, made him renounce war, and apply himself altogether to certain literary pursuits. Amidst all his follies he had never neglected literature, but often withdrew himself, during the bustle and dissipation of a soldier’s life, to read and to write. He composed many works, in which he shewed some genius and extravagance of imagination, Marshal. Gassion, who loved men of wit and courage, because he had both himself, would have Bergerac with him but he, being passionately fond of liberty, looked upon this advantage as a constraint that would never agree with him, and therefore refused it. At length, however, in compliance with his friends, who pressed him to procure a patron at court, he overcame his scruples, and placed himself with the duke of Arpajon in 1653. To this nobleman he dedicated his works the same year, fur he had published none before, consisting of some letters written in his youtH, with a tragedy on the death of Agrippina, widow of Germanicus. He afterwards printed a comedy called “The Pedant,” but his other works were not printed till after his death. His “Comic history of the states and empires of the Moon” was printed in 1656. His “Comic history of the states and empires of the Sun,” several letters and dialogues, and a fragment of physics, were all collected and published afterwards in a volume. These comic histories and fragments shew that he was well acquainted with the Cartesian philosophy. He died in 1655, aged only thirtyfive years, his death being occasioned by a blow upon his head which he unluckily received from the fall of a. piece of wood a few months before.

, a French writer of considerable note, was born at Darnay in Lorraine, December 31, 1718. In the career of promotion he was first curate of Flangebouche, a small village in Frunche-Comte, then professor of theology, principal of the college of Besai^on, a canon of the church of Paris, and confessor to the king’s aunts. Throughout life he was one of the most strenuous opponents of the modern philosophers of France. He acquired an early name by some essays on various literary subjects, to which the prizes were adjudged at Besanon and his reputation was considerably heightened by his very ingenious and plausible work, entitled “Elements primitifs des Langues, &c.” Paris, 1764, 12mo. Soon after he published another, which was favourably received by the learned world, “Origine des Dieux du Pagunisme et les sens des Fables decouvert, par une explication suivie des Poesies d'Hesiode,” Paris, 1767, 2 vols. 12mo. When about the same time he found religion attacked in every quarter by a combination of men of talents in France, he determined to endeavour to counteract their schemes. With this view he wrote “La Certitude des Preuves du Christianisme,” 1768, 12mo, particularly directed against the “Examen critique des Apologistes de la religion Chretienne,” improperly attributed to Freret; and it was allowed to have been written with much sense, precision, and moderation. This work, which occasioned more friends and more enemies to Bergier than any other, passed through three editions in the same year, besides being translated into Italian and Spanish. Voltaire, to whom the popularity of any writings of this tendency must have been peculiarly unpleasant, affected to answer it in his “Conseils raisonables,” written with his usual art, but more remarkable for wit than argument. Bergier answered the “Conseils,” the only instance in which he noticed any of his adversaries in public. He had another more contemptible antagonist, the noted Anacharsis Cloots, who published what he, and perhaps no man else, would have called “Certitude des Preuves du Mahometisme.” About this time the clergy of France, sensible of Bergier’s services, gave him a pension of two thousand livres, and offered him some valuable benefices, but he would only accept of a canonry in Notre Dame, and it was even against his inclination that he was afterwards appointed confessor to the mesdames, the last king’s aunts. Free from ambition, modest and simple in dress and manners, he was desirous only of a retired life, and at Paris he lived as he had done in the country, in the midst of his books. This study produced, successively, 1. “Le Deisme refute par lui-meme,” Paris, 1765, 1766, 1768, 2 vols. 12mo, an examination of the religious principle of Rousseau. 2. “Apologie de la Religion Chretienne contre l'auteur du Christianisme devoid,” (the baron Holbach) Paris, 1769, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Examen du Materialisme, ou refutation du systeme de la Nature,” Paris, 1771, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Traite historique et dogmatique de la vraie Religion, &c.” Paris, 1780, 12 vols. 12mo. This is, in some respect, a collection of the sentiments of the ablest writers against infidelity. 5. “Discours sur le Manage des Protestants,” 1787, 8vo. 6. “Observations surle Divorce,” ibid. 1790, 8vo. He also compiled a thelogical dictionary, which makes a part of the “Encyclopedic methodique,” 3 vols. 4to. The abbé“Barruel says, that when this work was first undertaken, some deference was still paid to religion, and Bergier thought it incumbent on him to yield to the pressing solicitations of his friends, lest the part treating of religion should fall into the hands of its enemies, but in this they were deceived. Bergier, indeed, performed his task as might have been expected but in other parts of the work the compilers exceeded their predecessors in licentious sentiments, and at the same time availed themselves of the name of Bergier as a cloak. M. Barbier attributes to our author the sketch of Metaphysics inserted in the” Cours d‘etude de l’usage de l'Ecole militaire." In all his works there is a logical arrangement and precision, and the only objection the French critics have is to his style, which is sometimes rather diffuse. He died at Paris, April 9, 1790. He was a member of the academy of Besangon, and an associate of that of inscriptions and belleslettres.

In 1710 appeared “The Principles of human knowledge;” and, in 1713, “Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous” but to them the same praise has not been given, and to this day their real tendency is a disputed point. The object of both pieces is to prove that the commonly received notion of the existence of matter is false that sensible material objects, as they are called, are not external to the mind, but exist in it, and are nothing more than impressions made upon it by the immediate act of God, according to certain rules termed laws of nature, from which, in the ordinary course of his government, he never deviates and that the steady adherence of the Supreme Spirit to these rules is what constitutes the reality of things to his creatures. These works are declared to. Lave been written in opposition to sceptics and atheists and the author’s inquiry is into the chief cause of error and difficulty in the sciences, with the grounds of scepticism, atheism, and irreligion which cause and grounds are found to be the doctrines of the existence of matter. He seems persuaded that men never could have been deluded into a false opinion of the existence of matter, if they had not fancied themselves invested with a power of abstracting substance from the qualities under which it is perceived and hence, as the general foundation of his argument, he is led to combat and explode a doctrine maintained by Locke and others, of there being a power in the mind of abstracting general ideas. Mr. Hume says, that these works “form the best lessons of scepticism, which are to be found either among the ancient or modern philosophers, Bayle not excepted.” Dr. Beattie also considers them as having a sceptical tendency. He adds, that if Berkeley’s argument be conclusive, it proves that to b false which every man must necessarily believe, every moment of his life, to be true, and that to be true which no man since the foundation of the world was ever capable of believing for a single moment. Berkeley’s doctrine attacks the most incontestable dictates of common sense, and pretends to demonstrate that the clearest principles of human conviction, and those which have determined the judgment of men in all ages, and by which the judgment of all reasonable men must be determined, are certainly fallacious. It may just be observed, that Berkeley had not reached his 27th year when he published this singular system. The author of his life in the Biog. Brit, asserts that “the airy visions of romances, to the reading of which he was much addicted, disgust at the books of metaphysics then received in the university, and that inquisitive attention to the operations of the mind which about this time was excited by the writings of Locke and Malebranche, probably gave birth to his disbelief of the existence of matter.” Whatever influenre the oth^r causes here assigned might have had, we have the authority of his relict, Mrs. Berkeley, that he had a very great dislike to romances, and indeed it would be difficult to discover in any of these volumes of absurd fiction the grounds of such a work as Berkeley’s. In 1712 he published three sermons in favour of passive obedience and non-resistance, which underwent at least three editions, and afterwards had nearly done him sonic injury in. his fortune. They caused him to be represented as ajlacobite, and stood in his way with the house of Hanover, till Mr. Molineux, above-mentioned, took off the impression, and first made him known to queen Caroline, whose secretary, when princess, Mr. -Molineux had been. Acuteness of parts and beauty of imagination were so conspicuous in his writings, that his reputation was now established, and his company courted even where his opinions did not find admission. Men of opposite parties concurred in recommending him sir Richard Steele, for instance, and Dr. Swift. For the former he wrote several papers in the Guardian, and at his house became acquainted with Pope, with whom he afterwards lived in friendship. It is said he had a guinea and a dinner with Steele for every paper he wrote in the Guardian. Swift recommended him to the celebrated earl of Peterborough, who being appointed ambassador to the king of Sicily and the Italian states, took Berkeley with him as chaplain and secretary in November 1713. He returned to England with this nobleman in August 1714, and towards the close of the year had a fever, which gave occasion to Dr. Arbuthnot to indulge a little pleasantry on Berkeley’s system. “Poor philosopher Berkeley,” says he to his friend Swift, “has now the idea of health, which was very hard to produce in him; for he had an idea of a strange fever on him so strong, that it was very hard to destroy it by introducing a contrary one.”

In 1725 he published, and it has since been re-printed in his miscellaneous tracts, “A proposal for converting the savage Americans to Christianity, by a college to be erected in the Summer Islands, otherwise called the Isles of Bermuda” a scheme which had employed his thoughts for three or four years past; and for which he was disposed to make many personal sacrifices. As what he deemed necessary steps he offered to resign all his preferment, and to dedicate the remainder of his life to instructing the American youth, on a stipend of 100l. yearly; he prevailed with three junior fellows of Trinity college, Dublin, to give up all their prospects at home, and to exchange their fellowships for a settlement in the Atlantic ocean at 40l. a year he procured his plan to be laid before George I. who commanded sir Robert Walpole to lay it before the commons and further granted him a charter for erecting a college in Bermuda, to consist of a president and nine fellow?:, who were obliged to maintain and educate Indian scholars atlO/. a year each he obtained a grant from the commons of a sum, to be determined by the king and accordingly 20,000l. was promised by the minister, for the purchase of lands, and erecting the college. Trusting to these promising appearances, he married the daughter of John Forster, esq. speaker of the Irish house of commons, the 1st of August 3728; and actually set sail in September following for Rhode Island, which lay nearest to Bermuda, taking with him his wife, a single lady, and two gentlemen of fortune. Yet the scheme entirely failed, and Berkeley was obliged to return, after residing near two years at Newport. The reason given is, that the minister never heartily embraced the project, and the money was turned into another channel. During his residence in America, when he was not employed as an itinerant preacher, which business could not be discharged in the winter, he preached every Sunday at Newport, where was the nearest episcopal church, and to that church he gave an organ. When the season and his health permitted, he visited the continent, not only in its outward skirts, but penetrated far into its recesses. The same generous desire of advancing the best interests of mankind which induced him to cross the Atlantic, uniformly actuated him whilst America was the scene of his ministry. The missionaries from thfe English society, who resided within about a hundred miles of Rhode Island, agreed among themselves to hold a sort of synod at Dr. Berkeley’s house there, twice in a year, in order to enjor the advantages of his advice and exhortations. Four of these meetings were accordingly held. One of the principal points which the doctor then pressed upon his fellowlabourers, was the absolute necessity of conciliating, by all innocent means, the affection of their hearers, and also of their dissenting neighbours. His own example, indeed, very eminently enforced his precepts upon this head for it is scarcely possible to conceive a conduct more uniformly kind, tender, beneficent, and liberal than his xvas. He seemed to have only one wish in his heart, which was to alleviate misery, and to diffuse happiness. Finding, at length, that the fear of offending the dissenters at home, and of inclining the colonies to assert independency, had determined the minister to make any use, rather than the best use, of the money destined for, and promised to St. Paul’s college, the dean of Derry took a reluctant leave of a country, where the name of Berkeley was long and justly revered more than that of any European whatever. At his departure, he gave a farm of a hundred acres, which 1,-jy round his house, and his house itself, as a benefaction to Yale and Harvard colleges: and the value of that land, then not insignificant because cultivated, became afterwards very considerable. He gave, of his own property, to one of these colleges, and to several missionaries, books to the amount of five hundred pounds. To the other college he made a large donation of books purchased by others, and trusted to his disposal.

About this time he engaged in a controversy with the mathematicians, which made a good deal of noise in the literary world and the occasion of it is said to have been, this: Mr. Addison had, many years before this, given him an account of their common friend Dr. Garth’s behaviour in his last illness, which was equally un pi easing to both these advocates of revealed religion. For, when Addison. went to see the doctor, and began to discourse with him seriously about another world, “Surely, Addison,” replied he, “I have good reason not to believe those trifles, since my friend Dr. Halley, who has dealt so much in demonstration, has assured me, that the doctrines of Christianity are incomprehensible, and the religion itself an imposture.” The bishop, therefore, addressed to him, as to an infidel mathematician, a discourse called the “Analyst” with-a view to show that mysteries in faith were unjustly objected to by mathematicians, who admitted much greater mysteries, and even falsehoods in science, of which he endeavoured to prove, that the doctrine of fluxions furnished a clear example. This attack gave occasion to a smart controversy upon the subject of fluxions the principal answers to the “Analyst” were written by a person under the name of Philalethes Cantabrigiensis, generally supposed to be Dr. Jurin, who published a piece entitled “Geometry no friend to Infidelity,” 1734. To this the bishop replied in “A Defence of Freethinking in Mathematics,” 1735; which drew a second answer the same year from Philalethes, styled “The minute Mathematician, or the Freethinker no just thinker” and here the controversy ended, and whatever fault, mathematicians may find in this hostile attempt of our bishop, it must be acknowledged they have reaped no inconsiderable advantage from it, inasmuch as it gave rise to the Treatise of Fluxions by Maclaurin, in which the whole doctrine is delivered with more precision and fulness than ever was done before, or probably than ever would have been done, if no attack had been made upon it.