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

Bishop Bale’s fame now principally rests on his valuable collection of British biography, which was first published, under the title of “lllustrium Majoris Britanniae scriptorum, hoc est, Anglic, Cambriae et Scotia?, Summarium,” Ipswich, 1549, 4to, containing only five centuries of writers. To these he added afterwards four more centuries, with many additions and improvements on the first edition, the whole printed in a large folio, at Basil, by Oporinus, 1559. The title is greatly enlarged, and informs us, that the writers, whose lives are there treated of, are those of the Greater Britain, namely, England and Scotland that the work commences from Japhet, one of the sons of Noah, and is carried down through a series of 3618 years, to the year of our Lord 1557, at which time the author was an exile for religion in Germany that it is collected from a great variety of authors, as Berosus, Gennadius, Bede, Honorius, Boston of Bury, Fruaientarius, Capgrave, Bostius, BureU lus, Trithemius, Gesner, and our great antiquary John Leland that it consists of nine centuries, comprises the antiquity, origin, annals, places, successes, the more remarkable actions, sayings, and writings of each author; in all which a due regard is had to chronology the whole with this particular view, that the actions of the reprobate as well as the elect ministers of the church may historically and aptly correspond with the mysteries described in the Revelation, the stars, angels, horses, trumpets, thunder ­ings, heads, horns, mountains, vials, and plagues, through every age of the same church. There are appendixes to many of the articles, and an account of such actions of the contemporary popes as are omitted by their flatterers, Cargulanus, Platina, &c. together with the actions of the monks, particularly those of the mendicant order, who (he says) are meant by the locusts in the Revelation, ch. ix. ver. 3 and 7. To these Appendixes is added a perpetual succession both of the holy fathers and the antichrists of the church, with curious instances from the histories of various nations and countries in order to expose their adulteries, debaucheries, strifes, seditions, sects, deceits, poisonings, murders, treasons, and innumerable impostures. The book is dedicated to Otho Henry, prince palatine of the Rhine, duke of both the Bavarias, and elector of the Roman empire and the epistle dedicatory is dated from Basil in September, 1557. Afterwards^ in 1559, appeared a continuation of the workj with the addition of five more centuries (which the editors of the Biog. Brit, call a new edition). His other works are divided by Fuller into two parts, those he wrote when a papist, and those when a protestant: but Fuller’s list containing only the subjects of his works, and not the titles or dates, we shall prefer the following list from Ames and Herbert; premising, that, according to Fox, in his Acts and Monuments, Bale wrote some books under the name of John “Harrison. He was the sou of Henry Bale, and on that account, perhaps, took the name of Harrison l.” The Actes of Englysh Votaries, comprehending their unchast practyses and examples by all ages > from the world’s beginning to this present year, collected out of their own legendes and chronicles, 8vo, 1546> 1548, 1551, and 1560. 2. “Yet a course at the Homy she Fox,” by John Harrison, i. e. Bale, Zurich, 1543. From this was published the “Declaration of William Tolwyn,” London, date uncertain, Ames says 1542, which must be a mistake. 3. “The Apology of JohanBale agaynste a ranke Papyst, answering both hym and hys doctours, that neyther their vowes nor yet their pricsthotic are of the gospel, but of Antichrist;” with this, “A brefe exposycion upon, the xxx chapter of Numeri,” London, 15,50, 8vo. 4. “An Expostulation or Coinplaynt, agaynste the blasphemy es of a frantic Papyst of Hamshyrc,” with metrical versions ef the 23d and 130th Psalms,“London, 1552, and 1584, 8vo. 5.” The Image of both Churches, after the most wonderiul and heavenly Revelation of Sainct John the Evangelist, contayning a very fruitefull exposicion or paraphrase upon the same,“first, second, and third parts, London, 1550, and 1584, 8vo. 6. A brefe Chronicle concerning the examination and death of the blessed Martir of Christ, Sir Johan Oldecastle, Lord Cobham,” 1544 and 1576, 8vo, reprinted also in 1729. 7. “The vocacyon of Johan Bale to the Bishoprick of Ossorie in Ireland, his persecucions in the same, and final deliveraunce,” London, 1553, 8vo. Herbert mentions two editions in the same year. 8. “A Declaration of Edmonde Bonner’s Articles, concerning the Cleargye of London Dyocese, whereby that execrable amychriste is in his righte colours reueled in the year of our Lord 1554. Newlye set fourth and allowed,” London, 1561, 8vo. 9, “The Pageant of Popes, containing the lyves of all the bishops of Rome from the beginninge of them to the yeare of grace 1555, London, 4to, 1574. This is a translation from Bale’s Latin edition, by J. S. i. e. John Stu'dley. 10.” A new Comedy or Interlude, concerning the Laws of Nature, Moises, and Christ,“London, 1562, 4to. This was written in 1532, and first printed in the time of Edward VI. 11.” A Tragedie or Enterlucle, manifesting the chief promises of God unto man, by all ages in the olde lawe, from the fall of Adam to the incarnation,“London, 1577, 4to. 12.” A Mystereye of Inyquyte contayned within the heretycall genealogye of Ponce Pantolabus, is here both dysclosed and confuted,“Geneva, 1545, 16mo. 13.” The First Examination of the worthy servaunt of God Mastres Anne Askew,“Marpurg, 1546, 16mo, and the” Lattre Examinacion“of the same, ibid. 1547. 14.” A brife and fay th full declaration of the true Faith in Christ,“1547, IGmo. Mr. Herbert conjectures this to be Bale’s. The initials only of the author are given. 15.” The laboryouse journey and serche of Johan Leylande, for En glandes Antiquitees, &c.“London, 1549, 16mo, reprinted in the Life of Leland (with those of Wood and Hearne) 1772, and followed there by a memoir of Bale. 16.” The confession -of the synner after the sacred scriptures, 1549, 8vo. 17. “A Dialogue or Communycacyon to be had at a table between two chyldren gathered out of the Holy Scriptures, by John Bale for his two yonge sonnes, Johan acid Paule,” London, 1549. He also translated, l.“Bapt. Mantuanus’s treatise on Death,” London, 1584, 8vo. 2. “The true hystorie of the Christen departynge of the reverend man D. Martyne Luther, &c.” 1546, 8vo. 3. “A godly Medytacyon of the Christen Soule, from the French of Margaret queen of Navarre,” London, probably, 1548, 5vo. Tanner has given a list of his Mss. and where preserved. These printed works are now rarely to be met with, and many of them, particularly his dramatic pieces, may be consigned to oblivion without much regret. The “Acts of. the English Votaries,” and other pieces written against the Papists, are best known, although censured for their intemperance and partiality. The character, indeed, of few writers has been more variously represented., Gesner, in his Bibliotheca, calls him a writer of the greatest diligence, and bishop Godwin gives him the character of a laborious inquirer into British antiquities. Similar praise is bestowed on him by Humphrey in his “Vaticinium de Koma,” and by Vogler in his “Introduct. Universal, in notit. Scriptor.” who also excuses his asperity against the Papists, from what England had suffered from them, and adds, that even the popish writers cannot help praising his great biographical work. On the other hand, bishop Montague, Andreas Valerius, and Vossius, while they allow his merit as a writer, object to his warmth and partiality. Pitts, his successor in British biography, and a bigotted Papist, rails against him without mercy, or decency, but may be forgiven on account of the pains he took to give us a more correct book, or at least, what could be alleged on the other side of the question. Even Fuller imputes intemperance of mind to him, and calls him “Biliosus Balseus,” imputing his not being made a bishop, on his return, by queen Elizabeth, to this cause but it is equally probable, that he had conceived some prejudices against the hierarchy, while residing with the Geneva reformers abroad. We know this was the case with Coverdale, a man of less equivocal character. Wharton, in his “Anglia Sacra,” and Nicolson, in his “Historical Library,” censure those errors which in Bale were either unavoidable, or wilful, in dates, titles of books,- and needlessly multiplying the latter. After all these objections, it will not appear surprising that Bale’s work was speedily inserted among the prohibited books, in the Index Expurgatorius. Such a writer was naturally to be forbidden, as an enemy to the see of Rome. From one accusation, the late Dr. Pegge has amply defended him in his “Anonymiana” It was said that after he had transcribed the titles of the volumes of English writers which fell into his hands, he either burnt them or tore them to pieces. This calumny was first pub^ lished by Struvius in his “Acta Literaria,” upon the authority of Barthius. Upon the whole, with every deduction that can be made from his great work, it must ever be considered as the foundation of English biography, and as such, men of all parties have been glad to consult it, although with the caution necessary in all works written in times of great animosity of sentiment, and political and religious controversy.

, born at Aries in 1719, was son of a button-seller, and died suddenly at Avignon in the month of August 1765. He made himself famous by his engravings, which obtained him a place in the academy of painting at Paris. He had acquired a peculiar manner of engraving, which gave a mellowness and delicacy to his works. When he would, he united the nice finishing of Edelink and Naiiteuil, with the bold strokes of Mellau. His principal pieces are “Les belles marines,” which he engraved from M. Vernet, and the portrait of Frederick Augustus, elector of Saxony and king of Poland. This portrait, a master-piece of engraving, was the fatal cause of all his misfortunes, of his exclusion from the academy, and of his forced retreat to Avignon. It was by order of the dauphiness that he had executed this portrait; and he took proof-impressions of it, contrary to the express promise he had given to that princess. It is at the head of the fine collection of the Dresden gallery. The talents of Balechou were not confined to engraving. He had a taste and some skill in chymistry, which he had studied to a certain extent. It is even not improbable, that a chymical remedy, of which he either took too strong a close, or at an improper time, might contribute not a little to his sudden and premature death.

, an artist, was born at Antwerp, in 15GO, and was a disciple of Adam Van Oort; but he quitted that master, to acquire a better taste of design and composition, by pursuing his studies at Rome, where he resided for a considerable time. He copied the antiques, he attended to the works of the most memorable modern artists and at his return to his own country, the visible improvement of his taste recommended him to the favour and esteem of the ablest judges of the art. He distinguished himself by a good manner of designing, and his works are admitted into the cabinets of the curious, among those of the principal painters. He particularly excelled in the naked, and gave to his figures truth, roundness, and correctness of outline. Several fine portraits of his hand are at the Hague among which there is one adorned with allegorical figures of Widom and Justice. All the historical subjects painted by Van Balen have merit. His designs of the Deluge, of Moses striking the Rock, and the drowning of Pharaoh, are grand and noble compositions. Houbraken observes, that Van Balen, with great judgment, hath introduced the Israelites in a clear light in the back ground, but the Egyptians in a strong shadow in the fore ground, which had a very fine effect the figures being well designed, the attitudes and draperies well chosen, and the number of the figures being very considerable. Of this master’s hand also the Judgment of Paris is accounted a masterly performance in which the figure of Venus is so elegantly designed, so full of life, and so round, that it seems to stand forth from the surface. The landscapes and back grounds of the pictures composed by Van Balen, were generally painted by the Velvet Brueghel. Van Balen was the first master of Vandyck. He died in 1672. His son, John Van Balen, was born at Antwerp, in 1611, and derived his knowledge of the art, and his fine taste of drawing and design, from his father but, as soon as he had made a competent progress, he travelled to Rome, and lived for several years in that and other cities of Italy. There he acquired a good taste for design, though he was sometimes incorrect his particular merit was shewn in naked figures of boys, cupidfi, nymphs bathing or hunting, of which subjects he painted a considerable number, and he procured both praise and riches by his landscapes and histories. His pictures were well handled, his trees touched wiih spirit, and his herbage and verdure looked natural and lively. The carnations of his figures were clear and fresh, his colouring in general was transparent, and the airs of his heads were in the manner of Albano.

, the most famous master in the art of penmanship, and all its relative branches, of his time, in our country, was born in 1547. Anthony Wood says he was a most dextrous person in his profession, to the great wonder of scholars and others, and adds, “That he spent several years in sciences among the Oxonians, particularly, as it seems, in Gloucester hall but that study which he used for a diversion only, proved at length an employment of profit.” It seems probable, however, that he resided at that university to teach his own art, for profit. The earliest account we have of his skill, mentions a micrographical performance, in which the writing was so wonderfully small, yet so very legible, that it surprised all who saw it, and advanced his name into Holinshed’s Chronicle. This delicate specimen of his art is also thus celebrated by Mr. Evelyn. “Adrian Junius speaks of that person as a miracle (F. Alumnus), who wrote the apostles’ creed, and beginning of St. John’s gospel, in the compass of a farthing. What would he have thought of our famous Bales, who, in 1557, wrote the Lord’s prayer, creed, decalogue, with two short Latin prayers, his own name, motto, day of the month, year of our Lord, and of the queen’s reign, to whom he presented it at Hampton court, all within the circle of a single penny, enchased in a ring and border of gold, and covered with crystal, so nicely wrote as to be plainly legible, to the admiration of her majesty, her privy council, and several ambassadors who then saw it.” He wasalso skilled in other excellencies of the pen, which seem to have recommended him to employment, upon certain particular emergencies, under the secretary of state, about 1586, when the conspiracies of Mary queen of Scots with the Popish faction were discovered. And as sir Francis Walsingham had other able instruments to unveil the disguised correspondence which passed between them, he had also need of some one who was expert in the imitation of hands, and could add, according to instruction, any postscript, or continuation of one, in the very form and turn of letters wherein the rest of the epistle was written, to draw out such farther intelligence as was wanted for a complete discovery from the traitors themselves, of their treasonable intercourse. Mr. Bales was famous for this dangerous talent, and was employed to exercise the same, sometimes, for the service of the state. A few years after, about 1589, and not long before the death of the said secretary, Bales, by a friend, complained that some preferment which he had been led to expect, had not been settled upon him, for what he had formerly performed in behalf of the government before the said queen’s death and, upon the merit of this service, he was several years after in quest of a place at court, though we cannot find that he ever obtained it. It appears also, that he had some occasion given him to write er speak something in defence of accurate penmen, or those who were masters in the art of writing, against the unreasonable and illiberal insinuations of some supercilious courtier, who would have objected his profession against his promotion, as if writing were but a mechanic art, and the masters of it fitter to guide the hands of boys than the heads of men. Bales took much pains to confute these objections, and although disappointed, he continued to follow his business, teaching the sons and daughters of many persons of distinction, some at their own houses, others at his school, situated at the upper end of the Old Bailey, where also some of the best citizens sent their children. Here we find him in 1590, publishing the first fruits of his pen, as he observes in his epistle, his “Writing Schoolmaster, in three parts.” From the first of which, shewing how, by the contraction of words into literal abbreviations, the pen of a writer may keep pace with the tongue of a moderate speaker, Mr. Evelyn conceived he was the inventor of short-hand, but he was rather the improver of a scheme published about two years before (1588) by Dr. Timothy Bright, a physician of Cambridge yet his improvement was so great as perhaps to constitute him the founder of all those successive systems of short-hand which have since led to perfection in this useful art.

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.

It has been said that Bales was engaged in the earl of Essex’s treasons in 1600, but he appears to have been entrapped by one John Danyell of Deresburie, esq. who, resolving out of the distresses of his lord to raise a considerable addition to his own substance, induced Bales to imitate some of that earl’s letters; but Danyell was sentenced in the Star-chamber, upon the evidence of Bales and other witnesses, in June 1601, to pay a fine of 3000l. for which his whole effects were extented, also to be exposed on the pillory, and endure perpetual imprisonment besides, for his forgery, fraud, and extortion. Bales was, indeed, for a short time, under some confinement, that they might be certain of his evidence at the trial and we find also that he wrote a large declaration to the countess of Essex, and, it seems, at her request or command, in which he set forth the whole manner of his engagement, and the justification of his conduct in this business. We have little more of Bales after this, except that he is supposed to have died about 1610.

, an English physician, the son of Henry Baley of Warnweli in Dorsetshire, was born in 1529, at Portsham in that county, educated at Winchester school, and admitted perpetual fellow of New college in Oxford, in 1550, after having served two years of probation. Having taken the degrees of B. A. and M. A. he studied physic, and was admitted to practise in that faculty in 1558, being at that time proctor of the university, and prebendary of Dultingcote or Dulcot in the church of Wells, which preferment he resigned in 1579. In 1561, he was appointed the queen’s professor of physic in the university of Oxford. Two years after he took the degree of doctor in that faculty, and at last was appointed physician in ordinary to her majesty. He was esteemed to be very skilful in theory and successful in practice. He died March 3, 1592, at sixty-three years of age, and was buried in the inner chapel of New college, Oxford. His posterity, Mr. Wood tells us, subsisted at Ducklington near Whitney in Oxfordshire, and some of them had been justices of the peace for the said county. His works were, 1. “A discourse of three kinds of Pepper in common use,” 1558, 8vo. 2. “A brief treatise of the preservation of the Eye-sight,” printed in queen Elizabeth’s reign in 12mo, and at Oxford in 1616 and 1654, 8vo. In the edition of 1616 there is added another “Treatise of the Eye-sight,” collected from Fernelius and lliolanus, but by what hand we are not told. They both pass under Dr. Baley’s name. 3. “Directions for Health, natural and artificial, with medicines for all diseases of the Eye,” 1626, 4to. 4. “Explicatio Galeni de potu convalescentium et senum, et praecipue de nostree alae et biriae paratione,” &c. in ms. 4to, in the library of Robert earl of Aylesbury.

, 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.”

, D. D. son of the above, was born at his father’s residence at Cox-close, near Ravensworth castle, Sept. 27, 1716, and was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, about 1732. He proceeded B.A. 1737, M. A. 1741, and S.T.P. 1758, In 1746, he was presented by his father to the North mediety or rectory of North Stoke, near Grantham in Lincolnshire, which was probably the first preferment he had, and which he vacated in 1771, on being presented to the vicarage of Alton in Hampshire. By the interest of bishop Hoadly, he obtained a prebend at Winchester, 1757, became archdeacon of Salisbury in 1759, and afterwards archdeacon of Winchester. We have his own authority in his life of his father, as given in the Biog. Britannica, that he owed all his preferments to bishop Hoadly, from whose latitudinarian principles, however, he appears to have departed more widely than his father.

, founder of Balliol college in Oxford, was the son of Hugh de Balliol of Bernard’s castle in the diocese of Durham. He was a person very eminent for power and riches, being possessed of thirty knights’ fees, about 12,000l. a considerable estate in those times. But he received a great addition thereto, by his marriage with Dervorgille, one of the three daughters and coheiresses of Alan of Galloway (a great baron in Scotland), by Margaret the eldest sister of John Scott, the last earl of Chester, and one of the heirs to David, some time earl of Huntingdon. From 1248 to 1254 he was sheriff of the county of Cumberland and in 1248 was constituted governor of the castle of Carlisle. Upon the marriage of Margaret daughter of king Henry 111. to Alexander III. king of Scotland, the guardianship of them both, and of that kingdom, was committed to our sir John de Balliol, and to another lord but, about three years after, they were accused of abusing their trust, and the king inarched towards Scotland with an army, to chastise them. However, in consideration of the many important services performed, in the most difficult times, to K. John the king’s father, by Hugh, our John BallioPs father and especially by a sum of money, he soon made his peace. In the year 1258, he had orders to attend the king at Chester, with horse and arms, to oppose the incursions of Lhewelyn prince of Wales. And two years after, in recompence of his service to king Henry, as well in France as in England, he had a grant of two hundred marks for discharging which, the king gave him the wardship of William de Wassingle. In part of the years 1260, 1261> 1262, 1263, and 1264, he was sheriff for the counties of Nottingham and Derby; and in 1261, was appointed keeper of the honour of Peverell. In 1263, he began the foundation and endowment of Balliol college in Oxford > which was perfected afterwards by his widow. Duririg the contests and war between ^king Henry III. and his barons > he firmly adhered to the king on which account his lands were seized and detained by the barons, but restored again through one of his sons’ interposition. In 1264, he attended the king at the battle of Northampton, wherein the barons were defeated but, the year following, he was taken prisoner, with many others, after the king’s fatal overthrow at Lewes. It appears that he soon after made his escape^ and endeavoured to keep the northern parts of England in king Henry’s -obedience, and having obtained authority from prince Edward, he joined with other of the northern barons, and raised all the force he could to rescue the king from his confinement. He died a little before Whitsuntide, in the year 1269, or as Savage, the historian of Balliol college, thinks, in 1266; leaving, three sons behind him, Hugh, and Alexander, who both died without issue and John, afterwards chosen king of Scotland.

, a Puritan divine of the seventeenth century, was born in 1585> of an obscure family, at Cassington or Chersington, near Woodstock in Oxfordshire* He was educated in grammar learning at a private school, under the vicar of Yarnton, a mile distant from Cassington and was admitted a student of Brazen-nose college in Oxford in 1602. He continued there about five years, in the condition of a servitor, and under the discipline of a severe tutor and from thence he removed to St. Mary’s hall, and took the degree of bachelor of arts in 1608. Soon after, he was invited into Cheshire, to be tutor to the lady Cholmondeley’s children and here he became acquainted witli some rigid Puritans, whose principles he imbibecL About this time, having got a sum of money, he came up to London, and procured himself to be ordained by an Irish bishop, without subscription. Soon after, he removed into Staffordshire, and in 1610 became curate of Whitmore, a chapel of ease to Stoke. Here he lived in a mean condition, upon a salary of about twenty pounds a year, and the profits of a little school. Mr. Baxter tells us, “he deserved as high esteem and honour as the best bishop in England yet looking after no higher things, but living comfortably and prosperously with these.' 7 He has, among the Puritan writers, the character of an excellent schooldivine, a painful preacher, and a learned and ingenious author and, though he was not well affected to ceremonies and church discipline, yet he wrote against those who thought such matters a sufficient ground for separation, He died the 20th of October, 1640, aged about fifty-five, and was buried in the church of Whitmore. Although he is represented above, on the authority of Ant. Wood, as living in a mean condition, it appears by Clarke’s more ample account, that he was entertained in the house of Edward Mainwaring, esq. a gentleman of Whitmore, and afterwards supplied by him with a house, in which he lived comfortably with a wife and seven children. He was likewise very much employed in teaching, and particularly in, preparing young men for the university. His works are, 1.” A short treatise concerning all the principal grounds of the Christian Religion, &c.“fourteen times printed before the year 1632, and translated into the Turkish language by William Seaman, an English traveller. 2.” A treatise of Faith, in two parts the first shewing the nature, the second, the life of faith,“London, 1631, and 1637, 4to, with a commendatory preface, by Richard Sibbs. 3.” Friendly trial of the grounds tending to Separation, in a plain and modest dispute touching the unlawfulness of stinted Liturgy and set form of Common Prayer, communion in mixed assemblies, and the primitive subject and first receptacle of the power of the keys, &c.“Cambridge, 1640, 4to. 4.” An Answer to two treatises of Mr. John Can, the first entitled A necessity of Separation from the Church of England, proved by the Nonconformist’s principles; the other, A stay against Straying; wherein^ in opposition to Mr. John Robinson, he undertakes to prove the unlawfulness of hearing the ministers of the church of England,“London, 1642, 4to, published by Simeon Ash. The epistle to the reader is subscribed by Thomas Langley, William Rathband, Simeon Ash, Francis Woodcock, and George Croft, Presbyterians. After our author had finished this last book, he undertook a large ecclesiastical treatise, in which he proposed to lay open the nature of schism, and to handle the principal controversies relating to the essence and government of the visible church. He left fifty sheets of this work finished. The whole was too liberal for those of his brethren who were for carrying their nonconformity into hostility against the church. 5.” Trial of the new Church- way in New-England and Old, &c.“London, 1644, 4to. 6.” A treatise of the Covenant of Grace,“London, 1645, 4to, published by his great admirer Simeon Ash. 7.” Of the power of Godliness, both doctrinally and practically handled,“&c. To which are annexed several treatises, as, I. Of the Affections. II. Of the spiritual Combat. III. Of the Government of the Tongue. IV. Of Prayer, with an exposition on the Lord’s Prayer, London, 1657, fol. 8.” A treatise of Divine Meditation," Lond. 1660, 12mo.

, an English antiquary and biographer, and one of those singular compositions which shoot forth without culture, was born at Campden in Gloucestershire. Being of a weakly constitution, his parents placed him in the shop of a habit-maker; and in this situation he had the curiosity to acquire the Saxon language. The time he employed for this purpose was stolen from sleep, after the labour of the day was over. Lord Chedworth, and the gentlemen of his hunt, who used to spend about a month of the season at Campden, hearing of his laudable industry, generously offered him an annuity of 100l. but he modestly told them, that 60l. were fully sufficient to satisfy both his wants and his wishes. Upon this he retired to Oxford, for the benefit of the Bodleian library; and Dr. Jenner, president, made him one of the eight clerks of Magdalen college, which furnished him with chambers and commons, and being thus a gremial, he was afterwards chosen one of the university beadles, but died in June, 1755, rather young; which is supposed to have been owing to too intense application. He left large collections behind him, but published only “Memoirs of British Ladies, who have been celebrated for their writings or skill in the learned languages, arts, and sciences,” 1752, 1J 4to, a work of great research and entertainment. It was reprinted in 1775, 8vo. He drew up an account of Campden church, which was read at the society of antiquaries, Nov. 21, 1771. There is a letter of Mr. Thomas Hearne to Mr. Baker, dated Oxford, July 3, 1735, from which Mr. Nichols has produced the following surly extract “I know not what additions Mr. George Ballard can make to Mr. Stowe’s life; this I know, that being a taylor himself, he is a great admirer of that plain honest antiquary,” who was also a taylor. A very large collection, of his epistolary correspondence is preserved in the Bodleian library.

, born at Paris, in 1615, was the son of a goldsmith, and became a goldsmith himself. He began to be known in the time of cardinal Richelieu, who bought of him four large silver basons, on which Ballin, hardly 19 years old, had curiously represented the four ages of the world. The cardinal, who was never weary of admiring these masterpieces of workmanship, employed him to make four vases, from the antique, to match with the basons. Ballin brought ins art to the summit of perfection. He executed for Louis XIV. silver tables, girandoles, sophas, lustres, vases, &c. But that monarch was obliged to convert them all into money, to supply the expences of the tedious war that was terminated by the peace of Ryswic. Several works by this great artist are still, or were formerly, at Paris, at St. Denys, and at Pontoise, of singular beauty and delicacy. On the death of Varin, being appointed to the direction of the dies for striking medals and counters, he shewed in these littte works the same taste he had displayed in the larger. To the beauties of the antique he added the graces of the moderns. He died the 22d of Jan. 1678, at the age of 63. He had scarcely ever been out of Paris and gave a proof that foreign travel is not always necessary in order to excel in the fine arts. Launoi, a kinsman of Ballin by marriage, an excellent goldsmith, and an expert designer, made drawings of almost all the works of his relation, previous to the sale of them, by Louis XIV.

, one of the promoters of the reformation in Scotland, was born at Kircaldy, in the county of Fife, in the reign of James V. and educated at the university of St. Andrew’s. He afterwards went to France, in order to complete his studies and, returning to Scotland, was admitted into the family of the earl of Arran, who at that time governed the kingdom; but in the year 1542 the earl dismissed him, for having embraced the Protestant religion. In 1546 he joined the murderers of cardinal Beaton, although without having been concerned in that act, yet for this he was declared a traitor, and excommunicated. Whilst that party were besieged in the castle of St. Andrew’s, they sent Balnaves lo England, who returned with a considerable supply of provisions and money but, being at last obliged to surrender to the French, he was sent, with the rest of the garrison, to France. He returned to Scotland about the year 1559, and having joined the congregation, he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with the duke of Norfolk on the part of queen Elizabeth. In 1563 he was made one of the lords of session, and appointed by the general assembly, with other learned men, to revise the book of discipline. The celebrated reformer Knox, his contemporary, gives him the character of a very learned and pious divine, and we learn from Calderwood’s ms history, and from Sadler’s State Papers, that he raised himself by his talents and probity, from an obscure station to the first honours of the state, and was justly regarded as one of the principal supporters of the reformed cause in Scotland. It is added, that when a boy, he travelled to the continent, and hearing of a free school at Cologne, procured admission to it, and received a liberal education. He died at Edinburgh in 1579. It was during his confinement at Rouen in France that he wrote a treatise on justification, and the works and conversation of a justified man, which was revised hy Knox, who added a recommendatory dedication, and desired it might he printed. The ms. however, was not discovered until after Knox’s death, when it was published in 1584, 8vo, with the title of “Confession of Faith, &c. by Henry Balnaves, of Halhill, one of the lords of council, and lords of session.” According to Irvine, it was printed at Edinburgh, but M'Rie speaks of a London edition of the same date. Mackenzie erroneously divides it into two works, one “A treatise concerning Justification,” Edin. 1550, and the other, “A Catechism or Confession of Faith,” ib. 1584, From a poem subscribed Balnaves, having appeared in Ramsay’s collection, he has been ranked among the minor poets of Scotland.

, or de Bedesale, or Belesale, the tenth bishop of Ely, and founder of St. Peter’s college, or Peter-house, in Cambridge, was in all probability born at Balsham, in Cambridgeshire, from whence he took his surname, about the beginning of the thirteenth century. He was at first a monk, and afterwards sub-prior of the Benedictine monastery at Ely. In 1247, November 13, he was chosen, by his convent, bishop of Ely, in the room of William de Kilkenny, deceased, but king Henry III. who had recommended his chancellor, Henry de Wengham, being angry at the disobedience of the monks, refused to confirm the election, and wasted the manors and estates belonging to the bishoprick. He endeavoured at last to persuade the monks to proceed to a new election aU ledging, that it was not fit so strong a place as Ely should be intrusted with a man that had scarcely ever been out of his cloister, and who was utterly unacquainted with political affairs. Balsham, finding he was not likely to succeed at home, went to Rome, in order to be confirmed by the pope who then was allowed to dispose of all ec^ clesiastical preferments. In the mean time, Boniface, archbishop of Canterbury, used his interest at Rome to obstruct Balsham’s confirmation, though he could alledge jiothing against him and recommended Adam de Maris, a learned Minorite friar, to the bishopric but all his endeavours proved unsuccessful. As to Wengham, having been recommended by the king without his own desire and knowledge, he declined the honour, alledging that the two others, (Balsham and Maris), were more worthy of it than himself. This matter remained in suspense for above ten years, and was at length determined in favour of Balsham for Wengham being promoted to the bishopric of London, upon Folk de Basset’s decease, the pope confirmed Balsham’s election on the 10th of March, 1257, and he was, consecrated the 14th of October following. Being thus fived in his see, he applied himself to works of charity, and particularly in the year 1257, or 1259, according ta some, put in execution what he had designed, if not begun, before, the foundation of St. Peter’s college, the first college in the university of Cambridge. He built it without Trumpingtun gate, near the church of St. Peter, (since demolished), from whence it took its name and on the place where stood Jesus hostel, or de poenitentia Jcsu Christ i, and St. John’s hospital., which he purchased, and united. At first, he only provided lodgings for the scholars, who were before obliged to hire chambers of the townsmen at an extravagant rate and they, and the secular brethren of St. John the Baptist, lived together till the year 1280. Then the monks making over to him their right to the hospital above-mentioned, he endowed his college on the 30th of March of the same year, with maintenance for one master, fourteen fellows, two bible-clerks, and eight poor scholars, whose number might be increased or diminished, according to the improvement or abatement of their revenues. And he appointed his successors, the bishops of Ely, to be honorary patrons and visitors of that college. The revenues of it have since been augmented by several benefactors. The munificent founder had not the satisfaction to see all things finished before his decease. He died at Dodington, June 16, 1286, and was buried in the cathedral church of Ely, before the high altar.

, a man of great learning and merit, was born about 1588, and applied himself chiefly to the study of ecclesiastical history, which gave him a disgust to the Romish, and a desire to embrace the Protestant religion. He had a considerable post, that of king’s advocate, in the presidial of Auxerre; and as he must either resolve to abandon it, or not change his religion, he was some time perplexed, but at last he conscientiously determined to leave Auxerre, his estate, his post, his relations, and friends, and go to Charenton, where he publicly joined himself to the reformed church, and continued in it till his death, edifying his brethren, both by his exemplary life, and his discourses. The expence which he was obliged to be at in Paris, being too great for his circumstances, and his conversion rendering him too obnoxious in that city, he accepted an invitation to Castres from M. de Faur, a rich young counsellor of the bipartite court of the edict, who gave him a lodging in his house, and a proper pension, happy to have with him a man of learning, by whose instructions and conversation he might profit. But as Balthasar had an inclination to labour for the public, he wished to have all his time at his own disposal, and for that reason took his leave of his host. His design was favoured by the national synod of Loudun, in the year 1659 for that assembly granted him a pension of 750 livres to be paid by all the churches of France, according to the repartition that was made of them. He had prepared, before that synod was held, a considerable number of dissertations upon important subjects, against cardinal Baronius, which he entitled “Diatribse.” He put four or five into the hands of a minister of Castres, who was one of the deputies of the province of Upper Languedoc and Upper Guienne. They were presented to Mr. Daille, moderator of that national synod, an excellent judge, who was extremely pleased with them, and gave a very advantageous character of them to the whole assembly. He then carried them to Paris, where it was hoped they would be printed, but either proper measures were not taken, or could not be taken, for that purpose. The author, who was very old, and troubled with the stone, died in 1670. Pvlr. Daille* died too and after that, the church of Castres sent repeated letters to recover those dissertations, but could never discover what became of them. Mr. Balthasar left others, which were not finished, and a great many collections, the greatest part of which consisted of separate pieces of paper, in which he had noted clown the authorities and testimonies which he designed to make use of against cardinal Baronius. He wrote also, 1. an eloge on M. Fouquet, in Latin, 1655, 4to. 2. “Traite des usurpations des rois de' Espagne sur la couronne de France, depuis Charles VIII. &c.” Paris, 1626, 8vo, and reprinted in 1645, with an additional discourse on the pretensions of the court of France. 3. “Justice des armes du roi treschretien contre le roi d'Espagne,” Paris, 1657, 4to.

In 1670 he was appointed professor of canon-law in the royal college, with this mark of respect, that the professorship was instituted by the king on his account. In 1668 the abbé Faget had published several works of cle Marca and having, in his life prefixed, asserted, that the archbishop, at his death, had ordered Baluze to give up all his papers in his possession to the president de Marca his son, this raised the resentment of Baluze, who vindicated himself in several severe letters, which he wrote against the abbe“Faget. In 1693 he published his” Lives of the popes of Avignon" with which the king was so much pleased, that he gave him a pension, and appointed him director of the royal college. But he soon felt the uncertainty of courtly favours, for, having attached himself to the cardinal Bouillon, who had engaged him to write the history of his family, he became involved in his disgrace, and received a lettre de cachet, ordering him to retire to Lyons. The only favour he could obtain was, to be first sent to Roan, then to Tours, and afterwards to Orleans. Upon the peace he was recalled, but never employed again as a professor or director of the royal college, nor could he recover his pension. He lived now at a considerable distance from Paris, and was above eighty years of age, yet still continued his application to his studies, and was engaged in publishing St. Cyprian’s works, when he was carried off by death, on the 28th of July 1718. Baluze is to be ranked among those benefactors to literature who have employed their time and knowledge in collecting from all parts ancient manuscripts, and illustrating them with notes. He was extremely versed in this species of learning, and was perfectly acquainted with profane as well as ecclesiastical history, and the canon Jaw, both ancient and modern. He kept a correspondence v.ith all the men of learning in France, and other countries. His conversation was easy and agreeable, and even in his old age he retained great vivacity. He shewed, however, somewhat of caprice in his last will, by appointing n woman, no way related to him, his sole legatee, and leaving nothing to his family and servants.

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,

1692, 8vo. 10. “Epistoloe Innocentii III. Liber XL” ib. 1682, 2 vols. fol. not a complete collection, as Baluze was refused the use of those preserved in the Vatican. 11.“Nova Collectio Conciliorum,” ib. 1683, fol. containing such pieces as are wanting or imperfect in Labbe’s collection. 12. “Vitae Paparum Avenionsium,” mentioned before, ib.

, an eminent Butch, or perhaps rather Italian, painter, was born at Laeren, near Narden, in 1613. His name was Peter Van Laer, but in Italy they gave him the name of Bamboccio, on account, either of the uncommon shape of his body, the lower being one third longer than the upper, and his neck buried between his shoulders or, as Mr. Fuseli conjectures, he might acquire this name from the branch of painting in which he excelled for his usual subjects, the various sports of the populace, and transactions of vulgar life, harvest-homes, drolleries, hops, &c. are by the Italians comprised under the name of Bambocciate. Baldinucci seems to be of the same opinion, He had, however, an ample amends for the unseemliness of his limbs, in the superior beauties of a mind endowed xvith extensive powers of perception and imitation. He resided at Rome for sixteen years successively, and was held in the highest esteem by all ranks of men, as well as by those of his own profession, not only on account of his extraordinary abilities, but also for the amiable qualities of his mind.

He studied nature incessantly, observing with a curious exactness every effect of light on different objects, at different hours of the day and whatsoever incident afforded pleasure to his imagination, his memory for ever perfectly retained. His style of painting is sweet and true, and his touch delicate, with great transparency of colouring. His figures are always of a small size, well proportioned, and correctly designed and although his subjects are taken but from the lower kind of nature, such as plunderings, playing at bowls, inns, farriers shops, cattle, or conversations, yet whatever he painted was so excellently designed, so happily executed, and so highly finished, that his manner was adopted by many of the Italian painters of his time. His works are still universally admired, and he is justly ranked among the first class of the eminent masters. His hand was as quick as his imagination, so that he rarely made sketches or designs for any of his works he only marked the subject with a crayon on the canvas, and finished it without more delay. His memory was amazing for whatever^objects he saw, if he considered them with any intention to insert them in his compositions, the idea of them was so strongly impressed on his mind, that he could represent them with as much truth as if they were placed before his eyes. Sandrarfc observes, that although painters, who are accustomed to a small size, are frequently inaccurate in the disposition of the different parts of their subjects, seeming content if the whole appears natural, yet Bamboccio was as minutely exact in having his figures, trees, grounds, and distances, determined with the utmost precision and perspective truth, as the best masters usually are in pictures of the largest size; which is one circumstance that causes the eye to be so agreeably deluded by the paintings of Bamboccio.

The earnest requests of his family and friends induced him to leave Italy in 1639, after which he resided for some time at Amsterdam and Harlem, where his pieces were as much admired as in Italy, which makes us doubt Houbraken’s assertion that he became jealous of the popularity of Wouvermans. Bamboccio, however, was a bad manager, and often in distress, and in the latter part of his life he was afflicted with an asthmatic complaint, which became insupportable, and brought on fits of melancholy, during one of which he threw himself into a canal, and was drowned. This happened in 1675. His disciples are not known, except Andrew Both, who imitated his manner. His elder brother Roeland Van Laer, who died in 1640, aged only thirty, painted in the same style and manner as his brother; being not much-inferior-to him, either in colouring, pencil, or design. He travelled to Italy along with Peter, and they resided together at Rome for several years Roeland painting the same subjects, and following his profession with very great success. He left Rome to visit Genoa, perhaps with a view to avoid all competition with his brother; and it is highly probable that he would have made a considerable figure, if he had not been cut off in the prime of his years in that city.

, a native of Florence, and a Dominican of Fiesoli, and doctor of divinity, gained the esteem and friendship of Ferdinand I. grand duke of Tuscany, and was sent by him into France during the troubles, that he might give an account of them. Being at Lyons 1593, Peter Barnere, a young man of twentyseven, consulted him upon the horrid design of assassinating Henry IV. Banchi, zealous for France and the royal family, directly mentioned it to a lord of the court, pointed out the young man to him, and entreated him to ride off, with all possible speed, to acquaint the king with the danger which threatened him. The nobleman, going to Melun for that purpose, met Barriere, who had just entered the palace to perpetrate his crime. He was arrested, and being put to the torture, confessed all. The king, to reward Banchi, appointed him bishop of Angouleme, but he either resigned it 1608, in favour of Anthony de la Rochefoucauld, or declined it with the reserve of a moderate pension. He appears to have passed the rest of his life at Paris, in the convent of St. James; he was living in 1622, and was a great benefactor to that convent, among other things, by finishing the beautiful Salle des Artes at his own expence he was also very liberal to the convent at Fiesoli. His works are, “Histoire prodigieuse du Parricide de Barriere,” 1594, 8vo. “Apologie contre les Jug-emeus temeraires de ceux, qui out pense conserver la Religion Catholiqtie en faisant assassiuer les tres Chretiens Rois de France,” Paris, 1596, 8vo. “Le Rosaire spirituel de la sacree Vierge Marie,” &c. Paris, 1610, 12mo. Pere Banchi justifies himself in this work againsl some historians who had accused him of abusing Peter Barriere’s confession. He never confessed that young man, and the detestable project was only discovered to him by way of consultation.

, a Swedish lawyer, was born at Norcopin, and was professor of civil law in the university of Franeker for fifteen years, a place conferred upon him on account of his high reputation when a scholar. He died Oct. 13, 1662. In 1649 he published at Franeker a work, “De tyrannide papae in reges et principes Christianos,” and seven years after, “Roma triumphans, seu inauguratio Innocentii X.” also some writings, “de Bancse ruptoribus,” “de Duellis,” “de conciliis et consiliariis principum” but his most celebrated work was an edition of the Taxes of the Roman Chancery, on the sums paid for absolution for crimes, even of the most atrocious kind. It was published at Franeker in 1651, in 8vo, after he had consulted the most ancient copies, printed or manuscript, and by comparing them word for word, supplied by means of one what was wanting in others. He made use of the edition of Cologne in 1523, of that of Wittembergin 1538, of that of Venice in 1584, and of a manuscript, which had been communicated to him by John Baptista Sibon, a Bernardine monk, and reader in the college of Rome. By this means he has made his edition somewhat larger than all that had been published before, and he has added notes, in which he explains a great many terms, which are difficult to be understood it is a kind of glossary. He has likewise joined to it a small Italian tract, which contains the lax which was made use of under pope Innocent X. and he has explained the value of the money as it was at that time. It is almost unnecessary to add, that this work was soon added to the list of prohibited books.

, archbishop of Canterbury in, the reign of king James I. the son of John Bancroft, gentleman, and Mary daughter of Mr. John Curvvyn, brother of Dr. Hugh Curvvyn, archbishop of Dublin, was born at Farnworth in Lancashire, in September 1544. After being taught grammar, he became a student of Christ college, Cambridge, where, in 1566-7, he took the degree of B. A. and thence he removed to Jesus’ college, where, in 1570, he commenced M. A. Soon after, he was made chaplain to Dr. Cox, bishop of Ely, who, in 1575, gave him the rectory of Teversham in Cambridgeshire. The year following he was licensed one of the university preachers, and in 1580 was admitted B. D. September 14th, 1584, he was instituted to the rectory of St. Andrew, Holborn, at the presentation of the executors of Henry earl of Southampton. In 1585 he commenced D. D. and the same year was made treasurer of St. Paul’s cathedral in London. The year following he became rector of Cottingham in Northamptonshire, at the presentation of sir Christopher Hatton, lord chancellor, whose chaplain he then was. Feb. 25th, 1589, he was made a prebendary of St. Paul’s, in 1592 advanced to the same dignity in the collegiate church of Westminster, and in 1594 promoted to a stall in the cathedral of Canterbury. Not long before, he had distinguished his zeal for the church of England by a learned and argumentative sermon against the ambition of the Puritans, preached at St. Paul’s cross. In 1597, Dr. Bancroft, being then chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury, Whitgift, was advanced to the see of London, in the room of Dr. Richard Fletcher, and consecrated at Lambeth the 8th of May. From this time he had, in effect, the archiepiscopal power: for the archbishop, being declined in years, and unfit for business, committed the sole management of ecclesiastical affairs to bishop Bancroft. Soon after his being made bishop, he expended one thousand marks in the repair of his house in London. In 1600, he, with others, was sent by queen Elizabeth to Embden, to put an end to a difference between the English and Danes but the embassy had no effect. This prelate interposed in the disputes between the secular priests and the Jesuits, and furnished some of the former with materials to write against their adversaries. In the beginning of king James’s reign^ he was present at the conference held at Hampton court, between the bishops and the Presbyterian ministers. The same year, 1603, he was appointed one of the commissioners for regulating the affairs of the church, and for perusing and suppressing books, printed in England, or brought into the realm without public authority. A convocation being summoned to meet, March 20, 1603-4, and archbishop Whitgift dying in the mean time, Bancroft was. by the king’s writ, appointed president of that assembly. October 9tb, 1604, he was nominated to succeed the archbishop in that high dignity, to which he was elected by the dean and chapter, Nov. 17, and confirmedin Lambeth chapel, Dec. 10. Sept. 5, 1605, he was sworn one of his majesty’s most honourable privy council. This year, in Michaelmas term, he exhibited certain articles, to the lords of the council, against the judges. This was a complaint of encroachment, and a contest for jurisdiction between the temporal and ecclesiastical judges, and as Collier has well observed, ought to be decided by neither side but the decision was against him. In 1608 he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, in the room of the earl of Dorset. In ] 6 10 thisarchbishop offered to the parliament a project for the better providing a maintenance for the clergy, but without success. One of our historians pretends, that archbishop Bancroft set on foot the building a college near Chelsea, for the reception of students, who should answer all Popish and other controversial writings against the church of England. This prelate died Nov. 2, 1610, of the stone, in his palace at Lambeth. By his will he ordered his body to be interred in the chancel of Lambeth church, and besides other legacies, left all the books in his library to the archbishops his successors for ever. He was a rigid disciplinarian, a learned controversialist, an excellent preacher, a great statesman, and a vigilant governor of the church, and filled the see of Canterbury with great reputation but as he was most rigid in his treatment of the Puritans, it is not surprising that the nonconformist writers and their successors have spoken of him with much severity; but whatever may be thought of his general temper and character, his abilities appear to have been very considerable. In his famous sermon against the Puritans, there is a clearness, freedom, and manliness of style, which shew him to have been a great master of composition. It was printed with a, tract of his, entitled “Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline.” He wrote also another tract, entitled “Dangerous Positions,” and there is extant, in the Advocates’ library at Edinburgh, an original letter from him to king James I. containing an express vindication of pluralities. This letter has been printed by sir David Dalrymple, in the first volume of his Memorials. Dr. Bancroft is also the person meant as the chief overseer of the last translation of the Bible, in that paragraph of the preface to it beginning with “But it is high time to leave them,” &c. towards the end.

, bishop of Oxford in the reigo of king Charles I. and nephew of the preceding Dr. Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, was born at Asteli, or Estwell, a small village between Whitney and Burford ^n Oxfordshire, and admitted a student of Christ-church in Oxford in 1592, being then about eighteen years of age. Having taken the degrees in arts, and entered into holy orders, he became a preacher tur some years in and near Oxford. In 1609, being newly admitted to proceed in divinity, he was, through the interest and endeavours of his uncle, elected head of University college, in which station he continued above twenty years, and was at great pains and expence in recovering and settling the ancient lands belonging to that foundation. In 1632 he was advanced to the see of Oxford, upon the translation of Dr. Corbet to that of Norwich, and consecrated about the 6th of June. This prelate died in 1640, and was buried at Cuddesden in Oxfordshire, the 12th of February, leaving behind him, among the Puritans or Presbyterians, the character of a corrupt, unpreaching, Popish prelate. This bishop Bancroft built a house or pakce, for the residence of his successors, at Cuddesden. Before his time the bishops of Oxford had no house left belonging to their see, either in city or country, but dwelt at their parsonage-houses, which they held in commendam; though Dr. John Bridges, who had no commendam in his diocese, lived for the most part in hired houses in the city. For though, at the foundation of the bishopric of Oxford, in trie abbey of Osney, Gloucester college was appointed for the bishop’s palace, yet, when that foundation was inspected into by king Edward VI. that place was left out of the charter, as being then designed for another use. So that afterwards the bishops of Oxford had no settled house or palace, till Bancroft came to the see, who, at the instigation of archbishop Laud, resolved to build-one*. In the first place, therefore, in order to improve the slender revenues of the bishopric, he suffered the lease of the impropriate parsonage of Cuddesden aforesaid, live miles distant from Oxford (which belonged to the bishop in right of his see) to run out, without any more renewing. In the mean time, the vicarage of his own donation becoming vacant, he procured himself to be legally instituted and inducted thereunto and afterwards, through the archbishop’s favour, obtained an annexation of it to the episcopal see, the design of the iinpropriatioa'i falling in still going on. Soon after, with the help of a large quantity of timber from the forest of Shotover, given him by the king, he began to build a fine palace, which, with a chapel in it, was completely finished in 1634. The summer after, it was visited out of curiosity by archbishop Laud, who speaks of it in his Diary thus " September the second, an. 1635, I was in attendance with the king at Woodstock, and went thence to Cudsden, to see the house which Dr John Bancroft, then lord bishop of Oxford, had there built, to be a house for the bishops of that see for ever he having built that house at my persuasion/' But this house, which cost 3500l. proved almost as shortlived as the founder for, in the latter end of 1644, it was burnt down by colonel William Legg, then governor of the garrison of Oxford, to prevent its being garrisoned by the parliament forces. It lay in ruins till 1679, when Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford, at his own expence, and with the help of timber laid in for that purpose by Dr. William Paul, one of his predecessors, rebuilt it upon the old foundation, with a chapel in it, as at first.

, an eminent sculptor, was born at Florence in 1487, and died in 1559. He was intended by his father, who was a goldsmith, to follow that business, but discovered an early and much higher relish for sculpture. It is said that at the age of nine he made a statue of snow, which was remarkable for justness of proportion. He attempted also painting, but was deficient in colouring, and wanted perseverance to acquire execution and handling. He was, however, a great designer, and his compositions of the Martyrdom of St, Lawrence, and the Massacre of the Innocents, shew exuberance of fancy. In the former, the draped figures that compose the upper rank of spectators, are equally admirable for simplicity and elegance, whilst the saint' himself, and those around him, exhibit little more than clumsiness, or barefaced contrast. The Massacre of the Innocents, with a display of anatomic prowess, presents a scene, not of terror and pity, but loathsomeness and horror. As a sculptor, however, he was esteemed the greatest after Michael Angelo. Among his most admired "works is the copy of the Laocoon, in the garden of the Medicis at Florence. This was intended by pope Clement VII. as a present to Francis I. but when he saw it, he was so much pleased that he could not part with it, and in its stead sent a present of antique statues to the king of France. Another of his admired productions was a bas relief of a Descent from the Cross, which he presented to Charles V. who rewarded him with a commandery of St. James and to this, not inferior in excellence, maybe added his Hercules and Cacus, a colossal groupe, and his statues of Leo X. and Clement VII. Vasari, who has written his life, justlv censures his envious disposition, and particularly his jealous hatred of Michael Angelo.

, a celebrated antiquary, was born at Ragusa, a small republic situated in Dalmatia, on the coast of the Adriatic, and entered when young into the Benedictine order, in Meleda or Melita, an island not far from Ragusa. After taking the vows at Naples, he travelled over part of Italy, and intended to have settled at Florence, a place favourable for literary pursuits. During this journey his musical Skill, particularly on the organ, procured him a favourable reception at the different convents in his way, and enabled him to travel agreeably and without expense. On his arrival at Florence, although still ft very young man, he was found so able a linguist, that he was appointed to teach the learned languages in various religious houses of his order. The celebrated Montfaucon happening to visit Florence in 1700, he employed Banduri to examine the manuscripts which he wished to consult for a new edition of the works of St. Chrysostom, and conceived such an opinion of him as to recommend him to Cosmo II. grand duke of Tuscany, who then had a design of restoring the fame of the university of Pisa. But representing, at the same time, that it would be advantageous for so young a man to pass some years at Paris, in the abbey of St. Germain, for farther improvement, the grand duke consented, and Banduri arrived at Paris about the end of 1702, and was lodged in the abbey, where his patron Cosmo supplied him with every thing necessary and useful. His first studies here, agreeably to his original design, were turned to divinity, and ecclesiastial history, and in May 1705, he published the prospectus of an edition of the works of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, with prefaces, dissertations, and notes. This he intended to be followed by an edition of Thfodoriis of IVIopsuesta’s commentary on the minor prophets, and other ancient commentators. Happcning, however, in the course of his researches, to meet with several documents relative to the antiquities of Constantinople, he was advised to publish them, along with ethers already published and this gave rise to his most celebrated work, “Imperium Orientale, sive Antiquitatis Constantinopolitanae,” &c. Paris, 1711, 2 vols. folio. This work, which forms a valuable, and indeed necessary, supplement to Du Gauge’s works on the same subject, is divided into four parts, and illustrated with commentaries, geographical and topographical tables, medals, &c. Casiniir Oudin made a feeble attack on the merit of this work, but without acquiring any credit. In preparing this work Banduri discovered Du Gangers defects in the medallic history, and therefore began to collect all the medals of the Roman emperors to the last Palaeologus, or the taking of Constantinople, which he published at Paris, under the title “Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum, cum Bibliotheca nummaria, sive auctorum qui de re nummaria scripserunt,” 2 vols. folio, 1718, reprinted by John Albert Fabricius at Hamburgh in 1719, 4to. In both these works Banduri was assisted by the abbe Lama, of Naples, and yet more by M. de la Barre, who was his associate in the academy of the belles lettres. In 1715 he was elected an honorary academician, and was very assiduous in his attendance on that learned body. In 1723 he announced his new edition of Nicephorus and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, as being ready for publication in 4 vols. folio, but they never appeared. In 1724 he was appointed librarian to the duke of Orleans, with apartments in the palace, and there he died of an attack of the gout, Jan. 14, 1743, aged about seventy-two or seventy-three years. His eloge, by M.Freret, is inserted in the Memoirs of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, vol. XVI.

, licentiate in laws, member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and an ecclesiastic in the diocese of Clermont, in Auvergne, where he applied himself to his several studies, except philosophy, to pursue which he went to Paris, was born in 1673. His parents being too poor to maintain him in this city, commanded him to return home but the friendships he had contracted, and the pleasure they gave him, were more irresistible than the authority of his relations; for he told them, that he was determined to remain where he was, and seek, in the exertion of his abilities, far those resources which, from their indigence, he had not any reason to expect. He was very shortly afterwards received into the family of Monsieur du Metz, president of the chamber of accounts, who intrusted to him the education of his sons, who always honoured him with their patronage and esteem. The exercises which he had set for these young gentlemen gave birth to his “Historical Explanation of Fables,” and, in some measure, determined the author to make mythology the principal object of his studies during the remainder of his life. This work appeared at first only in two volumes 12mo; but the uncommon taste and erudition discovered through the whole were the causes of his obtaining, in the year 1714, an admission into the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, as one of their scholars. In 1716, this order was suppressed, and that of the associates augmented to ten, of which number was B&nier. In 1729, he was elected one of their pensioners. In 1715, he published a new edition of his “Explanation of Fables,” in dialogues, to which he annexed a third volume so great was the difference between this edition and the former, that it became justly entitled to all the merits of a new performance. Besides the five dialogues, which he added on subjects either not treated of in his former undertaking, or else very slightlymentioned, there is scarcely a single article which has not been retouched, and enriched by new conjectures or rendered more valuable by the multitude of proofs which are advanced in its support. “Until that time,” says the abbe du Fresnoy, in his catalogue of historians, “the origin of ancient fables had never been explained with such knowledge and discernment mythology is sought after at its first source, profane history. Here are no endeavours to mark out its affinity to the sacred writings and it is more than probable that the ill success which Huet bishop of Avranches, Bochart, and many others, met with in their attempts of this kind, was the chief reason to induce Banier to drop so fruitless an undertaking. This, however, is a work in which the author, without losing himself in the labyrinth of a science which is but too often less replete with use than ostentation, has not only unravelled all the notions which the ancients, even of the remotest times, had entertained of their deities, but traced out, with equal judgment and precision, the progress of their religious worship in the succeeding ages of the world.”

The turn which Banier had for researches of this nature, perpetually incited him to carry them to their utmost stretch his knowledge of the learned languages made him, perhaps of all others, the most equal to the task nor can there be more convincing instances of his excellence as a writer, than his historical explanation, and his thirty dissertations before the academy of belles lettres, which are now printed in the memoirs of that body, either entire or by extracts. The lists may be seen in the third volume of the panegyrics upon their deceased members, printed in 12mo, at Paris, 1740. There are also to be found the titles of many other essays, on subjects different from mythology, and which prove in how extensive a circle the abilities of Banier were capable of moving. In 1725, he gave new life to “The treatises on History and Literature,” under the fictitious name of Vigneul Marville, but whose real author was Bonaventure d'Argonne, a carthusian friar. Three editions of this work had been already published, and in the third volume of the third edition, which was an appendix to the whole, scarce any thing appeared but articles relating to the former part of it, and an index referring to the pages in which the principal matters were contained. Banier added those articles to their proper subjects in the two first volumes, which were injudiciously designed to have been read as detached pieces in the third. And in return for having stripped this last volume, the able editor has replaced it by a new one which is filled with tracts of history, anecdotes of literature, critical remarks, comparisons, extracts from scarce and valuable books, sentiments on various authors, refutations of errors and ridiculous customs; together with memorable sayings and lively repartees.

Of equal service was Banier to the third voyage of Paul Lucas into Egypt; and that of Cornelius Bruyn, or Le Brun. That of Paul Lucas appeared in 1719, at Rouen, in 3 vols. 12mo. With regard to Corn. Le Brun, his voyage to the Levant was published in 1714, at Amsterdam, in folio and his voyage to the East Indies came also out in folio, at the same place, 1718. Some booksellers at Rouen, choosing to reprint them both, intrusted the revising of them to Banter, who made several alterations, and added some remarks. This republication appeared in 1725, in 5 vols. 4to, but the Dutch edition is the best. His engagements with this work were however unable to prevent his application to mythology, his favourite study, the fruits of which appeared during the last ten years of his life, in his translation of the metamorphoses of Ovid, with historical remarks and explanations, published 1732, at Amsterdam, in folio, finely ornamented with copper plates, by Picart. and reprinted at Paris, 1738, in 2 vols. 4to and in his “Mythology, or Fables explained by 'history,” a work full of the most important matter, printed at Paris, 1740, in two different forms, the one in 3 vols. 4to, and the other in several, 12mo. The eighth volume of this extensive work treats of those public and solemn ceremonies of the Greeks, which composed a part of the religion of the ancients, and which were instituted in their age of heroes.

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.

, an English dramatic writer, was bred an attorney at law, and belonged to the society of New-inn. The dry study of the law, however, not being so suitable to his Natural disposition as the more elevated flights of poetical imagination, he quitted the pursuit of riches in the inns of court, to attend on the muses in the theatre, but here he found his rewards hy no melins adequate to his deserts. His emoluments at the best were precarious, and the various successes of his pieces too feelingly convinced him of the error in his choice. Yet this did not prevent him from pursuing with cheerfulness the path he had taken his thirst of fame, and warmth of poetic enthusiasm, alleviating to his imagination many disagreeably circumstances, into which indigence, the too frequent attendant on poetical pursuits, often threw him. His turn was entirely to tragedy his merit in which is of a peculiar kind. For at the same time that his language must be confessed to be extremely unpoetical, and his numbers uncouth and inharmonious nay, even his characters, very far from being strongly marked qr distinguished, and his episodes extremely irregular yet it is impossible to avoid being deeply affected at the representation, and even at the reading of riis tragic pieces. This is owing in general to a happy choice of his subjects, which are all borrowed from history, either rpal or romantic, and most of them from circumstances in the annals of our own country, which, not only from their being familiar to our continual recollection, but even from their having some degree of relation to ourselves, we are apt to receive with a kind of partial prepossession, and a predetermination to be pleased. He has constantly chosen as the basis of his plays such tales as were, in themselves and their wellknown catastrophes, best adapted to the purposes of the drama. He has, indeed, seldom varied from the strictness of historical facts, yet he seems to have made it his constant rule to keep the scene perpetually alive, and never suffer his characters to droop. His verse is not poetry, but prose run mad, Yet will the false gem sometimes approach so near in glitter to the true one, at least in the eyes of all but the real connoisseurs, that bombast frequently passes for the true sublime and where it is rendered the vehicle of incidents in themselves affecting, and in which the heart is apt to take an interest, it will perhaps be found to have a stronger power on the human passions, than even that property to which it is in reality no more than a bare succedaneum. On this account only Mr. Banks’s writings have in general drawn more tears from the eyes, and excited more terror in the breasts even, of judicious audiences, than those of much more correct ariid more truly poetical authors. The tragedies he has left behind him are seven in number, yet few of them have been performed for some years past, excepting “The Unhappy Favourite, or Earl of Essex,” which continued till very lately a stock tragedy at both theatres. The writers on dramatic subjects have not ascertained either the year of the birth, or that of the death of this author. His last remains, however, lie interred in the church of St. James, Westminster.

, a very extraordinary German scholar, and whom Baillet, if he had lived in his time, would have placed at the head of his “Enfans Celebres,” was born at Schwoback, in the margravate of Brandenburg- Anspach, the 19th of January 1721. His father Francis had quitted France, for the sake of professing the religion of Calvin, and was then pastor of the Calvinist church of Schwoback. He took upon himself the care of his son’s education, and taught him languages without study, and almost without his perceiving that he was learning them, by only introducing words of different languages as it were casually into conversation with him. By this means, when he was but four years old, he spoke every day French to his mother, Latin to his father, and German to the maid, without the least perplexity to himself, or the least confusion of one language with another.

The other languages of which he was master, he learnt by a method yet more uncommon, which was by only using the bible in the language he then proposed to learn, accompanied with a translation. Thus he understood Greek at six, and Hebrew at eight years of age insomuch that, upon opening the book, and without a moment’s hesitation, he could translate the Hebrew bible into Latin or French. He was now very desirous of reading the Rabbins, and prevailed upon his father to buy him the great Rabbinical bible published at Amsterdam, 1728, in 4 vols. folio, which he read with great accuracy and attention, as appears from his account of it, inserted in the 26th volume of the Bibliotheque Germanique. In his eleventh year he published the travels of Rabbi Benjamin, translated from Hebrew into French, which he illustrated with notes, and accompanied with dissertations, that would have done honour to an adept in letters.

He afterwards applied himself to the study of the fathers and the councils, of philosophy, mathematics, and above all, of astronomy. This boy, as he really was, formed schemes for finding the longitude, which he sent in January 1735, to the royal society at London; and, though these schemes had been already tried and found insufficient, yet they exhibited such a specimen of his capacity for mathematical learning, that the royal society of Berlin admitted him, the same year, as one of their members. Notwithstanding these avocations and amusements, he published, in 1735, the fourteenth year of his age, a learned theological work, entitled “Anti Artemonius” written against Samuel Crellius, who had assumed the name of Artemonius, and the subject is the text at the beginning of St. John’s gospel. In 1735 too, he went with his father to Halle, at which university he was offered the degree of M. A. or (as it is there termed) doctor in philosophy. Baratier drew up that night fourteen theses in philosophy and the mathematics, which he sent immediately to the press, and which he defended the next day so very ably, that all who heard him were delighted and amazed he was then admitted to his degree. He went also to Berlin, and was presented to the king of Prussia as a prodigy of erudition, who shewed him remarkable kindness, and conferred upon him great honours, but, not being very fond of men of letters, treated him, as some write, with a small tincture of severity. He asked him, for instance, by way of mortifying him, whether he knew the public law of the empire which being obliged to confess that he did not, “Go,” says the king, “and study it, before you pretend to be learned.” Baratier applied himself instantly to it, and with such success, that at the end of five months he publicly maintained a thesis in it.

He was not only master of many languages, but skilled almost in every science, and capable of distinguishing himself in every profession except that of physic," towards which, having been discouraged by the diversity of opinions among those who consulted upon his disorders, and also by the inefficacy of their applications, he had conceived a dislike, and even an aversion. His learning, however vast, had not depressed or overburdened his natural faculties, for his genius appeared always predominant; and when he inquired into the various opinions of the writers of all ages, he reasoned and determined for himself, having a mind at once comprehensive and delicate, active and attentive. He was able to reason with the metaphysicians on the most abstruse questions, or to enliven the most unpleasing subjects by the gaiety of his fancy. He wrote with great elegance and dignity of style. He was no imitator, but struck out new ideas, and formed original systems. He had a quickness of apprehension and firmness of memory, which enabled him to read with incredible rapidity, and at the same time to retain what he had read, so as to be able to recollect and apply it. He turned over volumes in an instant, but seldom made extracts, being always able at once to find what he wanted. He read over, in one winter, twenty vast folios, and the catalogue of the books which he had borrowed comprised forty-one pages in 4to, the writing close, and the titles abridged. He was a constant reader of literary journals.

, born at Paris in 1710, was the son of a woodmonger, and originally intended for his father’s trade but nature had given him a taste for literature, and in order to be able to cultivate it, he at first embraced the ecclesiastical profession, which he quitted some time afterwards, and retired to Holland, where he passed ten or fifteen years. He carried with him from that country charts but little known in France, which he communicated to M. Bauche, who kept him with him above twenty-three years, and in whose workshe had the greatest share. In 1759, however, a production appeared under his name. This was “Mappe-monde Historique” an ingenious and novel chart, in which the author has had the skill to combine geography, chronology, and history into one system. He had intended to particularize this general chart in distinct maps but he was forced to abandon this idea by the necessity he laboured under of gaining his bread by rapid publications. The world is indebted to him for the “Tablettes Chronologiques” ofthe abbe Lenglet, 1763 and 1778 for the “Geographic IVJoderne” of the abbe la Croix, the substance of which is properly his the two last volumes of the “Bibliotheque de France,” of father le Long; and he furnished great assistance to M. de Fontette in the publication of the three first. We have likewise by him a Description of the empire of Russia, published in German by baron de Strahlemberg, 1757, and translated into French, but this is a very inaccurate work and “Vie de M. Francois Paris, diacre,” 1751, 12mo. Barbeau died of a stroke of the apoplexy, at Paris, the 20th of November 1781. He married about two years before, for the sake of having a companion to mitigate the sorrows and infirmities of age. He was one of the few modest scholars, who, without having either literary titles or pensions, are often more useful than others decorated and endowed with both. No one was ever more obliging no one less avaricious of his knowledge, or had more to communicate on the subjects of geography and history. His memory was a kind of living library, and he was always consulted with advantage, either for the exact tlates of events, or for t.he best editions of good or scarce books,

, a physician, and member of the academy of Stockholm and of Philadelphia, was born at Mayenne or Mayne, Feb. 15, 1709, and died Dec. 16, 1779. In his youth he was an able linguist, particularly in Greek and Hebrew. He published several works, the earliest of which was a Medical Gazette, the first number of which appeared in 1761. He afterwards wrote, I. “Le Botaniste Francis,” 1767, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Elemens de Medicine, en forme d'Aphorismes,” 1780, 12mo. 3. “Chronographie,” with a chart of the revolutions of empires. 4. “Code de la Raison humaine,” 12mo, which Dr. Franklin reprinted in England, and sent to America. 5. “Eloge du medicin Charles Gillet,” 8vp and 6. “Petit Calendrier de Philadelphe.” He also published a French translation of Dr. Franklin’s works, and of Bolingbroke’s Letters on history. His biographer says that he was intimate with Bolingbroke, who permitted him to make this translation on condition it was not published in his lordship’s life-time.

, advocate in the parliament of Paris, and member of the French academy, was born at Langres, of poor parents, and drew himself out of obscurity by his talents. He was at first repetiteur in the college of Lisieux. He then applied himself to the bar but his memory having failed him at the outset of his first pleading, he promised never to attempt it again, though it was thought he might have pleaded with success. Colbert having given him charge of fhe education of one of his sons, Barbier lengthened his name by the addition of d'Aucour. But this minister dying without having done any thing for his advancement, he was obliged to return to the bar. Here he acquired great honour by the eloquent and generous defence he made for a certain le Brun, the valet of a lady in Paris, falsely accused of having assassinated his mistress, but this was his last cause. He died Sept. 13, 1694, at the age of 53, of an inflammation of the breast. The deputies of the academy, who went to see hirn in his last sickness, were concerned to find him so badly lodged “It is my comfort,” said he, “and a very great comfort it is, that I leave no heirs of my misery.” The abbe* de Choisi, one of them, having said, “You leave a name that will never die” “Alas, T do not flatter myself on that score,” returned cl'Aucour “if my works should have any sort of value in themselves, I have been wrong in the choice of my subjects. I have dealt only in criticism, which never lasts long. For, if the book criticised should fall into contempt, the criticism falls with it, since it is immediately seen to be useless and if, in spite of the criticism, the book stands it ground, then the criticism is equally forgotten, since it is immediately thought to be unjust.” He was no friend to the Jesuits, and the greater part of his works are against that society, or against the writers of it. That which does him the most honour is entitled “Sentirnens de Cleanthe sur les Entretiens d‘Ariste et d’Eugene, par le pere Bouhours,” Jesuit, in 12mo. This book has been often quoted, and with good reason, as a model of just and ingenious criticism. D‘Aucour here distributes his bon-mots and his learning, without going too great lengths in his raillery and his quotations. Bouhours was supposed never to have recovered this attack. The abbe Granet gave an edition of this work in 1730, to which he has added two circumstances, which prove that Barbier would have been as good a lawyer as a critic. The other writings of d’Aucour are more frivolous, “Les Gaudinettes, l'Onguent pour la brdlure,” against the Jesuits “Apollon vendeur de Mithridate,” against Racine two satires in miserable poetry. It is not easy to conceive that he could rally Bouhours in so neat, and the others in so coarse a manner. It is said that his antipathy to the Jesuits arose from his being one day in their church, when one of the fathers told him to behave with decency, because locus erat sacer. D'Aucour immediately replied, Si locus est sacrus. This unfortunate blunder was repeated from mouth to mouth. The regents repeated it it was echoed by the scholars and the nickname of Lawyer Sacrus was fixed upon him.

, a Portuguese lawyer, a native of Guimaraens, in the diocese of Brague, was king’s advocate in the province of Alentejo. In 1618, he published at Lisbon, “Remissiones doctorum ad contractus, ultimas voluntates, &c. constitutionum Lusitanarum,” fol. and in 1638, “De postestate Episcopi.” He died seven or eight months after, in his ninetieth year.

, bishop of Ugento, and son of the preceding, studied the civil and canon law under his father, and continued the same pursuit at Rome, passing his days in reading at the public libraries, and his nights in writing, and living, according to Erythraeus, on a very scanty income. The same biographer informs us that one day his servant brought him a piece of fish wrapped up in a sheet of manuscript, which he discovered to be part of a work on the canon law. He immediately went to the market, and was so fortunate as to purchase the whole with the loss of only four or five leaves; and it is added, that this was the book “De officio Episcopi,” which he published under his own name. He published also many other works, of which a very copious catalogue is given by Antonio, but certain critics were of opinion that he was very much indebted to his father’s manuscripts for some of these. In 1632, he returned to Spain, and at Madrid was employed partly in judging of ecclesiastical affairs, and partly in preparing his writings, until 1648, when king Philip IV. appointed him bishop of Ugento, the duties of which office he performed with care and piety for the short remainder of his life. He died about the latter end of 1649. Besides his writings on the civil and canon law, he compiled a “Dictionario Lusitanico- Latino,” 1611, fol. Others of this family distinguished themselves as able canonists, but there is little in their history very interesting.

, an ancient Scotch poet, was born about 1316, but of his personal history few memorials have been recovered. He was brought up to the church, and in 1357, is styled archdeacon of Aberdeen. Quring the same year, the bishop of his diocese appointed him one of the commissioners to deliberate concerning the ransom of the captive king o f Scotland, David II. In 1365, he appears to have visited St. Denis, near Paris, in company with six knights, the object of which visit was probably of a religious kind, as the king of England granted them permission to pass through his dominions on their way to St. Denis and other sacred places. About ten years afterwards he was engaged in composing the work upon which his lame now principally rests, “The Bruce.” As a reward of his poetical merit, he is said to have received a pension, but this is doubtful. From some passages in Winton’s Chronicle, it would appear, that Barbour also composed a genealogical history of the kings of Scotland, but no part of this is known to be extant. He died in 1396, of an advanced age, if the date of his birth which we have given be correct, but that is not agreed upon. His celebrated poem, “The Bruce, or the history of Robert I. king of Scotland,” was first published in 1616, 12mo, again in 1648, both at Edinburgh, at Glasgow in 1665, 8vo, and at Edinburgh in 1670, 12mo, and often afterwards in meaner forms but a valuable, and the only genuine edition, as to purity of text, was edited by Mr. Pinkerton, in 1790, 3 vols. 12 mo, from a ms. in the advocate’s library, dated 1489. The learned editor says that “taking the total merits of this work together, he prefers it to the early exertions of even the Italian muse, to the melancholy sublimity of Dante, and the amorous quaintness of Petrarca.” Barbour is not only the first poet, but the earliest historian of Scotland, who has entered into any detail, and from whom any view of the real state and manners of the country can be learned. The obscure and capricious spelling may perhaps, deter some readers from a perusal of “The Bruce,” but it is very remarkable that Barbour, who was contemporary with Gower and Chaucer, is more intelligible to a modern reader than either of these English. Some assert that he was educated at Oxford, but there is no proof of this, and if there were, it would not account for this circumstance.

, 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.

, a learned and eminent Civilian, was born in Aberdeenshire, in 1541, and descended from one of the best families in Scotland. He was in favour with Mary queen of Scots but, after that princess was dethroned, and detained in captivity in England, finding that he had no prospect of making his fortune in the court of her son James, he resolved to retire into France, which. he did about 1573. He was then more than thirty years of age, and went to Bourges, in order to study law. He there took his doctor’s degree in that faculty, and had applied himself so closely to his books, that he was qualified to fill a chair. Edmund Hay, the Jesuit, who was his countryman, and is said to have been related to him, procured him accordingly a professorship in civil law in the university of Pontamousson, by his interest with the duke of Lorrain, who had lately founded that seminary. And the duke not only conferred upon Barclay the first professorship, but also appointed him counsellor of state, and master of requests. In 1581, Barclay married Anne de Malleville, a young lady of Lorrain, by whom he had his son John, who afterwards became a writer of considerable note, and whom the Jesuits endeavoured to prevail on to enter into their society. But Barclay opposing their scheme, the Jesuits resented it so highly, and did him so many ill offices with the duke, that he was obliged to leave Lorrain. He then went to London, where king James I. is said to have offered him a place in his council, with a considerable pension but he declined these offers, because it was made a necessary condition of his accepting them, that he should embrace the protestant religion. In 1604, he returned into France, and accepted the professorship of the civil law, which was offered him by the university of Angers. He taught there with reputation, and is said to have been fond of making a splendid appearance in his character of professor. But he did not hold this office long, dying in 1606. He was buried in the church of the Franciscans. He appears to have been much prejudiced against the Protestants and was a zealous advocate for passive obedience, and the divine right of kings, as appears from his writings, of which the following are “the principal, 1.” De Reguo et llegali Potestate ad versus Buchananum, Brutum, Boucherium, et reliquos Monarchoniachos,“Paris, 1600, dedicated to Henry IV. 2.” De Potestate Papse, quatenus in Reges et Principes seculares Jus et Imperium habeat,“Franco!'. 1609, 1613, 1621, Hannovias, 1612, in 8vo, and Lond. in English, 1611, in 4to, Mussiponti, 1610, 8vo, and Parisiis, 1600, 4to. In this he proves that the pope has no power, direct or indirect, over sovereigns in temporals, and that they who allow him, any such power, whatever they may intend, do very great prejudice to the Roman catholic religion. 3.” A commentary upon the Title of the Pandects de Rebus creditis et de Jure] urando,“Paris, 1605, 8vo. 4.” Prcemetia in vitam Agricolse," Paris, 1599, 2 vols. 8vo. This last is said to be an excellent commentary on Tacitus. There are two letters from him to Lipsius in Burman’s Sylloges Epistolarum, and four from Lipsius to him.

, son of the preceding, was born at Pontamousson, Jan. 28, 1582. He was educated at the college of the Jesuits in his native place, and when only nineteen years old, published notes on the Thebais of Statins. The Jesuits, as already noticed in his father’s life, remarked his genius for literature, and attempted to win. him to their order, but his father looked on that attempt as a breach of trust. Hence there arose a quarrel between him and the Jesuits, who at that time were in high credit with the duke of Lorraine. He therefore quitted Lorraine in disgust, and conducted his son to London. This was in 1603, just after the accession of his native sovereign to the English throne. In 1604 young Barclay presented to the king a poetical panegyric, as a new year’s gift, and soon after dedicated to him the first part of the Latin satire entitled “Euphormion.” “I had no sooner left school,” says Barclay in his Apology prefixed, “than the juvenile desire of fame incited me to attack the whole world, rather with a view of promoting my own reputation, than of dishonouring individuals,” a candid and singular confession, but which, in the opinion of his biographer, he ought to have made before he had learnt that his satires disgusted the public. In the dedication to Euphormion he intimated his wish to enter into the service of king James, and professed himself alike ready in that service, “to convert his sword into a pen, or his pen into a sword.” To excel was his ruling passion and youthful self-sufficiency led him to hope that he might, excel in every department but his flatteries, and even his confidence, availed not. His father was conscientiously attached to the church of Rome, and his son professed the same.

During the course of three years residence in England, Barclay received no token of the royal liberality. Sunk in indigence, he only wished to be indemnified for his English journies, and to have his charges defrayed into France. At length, he was relieved from those urgent distresses by his patron Salisbury. Of these circumstances we are informed by some allegorical and obscure verses written by Barclay at that sad season. (Delit. Poet. Scot. I. 92 100.) Never did dependent offer incense to a patron more liberally than he did. Burleigh, he admits, was a wise man, but, he adds, “that the wisdom of Burleigh bore the like proportion to that of his son, as the waters of the Thames do to the ocean.” In 1610 he published his Apology for Euphormion, the severity of which satire had excited enemies against him in every quarter of Europe. In this year also he, published his father’s work, “De Potestate Papse,” and when it was attacked by cardinal Bellarmin, be published a treatise entitled “J. Barclaii Pietas, sive, publics pro regibus ac principibus, et privates pro Gulielmo Earclaio parente vindici*, adversus Roberti Bellarmini tractatum, de Potestate summi Pontificis ia rebus temporal!­bus,” Paris, 4to. In 1614 he published his “Icon animarum,” perhaps the best, although not the most renowned of his compositions. It is a delineation of the genius and manners of the European nations, with remarks, moral and philosophical, on the various tempers of men. Mr. Malone observes, as a curious circumstance, that in this work, Barclay has suggested an expedition against the Turkish empire, similar in the most material circumstances to that undertaken in 1798 by the French republic, (particularly in the number of the troops employed) though it was proposed to be directed against a different part of the Turkish dominions from that which was assailed by the French, In 1615, invited, as it is said, by pope Paul V. Barclay determined to fix his residence under the immediate power of a pontiff whose political conduct he had reprobated, and of a court whose maxims he had censured with extraordinary freedom. About the end of that year he quitted England, but not clandestinely, as his enemies reported, and having hastily passed through France, he settled at Rome with his family, in the beginning of the year 1616. In the “Paraenesis,” or “Exhortation to the Sectaries,” he mentions two reasons which induced him to quit England, and take up his abode in Italy. His first was, lest his children, by remaining in England, should have been perverted from the faith. But he could have obviated that danger, by removing into France, in which country he had for his friends Du Vair (president of the parliament of Provence, afterwards keeper of the great seals, and lastly, bishop of Lisieux), and M. Peiresc. His second reason was more singular he perceived that his “Pietas,” or vindication of his father, was pleasing to heretics, and that it disgusted many persons of the Romish communion. He repented of having written it: he then found that it contained erroneous propositions, and he wished to settle in Italy that he might have leisure and freedom to refute them.

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.

He died at Rome Aug. 12, 1621, of the stone, a disease^ for which, in his Euphormion, he had vainly pronounced the plant golden rod to be a specific. At that time, his friend M. de Peiresc was engaged in superintending the publication of Argenis, at Paris. His widow erected a monument for him, with his bust in marble, at the church of St. Laurence, on the road to Tivoli but she caused the bust to be removed as soon as she learnt that cardinal Francis Barberini had, in the same place, erected a monument altogether similar, in honour of his preceptor Bernardus Guilielmus a monte Sancti Sabini. “My husband,” said that high-spirited lady, “was a man of birth, and one famous in the literary world and I will not suffer him to remain on a level with a base and obscure pedagogue.” The inscription on the monument of Barclay was erased but by whom, or on what account, is not certainly known. Frehef, the biographer, ascribes this to the malevolence of the Jesuits, who, indeed, had no great cause to be studious of preserving the memory of Barclay. But Tomasini says, that he heard, from undoubted authority, that the only cause for effacing the inscription was, that the widow of Barclay proposed to erect a more sumptuous monument for him in another place. This, however, has much the air of an affected pretence; for why disfigure one monument, because another, more sumptuous, might be erected hereafter

The first edition of the Argenis was printed at Paris in 8vo, in 1621. It has since passed through many editions, and been translated into several languages. The first English translation was published in 4to, by Kingsmill Long, gent, in 1625, 4to. The poetical part was translated by Thomas May, esq. The second edition was published in 1636. There was also an edition in 1628, by sir Robert Le Grys, said to be by command of king Charles I. Another translation appeared in 1772, in 4 vols. 12 mo, under the following title “The Phoenix or, the History of Polyarchus and Argenis, translated from the Latin, by a Lady.” In the preface to this it is observed, that the editor has made use of both the former translations occasionally, and whenever a doubt arose, had recourse to the original.

, 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.

Mr. Barclay vyas in private life a man of a very amiable character, and may justly be celebrated by those of his sect, as their ablest defender. In this respect, however, the editors of the Biographia Britannica, from which the present sketch is taken, have surely gone too far, in asserting that his defence of quakerism was unanswerable. It is necessary, says a recent and acute writer, to enter into the true spirit of Barclay’s writings. This ingenious man appeared as a patron and defender of quajcerism, and not as a professed teacher or expositor of its various doctrines and he interpreted and modified the opinions of this sect after the manner of an advocate, who undertakes the defence of an unpopular cause. In the first place, he obeervep an entire silence in relation to those fundamental principles of Christianity, concerning which it was of great consequence to know the real opinions of the Quakers and thus he exhibits a system of theology that is evidently lame and imperfect. Secondly, he touches, in a slight and superficial manner, some tenets, the explanation of which had exposed the Quakers to severe censure and, lastly, he employs the greatest dexterity and art in softening and modifying those invidious doctrines which he cannot conceal, and presumes not to disavow for which purpose he carefully avoids all those phrases and terms which are used by the Quakers, and are peculiar to their sect, and expresses their tenets in ordinary language, in terms of a vague and indefinite nature, and in a style that casts a sort of mask over their natural aspect. And with all the reputation he acquired, it has been thought that Perm and Whitehead declared the sentiments of the sect with far more freedom, perspicuity, and candour.

, or Barcochab, an impostor, who involved his nation in a dreadful calamity under the emperor Adrian, was a Jew, who proclaimed himself the Messiah, and found a famous rabbi, Akiba, who applauded this impious pretension. This false Messiah accommodated himself wonderfully to the prejudices of his people he spoke of nothing but wars, battles, and triumphs and the first lesson of his gospel was that they must rise against the Romans. He had so much the less difficulty in persuading them to this doctrine, because he took the opportunity, when the zeal of the Jews for their religion had enraged them against the emperor. This prince had lately settled a colony near Jerusalem, and established idolatry. The Jews considered this as an insupportable abomination, and a prodigious profanation of their holy place upon which account they were disposed to rise. Some writers pretend, that circumcision was forbid them, which was a violation of their conscience. Barcochebas fortified himself in divers places; but he chose the city of Bitter for his place of arms, and the seat of his empire. He ravaged many places, and massacred an infinite number of people, but his chief cruelty was against the Christians. The emperor being informed of these ravages, sent troops to llufus, governor of Judea, with orders to suppress this sedition immediately. Rufusin obedience to these orders exercised many cruelties, yet without effect. The emperor was therefore obliged to send for Julius Severus, the greatest general of that time, and to intrust him with the whole care of this war. This general chose to fall upon them separately, to cut off their provisions, to shut them up, and streighten them and at last the whole affair was reduced to the siege of Bitter ia the eighteenth year of Adrian. The vast number of Jews, who threw themselves into that city, was the cause that they defended themselves a long while, and that they were reduced by famine to the greatest -extremities. After the taking of this city, the war was not entirely concluded but it did not continue much longer. Barcochebas perished there, and it is supposed that about fifty thousand Jews were killed in the course of this rebellion.

, a native of Bayonne, of the seventeenth century, descended from one of the first families in that city. The celebrated abbot of St. Cyran, who was his mother’s brother, educated him, sent him to Louvain, that he might study under the famous Jansenius and some years after entrusted him with the tuilion of the son of M. Arnauid d'Andilly. M. de Barcos at last returned with the abbot de St. Cyran, who employed him as a secretary, undertook nothing without consulting him, and they jointly composed the book, entitled “Petrus Aurelius.” It was at this time that the abbot de Barcos formed a strict friendship with M. Arnauid the doctor, with whom he was afterwards involved in the controversy respecting Frequent Communion. Upon the death of the abbot de St. Cyran, the queen mother gave that abbey to M. de Barcos, who took possession of it, May 9, 1644, went to reside there, re-established and reformed it he nevertheless always retained his ecclesiastical habit, and took no solemn vows. He died there, August 22, 1678. His works are: 1. “A censure of- the Predestinatus of pere Sirmond,” 8vo. 2. “La grandeur de TEglise Romaine, etablie sur Fautorite de St Pierre et de St. Paul, &c.” 4to. 3. “Traitc de Pautorite* de St. Pierre et de St. Paul, qui reside dans le Pape, successeur de ces deux Apotres,” 1645, 4to. 4. “Eclaircissemens de quelques Objections, que l‘on a forme’es contre la Grandeur de TEglise Romaine,” 1646, 4to. These three last were written by the abbot de Barcos, in defence of the follownig proposition, which had been censured by the Sorbonne that “St. Peter and St. Paul are two heads of the Roman church, which form but one.” This proposition he had inserted in the preface to M. Arnauld’s book on Frequent Communion, without his consent. He also left “De la Foi, de I'Esperance, et de la Charite,” 2 vols. 12mo. “Exposition de la Foi de l'Eglise Romaine, touchant la Grace et la Predestination,” 8vo. or 12 mo. and several other anonymous works. This last was condemned by de Noailles, archbishop of Paris

From the time of Mr. Baretti’s arrival in England he subsisted by teaching the Italian language, and by his writings. Through the means of Dr. Johnson he was introduced to the family of Mr. Thrale, in which he passed much of his time and his employment of teacher, added to some agreeable and some useful qualities, gave him access to the houses of other persons of distinction. As he possessed nothing but what his industry enabled him to obtain, he was under the necessity of exerting himself, and his efforts were not unsuccessful. What his avocations procured him, his ccconomy rendered sufficient and he was never charged with' meanness or servility. By his writings he certainly procured both money and reputation, though he appears to have set but little value on his literary performances. Very late in life he said, “Whatever I have written in the long course of my life was all done out of necessity rather than choice.” Again “As want was incessantly pushing and pushing at my back, whatever I scribbled was always done in a most confounded hurry and it is a miracle greater, I think, than St. Anthony ever performed, how I came to get bread and cheese, and now and then a beef-steak, by my ill-chopt performances. Conscious of the numberless and supreme faults and imperfections of all my poor doings that way, I wish now, and to my sorrow I wish it in vain, that every page I have sent to the press in Italy or in England were at the bottom of the sea.” “After this declaration, drawn from the very core of my heart, I give you most ample leave to massacre all my literary offspring.”

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.”

He expressed his concern at the contempt with which he had been accustomed to speak of the faculty, as it might he prejudicial, he feared, to many young persons who had heard his opinions, and who might be induced by them to neglect medical assistance. On the morning of his death he said, that he had often dreaded that day, and expected it would be a very melancholy one. On his barber’s calling to shave him, he desired he would come the next day, when he should be better able to undergo the operation. He took leave about four o'clock, with the greatest cheerfulness, calmness, and composure, of Dr. Vincent, Mr. Milbanke, Mr. Turner, and Mrs. Collins, and expressed an earnest wish to see Mr. Cator. On their leaving the room he desired the door to be shut, that he might not be disturbed by the women, who would perhaps be frightened at seeing him die. He expired about a quarter before eight, on May 5, 1789, without a struggle or a sigh, the moment after taking a glass of wine. He preserved his faculties to the last moment

“The person of Baretti,” says one who appears to have known him, “was athletic, his countenance by no means attractive, his manners apparently rough, but not unsocial his eye, when he was inclined to please or be pleased, when he was conversing with young people, and especially young women, cheerful and engaging he was fond of conversing with them, and his conversation almost constantly turned upon subjects of instruction: he had the art of drawing them into correspondence, and wished by these means to give them the power of expression and facility of language, while he himself conveyed to them lessons on the conduct of life and the best answer that can be given to all those accounts which have represented him as a man of a brutal and ferocious temper, is the attachment which many of his young friends felt while he was living, and preserve to his memory now he is no more. He was not impatient of contradiction, unless where contempt was implied but alive in every feeling where he thought himself traduced, or his conduct impeached. In his general intercourse with the world he was social, easy, and conversible his talents were neither great nor splendid but hvs knowledge of mankind was extensive, and his acquaintance with books in all modern languages which are valuable, except the German, was universal his conduct in every family, where he became an inmate, was correct and irreproachable; neither prying, nor inquisitive, nor intermeddling, but affable to the inferiors, and conciliatory between the principals in others which he visited only, he was neither intrusive nor unwelcome; ever ready to accept an invitation when it was cordial, and never seeking it where it was cold and affected. In point of morals he was irreproachable with regard to faith, he was rather without religion than irreligious the fact was, possibly, that he had been disgusted with the religion of Italy before he left it, and was too old when he came to England to take an attachment to the purer doctrines of the protestant church but his scepticism was never offensive to those who had settled principles, never held out or defended in company, never proposed to mislead or corrupt the minds of young people. He ridiculed the libertine publications of Voltaire, and the reveries of Rousseau he detested the philosophy of the French pour lesfemmes de cJiambre^ and though too much a philosopher (in his own opinion) to subscribe to any church, he was a friend to church establishments. If this was the least favourable part of his character, the best was his integrity, which was, in every period of his distresses, constant and unimpeached. His regularity in every claim was conspicuous his wants he never made known but in the last extremity and his last illness, if it was caused by vexation, would doubtless have been prevented by the intervention of many friends who were ready to supply him, if his own scruples, strengthened by the hopes of receiving his due from day to day, had not induced him to conceal his immediate distress till it was too late to assist him.”

To this character, his biographer adds, that he was chaVitable in the extreme and, like Goldsmith, would divide the last shilling he possessed with a friend in distress. He also kept small money of various kinds in a pocket by itself to relieve distress. He was improvident enough to be always anticipating his income, and spent a good deal of it in post-chaise hire, in travelling through the country. He was no dealer in compliment. Avoiding the practice of it himself, he would not knowingly permit it to be used towards him. He would not receive money from any one, and actually refused 6l. from his brother at a time when he was in want, though he accepted from him some wine and macaroni. Immediately after his death, his legal representatives (for no other persons could be authorised to interfere in so extraordinary a manner) either as executors or administrators burnt every letter in his possession without inspection an instance of gothic precipitation which ignorance itself would blush to avow, and which, with the papers of a man of letters, may be attended with very mischievous consequences. We hope the practice is not frequent. Among these letters were several from Dr. Johnson, which Mr. Baretti a few weeks only before his death had promised to make known to the public and from the value of those that have already been published, the world may form some judgment of their loss. The following is a correct list of Mr, Baretti’s works 1. “A Dissertation upon the Italian poetry in which are inter^ spersed some remarks on Mr. Voltaire’s essay on the epic poets,” 1753, 8vo. 2. “An Introduction to the Italian language,; containing specimens both of prose and verse. Selected from Francisco Redi, Galileo Galilei, &c. &c. &c. With a literal translation and grammatical notes, for the use of those who being already acquainted with grammar, attempt to learn it without a master,” 1755, 8vo,

5. “A Grammar of the Italian language with a copious praxis of moral sentences. To which is added an English grammar for the use of the Italians,” 1762, 8vo. 6. “The Frusta Literaria, published in Italy in 1763, 1764, and 1765.” 7. f An Account of the manners and customs of Italy with observations on the mistakes of some travellers with regard to that country,“1768, 2 vols. 8 vo. 8.” An Appendix in answer to Mr. Sharp’s Reply,“1769, 8vo. 9. < 6 A Journey from London to Genoa, through England, Portugal, Spain, and France,” 1770, 4 vols. 8vo. 10. “Proposals for- printing the Life of friar Gerund,' 7 1771, 4to. This was for printing the original Spanish. The scheme was abortive but a translation by Dr. Warner was printed in 2 vols. 8vo. 11.” An Introduction to the most useful European languages consisting of select passages from the most celebrated English, French, Italian, and Spanish authors with translations as close as possible, so disposed in columns, as to give in one view the manner of expressing the same sentence in each language,“1772, 8vo. 12.” Tutte Topere di Machiavelli,“1772, 3 vols. 4 to with a preface, and several- pieces omitted in former editions. 13.” Easy Phraseology for the use of young ladies who intend to learn the colloquial part of the Italian language,“8vo, 1776. 14.” Discours sur Shakespeare et sur Mons. de Voltaire,“1777, 8vo. 15.” Scelta di Lettere familiari“or, a selection of familiar letters, for the use of students in the Italian tongue, 1779, 2 vols. 12mp. 16.” Carmen Seculare of Horace, as performed at Free-Masons’ Hall,“1779, 4to. 17.” Guide through the Royal Academy,“1781, 4to. 18.” Dissertacion Epistolar accrea unas Obras de la Real Academia Espanola su auctor Joseph Baretii, secretaria por la correspondencia estrangera de la Real Academia Britannica di pintura, escultura, y arquitectura. Al senor don Juan C****,“4to. 19.” Tolondron. Speeches to John Bowie about his edition of Don Quixote together with some account of Spanish literature," 1786, 8vo.

, 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.

, esq. the descendant of an ancient and respectable family at Lyndon in Rutlandshire, was the son of Samuel Barker, esq. of Lyndon, by a daughter of the celebrated Whiston, who often acknowledges the assistance he received from his son-in-law in his ecclesiastical researches. Mr. Samuel Barker was long employed in preparing a Hebrew grammar, which he probably did not live to finish, but in 1761 was published “Poesis vetus He^ braica restitutus. Accedunt quasdam de carmine Anacre^ ontis. De accentibus Graecis. De Scriptura vetere lonica, De literis consonantibus et vocalibus, et de pronuntiatione >inguae Hebraicoe,” 4to. He was then dead. His son, the subject of the present article, was the author of several tracts on religious and philosophical subjects among the former were, “The duty, circumstance, and benefits of Baptism, determined by evidence,” 1771, 8vo “The Messiah, being the prophecies concerning him methodized, with their accomplishment,” 1780, 8vo “The nature and circumstances of the Demoniacs in the Gospel,” 1780, 8vo. In some of these he is said to depart from the received opinions of the church. Of his philosophical works, which have done him far more credit, we may notice his meteorological journals, which were for many years published in the Philosophical Transactions, where likewise he wrote, 1. “An account of a Meteor seen in Rutland,” 1756. 2. “On the return of the Comet expected in 1757 or 1755, ibid. 1759. 3.” On the mutations of the Stars,“ibid. 1761. 4.” Account of a remarkable Halo,“ib. 1762, 5.” Observations on the quantity of rain fallen at Lyndon for several years, with observations for determining the latitude of Stamford,“ib. 1771. He published also separately,” Account of the discoveries respecting Comets," 1757, 4to. This contains a table of the Parabola, much valued by competent judges, and reprinted by sir Henry Englefield, in his excellent treatise on the same subject. Mr. Barker, by a course of uninterrupted abstemiousness, particularly from animal food, which he was under the necessity of leaving off in his infancy, prolonged his life and faculties to an unusual period, dying at Lyndon, Dec. 29th, 1809, in his eighty-eighth year. It ought to have been noticed, that he drew up the history of the parish of Lyndon, one of the few parts given to the public of a new edition of Wright’s history and antiquities of Rutland.

, a biographical and miscellaneous writer of the seventeenth century, was born at Winchcombe in Gloucestershire, Nov. 23, 1609, and educated first at Abingdon school, whence he entered as a servitor in Merton college, Oxford, in 1625, and in a short time removed to Gloucester hall (novy Worcester college) under the tuition and patronage of Dr. Gregory Whear, the principal. Here he studied with great assiduity for several years, took his degrees in arts, and entered into holy orders. In 1637 he supplied the place of chaplain of Lincoln college at the church of All-Saints, for a short time, and was the same year appointed master of the freeschool at Hereford, vicar-choral there, and not long after was promoted to the vicarage of All-hallows in that city. When the garrison of Hereford was surprised by the parliamentary forces in 1646, he was rescued out of the danger, and placed at Sudeley castle, doubtless by the Bridges family, where he exercised his ministry. After that he taught a private school at Hawling in Cotswold, and on the restoration his majesty gave him the living of Naunton near Hawling in Gloucestershire, which he retained until his death, Jan. 6, 1687-8. He was buried in the chancel of Naunton church, leaving behind him the character of a frequent and edifying preacher, and a good neighbour. Wood further adds, that he was a good disputant, a great admirer of Grotius, and a great pretender to poetry but poetry is one of those subjects with which Wood is seldom to be trusted. Barksdale was certainly more than a pretender to poetry. His works are very numerous, both original and translated; but the greater part of the former are small pious tracts on various subjects, little known now, although no doubt very useful in the time they were published. His biographical works, mostly compilations from very scarce tracts and funeral sermons, were published under the title of “Memorials of Worthy Persons.” Of these, two decades were published, London, 1661, 12mo; a third at Oxford, 1662 a fourth there, 1663 and a fifth under the title of “A remembrancer of Excellent Men,” London, 1670. These are now scarce. But a more rare work is his “Nympha Libaethris or the Cotswold Muse, presenting some extempore verses to the imitation of young scholars; in four parts,” London, 1651, 12mo. Of this curious volume the reader may see an ample account, by Mr. Park, in the “Ccnsura Literaria,” vol. VI. Of Barksdale’s other writings it may be sufficient to mention,

, 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 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.

, bishop of Rochester and Lincoln, was a native of Lancashire, and became fellow of Trinity hall, Cambridge. He was afterwards chaplain to queen Elizabeth, and to archbishop Whitgift, who collated him to the rectory of St. Dunstan’s in the East, and he occurs likewise as a prebendary of St. Paul’s. He was installed prebendary of Westminster, in 1601, and the next year, dean of Chester, and in 1605, a prebendary of Canterbury. In the same year, May 23, he was elected bishop of Rochester, which he held for three years, and was translated to Lincoln, May 21, 1608. He died suddenly at his palace at Buckden, Sept. 7, 1613, where he was buried. In his will he appointed to be buried in Lincoln cathedral, or Westminster abbey, if he died near them, and gave several charities, and was, according to Wood, a benefactor to St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he founded the London fellowships and scholarships, but his will, in this respect, being only conditional, St. John’s college never derived any benefit from it. He was reputed a learned and excellent preacher, and when dean of Chester, was employed by archbishop Whitgift to draw up an authentic relation of the famous conference between the bishop and the Puritans, held at Hampton court, Jan. 14, 15, 16, 1603, before king James, which was published at London, 1604, 4to, and 1638, and reprinted in the Phoenix, vol. I. He published also some controversial tracts, and a life of Dr. Richard Cosin, an eminent civilian, in whose house he had been brought up in his youth.

Barlowe died in the year 1625. His works are as follow: 1. “The Navigator’s Supply, containing rnaiw things of principal importance belonging to Navigation, and use of diverse Instruments framed chiefly for that purpose,” Lond. 1597, 4to dedicated to Robert earl of Essex. 2. “Magnetical Advertisement, or diverse pertinent observations and improved experiments concerning the natnre and properties of the Loadstone,” Lond. 1616, 4to. 3. “A Brief Discovery of the idle animadversions of Mark Ridley, M. D. upon a treatise entitled Magnetical Advertisement,” Lond. 1618, 4to.

In the first of these pieces, Barlowe gave a demonstration of Wright’s or Mercator’s division of the meridian line, as communicated by a friend observing that “This manner of carde has been publiquely extant in print these thirtie yeares at least [he should have said twenty-eight only], but a cloude (as it were) and thicke miste of ignorance doth keepe it hitherto concealed and so much the more, because some who were reckoned for men of good knowledge, have by glauncing speeches (but never by any one reason of moment) gone about what they could to, disgrace it.” This work of Barlowe’s contains descriptions of several instruments for the use of navigation, the principal of which is an azimuth compass, with two upright sights and as the author was very curious in making experiments on the loadstone, he treats well and fully upon the sea- compass. And he treated still farther on the same instrument in his second work, the Magnetical Advertisement.

, an English divine, was the son of Mr. John Barnard, of Castor, a market town in Lincolnshire. He had his education in the grammar-school of that place; from whence he was sent to Cambridge, where he became a pensioner of Queen’s college. After that he went to Oxford, to obtain preferment from the visitors appointed by act of parliament, and there took the degree of B.A.April 15, 1648; and on Sept. 29 following, was, by order of the said visitors, made fellow of Lincoln college. Feb. 20, 1650, he took the degree of M. A. At length, having married the daughter of Dr. Peter Heylyn, then living at Abingdon, he became rector of Wadding-ton, near Lincoln, the perpetual advowson of which he purchased, and held it for some time, together with the sinecure of Gedney, in the same county. After the restoration he conformed, and was made prebendary of Asgarby in the church of Lincoln. July 6, 1669, he took the degree of B. D. and the same year was created D. D. being then in good repute for his learning and orthodoxy. He died at Newark, on a journey to Spa, Aug. 17, 1683, and was buried in his own church of Waddington. His works are: 1. “Censura Cleri, against scandalous ministers, not fit to be restored to the church’s livings, in point of prudence, piety, and fame,” Lond. 1660, in three sheets, 4to his name is not prefixed to this piece. 2. “TheoJogo-historicus, or the true life of the most reverend divine and excellent historian Peter Heylyn, D. D. subdean of Westminster,” Lond. 1683, 8vo. This was published, as the author says, to correct the errors, supply the defects, and confute the calumnies of George Vernon, A- M. rector of Bourton on the Water, in Gloucestershire, who had published a life of Dr. Heylyn; and Heylyn’s life will certainly be best understood by a comparison of the two. To it is added, 3. “An Answer to Mr. Baxter’s false accusation of Mr. Heylyn.” 4. “A catechism for the use of his parish.” The purpose of the “Censura Cleri” was to prevent some clergymen from being restored to their livings who had been ejected during the interregnum, but, according to Wood, when affairs took a different turn, he did not wish to be known as the author.

Mr. Barnard, till the thirty-sixth year of his age, was only known by the excellencies of his private character, and the esteem in which he was held as a man of reading and strong parts. But about this time, the following incident laid the foundation of his public fame. A bill seriously affecting the wine trade, had passed through the house of commons, and was depending in the upper house. The principal merchants, who would have been injured by the operation of the bill, united in presenting a petition to the lords, praying to be heard against it, by themselves, -or counsel. Their request being granted, Mr. Barnard, without his knowledge, was made choice of, as the fittest person to prove the grievance alleged, and to answer every objection to the petition. Through some unaccountable negligence, he was not acquainted with the business assigned him, till the afternoon before he was to be heard by the peers. This singular disadvantage, when it came to be known, made his speech appear the more extraordinary. By the extent of his acquaintance with, commerce, and the perspicuity and force of his reasoning, accompanied with a becoming modesty, he contributed in so high a degree to carry the point aimed at, that all his friends considered themselves as principally indebted to his talents for their success. So signal an instance of Mr. Barnard’s abilities drew the attention of the public towards him, andprepared the way for his appearing in a more honourable and important station. The admiration he had acquired, made it wished, that he might be employed in the service of his fellow- citizens and countrymen at large. Accordingly, at an anniversary meeting in 1721, his friends proposed, without his knowledge, that he should be put up as a candidate to represent the city of London in Parliament at the next election, which was expected to happen in that year, though it did not take place till the year following. When Mr. Barnard was informed of the honour intended him, he urged hisinvincible dislike to the soliciting and canvassing for votes. But this objection was over-ruled by the proposers, who pledged themselves to undertake that trouble and so effectually did they perform their promise, that he was chosen member, though the contest between the competitors was one of the warmest ever known in London. The candidates were Child, Lockwood, Godfrey, Barnard, Parsons, and Heyshaw the four former of whom were elected. Seven thousand six hundred and seventy-three liverymen polled a number, it is said, which had never before been equalled. All who knew Mr. Barnard, conceived great expectations that he would acquit himself to the honour of his constituents nor were their expectations disappointed. From his first -taking his seat in the house of commons, he entered with penetration into the merits of each point under debate defended with intrepidity what he apprehended to be our constitutional rights; withstood every attempt to burden his country with needless subsidies; argued with remarkable perspicuity and strength and crowned all with such a close attendance upon parliament, that he was never absent by choice, from the time the members met, till they were adjourned. It is difficult to say, whether out of the house he was more popular, or within it more respectable, during the space of nearly forty years.

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

In 1737, he was raised to the dignity of chief magistrate of the city of London and no one ever discharged the office with greater reputation to himself, or advantage to the public. During his whole mayoralty, he paid a paternal attention to the welfare of his fellow citizens. Though he was enthusiastically devoted to a country evening retirement, he would not sleep a single night in his house at Clapham, lest any person should be injured by his indulging himself even with a short absence from the metropolis. He gave such strict injunctions to remove the nuisance of common beggars out of the City, and took such care to have his injunctions observed, that scarcely a vagrant was to be seen within the walls. When young delinquents were brought before him, he was an advocate, in every instance where it could be done with propriety, for softening the penalties they had incurred. If prosecutors were of a severe temper, he would labour to dissuade them from sending a petty offender, for the first trespass, to a prison, where surrounding prostitutes, and wretches hardened in vice, might induce a total corruption of manners. There were not wanting, it is said, several instances in which his prudence and seasonable lenity became happily successful in restoring deluded youths to regularity of conduct, and the order of society. But where severity was necessary, sir John Barnard well knew how to exercise it with a becoming firmness. As the regard he bore to the clergy was generally spoken of, an offender of that order thought that he should hence be treated with greater gentleness. Accordingly, he appeared before the lord mayor in his canonical robes. But his lordship strongly represented to him that the sanctity of the clerical profession was a high aggravation of the fault and, without paying the least deference to his religious garb, punished the reverend delinquent according to his crime. Among other methods which our active magistrate took to promote virtuous manners, and the good government of the city, one was the issuing of a strict order for the decent observance of the Lord’s day. The edict was so diligently enforced, as effectually to awe the offenders against whom it was levelled. The Sunday was observed throughout the city with a decency which hath never since been equalled and it must be acknowledged that sir John Barnard, by his conduct in this respect, consulted not only the honour of religion, but the political welfare and happiness of the community.

There was an excellent rule laid down by sir John Barnard for himself in his mayoralty, and which well deserves to be imitated. He would not permit, if it could possibly be avoided, any persons to be committed to the Compter, even for a single night, without the accusation’s being heard. He thought that the confinement of a single night might, if they were innocent, be very injurious to the parties put into custody it might hurt their morals, or otherwise be very distressing to themselves or families. He sat up, therefore, every evening, till after eleven o'clock, to hear the cases of those who were laid hold of by the constables. One night, when he was gone up stairs to bed, a woman was brought, who had been seized as a street-walker. Though the lord mayor was nearly undressed, he readily came down again. The woman alledged in her defence, that she was a person of honesty, who lived in a remote part of Wapping, and had been kept out late by necessary and unavoidable business. As she said that her neighbours would testify to her character, Jiis lordship waited patiently to past three in the morning, until some of them came for that purpose. During his mayoralty, he had the misfortune of losing his lady, whose funeral procession to Clapham was attended, through the city, by the children belonging to Christ’s hospital, of which he was many years president.

“We, the undersigned merchants, and others, being sensible how necessary the preservation of public credit is, at this time, do hereby declare, that we will not refuse to receive Bank notes in payment of any sum of money to be paid to us, and ttyat we will use our utmost endeavours to make all our payments in the same manner.” This happy expedient removed the jealousies which the enemies of the constitution, or the fears of the people, had excited, and restored public credit to its usual vigour. Sir John Barnard, having disapproved of the method of raising the supplies for the service of the year 1.746, and having made some other proposals for that purpose, a pamphlet was addressed to him, which blamed his conduct in this respect, and objected to the schemes he had offered. To this he thought proper to reply, in a tract to which he prefixed his name, entitled “A Defence of several Proposals for raising of three millions for the service of the Government, for the Year 1746 with a postscript, containing some notions relating to public credit 1J and whoever peruses it, will be sensible how well skilled he was in matters of finance. Upon the death of sir John Thompson, in 1749, sirJolm Barnard took upon him the office of alderman of Bridgeward Without; and thus became in name, as before he might be deemed in reality, the Father of the City. The sense of the many advantages, which he had been active in procuring for the nation in general, and the metropolis in particular, induced the body of London merchants to testify their veneration for him, by erecting his statue, during his lifetime, in the Royal Exchange an honour which had never before been conferred on any beneath a crowned head. Sir John Barnard’s modesty engaged him sincerely to object to this signal mark of the gratitude and esteem of his fellow-citizens. He thought that such a testimony of regard ought not to be paid to any character, till its perseverance in integrity had been sealed by death and he said that he could not, consistently with decorum and delicacy, appear in the Royal Exchange, when his statue was there. Accordingly, he never afterwards used to ' go within-side of it, but contented himself with transacting his business in the front of that building. In 1754, without his solicitations, and, indeed, contrary to his wishes, he was chosen, for the last time to a seat in parliament for the city of London on which occasion, he made the following speech to hk electors” The honour you have done me in choosing me six times one of your representatatives in parliament, calls for my sincere and hearty thanks; the rather, as I look upon the present election to be the last favour I can expect. I have not of late presumed to offer my service, knowing my inability to give that attendawce in parliament, which this honourable city has a right to require from its members. But the continuance of your polling for me, is a proof of your kindness in overlooking my failings, and of your affectionate regard for me. The impression which this hath made upon my heart can never be effaced, of which I beg leave to assure you, and of my best endeavours to promote the good of this city in particular, and of the nation in general."

, one of the active agents in the French revolution, was born in 1761, the son of an opulent attorney of Grenoble. He was educated to the profession of the law, and being appointed deputy to the States-General in 1789, became one of the most implacable enemies of the court, and in other respects betrayed that sanguinary spirit which at that time raised many more obscure men into popular reputation. He joined in most of the extravagant measures of the assembly, and argued in particular for confiscating the property of the clergy, and abolishing religious orders. In order to catch popularity from whatever quarter, he declared himself the advocate of protestants, actors, Jews, and executioners, and solicited their admission to the rights of citizenship. He was likewise for the suppression of all feudal rights and titles, and in general for all the measures of the Jacobin party but amidst all this violence, he ventured to think for himself on some points, which proved his ruin. On one occasion, he insisted that no law shouJd be passed concerning people of colour, until the motion had been made by the colonies and pointed out the certain resistance of the planters to innovations of this nature. Such an appearance of justice could not be acceptable at that time. It was even attributed to corruption, of which a more direct proof appeared soon after. On the news of the king’s being arrested in his flight, Barnave, with Petion, and another, were appointed to escort the royal family to Paris. He returned in the carriage of their majesties, and conducted himself with all proper respect and attention. What had happened to produce this change is not known it might be compunction, or he might have discovered that the unfortunate monarch was not the monster he had represented him but from this hour Barnave became a suspected character; and he increased this suspicion, by giving in the assembly a simple recital of his mission, without adding any reflection. He did worse he even spoke for the inviolability of the king’s person, and repelled, with looks of contempt, the hootings of the populace. He still continued, however, to enjoy some influence in the assembly, to which his talents justly entitled him, and even was powerful enough to procure a repeal of the decree respecting the colonies, which he had before opposed against the voice of the majority. At the end of the session he was appointed mayor of Grenoble, where he married the only daughter of a lawyer, who brought him a fortune of 700,000 livres but all this he did not enjoy long. When the jacobin party obtained possession of the court, in consequence of the events of August 1792, they found, or created, proofs of his connection with the cabinet of the Thuileries. After a long imprisonment at Grenoble, he was brought before the revolutionary tribunal of Paris, where he made an able defence, and probably impressed even his enemies with a favourable opinion of his conduct. He was, however, condemned to be guillotined, which was executed Nov. 29, 1793. Barnave was unquestionably a man of abilities, whatever may be thought of their direction. Mirabeau, to whom he was a rival, and whom he often opposed, was astonished that a young man should speak so rapidly, so long, and so eloquently and said of him, “It is a young tree, which will mount high if it be let to grow.”

Mr. Barnes’s character has been variously represented, but always with a preponderance of the good. He had a great deal of enthusiasm in his temper, which discovered itself in various circumstances of his life. He constantly maintained, that spiritual sins, such as pride, defamation, &c. were more offensive in the eyes of God, than those which arise from a too great indulgence of the senses. He believed, that charity seldom or never passes without its reward in this life. And this opinion prevailed so far with him, that he has given his only coat to a vagrant begging at the door; and he used to relate some extraordinary retributions conferred upon him by unknown persons for his charities of this kind. He was remarkable rather for the quickness of his wit, and the happiness of his memory, than for the solidity of his judgment; upon which somebody recommended this pun (which, by the way, Menage used in his satire upon Pierre Montmaur) to be inscribed upon his monument

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.

There is subjoined to the first edition of his Anacreon at Cambridge, 1705, a catalogue of works, which Mr. Barnes had either published, or intended to publish; which is omitted in the second edition of that poet, printed after his death in 1721, though it is mentioned in the contents and the prolegomena. In this catalogue, besides the books already mentioned, we find the following 1. The Warlike Lover, or the Generous Rival; an English dramatic piece upon the war between the English and Dutch, and the death of the earl of Sandwich, an. 1672. 2. ψονθομφανεὰχ, or Joseph the Patriarch a Greek heroic poem in one book. The author designed twelve books, but finished only one. 3. Ὀρειολογία, or our Saviour’s Sermon upon the Mount, the Decalogue, the Apostles Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Magnificat, with other hymns from the Old and New Testament, in Greek verse. 4. Thuribuluna, or the hymns and festivals in Greek verse. 5. Miscellanies and epigrams in Latin and Greek verse. 6. Αγγλα Βελγομαχία, or the death of Edward Montague, earl of Sandwich, in Greek, Latin, and English verse. 7. Ἀγεκτρυομαχία, or a poem upon Cock-fighting, an, 1673. 8. The Song of Songs, containing an hundred Hexastics in English heroic verse, an. 1674. 9. Σῶειδηριάδος; a ludicrous poem, in Greek macaronic verse, upon a battle between a Spider and a Toad, an. 1673. 10. Φληϊάδος, or a supplement to the old ludicrous poem under that title, at Trinity-house in Cambridge, upon a battle between the Fleas and a Welshman. 11. A Poetical Lexicon, Greek and Latin to which is added a Lexicon of proper names, 1675, fol. 12. A treatise on the Greek Accents, in answer to Henry Christian Heninius and others, with a discourse upon the Points now in use. 13. Humorous Poems upon the 9th by ok of the; Iliad, and the ninth of the Odyssey, in English published in 1681. 14. Franciados an heroic poem, in Latin, upon the Black Prince. The whole was to consist of twelve books, eight of which were finished. 15. The Art of War, in four books, in English prose, 1676. 16. Hengist, or the English Valour; an heroic poem in English, in seven books. 17. Landgarth, or the Amazon Queen of Norway and Denmark an English dramatic poem in heroic verse, designed in honour of the marriage between prince George of Denmark and princess Anne. 18. An Ecclesiastical History from the beginning of the world to the ascension of our Saviour, in Latin, to I. 19. Miscellaneous Poems in English. 20. Philosophical and Divine Poems, in Latin, published at different 'times at Cambridge. 21. Poems, and sacred daily Meditations, continued for several years in English. 22. A dissertation upon Pillars, Obelisks, Pyramids, &c. in Latin, 1692. 23. A discourse upon the Sibyls, in three books, in Latin. 24. The Life of Pindar in four lectures, and thirty-two lectures upon his first Olympic Ode. 25. The Life of Theocritus, and lectures upon that poet. 26. The Lives of David, Scanderbeg, and Tamerlane. These lives, he tells us, he never actually begun, but only made considerable collections for them. 27. The Life of Edward the Black Prince. 28. The University- Calendar, or directions for young students of all degrees, with relation to their studies, and general rules of ethics, and a form of prayer, anno 1685. 29. Thirty-two lectures upon the first book of the Odyssey. 30. Above fifty lectures upon. Sophocles. 31. Lectures upon Bereshith, with an oration recommending the study of the Hebrew language. 32. Three Discourses in Jtnglish. I. The Fortunate Island, or the Inauguration of Queen Gloriana. II. The Advantage of England, or a sure way to victory. III. The Cause of the Church of England defended and explained published in 1703. 33. Concio ad Clerum, for his degree of bachelor of divinity, at St. Mary’s in Cambridge, 1686. 3*. Occasional Sermons, preached before the lord-mayor, &c. 35. An Oration, recommending the study of the Greek language, spoken in the public schools at Cambridge before the vice-chancellor, March 28, 1705. 36. A Greek Oration, addressed to the most reverend father Neophytus, archbishop of philippopolis, spoken in the Regent-house at Cambridge, September 13, 1701, 37. A Prevaricator’s Speech, spoken at the commencement at Cambridge, 1680. 38. A Congratulatory Oration in Latin, spoken at St. Mary’s, September 9, 1683, upon the escape of king Charles Ji. and the duke of York from the conspiracy. 39. Sermons, orations, declamations, problems, translations, letters, and other exercises, in English, Latin, and Greek. 40. A Satire in English verse upon the poets and critics. 41. An imitation of Plautus’s Trinummi in English. 42. Interpretations, illustrations, emendations, and corrections of many passages, which have been falsely translated, with explications upon various passages of scripture, from Genesis to Revelations. 43. Common-places in divinity, philology, poetry, and criticism and emendations of various Greek and Latin authors, with fragments of many of the poets.

, professor of divinity, and chaplain to Henry VIII. king of England, was sent to Germany by his master in 1535, where he held a conference with the protestant divines upon the affair of the divorce after that he had several audiences of the elector of Saxony, and joined with the English ambassadors, who proposed to this elector an alliance against the pope, and desired that Henry VIII. might be associated in the league of Smalcalde. He gave them hopes of a reformation in England but in fact, they had no other design than to obtain their doctors approbation of the divorce of their master, and a political alliance, in order to find the emperor more employment, who threatened to revenge the injury upon king Henry for divorcing his aunt. They carried away with them the opinion of the divines of Witternberg which was not entirely favourable to them but they suppressed the conclusion, wjien they shewed it to the king. Barnes’s conduct however pleased the king, and induced him to employ him in carrying on a correspondence with the princes of Germany. He was sent several times to those courts and among other negociations, he w r as the first who was employed in the project of the marriage with Anne of Cleves. He was a zealous Lutheran, which he did not conceal in his sermons for in Lent in 1540 he confuted the sermon, which bishop Gardiner had preached against Luther’s doctrine. He took the same text as Gardiner had done, and taught a doctrine absolutely contrary to what this prelate had laid down concerning justification nay he even attacked the bishop personally, and jested upon the name of Gardiner. Gardiner’s friends complained to the king of this, who ordered 'Barnes to give him satisfaction, to sign certain articles, and to make a formal recantation in the pulpit. All this was done, but in such a manner, that there was a complaint, that in one part of his sermon he artfully maintained what he had retracted in the other. Upon these complaints he was sent to the Tower by the king’s command, which he never came out of but to suffer death in the midst of the flames for he was condemned* as an heretic by the parliament, without being permitted to make his defence. He declared his belief a little before his death he rejected justification by works, invocation of saints, &c. and desired that the king would undertake a thorough reformation. His freedom of speech had for a long time before exposed him to trouble. While Wolsey was in favour, he preached so vehemently at Cambridge against the luxury of prelates, that every body saw immediately that he designed it against the cardinal. Upon that account he was carried to London, where by the solicitations of Gardiner and Fox, he was rescued from that prosecution, having agreed to abjure some articles which were proposed to him. Afterwards he was again committed to prison upon some newaccusations and then it was generally believed that he would be burnt, but he escaped, and went over into Germany, where he applied himself entirely to the study of the bible and divinity in which he made so great a progress, that he was very much esteemed by the doctors and princes. When the king of Denmark sent ambassadors to England, he desired Barnes to accompany them, or even to be one of them. We have at least two books written by Barnes, one, the “Articles of his Faith,” published in Latin, with a preface by Pomeranus, and again in Dutch in 1531. The other is his “Lives of the Popes,” from St. Peter to Alexander II. published, with a preface by Luther, at Wirtemberg, 1536, and afterwards at Leyden, 1615; together with Bale’s Lives of the Popes. Luther also published an account of his martyrdom.

The next dispute he was engaged in, was of much longer continuance. Dr. Whitacre and Dr. Timlal were deputed by the heads of the university to archbishop Whitgift to complain that Pelagianism was gaining ground in the university; and, in order to stop the progress of it, they desired confirmation of some propositions they had brought along with them. These accordingly were established and approved by the archbishop, the bishop of London, the bishop elect of Bangor, and some other divines; and were afterwards known by the title of the Lambeth articles. They were immediately communicated to Dr. Baro; who, disregarding them, preached a sermon before the university, in which however he did not so much deny, as moderate those propositions: nevertheless his adversaries judging of it otherwise, the vice-chancellor consulted the same day with Dr. Clayton and Mr. Chadderton, what should be done. The next day he wrote a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury; who returned for answer, that they should call Baro before them, and require a copy of his sermon, or at least cause him to set down the principal heads thereof. Baro, finding what offence was taken at his sermon, wrote to the archbishop; yet, according to his grace’s directions, was cited before Dr. Goad, the vicechancellor in the consistory; when several articles were exhibited against him. At his last appearance the conclusion against him was, “That whereas Baro had promised the vice-chancellor, upon his demand, a copy of his sermon, but his lawyers did advise him not to deliver the same the vice-chancellor did now, by virtue of his authority, peremptorily command him to deliver him the whole and entire sermon, as to the substance of it, in writing: which Baro promised he would do the next day, and did it accordingly. And lastly, he did peremptorily and by virtue of his authority command Buro, that he should wholly abstain from those controversies and articles, and leave them altogether untouched, as well in his lectures, sermons, and determinations, as in his disputations and other his exercises. The vice-chancellor, who had proceeded thus far without the knowledge of the lord Burleigh their chancellor, thought fit to acquaint him with their proceedings, and to desire his advice. The discountenance lord Burleigh gave to this affair, stopped all farther proceedings against Baro; who continued in the university, but with much opposition and trouble: and though he had many friends and adherents in the university, he met with such uneasiness, that, for the sake of peace, he chose to retire to London, and fixed his abode in Crutched Friars; where he died about 1600, and was buried in the church of St. Olave, Hart-street. He left the following works: 1.” In Jonam Prophetam Prcelectiones xxxix.“2.” Conciones tres ad Clerum Cantabrigiendem habitae in templo B. Mariae.“3.” Theses publics in Scholis peroratse et disputatac.“[These Theses, being only two, were translated into English by John Ludham, under these titles; First,” God’s purpose and dtecree taketh not away the liberty of man’s corrupt will.*' The second, “Our conjunction with Christ is altogether spiritual,” London 1590, 8vo.] 4. “Precationes quibus usus est author in suis pnclectionibus inchoandis & finiendis.” All these were published at London 1579, fol. by the care of Osmund Lake, B. D. fellow of King’s college, Cambr. who corrected them before they went to the press. 5. “De Fide ejusque ortu et natura plana et dilucida explicatio,” &c. Lond. 1580, 8vo. 6. “De prsestantia &. dignitate divinse Legis, lib. 2,” 1586, 8vo. 7. “Tractatus in quo docet expetitionem oblati a mente boni et fiduciam ad fidei justificantis naturam pertinere.” 8. “Sumina trium sententiarum de Praedestinatione,” &c. Hardr. 1613, 8vo. printed with the notes of Joh. Piscator, disquisition of Franc. Junius, and prelection of Will. Whitacre. 9. “Special treatise of God’s providence, and of comforts against all kind of crosses and calamities to be fetched from the same; with an exposition, on Psalm cvii.” 10. Four Sermons; the first on Psalm cxxxiii. 1, 2, 3 the second, on Psalm xv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. 1560, 8vo.

, a patrician or senator of Venice, distinguished for his knowledge in mathematics, flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century. Some of his translations, as well as original works, were published in his life-time, as 1. “Heronis liber de machinis bellicis, necnon liber de Geodiesia, ex Graeco Latine,” Venice, 1572, 4to. 2. “Procli in primuin elementorum Euclidis libri quatuor,” translated into Latin, Padua, 1560, fol. He was only twenty-two years of age, when he published this work. 3. A commentary on Plato, “de numero geometrico,” Boulogne, 1556; and 4. A system of Cosmography, Venice, 1585, 8vo. We have an account likewise of one of his writings, entitled “Cryptographia,” (or according to the Dict. Hist. “Rytmomachia,”) describing an ancient game attributed to Pythagoras. This was translated by Augustus duke of Brunswick and Lunenburgh, under the name of Gustavus Seienus. On Barocci’s death, his manuscripts were sold by his heirs, and came to the Bodleian library, as part of Langbaine’s collection.

, an eminent Italian artist, was born at Urbino, in 1528, and was the disciple of Battista Venetiano, by whom he was carefully instructed in the principles of painting, but he derived his knowledge of perspective from his uncle Bartolomeo Genga. Under those preceptors he practised assiduously, till he was in his twentieth year; and then visited Rome, where, under the patronage of cardinal della Rovere, he pursued his studies incessantly, and proved one of the most graceful painters of his time. At his return to his native city Urbino, he painted several pictures which procured him great applause; but that of a St. Margaret raised his reputation to the highest pitch, and induced pope Pius IV. to invite him to Home, where he employed him in the decorations of his palace of Belvedere, in conjunction with Federigo Zucchero. He excelled equally in history and portrait, but his genius inclined him more particularly to the painting of religious subjects; and his works sufficiently evince, that the utmost of his ambition was to imitate Correggio in his colouring, and Raphael in his manner of designing. But Correggio has somewhat so natural, so grand, so unaffectedly graceful, that Baroccio was far inferior to him, although perhaps more correct in the outlines. Sir Joshua Reynolds, who thought him, upon the whole, one of Correggio’s most successful imitators, says, that sometimes in endeavouring at cleanness or brilliancy of tint, he overshot the mark, and falls under the criticism that was made on an ancient painter, that his figures looked as if they fed upon roses. It is, however, singular to see colours of such variety coalesce so sweetly under his pencil, that perhaps no music reaches the ear with purer harmony, than his pictures the eye; an effect produced, in a great measure, by his attention to chiaroscuro, which he may be said to have introduced to the schools of Lower Italy, and which to obtain he rarely painted any historical figure without having either modelled it in wax, or placed some of his disciples in such attitudes as he wished to represent, it is sajd that when young, he was attempted to be poisoned at a dinner &ivc.5i by some of his rival artists, and that although he escaped with his life, he continued long in an infirm state. He must, however, have completely recovered from this attack, as his life was prolonged to the advanced age of eighty-four. He died at Urbino in 1612. Baroccio was also an engraver from some of his own compositions, and his plates, although slight, and not well managed, with respect to the mechanical part of the workmanship, are nevertheless most admirable, on account of the expression, and excellent drawing, which is discovered in them. His heads are very beautiful and characteristic; and the other extremities of his figures finely marked. Amidst all the difficulties he appears to have met with, in biting his plates with the aquafortis, after he had etched them, and his unskilfulness in handling-the graver, to harmonize and finish them, the hand of the master appears so evident, that the beauties we discover in them far overbalance the defects.

, an eminent French player, who appears to have had his full share in the annals of biography, was the son of a merchant of Issondun, and was born at Paris in 1652. He entered first into the company of la Raisin, and some time afterwards in that of Moliere, and quitted the stage in 1696, either from dislike or from some religious scruples, with a pension of a thousand crowns granted him by the king. He took up the profession again, however, in 1720, at the age of 68; and was as much applauded, notwithstanding his advanced age, as in the early period of his life. At those lines of Cinna,

, 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.

Baronins’s design in these Annals was, as he tells us himself in his preface, to refute the Centuriators of Magdeburg, or rather to oppose to their work, which was written against the church of Rome, another work of the same kind in defence of that church. “It were to be wished,” says Monsieur Dupin, “that he had contented himself with a mere narration of facts of ecclesiastical history, without entering into controversies and particular interests. However, it must be owned that his work is of a vast extent, well digested, full of deep researches, written with care, and as much exactness as can be expected from a man who first undertakes a work of such extent and difficulty as that. It is true that a great number of mistakes in chronology and history have been remarked in it; that many facts have been discovered not at all known to him; that he made use of several supposititious or doubtful monuments; that he has reported a considerable number of false facts as true, and has been mistaken in a variety of points. But though, without endeavouring to exaggerate the number of his errors with Lucas Holstenius, who declared that he was readyto shew eight thousand falsities in Baronins’s Annals, it cannot be denied that the number of them is very great; yet it must be acknowledged that his work is a very good and very useful one, and that he is justly styled the father of church history. It must be remarked, that he is much more exact in the history of the Latins than in that of the Greeks, because he was but very indifferently skilled in the Greek, and was obliged to make use of the assistance of Peter Morin, Metius, and father Sinnond, with regard to the monuments which had not been translated imo Latin. His style has neither the purity nor elegance xvhich were to be wished for in a work of that nature-, and it may be saidj that he writes rather like a clissertator than an historian; however, he is clear, intelligible, and methodical.'”

, was born at Paris in 1606 and after having gone through a course of study, and taken the degree of licentiate in medicine, he entered into the order of Dominicans in 1635. His talents and his prudence were so conspicuous, that in 1646 he was elected assistant to the general, with whom he made the tour of France, Spain, and Italy. Amidst the avocations of this post, and without neglecting his duties, he found the means of applying himself to the study of botany, to which he seemed to have a natural propensity. He collected a great number of plants and shells, and made drawings of several that had not been known, or but very imperfectly described. He had undertaken a general history of plants, which he intended to entitle “Hortus Mundi,” or “Orbis Botanicus,” and was employed on it with the utmost diligence, when an asthma put an end to his labours in 1673, at the age of sixty-seven. All that could be collected of this “work was published by Ant. de Jussieu, with a life of the author, under the title” Plantæ per Galliam, Hispaimim, et Italiani observatæ, et iconibus reneis exhibitce," Paris, 1714, folio, a valuable contribution to a botanical library, but by no means correct.

He had two decided manners of painting, both with regard to colour and touch; his first was rather heavy in both, his latter much lighter. Scarcely any painter equalled him in his knowledge or characteristic execution of the detuils of nature. His attention was chiefly directed to the true colour of English scenery, its richness, dewy freshness, and that peculiar verdure, especially in the vernal months, which is so totally different from the colouring of those masters who have formed themselves on Italian scenery or Italian pictures. This strong desire sometimes tempted him to use colours rich and beautiful when first applied, but which no art could render permanent; which, in some of his slighter works, prevailed to such a degree as to leave scarcely any traces of the original colouring.

It is said that a vindication of lord Barrington was published at the time, in a pamphlet which had the appearance of being written by him, or at least of being published under his direction but as we have not been able to discover this pamphlet, we shall subjoin a very curious history of the Harburgh company, and of his lordship’s conduct in that affair, from a manuscript of sir Michael Foster, communicated by his nephew, Mr. Dodson, to the editor of the Biographia Britannica. "His late majesty king George I. was desirous to introduce trade and manufactures into his German dominions; and the town of Harburgh being thought a proper place for that purpose, a scheme was offered to him, which met with his approbation, for making the port of Harburgh capable of receiving ships of burden, and for carrying on the intended trade and manufactures principally at that place. Accordingly his majesty, by charter under the great seal of the electorate, about Midsummer 1720, incorporated a number of gentlemen and merchants of London, for setting up and carrying on certain manufactures by a joint stock at Harburgh; and divers privileges were granted to the company, whose capital was to be 500,000l. and a charter for commerce was promised to that company. As soon as the manufacture charter was passed, and subscriptions taken in for raising the stock, shares sold at an exorbitant price, 50l. being commonly given for a share on which only 2l. had been advanced, and I think that some shares were sold at 50l. a-share. So great was the madness of that memorable year!

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.

, fourth son of the preceding, was born in 1727, studied some time at Oxford, which he quitted for the Temple, and after the usual course was admitted to the bar. He was one of his majesty’s counsel learned in the law, and a bencher of the lion society of the Inner Temple, but, although esteemed a very sound lawyer, he never rose to any distinguished eminence as a pleader. He was for some time recorder of Bristol, in which situation he was preceded by sir Michael Foster, and succeeded by Mr. Dunning, afterwards lord Ashburton. In May 1751 he was appointed marshal of the high court of admiralty in England, which he resigned in 1753, on being appointed secretary for the affairs of Greenwich hospital; and was appointed justice of the counties of Merioneth, Carnarvon, and Anglesey, 1757, and afterwards second justice of Chester, which he resigned about 1785, retaining only the place of commissary-general of the stores at Gibraltar. Had it been his wish, he might probably have been promoted to the EngU&h bench, but possessed of an ample income, having a strong bias to the study of antiquities, natural history, &c. he retired from the practice of the law, and applied his legal knowledge chiefly to the purposes of investigating curious questions of legal antiquity. His first publication, which will always maintain its rank, and has gone through several editions, was his “Observations on the Statutes,” 1766, 4to. In the following year he published “The Naturalist’s Calendar,” which was also favourably received. In 1773, desiring to second the wishes of the Rev. Mr. Elstob to give to the world the Saxon translation of Orosius, ascribed to king Alfred, in one vol. 8vo, he added to it an English translation and notes, which neither give the meaning, nor clear up the obscurities of the Latin or Saxon authors, and therefore induced some severe observations from the periodical critics. His next publication was, “Tracts on the probability of reaching the North Pole,” 1775, 4to. He was the first proposer ofthe memorable voyage to the north pole, which was undertaken by captain Phipps, afterwards lord Mulgrave: and on the event of it, he collected a variety of facts and speculations, to evince the practicability of such an undertaking. His papers were read at two meetings of the royal society, and not being admitted into their “Philosophical Transactions,” were published separately. -It must be allowed that the learned author bestowed much time and labour on this subject, and accumulated an amazing-quantity of written, traditionary, and conjectural evidence, in proof of the possibility of circumnavigating the pole; but when his testimonies were examined, they proved rather ingenious than satisfactory. In 1781 he published “Miscellanies on various subjects,” 4to, containing some of his papers in the Philosophical Transactions, and other miscellaneous essays composed or compiled by him, on various subjects of antiquity, civil and natural history, &c. His contributions to the Philosophical Transactions and to the Archaologia are numerous, as may be seen in the indexes of these works. He was a -member of both societies, and a vicepresident of that of the antiquaries, which office he resigned in his latter days on account of his bad state of health. He died after a lingering illness, at his chambers in the King’s Bench walk, Temple, March 11, 1SOO, aged 73, and was interred in the vault of the Temple church. Mr. Barrington was a man of amiable character, polite, communicative, and liberal.

, brother to the preceding, and fifth son of the first lord viscount Harrington, was born in 1729, and entered very young into the service of the British navy, passing through the inferior stations of midshipman and lieutenant with great reputation. He first went to sea in the Lark, under the command of lord George Graham, and in 1744, he was appointed a lieutenant by sir William Rowley, then commanding a squadron in the Mediterranean. In 1746, he had the rank of master and commander in the Weazcl sloop, in which he took a French privateer off Flushing. During the same year, or in 1747, he became post-captain, by being appointed totheBellona frigate (formerly a French privateer) in which he took the Duke de Chartres outward bound East India ship, of 800 tons, and of superior force, after a severe engagement, in which the French lost many killed and wounded. After the peace of 1748, he had the command of the Sea-horse, a twenty-gun ship in the Mediterranean, and while there, was dispatched from Gibraltar to Tetuan, to 'negociate the redemption of some British captives, in which he succeeded. He had afterwards the command of the Crown man of war, on the Jamaica station, and was in commission during the greater part of the peace. When the war broke out again between Great Britain and France, in 1756, he was appointed to the command of the Achilles of 60 guns. In 1759, he signalized his courage in an engagement with the Count de St. Florentin, French man of war, of equal force with the Achilles she fought for two hours, and had 116 men killed or wounded, all her masts shot away, and it was with difficulty she was got into port. The Achilles had twenty-five men killed or wounded. In the Achilles, captain Barrington was after this dispatched to America, from whence she returned about the close of the year 1760. In the Spring of the ensuing year, captain Barrington served under admiral Keppel, at the siege of Belleisle. To secure a landing for the troops, it became necessary to attack a fort and other works, in a sandy bay, intended to be the place of debarkation; three ships, one of which was the Achilles, were destined to this service. Captain Barrington got first to his station, and soon silenced the fire from the fort and from the shore, and cleared the coast for the landing the troops, and although, soon obliged to re-embark, they were well covered by the Achilles, and other ships. Ten days after the troops made good their landing, at a place where the mounting the rock was, as the commanders expressed it, barely possible, and captain Barrington was sent home with this agreeable news. After the peace of 1763, captain Barrington in 1768 commanded the Venus frigate, in which ship the late duke of Cumberland was entered as a midshipman. In her he sailed to the Mediterranean, and as these voyages are always intended both for pleasure and improvement, he visited the most celebrated posts in that sea. Soon after his return, the dispute between Great Britain and Spain, respecting Falkland’s Island, took place, and on the fitting out of the fleet, captain Barrington was appointed to the command of the Albion, of 74 guns, and soon after made colonel of marines. He found some little difficulty, from a scarcity of seamen, in manning his ship, and had recourse to a humourous experiment. He offered a bounty. for all lamp-­lighters, and men of other trades which require alertness, who would enter; and soon procured a crew, but of such a description that they were, for some time, distinguished by the title of Barrington‘ s blackguards. He soon, however, changed their complexion. He had long borne the character of being a thoroughrbred seaman, and a rigid disciplinarian. His officers under him were the same, and they succeeded in making the Albion one of the best disciplined ships in the royal navy. The convention between the two courts putting an end to all prospect of hostilities, the Albion was ordered, as a guardship, to Plymouth; and in this situation captain Barrington commanded her for three years, made himself universally esteemed, and shewed that he possessed those accomplishments which adorn the officer and the man. In the former capacity he had so completely established his character, as to be looked up to as one who, in case of any future war, would be intrusted with some important command. In the latter, the traits of benevolence which are known, exclusive of those which he was careful to keep secret, shew, that with the roughness of a seaman, he possessed the benevolence of a Christian. An economical style of living enabled him to indulge his inclination that way, with a moderate income. On the breaking out of the war with France, captain Barrington, having then been thirty-one years a post-captain in the navy, was promoted to the rank of rear-admiral, and dispatched with a squadron to the West Indies. He found himself, on his arrival, so much inferior to the enemy, that he could riot preserve Dominica from falling into their hands. However, before the French fleet under D’Estaing could reach the West Indies, he was joined at Barbadoes by the troops under general Grant from America. He then immediately steered for St. Lucia, and the British troops had gained possession of a part of the island, when the French fleet, under the command of count D‘Estaing, appeared in sight. ’ Barrington lay in the Grand Cul de Sac, with only three ships-of the line, three of fifty guns, and some-frigates, and with this force, had not only to defend himself against ten sail of the line, many frigates, and American armed ships, but also to protect a large fleet of transports, having on board provisions and stores for the army, and which there had not yet been time to land; so that the fate of the army depended on that of the fleet. During the night the admiral caused the transports to be warped into the bay, and moored the men of war in a line without them. D'Estaing, elated with the hopes of crushing this small naval force under Barrington, attacked him next morning, first with ten sail of the line, but failing, he made a second attack with his whole force, and was equally unsuccessful, being only able to carry off one single transport, which the English had not time to warp within the line. This defence is among the first naval atchievements of the war. In an attack by land, on general Meadows’s intrenchments, the count was equally repulsed, and the island soon after capitulated. Admiral Byron shortly after arriving in the West Indies, Barrington, of course, became second in command only. In the action which took place between the British fleet and the French on the 6th of July, 1775, admiral Barrington, in the Prince of Wales, commanded the van division. The enemy were much superior to the English, but this discovery was not made till it was too late to remedy it. Admiral Barrington, in the Prince of Wales, with the Boyne and Sultan, pressed forward, soon closed with the enemy’s fleet, and bravely sustained their attack until joined by other ships. It was not, however, the intention of the French admiral to risk a general engagement, having the conquest of Grenada in view, and his ships being cleaner than those of the English, enabled him to choose his distance. The consequence was, that several of the British ships were very severely handled, whilst others had no share in the action. Barrington was wounded, and had twenty-six men killed, and forty-six wounded, in his own ship. Soon after this engagement, admiral Barrington, on account of ill-health, returned to England. These two actions established our admiral’s reputation, and he was looked on as one of the first officers in the English navy. The ferment of parties during the close of that war occasioned many unexpected refusals of promotion; and as admiral Barrington was intimately connected with lord Shelburne, col. Barre, and several other leading men in opposition, it was probably owing to this circumstance that he refused the command of the channel fleet, which was offered to him after the resignation of admiral Geary in 1780, and on his declining to accept it, conferred on admiral Darby. In 1782, he served, as second in command, under lord Howe, and distinguished himself at the memorable relief of Gibraltar. The termination of the war put a period to his active services. In February 1786, he was made lieutenant-general of marines; and on Sept. 24, 1787, admiral of the blue. During the last ten years of his life, his ill state of health obliged him to decline all naval command. He died at his lodgings in the Abbey Green, Bath, August 16, 1800.

, an eminent mathematician and divine of the seventeenth century, was descended from an ancient family of that name in Suffolk. His father was Mr. Thomas Barrow, a reputable citizen of London and linen-draper to king Charles I.; and his mother, Anne, daughter of William Buggin of North-Cray in Kent, esq. whose tender care he did not long experience, she dying when he was about four years old. He was born at London in October 1630, and was placed first in the Charterhouse school for two or three years, where his behaviour afforded but little hopes of success in the profession of a scholar, for which his father designed him, being quarrelsome, riotous, and negligent. But when removed to Felstead school in Essex, his disposition took a more happy turn, and he quickly made so great a progress in learning, that his master appointed him a kind of tutor to the lord viscount Fairfax of Emely in Ireland, who was then his scholar. During his stay at Felstead, he was admitted, December the 15.th 1643, being fourteen years of age, a pensioner of Peter-house in Cambridge, under his uncle Mr. Isaac Barrow, then fellow of that college. But when he was qualified for the university, he was entered a pensioner in Trinity-college, the 5th of February 1645; his uncle having been ejected, together with Seth Ward, Peter Gunning, and John Barwick, who had written against the covenant. His father having suffered greatly in his estate by his attachment to the royal cause, our young student was obliged at first for his chief support to the generosity of the learned Dr. Hammond, to whose memory he paid his thanks, in an excellent epitaph on the doctor. In 1647, he was chosen a scholar of the house; and, though he always continued a staunch royalist, and never would take the covenant, yet, by his great merit and prudent behaviour he preserved the esteem and goodwill of his superiors. Of this we have an instance in Dr. Hill, master of the college, who had been put in by the parliament in the room of Dr. Comber, ejected for adhering to the king. One day, laying his hand upon our young sflident’s head, he said, “Thou art a good lad, ‘tis pity thou art a cavalier;’ 7 and when, in an oration on the Gunpowder-treason, Mr. Barrow had so celebrated the former times, as to reflect much on the present, some fellows were provoked to move for his expulsion but the master silenced them with this,” Barrow is a better man than any of us.“Afterwards when the engagement was imposed, he subscribed it; but, upon second thoughts, repenting of what he had done, he applied himself to the commissioners, declared his dissatisfaction, and prevailed to have his name razed out of the list. He applied himself with great diligence to the study of all parts of literature, especially natural philosophy; and though he was yet but a young scholar, his judgment was too great to rest satisfied with the shallow and superficial philosophy, then taught and received in the schools. He applied himself therefore to the reading and considering the writings of the lord Verulam, M. Des Cartes, Galileo, &c. who seemed to offer something more solid and substantial. In 1648, Mr. Barrow took the degree of bachelor of arts. The year following, he was elected fellow of his college, merely out of regard to his merit; for he had no friend to recommend him, as being of the opposite party. And now, finding the times not favourable to men of his opinions in matters of church and state, he turned his thoughts to the profession of physic, and made a considerable progress in anatomy, botany, and chemistry: but afterwards, upon deliberation with himself, and with the advice of his uncle, he applied himself to the study of divinity, to which he was further obliged by his oath on his admission to his fellowship. By reading Scaliger on Eusebius, he perceived the dependance of chronology on astronomy; which put him upon reading Ptolemy’s Almagest: and finding that book and all astronomy to depend on geometry, he made himself master of Euclid’s Elements, and from thence proceeded to the other ancient mathematicians. He made a short essay towards acquiring the Arabic language, but soon deserted it. With these severer speculations, the largeness of his mind had room for the amusements of poetry, to which he was always strongly addicted. This is sufficiently evident from the many performances he has left us in that art. Mr. Hill, his biographer, tells us, he was particularly pleased with that branch of it, which consists in description, but greatly disliked the hyperboles of some modern poets. As for our plays, he was an enemy to them, as a principal cause of the debauchery of the times; the other causes he thought to be, the French education, and the ill example of great persons. For satires, he wrote none his wit, as Mr. Hill expresses it, was” pure and peaceable."

In 1652, he commenced master of arts, and, on the 12th of June the following year, was incorporated in that degree at Oxford. When Dr. Duport resigned the chair of Greek. professor, he recommended his pupil Mr. Barrow to succeed him; who justified his tutor’s opinion of him by an excellent performance of the probation exercise: but being looked upon as a favourer of Arminianism, the choice fell upon another; and this disappointment, it is thought, helped to determine him in his resolution of travelling abroad. In order to execute this design, he was obliged to sell his books. Accordingly, in the year 1655, he went into France; where, at Paris, he found his father attending the English court, and out of his small means made him a seasonable present. The same year his “Euclid” was printed at Cambridge, which he had left behind him for that purpose. He gave his college an account of his journey to Paris in a poem, and some farther observations in a letter. After a few months, he went into Italy, and stayed sometime at Florence, where he had the advantage of perusing several books in the great duke’s library, and of conversing with Mr. Fitton, an Englishman, his librarian. Here his poverty must have put an end to his travels, had he not been generously supplied with money by Mr. James Stock, a young merchant of London, to whom he afterwards dedicated his edition of Euclid’s Data. He was desirous to have seen Rome; but the plague then raging in that city, he took ship at Leghorn, November the 6th 1656, for Smyrna. In this voyage they were attacked by a corsair of Algiers, who, perceiving the stout defence the ship made, sheered off and left her; and upon this occasion Mr. Barrow gave a remarkable instance of his natural courage and intrepidity. At Smyrna, he made himself welcome to Mr. Bretton the consul (upon whose death he afterwards wrote an elegy), and to the English factory. Front thence he proceeded to Constantinople, where he met with a very friendly reception from sir Thomas Bendish the English ambassador, and sir Jonathan Daws, with whom he afterwards kept up an intimate friendship and correspondence. This voyage, from Leghorn to Constantinople, he has described in a Latin poem. At Constantinople, he read over the works of St. Chrysostom, once bishop of that see, whom he preferred to all the other fathers. Having stayed in Turkey above a year, he returned from thence to Venice, where, soon after they were landed, the ship took fire, and was consumed with all the goods. From thence he came home, in 1659, through Germany and Holland, and has left a description of some parts of those countries in his poems. Soon after his return into England, the time being somewhat elapsed, before which all fellows of Trinity-college are obliged to take orders, or quit the society, Mr. Barrow was episcopally ordained by bishop Brownrig, notwithstanding the unsettled state of the times, and the declining condition of the church of England. Upon the king’s restoration, his friends expected he would have been immediately preferred on account of his having suffered and deserved so much; but it came to nothing, which made him wittily say (which he has not left in his poems),

However, he wrote an ode upon that occasion, in which he introduces Britannia congratulating the king upon his return. In 1660, he was chosen, without a competitor, Greek professor of the university of Cambridge. His oration, spoken upon that occasion, is preserved among his Opuscula. When he entered upon this province, he designed to have read upon the tragedies of Sophocles: but, altering his intention, he made choice of Aristotle’s rhetoric. These lectures, having been lent to a person who never returned them, are irrecoverably lost. The year following, which was 1661, he took the degree of bachelor in divinity. July the 16th, 1662, he was elected professor of geometry in Gresham-college, in the room of Mr. Lawrence Rooke, chiefly through the interest and recommendation of Dr. Wilkins, master of Trinity-college, and afterwards bishop of Chester. In this station, he not only discharged his own duty, but supplied, likewise, the absence of Dr. Pope the astronomy professor. Among his lectures, some were upon the projection of the sphere which being borrowed and never returned, are lost but his Latin oration, previous to his lectures, is in his works. The same year, 1662, he wrote an epithalamium on the marriage of king Charles and queen Catherine, in Greek verse. About this time, Mr. Barrow was offered a valuable living, but the condition annexed of teaching the patron’s son, made him refuse it, as too like a simouiacal contract. Upon the 20th of May 1663, he was elected a fellow of the royal society, in the first choice made by the council after their charter. The same year, Mr. Lucas having founded a mathematical lecture at Cambridge, Mr. Barrow was so powerfully recommended, by Dr. Wilkins, to that gentleman’s executors Mr. Raworth and Mr. Buck, that he was appointed the first professor; and the better to secure the end of so noble and useful a foundation, he took care that himself and his successors should be obliged to leave yearly to the university ten written lectures. We have his prefatory oration, spoken in the public mathematical school, March the 14th, 1664. Though his two professorships were not incompatible, he resigned that of Gresham-college, May the 20th, 1664. He had been invited to take the charge of the Cotton library; but, after ;a short trial, he declined it, and resolved to settle in the university. In 1669, he resigned the mathematical chair to his very worthy friend the celebrated Isaac Newton, being now determined to exchange the study of the mathematics for that of divinity, partly from a strong inclination for the latter, and partly because his mathematical works were less favourably received than he thought they deserved. In 1670, he wrote a Latin poem upon the death of the duchess of Orleans, an epicedium upon the duke of Albemarle, and a Latin ode upon the Trinity. He was only a fellow of Trinity-college, when he was collated by his uncle, the bishop of St. Asaph, to a small sinecure in Wales, and by Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, to a prebend in that cathedral; the profits of both which he applied to charitable uses, and afterwards resigned them, when he became master of his college. In the same year he was created doctor in divinity by mandate. In 1672, Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, being, upon the death of bishop Wilkins, removed to the bishopric of Chester, Dr. Barrow was appointed by the king to succeed him; and his majesty was pleased to say upon that occasion, “he had given it to the best scholar in England.” His patent hears date February the 13th, 1672, with permission to marry, which he caused to be erased, as contrary to the statutes, and he was admitted the 27th of the same month. He gave the highest satisfaction to that society, whose interest he constantly and carefully consulted. In 1675, he was chosen vice-chancellor of the university. This great and learned divine died of a fever, the 4th of May 1677, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected to him by the contribution of his friends. His epitaph was written by his friend Dr. Mapletoft. He left his manuscripts to Dr. Tillotson and Mr. Abraham Hill, with permission to publish what they should think proper. He left little behind him, except books, which were so well chosen, that they sold for more than the prime cost. Though he could never be prevailed to sit for his picture, some of his friends contrived to have it taken without his knowledge, whilst they diverted him with such discourse as engaged his attention. As to his person, he was low of stature, lean, and of a pale complexion, and negligent of his dress to a fault; of extraordinary strength, a thin skin, and very sensible of cold; his eyes grey, clear, and somewhat short-sighted; his hair a light brown, very fine, and curling. He was of a healthy constitution, very fond of tobacco, which he used to call his panpharmacon, or universal medicine, and imagined it helped to compose and regulate his thoughts. If he was guilty of any intemperance, it seemed to be in the love of fruit, which he thought very salutary. He slept little, generally rising in the winter months before day. His conduct and behaviour were truly amiable; he was always ready to assist others, open and communicative in his conversation, in which he generally spoke to the importance, as well as truth, of any question proposed; facetious in his talk upon fit occasions, and skilful to accommodate his discourse to different capacities; of indefatigable industry in various studies, clear judgment on all arguments, and steady virtue under all difficulties; of a calm temper in factious times, and of large charity in mean estate; he was easy and contented with a scanty fortune, and with the same decency and moderation maintained his character under the temptations of prosperity. In short, he was, perhaps, the greatest scholar of his times and, as an ingenious writer expresses it, “he may be esteemed as having shewn a compass of invention equal, if not superior, to any of the moderns, sir Isaac Newton only excepted.”

Dr. Barrow’s works are very numerous, and indeed various, mathematical, theological, poetical, &c. and such as do honour to the English nation. They are principally as follow: l.“EuclidisElementa,” Cantab. 1655, 8vo. 2.“EuclidisData,” Cantab. 1657,8vo. 3.^ Lectiones Opticaexviii,“Lond. 1669, 4to. 4.” Lectiones Geometric^ xiii,“Lond. 1670, 4to. 5.” Archimedis Opera, Apollonii Conicorum libri iv. Theodosii Sphericoruni lib. iii.; nova methodo illustrata, et succiricte clemonstrata,“Lond. 1675, 4to. The following were published after his decease, viz. 6.” Lectio, in qua theoremata Archimedis de sphcera et cylindro per methodum indivisibilium investigata, ac breviter investigata, exhibentur,“Lond. 1678, 12mo. 7.” Mathematics Lectiones habitrc in scholis publicis academiai Cantabrigiensis, an. 1664, 5,6, &c.“Lond. 1683. 8. All his English works in 3 volumes, Lond. 1683, folio. These are all theological, and were published by Dr. John Tillotson. 9.” Isaaci Barrow Opuscula, viz. Determinationes, Conciones ad Clerum, Orationes, Poemata, &c. volumen quartum,“Lond. 1687, folio. Dr. Barrow left also several curious papers on mathematical subjects, written in his own hand, which were communicated by Mr. Jones to the author of” The Lives of the Gresham Professors,“a particular account of which may be seen in that book, in the life of Barrow. Several of his works have been translated into English, and published as the Elements and Data of Euclid; the Geometrical Lectures, the Mathematical Lectures. And accounts of some of them were also given ia several volumes of the Philos. Trans. Dr. Barrow must ever be esteemed, in all the subjects which exercised his pen, a person of the clearest perception, the finest fancy, the soundest judgment, the profoundest thought, and the closest and most nervous reasoning.” The name of Dr. Barrow (says the learned Mr. Granger) will ever be illustrious for a strength of mind and a compass of knowledge that did honour to his country. He was unrivalled in mathematical learning, and especially in the sublime geometry; in which he has been excelled only by his successor Newton. The same genius that seemed to be born only to bring hidden truths to light, and to rise to the heights or descend to the depths of science, would sometimes amuse itself in the flowery paths of poetry, and he composed verses both in Greek and Latin."

Dr. Barrow’s sermons are yet admired for the style and moral sentiment. Yet in him, says Dr. Blair, one admires more the prodigious fecundity of his invention, and the uncommon strength and force of his conceptions, than the felicity of his execution, or his talent in composition. We see a genius far surpassing the common, peculiar, indeed, almost to himself; but that genius often shooting wild, and unchastised by any discipline or study of eloquence. His style is unequal, incorrect, and redundant, but uncommonly distinguished for force and expressiveness. On every subject, he multiplies words with an overflowing copiousness, but it is always a torrent of strong ideas and significant expressions which he pours forth.

, 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.

In 1806, sir Richard Colt Hoare, bart. published in two splendid quarto volumes, “The Itinerary of archbishop Baldwin through Wales, A. D. 1188, by Giraldus de Barri; translated into English, and illustrated with views, annotations, and a life of Giraldus.” In this life, an elegant and elaborate composition, although the facts are not materially different from the preceding, yet the colouring is more highly favourable, and we refer with pleasure to it as a memoir in which the curiosity of the antiquary will be amply gratified. Sir Richard thus briefly sums up the character of Girald: “Noble in his birth, and comely in his person; mild in his manners, and affable in his conversation; zealous, active, and undaunted in maintaining the rights and dignities of his church; moral in his character, and orthodox in his principles; charitable and disinterested, though ambitious; learned, though superstitious. Such was Giraldus. And in whatever point of view we examine the character of this extraordinary man, whether as a scholar, a patriot, or a divine, we may justly consider him as one of the brightest luminaries that adorned the annals of the twelfth century.”

, 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.

, an English artist of considerable fame, was the eldest son of John Barry and Julian Roerden, and was born in Cork, Oct. 11, 1741. His father was a builder, and in the latter part of his life a coasting trader between England and Ireland. James was at first destined to this last business, but as he disliked it, his father suffered him to pursue his inclination, which led him to drawing and reading. His early education he received in the schools at Cork, where he betrayed some symptoms of that peculiar frame of mind which became more conspicuous in his maturer years. His studies were desultory, directed by no regular plan, yet he accumulated a considerable stock of knowledge. As his mother was a zealous Roman Catholic, he fell into the company of some priests, who recommended the study of polemical divinity, and probably all of one class, for this ended in his becoming a staunch Roman Catholic. Although the rude beginnings of his art cannot be traced, there is reason to ^hink that at the age of seventeen he had attempted oil-painting, and between the ages of seventeen and twenty-two he executed a picture, the subject “St. Patrick landing on the sea-coast of Cashell,” which he exhibited in Dublin. This procured him some reputation, and, what was afterwards of much importance, the acquaintance of the illustrious Edmund Burke. During his stay in Dublin, he probably continued to cultivate his art, but no particular work can now be discovered. After a residence of seven or eight months in Dublin, an opportunity offered of accompanying some part of Mr. Burke' s family to London, which he eagerly embraced. This took place in 1764, and on his arrival, Mr. Burke recommended nim to his friends, and procured for him his first employment, that of copying in oil drawings by the Athenian Stuart. In 1765, Mr. Burke and his other friends furnished him with the means of visiting Italy, where he surveyed the noble monuments of art then in that country, with the eye of an acute, and often very just critic, but where, at the same time, his residence was rendered uncomfortable by those unhappy irregularities of temper, which, more or less, obscured all his prospects in life.

After the scheme of decorating St. Paul’s had been given up, it was proposed to employ the same artists in decorating the great room in the Adelphi, belonging to the society of arts, but this was refused by the artists themselves, probably because they were to be remunerated in equal shares, by an exhibition of the pictures. We cannot much wonder at their declining a scheme, which promised to reduce them to this kind of level, and would indeed imply an equality in every other respect. Three years afterwards, however, in 1777, Mr. Barry undertook the whole, and his offer was accepted. It would have been singular, indeed, if such an offer had been rejected, as his labour was to be gratuitous. He has been heard to say, that at the time of his undertaking this work, he had only sixteen shillings in his pocket; and that in the prosecution of his labour, he was often after painting all day obliged to sketch or engrave at night some design for the print-sellers, which was to supply him with the means of his frugal subsistence. He has recorded some of his prints as done at this time, such as his Job, dedicated to Mr. Burke; birth of Venus; Polemon; head of lord Chatham; king Lear, &c. Of his terms with the society, we know only that the choice of subjects was allowed him, and the society was to defray the expence of canvas, colours, and models. In the course of his labours, however, he found that he had been somewhat too disinterested, and wrote a letter to sir George Saville, soliciting such a subscription among the friends of the society as might amount to 100l. a year. He computed that he should finish the whole in two years, and pay back the 200l. to the subscribers by means of an exhibition; but he very candidly added, that if the exhibition should produce nothing, the subscribers would Jose their money. This subscription did not take effect, and the work employed him seven years; at the end of which, the society granted him two exhibitions, and at different periods voted him fifty guineas, their gold medal, and again 200 guineas, and a seat among them. Of this great undertaking, a series of six pictures, representing the progress of society, and civilization among mankind, it has been said “that it surpasses any work which has been executed within these two centuries, and considering the difficulties with which the artist had to struggle, any that is now extant.” As the production of one man, it is undoubtedly entitled to high praise, but it has all Barry’s defects in drawing and colouring, defects the more remarkable, because in his printed correspondence and lectures, his theory on these subjects is accurate and unexceptionable. These pictures were afterwards engraved, but what they produced is not known. In 1792, however, he deposited 700/, in the funds, and to this wealth he never afterwards made any great addition, for he never possessed more than 60l. a year from the funds, a sum barely sufficient to pay the rent and other charges of his house, but as his domestic oeconomy was of the meanest kind, this sum was probably not insufficient.

In 1782, he was elected professor of painting, in room of Mr. Penny, but did not lecture until 1784. His Jectures, now printed, are unquestionably among the best of his writings. He had long meditated an extensive design, that of painting the progress of theology, or, “to delineate the growth of that state of mind which connects man with his Creator, and to represent the misty medium of connection which the Pagan world had with their false Gods, and the union of Jews and Christians with their true God, by means of revelation.” At the time of his death, he was employed on etchings or designs for this purpose, but made no great progress. In the mean time he published his “Letter to the Dilettanti,” a work which his biographer justly characterises as not quite so tranquil or praise-worthy.

Soon after this event, the earl of Buchan set on foot a subscription, which amounted to about 1000l. with which his friends purchased an annuity for his life; but his oeath prevented his reaping any benefit from this design. The manner of his death is thus related by his biographer: 44 On the evening of Thurday, Feb. 6, 1806, he was seized as he entered the house where he usually dint-d, with the cold fit of a pleuritic fever, of so intense a degree, that all his faculties were suspended, and he unable to articulate or move. Some cordial was administered to him, and on his coming a little to himself, he was taken in a coach to the door of his own house, which, the keyhole being plugged with dirt and pebbles, as had been often done before, by the malice, or perhaps the roguery of boys in the neighbourhood, it was impossible to open. The night being dark, and he shivering under the progress of his disease, hisfriends thought it advisable to drive away without loss of time to the hospitable mansion of Mr. Bononni. By the kindness of that good family, a bed was procured in a neighbouring house, to which he was immediately conveyed. Here he desired to be left, and locked himself up, unfortunately, for forty hours, without the least medical assistance. What took place in the mean time, he could give but little account of, as he represented himself to be delirious, and only recollected his being tortured with a burning pain in his side, and with difficulty of breathing. In this short time was the deathblow given, which, by the prompt and timely aid of copious bleedings, might have been averted; but without this aid, such had been the re-action of the hot fit succeeding the rigours, and the violence of the inflammation on the pleura, that an effusion of lymph had ' taken place, as appeared afterwards upon dissection. In the afternoon of Saturday, Feb. 8, he rose and crawled forth to relate his complaint to the writer of this account. He was pale, breathless, and tottering, as he entered the room, with a dull pain in his side, a cough short and incessant, and a pulse quick and feeble. Succeeding remedies proved of little avail. With exacerbations and remissions of fever, he lingered to the 22d of February, when he expired." His remains, after lying in state in the great room of the society of arts, Acielphi, was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral, with solemnity, and the attendance of many of his friends and admirers, among whom was not one artist.

For Barry’s character we may refer to an elaborate article by his biographer. To us it appears that with unquestionable talents, original genius, and strong enthusiasm for his art, he was never able to accomplish what he projected, or to practise all that he professed. Few men appear to have had more correct notions of the principles of art, or to have departed more frequently from them. His ambition during life was to excel no less as a literary theorist, than as a practical artist, and it must be allowed that in both characters he has left specimens sufficient to rank him very high in the English school. Where he has failed in either, we should be inclined to attribute it to the peculiar frame of his mind, which, in his early as well as mature years, appears to have been deficient in soundness: alternately agitated by conceit or flattery; and irritated by contradiction, however gentle, and suspicion, however groundless. This was still more striking to every one conversant in mental derangement, when he exhibited at last, that most common of all symptoms, a dread of plots and conspiracies. This went so far at one time, that when robbed, as he said, of a sum of money, he exculpated common thieves and housebreakers, and attributed the theft to his brother artists, jealous of his reputation; yet the money was afterwards found where he had deposited it. The same unhappy malady may account for his many personal eccentricities of conduct, over which a veil may now be thrown. Nor is it necessary to specify his literary publications, as they were all collected in two volumes 4to, published in 1809, under the title of “The Works of James Barry,” with a life, from which the present sketch has been principally taken.

, the son of a treasurer of France, was born in the year 1544-, at Monfort in Armagnac, and not on the estate de Bartas, which is in the vicinity of that little town. Henry IV. whom he served with his sword, and whom he celebrated in his verses, sent him on various commissions to England, Denmark, and Scotland. He had the command of a company of cavalry in Gascony, under the marechal de Matignon. He was in religious profession a Calvinist, and died in 1590 at the age of 46. The work that has most contributed to render his name famous, is the poem entitled “Commentary of the Week of the creation of the world,” in seven hooks. Pierre de l'Ostal, in a miserable copy of verses addressed to du Bartas, and prefixed to his poem, says that this hook is “greater than the whole universe.” This style of praise on the dullest of all versifiers, was adopted at the time, but has not descended to ours. The style of du Bartas is incorrect, quaint, and vulgar; his descriptions are given under the most disgusting images. In his figures, the head is the lodging of the understanding; the eyes are two shining casements, or twin stars; the nose, the gutter or the chimney; the teeth, a double pallisade, serving as a mill to the open gullet; the hands, the chambermaids of nature, the bailiffs of the mind, and the caterers of the body; the bones, the posts, the beams, and the columns of this tabernacle of flesh. We have several other works by the seigneur du Bartas. The most extraordinary is a little poem, composed to greet the queen of Navarre on making her entry into Nerac. Three nymphs contend for the honour of saluting her majesty. The first delivers her compliments in Latin, the second in French, and the third in Gascon verses. Du Bartas, however, though a bad poet, was a good man. Whenever the military service and his other occupations left any leisure time, he retired to the chateau de Bartas, far from the tumult of arms and business. He wished for nothing more than to be forgotten, in order that he might apply more closely to study, which he testifies at the conclusion of the third day of his week. Modesty and sincerity formed the character of du Bartas, according to the account of him by the president de Thou. “I know (says that famous historian) that some critics find his style extremely figurative, bombastic, and full of gasconades. For my part,” adds he, “who have long known the candour of his manners, and who have frequently discoursed with him, when, during the civil wars, I travelled in Guienne with him, I can affirm that I never remarked any thing of the kind in the tenor of his behaviour; and, notwithstanding his great reputation, he always spoke with singular modesty of himself and his works.” His book of the “Week,” whatever may now be thought of it, was attended with a success not inferior to that of the best performances. Within the space of five or six years, upwards of thirty editions were printed of it. It found in all places, commentators, abbreviators, translators, imitators, and adversaries. His works were collected and printed in 1611, folio, at Paris, by Rigaud. His “Week,” and other poems, were translated into English by Joshua Sylvester, 1605, 4to, and have been frequently reprinted, although not of late years.

The succeeding year Mons. de Stainville, afterwards duke de Choiseul, being appointed ambassador at Rome, invited our author to accompany him to Italy, an offer which his official duty induced him to decline. In 1755, however, he was enabled to take this journey with his friend Mons. de Cotte, and his residence in Italy was rendered particularly agreeable by the continuance of Mons. cle Stainville there, who introduced him to the celebrated pope Benedict XIV. At Naples he became acquainted with Mazocchi, who was employed in the task of unfolding the numerous ancient manuscripts that had been found in Herculaneum. So little success had attended this undertaking at that period, that it would probably have been abandoned, but for the encouragement given to the prosecution of it by our author. It is related as a proof of the extent of his memory, that having applied in vain for liberty to copy one of these manuscripts, in order to send a fac-simile of the ancient hand-writing to France, and being only suffered to examine it, he read it over attentively five or six times, and suddenly leaving the apartment, copied the fragment from memory, and correcting when he came back some slight errors, he sent it the same day to the academy of belles lettres, enjoining secrecy, that no blame might attach to Mazocchi. While at Rome he gave a new and satisfactory explanation of the beautiful mosaic of Palestina, afterwards pri >ted in the Transactions of the Academy of Inscriptions.

, a French physician and medical writer, was born Dec. 1734, at Montpellier, and discovered in his earliest years a noble ardour for study, particularly of the languages, both ancient and modern, which laid the foundation for that extensive and various knowledge for which he was afterwards distinguished. Having at length given the preference to medicine as a profession, he applied himself to that art under the ablest masters; and such was his proficiency, that he obtained his doctor’s degree in 1753, when only nineteen years of age. In 1756 he was crowned by the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres at Paris, having been before, in 1754, appointed physician to the military hospital in Normandy. During this service he made many observations and inquiries, which were published in the Memoirs of the academy of sciences. In 1757 he was sent to the army in Westphalia, with the rank of consulting physician, and in 1761 he was appointed professor of medicine at Moutpellier, where he became as celebrated as Boerhaave at Ley den, Stahl at Hall, or Cullen at Edinburgh, giving such a new direction to the medical studies as to create an important epoch in the history of that school. Here he filled the professor’s chair for twenty years, with the highest reputation. In 1775, he was named joint chancellor of the faculty of Montpellier, and in 1786 obtained the full title of chancellor. About six years before, he had been appointed member of the court of accounts and finance, and some time before that, physician to the duke of Orleans. About the time that he visited Paris, and formed an intimacy with the leading men in the learned world, particularly d'Alembert and Malesherbes, he became, a member of the academy of sciences of Paris, Berlin, Gottingen, and Stockholm. At length he was chosen corresponding member of the national institute of France, and professor, honorary and actual, of the new school of medicine at Montpellier, physician to the French government, and consulting physician to the emperor. He died at Paris, Oct. 15, 1806, aged seventy-two. His works, according to the Dict. Historique, are various medical theses and dissertations, memoirs published by various academies, particularly that of Paris, in the years 1799 and 1801; and, 1. “La nouvelle mecanique de l'homme et des animaux,” 1802. 2. “L'Histoire des maladies goutteuses,” Paris, 1802. 3. “Discours sur le genie d'Hippocrate,” pronounced in the school of Montpellier. 4. “Traite sur le Beau,” a posthumous work. In Fourcroy’s catalogue we find another publication attributed to him, under the title of “Elnathan, ou les ages de Phomme, trad, du Chaldeen,” 1802, 3 vols. 8vo. The compiler of this catalogue calls him Barthes-Marmorieres.

Barthius, in his comment on Statius, after noticing that that poet congratulated himself on having written two hundred and seventy-eight hexameters in two days, adds, that he himself was not ignorant of what it is to make a great many verses in a short time, as he translated into Latin the first three books of the Iliad, which contain above two thousand verses, in three days. In 1607, he published, at Wittemberg, a collection of “Juvenilia;” containing all the poems which he wrote from the thirteenth to the nineteenth year of his age. When only sixteen he wrote a treatise, or dissertation, on the manner of reading to advantage the Latin authors, which shows that his own reading was as judicious as extensive, and both far exceeding what could be expected at that age. This piece is inserted in the 50th book, of his “Adversaria.” His other works were, 1. “Zodiacus vitae Christianse,” Francfort, 1623. 2. “Epidorpidon ex mero Scazonte Libri III. in quibus bona pars humanse Sapientise metro explicatur,” ibid. 1623. 3. “Tarraeus Hebius,” Epigrams, divided into thirty books, and dedicated to king James, date not mentioned. 4. “Amabiiium Anacreonte decantati,” 1612, with many other works, original and translated, which are now forgotten, except his editions of Claudian and of Statius, and his “Adversaria,” fol. Francfort, 1624 and 1648. This last is a collection of remarks on various authors and subjects, which proves most extensive reading and erudition, with, what frequently accompanies these, some defect of judgment in the arrangement. Barthius was in all respects an extraordinary man, and his writings published and left in manuscript, form a mass scarcely to be equalled in the annals of literary industry. It is recorded of him that he never made use of any collections, or common-place books, trusting to the vigour of his memory, and that he very rarely corrected what he had written.

, an eminent physician, was born Feb. 12, 1585, at Malmoe or Malmuylin in Scandinavia, where his father was a Lutheran divine. In his third year, it is said, he could read with ease, and at thirteen he composed Greek and Latin orations, and pronounced them in public, and at eighteen, he went to study in the university of Copenhagen. In 1603 he removed to Rostock, and thence to Wirtemberg. He continued three years in this last place, where he applied himself to philosophy and divinity with so much assiduity, that he rose always before break of day, and went to bed very late. When he had finished his studies, he took his degree of master of arts in 1607.

, or Bartholus, an eminent lawyer, was born in 1313, at Saxo Ferrato, in the march of Ancona. He studied law under the ablest masters at Perugia and Bologna; and when the university of Pisa was founded, he was appointed one of its professors, although then only in his twenty-sixth year. After remaining here eight or nine years, he left Pisa for a professor’s chair at Perugia, where he was honoured with the title and privileges of a citizen. In 1355, when the emperor Charles IV. came to Italy, Bartolo was appointed to make him a complimentary address at Pisa. Taking advantage of so favourable an opportunity, he obtained for that infant university the same privileges enjoyed by more ancient establishments of the kind; and the emperors bestowed many favours on Bartolo himself, particularly his permission to use the arms of the kings of Bohemia. Some authors are of opinion that these honours were conferred upon him on account of the famous Golden Bull, which Charles published the year after, and in preparing which he had availed himself of Bartolo’s assistance. ButBartolo did not enjoy his honours long: on his return to Perugia he died, according to the most probable account, in his forty-sixth year. So short a life seems inadequate to the extensive learning he is acknowledged to have accumulated, and particularly to the voluminous works which he published. Gravina, who does ample justice to his learning, censures him for the introduction of those subtleties which obscured the study of the civil law; and from the specimen given by his biographers, of a cause between the Virgin Mary and the Devil, gravely argued in his works, we have perhaps now reason to rank him among the deservedly forgotten quibblers of the fourteenth century. In his own days, however, he reached the highest possible height of reputation; he was honoured with the epithets of the “star and luminary of lawyers,” “the master of truth,” “the lanthern of equity,” “the guide of the blind,” &c. His works were printed at Venice, 1590, in 10 or 11 volumes folio.

, 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.

, an author of some merit on the subject of education, was born at Hamburgh in 1723. His father appears to have been a person of a rigid temper, and so frequent in correcting his son with severity, as to drive him from home for a time, during which the boy served as a domestic in the house of a land-surveyor at Holstein. Being, however, persuaded to return, he was placed at the public school at Hamburgh, where he made himself respected by his talents, and the aid he was enabled to give to his indolent schoolfellows. When advanced to the higher class, he attended the lectures of professors Richey and Reimarus, from whose instructions, particularly those of Reimarus, he derived great improvement: but he afterwards allowed that he did not pay a regular attention to the sciences, and passed much of his time with indolent and dissolute companions. He had little disposition for study, and remained for some time undetermined in the choice of a profession. His father was ambitious that he should be a clergyman, and the means being provided, he went to Leipsic in 1744, to prosecute his studies particularly in theology. Here he continued for two years, attending the lectures of professor Crusius, who had begun to philosophize on religion; and these lectures, with the writings of Wolf, to which he also applied, induced a sceptical disposition, which more or less prevailed in all his writings and opinions during his life. In 1749, he was appointed private tutor to the son of a gentleman at Hoistein, and this situation gave him an opportunity of bringing to the test of experience, the plan of an improved method of education, which he had, for some time, in contemplation. The attempt succeeded to his wishes, and his pupil, who was only seven years old, when put under him, and could merely read the German language, became able in the space of three years, not only to read Latin authors, but to translate from the German into that language, and also to speak and write it with a degree of fluency. The young gentleman had also made considerable progress in the principles of religion and morals, in history, geography, and arithmetic.

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.

There have been several editions of St. Basil’s works, or parts of them, printed before 1500, but the best is that published by the society of the Benedictines of the congregation of St. Maur, in 3 vols. fol. Gr. and Latin. The first two volumes of this edition were published in 1722, under the care of father Gamier, who dying in 1725, the third volume was completed by father Maran, but not until 1730. In 1764, M. Herman, a doctor of the Sorbonne, published a life of St. Basil, 2 vols. 4to. The French have translations of his letters, and some other parts of his works published separately.

, bishop of Ancyra in the year 336, was ordained to that office by the bishops of Eusebius’s party, in room of Marcellus, whom they had deposed: but Basil was excommunicated, and his ordination declared void in the council of Sardica, although he continued still in the possession of his see. He disputed against Photinus in the council of Sirmium, in the year 351, and there confounded that heretic. He was one of the greatest enemies to the Arians, or Anomseans, i. e. those who openly vindicated the opinion of Arius, and maintained that the Word was not like to the Father. But he was, notwithstanding, considered as the head of the Semi-Arians, who maintained that the Son was similar to the Father in his essence, not by nature, but by a peculiar privilege. Basil maintained this opinion and procured it to be established by the authority of a council, which was held at Ancyra in the year 358, and defended it at Seleucia and Constantinople, against the Eudoxians and Acacians, who deposed him in the year 360, after charging him with many crimes. St. Jerome informs us, that Basil wrote a book against Marcellus, his predecessor; a treatise of Virginity; and some other lesser pieces, of which no remains are extant, but he had the reputation of a man of learning and eloquence. Although he is placed by some at the head of the Semi-Arians, yet it is not quite certain that he was deemed a heretic. St. Basil speaks of him as a Catholic bishop, and Athanasius confesses, in his book of Synods, that Basil of Ancyra and those of his party, did not differ from them that professed the consubstantiality, but only in words, and therefore Hilary and Philastrius call the bishops of the council of Sirmium, held against Photinus, of which Basil of Ancyra was the chief, orthodox bishops.

, 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.

, or Basinio, of Parma, was a celebrated Italian poet of the fifteenth century. He was born at Parma, about 1421, and was educated under Victorin of Feltro at Mantua, and afterwards by Theodore Gaza and Guarino at Ferrara, where he became himself professor. From Ferrara, he went to the court of Sigismond Pandolph Malatesta, lord of Rimini, and there passed the few remaining years of his life, dying at the age of thirty-six, in 1457. He had scarcely finished his studies, whesh he composed a Latin poem, in three books, on the death of Meleager, which exists in manuscript in the libraries of Modena, Florence, and Parma. In this last repository there is also a beautiful copy of a collection of poems printed in France, to which Basinio appears to have been the greatest contributor. This collection was written in honour of the beautiful Isotta degli Atti, who was first mistress and afterwards wife to the lord of Rimini. If we may believe these poetical testimonies, she had as much genius as beauty; she was also in poetry, another Sappho, and in wisdom and' virtue another Penelope. Basinio was one of the three poets, who composed the praises of this lady. The collection was printed at Paris, under the title of “Trium poetarurn elegantissimorum, Porcelii, Basinii, et Trebanii Opuscula nunc primum edita,” Paris, by Christ. Preudhomme, 1549. In this edition, the collection is divided into five books, all in praise of the lady, but the first is entitled “De amore Jovis in Isottam,” and no distinction is preserved as to the contributors. In the copy, however, preserved at Parma, and which was transcribed in 1455, during the life-time of Basinio, almost all the pieces which compose the three books are attributed to him. In the same library is a long poem by him in thirteen books, entitled “Hesperidos;” another, in two books only, on astronomy; a third, also in two books, on the conquest of the Argonauts; a poem under the title of “An epistle on the War of Ascoli, between Sigismond Malatesta, and Francis Sforza,” and other unpublished performances. It is rather surprising, that none of these have been published in a city where there are so many celebrated presses, and which may boast the honour of being the native place of one of the best poets of his time.

, 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.

, knight, of the ancient family of the Baskervilles in Herefordshire, an excellent scholar and eminent physician, famous for his skill in anatomy, and successful practice in the time of king James I. and king Charles I. was born at Exeter 1573. His lather Thomas Baskerville, an apothecary of that city, observing an early love of knowledge and thirst after learning in him, gave him a proper education for the university, to which he was sent when about eighteen years old, entering him of Exeter college, in Oxford, on the 10th of March 1591, putting him under the care of Mr. William Helm, a man no less famous for his piety than learning; under whose tuition he gave such early proofs of his love of virtue and knowledge, that he was on the first vacancy elected fellow of that house, before he had taken his bachelor’s degree in arts, which delayed his taking it till July 8, 1596, to which he soon after added that of M. A. and when he was admitted, had particular notice taken of him for his admirable knowledge in the languages and philosophy. After this, viz. 1606, he was chosen senior proctor of the university, when he bent his study wholly to physic, became a most eminent proficient, and was then in as great esteem at the university for his admirable knowledge in medicine, as he had been before for other parts of learning, taking at once, by accumulation (June 20, 1611), both his degrees therein, viz. that of bachelor and doctor. After many years study and industry, he came to London, where he acquired great eminence in his profession; being a member of the college of physicians, and for some time also president. His high reputation for learning and skill soon brought him into vogue at court, where he was sworn physician to James I. and afterwards to Charles I. with whom, Mr. Wood tells us, he was in such esteem for his learning and accomplishments, that he conferred the honour of knighthood upon him. By his practice he obtained a very plentiful estate, and shewed in his life a noble spirit suitable to the largeness of his fortune. What family he left besides his wife, or who became heir to all his great wealth, we cannot find. He died July 5, 1641, aged sixty-eight, and was buried in the cathedral church of St. Paul. No physician of that age could, we imagine, bave better practice than he, if what is reported of him be true, viz. that he had no less than one hundred patients a, week; nor is it strange he should amass so great wealth as to acquire the title of sir Simon Baskerville the rich.

These publications rank the name of Baskerville with those persons who have the most contributed, at least in modern times, to the beauty and improvement of the art of printing. But after the publication of his folio Bible in 1763, he appears to have been weary of the profession of a printer; or at least declined to carry it on, except through the medium of a confidential agent. In 1765, he applied to his friend the eminent Dr. Franklin, then at Paris, to sound tue literati respecting the purchase of his types but received for answer, “That the French, reduced by the war of 1756, were so far from being able to pursue schemes of taste, that they were unable to repair their public buildings, and suffered the scaffolding to rot before them.”

du Fraqueny, second son of Benjamin, was born at St. Mere Eglise in Lower Normandy, Oct. 16, 1615. He was admitted an advocate in the parliament of Normandy in 1636, and proved one of the most learned and eloquent of his order, and was employed in a great many causes, as well as political affairs of importance, in all which he gave the greatest satisfaction. As a writer, likewise, he stood very high in the opinion of his countrymen. His “Commentiiire sur la Continue de Normandie,” or common law of Normandy, was first published in 1678, and was so much approved, that a new edition was published in 1694, 2 vols. fol. His “Traite des Hypotheques,” or Mortgages, was also so popular as to go through three editions before the above year. Notwithstanding his religion, persons of rank and influence in the Romish church, testified the highest esteem for him. He died at Roan, Oct. 20, 1695.

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.

The favourite studies of his life, and much of his character, may be ascertained from his works, which were very numerous: 1. “Examen des Methodes,” &c. Cologne, 1684, 12mo; or an examination of the methods proposed by the assembly of the clergy of France in 1682. Simon answered some remarks in this work on his “Critical History.” 2. “Consideration sur Tetat de ceux qui sont tombez.” This consists of letters sent to the church of Koan respecting some faliing-off among its members. Rotterdam, 1686, 12mo. 3. “Reponse a M. l'Eveque de Meaux sur sa lottre pastorale,” Cologne, 1686, 12mo; all the preceding without his name. 4. “Divi Chrysostomi Epistola ad Ciesariiun Monachum, &c.” To this epistle are added three dissertations on the heresy of Apollinaris, on the works attributed to Athanasius, and an answer to father Simon. It was printed at Rotterdam, 1687, 8vo, and reprinted there 1694, under the title of “Dissertationes Historico-Theologicae.” 5. “La Communion Sainte,” a treatise on worthily communicating-, Rotterdam, 1688, 8vo, reprinted at least ten times, and even adopted as a pious and useful work, by some of the popish clergy. 6. “Histoire de la Religion des Eglises Reformees, &c.” containing an account of the succession of the reformed churches, the perpetuity of their faith, especially since the eighth century, the establishment of the reformation, the continuation of the same doctrines from the reformation to the present time, with an history of the origin and progress of the chief errors of the Roman church, in answer to the bishop of Meaux.' s “History of the variations of the Protestant churches.” This was first published at Rotterdam, 2 vols. 12mo, reprinted by the author in his church history in 1699, but enlarged and published separately in 1721, 5 vols. 8vo, and after the author’s death, in 1725, 2 vols. 4to; the best and most complete edition. 7. “Traite de la conscience,” Amst. 1696, 2 vols. 8vo; Lyons, 3 vols. 12mo. This is partly an answer to Bayle’s philosophical commentary, 8. “Lett-res Pastorales,” intended to animate the protestants on the renewal of persecution, 1698, 4to. 9. “Histoire de l‘Eglise depuis Jesus Christ jusqu’a present,” Rotterdam, 2 vols. fol. 10. “Traite des prejugez,” in answer to the pastoral charges of the French prelates de Noailles, Colbert, Bossuet, and Nesmond, 1701, 3 vols. 8vo. 11.“Defense clu Tniite' des prejugez, &c.” Delft, 1703, 8vo. 12. “Dissertation historique sur l'usage de la Benediction nuptiale,” inserted in the History -of the Works of the Learned, for 1703, an attack upon some of the popish marriage ceremonies. 13. “Dissertation sur la maniere dont le Canon de PEcriture Sainte s’est forme, &c.” intended as an apology for what he had said in his Church History against Mr. Richardson’s “Defence of the Canon of the New Testament.” 14. “Histoire de l'ancien et du nouveau Testament,” Aoist. fol. 1705, with cuts by de Hoo-e, often reprinted, and in various forms. 15. “Histoire des Juifs,” Rotterdam, 1706, 5 vols. 12mo, Hague, 1716, 15 vols. 12mo, translated into English by Taylor, 1706, fol. and an abridgment of the English by Crull, 1708, 2 vols. 8vo. It appears that Dupin had reprinted this work at Paris, without consulting the author, and with alterations adapted to the sentiments of the church of Rome. This occasioned Basnage to publish a sixth, or supplementary volume, under the title of, 16. “L'Histoire des Juifs reclamee et retabiie par son veritable auteur, &c.” Rott. 1711, 12mo. 17. “Entretiens sur la Religion,” Rotterdam, 1709, 12mo, and frequently reprinted, and in 17 13 enlarged to two vols. 12mo, but without his name. 38. “Sermons sur divers sujets, &c.” Rott. 2 vols. 8vo, on which Niceron makes a curious remark, that there is more morality in them than is generally in those of the Protestants. 19. “Prospectus novae editionis Canisii, Dacherii, &c.” He had undertaken an improved edition of Canisius’s “Lectiones antiquoe,” but his booksellers not being able to support the expence, transferred it to the Wetsteins, who published this great collection under the title of “Thesaurus Monumentorum Eccl. et Hist. &c.” Antwerp, 1725, 7 vols. fol. 20. “Preface sur la tluree de la persecution,” prefixed to Claude’s “Complaints of the Protestants.” 21. “Antiquitez Judaiques, ou Remarques critiques sur la Republique des Hebreux,” Amst. 1713, 2 vols. 8vo, intended as critical remarks on Cunauis “De Republica Hebracorum.” 22. “Reflexions desinterress^es sur la Constitution du pape Clement XI. qui condamne le nouveau Testament du P. Quesnel,” Amst. 1714, 8vo. 23. “L‘unite’, la visibilite”, &c. de l'Eglise,“Amst. 1715, 8vo. 24.” Avis sur la tenue d'un Concile National en France, &c.“1715, 8vo, without his name. 25.” L'etat present de TEglise Gallicane,“chiefly on the conduct of pope Clement XI. Amst. 1719, 12mo. 26.” Instructions pastorales aux Reformez de France,“concerning obedience due to the king, 1720, 12mo. This was written at the desire of the regent duke of Orleans, yet it was attempted to be answered by Catelan, a French bishop. The controversy, however, was carried on between him and Basnage with great liberality. 27.” Annales des Provinces Unies,“vol.1. Hague, fol. 1719. This volume contains the history of the united provinces from 1646 to 1667. The second, published in 1726, proceeds as far as the peace of Nimeguen in 1678. This valuable work was undertaken at the request of the counsellor deputies of Holland and West Friesland, who furnished the author with materials from their archives. 28.” Nouveaux Sermons,“1720, 8vo. 29.” Dissertation historique sur les Duels et les ordres de Chevalerie." This dissertation on duels is said to be a very curious work. Besides these, M. Basnage was an occasional contributor to the literaryjournals, and left many manuscripts. His style, in the greater part of his writings, is inferior to his matter, a remark which belongs generally to voluminous writers.

, de Beauval, brother to the preceding, was born at Roan, in 1659, 'and, like his father, became an advocate of the parliament of Normandy. On the revocation of the edict of Nantes, he took refuge in. Holland, where he published a very liberal and sensible work, entitled, “Traite de la Tolerance,” 1684, 12mo. When Bayle discontinued his “Republic of Letters,” Basnage commenced a similar literary journal, entitled “Histoire des ouvrages des.Savans,” in Sept. 1687, and concluded it in June 1709, in all 24 vols. 12mo, written with great impartiality, and containing many valuable analyses and extracts from books. He also published an improved edition of Furetiere’s dictionary, 3 vols. fol. The “Dictionnaire Universel,” printed at Trevoux, in 1704, 3 vols. fol. is an exact copy of the preceding, but without the least notice of either Furetiere or Basnage. Our author died at the Hague, in 1710.

, a Scotch astronomer in the sixteenth century, whose writings have deservedly transmitted his memory to posterity, was the son of the laird of Bassantin in the Merse, and born some time in the reign of king James IV. He was sent while young to the university of Glasgow where, instead of applying himself to words, he studied things; and, while other young men of his age were perfecting themselves in style, he arrived at a surprising knowledge, for that time, in almost all branches of the mathematics. In order to improve himself in this science, and to gratify his passion for seeing other countries, he travelled, soon after he quitted the college of Glasgow, through the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany, fixing himself at last in France, where he taught the mathematics with applause, in the university of Paris. He fell in there with the common notions of the times, and was either credulous enough to entertain a good opinion of judicial astrology, or had so much address as to make the credulity of others useful to him, by supporting an erroneous system, then in too great credit for him to demolish, if he had been disposed, as the humour of believing such kind of predictions never ran so strong as at this time, nor any where stronger than in that country. At last, having a desire to see his relations, and spend his remaining days in his own country, he resolved to quit France, where he had acquired a high reputation, and some fortune, and returned home in the year 1562. It was doubtless to our author that sir James Melvil alludes in his Memoirs, when he says that his brother, sir Robert, while he was using his endeavours to reconcile the two queens, Elizabeth and Mary, met with one Bassantin, a man learned in the high sciences, who told him “that all his travel would be in vain; for, said he, they will never meet together: and next, there will never be anything but dissembling and secret hatred, for a while; and at length, captivity and utter wreck to our queen from England.” He added, “that the kingdom of England at length shall fall, of right, to the crown of Scotland; but it shall cost many bloody battles; and the Spaniards shall be helpers, and take a part to themselves for their labour.” A prediction in which Bassantin partly guessed right, which it is likely he was enabled to do from a judicious consideration of probable circumstances and appearances.

But Basset succeeded better in opposing Rustand, the pope’s legate. The king and the pope had agreed to extort a large sum of money from the English clergy, and to share the plunder. For this purpose Rustand summoned a council at London in October 1255, in which he produced a commission from the pope to demand a certain sum of them but the bishop of London rising up, said “Before I will submit to such great servitude, injury, and intolerable oppression of the church, I will lose my head.” The rest of the prelates, encouraged by his firmness, unanimously decreed, that the pope’s demand should not be complied with, nor any regard paid to Rustand’s authority or censures. The legate carried his complaints to the king, who, sending for the bishop of London, reviled him and threatened him with the severest papal censures. To which Fulk replied, “The king and the pope, though they cannot justly, yet, as being stronger than me, may force my bishopric from me; they may take away the mitre, but the helmet will remain:” and this steadiness, and the decree of the council, totally disconcerted the scheme.

, esq. a gentleman of a good family, and a writer in the fifteenth century, was chamberlain, or gentleman of the privy chamber, to king Henry V. on whom he was a constant attendant and an eye-witness of most of his glorious actions both at home and abroad; all which he particularly described. Beginning at his tenderest years, he gave a full and exact account of Henry’s several expeditions into France; his glorious victories, large conquests, and illustrious triumphs in that kingdom; his advantageous and honourable peace with Charles VI. his marriage with the princess Catherine, his coronation at Paris: and, finally, his death, and the coronation of king Henry VI. his son and successor. These several remarkable events Peter Basset comprized in one volume, which he entitled “The Actes of king Henry V.” This book was never printed; and was said to be extant in manuscript in the college of heralds, and perhaps in some other places but upon the closest examination it appears that he is originally quoted only by Edward Hall, in his Chronicle, and perhaps by Bale. What has been quoted out of his writings, either by Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his “History of the reign of Henry the Fifth,” or by other historians within that period, is visibly borrowed from Hall. Dr. Nicolson mentions Basset only upon the authority of Pits, who Had taken his account from Bale.

In one particular he differs from the rest of king Henry the Fifth’s historians: for whereas Monstrelet says that that prince died of a St. Anthony’s fire; others, of a fever and dysentery; or of the disease of St. Fiacre, which is a flux accompanied with the haemorrhoids; Basset, who was with him at the time of his decease, affirms that he died of a pleurisy. Basset flourished about the year 1430, under the reign of Henry VI.

, a native of Scotland in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, applied in youth to the study of polite literature and philosophy, after which he studied divinity at Oxford, under Duns Scotus, with whom he went to Paris, in 1304. After continuing his studies for some time at that university, he entered into the order of the Minorites, in 1313. Being sent by the general of the order to Rheims, he studied medicine, and taught there for seven or eight years, with much credit, upon “the Master of the Sentences.” In 1322 he was sent to Mechlin, in Brabant, where he spent the remainder of his days in teaching theology, and died in that city in the year 1347. We have of his, “Commentaria seu Lecturas in quatuor Libros Sententiarum,” Paris, 1517, fol. a work which was in such high reputation in his day as to procure him from his brethren the schoolmen, the title of “Doctor Ordinatissimus,” in allusion to his method and perspicuity. In the same volume are “Miscellanea Philosophica et Medica.”

, colonel-general of the Swiss guards, and marshal de France in 1622, was born in Lorraine of a family of distinction, April 22, 1579. He served in the war of the Savoy in 1600, and in 1603 went into Hungary, where he was solicited to serve under the emperor, but he preferred the service of France. In 1617 he commanded the ordnance at the siege of ChateauPorcien, and a short time after was wounded at the siege of Rhetel. He served afterwards, as marshal of the camp, at the battle of Pont-de-Ce, the sieges of St. John d'Angeli, of Montpellier, &c. In 1622, when made a marshal of France, he was colonel of the Swiss, and at the same time sent as ambassador extraordinary to Spain. In 1625 he served in the same capacity in Swisserland, and in 1626 in England. He was also at the siege of Rochelle, and, as on all other occasions, was distinguished for skill and bravery, but the cardinal de Richelieu, who had to complain of his caustic tongue, and who dreaded all those by whom he thought he might one day be eclipsed, caused him to be imprisoned in the Bastille in 1631. Bassompierre had foreseen the ascendancy which the capture of Rochelle, the bulwark of the Protestants, would give to that minister; and therefore was heard to say on that occasion: “You will see that we shall be fools enough to take Rochelle.” He passed the time of his confinement in reading and writing. One day as he was busily turning over the leaves of the Bible, Malleville asked him what he was looking for “A passage that I cannot find,” returned the marechal, “a way to get out of prison.” Here also he composed his “Memoirs,” printed at Cologne in 1665, 3 vols. Like the generality of this sort of books, it contains some curious anecdotes, and a great many trifles. They begin at 1598, and terminate in 1631. His detention lasted twelve years, and it was not till after the death of Richelieu that he regained his liberty. There is also by him a “Relation of his embassies,” much esteemed, 1665 and 1668, 2 vols. 12mo; likewise “Remarks on the history of Louis XIII.” by Dupleix, in 12mo, a work somewhat too satirical, but curious. Bassompierre lived till the 12th of October 1646, when he was found dead in his bed. He was a great dealer in bons mots, which were not always delicate. On his coming out of the Bastille, as he was become extremely corpulent, for want of exercise, the queen asked him, “Quand il accoucheroit?” “Quand j'aurais trouve une sage femme,” answered he; which will not bear a translation, as the wit turns on the double meaning of sage femme, which signifies either a midwife, or a sensible woman, Louis XI II. asked him his age, almost at the same time: he made himself no more than fifty. The king seeming surprised: “Sir,” answered Bassompierre, I subtract ten years passed in the Bastille, because I did not employ them in your service.“Although he had been employed in embassies, negociation was not his principal talent; but he possessed other qualities’that qualified him for an ambassador. He was a very handsome man, had great presence of mind, was affable, lively, and agreeable, very polite and generous. After his liberation from the Bastille, the duchess of Aiguillon, niece of the cardinal de Richelieu, offered him five hundred thousand livres to dispose of as he should think proper:” Madam,“said Bassompierre, as be thanked her,” your uncle has done me too much harm, to allow me to receive so much good of you." he spoke all the languages of Europe with the same facility as his own. Play and women were his two predominant passions. Being secretly informed that he was to be arrested, he rose before day, and burnt upwards of six thousand letters, which he had received from ladies of the city and the court.

His poetical, performances are, 1. “Chrestoleros; seven bookes of Epigrames,” London, 1598, 12nio, of which an account may be seen in the Censura Literaria, vol. IV. 2. “Magna Britannia,” a Latin poem in three books, dedicated to king James I. London, 1605, 4to. Besides which, there is in the king’s library, “Jacobo regi I. carmen gratulatorium.” Under this head we may mention his libels, two of which Mr. Wood met with in his collection of libels or lampoons, written by several Oxford students in the reign of queen Elizabeth. One of them is entitled “An admonition to the city of Oxford,” or his libel entitled “Mar-prelate’s Bastavdini” wherein he reflects upon all persons of note in Oxford, who were suspected of criminal conversation with other men’s wives, or with common strumpets. The other, made after his expulsion, and in which he disclaims the former, begins thus: “Jenkin, why man why Jenkin fie for shame,” &c. But neither of these were printed. He also published “Five Sermons,” Lond. 1615, 4to; and in the same year a collection of “Twelve Sermons,” 4to. Warton speaks of him as an elegant classical scholar, and better qualified for that species of occasional pointed Latin epigram, established by his fellow collegian, John Owen, than for any sort of English versification.

His principal work is an account of the rebellion, with a narrative of the regal and parliamentary privileges, printed under the title of “Elenchus Motuum nuperorum in Anglia, simul ac Juris Regis el Parliamentarii brevis narratio,” Paris, 1649, and Frankfort, 1650, 4to. Before it went to the press, it was communicated to Dr. Peter Heylyn, who made several observations on it, greatly tending to the honour of the king and the church. The first part of the Elenchus was translated into English by an unknown hand, and printed at London in 1652, in 8vo. The second part, in which the author had the assistance of some papers communicated to him by the lord-chancellor Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, was printed in Latin at London in 1661, at Amsterdam the year following in 8vo, and reprinted with the first part at London in 1663, in Bvo. With such assistance this may be supposed an impartial work; but he has been accused of leaning too much to the Puritans, among whom he appears to have lived much in the early part of his life. In 1676, a third part was added to the “Elenchus,” also in Latin, by Dr. Thomas Skinner, a physician, but is inferior to the former. In 1685, the whole was translated by A. Lovel, M. A. of Cambridge. The only answer to Dr. Bate’s work, entitled “Elenchus Elenchi,” was written by Robert Pugh, an officer in the king’s army, and printed at Paris in 1664, 8vo, to which Bate replied; but we do not find that his reply was published. Dr. Bate wrote likewise, 1. “The Royal Apology; or, the declaration of the Commons in parliament, Feb. 11, 1647,” 1648, 4to. 2. “De Rachitide, sive morbo puerili, qui vulgo the Rickets dicitur,” Lond. 1650, 8vo. Mr. Wood tells us, the doctor was assisted in this work by Francis Glisson and Ahasuerus Regemorter, doctors of physic, and fellows of the college of physicians, and that it was afterwards translated into English by Philip Armin, and printed at London, 1651, 8vo and about the same time translated by Nicolas Culpepper, who styles himself ‘ student in physic and astrology.’ 3. After Dr. Bate’s death came out a dispensatory in Latin, entitled “Pharmacopoeia Batcana; in qua octoginta circiter pharmaca plcraque omnia e praxiGeorgii Batei regi Carolo 2clo proto-medici excerpta,” Lond. 1688 and 1691. It was published by Mr.lames Shipton, apothecary, and translated into English by Dr. William Salmon, under the title of “Bate’s Dispensatory,” and was long a very popular work. There was another George Bate, who wrote the “Lives of the Regicides,” London, 1661, 8vo.

, prior of the monastery of Carmelites at York in the fifteenth century, uas born in Northumberland, and educated at York in the study of the liberal arts, in which he was much encouraged by the favour of some persons his patrons, who were at the expence of sending him to Oxford, to finish his studies in that university. Bate abundantly answered the hopes conceived of him, and became an eminent philosopher and divine, and particularly remarkable for his skill in the Greek tongue. He took the degree of D. D. at Oxford, and afterwards distinguished himself as an author. The Carmelites of York were so sensible of his merit, that, upon a vacancy, they offered him the government of their house, which he accepted, and discharged that office with great prudence and success. He died the 26th of January 1429, in the beginning of the reign of Henry VI. Bale, who cannot refuse him the character of a learned man, asserts that he adulterated the word of God with false doctrines, to support the blasphemies of antichrist, and defiled his own writings with the filth of Paganism. These writings, as enumerated by Leland, Bale, and Pits, consist of the following treatises, 1. “On the construction of the Parts of Speech.” 2. “On Porphyry’s Universalia.” 3. “On Aristotle’s Predicaments.” 4. “On Poretanus’s Six Principles.” 5. “Questions concerning the Soul.” 6. “Of the Assumption of the Virgin.” 7. “An introduction to the Sentences.” 8. “The praise of Divinity.” 9. “A compendium of Logic.” 10. “An address to the clergy or' Oxford.” 11. “Synodical conferences.” 12. “Determinations on several questions.” 13. “A course of Sermons for the whole year.” 14. “A preface to the Bible.”

His publications were, 1. “The Examiner examined, &c. (against Calcott) with some observations upon the Hebrew Grammar,” 1739. 2. “An essay towards explaining the third chapter of Genesis, in answer to Mr. Warburton,” 1741, 8vo. Warburton, in his “Divine Legation,” 1740, preface, accuses “one Julius Bate,” in conjunction with “one Romaine,” of betraying private conversation, and writing fictitious letters. 3. “The philosophical principles of Moses asserted and defended against the misrepresentations of Mr. David Jennings,” 1744, 3vo. 4. “Remarks upon Mr. Warburton’s remarks, shewing that the ancients knew there was a future state, and that the Jews were not under an equal Providence,” 1745, 8vo. 5. “The faith ef the ancient Jews in the law of Moses and the evidence of the types, vindicated in a letter to Dr. Stebbing,” 1747, 8vo. 6. “Proposals for printing Hutchinson’s works,” 1748. 7. “A defence of Mr. Hutchinson’s plan,” 1743. 8. “An Hebrew Grammar, formed on the usage of words by the inspired writers,” 1750, 8vo. 9. “The use and intent of Prophecy, and history of the Fall cleared,” 1750, 8vo, occasioned by Middleton’s examination of Sherlock. 10. “A defence of Mr. Hutchinson’s tenets against Berington,” 1751. 11. “The scripture meaning of Elohim and Berith,”' 1751. 12. “Micah v. '2. and Matthew ii. 6. reconciled, with some remarks on Dr. Hunt’s Latin writings.” 13. “The blessing of Judah by Jacob considered; and the era of Daniel’s weeks ascertained, in two dissertations,” 1753, 8vo. 14. “An Inquiry into the original Similitudes, &c. in the Old and New Testament,” &c. no date, but about 1754. 15. “The integrity of the Hebrew text, and many passages of Scripture vindicated from the objections and misconstructions of Mr. Kennicott,” 1755, 8vo. 16. “A reply to Dr. Sharp’s review and defence of his dissertations on the scripture meaning of Berith. With an appendix in answer to the doctor’s discourse on Cherubim, part I.” 1755, and a second part in 1756, 8vo. 17. “Remarks upon Dr. Benson’s sermon on the gospel method of Justification,” 1758, 8vo. 18. “Critica Hebraea, or a Hebrew-English Dictionary without points,” 1767, 4to, his greatest effort in favour of Hutchinsonian divinity, philosophy, and criticism. After his death was published, “A new and literal translation from the original Hebrew of the pentateuch of Moses, and of the historical books of the Old Testament, to the end of the second book of Kings, with notes critical and explanatory,” 1773, 4to.

, elder brother of the preceding, was born at Bocton Malherb in Kent in 1703, and after being educated at the king’s school at Canterbury, was admitted a pensioner of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Denne, July 4, 1720. He proceeded A. B. in 1723, and was pre-elected fellow soon after; but an offer being made him, in the mean time, of a fellowship in St. John’s college, by the bishop of Ely, he chose rather to accept of that than to wait for a vacancy in the other. He commenced A. M. in 1727. became moderator of the university in 1730, one of their taxors the year following, and after distinguishing himself fop his skill in the Hebrew language, was recommended to the right honourable Horatio Walpoie, whom he attended as chaplain in his embassy to Paris. After his return home he became possessed of the rectory of St. Paul’s, Deptford, June 23, 1731. He died in 1775. He published, 1. “An address to his parishioners on the Rebellion in 1745.” 2. “Infidelity scourged, or Christianity vindicated against Chubb, &c.” 1746, 8vo. 3. “An essay towards a rationale of the literal doctrine of Original Sin, &c.” occasioned by some of Dr. Middleton’s writings, 1752, 8vo. 4. “A second edition of the Rationale, &c.” 1766, in the preface to which, he laments that “it was his hard fate, in his younger years, to serve one of our ambassadors as his chaplain at a foreign court.” He published also a few occasional sermons

, 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.

, 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.

, a Roman catholic divine of the sixteenth century, was at first a monk, and afterwards prior of the Carthusian monastery or Charter-house, in the suburbs of London. For some time he studied divinity at Oxford; but it does not appear that he took any degree in that faculty. He was intimately acquainted with, and a great favourite of, Edward Lee, archbishop of York; at whose request he wrote against Erasmus and Luther. He died on the 16th of November 1531, and was buried in the chapel belonging to the Charter-house. Pits gives him the character of a man of quick and discerning genius; of great piety and learning, and fervent zeal; much conversant in the study of the scriptures; and that led an angelical life among men. Bale, on the contrary, represents him as a proud, forward, and arrogant person; born for disputing and wrangling; and adds, that Erasmus, in one of his letters to Richard bishop of Winchester, styles him an ignorant fellow, encouraged by Lee, and vain-glorious even to madness, but Bale allows that he was a very clear sophist, or writer. “John Batmanson,” Mr. Warton observes, “controverted Erasmus’s Commentary on the New Testament with a degree of spirit and erudition, which was unhappily misapplied, but would have done honour to the cause of his antagonist, in respect to the learning displayed.” Dodd says that he revised the two works against Erasmus and Luther, and corrected several unguarded expressions. Others say that he retracted both, the titles of which were, 1. “Animadversiones in Annotationes Erasrni in Novum Testamentum.” 2. “A Treatise against some of M. Luther’s writings.” The rest of his works were, 3. “Commentaria in Proverbia Salomonis.” 4. “in Cantica Canticorum.” 5. “De unica Magdalena, contra Fabrum Stapulensem.” 6. “Institutiones Noviciorum.” 7. “De contemptu Mundi.” 8. “De Christo duodenni;” A Homily on Luke ii. 42. 9. “On the words Missus est,” &c. None of his biographers give the dates of these publications, and some of them, we suspect, were never printed.

This high character of Ratoni, which we have considerably abridged from the last edition of this dictionary, was taken from Boni’s Eloge in a German Journal, and although we have endeavoured to keep down the enthusiasm of our predecessor, yet perhaps even now the article is disproportioned to the merit of the object, and to our scale of lives. It is therefore necessary to subjoin Mr. Fuseli’s opinion, which seems moderated by taste and judgment. Mr. Fuseli says, that Batoni “was not a very learned artist, nor did he supply his want of knowledge by deep reflection. His works do not bear the appearance of an attentive study of the antique, or of the works of Raphael and the other great masters of Italy: but nature seemed to have destined him for a painter, and he followed her impulse. He was not wanting either in his delineation of character, in accuracy, or in pleasing representation; and if he had not a grand conception, he at least knew how to describe well what he had conceived. He would have been, in any age, reckoned a very estimable painter; at the time in which he lived, he certainly shone conspicuously. His name is known throughout Europe, and his works are every where in estimation. Men^s, who was a more learned man, was his rival; but, less favoured by nature, if he enjoyed a higher reputation, he owed it less perhaps to any real superiority, than to the commendations of Winkelman.”

A fair opening for a physician happening at Uxbridge, induced Dr. Battie to settle in that town. At his first coming there, Dr. Godolphin, provost of Eton, sent his coach and four for him, as his patient; but the doctor sitting to write a prescription, the provost, raising himself up, said, “You need not trouble yourself to write; I only sent for you to give you credit in the neighbourhood.” His medical skill here being attended with success, he was quickly enabled to accumulate 500l. with which in his pocket, he again paid a visit to his relations in Suffolk, requesting their advice how to dispose of his wealth to the best advantage; and they were so pleased with his industry and discretion, that from that hour they behaved towards him with the firmest friendship. He then removed to London, where the established emoluments of his practice produced him 1000l. a year. In 1738 or 1739, he fulfilled by marriage a long attachment he had preserved for a daughter of Barnham Goode, the under-master of Eton school of the year 1691, against whom, at all times, the Colemans expressed the most inveterate political antipathy. They, however, behaved to the wife with the utmost civility, and when they died, they left Dr. Battie 30,000l.

These last linos allude to a fact and by successfully mimicking that low character, Dr. Battie is said to have once saved a young patient’s life. He was sent for to a gentleman who was alive in 1782, but at that time only fourteen or fifteen years old, who was in extreme misery from a swelling in his throat; when the doctor understood what the complaint was, he opened the curtains, turned his wig, and acted Punch with so much humour and success, that the young man, thrown almost into convulsions from laughing, was so agitated, as to occasion the tumour to break, and a complete cure was the immediate consequence.

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.

, an English musician and composer, was born in London, 1738. Discovering at a very early age an uncommon genius for music, and having an excellent voice, he was, in 1747, placed in the choir of St. Paul’s, under the tuition of Mr. Savage, then master of the young gentlemen of that cathedral. He was soon qualified to sing at sight, and before he had been in the choir two years, his performances discovered uncommon taste and judgment. On his voice changing at the usual period of life, he became an articled pupil of Mr. Savage, and at the expiration of his engagement, came forth one of the first extempore performers in this country. He had now just arrived at manhood, and having a pleasing, though not powerful voice, a tasteful and masterly style of execution on the harpsichord, a fund of entertaining information acquired by extensive reading, a pleasing manner, and a gay and lively disposition, he possessed, in an eminent degree, the power of rendering himself agreeable in every company; and his society and instruction were courted by persons of the highest ranks. Every encouragement was offered to excite his future efforts, and promote his professional success; and no prospects could be fairer or more nattering than those which he had now before him.

Of these advantages, however, he does not appear to have availed himself in the fullest extent. After leaving Mr. Savage, we find him composing songs for Sadler’s Wells, and afterwards performing on the harpsichord at Covent-garden theatre, where he married Miss Davies, a singer, hut did not permit her any more to appear in puhlic. Soon after this marriage, he obtained the place of organist to the churches of St. Clement, East-cheap, and of Christ-church, Newgate-street, and about this time published a series of songs, highly creditable to his talents, and his reputation was yet more promoted by composing part of the opera of Alcmena, in conjunction with Mr. Michael Arne. But these and similar compositions did not divert his mind from cathedral music, in which style he composed some excellent anthems, since republished in Mr. Page’s Harmonia Sacra. He also, at the express desire of the Rev. Charles Wesley, father of the present Messrs. Charles and Samuel Wesley, set to music a collection of hymns, written by that gentleman, the melodies of which are peculiarly elegant, yet chaste and appropriate. In the catch and glee style, he also gave convincing proofs of the diversity of his taste and genius, and in 1770 obtained the gold medal given by the noblemen’s catch-club, for his well-known glee “Underneath this myrtle shade.” With such talents, and the approbation which followed the exertion of them, he appears to have relaxed into indifference, and in his latter years seldom came forward as a composer. Except two excellent collections of three and four part songs, and a few airs composed for a collection published by Harrison of Paternoster-row, nothing appeared from his pen for the last thirty years of his life. His time was spent in his library, where he had accumulated a very large collection of valuable books, or in attending his pupils, or in what was, perhaps, as frequent and less wise, in convivial parties. He was blest with an uncommonly strong constitution: but the excesses in which he too frequently indulged, together with his insuperable grief for the loss of his friend colonel Morris, lately killed in Flanders, visibly preyed upon his health; and he became so ill during his last autumn, as to be confined to his chamber. He was advised to try sea-bathing, and the air of Margate, but these rendered him no service. He returned from that place rather worse than when he left town; and, agreeably to the advice of his physicians, took apartments at Islington, where his general debility still continued to increase, and where he expired on Thursday, the 10th of December, 1801, aged sixty-three years, and was interred, according to his dying wish, in the vaults of St. Paul’s cathedral. Some of the manuscript compositions he left have since been published by Mr. Page.

de Dairval, an eminent French antiquary, was born at Paris, Nov. 29, 1648. He studied partly at Beauvais, under his uncle Halle, an eminent doctor of the Sorbonne, and director of that school, and afterwards at Paris under Danet, author of the dictionaries which bear his name. His inclination was for medicine as a profession, but family reasons decided in favour of the law, in which he became an advocate of parliame,nr, and a distinguished pleader. Happening to be pbligedto go to Dijon about a cause in which his mother was concerned, he amused his leisure hours in visiting the libraries and museums with which Dijon at that time abounded. He pleaded that cause, however, so ably, that the marquis de la Meilleraye was induced to intrust him with another of great importance which had brought him to Dijon, and our young advocate, now metamorphosed into an antiquary, laid out the fee he received from his noble client, in the purchase of a cabinet of books, medals, &c. then on sale at Dijon. With this he returned to Paris, but no more to the bar, his whole attention being absorbed in researches on the remains of antiquity. The notions he had formed on this subject appeared soon in his principal work on the utility of travelling, and the advantages which the learned derive from the study of antiquities.-It was entitled “Dd'ntilite des Voyages,” 2 vols. ie>86, 12mo, often reprinted, and the edition of Rouen in 1727 is said to be the best, although, according-to Niceron, not the most correct. The reputation of this work brought him acquainted with the most eminent antiquaries of England, Holland, and Germany, and, when he least expected such an honour, he was admitted an associate of the academy of the Ricovrati of Padua, and was generally consulted on all subjects of antiquity which happened to be the object of public curiosity. In 1698 he printed a dissertation on Ptolomy Auletes, whose head he discovered on an ancient amethyst hitherto undescribed, in the cabinet of the duchess of Orleans, who rewarded him by the appointment of keeper of her cabinet of medals. In 1700, he wrote a letter to Mr. Lister of the royal society of London, describing an enormous stone found in the body of a horse. He afterwards published separately, or in the literary journals, various memoirs on antique medals, and in 1705 he was chosen a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres. This honour inspirited his labours, and he became a frequent contributor to the memoirs of the academy. His last piece is entitled “Dissertation sur le guerre des Atheniens centre les. penples de Pisle Atlantique.” His health now began to decline, although for some time it was not discovered that his disorder was a dropsy of the chest, which proved fatal June 27, 1722. His character is represented by all his biographers as being truly amiable. He bequeathed to the academy, what he valued most, his books, medals, bronzes, and antique marbles. Two of the latter of great value, which were brought from Constantinople by M. Nointal, and are supposed to be more than two thousand years old, contain the names of the Athenian captains and soldiers who were killed, in one year, in different expeditions. These afterwards became the property of M. Thevenot, the king’s librarian, who placed them at his country-house at Issy. Thevenot’s heirs, who had little taste for antiquities, were about to have sold them to a stone-cutter for common purposes, when Baudelot heard of the transaction, anil immediately went in pursuit of the treasure. Having purchased them, he had them placed in a carriage of which he never lost sight until they were deposited in a house which he then occupied in the faubourg of St. Marceau, and when he removed to that of St. Germain, he conveyed them thither with the same care, and placed them in a small court. Here, however, they were not quite safe. A considerable part of the house happened to be occupied by a young lady who had no taste for antiquities, and soon discovered that these marbles were an incumbrance. In order to make Baudelot remove them, she pretended to hire the dustmen to take them away. Baudelot, returning home at night, was told of this project, and although it was then late, would not go to sleep until he had seen them deposited in his apartment. They are now in the museum of antiquities in the Louvre.

, of Langnedoc, historiographer of France under Louis XIII. was one of the most fertile and heavy writers of his time, but we have no particulars of his life. He left behind him many works composed without either method or taste, but which Abound in particulars not to be found elsewhere. 1. “Histoire generale tie la Religion desTurcs, avec la Viede leurpropht-te Mahomet, et des iv premiers califes;” also, “Le Livre et la Theologie de Mahomet,” 1636, 8vo, a work translated from the Arabic, copied by those who wrote after him, though they have not vouchsafed to cite him. 2. “ Histoire du Cardinal d'Amboise,” Paris, 1651, in 8vo. Sirmond, of the Academie Franchise, one of the numerous flatterers of the cardinal de Richelieu, formed the design of elevating that minister at the expence of all those who had gone before him. He began by attacking d'Amboise, and failed not to sink him below Richelieu. Baudier, by no means a courtier, avenged his memory, and eclipsed the work of his detractor. 3. “Histoire du Marechal de Toiras,” 1644-, fol. 1666, 2 vols. 12mo; a curious performance which throws considerable light on the reign of Louis XIII. 4. “The Lives of the Abbé Suger, and of Cardinal Ximenes, &c.” The facts that Baudier relates in these different works are almost always absorbed by his reflections, which have neither the merit of precision nor that of novelty to recommend them. Moreri informs us that he wrote a history of Margaret of Anjou, queen of Henry VI. of England, that the manuscript was in the library of the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, at Paris, among the collection of M. de Coislin, bishop of Metz; and that this history was translated and published in English, without any acknowledgment by the translator, or any notice of the original author.

Baudius was a strenuous advocate for a truce betwixt the States and Spain: two orations he published on this subject, though without his name, had almost brought him into serious trouble, as prince Maurice was made to believe he was affronted in them, and the author was said to have been bribed by the French ambassador to write upon the truce. In consequence of these suspicions he wrote to the prince and his secretary, in order to vindicate himself, and laments his unhappy fate in being exposed to the malice of so many slanderers, who put wrong interpretations on his words: “It is evident (says he) that through the malignity of mankind, nothing can be expressed so cautiously by men of any character and reputation, but it may be distorted into some obnoxious sense. For what can be more absurd than the conduct of those men, who have reported that I have been bribed by the ambassador Jeannin, to give him empty words in return for his generosity to me? as if I, an obscure doctor, was an assistant to a man of the greatest experience in business.” Some verses, which he wrote in praise of the marquis of Spinola, occasioned him also a good deal of trouble: the marquis came to Holland before any thing was concluded either of the peace or truce; and though Baudius had printed the poem, yet he kept the copies of it, till it might be seen more evidently upon what account this minister came, and gave them only to his most intimate friends. It being known however that the poem was printed, he was very near being banished for it.

, born at Vendôme in 1678, was the son of a collector of excise, settled at Sarlat, where he became sub-delegate of the intendant. The functions of this office and the charms of literature filled up the course of his long life, which terminated in 1759, at the age of 8 1. We have several historical works by him, written with method and ingenuity. 1. “L‘Histoire de Catherine de France, reine d’Angleterre,” which he published in 1696. Though the whole of this be true in regard to the principal events, the author afterwards allowed, what may indeed be easily discovered, that it is very much tinctured with romance. 2. “Germain e de Foix,” an historical novel, 1701. 3. “L'histoire secrette du Connetable de Bourbon,” 1706. 4. “La Relation historique et galante de l'invasion de PEspagne par les Maures,” 1722, 4 vols. in 12mo. These three works are nearly of the same species with the first; but there are others by him of more regular and authentic composition, as, “l‘Histoire de la conquête d’Angleterre par unillamne due de Normandie” 1701, in 12mo; “L'Histoire de Philippe Anguste,” 1702, 2 vols. 12mo and that of “Charles VII.” 1697, 2 vols. 12mo. Its principal merit lies in the method and style, as the author consulted nothing but printed books. We have likewise by him, “L'Histoire des homines illustres,” extracted from Brantome; “L'Histoire de la vie et du regne de Charles VI.” 1753, in 9 vols. 12mo. “L'Histoire du regne de Louis XI.” 1756, 6 vols. 12mo. “L'Histoire des revolutions de Naples,” 1757, 1-vols. 12mo. These three last works appeared under the name of Mad. de Lussan, who, as will be noticed in her article, shared the profits with him. His general style is easy, perhaps approaching to negligence, and in the hurry of so much compilation, we cannot wonder that there are inaccuracies in facts, or at least, in dates.

, a member of the French academy, was a native of Pradelle in Vivarais, where he was born in 1590. In his youth he was a considerable traveller, but afterwards settled for the rest of his life at Paris, where he was reader to queen Margaret. He made translations from Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Sallust, Dion Cassius, Tasso, and many other established writers, but which contributed little to his fame. When hard pressed by his employers, he contented himself with retouching former translations, without looking into the originals. He also wrote a “History of Malta,” 1659, 2 vols. folio, and some novels and romances, in general beneath mediocrity. His only work not of this character, is his collection of “Emblems,” with moral explanations, Paris, 1638, 8vo. 3 vols, a beautiful book, with engravings by Briot. His “Iconologie” is also in request with collectors. It was printed at Paris, 1636, fojio, and 1643, 4to. Baudouin died at Paris in 1650, according to Moreri, or 1656, as in the Diet. Hist.

, a celebrated lithotomist, was born in 1651, in a village of the bailiwick of Lons-le-Saunier in Tranche Cornte, of very poor parents. He quitted them early in life, in order to enter into a regiment of horse, in which he served some years, and made an acquaintance with one Pauloni, an empirical surgeon, who had acquired a name for lithotomy. After having taken lessons under this person for five or six years, he repaired to Provence. There he put on a kind of monastic habit, but unlike any worn by the several orders of monks, and was ever afterwards known only by the name of friar James. In this garb he went to Languedoc, then to Roussiilon, and from thence through the different provinces of France. He at length appeared at Paris, but soon quitted it for his more extensive perambulations. He was seen at Geneva, at Aix-la-Chapelle, at Amsterdam, and practised everywhere. His success was various, but his method was not uniform, and anatomy was utterly unknown to this bold operator. He refused to take any care of his patients after the operation, saying, “I have extracted the stone; God will heal the wound.” Being afterwards taught by experience that dressings and regimen were necessary, his treatments were constantly more successful. He was indisputably the inventor of the lateral operation. His method was to introduce a sound through the urethra into the bladder with a straight history, cut upon the staff, and then he carried his incision along the staff into the bladder. He then introduced the forefinger of the left hand into the bladder, searched for the stone, which, having withdrawn the sound, he extracted by means of forceps. Professor Rau of Holland improved upon this method, which afterwards suggested to our countryman, Cheselden, the lateral operation, as now, with a few alterations, very generally practised. In gratitude for the numerous cures this operator had performed in Amsterdam, the magistracy of that city caused his portrait to be engraved, and a medal to be struck, bearing for impress his bust. After having appeared at the court of Vienna and at that of Rome, he made choice of a retreat near Besan^on, where he died in 1720, at the age of sixty -nine. The history of this hermit was written by M. Vacher, surgeon-major of the king’s armies, and printed at Besan^on, in 1757, 12mo.

, canon of the collegiate church of St. Agricola d' Avignon, was born at Carpentras in the Comtat Venaissin, in 1705. His passion lor the belles-lettres attracted him to Paris, and after having made some stay there, he published a pamphlet entitled “Eloge de la Paix,” dedicated to the academic Franchise; it is in the form of a discourse, an ode, and an epopea, but has little merit in any of these styles. This did not, however, prevent him from meditating a work of greater length. He carried the idea of his design with him into his province, and there he completed it. “The Christiade, or Paradise regained,” which is here meant, occasioned its author a second journey to Paris, where his poem was printed, in 1753, 6 vols. 12mo. The work, well executed as to the typographical part, is written in a pompous, affected, and often ridiculous style, and the sacred subject was so much burlesqued, that it was condemned by the parliament of Paris, and the author fined. He died at Paris in 1757. He wrote besides several small pieces, as the “Saturnales Francoises,” 1736, 2 vols. 12mo, and he Worked for upwards of ten years on the “Courier d'Avignon.” He was a man of a warm imagination, but void both of taste and judgment.

, an eminent painter, was born at Strasburg, in 1610, and was a disciple of Frederick Brendel. He had an enlarged capacity, -but the. liveliness of his imagination hindered him from studying nature, or the antique, in such a manner as to divest himself of his German taste, though he went to Rome to improve himself in the art. In Italy, he applied himself entirely to architecture, as far as it might contribute to the enrichment of his landscapes, which were his favourite subjects; and for his scenes and situations he studied after the rich prospects about Frascati and Tivoli, which could afford him the most delightful sites, views, and incidents. He was fond of introducing into his designs, battles, marchings of the army, skirmishes, and processions; but although he resided for a considerable length of time in and about Naples and Rome, he never arrived at a grandeur of design; nor could ever express the naked but indifferently. It must, however, be said in his commendation, that his pencil was light,his composition good, and his dispositions eminently picturesque. He painted with great success in water-colours on vellum, and etched the Metamorphoses of Ovid, and a great many other plates, from his own designs; his works were completed by Melc'hior Kussel, to the amount of five hundred prints, including those by his own hand. Of his engravings from the Metamorphoses, which are generally preferred to the rest, and consist of one hundred and fifty, Mr. Strutt says that the figures which are introduced are generally small, and very incorrect in the drawing; the back-grounds are dark and heavy, and the trees want that lightness and freedom which are necessary to render the effect agreeable. The pieces of architecture which he is very fond of introducing into his designs, appear to be well executed; and the perspective is finely preserved. In his manner of engraving he seems in some degree to have imitated Callot; and the nearer he approaches to the style of that master, the better are his productions. These designs manifest great marks of a superior genius, but without cultivation, or the advantage of a refined judgment to make a proper choice of the most beautiful objects. Argenville mentions a peculiarity of him, that when at work, he might be heard muttering in Spanish, Italian, or French, as if holding a conversation with the persons he was painting, and endeavouring to hit their characters, gestures, and habits. About 1638, he fixed his residence at Vienna, at the invitation of the emperor Ferdinand III. and there he married, but while happy in his family and in the patronage of the emperor, he was attacked by an illness which proved fatal in 1640, when he was only thirty years of age.

, a very ingenious metaphysician and natural philosopher, was born in 1686, or 1687, at Old Aberdeen, in Scotland, of which city his father was a merchant, and educated in king’s college there. His principal employment was that of a private tutor to young gentlemen; and among other of his pupils were lord Grey, lord Blantyre, and Mr. Hay of Drummeizier. About 1724, he married the daughter of Mr. Mebane, a clergyman in the shire of Berwick. A few years after he published in 4to, “An Enquiry into the nature of the human Soul, wherein its immateriality is evinced from the principles of reason and philosophy;” without date. In 1741, he went abroad with Mr. Hay, and resided some years at Utrecht; having there also lord Blantyre under his care. He made excursions from thence into Flanders, France, and Germany; his wife and 'family residing in the mean time chiefly at Berwick upon Tweed. He returned to Scotland in 1747, and resided till his death at Whittingham, in the shire of East Lothian. He drew up, for the use of his pupils, and his son, a piece entitled “Matho: sive, Cosmotheoria puerilis, Dialogus. In quo prima elementa de mundi ordine et ornatu proponuntur, &c.” This was afterwards greatly enlarged, and published in English, in two volumes, 8vo. In 1750 was published, “An Appendix to his Enquiry into the nature of the human Soul” wherein he endeavours to remove some difficulties, which had been started against his notions of the “vis inertias” of matter, by Maclaurin, in his “Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.” To this piece Mr. Baxter prefixed a dedication to Mr. John Wilkes, afterwards so well known in the political world, with whom he had commenced an acquaintance abroad. He died this year, April the 23d, after suffering for some months under, a complication of disorders, of which the gout was the chief, and was buried in the family vault of Mr. Hay, at Whittingham.

Bishop Warburton has characterised Mr. Baxter’s treatise on the Soul, as “containing the justest and most'precise notions of God and the soul, and as altogether one of the most finished of its kind,” an encomium too unqualified, although it certainly discovers great metaphysical acuteness. The great principle on which Baxter builds his reasoning, is the vis inertia of matter. The arguments he hath founded upon this principle, and the consequences he hath drawn from it, have, in the opinion of several persons, been carried too far. Mr. Hume made some objections to Mr. Baxter’s system, though without naming him, in his Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. It is probable that Mr. Baxter did not think Mr. Hume to be enough of a natural philosopher to merit particular notice; or he might not have seen Mr. Hume’s Philosophical Essays, which were first published only two years before our author’s death. He had a much more formidable antagonist in Mr. Colin Maclaurin. This ingenious gentleman, in his account of sir Isaac Newton’s philosophical discoveries, had started various difficulties with regard to what had been urged concerning the vis inertia of matter; and it was to remove these difficulties, and still farther to confirm his own principles, that Mr. Baxter wrote the Appendix.

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.

Before this, however, he seems to have been in some measure, prepared for dissent, and Mr. Calarny has given us an account of the means by which he first came to alter, his opinions, which is too characteristic of the man to be omitted. “Being settled at Dudley, he fell into the acquaintance of several nonconformists, whom though he judged severe and splenetic, yet he found to be both godly and honest men. They supplied him with several writings on their own side, and amongst the rest, with Ames’s Fresh Suit against Ceremonies, which he read over very distinctly, comparing it with Dr. Burgess’s Rejoyncler. And, upon the whole, he at that time came to these conclusions; Kneeling he thought lawful, and all mere circumstances determined by the magistrate, which God in nature or scripture hath determined on only in the general. The surplice he more doubted of, but was inclined to think it lawful: and though he intended to forbear it till under necessity, yet he could not see how he could have justified the forsaking his ministry merely on that account, though he never actually wore it. About the ring in marriage he had no scruple. The cross in baptism he thought Dr. Ames had proved unlawful; and though he was not without some doubting in the point, yet because he most inclined to judge it unlawful, he never once used it. A Form of Prayer and Liturgy he judged to be lawful, and in some cases lawfully imposed. The English Liturgy in, particular he judged to have much disorder and defectiveness in it, but nothing which should make the use of it in the ordinary public worship to be unlawful to them who could not do better. He sought for discipline in the Church, and saw the sad effects of its neglect; but he was not then so sensible as afterwards, that the very frame of diocesan prelacy excluded it, but thought it had been chargeable only on the personal neglects of the bishops. Subscription he began to think unlawful, and repented his rashness in yielding to it so hastily. For though he could use the Common-prayer, and was not yet against diocesans, yet to subscribe ex animo, that there is nothing in the three books contrary to the word of God, was that which he durst not do, had it been to be done again. So that subscription and the cross in baptism, and the promiscuous giving the Lord’s supper to all comers, though ever so unqualified, if they were not excommunicated by a bishop or chancellor who knows nothing of them, were the only things in which as yet he inclined to nonconformity, and even in these he kept his thoughts to himself. He continued to argue with the nonconformists, about the pointy they differed in, and particularly kneeling at the Sacrament, about which he had a controversy with some of them, which they did not think it proper to continue anyfarther. He also, with equal candour and spirit, reproved them for the bitterness of their language against the bishops and churchmen, and exhorted them to patience and charity.”

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 1701 Mr. Baxter’s celebrated edition of Horace made its appearance, of which it is said that a second edition was finished by him a few days before his death, and published by his son John, but not until 1725. In it there were some corrections, alterations, and additions introduced. Dr. Harwood bestows the highest praise on it, as “by far the best edition of Horace ever published.” He adds, “I have read it many times through, and know its singular worth, England has not produced a more elegant or judicious crU tic than Baxter.” Gesner, entertaining the same sentiments, when he was requested to give an edition of made Baxter’s labours the foundation of his own, and published his edition, thus improved in 1752, and again in 1772, the latter still move improved by a collation of some Mss. and some very early editions which do not appear to have been consulted by Baxter. On the appearance of this last edition, Dr. Lowth, the late learned bishop of London, pronounced it the best edition of Horace ever yet delivered to the world. In 1788, Zeunius republished it, preserving all Baxter’s and Gesner’s observations, adding a few of his own, and availing himself of the labours of Jani and Wieland. Of this a very elegant edition was published in 1797, by Mr. Payne, of Pall Mall, printed by Mundell of Glasgow, in 8vo. But what can we say to the uncertainties of criticism? Harles and Mitscherlich. do not concur with Dr. Harwood in his opinion of Baxter’s edition of 1725, and they both under-rate his labours, Harles blaming him for his “ribaldry and abuse of Bentley.” Baxter was certainly irritated against Bentley, probably on account of some remarks introduced by Bentley into his edition of Horace, which had been published in the interval between 1701 and the time of his death. Gesner makes all the apology that can now be offered: he thinks that Baxter might feel Bentley' s contempt, than whom no man could deal out contempt more severely, or Baxter might himself be affected with somewhat of the irritability of age.

In 1719, Baxter published his Dictionary of the British Antiquities, under the title of “Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum, sive Syllabus Etymologicus Antiquitatum veteris Britannise, atque Iberniso, temporibus Romanorum, &c.” dedicated to Dr. Mead, and with a fine head of the author by Vertue, from a picture by Highmore, when Baxter was in the sixty-ninth year of his age. The collectors will be glad to hear that in some of the earliest impressions, the painter’s name is spelt Hymore. This painting was done for a club-room, where Mr. Baxter presided, in the Old Jewry, but the landlord removing, took it with him, and it has never been heard of since. It is, perhaps, of more importance to add, that this work was published by the Rav. Moses Williams, who also, in 1726, published Baxter’s Glossary or Dictionary of the Roman Antiquities, under the title of “Reliquiae Baxterianae, sive W. Baxteri Opera Posthuma:” This goes no farther than the letter A, but has a fragment of the life of the author written by himself. His etymologies in this work are often correct and undeniable, but some are capricious. The reason of his declining to proceed farther than the first letter of the alphabet, was the reluctance of the booksellers to bear the expence of his Glossarium, which, however, he had the satisfaction of seeing published before his death, by the liberality of Dr. Mead. On the publication of the last mentioned work, Mr. Bowyer, the celebrated printer, whose memory has been so ably and so usefully preserved by his successor, published a small tract (included in his “Miscellaneous Tracts”) entitled “A Vii w of a book, entitled ‘ Reiiquiue Baxterianac,’ in a Letter to a f knrl.” Tr,is is a very acute and learned analysis oi the work mentioned, and gives us an amusing account of Baxter’s Life of himself, which is, in fact, an endeavour to trace his family He derives his name Baxter from the Saxon, Baker, for which reason he writes himself, from a word of the same signification in Welch, Popidius. We may also add, that to this day Baxter and Baker (the trade) are in most parts of Scotland synonymous. In this short pedigree, he speaks with the warmth of affection for his celebrated relative Richard Baxter. Alluding to the usual reproach passed on extempore preachers, he says, “Vir extemporanea dicenui facultate incredibili, zelo plane Apostolico (quern scurras nostronini temporurn cantum dicunt), &c.”

His father, affected and delighted with this answer, sent next day to the bishop of Grenoble, his brother-in-law, and requested him to present young Bayard to the duke of Savoy, in the quality of his page. His clothes and equipage being prepared in a lew hours, he mounted a horse, which having never before felt a spur, gave three or four springs, which greatly alarmed the company; but the young hero, without being at all disconcerted, fixed himself in the saddle, and repeated the discipline of his heel until his steed submitted to his direction. The parting of the father and the son was affecting, and, his biographer observes, is a lively picture of that noble simplicity of manners, from which his nation has so much degenerated, by the false refinements of an effeminate politeness. His mother recommended three things to him the first was, “to fear, and love, and to serve God” the second, “to be gentle and courteous to the nobility, without pride or haughtiness to any;” and the third was, “to be generous and charitable to the poor and necessitous;” adding, that “to give for the love of God never made any man poor.” Bayard promised to follow these good precepts, and although his deviations were not unfrequent, he preserved a sense of religion which led him to fulfil all its external duties at least with exemplary punctuality and zeal: neither his youth, nor the tumults and hurry of a military life, nor the dissolute company into which he naturally fell, nor even the failings, from which he was not himself exempt, could ever extinguish in his breast a certain veneration for the religion in which he had been brought up.

The confidence with which he inspired the troops, and the love which they had for him, were not merely the effects of his courage: they knew that his prudence was not inferior to his valour, and that he never would expose them wantonly or rashly: he was besides so disinterested, that he left the booty wholly to others, without reserving any part of it for himself. One day, when he had taken 15,Ooo ducats of gold from the Spaniards, he gave half of them to capt. Terdieu, and distributed the rest among the soldiers who accompanied him in the expedition. With the same generous spirit he divided 2,400 ounces of silver plate, which he received as a present from the count de Ligny, among his friends and followers. Having defeated Audre, the Venetian general, he took Brisse, and a lady of that city presenting him with 2,500 pistoles, to prevent her house from being pillaged, Jie divided them into three parts; 1000 he gave to each of the two daughters of the lady, to help, as he said, to marry them, and the 500 which remained he caused to be distributed among the poor nunneries that had suffered most in the pillage of the place. In this lady’s house he lodged until he had recovered from a dangerous wound which he received in the action.

Bayard, in his progress to military command, passed through all the subordinate stations; and if he^did not arrive at the first military dignity in France, he was universally thought to deserve it. And after all, the title of marshal of France was an honour which he would have possessed in common with many others; bnt to arm his king as a knight was a personal and peculiar honour, which no other could ever boast. The occasion was this: Francis I. who was himself one of the bravest men of his time, determined, after his victory of Marignan, to receive the order of knighthood from the hands of Bayard. Bayard modestly represented to his majesty, that so high an“honour belonged only to princes of the blood; but the kinoreplied in a positive tone,” My friend Bayard, I will this day be made a knight by your hands.“” It is then my duty,“said Bayard,” to obey,“and taking his sword, said,” Siro autant vaiile que si c'etoit Roland ou Olivier,“”May it avail as much as if it was Roland or Olivier," two heroes in the annals of chivalry, of whom many romantic tales are told. When the ceremony was over, Bayard addressed his sword with an ardour which the occasion inspired, and declared it was a weapon hereafter to be laid up as a sacred relic, and never to be drawn, except against Turks, Saracens, and Moors. This sword has been lost; Charles Emmanuel, duke of Savoy, having applied for it to the heirs of Bayard, without being able to procure it.

was a German lawyer and astronomer of the latter part of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, but in what particular year or place he was born, is not certainly known; however, his name will be ever memorable in the annals of astronomy, on account of that great and excellent work which he first published in 1603, under the title of “Uranometria,” being a complete celestial atlas, or large folio charts of all the constellations, with a nomenclature collected from all the tables of astronomy, ancient and modern, with the useful invention of denoting the stars in every constellation by the letters of the Greek alphabet, in their order, and according to the order of magnitude of the stars in each constellation. By means of these marks, the stars of the heavens may, with as great facility, be distinguished and referred to, as the several places of the earth are by means of geographical tables; and as a proof of the usefulness of this method, our celestial globes and atlasses have ever since retained it; and hence it is become of general use through all the literary world; astronomers, in speaking of any star in the constellation, denoting it by saying it is marked by Bayer, a, or ft, or y, &c.

Bayer lived many years after the first publication of this work, which he greatly improved and augmented by his constant attention to the study of the stars. At length, in 1627, it was republished under a new title, viz. “Ccelum stellatum Christianum,” or the “Christian stellated Heaven,” or the “Starry Heavens Christianized;” for in this work the heathen names and characters, or figures of the constellations, were rejected, and others, taken from the scriptures, were inserted in their stead, to circumscribe the respective constellations. This was the project of one Julius Schiller, a civilian of the same place. But this attempt was too great an innovation to find success, or a general reception, and would have occasioned great confusion. And we even find, in the later editions of this work, that the ancient figures and names were restored again; at least in the two editions of 1654 and 1661.

, the natural son of the subject of the next article, was born at Venice in 1532, during his father’s embassy there, and studied under Ronsard, making particular progress in the Greek tongue. He devoted himself afterwards to French poetry, which he disfigured not a little by a mixture of Greek and Latin words. His object was to give to the French the cadence and measure of the Greek and Latin poetry, in which he was very unsuccessful. Cardinal Perron said of him, that he was a good man, but a bad poet. He set his own verses, however, to music; not, says Dr. Burney, to such music as might be expected from a man of letters, or a dilletanti, consisting of a single melody, but to counterpoint, or music in parts. Of this kind he published, in 1561, “Twelve hymns or spiritual songs;” and, in 1578, several books of “Songs,” all in four parts, of which both the words and the music were his own. In all he was allowed to be as good a musician as a poet; but what mostly entitles him to notice, is his having established a musical academy at Paris, the first of the kind; but m this he had to encounter many difficulties. The court was for it, and Charles IX. and Henry III. frequently attended these concerts; but the parliament and the university opposed the scheme as likely to introduce effeminacy and immorality. The civil wars occasioned their being discontinued, but they were long after revived, and proved the origin of the divertissements, the masquerades, and balls, which formed the pleasures of the court until the time of Louis XIV. Bayf died in 1592. His poems were published at Paris in 1573, 2 vols. 8vo, and consist of serious, comic, sacred, and profane pieces; the first volume is entitled “Euvres en rime,” the other “Les Jeux.” His mode of spelling is as singular as his composition, but the whole are now fallen into oblivion.

Some months after his arrival at Paris, there being a vacancy of a professorship of philosophy at Sedan, Mr. Basuage proposed Mr. Bayle to Mr. Jurieu, who promised to serve him to the utmost of his power, and desired Mr. Basnage to write to him to come immediately to Sedan. But Mr. Bayle excused himself, fearing lest if it should be known that he had changed his religion, which was a secret to every body in that country but Mr. Basnage, it might bring him into trouble, and the Roman catholics from thence take occasion to disturb the protestants at Sedan. Mr. Jurieu was extremely surprised at his refusal; and even when Mr. Basnage communicated the reason, he was of opinion it ought not to hinder Mr. Bayle’s coming, since he and Mr. Basnage being the only persons privy to the secret, Mr. Bayle could run no manner of danger. Mr. Basnage therefore wrote again to Mr. Bayle, and prevailed with him to come to Sedan. He had three competitors, all natives of Sedan, the friends of whom endeavoured to raise prejudices against him because he was a stranger. But the affair being left to be determined by dispute, and the candidates having agreed to make their theses without books or preparation, Mr. Bayle defended his theses with such perspicuity and strength of argument, that, in spite of all the interest of his adversaries, the senate of the university determined it in his favour; and notwithstanding the opposition he met with upon his first coming to Sedan, his merit soon procured him universal esteem.

The great comet, which appeared December 1680, having filled the generality of people with fear and astonishment, induced Mr. Bayle to think of writing a letter on this subject to be inserted in the Mercure Galant; but, finding he had such abundance of matter as exceeded the bounds of a letter for that periodical work, he resolved to print it by itself; and accordingly sent it to M. de Vise. He desired M. de Vise to give it to his printer, and to procure a licence for it from M. de la Reynie, lieutenant of the police, or a privilege from the king if that was necessary; but M. de Vise returned for answer, that M. de la Reynie, being unwilling to take upon him the consequences of printing it, it would be necessary to obtain the approbation of the doctors before a royal privilege could be applied for; which being a tedious and difficult affair, Mr. Bayle gave over all thoughts of having it printed at Paris.

The protestants in France were at this time in a distressed situation; not a year passed without some infringement of the edict of Nantz, and it was at length resolved to shut up their academies. That at Sedan was accordingly suppressed by an arret of Lewis XIV. dated the 9th of July, 1681. Mr. Bayle staid six or seven weeks at Sedan after the suppression of the academy, expecting letters of invitation from Holland; but not receiving any during that time, he left Sedan the 2d of September, and arrived at Paris the 7th of the same month, not being determined whether he should go to Rotterdam or England, or continue in France; but whilst he was in this uncertainty he received an invitation to Rotterdam, for which place he accordingly set out, and arrived there the 30th of October, 1681. He was appointed professor of philosophy and history; with a salary of five hundred guilders per annum. The year following he published his “Letter concerning Comets;” and father Maimbourg having published about this time his History of Calvinism, wherein he endeavours to draw upon the protestants the contempt and resentment of the catholics, Mr. Bayie wrote a piece to confute his history: in this he has inserted several circumstances relating to the life and disputes of Mr. Maimbourg, and has given a sketch of his character, which is thought to have a strong likeness.

“But you shall not get off so cheap as you imagine. I will enjoin you a penance which is, that you will henceforth take the trouble of sending me all curious books that shall be published in Latin, French, Spanish, or Italian, on whatever subject or science, provided they are worthy of being looked into; I do not even except romances or satires: and above all, if there are any books of chemistry, I desire you may send them to me as soon as possible. Do not forget likewise to send me your ‘ Journal.’ I shall order that you be paid for whatever you lay out, do but send me an account of it. This will be the most agreeable and most important service that can be done me. May God prosper you. Christina Alexandra.”

Mr. Bayle was a most laborious and indefatigable writer. In one of his letters to Des Maizeaux, he says, that since his 20th year he hardly remembers to have had any leisure. His intense application contributed perhaps to impair his constitution, for it soon began to decline. He had a decay of the lungs, which weakened him considerably; and as this was a distemper which had cut off several of his family, he judged it to be mortal, and would take no medicines. He died the 28th of December 1706, after he had been writing the greatest part of the day. He wrote several books besides what we have mentioned, many of which were in his own defence against attacks from the abbe Renaudot, M. le Clerc, M. Jaquelot, and others; a particular account of his works may be seen in the sixth volume of Niceron. Among the productions which do honour to the age of Lewis XIV. M.Voltaire has not omitted the Critical Dictionary of our author: It is the first work of the kind, he says, in which a man may learn to think. He censures indeed those articles which contain only a detail of minute facts, as unworthy either of Bayle, an understanding reader, or posterity. In placing him, continues the same author, amongst the writers who do honour to the age of Lewis XIV. although a refugee in Holland, I only conform to the decree of the parliament of Toulouse; which, when it declared his will valid in France, notwithstanding the rigour of the laws, expressly said, “that such a man could not be considered as a foreigner.”

The opinion of Voltaire, however, which we have preserved (as we have done the article of Bayle nearly as it stood in our last edition), must not be allowed much weight in a question where religion or morals are concerned. Bayle has been hailed as one of those who introduced the spirit of free inquiry; and while this merit maybe allowed him, we may add that he has exhibited in his own person, the consequences of pushing free inquiry beyond all reasonable and necessary bounds. But it would have been more just to have said that he was one of those who have conducted an opposition to the truths of revealed religion by the means of sarcasm and impertinence, instead of fair argument; and except the French Encyclopedic, there is not perhaps any book so likely to unsettle the minds of young readers as his celebrated Dictionary. Nor is this the only objection that may be urged against it. Bayle has been praised for his morality in private life; but what are we to think of the morals of a man, who not only taken every opportunity that may lay in his way to introduce obscene discussions, quotations, and allusions, but even perpetually travels out of his way in search of them, who delights in accumulating the anecdotes and imagery of vice, and presenting them to his readers in every shape? Considered in a critical light, this Dictionary may be allowed to form avast mass of information, but the plan is radically bad. It has been said that he wrote it merely for the sake of the notes, which had accumulated in his common-place book: hence the text bears a very small proportion to the notes suspended from it, and the reader’s attention is perpetually diverted from the narrative to attend, not always to what may throw light on the object of the text, but to Mr. Bayle’s tattle and gossip collected from various quarters, and from his own prolific and prurient imaginations It is much to be regretted that his reputation was such as to render this mode of writing Biography a fashion, and particularly that it was followed in our Biographia Britannica, in many parts of which Bayle’s garrulity has been exactly followed. With respect to Bayle’s other works, a reference for their titles to Niceron may he sufficient. They are now in little repute, and his fame must principally stand or fall on the merits of his Dictionary.

, one of the physicians to the king of Prussia, and member of the colleges of physicians of London and Edinburgh, was author of “An essay on the BathWaters, 1757;” “A narrative of facts demonstrating the existence and cause of a Physical Confederacy, made known in the printed letters of Dr. Lucas and Dr. Oliver, 1757,” and “An historical account of the General Hospital or Infirmary in the city of Bath,” 1758, all which excited a contest between him and his medical brethren, who seemed to have the public on their side, and he was excluded from consultations at Bath, where as well as in London he formerly practised physic. It is related of him that when he was first introduced to the late king of Prussia, to whom much had been said of his medical skill, the king observed to him, “That to have acquired so much experience, he must necessarily have killed a great many people.” To which the doctor replied, “Pas tant que vatre majeste,” “Not so many as your majesty.” He died in 1787 at Berlin, and left his library and medals to the king of Prussia, in the service of which court he had lived for many years. It was at the German Spa where his talents were first noticed. Previously to his going abroad he is said to have lived in a very splendid manner at Evesham in Worcestershire, and was once a candidate for a seat in the British parliament, but without success.

, an English prelate, was born at Caermarthen in Whales, and educated at the university of Oxford; but in what college, or what degrees he took is uncertain. We find only that he was admitted, as a member of Exeter college, to be reader of the sentences in 1611; about which time he was minister of Evesham in Worcestershire, chaplain to prince Henry, and rector of St. Matthew’s, Friday-street, in London. Two years after he took his degrees in divinity; and being very much celebrated for his talent in preaching, was appointed one of the chaplains to king James I. who nominated him to the bishopric of Bangor in the room of Dr. H. Rowlands, in which see he was consecrated at Lambeth, Dec. 8, 1616. On the 15th of July 1621, he was committed to the Fleet, but was soon after discharged. It is not certain what was the reason of his commitment, unless, as Mr. Wood observes, it was on account of prince Charles’s intended marriage with the Infanta of Spain. He died in the beginning of 1632, and was interred in the church of Bangor. His fame rests chiefly on his work entitled “The practice of Piety,” of which there have been a prodigious number of editions in 12mo and 8vo, that of 1735 being the fifty-ninth. It was also translated into Welsh and French in 1633, and such was its reputation, that John D'Espagne, a French writer, and preacher at Somerset-house chapel in 1656, complained, that the generality of the common people paid too great a regard to it, and considered the authority of it as almost equal to that of the Sqriptures. This book was the substance of several sermons, which Dr. Bayly preached while he was minister of Evesham. But Lewis du Moulin, who was remarkable for taking all opportunities of reflecting upon the bishops and church of England, in his “Patronus Bonce Fidei, &c.” published in 8vo, 1672, asserts, that “this book was written by a Puritan minister, and that a bishop, whose life was not very chaste and regular, after the author’s death, bargained with his widow for the copy, which he received, but never paid her the money; that he afterwards interpolated it in some places, and published it as his own.” It is not very probable, however, that a man “whose life was not very chaste and regular,” should have been anxious to publish a work of this description; but Dr. Kennet, in his Register, has very clearly proved that bishop Bayly was the real author.

, the fourth and youngest son of bishop Bayly, was educated at Cambridge, and having commenced B. A. was presented to the subdeanery of Wells by Charles I. in 1638. In 1644, he retired with other loyalists to Oxford, where, proceeding in his degrees he was created D. D. and two years after wle find him with the marquis of Worcester, in Ragland castle, after the battle of Naseby. When this was surrendered to the parliament army, on which occasion he was employed to draw up the articles, he travelled into France and other countries; but returned the year after the king’s death, and published at London, in 8vo, a book, entitled “Certamen Religiosum, or a conference between king Charles I. and Henry late marquis of Worcester, concerning religion, in Ragland castle, anno 1646.” But this conference was believed to have no real foundation, and considered as nothing else than a prelude to the declaring of himself a papist. The same year, 1649, he published “The Royal Charter granted unto kings by God himself, &c. to which is added, a treatise, wherein is proved, that episcopacy is jure dvvino” 8vo. These writings giving offence, occasioned him to be committed to Newgate whence escaping, he re^ tired to Holland, and became a zealous Roman catholic. During his confinement in Newgate, he wrote a piece entitled, “Herba Parietis, or the wall-flower, as it grows out of the stone-chamber belonging to the metropolitan prison; being an history, which is partly true, partly romantic, morally divine; whereby a marriage between reality and fancy is solemnized by divinity,” Lond. 1650, in a thin folio. Some time after, he left Holland, and settled at Douay where he published another book, entitled “The end to controversy between the Roman catholic and Protestant religions, justified by all the several manner of ways, whereby all kinds of controversies, of what nature soever, are usually or can possibly be determined,” Douay, 1654, 4to, and afterwards “Dr. Bayly’s Challenge.” At last this singular person went to Italy, where he lived and died extremely poor (although Dodd says that he died in cardinal Ottoboni’s family) for Dr. Trevor, fellow of Merton college, who was in Italy in 1659, told Mr. Wood several times, that Dr. Bayly died obscurely in an hospital, and that he had seen the place where he was buried.

, was born in April 1758, at Middleham, in Yorkshire where his father, who afterwards retired from business, then followed the profession of the Jaw. Mr. Baynes received his education at Richmond, under the rev. Mr. A. Temple, author of three discourses, printed in 1772; of “Remarks on the Layman’s Scriptural Confutation; and letters to the rev. Thomas Randolph, D. D. containing a defence of Remarks on the Layman’s Scriptural Confutation,” 1779, 8vo. At school he soon distinguished himself by his superior talents and learning, and by the age of fourteen years was capable of reading and understanding the Greek classics. From Richmond he was sent to Trinity college, Cambridge; where, before he had arrived at the age of twenty years, he obtained the medals given for the best performances in classical and mathematical learning. In 1777 he took the degree of B. A.; and determining to apply himself to the study of the law, he about 1778, or 1779, became a pupil to Alien Chambre, esq. and entered himself of the society of Gray’s-inn. In 1780 he took the degree of M. A. and about the same time was chosen fellow of the college. From this period he chiefly resided in London, and, warmed with the principles of liberty, joined those who were clamorous in calling for reformation in the state. He was a member of the constitutional society, and took a very active part at the meeting at York, in December, 1779. In his political creed he entertained 'the same sentiments with his friend Dr. Jebb; and, like him, without hesitation renounced those of his party whom he considered to have disgraced themselves by the unnatural coa^ lition between lord North and Mr. Fox. We are told, however, that if the warmth of his political pursuits was not at all times under the guidance of discretion, he never acted but from the strictest principles of integrity. He had a very happy talent for poetry, which by many will be thought to have been misapplied, when devoted as it was, to the purposes of party. He wrote many occasional pieces in the newspapers, particularly in the London Courant, but was very careful to conceal himself as the writer of verses, which he thought would have an ill effect on him in his profession, a species of caution not much calculated to prove that independence of spirit for which men of his stamp contend. There is great reason to believe that he wrote the celebrated Archaeological epistle to Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter. It is certain this excellent performance was transmitted to the press through his hands; and it is more than probable, that the same reason which occasioned him to decline the credit of his other poetical performances, influenced him to relinquish the honour of this. It is a fact, however, which should not be suppressed, that he always disclaimed being the author of this poem; and when once pressed on the subject by a friend, he desired him to remember when it should be no longer a secret, that he then disowned it. Mr. Baynes had many friends, to whom he was sincerely attached, and by whom he was greatly beloved. Scarce any man, indeed, had so few enemies. Even politics, that fatal disuniter of friendships, lost its usual effect with him. As he felt no rancour towards those from whom he differed, so he experienced no malignity in return. What he conceived to be right, neither power nor interest could deter him from asserting. In the autumn before his death, when he apprehended the election for fellows of Trinity college to be irregularly conducted, he boldly, though respectfully, with others of the society, represented the abuse to the heads of the college; and when, instead of the expected reform, an admonition was given to the remonstrants, to behave with more respect to their superiors, conscious of the rectitude of their intentions, he made no scruple of referring the conduct of himself and his friends to a higher tribunal, but the matter was not decided before his death. It was his intention to publish a more correct edition of lord Coke’s tracts; and we are informed he left the work nearly completed. His death is supposed to have been occasioned by an intense application to business, which brought on a putrid fever, of which he died, universally lamented, August 3, 1787, after eight days illness. In the ensuing week he was buried near the remains of his friend Dr. Jebb, privately, in Bunhill-fields burying-ground.

, an Italian physician, of great reputation in his day, charitably attentive to the wants of the poor, and so successful in his practice, as to be often consulted by princes and men of rank, who munificently rewarded his services, was born at Turin, about the year 1478, and became first physician to Charles II. (or according to Dict. Hist. Charles III.) duke of Savoy. He died April 1, 1558. His works are: 1. “De pestilentia ej usque curatione per preservationum et curationum regimen,” Turin, 1507, 4to, Paris, 1513, 8vo. 2. “Lexipyretae perpetuae questionis et annexorum solutio, de nobilitate facultatum per terminos utriusque facultatis,” Turin, 1512, fol. 3. “De medendis humani corporis mahs Enchyridion, quod vulgo Vade-mecum vocant,” Basil," 1563, and often reprinted.

, an English writer, was a wine merchant at Wrexham, in Denbighshire, a man of learning, great humanity, of an easy fortune, and much respected. He published in 1737, “Eugenio, or virtuous and happy life,” 4to, a poem inscribed to Pope, and by no means destitute of poetical merit. He submitted it in manuscript to Swift, who wrote him a long and very candid letter, now printed in his works, and Mr. Beach adopted Swift’s corrections. He is said to have entertained very blameable notions in religion, but his friends endeavoured to vindicate him from this charge, when his death took place, May 17, 1737, precipitated by his own hand.

, one of the English reformers, was a native of Norfolk, or Suffolk, and educated at Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1530. He was presented on May 24, 1547, to the rectory of St. Stephen Walbrook, ol which he was deprived in 1554, and imprisoned twice in queen Mary’s time, but escaped to Marpurg. From Strasburgh, in the same year, we find him addressing an “Epistle to the Faithful in England,” exhorting them to patient perseverance in the truth. After queen Mary’s death, he returned to England, and in 1560 was preferred to the rectory of Buckland, in Hertfordshire, and in 1563 to that of St. Dionis Backchurch, in London. He was also a prebend of the fourth stall in Canterbury cathedral, and had been, in Cranmer’s time, chaplain to that celebrated prelate. Tanner’s account of his promotions is somewhat different. We learn from Strype, in his life of Grindall, that he objected at first, but afterwards conformed to the clerical dress, some articles of which at that time were much scrupled by the reformers who had lived abroad. He died at Canterbury, about 1570, in his sixtieth year. In the Heerologia, a work not much to be depended on, it is said that he was professor of divinity at Oxford, an assertion contrary to all other authority. He wrote:

I. “Counts Dominica et Missse Papistical comparatio,” Basil, 1559, 8vo. 2. “Various treatises,” fol. printed by Day, 1560. 3. “The Acts of Christe and Antichriste,” Lond. 1577, 12mo. 4. “The reliques of Rome,” by Day, 1563, 16mo. On the opposite side to the title is the head of the author, with the inscription, “Ætatis suae 41, 1553,” which makes the time of his birth 1512; and at the time of his persecution in 1541, he must have been about twenty-nine years of age. 5. “Postills upon the sundry Gospels,” Lond. 4to, 1566. 6. “His works,” Lond. 1564, 2 vols. 7. “The Sick man’s salve, or directions in sickness, and how to dye,” Edin. 1613, 8vo. It has been said that he was the first Englishman that wrote against bowing at the name of Jesus, but no such work is enumerated in the list of his writings.

, a portrait-painter in the reign of Charles II. was daughter of Mr. Cradock, minister of Walton upon Thames, but was born in Suffolk in 1632. She was assiduous in copying the works of sir Peter Lely and Vandyke. She painted? in oil, water-colours, and crayons; and had much business. The author of the essay towards an English school of Painters, annexed to De Piles’s art of Painting, says, that “she was little inferior to any of her contemporaries, either for colouring, strength, force, or life; insomuch that sir Peter was greatly taken with her performances, as he would often acknowledge. She worked with a wonderful body of colours, and was exceedingly industrious.” She was greatly respected and encouraged by many of the most eminent among the clergy of that time; she took the portraits of Tillotson, Stillingfleet, Patrick, Wilkins, &c. some of which are still remaining at the earl of Ilchester’s, at Melbury, in Dorsetshire. In the manuscripts of Mr. Oldys, she is celebrated for her poetry as well as for her painting; and is styled “that masculine poet, as well as painter, the incomparable Mrs. Beale.” In Dr. S. Woodford’s translation of the Psalms, are two or three versions of particular psalms, by Mrs. Beale: whom, in his preface, he calls “an absolutely complete gentlewoman r” He says farther, “I have hardly obtained leave to honour this volume of mine with two or three versions, long since done by the truly virtuous Mrs. Mary Beale; among whose least accomplishments it is, that she has made painting and poetry, which in the fancies of others had only before a kind of likeness, in her own to be really the same. The reader, I hope, will pardon this public acknowledgement, which I make to so deserving a person.” She died Dec. 28, 1697, in her 66th year. She had two sons, who both exercised the art of painting some little time; one of them afterwards studied physic under Dr. Sydenham, and practised at Coventry, where he and his father died. There is an engraving, by Chambers, from a painting by herself, of Mrs. Beale, in Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting in England.

, or Belus, who was the eldest sou of Robert Beale, a descendant from the family of Beale, of Woodbridge, in Suffolk, appears to have been educated to the profession of the civil and canon law. He was an exile on account of religion, in queen Mary’s days, but some time after his return, married Editha, daughter of Henry St. Barbe, of Somersetshire, and sister to the lady of sir Francis Walsingham, under whose patronage he first appeared at court. In 1571 he was secretary to sir Francis when sent ambassador to France, and himself was sent in the same character, in 1576, to the prince of Orange. Heylin and Fuller inform us that he was a great favourer of the Puritans, and wrote in defence of their principles. About the year 1564 he wrote in defence of the validity of the marriage between the earl of Hertford and lady Catherine Grey, and against the sentence of the delegates, which sentence was also opposed by the civilians of Spire, and of Paris, whom Beale had consulted. Strype, in his life of Parker, mentions his “Discourse concerning the Parisian massacre by way of letter to the lord Burghley.” His most considerable work, however, is a collection of some of the Spanish historians, under the title “Rerum Hispanicarum Scriptores,” Francf. 1579, 2 vdls. fol. He was by the interest of Walsingham appointed secretary for the northern parts, and a clerk of the privy council. Camden seems to think that his attachment to Puritanism made him be chosen to convey to Fotheringay the warrant for heheading Mary queen of Scots, which he read on the scaffold, and was a witness of its execution. He was also one of the commissioners at the treaty of Bologne, the year before his death, which event happened May 25, 1601, at Barnes, in Surrey. He was interred in the parish church of Allhallows, London Wall.

, an English actor and singer, born in 1717, was bred up in the king’s chapel, and was one of the singers in the duke of Chandos’s chapel at Cannons, where he performed in Esther, an oratorio composed by Mr. Handel. He appeared the first time on the stage at Drury-lane, Aug. 30, 1737, in sir John Loverule, in the “Devil to Pay.” He afterwards, on the 8th of Jan. 1739, married lady Henrietta Herbert, daughter of J&mes earl Waldegrave, and widow of lord Edward Herbert, second son of the marquis of Powis. She died 31st of May 1753. On his marriage he quitted the stage for a few years. He afterwards returned to Drury-lane, and in 1744 to Coventgarden, where he remained until 1758. In that year he engaged with Mr. Garrick, and continued with him until 1759, when having married a daughter of Mr. Rich, he was engaged at Covent-garden, where, on the death of that gentleman, he became manager. His first appearance there was on the 10th of Oct. 1759, in the character of Macheath, which, aided by Miss Brent in Polly, ran fifty-two nights. In 1768 he retired from the theatre, and died universally respected at the age of seventy-four, in 1791. His remains were deposited in the vault of the church at Hampton in Middlesex. He was long the deserved favourite of the public; and whoever remembers the variety of his abilities, as actor and singer, in oratorios and operas, both serious and comic, win 1 testify to his having stood unrivalled in fame and excellence. This praise, however, great as it -was, fell short of what his private merits acquired. He had one of the sincerest hearts joined to the most polished manners. He was a most delightful companion, whether as host or guest. His time, his pen, and purse, were devoted to the alleviation of every distress that fell within the compass of his power, and through life he fulfilled the relative duties of son, brother, guardian, friend, and husband, with the most exemplary truth and tenderness.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in Scotland, and cardinal of the Roman church, was born 1494, and educated in the university of St. Andrew’s. He was afterwards sent over to the university of Paris, where he studied divinity; and when he attained a proper age, entered into orders. In 1519 he was appointed resident at the court of France; about the same time his uncle James Beaton, archbishop of Glasgow, conferred upon him the rectory of Campsay; and in 1523 this uncle, being then archbishop of St. Andrew’s, gave him the abbacy of Aberbrothock, or Arbroath. David returned to Scotland in 1525, and in 1528 was made lord privy seal. In 1533 he was sent again to France, in con-­junction with sir Thomas Erskine, to confirm the leagues subsisting between the two kingdoms, and to bring about a marriage for king James V. with Magdalene, daughter of the king of France; but the princess being in a very bad state of health, the marriage could not then take effect. During his residence, however, at the French court, he received many favours from his Christian majesty. King James having gone over to France, had the princess Magdalene given him in person, whom he espoused on the first of January 1537. Beaton returned to Scotland with their majesties, where they arrived the 29th of May; but the death of the queen happening the July following, he was sent over again to Paris, to negotiate a second marriage for the king with the lady Mary, daughter to the duke of Guise and during his stay at the court of France, he was consecrated bishop of Mirepoix. All things being settled in regard to the marriage, in the month of June, he embarked with the new queen for Scotland, where they arrived in July: the nuptials were celebrated at St. Andrew’s, and the February following the coronation was performed with great splendour and magnificence in the abbey church of Holyrood -house.

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.

We shall add Dr. Robertson’s character of our prelate, when he mentions his pretensions to the regency. “The cardinal was by nature of immoderate ambition; by long experience he had acquired address and refinement; and insolence grew upon him from continual success. His high station in the Church placed him in the way of great employments; his abilities were equal to the greatest of these; nor did he reckon any of them to be above his merit. As his own eminence was founded upon the power of the Church of Rome, he was a zealous defender of that superstition, and for the same reason an avowed enemy to the doctrine of the reformers. Political motives alone determined him to support the one or to oppose the other. His early application to public business kept him unacquainted with the learning and controversies of the age: He gave judgment, however, upon all points in dispute, with a precipitancy, violence, and rigour, which contemporary historians mention with indignation.” Cardinal Beaton wrote, if we may depend upon Dempster, “Memoirs of his own Embassies;” “a treatise of Peter’s primacy,” which had been seen by William Barclay, and “Letters to several persons:” Of these last there are still some copies, said to be preserved in the library of the French king.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in the reign of James V. was uncle to the preceding. We have no certain account of his birth, or of the manner of his education, except that, being a younger brother, he was from his infancy destined for the church. He had great natural talents, and having improved them by the acquisition of the learning fashionable in those times, he came early into the world, under the title of Provost of Both well; a preferment given him through the interest of his family. He received his first benefice in 1503, and next year was advanced to the rich preferment of abbot of Dumferling. In 1505, upon the death of sir David Beaton, his brother, his majesty honoured him with the staff of high-treasurer, and he was thenceforward considered as one of the principal statesmen. In 1508 he was promoted to the hishopric of Galloway, and before he had sat a full year in that cathedral chair, he was removed to the archiepiscopal see of Glasgow, on which he resigned the treasurer’s staff, in order to be more at leisure to mind the government of his diocese: and indeed it is universally acknowledged, that none mflffe carefully attended the duties of his functions than archbishop Beaton while he continued at Glasgow; and he has left there such marks of concern for that church, as have baffled time, and the rage of a distracted populace: the monuments of his piety and public spirit which he raised at Glasgow, still remaining to justify this part of his character. It does not appear that he had any hand in the counsels which drove king James IV. into a fatal war with England. On the death of this monarch in the battle of Flodden-field, the regent John duke of Albany appointed our prelate to be high-chancellor. In 1523 he became archbishop of St. Andrew’s, not only by the favour of the regent, but with the full consent of the young king, who was then, and all his life, much under the influence of the archbishop’s nephew David, the subject of the preceding article. The power of the regent, “however, being abrogated by parliament, and the earl of Angus haying placed himself at the head of government, our archbishop was dismissed the court, and obliged to resign the office of chancellor; but when the Douglases were driven from court, and the king recovered his freedom, the archbishop came again into power, although he did not recover the office of chancellor. He now resided principally at the palace of St. Andrew’s, and, as some say, at the instigation of his nephew, the cardinal, proceeded with great violence against the protestants, and is particularly accountable for the death of Patrick Hamilton, the protomartyr of Scotland, a young man of piety, talents, and high birth, whom he procured to be burnt to death, although it is but justice to add that the same sentence was subscribed by the other archbishop, three bishops, six abbots and friars, and eight divines. He is even said to have had some degree of aversion to such proceedings. The clergy, however, were for stopping the mouths of such as preached what they disliked, in the same manner as they had done Hamilton’s. The archbishop moved but heavily in these kind of proceedings; and there are two very remarkable stories recorded to have happened about this time, which very plainly shew he was far enough from being naturally inclined to such severities. It happened at one qf their consultations, that some who were most vehement pressed for going on with the proceedings in the Archbishop’s court, when one Mr. John Lind$ey, a man in great credit with the archbishop, delivered himself to this purpose” If you burn any more of them, take my advice, and burn them in cellars, for I dare assure you, that the smoke of Mr. Patrick Hamilton has infected all that it blew upon.“The other was of a more serious nature; one Alexander Seton, a black friar, preached openly in the church of St. Andrew’s, that, according to St. Paul’s description of bishops, there were no bishops in Scotland, which being reported to the archbishop, not in very precise terms, he sent for Mr. Seton, and reproved him sharply for having said, according to his information,” That a bishop who did not preach was but a dumb dog, who feel not the flock, but fed his own belly.“Mr. Seton said, that tho.se vvho had reported this were liars, upon which witnesses were produced, who testified very positively to the fact. Mr. Seton, by way of reply, delivered himself thus:” My lord, you have heard, and may consider, what ears these asses have, who cannot discern between Paul, Isaiah, Zachariah, Malachi, and friar Alexander Seton. In truth, my lord, I did preach that Paul saith, it hehoveth a bishop to be a teacher. Isaiah saith, that they that feed not the flock are dumb dogs; and the prophet Zachariah saith, that they are idle pastors. Of my own head I affirmed nothing, but declared what the Spirit of God before pronounced; at whom, my lord, t if you be not offended, you cannot justly be offended with me.“How much soever the bishop might be incensed, he dismissed friar Seton without hurt, who soon afterwards fled out of the kingdom. It does not appear, that from this time the archbishop acted much in these measures himself, but chose rather to grant commissions to others that were inclined to proceed against such as preached the doctrines of the reformation, a conduct which seems very fully to justify the remark of archbishop Spotswood upon our prelate’s behaviour.” Seventeen years,“says he,” he lived bishop of this see, and was herein most unfortunate, that under the shadow of his authority many good men were put to death for the cause of religion, though he himself was neither violently set, nor much solicitous (as it was thought) how matters went in the church."

, another nephew of the preceding, and archbishop of Glasgow, was educated chiefly at Paris, and was early employed in political affairs but we have no account of the various steps by which he arrived at the archbishopric of Glasgow, to which he was consecrated in 1552, as some writers report, at Rome, whither he was very probably sent, to lay before the pope an acco.unt of the ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland after the murder of his uncle. He was, however, no sooner advanced to this dignity than he began to be considered as one of the ablest as well as most powerful persons in the kingdom. In 1557, he was one of the commissioners appointed to witness the marriage of the young queen Mary to the dauphin of France, a commission to which the historians of the ti-ue affix great importance. After his return, he acted as a privy-counsellor to the queen dowager, who was appointed by her daughter regent of Scotland, and laboured, although in vain, to preserve internal peace. When the reformers became powerful enough to make a successful stand against the court, our archbishop retired to France, carrying with him the treasures and records or' the archiepiscopal see, and carefully deposited them in the Scots college in Paris. On his arrival in France, he was extremely well received by queen Mary, then sovereign of that country, and by the court of France. Immediately after his departure, the reformers in Scotland appointed a preacher at Glasgow, seized all the revenues of the archbishopric, and would no doubt have proceeded against his person had he appeared.