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

When it was found that he could not return in safety, Mary, now a widow, and inclined to visit her hereditary dominions, determined to secure his services and residence in France, by making him her ambassador to the French, court, which she first declared in 1561, and confirmed in 1564. Under this commission he acted as long as he lived, and the papers and letters he preserved would have no doubt formed valuable materials for future historians; but there is reason to think the greater part have been taken away or destroyed. While he remained at Paris, a? ambassador of Scotland, he received very little, if any thing, from thence: for we find Mr. James Boyd appointed superintenclant of that diocese after the death of Mr. Willock; and upon the death of Mr. Boyd in 1578, it was bestowed on Mr. Robert Montgomery, who, in 1587 resigned it to Mr. Erskine, by whom the best part of the revenues of tue see were granted away to t <e family of Lenox. But not long after, king James VI. becoming of age, and having a full account of our author’s fidelity to his mother, restored him both to the title and estate of his archbishopric, of which he had been so long deprived. Before this, however, he had obtained several ecclesiastical preferments in. France, for the support of his dignity, which he enjoyed as long as he lived, king James continuing him there as his ambassador, to whom he rendered many important services. He was universally and deservedly esteemed for his learning, loyalty, and hearty affection to his country. He was uniform in his conduct, sincere in his religion, and unb tameable in his morals, and lived in credit abroad, beloved and admired by all parties, and left his memory unstained to posterity. He died April 24, 1603, aged eighty-six, and was succeeded in his see by the celebrated Spotswood, Archbishop Beaton is said, by Dempster, to have written, 1. “A Commentary on the book of Kings.” 2. “A Lamentation for the kingdom of Scotland.” 3. “A book of Controversies against the Sectaries.” 4. “Observations upon Gratian’s Decretals” and 5. “A collection of Scotch proverbs.” None of these have been printed.

At this school he made great proficiency by unremitting diligence, and appeared to much advantage on his entering Marischal college, Aberdeen, in 1749, where he obtained the first of those bursaries or exhibitions which were left for the use of students whose parents are unable to support the entire expences of academical education. Here he first studied Greek, under principal Thomas Blackwell, author of the “Inquiry into the Life and Writings of Homer,” &c. who with much of the austerity of pedantry, was kind to his diligent scholars, and found in Mr. Beattie a disposition worthy of cultivation and of patronage. In the following year he bestowed on him the premium for the best Greek analysis, which happened to be part of the fourth book of the Odyssey, and at the close of the session 1749-50, he gave him a book elegantly bound, with the following inscription: "Jacobo Beattie, in prima classe, ex comitatu Mernensi, post examen publicum librum hunc a^rewovl*, præmium dedit T. Blackwell, Aprilis 3° MDCCL.“The other professor, with whom Mr. Beattie was particularly connected, was the late Dr. Alexander Gerard, author of” The genius and evidences of Christianity;“” Essays on Taste and Genius" and other works. Under these gentlemen our author’s proficiency, both at college and during the vacations, was very exemplary, and he accumulated a much more various stock of general knowledge than is usual with young men whose ultimate destination is the church. The delicacy of his health requiring amusement, he found, as he supposed, all that amusement can give, in cultivating his musical talents, which were very considerable.

The only science in which he made no extraordinary proficiency, was mathematics, in which although he performed the requisite tasks, he was eager to return to subjects of taste or general literature. In every other branch of academical study, he never was satisfied with what he learned within the walls of the college. His private reading was extensive and various, and he became insensibly partial to the cultivation of those branches on which his future celebrity was to depend.

The praise bestowed on this volume was very flattering. The English critics, who then bestowed the rewards of literature, considered it as an acquisition to the republic of letters, and pronounced that since Mr. Gray (whom in their opinion Mr. Bealtie had chosen for his model) they had not met with a poet of more harmonious numbers, more pleasing imagination, or more spirited expression. But notwithstanding praises which so evidently tended to give a currency to the poems, and which were probably repeated with eagerness by the friends who had encouraged the lication, the author, upon more serious consideration, was so dissatisfied with this volume as to destroy every copy he could procure, and some years after, when his taste and judgment hecame fully matured, he refused to acknowledge above four of them, namely, Retirement, ode to Hope, elegy on a Lady, and the Hares, and these he almost rewrote before he would permit them to be printed with the Minstrel.

But notwithstanding the lowly opinion of the author, these poems contributed so much to the general reputation he had acquired, that he was considered as deserving of a higher rank. Accordingly a vacancy happening in Marischal college, his friends made such earnest applications in his behalf, that in September 1760 he was appointed, by his late majesty’s patent, professor of philosophy. His department in this honourable office extended to moral philosophy and logic; and such was his diligence, and such his love of these studies, that within a few years he was not only enabled to deliver an admirable course of lectures on moral philosophy and logic, but also to prepare for the press those works on which his fame rests; all of which, there is some reason to think, were written, or nearly written, before he gave the world the result of his philosophical studies in the celebrated " Essay on Truth.' 7 It may be added, likewise, that the rank he had now attained in the university entitled him to associate more upon a level with Reid and with Campbell, with Gerard and with Gregory, men whose opinions were in many points congenial, and who have all been hailed, by the sister country, among the revivers of Scotch literature. With these gentlemen and a few others, he formed a society or club for the discussion of literary and philosophical subjects. A part of their entertainment was the reading a short essay, composed by each member in his turn. It is supposed that the works of Reid, Campbell, Beattie, Gregory, and Gerard, or at least the outlines of them, were first discussed in this society, either in the foYm of essay, or of a question for familiar conversation.

In 1765, Mr. Beattie published “The Judgment of Paris,” a poem, in 4to. Its design was to prove that virtue alone is capable of affording a gratification adequate to our whole nature, the pursuits of ambition or sensuality promising only partial happiness, as being adapted not to our whole constitution, but only to a part of it. So simple a position seems to require the graces of poetry to set it off. The reception of this poem, however, was unfavourable, and although he added it to a new edition of his poems, in 1766, yet it was never again reprinted, and even his biographer has declined reviving its memory by an extract. To this edition of 1766 he added a poem “On the talk of erecting a Monument to Churchill in Westminster-hall,” which, sir William Forbes says, was first published separately, and without a name. That it was printed separately we are informed on undoubted authority, but we question if it was ever published for sale unless in the above-mentioned edition of his poems. The asperity with which these lines are marked induced his biographer, contrary to his first intention, to omit them, but they are added to his other poems, in the late edition of “English Poets.”

Although Mr. Beattie had now acquired a station in which his talents were displayed with great advantage, and commanded a very high degree of respect, the publication of the “Essay on Truth” was the great era of his life; for this work carried his fame far beyond all local bounds and local partialities. It is not, however, necessary to enter minutely into the history of a work so well known. Its professed intention was to trace the several kinds of evidence and reasoning up to their first principles, with a view to ascertain the Standard of Truth, and explain its Immutability. He endeavours to show that his sentiments, however inconsistent with the genius of scepticism, and with the practice and principles of sceptical writers, were yet perfectly consistent with the genius of true philosophy, and with the practice and principles of those whom all acknowledge to have been the most successful in the investigation of truth; and he concludes with some inferences or rules, by which the most important fallacies of the sceptical philosophy may be detected by every person of common sense, even though he should not possess acuteness of metaphysical Itnowledge sufficient to qualify him for a logical confutation of them.

Soon after this visit to London he was solicited by a very flattering proposal sent through the hands of Dr. Porteus, late bishop of London, to enter into the church of England. A similar offer had been made some time before by the archbishop of York, but declined. It was now renewed with more importunity, and produced from him the important reasons which obliged him still to decline an offer which he could not but consider as “great and generous.” By these reasons, communicated in a letter to Dr. Porteus, we find that he was apprehensive of the injury that might be done to the cause he had espoused, if his enemies should have any ground for asserting that he had written his Essay on Trutn, with a view to promotion: and he was likewise of opinion, that it might have the appearance of levity and insincerity, and even of want of principle, were he to quit, without any other apparent motive than that of bettering his circumstances, the church of which he had hitherto been a member. Other reasons he assigned, on this occasion, of some, but less weight, all which prevailed on his friends to withdraw any farther solicitation, while they honoured the motives by which he was influenced. In the same year he refused the offer of a professor’s chair in the university of Edinburgh, considering his present situation as best adapted to his habits and to his usefulness, and apprehending that the formation of a new society of friends might not be so easy or agreeable in a place where theenemies of his principles were numerous. To some of his friends, however, these reasons did not appear very convincing.

Although Mr. Beattie had apparently withdrawn his claims as a poet, by cancelling as many copies of his juvenile attempts as he could procure, he was not so inconscious of his admirable talents, as to relinquish what was an early and favourite pursuit, and in which he had probably passed some of his most delightful hours. A few months ;;fter the appearance of the “Essay on Truth,” he published the “First Book of the Minstrel,” in 4to, but without his name. By this omission, the poem was examined with all that rigour of criticism which may be expected in the case of a work, for which the author’s name can neither afford protection or apology. He was accordingly praised for having adopted the measure of Spenser, because he had the happy enthusiasm of that writer to support and render it agreeable; but objections were made to the limitation of his plan to the profession of the Minstrel, when so much superior interest might be excited by carrying him on through the practice of it. These objections appear to have coincided with the author’s re-consideration; and he not only adopted various alterations recommended by his friends, particularly Mr. Gray, but introduced others, which made the subsequent editions of this poem far more perfect than the first.

For the frequent introduction of practical and serious observations, he offers a satisfactory reason in the preface to “Dissertations Moral and Critical, on Memory and Imagination; on Dreaming; the Theory of Language; on Fable and Romance; on the Attachments of Kindred; and Illustrations on Sublimity,” 1783, 4to. These, he informs us, were at first composed in a different form, being part of a course of prelections read to those young gentlemen whom it was his business to initiate in the elements of moral science; and he disclaims any nice metaphysical theories, or other matters of doubtful disputation, as not suiting his ideas of moral teaching. Nor was this the disgust of a metaphysician “retired from business.” He had ever been of the same opinion, Dr. Beattie’s aim was, indeed > in all his lectures, “to inure young minds to habits of attentive observation; to guard them against the influence of bad principles; and to set before them such views of nature, and such plain and practical truths, as may at once improve the heart and the understanding, and amuse and elevate the fancy*.”

During a visit to the metropolis in 1784, Dr. Beattie submitted to the late bishop of London, with whose friendship he had long been honoured, a part of a work which at that excellent prelate’s desire he published in 1786, entitled “Evidences of the Christian Religion briefly and plainly stated,” 2 vols. 12mo. This likewise formed part of his concluding lectures to his class, and he generally tlictated an abstract of it to them in the course of the session. From a work of this kind, and on a subject which had employed the pens of the greatest and best English writers, much novelty was not to be expected, nor in its original form was any novelty intended. It must be allowed, however, that he has placed many of the arguments for the evidences of Christianity in a very striking and persuasive light, and it is not too much to suppose that if he could have devoted more time and study to a complete review and arrangement of what had, or might be advanced on these evidences, he would have produced a work worthy of his genius, and worthy of the grandeur and importance of the subject.

* Cowper’s praise of this volume, ts his ease too, that his own character too valuable to be omitted “Beat-appears in every page, and, which it tie, the most agreeable and amiable very rare, we see not only the writer, writer 1 ever met with the only au-but the man and the man so gentle, thor I have seen whose critical and so well tempered, so happy in his rephilosophical researches are diversified ligion, and so humane in his philosoand embellished by a poetical imagi-phy, that it is necssary to love him if nation, that makes even the driest one has any sense of what is lovely.” subject, and the leanest, a feast for an Hayley’s Life of Cowper, vol. III. epicure in boks. He is Bo much at p. 247. to present to thd public, in a correct and somewhat enlarged form, the abstract which he used to dictate to his scholars. Accordingly, in 1790, he published “Elements of Moral Science,” vol. I. 8vo, including psychology, or perceptive faculties and active powers; and natural theology, with two appendices on the Incorporeal Nature and on the Immortality of the Soul. The second volume was published in 1793; containing ethics, economics, politics, and logic. All these subjects are necessarily treated in a summary manner; but it will be found sufficiently comprehensive, not only for a text-book, or book of elements, which was the professed intention of the author, but also as an excellent aid to the general reader who may not have an opportunity of attending regular lectures, and yet wishes to reap some of the advantages of regular education.

* About 1773 he printed a letter tained a few specimens of translations to Dr. Blair “On the improvement of of the Palms. He printed also some Psalmody in Scotland.” This was years after a list of ScuUicism-j, for the duly privately circulated. It con- use of his students. rector or head master of the grammar-school of Aberdeen, a man of great personal worth, and an excellent classical scholar.

Soon after the death of James Hay, his father drew up an account of his “Life and Character; to which were added,” Essays and Fragments,“written by this extraordinary youth. Of this volume a few copies only were printed, and were given as” presents to those friends with whom the author was particularly acquainted or connected." Dr. Beattie was afterwards induced to permit the Life and some of the Essays and Fragments to be printed for publication. The life is perhaps one of the most interesting and affecting narratives in our language.

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

, a French miscellaneous writer, was born at Paris in 1689, and died in that metropolis in 1761. He wrote, 1. “The Loves of Ismene & Isménias,” 1743, 8vo, a free translation of a Greek romance by Eustathius, or rather Eumathius, who must not be confounded with Eustathius the grammarian, and author of the commentary on Homer. It contains interesting adventures, in that species of epic poetry in prose which partakes at once of the tragic and comic vein. A beautiful edition of it was published at Paris in 1797, 4to, with illuminated prints. 2. “The loves of Rhodantes & Docicles,” another Greek romance by Theodorus Prodromus, translated into French, 1746, 12mo. 3. “Recherches sur les Theatres de France,” 1735, 4to, and 8vo, 3 vols. Beauchamps did not confine himself to the titles of the dramatical pieces: he has added particulars of the lives of some of the French comedians; but he has omitted a number of interesting anecdotes, with which he might have embellished his work. It were to be wished that he had developed the taste of the former ages of the French for dramatic representations, the art and the progress of tragedy and comedy from the time of Jodelle; the genius of the French poets, and their manner of imitating the ancients. But Beauchamps, in this work, is little more than a compiler, and that from well-known materials. 4. “Lettres d‘Heloise & d’Abailard,” in French verse, fluent enough, but prosaic, 1737, 8vo. 5. “Several theatrical performances.” 6. The romance of “FuDestine,” 1757.

, born at Paris in 1645, was the son of a player, and was considered as a poet when no more than eight years old. The queen, mother of Louis XIV. cardinal Mazarin, the chancellor Seguier, and the first personages of the court, took pleasure in conversing with this child, and in exercising his talents. He was only twelve years old when he published a collection of his poetical pieces, in 4to, under the title of “La Lyre de jeune Apollon,” or, “La Muse naissant du petit de Beauchateau,” with copper-plate portraits of the persons he celebrates. About two years afterwards he went over to England with an ecclesiastic. Cromwell and the most considerable persons of the then government admired the young poet. It is thought that he travelled afterwards into Persia, where perhaps he died, as no farther tidings were ever heard of him. He had a brother, Hypolite Chastelet de Beauchateau, an impostor, who pretended to abjure the Roman Catholic religion, and came over to England under the disguised name of Lusancy. Moreri and Anth. Wood in Ath. Ox. vol. II. give an account of this adventurer.

, otherwise named Bever, and in Latin Fiber, Fiberius, Castor, and Castorius, was a Benedictine monk in Westminster-abbey, and nourished about the beginning of the fourteenth century. He was a man of quick parts, and of great diligence and ingenuity: and applied himself particularly to the study of the history and antiquities of England. Among other things, he wrote a “Chronicle of the British and English Affairs,” from the coming in of Brute to his own time, now among the Cottonian Mss. Hearne issued proposals for publishing it in 1735, which his death prevented. He also wrote a book “De Rebus ccenobii Westmonasteriensis,” of Westminsterabbey, and the several transactions relating thereto. Leland commends him, as an historian of good credit; and he is also cited with respect by Stowe in his Survey of London and Westminster. Bale says he does not give a slight or superficial account, but a full and judicious relation, of things; and takes proper notice of the virtues and vices of the persons mentioned in his history.

, bishop of Winchester, and cardinal priest of the church of Rome, was the son of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, by his third wife, Catherine S win ford. He studied for some years both at Cambridge and at Oxford, in the latter in Queen’s college, and was afterwards a benefactor to University and Lincoln colleges, but he received the principal part of his education at Aix la Chapelle, where he was instructed in civil and common law. Being of royal extraction, he was very young when advanced to the prelacy, and was made bishop of Lincoln in 1397, by an arbitrary act of Boniface IX. John Beckingham, bishop of that see, being, contrary to his wishes, translated to Lichfield, to make room for Beaufort, but Beckingham, with becoming spirit, refused the proffered diocese, and chose to become a private monk of Canterbury. In 1399 Beaufort was chancellor of the university of Oxford, and at the same time dean of Wells. He was lord high chancellor of England in 1404, and in some years afterwards. The following year, upon the death of the celebrated Wykeham, he was, at the recommendation of the king, translated to the see of Winchester. In 1414, the second of his nephew Henry V. he went to France, as one of the royal ambassadors, to demand in marriage Catherine, daughter of Charles VI. In 1417 he lent the king twenty thousand pounds (a prodigious sum in those days), towards carrying on his expedition against France, but had the crown in pawn as a security for the money. This year also he took a journey to the Holy Land and in his way, being arrived at Constance, where a general council was held, he exhorted the prelates to union and agreement in the election of a pope; and his remonstrances contributed not a little to hasten the preparations for the conclave, in which Martin III. was elected. We have no farther account of what happened to our prelate in this expedition. In 1421, he had the honour to be godfather, jointly with John duke of Bedford, and Jacqueline, countess of Holland, to prince Henry, eldest son of his nephew Henry V. and Catherine of France, afterwards Henry VI. M. Aubery pretends, that James, king of Scots, who had been several years a prisoner in England, owed his deliverance to the bishop of Winchester, who prevailed with the government to set him free, on condition of his marrying his niece, the granddaughter of Thomas Beaufort, earl of Somerset. This prelate was one of king Henry Vlth’s guardians during his minority; and in 1424, the third of the young king’s reign, he was a fourth time lord-chancellor of England. There were perpetual jealousies and quarrels, the cause of which is not very clearly explained, between the bishop of Winchester, and the protector, Humphrey duke of Gloucester, which ended in the ruin and death of the latter. Their dissensions began to appear publicly in 1425, and to such a height, that Beaufort thought it necessary to write a letter to his nephew the duke of Bedford, regent of France, which is extant in Holinshed, desiring his presence in England, to accommodate matters between them. The regent accordingly arriving in England the 20th of December, was met by the bishop of Winchester with a numerous train, and soon after convoked an assembly of the nobility at St. Alban’s, to hear and determine the affair. But the animosity on this occasion was so great on both sides, that it was thought proper to refer the decision to the parliament, which was to be held at Leicester, March 25, following. The parliament being met, the duke of Gloucester produced six articles of accusation against the bishop, who answered them severally, and a committee appointed for the purpose, having examined the allegations, he was acquitted. The duke of Bedford, however, to give some satisfaction to the protector, took away the great seal from his uncle. Two years after, the duke of Bedford, returning into France, was accompanied to Calais by the bishop of Winchester, who, on the 25th of March, received there with great solemnity, in the church of Our Lady, the cardinal’s hat, with the title of St. Eusebius, sent him by pope Martin V. In September 1428, the new cardinal returned into England, with the character of the pope’s legate lately conferred on him; and in his way to London, he was met by the lord-mayor, aldermen, and the principal citizens on horseback, who conducted him with great honour and respect to his lodgings in Southwark; but he was forced, for the present, to wave his legatine power, being forbidden the exercise of it by a proclamation published in the king’s name. Cardinal Beaufort was appointed, by the pope’s bull, bearing date March 25, 1427-8, his holiness’s legate in Germany, and general of the crusade against the Hussites, or Heretics of Bohemia. Having communicated the pope’s intentions to the parliament, he obtained a grant of money, and a considerable body of forces, under certain restrictions; but just as he was preparing to embark, the duke of Bedford having sent to demand a supply of men for the French war, it was resolved in council, that cardinal Beaufort should serve under the regent, with the troops of the crusade, to the end of the month of December, on condition that they should not be employed in any siege. The cardinal complied, though not without reluctance, and accordingly joined the duke of Bedford at Paris. After a stay of forty-five days in France, he marched into Bohemia, where he conducted the crusade till he was recalled by the pope, and cardinal Julian sent in his place with a larger army. The next year, 1430, the cardinal accompanied king Henry into France, being invested with the title of the king’s principal counsellor, and bad the honour to perform the ceremony of crowning the young monarch irt the church of Notre Dame at Paris; where he had some dispute with James du Chastellier, the archbishop, who claimed the right of officiating on that occasion. During his stay in France he was present at the congress of Arras for concluding a peace between the kings of England and France, and had a conference for that purpose with the dutchess of Burgundy, between Calais and Gravelines, which had no effect, and was remarkable only for the cardinal’s magnificence, who came thither with a most splendid train. In the mean time the duke of Gloucester took advantage in England of the cardinal’s absence to give him fresh mortification. For, first, having represented to the council, that the bishop of Winchester intended to leave the king, and come back into England to resume his seat in council, in order to excite new troubles in the kingdom, and that his intentions were the more criminal, as he made use of the pope’s authority to free himself from the obligations of assisting the king in France; he procured an order of council forbidding all the king’s subjects, of what condition soever, to accompany the cardinal, if he should leave the king, without express permission. The next step the protector took against him, was an attempt to deprive him of his bishopric, as inconsistent with the dignity of cardinal; but the affair having been a long time debated in council, it was resolved that the cardinal should be heard, and the judges consulted, before any decision. Being returned into England, he thought it necessary to take some precaution against these repeated attacks, and prevailed with the king, through the' intercession of the commons, to grant him letters of pardon for all offences by him committed contrary to the statute of provisors, and other acts of prsemunire. This pardon is dated at Westminster, July 19, 1432. Five years after, he procured another pardon under the great-seal for all sorts of crimes whatever, from the creation of the world to the 26th of July 1437. Notwithstanding these precautions, the duke of Gloucester, in 1442, drew up articles of impeachment against the cardinal, and presented them with his own hands to the king, but the council appointed to examine them deferred their report so long that rhe protector discontinued the prosecution. The cardinal died June 14, 1447, having survived the duke of Gloucester not above a mouth, of whose murder he was suspected to have been one of the contrivers, and it is said that he expressed great uneasiness at the approach of death, and died in despair; but for this there does not appear much foundation, and we suspect the commonlyreceived character of Beaufort is mostly credited by those who have considered Shakspeare as an authentic historian. We rather agree with the historian of Winchester, that there is no solid ground for representing him as that ambitious, covetous, and reprobate character which Shakspeare has represented, and who has robbed his memory, in order to enrich that of his adversary, popularly termed the “good duke Humphrey” of Gloucester. Being involved in the vortex of worldly politics, it is true, that he gave too much scope to the passions of the great, and did not allow himself sufficient leisure to attend to the spiritual concerns of his diocese. He possessed, however, that munificent spirit, which has cast a lustre on the characters of many persons of past times, whom it would be difficult otherwise to present as objects of admiration. It he was rich, it must be admitted that he did not squander away his money upon unworthy pursuits, but chiefly employed it in the public service, to the great relief of the subjects, with whom, and with the commons’ house of parliament, he was popular. He employed his wealth also in finishing the magnificent cathedral of Winchester, which was left incomplete by his predecessor, in repairing Hyde-abbey, relieving prisoners, and other works of charity. But what, Dr. Milner says, has chiefly redeemed the injured character of cardinal Beaufort, in Winchester and its neighbourhood, is the new foundation which he made of the celebrated hospital of St. Cross. Far the greater part of the present building was raised by him, and he added to the establishment of his predecessor, Henry de Blois, funds for the support of thirty-five more brethren, two chaplains, and three women, who appear to have been hospital nuns. It appears also, says the same writer, that he prepared himself with resignation and contrition for his last end; and the collected, judicious, and pious dispositions made in his testament, the codicil of which was signed but two days before his dissolution, may justly bring into discredit the opinion that he died in despair. He was buried at Winchester in the most eleg-ant and finished chantry in the kingdom.

, the foundress of Christ’s and St. John’s colleges in Cambridge, was the only daughter and heir of John Beaufort, duke of Somerset (grandson of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster), and of Margaret Beauchamp his wife. She was born at Bletshoe in Bedfordshire) in 1441. About the fifteenth year of her age, being a rich heiress, the great duke of Suffolk, minister to Henry the Vlth. solicited her in marriage for his son; while the king wooed her for his half-brother Edmund, then earl of Richmond. On so nice a point the good young lady advised with an elder gentlewoman; who, thinking it too great a decision to take upon herself, recommended her to St. Nicholas, the patron of virgins. She followed her instructions, and poured forth her supplications and prayers with such effect, that one morning, whether sleeping or waking she could not tell, there appeared unto her somebody in the habit of a bishop, and desired she would accept of Edmund for her husband. Whereupon she married Edmund earl of Richmond; and by him had an only son, who was afterwards king Henry the VI 1th. Edmund died, Nov. 3, 1456, leaving Henry his son and heir but fifteen weeks old: after which Margaret married sir Henry Stafford, knight, second son to the duke of Buckingham, by whom she had no issue. Soon after the death of sir Henry Stafford, which happened about 1482, she was married again to Thomas lord Stanley, who was created earl of Derby, Oct. 27, 1485, which was the first year of her son’s reign; and this noble lord died also before her in 1504.

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

, a French dramatic writer of modern celebrity, was born at Paris, Jan. 24, 1732. His father was a watchmaker, and at the age of twenty-one himself invented an improvement in watchmaking, which being contested by an eminent artist, was decided in favour of young Beaumarchais by the academy of sciences. Being passionately fond of music, and especially of the harp, he introduced some improvements in this instrument, which, with his excellent performance, gained him admittance to Mesdames, the daughters of Louis XV. to give them lessons, and this was the origin of his fortune. He lost two wives successively, and then gained three considerable law-suits. The papers which he published concerning each of these causes, excited great attention. He had also an affair of honour with a duke, in consequence of which he was sent to Fort L‘Eve’que. He was afterwards employed in some political transactions by the ministers Maurepas and Vergennes. He supported the scheme for the caisse d'escompte, or bank of discount, which he vainly thought to have made a rival to that of England: but he was more successful, although after much opposition, in procuring the adoption of a scheme for a fire-pump to supply the city of Paris with water. A plan, also, concerning poor women, was executed at Lyons, and gained him the thanks of the merchants of that city. After the death of Voltaire, he purchased the whole of his manuscripts, and not being able to print them in France, established a press at Kell, where they were printed in a very magnificent manner with Baskerville’s types.

, a French writer of some note, was born at Valleraugues, in the diocese of Allais, in 1727, and died at Paris Nov. 1773. Being invited to Denmark as professor of the French belles-lettres, he opened this course of literature by a discourse that was printed in 1751, and well received. Having always lived in the south of France, a residence in the north could hardly agree with him, but he was held in such esteem, that he quitted Denmark with the title of privy-counsellor and a pension. Stopping at Berlin, he was desirous of forming an intimacy with Voltaire, with whose writings he was much captivated; but, both being of irritable and impetuous characters, they had no sooner seen each other than they quarrelled, without hope of reconciliation. The history of this quarrel, which gave rise to so many personalities and invectives, is characteristic of both parties. A reflection in a publication of la Beaumelle, entitled “Mes Pensees,” was the first cause of it. This work, very studiously composed, but written with too much boldness, procured the author many enemies; and, on his arrival at Paris in 1753, he was imprisoned in the Bastille. No sooner was he let out, than he published his “Memoirs of Main ­tenon,” which drew on him a fresh detention in that royal prison. La Beaumelle, having obtained his liberty, retired into the country, where he put in practice the lessons he had given to Voltaire, in the following letter: “Well, then, we are once more at liberty; let us revenge ourselves on these misfortunes by rendering them of use to us. Let us lay aside all those literary infirmities which have spread so many clouds over the course of your life, so much bitterness over my youthful years. A little more glory, a little more opulence: What does it all signify? Let us seek the reality of happiness, and not its shadow. The most shining reputation is never worth what it costs. Charles V. sighs after retirement; Ovid wishes to be a fool. We are once more free. I am out of the Bastille; you are no longer at court. Let us make the best use of a benefit that may be snatched from us at every moment. Let us entertain a distant respect for that greatness which is so dangerous to those that come near it, and that authority, so terrible even to them that exercise it; and, if it be true that we cannot venture to think without risk, let us think no more. Do the pleasur.es of reflection counterbalance those of safety? Let us be persuaded, you, after sixty years of experience; me, after six months of annihilation. Let us be wiser, or at least more prudent; and the wrinkles of age, and the remembrance of bolts and bars, those injuries of time and power, will prove real benefits to us.”

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

Their connection, from similarity of taste and studies, was very intimate, and it would appear, at one time, very Œconomical. Aubrey informs us, that “There was a wonderful consimility of fancy between Mr. Francis Beaumont and Mr. John Fletcher, which caused that dearness of friendship between them. I have heard Dr. John Earl, since bishop of Sarum, say, who knew them, that his (Beaumont’s) main business was to correct the super-overflowings of Mr. Fletcher’s wit. They lived together on the Bankside, not far from the play-iiouse, both bachelors; had one bench in the house between them, which they did so admire the same cloaths, cloak, &c. between them.” With respect to the specific share he had in the plays which have been published as the joint production of Beaumont and Fletcher, the reader may find much information, and perhaps all that can now be ascertained on this subject, in the preliminary matter of the edition published in 1778, 10 vols. vo, or more briefly in a note in Mr. Malone’s life of Dryden, vol. II. p. 100—101. Sir Egerton Brydges, whose judgment is of sterling value in matters of literary antiquity, suspects that great injustice has been generally done to Beaumont, by the supposition of Langbaine and others that his merit was principally confined to lopping the redundancies of Fletcher. He acquits, however, the editors of the Biographia Dramatica of this blame. They say, “It is probable that the forming of the plots, and contriving the conduct of the fable, the writing of the more serious and pathetic parts, and lopping the redundant branches of Fletcher’s wit, whose luxuriances, we are told frequently, stood in need of castigation, might be, in general, Beaumont’s portion of the work.” This,“adds Mr. Brydges,” is to afford him very high praise," and the authorities of sir John Birkenhead, Jasper Mayne, sir George Lisle, and others, amount to strong proof that he was considered by his contemporaries 'in a superior light, (and by none more than by Jonson), and that this estimation of his talents was common in the life-time of his colleague, who, from candour or friendship, appears to have acquiesced in every respect paid to the memory of Beaumont.

The first edition of his poems appeared in 1640, 4to, and the second in 1653, but neither so correct as could be wished. The editor of both was the bookseller, Laurence Blaiklock, whom Anthony Wood characterises as a “Presbyterian bookbinder near Temple-bar, afterwards an informer to the committee of sequestration at Haberdashers’ and Goldsmiths’ hall, and a beggar defunct in prison.” Whoever he was, he put together what he could find in circulation, without much discernment or inquiry, and has mixed with Beaumont’s several pieces that belong to other authors. The only poem printed in Beaumont’s life-time was “Salmacis and Hermaphroditus” from Ovid, which he published in 1602, when he was only sixteen years of age, a circumstance not necessary to prove it the production of a very young man.

His original poems give him very superior claims to a place in our collections. Although we find some of the metaphysical conceits so common in his day, particularly in the elegy on lady Markham, he is in general more free from them than his contemporaries. His sentiments are elegant and refined, and his versification is unusually harmonious. Where have we more lively imagery, or in such profusion, as in the sonnet “Like a ring without a finger?” His amatory poems are sprightly and original, and some of Jiis lyrics rise to the impassioned spirit of Shakspeare and Milton. Sir E. Brydges is of opinion that the thu;d song in the play of “Nice Valour” afforded the first hint of the II Penseroso,

, a French miscellaneous writer, entitled to some notice, was born at St. Paul in Artois, July 9, 1728, and became noted at Paris for hi oddities and his numerous writings. He affected great singularity in dress, and was not less remarkable for his bons mots and tart replies. When asked why he followed no profession, he said, “I have been too long enamoured of goodness and honour, to fix my affections on fortune.” He used to say that “Hfe was a continual epigram, to which death furnished the point.” There is perhaps not much in these, and probably the other witticisms we have seen attributed to him derived their principal effect from his manner, or from the person or occasion when applied. He was, however, a man of great humanity, and particularly attached to children, employing himself for many years in instructing them, and at last he procured admission to the Normal school, that he might contribute his share to the general plan of public education. His writings are, 1. “L'Heureux citoyen,” 1759, 12mo. 2. “Cours d'Histoire sacree et profane,” 1763 and 1766, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Abreg6 de Phistoire des Insectes,” Paris, 1764, 2 vols. 8vo. 4. “L'Heureux viellard,” a pastoral drama, 1769. 5. “Cour* d'histoire naturelle,” Paris, 1770, 7 vols. 12mo. 6. “Varletes Litteraires,” 1775, 12mo. 7. “De Talaitement et de la premiere Education des Enfans,” 1782, 12mo. 8. “L'Eleve de la Nature,” Geneva, 1790, 2 vols. 8vo, often. reprinted. It contains an ingenious sketch, but not very happily filled up. 9. “L‘Accord parfait, ou l’Equilibre physique et morale,” Paris, 1793. 10. “Le Port-feuille Francais,” &c. By all these literary labours, however, the author appears to have profited little, as he died in an hospital at Paris, Oct. 5, 1795.

, an eminent Calvinist divine and ecclesiastical writer, was born at Niort in Upper Poitou, March 8, 1659, of a family originally of Provence, whose name was Bossart, which one of his ancestors changed to Beausobre, on taking refuge in Swisserland from the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day. In his youth he had some favourable opportunities for rising in the world. M. de Vieuxfournaux, cousin-german to his father, strongly solicited him not to change his religion, but to study law, because in that case he had sufficient interest with Madame de Maintenon to recommend him to her, who would have made his 1 fortune. But as he probably foresaw that the sacrifice of his religion must ultimately be the consequence, in order to secure him patronage of this kind, he withstood his relation’s solicitations, and pursued his original intention, that of qualifying himself for the church. Having finished his studies at Saumur, he was ordained, by imposition of hands, at the age of twenty-one, in the last synod of Loudon, and had a congregation intrusted to him, to whom he officiated for three or four years, during which he married Claude Louisa Arnaudeau, whose father was pastor of the church of Lusignan. The days of persecution approaching, M. de Beausobre’s church was shut up, and having been so rash, as to break it open, contrary to the orders of the court, he found it necessary to make his escape. At first he intended to have gone to England, but for some reasons, not mentioned in our authority, he preferred Holland, where he recommended himself to the favour of the princess of Orange, who appointed him chaplain to her daughter the princess of A nhalt-Dessau, and accordingly he went to Dessau in 1686. Here his situation was rendered peculiarly agreeable by the kindness of the princess, the esteem she conceived for, and the confidence she reposed in him' and here he appears to have applied himself to those studies, the produce of which appeared soon afterwards.

The first occasion of his becoming an author was the conduct of the duke of Saxe-Barby, who quitted the Lutheran communion, and printed a confession of his faith in 1688. A year after appeared, under the name of the theological faculty of Leipsic, a work in German, purporting to be “An inquiry into the motives which induced the duke of Saxe to separate from the Lutherans;” and a Latin translation of it having been submitted to M. Beausobre, he perceived its weakness, and conceived it an act of justice in behalf of the more moderate part of the Lutherans, to make a public declaration of the doctrines of the reformers. Accordingly this his first work was entitled “Defense de la doctrine des Reformes,” on the subjects of providence, predestination, grace, the Lord’s supper, &c. printed at Magdeburgh, 1693. In this, while he speaks favourably of the moderate writers among the Lutherans, he censures the others for their bigotry against the Calvinists, or against any who differ from them in the least degree. His work was extremely well received, although this edition is full of typographical errors.

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

, a Lutheran divine, was born at Strasburg, in 1632, where he was first pastor and professor of divinity and ecclesiastical history, and afterwards professor of divinity, pastor and superintendant general at Wittemberg, where he died of an apoplexy, Oct. 2, 1686. When very young he wrote “Theses Philologicae de re nummaria veterum,” and “Disputationes Philologicae de Theologia Gentili ex antiquis nummis eruta,” Wittemberg, 1658, 4to. He afterwards published “Dissertatio de aris et mensis Eucharisticis veterum,” Strasb. 1666, 4to; “Antiquitates Ecclesise,” ibid. 1669 1680, 3 vols. 4to. And after his death, appeared “Ecclesia Antediluviana vera et falsa,” ibid. 1706. “Memorabilia Hist. Ecclesiasticoe recentioris,” Dresden, 1731, 4 to. Witte, in his Diarium, gives a longer list of his writings, but without specifying whether they are collected dissertations or separate volumes; a neglect very common with the biographers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

, a political writer of considerable note, was born at Milan in 1735, and died in the same place in 1793 or 1794. In his first publication, which appeared at Lucca in 1762, he pointed cut several abuses, with their remedies, in the system of coinage adopted in the state of Milan. A short time after, some literary gentlemen of Milan projected a periodical work, which was to contain essays on various subjects of philosophy, morals, and politics, calculated to enlighten the public mind. It was accordingly published in the years 1764 and 1765, under the title of “The Coffeehouse,” and when collected, the papers formed 2 vols. 4to, of which the most interesting and original were from the pen of Beccaria. It was likewise in 1764, that he published his celebrated treatise on “crimes and punishments,” “Dei Delitti e delle Pene,” 12mo, a work to which some objections may he made, and in which there are some inconsistencies, yet few works were read with more avidity, or more directly tended to introduce a humane and wise system in the criminal law. Within eighteen months of its publication, six editions of the Italian were eagerly bought up, and it is computed that it has since gone through above fifty editions and translations. The English translation published in 1766 contained also a commentary attributed to Voltaire, but contributing more to amuse than instruct the reader. Much, however, as the author was applauded by the enlightened part of the world, he was likely to have been brought into trouble by the bigotry of his countrymen, had he not met with very powerful protection. In 1768 the Austrian government founded a professorship of political economy for him, and his lectures on that subject were published in 1804, 2 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Elemens d'economie publique.” In 1770 he published the first part of his “Recherches sur la nature du style,” Milan, 8vo. There are some shrewd remarks in this, but he appears to have got into the paradoxical way of writing, and endeavours to prove that every individual has an equal degree of genius for poetry and eloquence.

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

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

, born in 1645,at Spires, was at first professor of medicine, and then first physician to the elector of Mentz, and afterwards to him of Bavaria. He went to London, where his reputation had got before him, and where the malice of his rivals had forced him to seek an asylum, and here he died in 1685. His works are various, among which we may distinguish the following: 1. “Physica subterranea,” Frankfort, 1669, 8vo, reprinted at Leipsic, 1703, and in 1759, 8vo. 2. “Experimentum Chymicum novum,” Frankfort, 1671, 8vo. 3. “Character pro notitia linguarum universali;” a universal language, by means whereof all nations might easily understand each other the fanciful idea of a man of genius. 4. “Institntiones Chymicse, seu manuductio ad pjiilosophiam hermeticam,” Mentz, 1662, 8vo. 5. “Institutiones GhymictE prodromye,” Frankfort, 1664, and Amsterdam, 1665, 12mo. 6. “Experimentum novum ac curiosum de Minera arenaria perpetua,” Frankfort, 1680, 8vo. 7. “Epistohe Chymicae,” Amsterdam, 1673, 8vo. Becher was reputed to be a very able machinist and a good chymist. He was a man of a lively te-mper, impetuous and headstrong, and therefore indulged jn a thousand chymical reveries. He was the first who applied the art of chymistry, in all its extent, to philosophy, and shewed what use might be made of it in explaining the structure, the combinations, and the mutual relations of hodies. He pretended to have found out a sort or‘ perpetual motion. However, it is beyond a doubt ’that the world is indebted to him for some useful discoveries, and he attempted to make some improvements in the art of printing.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Henry II. was born in London 1119, the son of Gilbert, a merchant, and Matilda, a Saracen lady, who is said to have fallen in love with him, when he was a prisoner to her father in Jerusalem. Thomas received the first part of his education at Merton-abbey in Surrey, whence he went to Oxford, and afterwards studied at Paris. He became in high favour with Theobald archbishop of Canterbury, who sent him to study the civil law at Bononia in Italy, and at his return made him archdeacon of Canterbury, and provost of Beverley. Before this he had discovered such superior talents for negociation, that archbishop Theobald dispatched him as his agent to the pope, on a point he thought of great moment, which was to get the legantine power restored to the see of Canterbury. This commission was performed with such dexterity and success, that the archbishop entrusted to him all his most secret intrigues with the court of Rome, and particularly a matter of the highest importance to England, the soliciting from the pope those prohibitory letters against the crowning of prince Eustace, by which that design was defeated. This service, which raised Becket’s merit not only with the prelate by whom he was employed, but also with king Henry, was the original foundation of his high fortune. It is remarkable, that he was the first Englishman, since the latter years of the reign of William the Conqueror, on whom any great office, either in church or state, had been conferred by the kings of the Norman race; the exclusion of the English from all dignities having been a maxim of policy, which had been delivered down by that monarch to his sons. This maxim Henry the Second wisely and liberally discarded, though the first instance in which he deviated from it happened to be singularly unfortunate.

Theobald also recommended him to king Henry II. in so effectual a manner, that in 1158 he was appointed high chancellor, and preceptor to the prince. Becket now laid aside the churchman, and affected the courtier; he conformed himself in every thing to the king’s humour; he partook of all his diversions, and observed the same hours of eating and going to bed. He kept splendid levees, and courted popular applause; and the expences of his table exceeded those of the first nobility. In 1159 he made a campaign with king Henry into Toulouse, having in his own pay 1200 horse, besides a retinue of 700 knights or gentlemen. While here he gave a piece of advice which marked the spirit and fire of his character. This was, to seize the person of Lewis, king of France, who had imprudently thrown himself into the city of Toulouse without an army. But the counsel was deemed too bold. Besides several political reasons against complying with it, it was thought an enormous and criminal violation of the feudal allegiance, for a vassal to take and hold in captivity the person of his lord. We need not inforjn our historical readers, that Henry, though a very powerful monarch, did, by the large possessions he held in France, stand in. the relation of a vassal to the king of that country. In the war against the earl of Toulouse, Becket, besides his other military exploits, engaged, in single combat, Engelvan, de Trie, a French knight, famous for his valour, dismounted him with his lance, and gained his horse, which he led off in great triumph.

It has been said that it was with the utmost difficulty Becket could be prevailed upon to accept of this dignity, and that he even predicted it would be the cause of a breach between the king and him. But this is greatly doubted by lord Lyttelton in his History of Henry II. and it stands contradicted by the affirmation of Foliot, bishop of London, and ill agrees with the measures which were taken to procure Becket' s election. His biographers themselves acknowledge, that one reason which induced Henry to promote him to Canterbury, was, “because he hoped, that, by his means, he should manage ecclesiastical, as well as secular affairs, to his own satisfaction.” Indeed, no other reasonable motive can be found. Nothing could incline that prince to make so extraordinary and so exceptionable a choice, but a firm confidence, that he should be most usefully assisted by Becket, in the important reformation he meant to undertake, of subjecting the clergy to the authority of the civil government. Nor is it credible that he should not have revealed his intention, concerning that affair, to a favourite minister, whom he had accustomed to trust, without reserve, in his most secret counsels. But if such a declaration had been made by that minister, as is related by the historians, it is scarcely to be supposed, that a king so prudent as Henry would have forced him into a station, in which he certainly might have it in his power to be exceedingly troublesome, instead of being serviceable to his royal master. It was by a different language that the usual sagacity of this prince could have been deceived. Nor, indeed, could the most jealous and penetrating eye have discovered in Becket, after he was elected archbishop of Canterbury, any marks of an enthusiastic or bigotted zeal. That several indications of a contrary temper, and different principles, had appeared in his conduct, is shewn by lord Lyttelton, who produces two remarkable instances in support of his assertion. The same noble writer hath brought, likewise, satisfactory evidence, to prove that Becket was almost as eager for procuring the archbishopric, as his master could be to raise him to that dignity. After he had received his pall from pope Alexander III. then residing in France, he immediately sent messengers to the king in Normandy, with his resignation of the seal and office of chancellor. This displeased the king; so that upon his return to England, when he was met at his landing by the archbishop, he received him in a cold and indifferent manner.

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

The king seized upon the revenues of the archbishopric, and sent an ambassador to the French king, desiring him not to give shelter to Becket: but the French court espoused his cause, in hopes that the misunderstanding betwixt him and Henry might embarrass the affairs of England; and accordingly when Becket came from St. Bertin to Soissons, the French king paid him a visit, and offered him his protection. Soon after the archbishop went to Sens; where he was honourably received by the pope, into whose hands he in form resigned the archbishopric of Canterbury, and was presently re-instated in his dignity by the pope, who promised to espouse his interest. The archbishop removed from Sens to the abbey of Pontigny in Normandy, from whence he wrote a letter to the bishops of England, informing them, that the pope had annulled the Constitutions of Clarendon. From hence too he issued put excommunications against several persons, who had violated the rights of the church. This conduct of his raised him many enemies. The king was so enraged against him for excommunicating several of his officers of state, that he banished all Becket’s relations, and compelled them to take an oath, that they would travel directly to Pontigny, and shew themselves to the archbishop. An order was likewise published, forbidding all persons to correspond with him by letters, to send him any money, or so much as to pray for him in the churches. He wrote also to the general chapter of the Cistertians, threatening to Seize all their estates in England, if they allowed Becket to continue in the abbey of Pontigny. The archbishop thereupon removed to Sens; and from thence, upon the king of France’s recommendation, to the abbey of St. Columba, where he remained four years. In the mean time, the bishops of the province of Canterbury wrote a letter to the archbishop, entreating him to alter his behaviour, and not to widen the breach, so as to render an accommodation impracticable betwixt him and the king. This, however, no effect on the archbishop. The pope also sent two cardinals to try to reconcile matters but the legates finding both parties inflexible, gave over the attempt, and re*­turned to Rome.

In 1169, endeavours were again used to accommodate matters, but they proved ineffectual. The archbishop refused to comply, because Henry would not give him the customary salute, or kiss of peace, which his majesty would have granted, had he not once swore in a passion never to salute the archbishop on the cheek; but he declared that he would bear him no ill will for the omission of this ceremony. Henry became at length so irritated against this prelate, that he ordered all his English subjects to take an oath, whereby they renounced the authority of Becket and pope Alexander: most of the laity complied with this order, but few of the clergy acquiesced. The following year king Henry, upon his return to England, ordered his son, prince Henry, to be crowned at Westminster, and the ceremony was performed by the archbishop of York: this office belonged to the see of Canterbury; and Becket complained of it to the pope, who suspended the archbishop of York, and excommunicated the bishops who assisted him.

This year, however, an accommodation was at length concluded betwixt Henry and Becket, upon the confines of Normandy,where the king held the bridle of Becket’s horse, while he mounted and dismounted twice. Soon after the archbishop embarked for England; and upon his arrival, received an order from the young king to absolve the suspended and excommunicated bishops; but refusing to comply, the archbishop of York, and the bishops of London and Salisbury, carried their complaint to the king in Normandy, who was highly provoked at this fresh instance of obstinacy in Becket, and said on the occasion, “That he was an unhappy prince, who maintained a great number of lazy, insignificant persons about him, none of whom had gratitude or spirit enough to revenge him on a single, insolent prelate, who gave him so much disturbance,' 7 or as some report his words,” Shall this fellow, who came to court on a lame horse, with all his estate in a wallet behind him, trample upon his king, the royal family, and the whole kingdom? Will none of all these lazycowardly knights whom I maintain, deliver me from this turbulent priest?" This passionate exclamation made too deep an impression on some of those who heard it, particularly on the four following barons, Reginald Fitz-Urse, William de Tracy, Hugh de Morville, and Richard Breto, who formed a resolution, either to terrify the archbishop into submission, or to put him to death.

Having laid their plan, they left the court at different times, and took different routes, to prevent suspicion; but being conducted by the devil, as some monkish historians tell us, they all arrived at the castle of Ranulph de Broc, about six miles from Canterbury, on the same day, Dec. 28, 1170, and almost at the same hour. Here they settled the whole scheme of their proceedings, and next morning early set out for Canterbury, accompanied by a body of resolute men, with arms concealed under their clothes. These men they placed in different parts of the city, to prevent any interruption from the citizens. The four barons above-named then went unarmed with twelve of their company, to the archiepiscopal palace, about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and were admitted into the apartment where the arehbishop sat conversing with some of his clergy. After their admission a long silence ensued, which was at length broken by Reginald Fitz-Urse, who told the archbishop that they were sent by the king to command him to absolve the prelates, and others, whom he had excommunicated; and then to go to Winchester, and make satisfaction to the young king, whom he had endeavoured to dethrone. On this a very long and violent altercation followed, in the course of which they gave several hints, that his life was in danger if he did not comply. Bat he remained undaunted in his refusal. At their departure they charged his servants not to allow him to flee; on which he cried out with great vehemence, “Flee! I will never flee from any man living; I am not come to flee, but to defy the rage of impious assassins.” When they were gone, his friends blamed him for the roughness of his answers, which had inflamed the fury of his enemies, and earnestly pressed him to make his escape but he only answered, “I have no need of your advice I know what I ought to do.” The barons, with their accomplices, finding their threats were ineffectual, put on their coats of mail; and taking each a sword in his right hand, and an axe in his left, returned to the palace, but found the gate shut. When they were preparing to break it open, Robert de Broc conducted them up a back stair-case, and let them in at a window. A cry then arose, “they are armed! they are armed!” on which the clergy hurried the archbishop almost by force into the church, hoping that the sacredness of the place would protect him from violence. They would also have shut the door, but he cried out, “Begone, ye cowards! I charge you on your obedience, do not shut the door. What! will you make a castle of a church?” The conspirators having searched the palace, came to the church, and one of them crying, “Where is the traitor? where is the archbishop?” Becket advanced boldly and said, “Here I am, an archbishop, but no traitor.” “Flee,” cried the conspirator, “or you are a dead man.” “I will never flee,” replied Becket. William de Tracy then took hold of his robe, and said, “You are my prisoner; come along with me.” But Becket seizing him by the collar, shook him with so much force, that he almost threw him down. De Tracy, enraged at this resistance, aimed a blow with his sword, which almost cut off the arm of one Edward Grim, a priest, and slightly wounded the archbishop on the head. By three other blows given by the other conspirators, his skull was cloven almost in two, and his brains scattered about the pavement of the church.

The assassins, conscious of their crime, and dreading its consequences, durst not return to the king’s court at Normandy, but retired to Knaresburgh in Yorkshire; where every body avoided their company, hardly any person even choosing to eat or drink with them. They at length took a voyage to Home, and being admitted to penance by pope Alexander III. they went to Jerusalem; where, according to the pope’s order, they spent their lives in penitential austerities, and died in the Black Mountain. They were buried at Jerusalem, without the church door belonging to the Templars, and this inscription was put over them:

According to lord Lyttelton, who appears to have studied the character of this turbulent prelate with great care, Becket was “a man of great talents, of elevated thoughts, and of invincible courage; but of a most violent and turbulent spirit; excessively passionate, haughty, and vainglorious; in his resolutions inflexible, in his resentments implacable. It cannot be denied that he was guilty of a wilful and premeditated perjury; that he opposed the necessary course of public justice, and acted in defiance of the laws of his country; laws which he had most solemnly acknowledged and confirmed: nor is it less evident, that, during the heat of this dispute, he was in the highest degree ungrateful to a very kind master, whose confidence in him had been boundless, and who from a private condition had advanced him to be the second man in his kingdom. On what motives he acted, can be certainly judged of by Him alone, ‘ to whom all hearts are open.’ He might be misled by the prejudices of a bigotted age, and think he was doing an acceptable service to God, in contending, even to death, for the utmost excess of ecclesiastical and papal authority. Yet the strength of his understanding, his conversation in courts and camps, among persons whose iiotions were more free and enlarged, the different colour of his former life, and the suddenness of the change which seemed to be wrought in him upon his election to Canterbury, would make one suspect, as many did in the times wherein he lived, that he only became the champion of the church from an ambitious desire of sharing its power; a power more independent on the favour of the king, and therefore more agreeable to the haughtiness of his mind, than that which he had enjoyed as a minister of the crown. And this suspicion is increased by the marks of cunning and falseness, which are evidently seen in his conduct on some occasions. Neither is it impossible, that, when first he assumed his new character, he might act the part of a, zealot, merely or principally from motives of arrogance and ambition; yet, afterwards, being engaged, and inflamed by the contest, work himself up into a real enthusiasm. The continual praises of those with whom he acted, the honours done him in his exile by all the clergy of France, and the vanity which appears so predominant in Ins mind, may have conduced to operate such a change. He certainly shewed in the latter part of his life a spirit as fervent as the warmest enthusiast’s; such a spirit indeed as constitutes heroism, when it exerts itself in a cause beneficial to mankind. Had he defended the established laws of his country, and the fundamental rules of civil justice, with as much zeal and intrepidity as he opposed them, he would have deserved to be ranked with those great men, whose virtues make one e?sily forget the allay of some natural imperfections: but, unhappily, his good qualities were so misapplied, that they became no less hurtful to the public weal of the kingdom, than the worst of his vices.”

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

, an English prelate, was born in the parish of Beckington, in Somersetshire, or according to Dr. Chandler at Wallinoford in Berkshire, towards the close of the fourteenth century. He was educated in grammar learning at Wyk chain’s school near Winchester, while that great prelate was living, and proceeded to his college (New College) in Oxford in 1403, the year before Wykeham died, and there became doctor of laws, and continued in his fellowship about twelve years. Within this period, most probably, he was presented to the rectory of St. Leonard’s, near Hastings in Sussex, and to the vicarage of Sutton Courtney in Berkshire. He was also prebendary of Bedwin, York, and Lichfield, archdeacon of Buckingham, and master of St. Catherine’s hospital near the Tower in London. About 1429, he was dean of the court of arches, and a synod being then held in St. Paul’s church, London, which continued above six months, Beckington was one of three appointed to draw up a form of law, according to which the Wickliffites were to be proceeded against. Having been once tutor to Henry VI. and written a book, in which, in opposition to the Salique law, he strenuously asserted the right of the kings of England to the crown of France, he arrived to high favour with that prince, and was made secretary of state, keeper of the privy seal, and bishop of Bath and Wells. On Sunday, Oct. 13, 1443, he was consecrated by the bishop of Lincoln in the old collegiate church of St. Mary of Eton; and after the ceremony, celebrated his first mass in his pontificals in the new church of St. Mary? then erecting, and not half finished, under a pavilion provided for the purpose at the altar, directly over the spot where king Henry had laid the first stone.

, an ingenious artist and antiquary, was the son of a respectable attorney in the West Riding of Yorkshire. He was early apprenticed as a housepainter to Mr. George Fleming of Wakefield, from whom he derived his skill in drawing and limning, as well as imbibed a love for the study of antiquities. To these he added heraldic and genealogical knowledge, to all which he applied himself, in his leisure hours, with such unwearied diligence, that his collection, together with the works of his own hands, became at length very considerable. Scarcely any object arrested his curiosity, particucularly if an antique, of which he did not make a drawing, and scarcely a church or a ruin in the vicinities of the places of his abode, that he did not preserve either in pencil or water-colours. Some years before his death he obtained a patent for a species of hardened crayons, which would bear the knife, and carry a point like a pencil; and about the same time he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London. But what contributed most to make him known to those who were unacquainted with him in any other branch, was his extensive information respecting genealogical subjects, in consequence of which he frequently had the arrangement of the pedigrees of some of the first families, which he was enabled to execute from visitation books, and other authentic documents, which fell into his hands. Few men possessed more intelligence respecting the antiquity and descents of the principal families in the inland adjacent counties, and of various others more remote from him. It is much to his credit, likewise, that his industry in collecting could only be exceeded by his willingness to impart any information which he had received. Mr. Beck with died Feb. 17, 1786. Previous to his death, he had compiled “A Walk in and about the city of York,” an the plan of Mr. Gostling’s “Walk in and about the city of Canterbury,” but we have not heard that it has been published.

, or Bede, the brightest ornament of the eighth century, and one of the most eminent fathers of the English church, whose talents and virtues have procured him the name of the Venerable Bede, was born in the year 672, or according to some in the year 673, on the estates belonging afterwards to the abbies of St. Peter and St. Paul, in the bishopric of Durham, at Wermouth and Jarrow, near the mouth of the river Tyne. Much difference of opinion prevails among those who have treated of this illustrious character, respecting the place of his birth, some even contending that he was a native of Italy; but we shall confine ourselves to such facts as seem to be clearly ascereertained by the majority of historians. These are indeed but few, for the life of a studious, recluse, and conscientious ecclesiastic, cannot be supposed to admit of many of the striking varieties of biographical narrative. At the age of seven years, or about the year 679, he was brought to the monastery of St. Peter, and committed to the care of abbot Benedict, under whom and his successor Ceolfrid, he was carefully educated for twelve years, a favour which he afterwards repaid by writing the lives of these his preceptors, which were first published by sir James Ware at Dublin in 1664, 8vo. At the age of nineteen he was ordained deacon, and in the year 702, being then thirty, he was ordained priest by John of Beverley, bishop of Hagulstad or Hexham, who had been formerly one of his preceptors. It was probably from Beverley, a person of high character for piety and learning, that JBede imbibed his opinions concerning the monastic state, and the duties of such as embraced it. The bishop thought that in all professions men ought to labour for their own maintenance, and for the benefit of the society. He was consequently averse to the great errors of this institution, ease and indolence. He inculcated upon Beda’s mind, that the duties of this life consisted in a fervent and edifying devotion, a strict adherence to the discipline of the house, an absolute selfdenial with respect to the things of this world, an obedience to the will of his abbot, and a constant prosecution of his studies in such a way as might most conduce to the benefit of his brethren, and the general advantage of the Christian world.

Nor were these lessons thrown away. Beda became so exemplary for his great diligence and application, and his extensive and various learning, that his fame reached the continent, and particularly Rome, where pope Sergius made earnest applications to the abbot Ceolfrid, that Beda might be sent to him; but Beda, enamoured of his studies, remained in his monastery, exerting his pious labours only in the Northumbrian kingdom, although tradition, and nothing but tradition, insinuates that he at one time resided at the university of Cambridge, a place which in his day probably had no existence, or certainly none that deserved the name of university. Remaining thus in his own country, and improving his knowledge by all the learning his age afforded, animated at the same time with a wish to contribute to the improvement of his brethren and countrymen, he concentrated his attentions to that point in which he could be most useful. The collections he made for his “Ecclesiastical History” were the labour of many years, a labour scarcely conceivable by modern writers in the amplitude and facilities they possess for acquiring information. This history was in some respects a new work, for although, as he owns, there were civil histories from which he could borrow some documents, yet ecclesiastical affairs entered so little into their plan, that he was obliged to seek for materials adapted to his object, in the lives of particular persons, which frequently included contemporary history: in the annals of their convents, and in such chronicles as were written before his time. He also availed himself of the high character in which he stood with many of the prelates, who procured for him such information as they possessed or could command. They foresaw, probably, what has happened, that this would form a lasting record of ecclesiastical affairs, and making allowance for the legendary matter it contains, without a mixture of which it is in vain to look back to the times of Beda, few works have supported their credit so long, or been so generally known, and consulted by the learned world. He published this history in the year 731, when as he informs us, he was fifty-nine years of age, but before this he had written many other books on various subjects, a catalogue of which he subjoined to this history. By these he obtained such reputation as to be consulted by the most eminent churchmen of his age, and particularly by Egbert bishop of York, who was himself a very learned man. To him Beda wrote an epistle, which illustrates the state of the church at that time. It was one of the last, and indeed probably the very last of Beda’s writings, and in it he expresses himself with much freedom, both in the advice he gave to Egbert, and with respect to the inconveniencies which he wisely foresaw would arise from the multiplication of religious houses, to the prejudice both of church and state.

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

It appears from this epistle that he was very much indisposed when he wrote it, and probably he began now to fall into that declining state of health, from which he never recovered. The last stage of his distemper was an asthma, which he supported with great firmness of mind, although in much weakness and pain for six weeks, during which he continued his usual pious labours among the youth in the monastery, and occasionally prosecuted some of his writings, that he might be able to leave them complete. In all the nights of his sickness, in which, from the nature of the disease, he had little sleep, he sung hymns and praises. His last days were partly employed on his translation of the Gospel of St. John into the Saxon language, and some passages he was extracting from the works of St. Isidore. The day before his death, he passed the night as usual, and continued dictating to the person who wrote for him, who observing his weakness, said, “There remains now only one chapter, but it seems very irksome for you to speak,” to which he answered, “It is easy, take another pen, dip it in the ink, and write as fast as you can.” About nine o'clock he sent for some of his brethren, to divide among them some incense, and other things of little Value, which were in his chest. While he was speaking to them, the young man, Wilberch, who wrote for him, said, “There is now, master, but one sentence wanting,” upon, which he bid him write quick, and soon after the young man said, “It is now done,” to which he replied, “Well! thou hast said the truth, it is now done. Take up my head between your hands, and lift me, because it pleases me much to sit over against the place where I was wont to pray, and where now sitting I may yet invoke my Father.” Being thus seated according to his desire, upon the floor of his cell, he said, “Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” and as he pronounced the last word, expired. This, according to the best opinion, for the date is contested, happened May 26, 735. His body was interred in the church of his own monastery at Jarrow, but, long afterwards, was removed to Durham, and placed in the same coffin or chest with that of St. Cuthbert, as appears by a very ancient Saxon poem on the relics preserved in the cathedral of Durham, printed at the end of the “Decem Scriptores.”

Mr. Warton justly observes, that Beda’s knowledge, if we consider his age, was extensive and profound: and it is amazing, in so rude a period, and during a life of no considerable length, he should have made so successful a progress, and such rapid improvements, in scientifical and philological studies, and have composed so many elaborate treatises on different subjects. It is diverting to see the French critics censuring Be da for credulity: they might as well have accused him of superstition. There is much perspicuity and facility in his Latin style: but it is void of elegance, and often of purity; it shews with what grace and propriety he would have written, had his mind been formed on better models. Whoever looks for digestion of materials, disposition of parts, and accuracy of narration, in this writer’s historical works, expects what could not exist at that time. He has recorded but few civil transactions: but, besides that his history professedly considers ecclesiastical affairs, we should remember, that the building of a church, the preferment of an abbot, the canoniza T tion of a martyr, and the importation into England of the shin-bone of an apostle, were necessarily matters qf m,uch more importance in Bede’s conceptions than victories or revolutions. He is fond of minute description; but particularities are the fault and often the merit of early historians. The first catalogue of Beda’s works, as vye liare before observed, we have from himself, at the end of his Ecclesiastical history, which contains all he had written before the year 731. This we find copied by Leland, who also mentions some other pieces he had met with of Beda’s, and points out likewise several that passed under his name, though in his judgment spurious. John Bale, in the first edition of his book, which he finished in 1548, mentions ninety-six treatises written by Beda; and in his last edition he swells these* to one hundred and forty-five tracts; and declares at the close of both his catalogues, that there were numberless pieces of our author’s besides, which he had not seen. Pits, according to his usual custom, has much enlarged even this catalogue; though, to do him justice, he appears to have taken great pains in drawing up this article, and mentions the libraries in which many of these treatises were to be found. The catalogues given by Trithemius, Dempster, and others, are much inferior to these. Several of Beda’s books were printed very early, and, for the most part, very incorrectly; but the first general coU lection of his works appeared at Paris in 1544, in three volumes in folio. They were printed again in 1554, at the same place, in eight volumes. They were published in the same size and number of volumes, at Basil, in 1563, reprinted at Cologne in 1612, and lastly at the same place in 1688. A very clear and distinct account of the contents of these volumes, the reader may find in the very learned and useful collection of Casimir Otidin. But the most exact and satisfactory detail of Beda’s life and writings, we owe to that accurate, judicious, and candid Benedictine, John Mabillon. Neither has any critic exerted his skill more effectually than he, though largely, and with copious extracts interspersed. But, perhaps, the easiest, plainest, and most concise representation of Beda’s writings, occurs in the learned Dr. Cave’s “Hist. Literaria,” which has been followed by the editors of the Biog. Britannica.

Those treatises of Beda, which are mentioned in his own catalogue of his works, were published by the learned and industrious Mr. Wharton from three Mss. in the famous library in the archiepiscopal palace at Lambeth, under the title of “Bedae Venerabilis Opera c|iuedam Theologica, nunc primum edita, necnon Historicu antea semel edita. Accesserunt Egberti Archiepiscopi Eboracensis Dialogus de Ecclesiastica Institutioue, et Adhelmi Episcopi Seireburnensis Liber tie Virginitate, ex codice antiquiss’uno iemendatus,” Lond. 1693, 4to. The worthy editor gives a large account of these (and other pieces added to them) in an epistolary discourse addressed to the Rev. Mr. archdeacon Batteley, dated Aug. 30, 1693; wherein he takes notice, amongst other things, that he published these Opuseula of Venerable Bede, to remove the complaint of our negligence in this respect, and that foreign writers might not boast, as they had hitherto done, of being the sole publishers of the works of Beda. He added to these the small treatises that had been before published by sir James Ware, and which it seems were at that time become extremely scarce. But at the same time he shews that he was not transported, as some editors are, with such an affection for his author, as to conceive better of his works than they deserved; since he confesses that the divines of the middle ages are by no means to be compared with the ancient fathers in point of authority, or to the moderns in respect to acuteness; but nevertheless they have their uses, and therefore such collections had been well received by the learned world, and amongst them none better than such of the works of Beda as had^been before published.

At this time nothing seemed to interest him more than the account of the two Giants Causeways, or groups of prismatic basaltine columns, in the Venetian states, in Italy, in the LXVth volume of the Philosophical Transactions, communicated by Mr. Strange, long his majesty’s resident at Venice. Dr. Beddoes’s retirement from Oxford, about 1792, was accelerated by his intemperance in politics, occasioned by the remarkable circumstances of the times. In the following year he removed to Bristol, where he began that career of medical and physiological researches, experiments, and lectures, which made him so generally conspicuous, and which appear to have continued with the most striking zeal and perseverance to the last moment of his short life, varied according to circumstances, but never wholly abandoned. In 1798, his Pneumatic Institution was opened, which very much excited the attention of the puhlic, although its practical effects were not correspondent to the high expectations entertained. Various publications came from his pen in rapid succession, until 1808, when he was seized with a disorder which proved fatal, Dec. 24, of that year. This, which was a dropsy of the chest, he had mistaken for a hepatic disorder. His character, as given by his learned and affectionate biographer, is highly favourable, but it presents two subjects of regret, the one that he should have thought it necessary to waste so much time on the fleeting politics of the day; the other, that in his many schemes and experimental researches, he was precipitate and unsteady. He was undoubtedly capable of great things, but too hurried, too sanguine, too unconscious of the lapse of time, and too little aware of the want of opportunity for any one man to accomplish any very numerous ends, either of invention or reformation. The learned world had reason to lament his early death, because age might have corrected those blemishes or eccentricities of his character, which prevented his doing justice, even to his own designs and his own powers. Had he been less impetuous, less sanguine, and more capable of fixing and concentrating his views, he might have accomplished much more good, and left the world much more benefited by his extraordinary labours and indefatigable diligence. Of this labour and diligence, the reader may form a correct notion by the following list of his publications. I. “Translation of Spailanzani’s dissertations on Natural History,” 1784, reprinted 1790. 2. “Notes to a translation of Bergman’s Physical and Chemical Essays,” 1784. 3. “Translation of Bergman’s essay on Elective Attractions,” 178,5. 4. “Translation of Scheele’s Chemical Essays,” edited and corrected by him, 1786.5. “Chemical Experiments and Opinions extracted from a work published in the last century,” 1790. 6. Three papers in the Philosophical Trail*. eactions for 1791 and 1792, on “The affinity between Basaltes and Granite the conversion of cast into malleable i ron and second part to ditto.” 7. “Memorial addressed to the curators of the Bodleian Library,” no date. 8. “A letter to a Lady on the subject of early Instruction, partiticularly that of the poor,” 1792, printed but not published. 9. “Alexander’s Expedition to the Indian Ocean,” not published. 10. “Observations on the nature of demonstrative evidence, with reflections on Language,” 1792. 11. “Observations on the nature and cure of Calculus, Sea-scurvy, Catarrh, and Fever,” 1792. 12. “History of Isaac Jenkins,” a moral fiction, 1793. 13. “Letters from. Dr. Withering, Dr. E wart, Dr. Thornton, &c.” 1794. 14. “A Guide for self-preservation and parental affection,” 1794. 15. “A proposal for the improvement of Medicine,” 1794. 16. “Considerations on the medicinal use, and on the production of Factitious Airs:” parts I. and II. 1794, part III. 1795, and parts IV. and V, 1796. 17. “Brown’s elements of Medicine, with a preface and notes,” 1795. 18. “Translation from the Spanish, of Gimbernat’s new method of operating on Femoral Hernia,” 1795. 19. “Outline of a plan for determining the medicinal powers of Factitious Airs,” 1795. 20. “A word in defence of the Bill of Rights against Gagging-bills, 1795. 21.” Where would be the harm of a Speedy Peace?“1795. 22.” An essay on the public merits of Mr. Pitt,“1796. 23.” A letter to Mr. Pitt on the Scarcity,“1796. 24.” Alternatives compared, or, What shall the Rich do to be safe?“25.” Suggestions towards setting on foot the projected establishment for Pneumatic Medicine,“1797. 26.” Reports relating to Nitrous Acid,“1797. 27.” A lecture introductory to a popular course of Anatomy,“1797. 28.” A suggestion towards an essential improvement in the Bristol Infirmary,“1798. 29.” Contributions to medical and physical knowledge from the West of England,“1799. 30.” Popular essay on Consumption,“1799. 31.” Notice of some observations made at the Pneumatic Institution,“1799. 32.” A second and third Report on Nitrous Acid,“1799, 1800. 33.” Essay on the medical and domestic management of the Consumptive on Digitalis and on Scrophula,“1801. 34.” Hygeia or Essays, moral and medical, on the causes affecting the personal state of the middling and affluent classes,“1801-2. 35.” Rules of the institution for the sick and drooping Poor.“An edition on larger paper was entitled” Instruction for people of all capacities respecting their own health and that of their children,“1803. 36.” The manual of Health, or the Invalid conducted safely through the Seasons,“1806. 37.” On Fever as connected with Inflammation,“1807. 38.” A letter to sir Joseph Banks, on the prevailing discontents, abuse, and imperfections in Medicine,“1808. 39.” Good advice for the Husbandman in Harvest, and for all those who labour hard in hot births; as also for others who will take it in warm weather," 1808. Besides these, Dr. Beddoes was a considerable contributor to several of the medical and literary journals.

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

His style was clear and full, but plain and simple. He read the Hebrew and Septuagint so much, that they were as familiar to him as the English translation. He had gathered a vast heap of critical expositions, which, with a trunk full of other manuscripts, fell into the hands of the Irish, and were all lost, except his great Hebrew manuscript, which was preserved by a converted Irishman, and is now in Emanuel college, in Cambridge. Every day after dinner and supper a chapter of the Bible was read at his table, whether Papists or Protestants were present; and Bibles were laid before every one of the company, and before himself either the Hebrew or the Greek, but in his last years, the Irish translation; and he usually explained ­the occurring difficulties. He wrote much in controversy, occasioned by his engagements to labour the conversion of those of the Roman communion, which he looked on as idolatrous and antichristian. He wrote a large treatise on these two questions: “Where was our religion before Luther? And what became of our ancestors who died in Popery?” Archbishop Usher pressed him to have printed it, and he resolved to have done so; but that and all his other works were swallowed up in the rebellion. He kept a great correspondence not only with the divines of England, but with others over Europe. He observed a true hospitality in house-keeping; and many poor Irish families about him were maintained out of his kitchen; and in Christmas the poor always eat with him at his own table, and he had brought himself to endure both their rags and rudeness. At public tables he usually sat silent. Once at the earl of Strafford’s table, one observed, that while they were all talking, he said nothing. The primate answered, “Broach him, and you will find good liquor in him.” Upon which the person proposed a question in divinity, in answering which the bishop shewed his abilities so well, and puzzled the other so much, that all, at last, except the bishop, fell a laughing at the other. The greatness of his mind, and undauntedness of his spirit, evidently appeared in many passages of his life, and that without any mixture of pride, for he lived with his clergy as if they had been his brethren. In his visitation he would accept of no invitation from the gentlemen of the country, but would eat with his clergy in such poor inns, and of such coarse fare, as the places afforded. He avoided all affectation of state in his carriage, and, when in Dublin, always walked on foot, attended by one servant, except on public occasions, which obliged him to ride in procession among his brethren. He never kept a coach, his strength suffering him always to ride on horseback. He avoided the affectation of humility as well as pride; the former often flowing from the greater pride of the two. He took an ingenious device to put him in mind of his obligations to purity: it was a flaming crucible, with this motto: “Take from me all my Tin,” the word in Hebrew signifying Tin, being Bedil, which imported that he thought every thing in him but base alloy, and therefore prayed God would cleanse him from it. He never thought of changing his see, but considered himself as under a tie to it that could not easily be dissolved; so that when the translating him to a bishopric in England was proposed to him, he refused it; and said, he should be as troublesome a bishop in England as he had been in Ireland. He had a true and generous notion of religion, and did not look upon it as a system of opinions, or a set of forms, but as a divine discipline that reforms the heart and life. It was not leaves, but fruit that he sought. This was the true principle of his great zeal against Popery. He considered the corruptions of that church as an effectual course to enervate the true design of Christianity. He looked on the obligation of observing the Sabbath as moral and perpetual, and was most exact in the observation of it.

, a pious and learned clergyman of the church of England, and many years chaplain to the Haberdashers’ hospital at Hoxton, was the son of Richard Bedford, and was born at Tiddenham, in Gloucestershire, Sept. 1668. Having received the rudiments of learning from his father, he was in 1684, at the age of sixteen, admitted commoner of Brasen-nose college, Oxford, where he acquired some reputation as an Orientalist. He became B.A. in Feb. 1687, and M.A. July, 1691. In 1688 he received holy orders from Dr. Frampton, bishop of Gloucester, and about this time removed to Bristol, and became curate to Dr. Read, rector of St. Nicholas church, with whom he continued till 1692, when, having taken priest’s orders from Dr. Hall, bishop of Bristol, the mayor and corporation of the city presented him to the vicarage of Temple church. From this he was removed to Newtou St. Loe, a private living in Somersetshire, soon after which, as he himself informs us, he was prompted to undertake a work on “Scripture Chronology,” by reading over the preface to Abp. Usher’s Annals, in which the primate gave his opinion concerning a more exact method of “A chronological system of the sacred Scriptures, by the help of astronomy and a competent skill in the Jewish learning.” After many difficulties, Mr. Bedford flattered himself that he had succeeded, and then digested his thoughts into some method. Soon after this, coming to London, to assist in the correction of the Arabic Psalter and New Testament, for the benefit of the poor Christians in Asia, he shewed his thoughts to some friends, who advised him to publish them; with which he complied, with a design not to have exceeded fourscore or an hundred pages in the whole. A few sheets were printed off, but the author having received information that a work of a similar nature was intended to be published from the papers of sir Isaac Newton, and being advised by some friends, contrary to his first intention, to publish the work on a more extensive plan, he suppressed his papers. In the mean time, in 1724, he was chosen chaplain to Haberdashers hospital, (founded in 1690, by alderman Aske), and continued to reside there for the remainder of his life. In 1728 he published “Animadversions upon sir Isaac Newton’s book entitled The chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended,” 8vo, in which he attempts to prove that sir Isaac’s system entirely contradicts the scripture history, and he appeals, as his supporters in this opinion, to Bochart, Dr. Prideaux, archbishop Usher, and the bishops Lloyd, Cumberland, Beveridge, &c.

Two years afterwards, he published a sermon (from 2 Tim. ii. 16.) at St. Botolph’s, Aldgate, where he was afternoon lecturer, against the then newly-erected playhouse in Goodman’s fields. This was a favourite subject with Mr. Bedford, who, in other of his publications, proved an able assistant to Mr. Collier, in his attempt to reform the stage. He began, indeed, in this necessary labour, many years before coming to London, as will appear by our list of his works. He continued in his office of chaplain to the hospital, until 1745, when he died, Sept. 15, and was buried in the ground behind the hospital, profrably at his own desire. Tradition informs us his death was occasioned by a fall whilst making observations on the comet of that year, an accident which was very likely to prove fatal to a man in his severity -seventh year. He furnished the hall of the hospital, where the pensioners assemble, wrh some pious works, chained, in the old library manner, to the windows, and, as appears by his writings, was a man or unfeigned piety and zeal. These writings are: 1. “Serious reflections on the scandalous abuse and effects of the Stage, a sermon,” Bristol, 1705, with along preface. 2. “A second advertisement concerning the Play-house,” ibid. 8vo. 3. “The evil and danger of Stage Plays,” ibid. 1706, 8vo, a most curious work, but much enlarged in the subsequent edition. 3. “The temple of Music,” Lond. 1706, 8vo. 4. “The great abuse of Music,” ibid. 1711, 8vo, in which he examines all the series of English songs, pointing out their impious or immoral passages, concluding with a Gloria Patri set to music, apparently by himself, in four parts. 5. “Essay on singing David’s psalms,” 1708. 6. His “Ævil of Stageplays” republished under the title of “A serious remonstrance in behalf of the Christian Religion, against the horrid blasphemies and impieties which are still used in the English Playhouses, &c.” In this he has so completely perused the whole range of the English drama, as to produce “seven thousand instances, taken out of plays of the present century, and especially of the last five years, in defiance of all methods hitherto used for their reformation;” and he has also given a catalogue of “above fourteen hundred texts of scripture, which are mentioned, either as ridiculed and exposed by the stage, or as opposite to their present practices.” 7. “Animadversions on sir Isaac Newton,” mentioned above. 8. “Scripture Chronology, demonstrated by astronomical calculations, in eight books,” ibid. 1741, fol. which Dr. Waterland justly characterises as a very learned and elaborate work. 9. “Eight sermons on the doctrine of the Trinity, at lady Moyer’s lecture,” ibid. 174], 8vo. 10. “The doctrine of Justification by Faith stated according to the articles of the church of England. Contained in nine questions and answers,” ibid. 1741, 8vo. 11. “Horye Mathematics Vacua*, or a treatise of the Golden and Ecliptick Numbers,” ib. 1743, 8vo. The original ms. of this work, which was written during an illness which deprived him of the use of his limbs, is now preserved in Sion college library. He published also several single sermons, preached on public occasions.

, second son of Hilkiah, was educated at Westminster-school; and was afterwards admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge; became master’s sizar to Dr. Robert Jenkin, the master; and was matriculated Dec. 9, 1730. Being a nonjuror, he never took a degree; but going into orders in that party, officiated amongst the people of that mode of thinking in Derbyshire, fixing his residence at Compton, near Ashbourne, where he became much acquainted with Ellis Farueworth; and was reputed a good scholar. Having some original fortune, and withal being a very frugal man, and making also the most of his money for a length of years, Mr. Bedford died rich at Compton, in Feb. 1773, where he was well respected. Having a sister married to George Smith, esq. near Durham (who published his father Dr. John Smith’s fine edition of Bede), Mr. Bedford went into the north, and there prepared his edition of “Symeonis monacal Durihelmensis libellus de exordio atque procursu Dunhelmensis ecclesiae;” with a continuation to 1154, and an account of the hard usage bishop William received from Rufus; which was printed by subscription in 1732, 8vo, from a very valuable and beautiful ms. in the cathedral library, which he supposes to be either the original, or copied in the author’s life-time. He was residing at Ashbourne in 1742, when he published an Historical Catechism, the second edition, corrected and enlarged. The first edition was taken from abbe Fleury; but as this second varied so much from that author, Bedford left out his name.

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

, an advocate of the parliament of Dijon, and afterwards a notary, and a corresponding member of the French academy of belles-lettres, derived considerable reputation from some works which he published on domestic economics and agriculture. He is also the author of some historical pieces, but they have been thought inferior to the others. We have no other memoranda of his life, than that he died in May 1786. He published: I. “Des principes de la vegetation et de ^agriculture,” 1769, 8vo. 2. “Memoire sur les avantages de la mouture economique, et du commerce des farines en detail^” 8vo. 3. “CEnologie, ou Traite de la vigne et des vins,” 1770, 12mo. 4. “Dissertation surTergot, ou ble cornu,” 1771, 4to. 5. “Traite de la connoissance generale des” rains,“1775, 3 vols. 8vo, and 4to. Among other curious things in this work, which is accompanied with cuts well coloured, there is a memoir, transmitted from Pekin, relative to the Chinese method of >reserving corn, and the laws of their police with respect to that article. It contains also many useful remarkson the subject, although not always happily or concisely expressed. 6.” Manuel du meunier et du charpentier des Moulins,“1785, 8vo, taken in a great measure from the memoirs of Cesar Bucquet, 7.” Traite general des subsistances et des grains,“1782, 6 vols. 8vo. Beguillet wrote also” Histoire cles guerres des deux Bourgognes/' tinder the reign of Lewis XIII. and XIV, 1772, 2 vols. 12mo. “Precis de i'Histoire de Bourgogne,” 8vo. “Description generale du duche de Bourgogne,” 6 vols. 8vo, written in part by the abbé Couctepee; and several articles in the Encyclopedia. In conjunction with Poncelin, he also published “Histoire de Paris, avec la description de ses plus beaux monumens,” Paris, 1780, 3 vols. 8vo.

, an engraver of Nuremberg, who flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century, was either instructed, or became an imitator of Henry Aldegrever, and Albert Durer, and like them, engraved on wood as well as copper, and also etched some few plates; but these last, by far the most indifferent, are also the smallest part of his works. If his style of engraving be not original, it is at least an excellent and spirited imitation of that which was adopted by the preceding masters of the country in which he resided. His pictures, for he was a painter, as well as his engravings, were held in such high estimation, that the poets of that age celebrated him in their poems, calling him in Latin, Bohemus. He was certainly a man of much genius, and possessed great fertility of invention. But the Gothic taste which so generally prevailed in Germany at this time, is much too prevalent in his works. His draperies are stiff, and loaded with a multiplicity of short, inelegant folds. His drawing of the naked figure, which he is fond of introducing, though mannered, is often very correct, and sometimes masterly. His heads, and the other extremities of his figures, are carefully determined, and often possess much merit. Of his numerous works, the following may be mentioned as specimens; on wood, a set of prints for a book entitled “Biblicae Histories artinciossissimce depictae,” Francfort, 1537; and on copper, “History of the creation and fall of man:” “The labours of Hercules:” “The virtues and vices,” &c. He had a brother, Bartholomew Beham, who resided principally at Rome. He was also an engraver, and from such of his prints as have been ascertained, which is somewhat difficult, he appears to have been a very excellent artist, and one of the superior scholars of Marc Antonio, whose style of engraving he imitated with great success. His drawing is correct and masterly; his beads are characteristic, and the other extremities of his figures well marked.

, otherwise Behaim, Bœhm, or Behenira, an eminent geographer and mathematician of the fifteenth century, was born at Nuremberg, an imperial city in the circle of Franconia, of a noble family, not yet extinct. He had the best education which the darkness of that age permitted, and his early studies were principally directed to geography, astronomy, and navigation. As he advanced in life, he often thought of the existence of the antipodes, and of a western continent, of which he was ambitious to make the discovery.

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

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

From these circumstantial accounts, which have been but very lately brought to light, there can be little doubt, we think, that America was discovered by Martin Behcrn. Dr. Robertson, indeed, is of a different opinion; but great as we willingly acknowledge his authority to be, we may differ from him without presumption in this case, since he had it not in his power to consult the German documents to which we have appealed, and has himself advanced facts not easily to be reconciled to his own opinion. He allows that Behem was very intimate with Christopher Columbus; that he was the greatest geographer of his time, and scholar of the celebrated John Miiller or Regiomontanus; that he discovered, in 1483, the kingdom of Congo, upon the coast of Africa; that he made a globe which Magellan made use of; that he drew a map at Nuremberg, containing the particulars of his discoveries; and that he placed in this chart land which is found to be in the latitude of Guiana. He adds, indeed, without proof, that this land was a fabulous island; but if authentic records are to give place to bare assertion, there is an end of all historical evidence. If Behem took for an island the first land which he discovered, it was a mistake surely not so gross as to furnish grounds for questioning his veracity, or for withholding from him for ever that justice which has been so long delayed. But this very delay will by some be thought a powerful objection to the truth of Behem’s claim to the discovery of America; for if it was really discovered by him, why did he not leave behind him some writing to confirm the discovery to himself? and why did not the court of Portugal, so jealous of the discovery of the new world, protest against the exclusive claim of the Spaniards?

To these objections we may reply, that, however plansible they may at first appear, they do not in the smallest degree invalidate the positive evidence which we have urged for the Chevalier Behem’s being the real discoverer of the new world: for it would surely be very absurd to oppose the difficulty of assigning motives for certain actions performed at a remote period, to the reality of other actions for which we have the testimony of a cloud of contemporary witnesses. Supposing it were true, therefore, that Behem had left behind him no writing claiming to himself the discovery of any part of the continent of America, the only inference which could be drawn from his silence would be, either that ho was a man of great modesty, or that his mind was intent only on the acquisition of knowledge to himself, without feeling the usual impulse to communicate that knowledge to others. But it is not true that he has left behind him no claim of this discovery to himself. The letters to which we have appealed, and which are preserved in the archives of Nuremberg, together with the globe and map, which he certainly made, furnish as complete a confirmation of his claim as could have been furnished by the most elegant account of his voyages.

, a celebrated English poetess, descended from a good family in the city of Canterbury, was born in the reign of Charles I. but in what year is not certain her father’s name was Johnson who beino-related to the lord Willoughby, and by his interest having been appointed lieutenant general of Surinam, and six-andthirty islands, embarked with his family for the West Indies; at which time Aphara was very young. Mr. Johnson died in his passage, but his family arrived at Surinam, where our poetess became acquainted with the American prince Oroonoko, whose story she has given us in her celebrated novel of that name. She tells us, “she had often seen and conversed with that great man, and had been a witness to many of his mighty actions; and that at one time, he and Climene (or Imoinda his wife) were scarce an hour in a day from her lodgings.” The intimacy betwixt Oroonoko and our poetess occasioned some reflections on her conduct, from which the authoress of her life justifies her in the following manner: “Here,” says she, “I can add nothing to what she has given the world already, but a vindication of her from some unjust aspersions I find are insinuated about this town, in relation to that prince. I knew her intimately well, and I believe she would not have concealed any love affairs from me, being one of her own sex, whose friendship and secrecy she had experienced, which makes me assure the world, there was no affair betwixt that prince and Astraea, but what the whole plantation were witnesses of; a generous value for his uncommon virtues, which every one that but hears them, finds in himself, and his presence gave her no more. Besides, his heart was too violently set on the everlasting charms of his Imoinda, to be shook with those more faint (in his eye) of a white beauty; and Astrsea’s relations, there present, had too watchful an eye over her, to permit the frailty of her youth, if that had been powerful enough.”

The disappointments she met with at Surinam, by losing her parents and relations, obliged her to return to England; where, soon after her arrival, she was married to Mr. Behn, an eminent merchant of London, of Dutch extraction. King Charles II. whom she highly pleased by the entertaining and accurate account she gave him of the colony of Surinam, thought her a proper person to be intrusted with the management of some affairs during the Dutch war, in other words to act as a spy; which was the occasion of her going over to Antwerp. Here she discovered the design formed by the Dutch, of sailing up the river Thames, in order to burn the English ships; which she learnt from one Vander Albert, a Dutchman. This man, who, before the war, had been in love with her in England, no sooner heard of her arrival at Antwerp, than he paid her a visit; and, after a repetition of all his former professions of love, pressed her extremely to allow him by some signal means to give undeniable proofs of his passion. This proposal was so suitable to her present aim in the service of her country, that she accepted of it, and employed her lover in such a manner as* made her very serviceable to the king. The latter end of 1666, Albert sent her word by a special messenger, that he would be with her at a day appointed, at which time he revealed to her, that Cornelius de Witt and De Ruyter had proposed the above-mentioned expedition to the States. Albert having mentioned this affair with all the marks of sincerity, Mrs. Behn coukl not doubt the credibility thereof; and when the interview was ended, she sent express to the court of England; but her intelligence (though well grounded, as appeared by the event) being disregarded and ridiculed, she renounced all state affairs, and amused herself during her stay at Antwerp with what was more suited to her talents, the gallantries of the city. After some time she embarked at Dunkirk for England, and in her passage the ship was driven on the coast four days within sight of land; but, by the assistance of boats from that shore, the crew were all saved; and Mrs. Behn arrived safely in -London, where she dedicated the rest of her life to pleasure and poetry, neither of the most pure kind. he published three volumes of miscellany poems; the first in 1684, the second in 1685, and the third in 1688, consisting of songs and miscellanies, by the earl of Rochester, sir George Etherege, Mr. Henry Crisp, and others, with some pieces of her own. To the second collection is annexed a translation of the duke de Rochefoucauld s moral reflections, under the title of “Seneca unmasked.” She wrote also seventeen plays, some histories and novels, which are extant in two volumes, 12mo, 1735, 8th edition, published by Mr. Charles Gildon, and dedicated to Simon Scroop, esq. to which is prefixed the history of the life, and memoirs of Mrs. Behn, written by one of the fair sex. She translated Fontenolle’s History of oracles, and Plurality of worlds, to which last she annexed an essay on translation and translated prose, not very remarkable for critical acumen. The paraphrase of CEnone’s epistle to Paris, in the English translation of Ovid’s Epistles, is Mrs. Behn’s; and Mr. Dryden, in the preface to that work, compliments her with more gallantry than justice, when he adds, “I was desired to say, that the author, who is of the fair sex, understood not Latin; but if she does not, I am afraid she has given us occasion to be ashamed who do.” She was also the authoress of the celebrated Letters between a nobleman and his sister, printed in 1684; and we have extant of hers, eight love-letters, to a gentleman whom she passionately loved, and with whom she corresponded under the name of Lycidas. They are printed in the Life and Memoirs of Mrs. Behn, prefixed to her histories and novels. She died between forty and fifty years of age, after a long indisposition, April 16, 1689, and was buried in the cloisters of Westminster-abbey. Mrs. Behn, upon the whole, cannot be considered as an ornament either to her sex, or her nation. Her plays abound with obscenity; and her novels are little better. Mr. Pope speaks thus of her:

The poet means behind the scenes, but Mr. Granger is of opinion she would have literally put them to bed before the spectators; but here she was restrained by the laws of the drama, not by her own delicacy, or the manners of the age. Her works, however, are now deservedly forgotten.

, born in the village of Beidhah, was cadi or judge of the city of Schiraz in Persia, from whence he went to that of Zauris, where he died in the year of the hegira 685 or 692, of the Christian sera 1289, or 1291. He has written a literal commentary in 2 vols, on the Alcoran, which has been explained and commented on by several other authors.

, an artist, was born at Ravensburgh in Suabia, in 1665, and was taught the first rudiments of his art by his father, who was a mathematician, and practised painting only for his amusement, and explained the principles of it to his son. By an assiduous practice for some years, Beisch proved a good artist, and was employed at the court of Munich, to paint the battles which the elector Maximilian Emanuel had fought in Hungary. While the elector was absent on some of his expeditions, Beisch embraced that opportunity to visit Italy, and took the most effectual methods for his improvement, by studying and copying those celebrated spots which have always claimed general admiration. He had three different manners: his first, before his journey to Italy, was true, but too dark; his second had more clearness and more truth; and his last, still more clear, was likewise weaker than all. The scenes of his landscapes, however, are agreeably chosen, and very picturesque: his touch is light, tender, and full of spirit; and his style of composition frequently resembled that of Gaspar Poussin, or Salvator Rosa. Solimene, a superior artist, did not disdain to copy some of Beisch' s landscapes. This artist died in 1748, aged eighty-three.

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

, bishop of Durham in the reigns of Edward I. and II. was advanced, with the king’s consent, from the archdeaconry of Durham and other preferments to the bishopric. Of his extraction and education we have no account. He was elected by the monks on the 9th of July 1283, and consecrated, in the presence of the king and several of the nobles, by William Wicwane, archbishop of York, on the 9th of January following. At the time of his consecration, the archbishop, having had a dispute, during the vacancy of the see, with the chapter of Durham, obliged the prior to go out of the church; and the next day enjoined the new bishop, upon his canonical obedience, to excommunicate the superior and several of the monks: but Bek refused to obey the archbishop, saying, “I was yesterday consecrated their bishop, and shall 1 excommunicate them to-day? 110 obedience shall force me to this.” He was enthroned on Christmas eve, 1285; on which occasion a dispute arising between the prior and the official of York about the right of performing that ceremony, Bek was installed by his brother Thomas Bt k bishop of St. David’s. This prelate had a long dispute with the monks of Durham; which proved very detrimental to the revenues and privileges of the see. He is said to have been the richest bishop (if we except Wolsey) that had ever held the see of Durham: for, besides the revenues of his bishopric, he had a temporal estate of five thousand marks per annum; part of which, we are told, he gained by unjustly converting to his own use an estate, which he held in trust for the natural son of the baron of Vescey. He procured the translation of the body of St. William, formerly archbishop of York, and bore the whole expence of the ceremony, which was performed in the church of York. He assisted king Edward I. in his war against John Baliol, king of Scotland, and brought into the field a large body of forces. In 1294, he was sent ambassador from king Edward to the emperor of Germany, to conclude a treaty with that prince, against the increasing power of France. In 1295, the pope having sent two cardinals on an embassy to the English court, this prelate was appointed to answer them in the king’s name. He had the title of patriarch of Jerusalem conferred on him by the pope in 1305; and about the same time received from the king a grant of the principality of the island of Man. An act passed in his time, in the parliament of Carlisle, 1307, to prevent the bishop of Durham or his officers, from cutting -down the woods belonging to the bishopric. This prelate expended large sums in building. He fortified the bishop’s seat at Aukland, and turned it into a castle; and he built, or enlarged, the castles of Bernard in the bishopric of Durham; of Alnwick in Northumberland; of Gainford in the bishopric of Durham; of Somerton in Lincolnshire, which he gave to king Edward I.; and of Eltham in Kent, which he gave to queen Eleanor. He founded the priory of Alvingham in Lincolnshire, the revenue of which, at the dissolution, was valued at 141l. 15s. per annum. He founded, likewise, a collegiate church, with a dean and seven prebendaries, at Chesterupon-the-street, and at Lanchester, in the bishopric of Durham. He also gave to the church of Durham two pictures, containing the history of our Saviour’s nativity, to be hung as an ornament over the great altar on the festival of Christmas. He died at Eltham, March 3, 1310, having sat twenty-eight years, and was buried in the church of Durham near the east front, contrary to the custom of his predecessors, who, out of respect to the body of St. Cuthbert, were never laid within the church. Bek was a man of uncommon pride, which more or less entered into the whole of his conduct. He was fond of military parade, and the attendance of a retinue of soldiers, although he took little pains to attach them to him. His magnificent taste appeared not only in the lasting monuments already noticed, but in his more domestic expences. He is said on one occasion to have paid forty shillings (a sum now equivalent to 80l.) for forty fresh herrings in London, when they had been refused by the most opulent persons of the realm, then assembled in parliament. He was so impatient of rest, that he never took more than one sleep, saying it was unbecoming a man to turn from one side to the other in bed. He was perpetually either riding from one manor to another, or hunting or hawking. Though his expences were great, he was provident enough never to want money. He always rose from his meals with an appetite: and his continence was so singular that he never looked a woman full in the face. We are even gravely told, that in the translation of the body of St. William of York, when the other bishops declined touching that saint’s remains, conscious of their failings in point of chastity, he alone boldly handled them, and assisted the ceremony. His taste in architecture, however, and his munificence in contributing to so many once noble edifices, are the only favourable circumstances in his character, nor should we have thought him worthy of much notice, had he not been admitted by the original editors of our national biography.

, a famous painter, born at Delft in the Netherlands, May 25, 1621, was trained under Van Dyke, and other celebrated masters. Skill in his profession, joined to politeness of manners, acquired him esteem in almost all the courts of Europe. He was in high favour with Charles I. king of England, and taught the principles of drawing to his sons, Charles and James. He was afterwards in the service of the kings of France and Denmark: he went next into the service of Christina queen of Sweden, who esteemed him very highly, gave him many rich presents, and made him first gentleman of her bedchamber. She sent him also to Italy, Spain, France, England, Denmark, and to all the courts of Germany, to take the portraits of the different kings and princes; and then presented each of them with their pictures. His manner of painting was extremely free and quick, so that king Charles I. told him one day, “he believed he could paint while he was riding post.” A very singular adventure happened to this painter, as he travelled through Germany, which seems not unworthy of being recited. He was suddenly and violently taken ill at the inn where he lodged, and was laid out as a corpse, seeming to all appearance quite dead. His valets expressed the strongest marks of grief for the loss of their master; and while they sat beside his bed, they drank very freely, by way of consolation. At last one of them, who grew much intoxicated, said to his companions, “Our master was fond of his glass while he was alive; and out of gratitude, let us give him a glass now he is dead.” As the rest of the servants assented to the proposal, he raised up the head of his master, and endeavoured to pour some of the liquor into his mouth. By the fragrance of the wine, or probably by a small quantity that imperceptibly got clown his throat, Bek opened his eyes; and the servant being excessively drunk, and forgetting that his master was considered as dead, compelled him to swallow what wine remained in the glass. The painter gradually revived, and by proper management and care recovered perfectly, and escaped an interment. How highly the works of this master were esteemed, may appear from the many marks of distinction and honour which were shewn him; for he received from different princes, as an acknowledgment of his singular merit, nine gold chains, and several medals of gold of a large size. The manner of his death is represented by the Dutch writers, as implying a reflection of his royal patroness the queen of Sweden. He was very desirous of returning to his native country, permission for which that princess refused, until having occasion herself to go to France, Bek had the courage to ask leave to go to Holland. She granted this on condition he should punctually return within a certain number of weeks; but he went away with a determination never to return. She wrote to him to come to Paris, but he gave her no answer, and remained at the Hague, where he died suddenly, Dec. 20, 1656, not without suspicion of poison, as the Dutch writers insinuate.

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

, a once celebrated Dutch divine, was born in 1634-, at Warthuisen, a village in the province of Groningen. He learned the Latin tongue at home under his father, and at sixteen years of age was entered at the university of Groningen, where he applied iiirnself to the study of the Greek and Hebrew languages, and made also a considerable proficiency in history and philosophy. He went afterwards to Franeker, where he studied divinity for four years and a half, when he was chosen minister at Oosterlingen, a village about six miles from Franeker. He discharged his duty with great diligence, and found time to read and examine the writings of the most eminent philosophers and divines. He kept a constant correspondence with James Alting, under whom he had studied the Hebrew tongue, and with the famous Cocceius. In 1665 he took his degree of doctor of divinity, at Franeker, and the next year was chosen one of the ministers of that city. When he was minister at Oosterlingen, he composed a short catechism for children, and in 1670 he published another for persons of a more advanced age. This last being strongly objected to by several divines, the author was prosecuted before the ecclesiastical assemblies; and notwithstanding many learned divines gave their testimonies in favour of this catechism, yet in the synod held in 1671, at Bolswart in Friezland, it was voted there, to contain several strange expressions, unscriptural positions, and dangerous opinions, which ought not to be printed, or, being printed, not to be published, but that if revised and corrected, it might be printed. Bekker appealed to the next synod, which met at Franeker, in July 1672, who chose a committee of twelve deputies, to inquire into this affair, and to finish it in six weeks. They examined Bekker’s catechism very carefully, and at last subscribed an act in which were the following words: “That they had altered all such expressions as seemed to be offensive, strange, or uncommon: that they had examined, sccundum fidei analogiam, what had been observed by the several classes as unscriptural; and that they judged Dr. Bekker’s book, with their corrections, might, for the edification of God’s church, be printed and published, as it contained several wholsome and useful instructions.” This judgement was approved of by the synod held at Harlingen next year; but such is the constitution of synods in the seven provinces, that one can annul what another has established, and Bekker suffered for two years longer much trouble and vexation.

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

ver admit any one’s opinion implicitly, but used to examine every thing according to the strictest rules of reason, or what appeared reason to him. He was of a very obliging temper, and knew how to make himself acceptable to those who conversed with him. He had a quick genius, and when he had once imbibed any opinion, it was very difficult to make him change it, and sometimes he trusted too much to his own judgment. He was, like men who use to meditate deeply, more able to raise doubts and difficulties, than

, counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, was born there March 21, 1693, and at the age of nine was sent for education to the college of the Oratory at Juilly, in the diocese of Meaux. Although of a weakly habit, he made great progress in his early studies, and was liberally encouraged by one of the regent masters, father de Vize“. In 1711 he returned to his family, where he continued his studies, deriving some assistance from his father, a man of talents, but austere and somewhat unsocial. Here, likewise, he found many young men of his own age who like himself were intended for the bar or for offices of the magistracy. After five or six years application, M. Bel employed his pen on various subjects of metaphysics and morals, and amused himself occasionally with perusing the best poets. In 1720, he was received as a counsellor of parliament, and conducted himself in the causes entrusted to him, with strict probity and impartiality. In 1731, on the death of his father, he succeeded him in the office of treasurer of France. During his residence at Paris, he formed an intimacy with the literati of the metropolis, and projected two considerable works, for which he had collected materials: the one on taste, its history, progress and decline; the other on French poetry. On his return to Bourdeaux in 1736, he was elected a member of the Bourdeaux academy, and the following year chosen director, on which occasion he made a speech which included some part of the work on taste above-mentioned. Some time afterwards he resigned his office of counsellor, and obtained letters of superannuation (lettres de veteran). In 1737, the academy having proposed” muscular motion“as the subject of the prize of that year, which was won by Mr. Alexander Stuart, a Scotchman, and physician to the queen of England, M. Bel, after examining the various dissertations sent in on this occasion, read one of his own on the same subject before the academy; and in order to study this and similar subjects more fully, with a view to his situation in the academy, he determined to make another visit to Paris. But from the moment of his arrival there, he gave himself up so unremittingly to study, as to bring on a dangerous illness, of which he died August 15, 1738. He left to the academy of Bourdeaux, his house and a fine and well-chosen library, with a fund for the maintenance of two librarians. His principal publications were, 1.” Apologie de M. Houdart de la Motte, de l'academie Franchise, Paris, 1724,“8vo, a satirical attack on M. de la Motte’s works, especially his dramas. 2.” Dictionnaire Neologique," since considerably augmented by the abbe* Fontaines, a work intended to ridicule the use of new and affected words. He wrote also a criticism on the Mariamne of Voltaire, and some similar criticisms inserted in the Literary Memoirs published by father Moletz of the oratory.

, was born in the year 1706, at Kingston in Surrey. He received his education at Eton; and discovering an inclination for surgery, was bound apprentice to Mr. Cheselden, by far the most eminent man of his profession. Under this great master, who used to say, that of all the apprentices he ever had Mr. Belchier was the most industrious and assiduous, he soon became an accurate anatomist. His preparations were esteemed next to' Dr. NichohVs, and allowed to exceed all others of that time. Thus qualified, his practice soon became extensive; and in 1736 he succeeded his fellow-apprentice Mr. Craddock, as surgeon to Guy’s hospital. In this situation, which afforded such ample opportunity of displaying his abilities, he, by his remarkably tender and kind attention to his pauper patients, became as eminent for his humanity as his superior skill in his profession. Like his master Cheselden, he was very reluctant before an operation, yet quite as successful as that great operator. He was particularly expert in the reduction of the humerus; which, though a very simple operation, is frequently productive of great trouble to the surgeon, as well as excruciating pain to the patient. Being elected fellow of the royal society, he communicated to that learned body several curious cases that fell within his cognizance; particularly a remarkable case of an hydrops ovarii, published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 423; an account of the miller whose arm was torn off by a mill, August 15, 1737, No. 449; and a remarkable instance of the bones of animals being turned red by aliment only, No. 442. The greatest discoveries frequently are owing to trifling and accidental causes. Such was the ease in the last-mentioned circumstance, Mr. Belchier being led to make his inquiries on that subject, by the bone of a boiled leg of pork being discovered to be perfectly red, though the meat was well-flavoured, and of the usual colour. On his resignation as surgeon of Guy’s, he was made governor both of that and St. Thomas’s hospital, to which he was particularly serviceable, having recommended not less than 140 governors. Mr. Belchier in private life was a man of strict integrity, warm and zealous in his attachments, sparing neither labour nor time to serve those for whom he professed a friendship. Of this he gave a strong proof, in becoming himself a governor of the London hospital, purposely to serve a gentleman who had been his pupil. Indeed, he on every occasion was particularly desirous of serving those who had been under his care. A man of such a disposition could not fail of being caressed and beloved by all that really knew him. In convervation he was entertaining, and remarkable for bons mots, which he uttered with a dry laconic bluntness peculiar to himself; yet under this rough exterior he was possessed of a feeling and compassionate heart. Of the latter, his constantly sending a plate of victuals every day, during his confinement, to a man, who, having gained admittance to him, presented a pistol with an intent to rob him, and whom he seized and secured, is an unquestionable proof, as well as of his personal courage. Such were his gratitude and friendship too for those of his acquaintance, that on several sheets he has mentioned their names with some legacy as a token of remembrance, as medals, pictures, books, &c. trinkets and preparations, and on another paper says he could not do more, having a family of children. Whenever he spoke of Mr. Guy, the founder of the hospital, it was in a strain of enthusiasm, which he even carried so far as to saint him. A gentleman having on one of those occasions begged leave to relnark, that he had never before heard of St. Guy, Mr. Belchier, in his sentimental way, replied, “No, sir: perhaps you may not find his name in 'the calendar, but give me leave to tell you, that he has a better title to canonization than nine-tenths of those whose names are there; some of them may, perhaps, have given sight to the blind, or enabled the lame to walk; but can you quote me an instance of one of them bestowing one hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling for the purpose of relieving his fellow creatures?” Mr. Belchier was a great admirer of the fine arts, and lived in habits of intimacy with the principal artists of his time. He enjoyed a great share of health, though far advanced in years. A friend of his being some time since attacked with epileptic fits, he exclaimed, “I am extremely sorry for him, but when I fall I hope it will be to rise no more;” and he succeeded in a great measure in his wish, for being taken with a shivering fit at Batson’s coffee-house, he returned home and went to bed. The next day he thought himself better, got up, and attempted to come down stairs, but complained to those who were assisting him, that they hurried him, and immediately alter exclaiming, “It is all over!” fell back and expired. His body was interred in the chapel at Guy’s hospiial. He died in 1785.

, an English antiquary, was son of Beaupré Bell, esq. of Beaupré-hall in Upwell and Outwell in Clackclose hundred, Norfolk, where the Beaupré family had settled early in the fourteenth century, and enjoyed the estate by the name of Beaupré (or de Bello prato) till sir Robert Bell intermarried with them about the middle of the sixteenth. Sir Robert was speaker of the house of commons, 14 Eliz. and chief baron of the exchequer; and caught his death at the black assize at Oxford, 1577. Beaupr Bell, his fourth lineal descendant, married Margaret, daughter of sir Anthony Oldfield of Spalding, bart. who died 1720, and by whom he had issue his namesake the subject of this article, and two daughters, of whom the youngest married William Graves, esq. of Fulborn in Cambridgeshire, who thereby inherited the family estate near Spalding, with the site of the abbey. Mr. Bell, junior, was educated at Westminster school, admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, 1723, and soon commenced a genuine and able antiquary. He made considerable collections of church notes in his own and the neighbouring counties, all which he bequeathed to the college where he received his education. Mr. Biomfield acknowledges his obligations to him for collecting many evidences, seals, and drawings, of great use to him in his “History of Norfolk.”

His father led a miserable life, hardly allowing his son necessaries, and dilapidated his house, while at the same time he had five hundred horses of his own breeding, many above thirty years old, unbroke. On his death his son succeeded to his estate, of about 1500l. a-year, which he did not long enjoy, dying of a consumption, on the road to Bath, August, 1745. He left the reversion, after the death of his sister, with his books and medals, to Trinitycollege, under the direction of the late vice-master, Dr. Walker; but his sister marrying, the entail was cut off, He was buried in the family burying-place, in St. Mary'g chapel in Outwell-church. The registers of the Spalding society abound with proofs of Mr. Bell’s taste and knowledge in ancient coins, both Greek and Roman, besides many other interesting discoveries. He published proposals, elegantly printed, for the following work, at 5s. the first subscription, “Tabulae Augustae, sive Imperatorum Romanorum, Augustorum, Csesarum, Tyrannorum, et illustrium virorum a Cn. Pompeio Magno ad Heraclium Aug. series chronologica. Ex historicis, nummis, et mannoribus collegit Beaupreius Bell, A.M. Cantabrigian, typis academicis 1734,” which was in great forwardness in 1733, and on which Mr. Johnson communicated his observations. Mr. Bell conceived that coins might be distinguished by the hydrostatical balance, and supposed the flower on the Rhodian coins to be the lotus, but Mr. Johnson the balaustrum, or pomegranate flower. He sent the late unhappy Dr. Dodd notes concerning the life and writings of Callimachus, with a drawing of his head, to be engraved by Vertue, and prefixed to his translation of that poet. He made a cast of the profile of Dr. Stukeley, prefixed to his “Itinerarium,” and an elegant bust of Alexander Gordon, after the original given by him to sir Andrew Fountaine’s niece. He communicated to the Spalding society an account of Outwell church, and the Haultoft family arms, in a border engrailed Sable a lozenge Ermine, quartering Fincham, in a chapel at the east end of the north aile. He collected a series of nexus literarum, or abbreviations. He had a portrait of sir Thomas Gresham, by Hilliard, when young, in a close green silk doublet, hat, and plaited ruff, 1540 or 1545, formerly belonging to sir Marmaduke Gresham, bart. then to Mr. Philip, filazer, by whose widow, a niece to sir Marmaduke, it came to sir Anthony Oldfield, and so to Maurice Johnson. He addressed verses on “Color est connata lucis proprietas,” to sir Isaac Newton, who returned him a present of his “Philosophy,” sumptuously bound by Brindley.

, archdeacon of St. Alban’s, was born, in the parish of St. Dunstan’s in the West, London, Feb. 4, 1625, and educated at Merchant Taylor’s school, whence he was elected scholar of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1643, and afterwards fellow. In 1648, before which he had taken his bachelor’s degree, he was ejected by the republicans (who then took possession of the university), and afterwards travelled for some time in France. About 1655 he had a small benefice in Norfolk conferred upon him, but was not admitted by the triers, or persons appointed by the ruling party, to examine the qualifications of the clergy. At the restoration, however, he became chaplain in the Tower of London, and the year after was created B. D. In 1662 he was presented, by St. John’s college, to the vicarage of St. Sepulchre’s, London, and in 1665 was promoted to a prebendal stall in St. Paul’s, by Dr. Henchman, bishop of London. In 1667 he was farther promoted to the archdeaconry of St. Alban’s by the same patron, and appointed one of his Majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. In 1668 he proceeded D. D. and for his learning and oratory was preferred to be one of the lecturers of the Temple. In his parish he was highly popular, and his death, which took place July 19, 1683, was deeply regretted by his flock. His only publications were a few occasional sermons enumerated by Anth. Wood.

, an English miscellaneous writer, was born in 1745, at Kingston in Surrey, and educated for trade. After serving an apprenticeship to a hosier in Newgate-street, London, he established a considerable business for himself, which he carried on successfully, until he began to pay rather too much attention to literary pursuits, and after keeping shop for twenty years, was obliged finally to relinquish his trade. He became afterwards the projector of the “Monthly Mirror,” a periodical publication principally devoted to the business of the stage, and which was carried on by him for some years with spirit and success. He published also “Sadaski, or the wandering penitent,” 2 vols. 12mo, a novel in Dr. Hawkesworth’s manner, and possessing considerable merit. For the stage he wrote, “The Friends, or the benevolent Planters,” 1789, a musical interlude; and for young people, “Lessons from Life, or Home scenes.” On the death of his mother he became possessed of some property, and was in the quiet pursuit of his literary schemes, when a short but severe illness carried him off, August 29, 1800.

It is generally allowed that Bellarmin did great honour to his order, and that no man ever defended the church of Rome and the pope with more success. The Protestants have so far acknowledged his abilities, that during the space of forty or fifty years, there was scarce any considerable divine amongst them, who did not think it necessary to write against Bellarmin, and some of his antagonists accused him without much foundation, in their publications, a circumstance from which his party derived great advantage. Bellarmin, however, though a strenuous advocate for the Romish religion, did not agree with the doctrine of the Jesuits in some points, particularly that of predestination, nor did he approve of many expressions in the Romish litanies; and notwithstanding he allowed many passages in his writings to be altered by his superiors, yet in several particulars he followed the opinions of St. Augustin. He wrote most of his works in Latin, the principal of which is his body of controversy, consisting of four volumes in folio; the best edition that of Cologne, 1615. He there handles the questions in divinity with great method and precision, stating the objections to the doctrines of the Romish church with strength and perspicuity, and answering them in the most concise manner. Some of the Roman Catholics have been of opinion, that their religion has been hurt by his controversial writings, the arguments of the heretics not being confuted with that superiority and triumph, which, they imagined, the goodness of the cause merited. Father Theophilus Raynaud acknowledges some persons to have been of opinion, that Bellarmin’s writings ought to be suppressed, because the Protestants might make an ill use of them, by taking what they found in them for their purpose, and the Catholics might be deluded by not understanding the answers to the objections. Hence it was that our countryman, sir Edward Sandys, not being able to meet with Bellarmin’s works in any bookseller’s shop in Italy, concluded that they were prohibited, lest they should spread the opinions which the author confutes. Besides his body of controversy, he wrote also several other books. He has left us a “Commentary on the Psalms;” “A biography of Ecclesiastical Writers;” “A discourse on Indulgences, and the Worship of Images;” Two treatises in answer to a work of James I. of England; “A dissertation on the Power of the Pope in temporal matters,” against William Barclay; and several treatises on devotion, the best of which is that on the duties of bishops, addressed to the bishops of France.

Bellarmin is said to have been a man of great chastity and temperance, and remarkable for his patience. His stature was low, and his mien very indifferent, but his talents and acuteness might be discovered from the traces of his countenance. He always expressed himself with great perspicuity, and the words he first made use of to explain his thoughts were generally so proper, or at least so satisfactory to himself, that there appeared no rasure in his writings. He has been attacked and defended by so many writers, that a catalogue has been drawn up of both parties, and a list of his defenders was composed by Beraldus, an Italian. His life has been written by James Fuligati, and many particulars relating to him may likewise be found in Alegambus, Possevinus, Sponde, &c.

, cardinal, was born in 1492, and made early proficiency in learning. Francis I. who highly esteemed him, bestowed many preferments on him. He owed this favour to an accidental circumstance: The night before the pope made his public entrance into Marseilles, to meet the French king, it was discovered that the president of the parliament, who had been appointed to receive him with a Latin oration, had unluckily chosen a subject which would certainly give the pontiff offence; and yet there was no tune for a new composition. In this extremity, when the whole business of the ceremonial was deranged, Bellay offered his services to speak extempore, and did it with such uncommon propriety and elegance, that he was marked, from that time, as a man of the first genius in France. He was first bishop of Bayonne, and afterwards of Paris in 1532. The year following, Henry VIII. of England having raised just apprehensions of a schism on account of a quarrel with his queen, du Bellay, who had been sent to him in 1527, in quality of ambassador, and who is said to have managed his boisterous temper with great address, was dispatched to him a second time. He obtained of that prince that he would not yet break with Rome, provided time was granted him to make his defence by proxy. Du Bellay set out immediately, to ask a respite of pope Clement VII. which he obtained, and sent a courier to the king of England for his procuration, but the courier not returning, Clement VII. fulminated the bull of excommunication against Henry VIII. and laid an interdict on his dominions. It was this bull that furnished Henry with an opportunity, fortunately for England, of withdrawing that nation from the church of Rome, and a great source of revenue from the coffers of the pope. Du Bellay continued to be entrusted with the affairs of France under the pontificate of Paul III. who made him cardinal in 1535. The year afterwards, Charles V. having entered Provence with a numerous army, Francis I. in order to appose so formidable an enemy, quitted Paris, whither du Bellay was just returned, and the king appointed him his lieutenant-general, that he might have a watchful eye over Picardy and Champagne. The cardinal, no less intelligent in matters of war than in the intrigues of the cabinet, undertook to defend Paris, which was then in confusion, and fortified it accordingly with a rampart and boulevards, which are still to be seen. He provided with equal promptitude for the security of the other towns, which important services procured him new benefices, and the friendship and confidence of Francis I. After the death of that prince, the cardinal de Lorraine became the channel of favour at the court of Henry II., but du Bellay, too little of a philosopher, and too much affected by the loss of his influence, could no longer endure to remain at Paris. He chose rather to retire to Rome, where the quality of bishop of Ostia procured him, under Paul IV. the title of dean of the sacred college, and where his riches enabled him to build a sumptuous palace; but by some means he took care to keep the bishopric of Paris in his family, obtaining that see for Eustache du Bellay, his cousin, who was already provided with several benefices, and president of the parliament. The cardinal lived nine years after his demission; and, whether from patriotism or from the habit of business, he continued to make himself necessary to the king. He died at Rome, Feb. 16, 1560, at the age of 68, with the reputation of a dexterous courtier, an able negociator, and a great wit. Literature owed much to him. He concurred with his friend Budæus in engaging Francis I. to institute the college royal. Rabelais had been his physician. Of his writing are Several harangues, An apology for Francis I. Elegies, epigrams, and odes, collected in 8vo, and printed by Robert Stephens in 1546.

He was also a man of learning, and gave proofs of his abilities and genius as a writer. The most remarkable of his works was the “History of his own times,” in Latin: of this, however, nothing remains except a few fragments, sand three or four books, which Martin du Bellay, William’s brother, has inserted in his memoirs.

, a French historical compiler, was born in 1530, at Sarzan, near Samatan, a little village of Comminges in Guienne. He was only seven years of age when he lost his father; but his mother, although left in poor circumstances, contributed all in her power to his education, and he had the good fortune to be supported some years by the queen of Navarre, sister to Francis I. Some time after he went to study at Bourdeaux, and thence removed to Toulouse, where, instead of applying to the study of the law as he intended, he amused himself with poetry. He went next to Paris, where he got acquainted with several men of learning, and was honoured with the friendship of many persons of quality. Here he became an author by profession, and published above fifty compilations, mostly historical, among which are, his History of the nine Charles’s of France Annotations on the books of St. Augustin his Universal History of the World; the Chronicles of Nicholas Gillet, augmented; A Universal Cosmography; and the Annals, or General History of France, all written with little judgment or accuracy, but deemed useful at a time when these qualities were not in much request. He died at Paris in 1583.

, born in 1648 at Pihyriac in the diocese of Nantes, became a Jesuit, and continued of that society for sixteen or seventeen years. It is pretended that his attachment to Cartesianism, at a time when it was no longer in fashion, obliged him to quit it, and he applied vigorously to his pen for a subsistence, sharing what he got very liberally with the poor. He died in the community of the priests of St. Francis de Sales, the 26th of April 1734, at the age of 86. He wrote French translations of several works of the fathers, of St. John Chrysostome, of St. Basil, of St. Gregory Nazianzen, of St. Ambrose, &c. of the works of Thomas à Kempis; of the Apparatus Biblicus, in 8vo, which for the most part are very unfaithful nor are his versions of the classics, of Ovid’s epistles, and others, in greater estimation. There is also by him a version of Las Casas, on the destruction of the Indies, 1697, and several moral productions: 1. Reflections on what may please and displease in the world. 2. Reflections on ridicule. 3. Models of conversation, and other moral writings, forming together 14 small volumes, all which bear strong marks of the precipitation in which the author composed them. The abb< de Bellegarde had an easy and sometimes an elegant style; but his reflections are little more than trivial moralities, without depth or ingenuity. A very indifferent translation of his “Models of conversation” was published at London in 1765, 8vo, enough to shew the absurdity of many of his sentiments, and the improbabilities of his historical facts.

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

, more generally known by his Latin name of Gulielmus Belendenus, a native of Scotland, was born in the sixteenth century. We find him mentioned by Dempster as humanity professor atParis, in 1602. He is reported by the Scots to have possessed an eminent degree of favour with James VI. to whom he was master of requests, and “Magister Supplicum Libellortim,” or reader of private petitions, which, it is conceived, must have been only a nominal office, as his more constant residence was in France. By the munificence of that monarch, Bellenden was enabled to enjoy at Paris all the conveniences of retirement. While he continued thus free from other cares, he suffered not his abilities to languish; but employed his time in the cultivation of useful literature. His first work, entitled “Ciceronis princeps,” was printed at Paris in 1608, a work in which he extracted from Cicero’s writings, detached passages, and comprised them into one regular body, containing the rules of monarchical government, and the duties of the prince. To this first edition was prefixed “Tractatus de processu et scriptoribus rei politicae.” “Ciceronis Consul” was the next publication of Bellenden. It appeared also at Paris in 1612, and both were inscribed to Henry prince of Wales. In 1616 was published a second edition, to which was added “Liber de statu prisci orbis,” with a dedication to prince Charles, the surviving brother of Henry. While Bellenden was occupied in the composition of these three treatises, he was so much attracted by the admiration of Cicero, that he projected a larger work, “De Tribus Luminibus Romanorum,” and what he had already written concerning Cicero he disposed in a new order. Death, however, interrupted his pursuit, before he could collect and arrange the materials which related to Seneca and Pliny, but of the time of his death we have no account. The treatises of Bellenden which remain, have been esteemed as highly valuable, and worthy the attention of the learned. They were extremely scarce, but had been much admired by all who could gain access to them. At length they were rescued from their obscure confinement in the cabinets of the curious, by a new edition which appeared at London in 1787, in a form of typography and an accuracy of printing which so excellent an author may jusily be said to merit. It was accompanied with an eloquent Latin preface in honour of three modern statesmen. Dr. Samuel Parr, the author of the preface, and to whom literature is indebted for the restoration of such a treasure, has charged Middleton with having meanly withheld his acknowledgments, after having embellished the life of Cicero by extracting many useful and valuable materials from the works of Bellenden. This, if we mistake not, had been before pointed out by Dr. Warton in the second volume of his “Essay on Pope.”

, brother to the preceding, was born at Venice in 1422, but surpassed both his father and brother in every branch of the art; and is accounted the founder of the Venetian school, by introducing the practice of painting in oil, and teaching his disciples to paint after nature. His manner of designing was but indifferent, and frequently in a bad taste; and before he knew how to manage oil-colours, his painting appeared dry; but afterwards he acquired more softness in his penciling, shewed a much greater propriety of colours, and had somewhat of harmony, though still he retained too much of what appeared dry and hard; but the airs of his heads were in a better taste than those of either Giacopo or Gentile. The school of Giovanni Bellini produced two memorable disciples, Titian and Giorgione, who brought the art of colouring to its highest perfection; and by observing the works of those famous artists, Bellini improved his own manner very considerably, so that in his latter pictures the colouring is much better, and the airs of his heads are noble, although his design is a little gothic, and his attitudes not well chosen. He died in 1512.

, advocate general of the parliament of Toulouse, of the sixteenth century, was born at Montauban, and descended from a gentleman’s family originally of Brittany. At the age of twenty-one he was appointed regent in the university of Toulouse, and after having pleaded four or five years at the bar, he was made a counsellor, or member of the presidiai court of Toulouse. Notwithstanding his being a Roman catholic, his regard for his king and country brought him into danger. His declaring against the league made the heads of that party his enemies, and king Henry III. to gratify the Guises, ordered him to be imprisoned. This happened in 1587. They charged him with being a heretic, and an incendiary, and the year before they had prevailed with the bishop to prefer an information against him, as the author of a book which Thuanus says was written by one Breton, who was hanged for it. Belloy’s work against the league, entitled “Apologie Catholique conti'e les libelles, &c. publiées par les Liguez,” was published in 1585, and afterwards translated into Latin. Belloy at length escaped from prison, and reached St. Dennis, where the governor for the king gave him a friendly reception, and presented him to his majesty, who being now convinced of his loyalty and merit, made him advocate-general of the parliament of Toulouse. The time of his death is not recorded, but he was living in 1605, and probably much later. His other works are, 1. “Declaration du droit de légitime Succession sur le royaume de Portugal apartenant a la reine mere du roi très Christien,” à Anvers et à Paris, 1582, 8vo. 2. “Panégyric ou Remonstrance pour les Sénéchal, Juges mage et criminel de Tolose, contre les Notaires et Sécrétaires du Roi de la dite Ville,” Paris, 1582, 4to. 3. “Requeste verbale pour susdits Seigneurs et Officiers de Tolose, contenantune Apologie et Defence a PAdvertissement, public” au nom des Docteurs Regents de l'Universite de Tolose,“Paris, 1583, 8vo. 4.” Brieve Explication de Tan courant 1583, selon de Calendier Gregorien,“Paris, 1583, 8vo. 5.” Supputation des temps depuis la Creation du Monde jusqu'en 1582, separee en deux colomnes diverses,“Paris, 1584. 6.” Petri Beloii Variorum Juris Civilis Libri IV, et Disputatio de Successione ab intestato,“&c. Paris, 1583. 7.” La Conference des Edits de Pacification et Explication des Edits,“Paris, 1600, 8vo. 3.” Exposition de la Prophetic de l'Ange Gabriel touchant les septante semaines descrites par le Prophetc Daniel au Chap. iy. de ses Prophecies,“Tolose, 1605, 8vo. 9.” De l'Origine et Institution de divers Ordres de Chevalerie, taut EccleViastiques que Profanes, dédié a Monsigneur le Dauphin de Viennois, Due de Bretagne,“Montauban, 1604, 8vo. 10. Arrest de ia Cour de Parlemeul de Tolos6 prononce” en TAppellation comme d‘Abus rolevée par frere Jean Journé, religieux ue l’ordre de St. Dominique, et provincial du dit ordre en la Province de Tolose, sur la procedure contre lui ordonnce par les sieurs Evesques de Condon et d'Aure, contenarit le Plaidoye sur ce fait, par Mr. Pierre de Beloy, conseiller et avocat general du roi au dit Parlemenr, Tolose, 1612, 8vo.

, of the French academy, was born at St. Flour, in Ativergne, in 1727, and educated at Paris under one of his uncles, a distinguished advocate of parliament. After having finished his studies with applause at the College-Mazarin, he took to the bar; or rather, in entering on this profession, he followed his uncle’s inclinations in opposition to his own. Captivated bv an ardent passion for literature, and despairing of ever being able to move his benefactor, a man severe and absolute in all his determinations, he expatriated himself, and went to Russia, to exercise the profession of a comedian, that he might be dispensed from exercising that of a lawyer at Paris. Being returned to that capital in 1758, he brought upon the stage his tragedy of “Titus,” imitated from the Clemenza di Tito of Metastasio. This copy of a piece barely tolerable, is only a very faint sketch of the nervous manner of Corneille, whose style the author strove to resemble. Du Belloi afterwards wrote “Zelmire,” wherein he accumulated the most forced situations and the most affecting strokes of the dramatic art. It was attended with success in representation, but will not bear examination in the closet. The “Siege of Calais,” a tragedy which he brought out in 1765, was a shining epocha of his life. This piece, which presents one of the most striking events in the history of France, procured the author the recompense it deserved. The king sent him a gold medal, weighing twenty-five louis d'ors, and a considerable gratification besides. The magistrates of Calais presented him with the freedom of their city in a gold box; and his portrait was placed in the hôtel-de-ville, among those of their benefactors. These testimonies of gratitude were thought due to a poet who set his brethren the example of choosing their subjects from the national history; and he would have been the more deserving of them if he had taken better care of his versification, which is frequently incorrect and harsh. In style, likewise, he was very deficient; but this was overlooked in the generous and noble sentiments, and the pathetic situations which constituted the attractions of the Siege de Calais, Voltaire wrote the most flattering letters to the author, but for some reason retracted his encomiums after his death; and it was generally the fate of this tragedy to be too much extolled at first, and too much degraded afterwards. “Gaston and Bayard,” in the plan of which are several faults against probability, did not excite so lively emotions as the mayor of Calais; yet still the public admired the honest and steady character, and the sublime virtues, of the “CheValier sans peur et sans reproche.” His two pieces, “Peter the cruel,” and “Gabrielle de Vergi,” the former of which was immediately condemned, and the latter applauded without reason, are much inferior to Bayard. The author understood the proper situations for producing a grand effect; but he wanted the art to prepare them, and to bring them on in a natural manner. He substituted extraordinary theatrical efforts for the simple and true pathetic, and the little tricks of oratory for the eloquence of the heart; and by this means he contributed not a little to degrade and debase the French drama. The fall of “Peter the cruel” was a fatal stroke to his extreme sensibility, and it is said hastened the term of his life. He was attacked by a lingering distemper, which lasted for several months, and exhausted his very moderate share of bodily strength. A beneficent monarch (Louis XVI.) before whom the Siege de Calais was performed the first time, being informed of the lamentable condition of the author, sent him a present of fifty louis d'ors, and the players, from motives of a laudable generosity, gave a representation of the same tragedy for the benefit of the dying poet. He expired shortly after, on the 5th of March 1775, justly regretted by his friends, who loved him for goodness of disposition and warmth of friendship. M. Gaillard, of the acaclemie Fransoise, published his works in 1779, in 6 vols. 8vo. In this edition are contained his theatrical pieces, three of which are followed by historical memoirs of a very superior kind, with interesting observations by the editor; divers fugitive pieces in poetry, for the most part produced in Russia, but very unworthy of his pen, and the life of the author by M. Gaiilard.

II. bishop of London in the reign of king Stephen, was nephew to the preceding, and son of Walter de Belmeis. Before he came of age, he was appointed by his uncle archdeacon of Middlesex: but the bishop was prevailed upon by William, dean of London, his nephew by his sister Adelina, and by the prior of Chich, to commit the administration of the archdeaconry, during Richard’s minority, to Hugh, one of his chaplains. It was with no small difficulty that Richard afterwards recovered his archdeaconry out of the hands of this faithless guardian. In the beginning of October 1151, he was advanced to the see of London, in the room of Robert de Sigillo, and consecrated at Canterbury by archbishop Theobald, in the presence of all the bishops of England, excepting Henry of Winchester, who excused his absence, but warmly approved the choice of Richard, in a letter to the archbishop. This prelate died 4th May, 1162, leaving behind him a reputation for singular eloquence. According to Dr. Richardson, whose authority is a manuscript of the late Roger Gale, esq. our prelate was the writer of the “Codex niger,” or Black Book of the Exchequer.

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

, bishop of Marseilles. This illustrious prelate was of a noble family in Guienne, had been of the order of Jesuits, and was made bishop of Marseilles in 1709. The assistance he gave his flock during the plague of 1720, that desolated the city of Marseilles, deserves to be commemorated. He was seen every where during that terrible calamity, as the magistrate, the physician, the almoner, the spiritual director of his flock. In the town-house of Marseilles there is a picture representing him giving his benediction to some poor wretches who are dying at his feet; in this he is distinguished from the rest of his attendants by a golden cross on his breast. Louis the XVth, in 1723, in consideration of his exemplary behaviour during the plague, made him an offer of the bishopric of Laon, in Picardy, a see of greater value and of higher rank than his own. Of this, however, he would not accept, saying, that he refused this very honourable translation that he might not leave a church already endeared to him by the sacrifices of life and property which he had offered. The pope honoured him with the pallium (a mark of distinction in dress worn only by archbishops), and Louis XV. insisted upon his acceptance of a patent, by which, even in the first instance, any law-suit he might be so unfortunate as to have, either for temporal or spiritual matters, was permitted to be brought before the parliament of Paris. He died in 1755, closing a life of the most active benevolence with the utmost devotion and resignation. He founded at Marseilles a college, which still bears his name. He wrote “L'histoire des Eveques de Marseille;” “Des Instructions Pastorales;” and in 1707, when he was very young, he published “La vie de Mademoiselle de Foix andale,” a relation of his, who had been eminent for her piety. A particular account of the exertions of this benevolent prelate during the terrible calamity that afflicted Marseilles is to be found in the *' Relation de la Peste de Marseilles, par J. Bertrand,“12mo, and in” Oratio funebris illust. domini de Belsunce Massiliensium episcopi," with the translation by the abbe Lanfant, 1756, 8vo.

"It is but just that I give you some account of a desolate town you was pleased to succour. Never was desolation greater, nor ever was any like this. There have been many cruel plagues, but none was ever more cruel: to be sick and dead was almost the same thing. As soon as the distemper gets into a house, it never leaves it till it has swept all the inhabitants one after another. The fright and consternation are so extremely great, that the sick are abandoned by their own relations, and cast out of their houses into the streets, upon quilts or straw beds, amongst the dead bodies, which lie there for want of people to inter them. What a melancholy spectacle have we here on all sides! We go into the streets full of dead bodies half rotten, through which we pass to come to a dying body, to excite him to an act of contrition, and give him absolution. For above fourteen days together, the blessed sacrament was carried every where to all the sick, and the extreme unction was given them with a zeal of which we have few examples. But the churches being infected with the stench of the dead bodies flung at the doors, we were obliged to leave off, and be content with confessing the poor people. At present I have no more confessors; the pretended corruptors of the morality of Jesus Christ (the Jesuits), without any obligation, have sacrificed themselves, and given their lives for their brethren; whilst the gentlemen of the severe morality (the Jansenists) are all flown, and have secured themselves, notwithstanding the obligations their benefices imposed on them; and nothing can recal them, nor ferret them out of their houses. The two communities of the Jesuits are quite disabled, to the reserve of one old man of seventy-tour years, who still goes about night and day, and visits the hospitals. One more is just come from Lyons, purposely to hear the confessions of the infected, whose zeal does not savour much of trie pretended laxity. I have had twenty-four capuchins dead, and fourteen sick, but I am in expectation of more. Seven recollecs, as many cordeliers, five or six carms, and several minims, are dead, and all the best of the clergy, both secular and regular; which grievously afflicts me.

"I stand in need of prayers, to enable me to support all the crosses that almost oppress me. At last the plague got into my palace, and within seven days I lost my steward, who accompanied me in the streets, two servants, t chairmen, and my confessor: my secretary and another lie sick, so that they have obliged me to quit my palace, and retire to the first president, who was so kind as to lend me his house. We arc destitute of all succour; we have no meat; and whatsoever I could do, going all about the town, I could not meet with any that would undertake to distribute broth to the poor that were in want. The doctors of Montpelier, who came hither three or four days ago, are frightened at the horrid stench of the streets, and refuse to visit the sick till the dead bodies are removed, and the streets cleansed. They had been much more surprised had they come a fortnight sooner; then nothing but frightful dead bodies were seen on all sides, and there was no stirring without vinegar at our noses, though that could not hinder our perceiving the filthy stench of them. I had 200 dead bodies that lay rotting under my windows for the space of eight days, and but for the authority of the first president they had remained there much longer. At present things are much changed; I made my round about the town, and found but few; but a prodigious number of quilts and blankets, and of all sorts of the richest clothes, which people would touch no more, and are going to burn.

Mr. Iloscoe, whose researches into the literature of this age, entitle his opinions to great respect, observes that the high commendation bestowed on the writings of Bembo by almost all his contemporaries, have been confirmed by the best critics of succeeding times; nor can it be denied that by selecting as his models Boccaccio and Petrarch, and by combining their excellences with his own correct and elegant taste, he contributed in an eminent degree to banish that rusticity of style, which charactersed the writings of most of the Italian authors at the commencement of the sixteenth century. His authority and example produced an astonishing effect, and among his disciples and imitators may be found many of the first scholars and most distinguished writers of the age. It must, however, be observed, that the merit of his works consists rather in purity and correctness of diction, than in vigour of sentiment or variety of poetical ornament; and that they exhibit but little diversity either of character or subject, having for the most part been devoted to the celebration of an amorous passion. In the perusal of his poetical works we perceive nothing of that genuine feeling, which proceeding from the heart of the author makes a direct and irresistible appeal to that of the reader; and but little even of that secondary characteristic of genius which luxuriates in the regions of fancy, and by its vivid and rapid imagery delights the imagination. In this respect his example wat hurtful, as his numerous imitators soon inundated Italy with writings which seldom exhibit any distinction either of character or merit. It is also thought that in his Latin writings he has too closely followed the ancients; and in his verse as well as his prose, has too often endeavoured to imitate Cicero. Tenhove remarks how ridiculously he adopted the phrases of Cicero on ecclesiastical subjects, and Erasmus has ridiculed this practice with great wit in his Ciceronianus. The same critic adds that Bembo’s Latin style is forced and laboured; words and things are perpetually at war: and if he always triumphs, it is sometimes by the dint of excessive pains, and sometimes at the expence of judgment. The Roman orator is to Bembo, what a graceful dancer is to a posture-master. The whole of Bembo’s works, Latin and Italian, were published at Venice in 1729, 4 vols. fol.

, also a landscape painter, and probably an ancestor of the preceding, was born at Utrecht in 1630, and was one of the best scholars of Herman Sachtleven, or Zaftleven. For improvement he afterwards visited Rome, and sketched every beautiful scene that occurred to him as he travelled in the neighbourhood of Rome, and particularly about Tivoli, by wnich means he furnished himself with excellent materials for his future compositions. He then settled at Nuremberg, where his principal works were long to be seen, and where he died Nov. 10, 1708. His colouring is lively and natural, if not sometimes a little too green; but his figures, and the boats, barges, and other vessels, which he always introduces on the rivers, or stationed near the banks, are well designed, and touched with spirit. His trees, indeed, are somewhat stiff and formal; but in general his pictures have a pleasing effect, as the distances are conducted with judgment, and every part handled in a masterly manner. The lights and shadows of his landscapes are distributed with singular skill; and his skies are usually clear, warm, and natural. His son John George, who died in 1723, was also an artist of some eminence, especially for his battle-pieces.

, in Latin Marcus Mantua Benavidius, an eminent lawyer, the son of John Peter Benavidio, a physician, was born at Padua, in 1489. He excelled in the study of polite literature and the civil and canon law, which last he taught for sixty years at Padua, with distinguished approbation. During this honourable career, he was often solicited to leave his situation for higher preferment, particularly by the university of Bologna, the king of Portugal, the pope, and other sovereigns, but he preferred living in his own country, where he received and deserved so much respect. He was three times honoured by the title of chevalier, by the emperor Charles V. in 1545, by Ferdinand 1. in 1561, and by pope Pius IV. in 1564. He died March 28, 1582, in the ninety-third year of his age. His principal works are: 1. “Dialogus de concilio,” Venice, 1541, 4to, in which he prefers the decision of a council to that of the pope in matters of faith. 2. “Epitome illustriumjurisconsultorum,” Padua, 1553, 8vo, printed afterwards in Fichard’s Lives of Lawyers, Padua, 1565, and in Hoffman’s edition of Pancirollus, Leipsic, 1721, 4to. 3. “Illustrium jurisconsultorum imagines,” Rome, 1566, fol. and Venice, 1567, with twentyfour portraits. 4. “Observationes legales,” Venice, 1545, 8vo. 5. “Polymatbise Libri duodecim,” Venice, 1558. 6. “Collectanea super jus Csesareum,” Venice, 1584, fol. All these works were highly esteemed for learning, and are now of r;ire occurrence. His adding the name of Mantua to his own on some occasions, as in his “Observationes legales,” is said to have been in compliment to his father, who was a native or' that city.

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

After the conclusion of the peace of Ryswick, and even while the partition treaties were negociating, king William formed a design of doing something very considerable in the West-Indies, in case his pacilic views should be disappointed, or Charles II. of Spain should die suddenly, as was daily expected. There were, indeed, many reasons which rendered the sending a squadron at that time into those parts highly requisite. Our colonies were in a very weak and defenceless condition, the seas swarmed with pirates; the Scots had established a colony at Darien, which gave the English little satisfaction, at the same time that it provoked the Spaniards. King William himself fixed upon rear-admiral Benbow to command this squadron, consisting only of three fourth-rates; and when he went to take upon him his command, he received private instructions from the king to make the best observations he could on the Spanish ports and settlements, but to keep as fair as possible with the governors, and to afford them any assistance he could, if they desired it.

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

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

, a poet of considerable note in his day, was son and heir of Andrew Bendlowes, esq. and born in 1613. At sixteen years of age he was admitted a fellow-commoner of St. John’s college in Cambridge, to which he was afterwards a benefactor; and as such his portrait is hung up in the master’s lodge. From Cambridge he travelled through several countries, and visited seven courts of princes, and returned home a most accomplished gentleman both in behaviour and conversation, but a little tinctured with the principles of popery. Being very imprudent in the management of his worldly concerns, he made a shift (though he was never married) to squander away his estate, which amounted to seven hundred or a thousand pounds a year, on poets, musicians, buffoons, and flatterers, and in, buying curiosities. He gave a handsome fortune with a niece named Philippa, who was married to Blount, of Maple-Durham in Oxfordshire, esq.; but being security for the debts of some persons, which he was not able to discharge, he was put into prison at Oxford, and upon his release spent the remainder of his life, which was eight years, in that city. He was esteemed in his younger days a great patron of the poets, especially Quarles, Davenant, Payne, Fisher, &c. who either dedicated books to him, or wrote epigrams and poems on him. His flatterers used to style him “Benevolus,” byway of anagram on his name, in return for his generosity towards them. About the latter end of his life, he was drawn off from his inclination to popery, and would often take occasion to dispute against the Papists and their opinions, and particularly disliked the favourers of Arminius and Socinus. This gentleman, reduced, through his own indiscretion, to great want, died at Oxford, Dec. 18, 1686, and was buried in the north aile of St. Mary’s church, the expences of his funeral being defrayed by a contribution of several scholars who respected him. His picture is in the Bodleian gallery.

Among his poetical pieces Wood mentions the following, 1. “Sphinx Theologica, seu Musica Templi, ubi discordia concurs,” Camb. 1626, 8vo. 2. “Honorifica armorurii cessatio, sive pacis et fidei associatio,” Feb. 11, 1643, 8vo. 3. “Theophila, or Love-Sacrifice,” a divine poem, Lond. 1652, folio, with the author’s picture before it. Several parts of this poem were set to music by Mr. John Jenkyns, an eminent musician whom Mr. Bendlowes patronized; and a whole canto of it, consisting of above three hundred verses, was turned into elegant Latin verse, in the space of one day, by Mr. John Hall of Durham. 4. “A summary of Divine Wisdom,” London, 1657, 4to. 5. “A glance at the glories of Sacred Friendship,” London, 1657, printed on one side of a large sheet of paper. 6. “De Sacra Amicitia,” printed with the former in Latin verse and prose. 7. “Threnothriambeuticon, or Latin poems on king Charles II.'s Restoration,” London, 1660, printed on a side of a large sheet of paper. A few were printed on white satin, one copy of which, in a frame suitable to it, he gave to the public library at Oxford. 8. “Oxonii Encomium,” Oxon. 1672 r in four sheets folio, mostly in Latin verse. 9. “Oxonii Elogia,” Oxon. 1673, printed on one side of a large sheet of paper it consists of twelve stanzas, and is followed by I, “Oxonii Elegia” II. “Academicis Serenitas” III. “Academicis Temperantia” IV. “Studiosis Cautela,” and some other pieces. 10. “Magia Caelestis,” Oxon. 1673, a Latin poem, printed on one side of a large sheet of paper. The three last-mentioned pieces were composed at Oxford. 11. “Echo veridica joco-seria,” Oxon. 1673, printed on one side of a large sheet of paper, a Latin poem, chiefly against the pope, the Papists, Jesuits, &c. 12. “Truth’s touch-stone,” consisting of an hundred distichs, printed on one side of a long sheet of paper, and dedicated to his niece Mrs. Phiiippa Blount. 13. “Annotations for the better confirming the several truths in the said poem;” uncertain when printed. 14. Mr. Bendlowes wrote a “Mantissa” to Richard 'Fenn’s “Panegyricon Inaugurale,” entitled, “De celeberrima et florentiss. Trinobantiados Augustoe Civ. Praetori, reg. senatui populoque,” Lond. 1673, 4to; in the title of which piece he styles himself “Turmae Equestris in Com. Essex. Prsefectus.” These writings, according to Wood, acquired Mr. Bendlowes the name of a Divine Author, but we fear the value of that character is considerably suok; although we cannot agree with Pope, that “Bendlowes, propitious to blockheads, bows,” nor with his commentator Warburton, that “Bendlowes was famous for his own bad poetry, and for patronising bad poets.” In his “Theophila” there are many uncommon and excellent thoughts, but it must be allowed that his metaphors are often strained and far-fetched, and he sometimes loses himself in mystic divinity. Granger, who thinks his Latin verses better than his English, quotes a passage from his prayer in “Theophila,” which has been deservedly admired for piety and sense.

, the founder of the order of the Benedictin monks, was a native of Norcia, formerly an episcopal see in Umbria, and was born about the year 480. He was sent to Rome when he was very young, and there received the first part of his education. At fourteen years of age he was removed from thence to Sublaco, about forty miles distant. Here he lived a most retired life, and shut himself up in a cavern, where nobody knew any thing of him except St. Romanus, who, we are told, used to descend to him by a rope, and supply him with provisions; but being afterwards discovered by the monks of a neighbouring monastery, they chose him for their abbot. Their manners, however, not agreeing with those of Benedict, he returned to his solitude, whither many persons followed him, and put themselves under iiis direction, and in a short time he was enabled to build twelve monasteries. About the year 528, he retired to Mount Cassino, where idolatry was still prevalent, a temple of Apollo being erected there. He instructed the people in the adjacent country, and having converted them, broke the image of Apollo, and built two chapels on the mountain. Here he founded also a monastery, and instituted the order of his name, which in time became so famous, and extended over all Europe. It was here too that he composed his “Regula Monachorum,” which Gregory the Great speaks of as the most sensible and best written piece of that kind ever published. Authors are not agreed as to the place where Benedict died; some say at Mount Cassino, others affirm it to have been at Rome, when he was sent thither by pope Boniface. Nor is the year ascertained, some asserting it to have been in 542 or 543, and others in 547, but the calendar fixes the day on Saturday, March 25. St. Gregory the Great has written his life in the second book of his Dialogues, where he has given a long detail of his pretended miracles. Du Pin says, that the “Regula Monachorum” is the only genuine work of St. Benedict. There have been several editions of these rules. Several other tracts are, however, ascribed to him, as particularly a letter to St. Maurus; a sermon upon the decease of St. Maurus a sermon upon the passion of St. Placidus and his companions and a discourse “De ordine monasterii.”

, abbot of Peterborough in the twelfth century, was educated at Oxford, became a monk in the monastery of Christ’s church, Canterbury, and some time after was chosen prior by the members of that society. Though he had been a great admirer of archbishop Becket, and wrote a life of that prelate, he was so much esteemed by Henry II. that by the influence of that prince he was elected abbot of Peterborough, in 1177. He assisted at the coronation of Richard I. 1189, and was advanced to be keeper of the great seal in 1191, but he did not long enjoy this high dignity, as he died on Michaelmas day, 1193. He composed a history of Henry II. and Richard I. from 1170 to 1192, which has been esteemed by many of our antiquaries, as containing one of the best accounts of the transactions of those times. A beautiful edition of this work was published at Oxford by Hearne, 1735, 2 vols. 8vo. With respect to his life of Becket, Bale and Pits speak of two pieces, which probably are but one the first entitled “Vita Thomae Cantuariensis” the other, “Miracula Thomae Marty ris.” Leland, who mentions only “the Life of Becket” as written by our author, gives it the character of an elegant performance. But Bale treats it as a mere heap of lies and forgeries, in order to palm Becket on the multitude for a first-rate saint, and intercessor with God. Nor is this author’s zeal confined to Benedict, but extends itself to the monks of those times in general, whom he represents as a set of debauchees and impostors, concealing their vices under a mask of piety, and cheating the people with the most diabolical illusions. Dr. Cave tells us, that the author of the “Quadrilogus” transcribed a great part of Benedict’s Life of Becket into the third and fourth books of his work. This “Quadrilogus, or De Vita et Processu S. Thomse Cantuariensis et Martyris super Libertate ecelesiastica” (Nicolson tells us), is collected out of four historians, who were contemporary and conversant with Becket, in his height of glory, and lowest depression; namely, Herbert de Hoscham, Johannes Carnotensis, William of Canterbury, and Alan of Teuksbury; who are brought in us so many several relaters of matters of fact, interchangeably. Here is no mention of our Benedict in this list; so that either the doctor is mistaken in his assertion, or the bishop is not exact in his account of the authors from whence the Quadrilogus was compiled.

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

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

, whose name was James Fournier, was a native of Saverdun, in the diocese of Pamier, the son of a miller, or of an obscure person; but some are of opinion that he was descended of a noble family. He embraced a religious Hie when young, among the Cistertians, and having afterwards received the degree of master of divinity in the university of Paris, he was made abbot of Fontfroide, in Narbonne, and when he had governed that monastery for six years, with great applause, he was made first bishop of Pamiers, and nine years after translated to Mirepoix. In December 1327, pope John XXII. created him cardinal presbyter of St. Prisca, and in 1334, he was elected pope, contrary to all expectation. The conclave had chosen Comminge, cardinal bishop of Porto, as the most proper person, but the French cardinal insisting that he should promise never to go to Rome, he refused to accept the office on a condition so prejudicial to the church. In this dilemma, the cardinals being at a loss whom to nominate, some of them proposed James Fournier, the most inconsiderable of the whole college, “omnium infimus,” and he was unanimously elected: this unexpected turn gave occasion to some of the writers of his days to attribute the whole to divine inspiration, with as good reason, no doubt, as in the case of any of his predecessors or successors.

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

, whose name was Prosper Lambertini, was born in 1675, at Bologna. He was appointed canon of the Basilicon, or great church of St. Peter, then successively archbishop of Theodosia, and bishop of Ancona. He received the cardinal’s hat in 1728, was deputy of the congregation of the holy office the same year, became archbishop of Bologna in 1731, and succeeded pope Clement XII. August 17, 1740. He then took the name of Benedict XIV. zealously endeavoured to calm the dissensions which had arisen in the church, patronised arts and sciences, founded several academies at Rome, and declared openly in favour of the Thomists. This pope did justice to the memory of the celebrated cardinal Noris; published the bull “Omnium sollicitudinum” against certain ceremonies, and addressed a brief to cardinal Saldanha for the reformation of the Jesuits, which was the foundation of their destruction. He had also established a congregation to compose a body of doctrine, by which the troubles of the church might be calmed. This pontiff was a very able canonist, and well acquainted with ecclesiastical history and antiquities. Though he governed with great wisdom, and was very zealous for religion, he was lively in his conversation, and fond of saying bonmots. He died 1758, aged 83. His works were published before his death in 16 vols. 4to, by Azevedo. The four last contain his briefs, bulls, &c. The five first are, “A treatise on the Beatification and Canonization of haints,” in which the subject is exhausted; an abridgement of it was published in French, 1759, 12mo. The sixth contains the actions of the saints whom he canonized. The two next consist of supplements, and remarks on the preceding ones. The ninth treats on the “Sacrifice of the Mass,” and the tenth on the “Festivals instituted in honour of Jesus Christ and the Holy Virgin.” The eleventh is entitled “Ecclesiastical Institutions;” an excellent work, containing his instructions, mandates, letters, &c. while he was hishop of Ancona, and afterwards archbishop of Bologna. The twelfth is a “Treatise on Diocesan Synods.” All the above are in Latin. Caraccioli published his life at Paris, 1784, 12mo. It was begun in the life time of Benedict, and part of it submitted to him by the author, to whom the pope said, “If you were a historian, instead of a panegyrist, I should thank you for the picture you have drawn, and with which I am perfectly satisfied.”

, a famous doctor of the Sorbonne, and curate of St. Eustathius at Paris in the sixteenth century, was born at Sevenieres near Angers. He was a secret favourer of the protestant religion; and that his countrymen might be able to read the Bible in their own tongue, he published at Paris the French translation which had been made by the reformed ministers at Geneva. This translation was approved by several doctors of the Sorbonne before it went to the press; and king Charles IX. had granted a privilege for the printing of it, yet when published it was immediately condemned. In 1587 king Henry III. appointed Benedict to be reader and regius professor of divinity in the college of Navarre at Paris. He had been before that time confessor to the unhappy Mary queen of Scotland, during her stay in France, and attended her when she returned into Scotland. Some time before the death of Henry III. Benedict, or some of his friends with his assistance, published a book, entitled “Apologie Catholique,” to prove that the protestant religion, which Henry king -of Navarre professed, was not a sufficient reason to deprive him of his right of succeeding to the crown of France; first, because the Huguenots admitted the fundamental articles of the catholic faith, and that the ceremonies and practices which they exploded had been unknown to the primitive church. Secondly, because the council of Trent, in which they had been condemned, was neither general, nor lawful, nor acknowledged in France. After the murder of Henry III. a factious divine wrote an answer to that book, which obliged Benedict to publish a reply. When king Henry IV. was resolved to embrace the Roman Catholic religion, he wrote to Benedict, commanding him to meet him, The doctor on this consulted with the pope’s legate, who was then at Paris, and advised him to answer the king, that he could not go to him without the pope’s leave, which exasperated the people at Paris, because they understood by this advice, that he favoured the Spanish faction, and endeavoured only to protract the civil war. However, Benedict assisted some time after at the conference which was held at St. Dennis, and in which it was resolved, that the king, having given sufficient proofs of his fa^h and repentance, might be reconciled to the church, without waiting for the pope’s consent. Benedict also assisted at that assembly, in which king Henry abjured the reformed religion, and having embraced the Roman Catholic faith, was absolved by the archbishop of Bourges. The king promoted him afterwards, about 15^7, to the bishopric of Troyes in Champagne, but he could never obtain the pope’s bulls to be installed, and only enjoyed the temporalities till 1604, when he resigned it with the king’s leave to Renatus de Breslay, archdeacon of Angers, He died at Paris, March 7, 1608, and was buried near the great altar in his parish church of St. Eustathius. Dr. Victor Cayet made his funeral oration. Besides the books, which we have mentioned, he wrote three or four other pieces, the titles of which are mentioned by father le Long, but they are of little note, except perhaps his history of the coronation of king Henry III. “Le Sacre et Couronnement du roi Henry III. Pan 1575, par Rene Benoit, docteur en theologie,” Reims, 1575, 8vo, and inserted in Godefrey’s “Ceremonial de France,” Paris, 1619, 4to.

, or Benedetti, a very eminent physician and medical writer of the fifteenth century, was born at Legnano in the territory of Verona. When he had completed his studies, he went to Greece and the isle of Candy, as army surgeon, and on his return, he was made professor of medicine at Padua, where he remained until 1495, when he settled at Venice. The time of his death is not ascertained, but it appears that he was alive in 1511. Haller mentions him as at the head of the original medical writers, and says his style was far preferable to that of his predecessors. His works are, 1. “De observatione in Pestilentia,” Venice, 1493, 4to, Bonon, 1516, fol. Basil, 1538, 8vo, &c. 2. “Collectiones medicinæ, sive, aphorismi de medici et ægri officio,” Leyden, 1506. 3. “Anatomiae, sive de historia corporis humani, lib. v.” Venice, 1493, often reprinted. 4. “De omnium a capite ad calcem morborum causis, signis, differentiis, indicationibus, et remediis, lib. triginta,” Venice, 1500, foh also often reprinted. There are some remains of medical superstition in this work, but many excellent observations and useful cases. 5. “Opera omnia in unum collecta,” Venice, 1533, fol. Basil, 1539, 4to, and 1549 and 1572, fol.

, an eminent divine of the seventeenth century, was born August 12, 1559, at Prestonbury in Gloucestershire. He was admitted, at seventeen years of age, a scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and probationer-fellow of the same house, April 16, 1590. After he had taken the degree of master of arts, he went into holy orders, and distinguished himself as a preacher. In 1599, he was appointed rhetoric -reader of his college, and the year following was admitted to the reading of the sentences. In 1608, he took the degree of doctor in divinity, and five years after was chosen Margaret professor in that university. He filled the divinity chair with great reputation, and after fourteen years resigned it. He had been presented, several years before, to the rectory of Meysey-Hampton, near Fairford in Gloucestershire, upon the ejection of his predecessor for simony and now he retired to that benefice, and spent there the short remainder of his life (about four years) in a pious and devout retreat from the world. Dr. Benefield was so eminent a scholar, disputant, and divine, and particularly so well versed in the fathers and schoolman, that he had not his equal in the university. He was strongly attached to the opinions of Calvin, especially that of predestination; insomuch that Humphrey Leach calls him a downright and doctrinal Calvinist. He has been branded likewise with the character of a schismatic: but Dr. Ravis, bishop of London, acquitted him of this imputation, and declared him to be “free from schism, and much abounding in science.” He was remarkable for strictness of life and sincerity; of a retired and sedentary disposition, and consequently less easy and affable in conversation. This worthy divine died in the parsonage house of Meysey-Hampton, August 24, 1630, and was buried in the chancel of his parish church, the 29th of the same month. His works are, 1. “Doctrinac Christianas sex Capita totidem praelectionibus in schola theologica Oxoniensi pro forma habitis discussa et disceptata,” Oxon. 1610, 4to. 2. “Appendix ad Caput secundum de consiliis Evangelicis, &c. adversus Humphredum Leach.” This is printed with the foregoing treatise. 3. “Eight sermons publicly preached in the university of Oxford, the second at St. Peter’s in the East, the rest at St. Mary’s church. Began Dec. 14, 1595,” Oxford, 1614, 4to. 4. “The sin against the Holy Ghost discovered, and other Christian doctrines delivered, in twelve Sermons upon part of the tenth chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews,” Oxford, 1615, 4to. 5. “A commentary or exposition upon the first chapter of Amos, delivered in twenty-one sermons in the parish-church of Meysey-Hampton in the diocese of Gloucester,” Oxford, 1613, 4to. This work was translated into Latin by Henry Jackson of Corpus Christi college, and printed at Oppenheim in 1615, 8vo. 6. “Several Sermons, on occasional subjects.” 7. “A commentary, or exposition upon the second chapter of Amos, delivered in twenty-one sermons, in the parish-church of Meysey-Hampton, &c.” London, 1620, 4to. 8. “Prselectiones de perseverantia Sanctorum,” Francfort, 1618, 8vo. 9. “A commentary, or exposition on the third chapter of Amos, &c.” London, 1629, 4to. 10. There is extant likewise a Latin sermon of Dr. Benefield’s on Revelations v. 10. printed in 1616, 4to.

, an American philanthropist, in early life was put apprentice to a merchant; but finding commerce opened temptations to a worldly spirit, he left his master, and bound himself apprentice to a cooper. Finding this business too laborious for his constitution, he declined it, and devoted himself to school-keeping; in which useful employment he continued during the greatest part of his life. He was author of “A Caution to Great Britain and her Colonies, in a short representation of the calamitous state of the enslaved negroes in the British dominions,” 1767, 8vo; “Some historical account of Guinea, with an enquiry into the rise and progress of the Slave Trade, its nature, and lamentable effects,” 1772, 8vo, and some other tracts on the same subject. He possessed uncommon activity and industry in every thing he undertook. He declared he did every thing as if the words of his Saviour were perpetually sounding in his ears, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” He used to say, “the highest act of charity in the world was to bear with the unreasonableness of mankind.” He generally wore plush clothes; and gave as a reason for it, that after he had worn them for two or three years, they made comfortable and decent garments for the poor. He once informed a young friend, that his memory began to fail him “but this,” said he, “gives me one great advantage over you; for you can find entertainment in reading a good book only once but I enjoy that pleasure as often as I read it; for it is always new to me.” Few men since the days of the apostles ever lived a more disinterested life; and yet upon his death-bed he said, he wished to live a little longer, that “he might bring down self.” The last time he ever walked across his room, was to take from his desk six dollars, which he gave to a poor widow whom he had long assisted to maintain. He died at Philadelphia in 1784. His funeral was attended by persons of all religious denominations, and by many hundred negroes. An officer, who had served in the American army during the late war, in returning from the funeral, pronounced an eulogium upon him. It consisted only of the following words: “I would rather,” said he, “be Anthony Benezet in that coffin, than George Washington with all his fame.”

, a learned German divine, principally known in this country for his excellent edition of the Greek Testament, was born June 24, 1687, at Winneden in the duchy of Wirtemberg. He was, says the writer of the meagre account in the Diet. Hist, the first of the Lutheran divines who published a learned, profound, and complete criticism on the New Testament, or rather an accurate edition. He became a critic from motives purely conscientious. The various and anxious doubts which he entertained, from the deviations exhibited in preceding editions, induced him to examine the sacred text with great care and attention, and the result of his labours was, 1. his “Novi Testarmenti Graeci recte cauteque adornandi prodromus,” Stutgard, 1725, 8vo. 2. “Notitia Nov. Test. Grrcc. recte cauteque adornati,” ibid. 1731, 8vo, and 3. his edition entitled “Novum Test. Grace, cum introdnctione in Crisin N. T. Apparatu Critico, et Epilogo,” ibid. 1734, 4to. He afterwards published, 4. “Gnomon Nov. Test, in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas sensuum ccelestium indicatur,” ibid. 1742, and 1759, and lastly in 1763, at Ulm, in which same year, a new edition of his “Apparatus Criticus” was published, with many additions, by Phil. D, Burkius, 4to. Bengal’s most formidable enemies were Ernesti and Wet stein, neither of whom treated him with the courtesy that becomes men of letters. His edition of the New Testament is unquestionably a lasting monument of the author’s profound learning and solid piety, and has often been reprinted to gratify the public demand. In 1745, Bengel published “Cyclus, sive de anno magno solis, luna?, stellarum consideratio, ad incrementum doctrinse propheticre atque astronomies accommodata,” Ulm, 8vo, and after his death, which took place in 1752, appeared his “Ordo temporifm, a principio per periodos ceconomise divinoe historicas atque propheticas, at finem usque ita deductus, ut tota series et quarumvis partium analogia sempiternae virtutis ac sapientiae cultoribus ex script. Vet. et Nov. Test, tanquam uno revera documento proponatur,” Stutgard, 1753. Bengel maintained the doctrine of the millenium, or second appearance of Christ upon earth to reign with his saints a thousand years. His “Introduction to his Exposition to the Apocalypse,” was translated and published by John Robertson, M. D. London, 1757.

, a Jewish rabbi, and author of the “Itinerary,” was the son of Jonas of Tudela, and born in the kingdom of Navarre. He flourished about the year 1170. He travelled over several of the most remote countries, and wherever he came, wrote a particular account of what he either saw himself, or was informed of by persons of credit. He died in 1173, not long after his return from his travels. Casimir Oudin tells us, that he was a man of great sagacity and judgment, and well skilled in the sacred laws; and that his observations and accounts have been generally found to be exact upon examination, our author being remarkable for his love of truth. There have been several editions of his “Itinerarium.” It was translated from the Hebrew into Latin by Benedict Arius Montanus, and printed by Plantin at Antwerp in 1575, 8vo. Constantine PEmpereur likewise published it with a Latin version, and a preliminary dissertation, and large notes; which was printed by Elzevir in 1633, 8vo. J. P. Baratier translated it into French, 1731, 2 vols. 8vo, but the most remarkable translation is that published at London in 1783 by the Rev. B. Gerrans, lecturer of St. Catherine Coleman, and second master of Queen Elizabeth’s Free Grammar school, St. Clave, Southwark. The author of this translation, which is taken from the Elzevir edition abovementioned, hesitates not to speak of Benjamin as contemptible, doubts whether he ever left his native Tudela, but allows, although with some reluctance, that he may have travelled through Spain and some part of Italy. Mr. Gerrans, having thus, as he says, “unmasked, chastised, and humbled his author,” allows that as he wrote in a century so obscure, we ought to be glad of the least monument to cast a glimmering light on it. He allows also that the pure and simple style in which the book is written, renders it one of the best introductions to the Rahinical dialect: it throws more light on the times than a whole catalogue of monkish writers: it shews the ignorance of the Jewish teachers in matters of geography and history, and the state and numbers of their own people. The chief use, the translator adds, which he wishes to make of the book, is to confirm lukewarm and indifferent Christians, in the principles of their religion, and to combat the errors and impenitence of the Jews by their own weapons. This work is no doubt a curiosity, as the production of a Jew in the twelfth century, and the translator’s observations also may be allowed to have some weight: but considered in itself, the rabbi’s book has only a small portion of real worth; for in addition to the fabulous narrations, which lead the reader to suspect him even when he speaks truth, there are many other errors, omissions, and mistakes. Benjamin’s principal view seems to have been to represent the number and state of his brethren in different parts of the world, and accordingly he mentions merely the names of many places to which we are to suppose he travelled, furnishing no remark, except,perhaps, a brief account of the Jews to be found there. When he relates any thing farther, it is often trifling, or fictitious, or mistaken, as he frequently is, even in numbering his countrymen.

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

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

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

, an eminent physician of the seventeenth century, and a medical writer, was the son of John Ben net of Raynton in Somersetshire, and became a commoner of Lincoln college in Qxford, in Michaelmasterm, 1632, being then fifteen years of age. After he had taken the degrees of bachelor and master of arts, he entered upon the study of physic, but was created doctor in that faculty elsewhere. He was afterwards chosen a fellow of the college of physicians in London, where he practised with great success. Dr. Beunet died in April, 1655, and was buried on the 2d of May, in St. Gregory’s church, near St. Paul’s, in London. He gave the public a treatise on Consumptions, entitled “Theatri Tabidorum Vestibuhun, &c.” Lond. lt>54, 8vo. Also “Exercitationes Diagnosticir, cum hisioriis demonstratives, quibus alinientorum et sanguinis vitia deteguntur in plerisque morbis, &c.” Our author corrected and enlarged a book written originally by Dr. Thomas MotFet, and entitled “Health’s Improvement, or rules comprising or discovering the nature, method, and manner of preparing all sorts of food used in this nation,” Lond. 1655, 4to. Dr. Bennet had one or two more pieces ready for the press at the time of his death. It may be necessary to add that in his Latin works, he assumed the Latinized name of Benedictus.

, knt. grandfather to the preceding, and second son of sir Richard Bennet, was created on the 6th of July, 1589, doctor of laws by the university of Oxford, having been one of the proctors there. He was afterwards vicar-general in spirituals to the archbishop of York, and prebendary of Langtoft in the church of York. In the 24th of ELz. bearing the title of doctor of laws, he was in commission with the lord-keeper Egerton, the lord-treasurer Buckhurst, and several other noblemen, for the suppression of heresy. He was also in that reign returned to parliament for the city of York, and was a leading member of the house of commons, as appears from several of his speeches in Townshend’s collections. He received the honour of knighthood from king James before his coronation, on the 23d of July 1603, at Whitehall, and was made in that reign chancellor to queen Anne (consort of king James), judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury, and chancellor to the archbishop of York. In the beginning of 1617, he was sent ambassador to Brussels to question the archduke, in behalf of his master the king of Great Britain, concerning a libel written and published, as it was supposed, by Erycius Puteanus, but he neither apprehended the author, nor suppressed the book, until he was solicited by the king’s agent there: he only interdicted it, and suffered the author to fly out of his dominions. In 1620, sir John Bennet being entitled judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury, was in a special commission with the archbishop of Canterbury, and other noblemen, to put in execution the laws against all heresies, great errors in matters of faith and religioH, &c. and the same year bearing the title of chancellor to the archbishop of York, he was commissioned with the archbishop of York, and others, to execute all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the province of York. He died in the parish of Christ church in London, in the beginning of 1627, having had issue by Anne his wife, daughter of Christopher Weekes of Salisbury, in the county of Wilts, esq. sir John lien net, his son and heir; sir Thomas Bennet, knt. second son, doctor of the civil law, and master in chancery; and Matthew, third son, who died unmarried. His eldest son, sir John Bennet of Dawley, received the honour of knighthood in the life-time of his father, at Theobalds, on the 15th of June, 1616. He married Dorothy, daughter of sir John Crofts of Saxham, in the county of Norfolk, knt. by whom he had issue six sons, the second of whom was afterwards created earl of Arlington. This account drawn up also by Dr. Campbell as a note to his life of Arlington, partakes of the partiality of that account by suppressing that in 1621, certain mal-practices were detected in the judicial conduct of sir John, and he was committed to the custody of the sheriffs of London, and afterwards to prison, fined 20,000l. and deprived of his offices. In consequence of this, according to Mr. Lodge, he died in indigence and obscurity, in the parish of Christ church, in Surrey, not in London, at the time mentioned above; but another account says that he was merely required to find security to that amount for his appearance to answer to the charges brought against him. If the fine was imposed, we may conclude it was remitted; for in a letter from lord Bacon to king James, we read these words, “Your majesty hath pardoned the like (corruption) to sir John Bennet, between whose case and mine (not being partial to myself, but speaking out of the general opinion), there was as much difference, I will not say, as between black and white, but as between black and grey or ash-coloured.”

, an eminent divine in the eighteenth century, was born at Salisbury, May 7, 1673, and educated in the free-school there; where he made so great a progress in learning, that he was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge, in the beginning of 1688, before he was full fifteen years of age. He regularly took the degrees of bachelor and master of arts; the latter in 1694, when but twenty-one years old; and was chosen fellow of his college. In 1695, he wrote a copy of Hebrew verses on the death of queen Mary, printed in the collection of poems of the university of Cambridge upon that occasion. The first of his publications was “An answer to the dissenters pleas for Separation, or an abridgment of the London cases; wherein the substance of those books is digested into one short and plain discourse,” Lond. 1699, 8vo. About the end of 1700, he took a journey to Colchester, to visit his friend Mr. John Rayne, rector of St. James’s in Colchester; and finding him dead when he came, he undertook the office of preaching his funeral sermon, which was so highly approved of by the parishioners, that their recommendation was no small inducement to Dr. Compton, then bishop of London, to present him to that living. He had institution to it January 15, 1700-1, and applied himself with great diligence and success to the several duties of his function. Possessing great learning, a strong voice, and good elocution, he was extremely followed and admired; and the more, as most of the other livings were but indifferently provided for: so that he became minister, not only of his own two parishes, but in a manner of that whole town, and the subscriptions and presents he had from all parts, raised his income to nearly three hundred pounds a year. But that afterwards was very much reduced, as xvill appear in the sequel. In the beginning of 1701, he published “A confutation of Popery, in three parts,” Canibr. 8vo. About the same time, he was engaged in a controversy with some dissenters, which produced the following book of his, “A discourse of Schism shewing, 1 What is meant by schism. 2. That schism is a damnable sin. 3. That there is a schism between the established church of England and the dissenters. 4. That this schism is to be charged on the dissenters’ side. 5. That the modern pretences of toleration, agreement in fundamentals, &c. will m;t excuse the dissenters from being guilty of schism. Written by way of letter to three dissenting ministers in Essex, viz. Mr. Gilson and Mr. Gledhili ol Colchester, and Mr. Shepherd of Brain tree. To which is annexed, an answer to a book entitled” Thomas against Bennet, or the Protestant dissenters vindicated from the charge of schism,“Cambr. 1702, 8vo. This book being animadverted upon by Mr. Shepherd, our author published” A defence of the discourse of Schism; in answer to those objections which Mr. Shepherd has made in his three sermons of Separation, &c.“Cambr. 1703, 8vo. And, towards the end of the same year,” An answer to Mr. Shepherd’s considerations on the defence of the discourse of Scnism,“Cambr. 8vo. As also a treatise entitled” Devotions, viz. Confessions, Petitions, Intercessions, and Thanksgivings, for every day in the week and also before, at, and after, the Sacrament with occasional prayers for all persons whatsoever,“8vo. In 1705, he published” A confutation of Quakerism; or a plain proof of the falsehood of what the principal Quaker writers (especially Mr. R. Barclay, in his Apology and other works) do teach concerning the necessity of immediate revelation in order to a saving Christian faith, &c.“Cambr. 8vo. In 1707 he caused to be printed in a small pamphlet, 12mo,” A discourse on the necessity of being baptized with Water and receiving the Lord’s Supper, taken out of the confutation of Quakerism,“Cambr. For the sake of those who wanted either money to purchase, or time to peruse, the Confutation of Quakerism, the year following he published” A brief history of -the joint use of precomposed set forms of Prayer,“Cambr. 8vo. The same year he published likewise” A discourse of joint Prayer,“Cambr. 8vo. Towards the end of the same year he published” A paraphrase with annotations upon the book of Common Prayer, wherein the text is explained, objections are answered, and advice is humbly offered, both to the clergy and the laity, for promoting true devotion in the use of it,“Lond. 8vo. The next thing he printed was” Charity Schools recommended, in a sermon preached in St. James’s church in Colchester, on Sunday, March 26, 1710,“8vo. The same year he wrote” A letter to Mr. B. Robinson, occasioned by iiis * Review of the case of Liturgies, and their imposition';“and” A second letter to Mr. B. Robinson, &c. on the same subject,“Lond. 1710, 8vo. In 17 11 he published” The rights of the Clergy of the Christian church; or, a discourse shewing that God has given and appropriated to the clergy, authority to ordain, baptize, preach, preside in church-prayer, and consecrate the Lord’s supper. Wherein also the pretended divine right of the laity to elect either the persons to be ordained, or their own particular pastors, is examined and disproved,“London, 1711, 8vo. He had begun a second part of this work, but it was never published, in which he intended to shew, that the clergy are, under Christ, the sole spiritual governors of the Christian church, and that God has given and appropriated to them authority to enact laws, determine controversies, inflict censures, and absolve from them. The pre^­tended divine institution of lay elders was also disproved, and the succession of the present clergy of the established church vindicated. And to this was annexed a” Discourse of the Independency of the Church on the State, with an account of the sense of our English laws, and the judgment of archbishop Cranmer touching that point.“About this time he took the degree of D. D. In 1714 he published <c Directions for studying, I. A general system or body of divinity; II. The thirty-nine articles of religion. To which is added St. Jerom’s epistle to Nepotianus,” London, 8vo. The year following was published his “Essay on the thirty-nine articles of Religion, agreed on in 1562, and revised in 1571, wherein (the text being first exhibited in Latin and English, and the minutest variations of eighteen the most ancient and authentic copies carefully noted) an account is given of the proceedings of convocation in framing and settling the text of the articles, the controverted clause of the twentieth article is demonstrated to be genuine, and the case of subscription to the articles is considered in point of law, history, and conscience; with a prefatory epistle to Anthony Collins, esq. wherein the egregious falsehoods and calumnies of the author of ‘Priestcraft in perfection’ are exposed,” London, 1713, 8vo. Before the publication of this book, he found it necessary to leave Colchester; for, the other livings being filled up with persons of good reputation and learning, his large congregation and subscriptions fell off, and his income fell to threescore pounds a-­year, on which account, by the advice of his friends, he accepted the place oi' deputy-chaplain to Chelsea hospital, under Dr. Cannon. Soon after, preaching the funeral sermon of his friend Mr. Erington, lecturer of St. Olave’s in South wark, it was so highly approved of by that parish, that he was unanimously chosen lecturer in the next vestry, without the least canvassing. Upon that he entirely left Colchester, in January 1715-16, and fixed himself in London, where he was likewise appointed morning preacher at St. Lawrence Jewry, under Dr. Mapletoft. In 1716 he published a pamphlet entitled “The Non juror’s separation from the public assemblies of the church of England examined, and proved to be schismatical upon their own principles,” London, 8vo. And “The case of the Reformed Episcopal Churches in Great Poland and Polish Prussia, considered in a sermon preached on Sunday, November 18, 1716, at St. Lawrence-Jewry, London, in the morning, and St. Olave’s, Southwark, in the afternoon,” London, 8vo. Soon after, he was presented by the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s, to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, London, which afforded him a plentiful income of nearly five hundred pounds a-year. But he had little quiet enjoyment of it; for, endeavouring to recover some dues that unquestionably belonged to that church, he was obliged to engage in tedious law-suits, which, hesides the immense charges they were attended withal, gave him a great deal of vexation and uneasiness, and very much embittered his spirits; however, he recovered a hundred and fifty pounds a-year to that living. After he was settled in it, in 1717, he married Mrs. Elizabeth Hunt of Salisbury, a gentlewoman of great merit, and by her he had three daughters. The same year he published “A Spital sermon preached before the lord mayor, aldermen. &c. of London, in St. Bridget’s church, on April 24, 1717,” London, 8vo; and in 1718, “A discourse of the ever-blessed Trinity in Unity, with an examination of Dr. Clarke’s Scripture doctrine of the Trinity,” London, 8vo. But, from this time, the care of his large parish, and other affairs, so engrossed his thoughts, that he had no time to undertake any new work, except an Hebrew grammar, which was published at London in 1726, 8vo, a,ud is reckoned one of the best of the kind. He mentions, indeed, in one of his books written about 1716, that he had then “several tasks” in his hands, “which would find him full employment for many years;” but whatever they might be, none of them were ever finished or made public. He died of an apoplexy at London, October 9th, 1728, aged fifty-live years, five months, and two days, and was buried in his own church.

As to his person, Dr. Bennet was tall, and of a strong and robust constitution. He was a man of strong passions, and not without haughtiness, but of very great integrity. With regard to nis learning, he was a perfect master of the Eastern and other learned languages, well skilled in controversy, and an able champion for the church of England. Few scholars have equalled him as an exact reasoner, and an accurate textuary, and though he had an uncommon share of knowledge in various kinds of learning, he wisely gave himself up to the improvement of those talents in which his duel excellence lay. One of his antagonists, Mr. Emlyn, does not scruple to own, that he could truly esteem and respect him for his valuable abilities, for his industrious application of mind to an examination and inquiry into the important matters of our Christian religion, and for divers other worthy qualities, particularly. for his candour and civility, and for his resoi-.te contempt of those false topics of persuasion, by which ignorant and degenerate minds are led into error, viz. human decisions, by councils or churches’ authority, when their judgment is not agreeable to the holy scriptures, in which case he speaks as if he had the courage and honesty to oppose the most triumphant errors of the age. Finally, he declares he esteemed him for his zealous profession of integrity, and exciting others to act honestly and openly according to their judgments, and not to use arts of disguise and hypocrisy in sacred matters.

Dr. Bennet was undoubtedly a divine of eminent piety and distinguished learning. The zeal and diligence with which he engaged in the studies and duties of his profession were highly commendable, and shew that h had no conception that the life of a clergyman was to be an idle or trifling life. Several of his works, however, being upon subjects of temporary controversy, are, we apprehend, not much read at present. This will ever be the case when disputes turn upon matters which are not of lasting importance, or upon some trivial circumstances in questions otherwise momentous, and it will especially be the case, when a man of abilities has to contend with insufficient adversaries. Dr. Kippis remembered being told, in his youth, by Dr. Doddridge, that the dissenting ministers, in and near Colchester, who endeavoured to answer Dr. Bennet, and particularly Mr. Shepherd, were persons of very mean talents. The doctor, in some of his subsequent writings, met with far abler 'antagonists. The question concerning-schism was deemed of gr^at importance during the last century, and in the beginning of the present. The Papists charged this crime upon the Protestants, and the members of the church of England upon the Dissenters. A concise and rational account of the general controversy with regard to schism, and of the variations and inconsistencies to which it hath given rise, would be no incurious subject in the history of theological literature.

Dr. Bennet was perhaps too ready to engage in the debates of his time, upon questions of divinity, which led him sometimes into difficulties, obliged him to have recourse to distinctions and refinements which would not always bear examination, and laid him open to the attacks of his adversaries. Of all the doctor’s controversial pieces, those on the doctrine of the Trinity, and on subscription to the articles of the church of England, have been the most brought into view in the present age. This is owing to these subjects being still eagerly debated, and on account of their acknowledged importance, will probably long continue to be debated. Dr. Bennet’s explication of the Trinity is singular; and it would require much logical nicety to defend it from that heterodoxy which the learned author not only wished to avoid, but, no doubt, sincerely abhorred. This was an unfortunate circumstance in a man who, in another work, had employed himself in vindicating the Athanasian creed. However, he was but in the same case with many other eminent and learned divines, who, while they have imagined that they were defending Athanasianism, have, in fact, run into Sabellianism or Socinianism.

Another Benning or Benningius (John), president of the provincial court of Luxemburgh, and who died Jan. 30, 1638, wrote a history of the duchy of Luxemburgh, which has not been printed.

, or Benno, a writer of the eleventh century, was created a cardinal by the anti-pope Guibert, who assumed the name of Clement III. Benno, who was one of his most zealous partisans, made many attacks on the popes, accusing Sylvester II. of magic, Gregory VI. of simony, &c. and wrote, under the title of a “Life of Gregory VII.” a bitter satire against that pontiff. He died about the close of the eleventh century. His life of Gregory was printed in the “Fasciculus rerum Expetendarum et Fugiendarum,” 1535, by Gratius, and in a collection of pieces, in favour of tUe emperor Henry IV. against Gregory, published by Goldastus.

, a French poet and wit of the seventeenth century, was born at Lyons-la-Foret, a small town in Upper Normandy, in 1612. He was born but not educated a Protestant, his father having turned Catholic when he was very young; and when about seven or eight years of age, he went to be confirmed, the bishop who performed the ceremony asked him “if he was not willing to change his name of Isaac for one more Christian.” *' With all my heart,“replied he,” provided I get any thing by the exchange.“The bishop, surprized at such a ready answer, would not change his name.” Let his name be Isaac still,“said he,” for whatever it is, he will make the most of it." Benserade lost his father when he was very young; and being left with little fortune, and this much involved in law, he chose rather to give it up than sue for it. His mother’s name, however, being Laporte, he claimed relationship to the cardinal Richelieu, who without examining too nicely into the matter, had him educated, and would have provided for him in the church if he had not preferred the court, where he soon became famous for his wit and poetry; and Richelieu granted him a pension, which was continued till the death of this cardinal. It is probable that Benserade would have found the same protection in the duchess of Aiguillon, if the following four verses, which he had made on the death of the cardinal, had not given her great offence:

Benserade had surprising success in what he composed for the court dramatic entertainments. There was an original turn in them which characterised at once the poetical divinities, and the persons who represented them. “With the description of the gods and other personages,” says the author of the “Recueil de bons contes,” supposed to be M. de Calliere, “who were represented in these interludes, he mixed lively pictures of the courtiers, who represented them, discovering their inclinations, attachments, and even their most secret adventures; but in a manner so agreeable and delicate, that those who were rallied were pleased, and his jests left no resentment or concern in their minds.” The sonnet which Benserade sent to a young lady, with his paraphrase on Job, implying that Job could reveal his griefs, but he was obliged to suffer in silence, rendered his name very famous. A parallel was drawn betwixt it and the Urania of Voiture; and a dispute thence arose, which divided the wits, and the whole court. Those who gave the preference to that of Benserade were styled the Jobists, and their antagonists the Uranists. The prince of Conti declared himself a Jobist, and the duchess de Longueville, an Uranist. Benserade wrote rondeaus upon Ovid, some of which are reckoned tolerable, but upon the whole the attempt was too absurd for serious approbation; and his Ovid, without occasioning any controversy, dropt into oblivion almost as soon as it was published, although it appeared in a highly ornamented 4to, printed at Paris, 1676, with engravings to theexpence of which the king contributed 10,000 livres. So much was he attached to the rondeau, that his preface and even his errata are in the same species of composition. The latter is perhaps the best of the whole; as he candidly acknowledges that he can discover but two errors of any consequence, viz. the plan and the execution:

, an English critic, once of some fame, the son of sir William Benson, formerly sheriff of London, was born in 1682. After receiving a liberal education, he made a tour on the continent, during which he visited Hanover and some other German courts, and Stockholm. In 1710, he served the office of high sheriff of Wilts; and soon after wrote a celebrated letter to sir Jacob Banks of Mihehead, by birth a Swede, but naturalized, in which he represented the miseries of the Swedes, after they had made a surrender of their liberties to arbitrary power; which, according to his account, was then making great advances at home. When summoned for this letter before the privy council, he avowed himself the author, but no prosecution appears to have followed, as he put his name to the subsequent editions, of which 100,000 are said to have been sold in English, or in translations. He afterwards wrote “Two letters to sir Jacob Banks, concerning the Minehead doctrine,” 1711, 8vo.

He became member of parliament for Shaftesbury in the first parliament of George I. and in 17 Is was made surveyor general, in the place of sir Christopher Wren, on which occasion he vacated his seat in parliament. Why such a disgrace should be inBicted on sir Christopher Wren, now full of years and honours, cannot be ascertained. Benson, however, gained only an opportunity, and that soon, to display his incapacity, and the amazing contrast between him and his predecessor. Being em-­ployed to survey the house of lords, he gave in a report that that house and the painted-chamber adjoining were in immediate danger of falling. On this the lords were about to appoint some other place for their meeting, when it was suggested that it would be proper to take the opinion of some other builders, who reported that the building was in very good condition. The lords, irritated at Benson’s ignorance and incapacity, were about to petition the king to remove him, when the earl of Sunderland, then secretary, assured them that his majesty would anticipate their wishes. Benson was accordingly dismissed. He was in some measure consoled, however, by the assignment of a considerable debt due to the crown in Ireland, and by the reversion of one of the two offices of auditor of the imprests, which he enjoyed after the death of Mr, Edward Harley. In 1724, he published “Virgil’s Husbandry, with notes critical and rustic;” and in 1739, “Letters concerning poetical translations, and Virgil’s and Milton’s arts of verse.” This last was followed by an edition of “Arthur Johnston’s Psalms,” accompanied with the Psalms of David, according to the translation in the English Bible, printed in 4to, 8vo, and 12mo; with a “Prefatory discourse,” 1740; in 1741 “A conclusion to his prefatory discourse” and in the same year, “A supplement to it, in which is contained, a comparison betwixt Johnston and Buchanan.” In this comparison, given in favour of Johnston, he was so unlucky, or, rather for the sake of taste, so lucky as to excite the indignation of the celebrated Ruddiman, who wrote an elaborate and unanswerable defence of Buchanan, in a letter to Mr. Benson, under the title of “A Vindication of Mr. George Buchanan’s Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms,” Edinburgh, 1745, 8vo. Benson, although a man who had spent the greater part of his life among books, yet a short time before his death, contracted an unconquerable aversion to them, and perhaps to society likewise, as the latter years of his life were passed in close retirement at his house at Wimbledon, where he died Feb. 1754. His character has been variously represented. It was his misfortune, if not his fault, in the outset, that he was placed in the invidious situation of suc-s cessor to sir Christopher Wren, who was most improperly dismissed; and this procured him a place in the Dunciad, which probably served to keep up the remembrance of whaj he would willingly have forgot. Dr. Warton, however, has endeavoured to do him justice in his notes on Pope. “Benson,” says that amiable critic, “is here spoken of too contemptuously. He translated faithfully, if not very poetically, the second book of the Georgics, with useful notes he printed elegant editions of Johnston’s psalms; he wrote a discourse on versification he rescued his country from the disgrace of having no monument erected to the memory of Milton in Westminster-abbey; he encouraged and urged Pitt to translate the yEneid; and he gave Dobson of.1000 for his Latin translation of Paradise Lost.” Another testimony we have of his liberality which ought not to be suppressed. In 1735, a book was published, entitled “The cure of Deism.” The author, Mr. Elisha Smith, was at that time confined in the Fleet prison for a debt of ^^Oo. Benson, pleased with the work, inquired who was the author, and having received an account of his unfortunate state, not only sent him a handsome letter, but discharged the whole debt, fees, &o. and set him at liberty.

, canon of Christ-church, Oxford, and king’s professor of divinity in that university, was born in the college at Ely, July 23, 1707. His father, Mr. Samuel Bentham, was a very worthy clergyman, and vicar of Witchford, a small living near that city; who having a numerous family, his son Edward, on the recommendation of Dr. Smalridge, dean of Christ-church, was sent in 1717 to the school of that college. Having there received the rudiments of classical education, he was in Lent term 1723, when nearly 16 years of age, admitted of the university of Oxford, and placed at Corpus-Christi college under his relation Dr. John Burton. In this situation, his serious and regular deportment, and his great proficiency in all kinds of academical learning, recommended him to the notice of several eminent men; and, among others, to the favour of Dr. Tanner, canon of Christ-church, by whose death he was disappointed of a nomination to a studentship in that society. At CorpusChristi college he formed a strict friendship with Robert Hoblyn, esq. of Nanswydden in Cornwall, afterwards representative for the city of Bristol, whose character, as a scholar and a member of parliament, rendered him deservedly esteemed by the lovers of literature and of their country. In company with this gentleman and another intimate friend, Dr. Ratcliff, afterwards master of Pembroke college, Mr. Bentham made, at different times, the tour of part of France, and other countries. Having taken the degree of B. A. he was invited by Dr. Cotes, principal of Magdalen-hall, to be his vice-principal; and was accordingly admitted to that society, March 6, 1730. Here he continued only a short time, for, on the 23d of April in the year following, he was elected fellow of Oriel college. In act term, 1732, he proceeded to the degree of M. A. and, about the same time, was appointed tutor in the college; in which capacity he discharged his duty, in the most laborious and conscientious manner, for more than twenty years. March 26, 1743, Mr. Bentham took the degree of B. D.; and April 22, in the same year, was collated to the prebend of Hundreton, in the cathedral church of Hereford. July 8, 1749, he proceeded to the degree of D. D.; and in April 1754 was promoted to the fifth stall in that cathedral. Here he continued the same active and useful course of life for which he had always been distinguished. He served the offices of sub-dean and treasurer, for himself and others, above twelve years. The affairs of the treasury, which Dr. Bentham found in great confusion, he entirely new modelled, and put into a train of business in which they have continued ever since, to the great ease of his successors, and benefit of the society. 80 intent was he upon the regulation and management of the concerns of the college, that he refused several preferments which were offered him, from a conscientious persuasion that the avocations they would produce were incompatible with the proper discharge of the offices he had voluntarily undertaken. Being appointed by the king to fill the divinity chair, vacant by the death of Dr. Fanshavve, Dr. Bentham was, with much reluctance, and after having repeatedly declined it, persuaded, by archbishop Seeker and his other learned friends, to accept of it; and, on the 9th of May, 1763, he was removed to the 8th stall in the cathedral. His unwillingness to appear in this station was increased by the business he had to transact in his former situation, and which he was afraid would be impeded by the accession of new duties: not to say that a life spent in his laborious and sedentary manner had produced some unfavourable effects on his constitution, and rendered a greater attention than he had hitherto shewn to private ease and health, absolutely necessary. Besides, as the duties, when properly discharged, were great and interesting, so the station itself was of that elevated and public nature to which his ambition never inclined him: 66 latere maluit atque prodesse.“The diffidence he had of his abilities had ever taught him to suspect his own sufficiency; and his inauguratory lecture breathed the same spirit, the text of which was,” Who is sufficient for these things?" But whatever objections Dr. Bentham might have to the professorship before he entered upon it, when once he had accepted of it, he never suffered them to discourage him in the least from exerting hi* most sincere endeavours to render it both useful and honourable to the university. He set himself immediately to draw out a course of lectures for the benefit of young students in divinity, which he constantly read at his house at Christ-church, gratis-^ three times a week during term-time, till his decease. The course took up a year; and he not only exhibited in it a complete system of divinity, but recommended proper books, some of which he generously distributed to his auditors. His intense application to the pursuit of the plan he had laid clown, together with those concerns in which his affection for his friends, and his zeal for the public good in every shape, involved him, proved more than a counterbalance for all the advantages of health and vigour that a strict and uniform temperance could procure. Jt is certain that he sunk under the rigorous exercise of that conduct he had proposed to himself: for though 6-; years are a considerable proportion in the strongest men’s lives, yet his remarkable abstemiousness and self-denial, added to a disposition of body naturally strong, promised, in the ordinary course of things, a longer period. Dr. Bentham was a very early riser, and had transacted half a day’s business before many others begin their day. His countenance was uncommonly mild and engaging, being strongly characteristic of the piety and benevolence of his mind; and at the same time it by no means wanted expression, but, upon proper occasions, could assume a very becoming and affecting authority. In his attendance upon the public duties of religion, he was exceedingly strict and constant; not suffering himself ever to be diverted from it by any motives, either of interest or pleasure. Whilst he was thus diligent in the discharge of his own duty, he was not severe upon those who were not equally so in theirs. He could scarcely ever be prevailed upon to deliver his opinion upon subjects that were to the disadvantage of other men; and when he could not avoid doing it, his sentiments were expressed with the utmost delicacy and candour. No one was more ready to discover, commend, and reward every meritorious endeavour. Of himself he never was he? rd to speak and if his own merits were touched upon in the slightest manner, he felt a real uneasiness. Though he was not fond of the formalities of visiting, he entered into the spirit of friendly society and intercourse with great pleasure. His constant engagements, indeed, of one kind or other, left him not much time to be devoted to company; and the greater part of his leisure hours he spent in the enjoyment of domestic pleasures, for which his amiable and peaceable disposition seemed most calculated.

, M. A. and F. A. S. prebendary of Ely, rector of Bow-brick-hill in the county of Bucks, and domestic chaplain to the right-hon. lord Cadogan, was the brother of the above-mentioned Edward. Having received the rudiments of classical learning in the grammar-school of Ely, he was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, March 26,1727, where he proceeded B. A. 1730, and M. A. 1738, and was elected F. A. S. 1767. In the year 1733 he was presented to the vicarage of Stapleford in Cambridgeshire, which he resigned in 1736, on being made minor canon in the church of Ely. In 1767 he was presented by bishop Mavvson to the vicarage of Wymondharn in Norfolk, which he resigned in the year following for the rectory of Feltwell St. Nicholas, in the same county. This he resigned in 1774 for the rectory of Northwold, which in 1779 he was induced by bishop Keene to change for aprebendal stall in the church of Ely, though he was far from improving his income by the change. But his attachment to his native place, with which church the family had been connected without any intermission for more than 100 years, surmounted every other consideration. In 1783 he was presented to the rectory of Bow-brick-hill, by the rev. Edward Guellaume. From his first appointment to an office in the church of Ely, he seems to have directed his attention to the study of church architecture. It is probable that he was determined to the pursuit of ecclesiastical antiquities by the eminent example of bishop Tanner (a prebendary of the same stall which Mr. Bentham afterwards held), who had honoured the family with many marks of his kindness and friendship. For researches of this kind Mr. Bentham seems to have been excellently qualified. To a sound judgment and a considerable degree of penetration, accompanied by a minuteness and accuracy of inquiry altogether uncommon, Mr. Bentham added the most patient assiduity and unwearied industry. The history of the church with which he was connected afforded him full scope for the exercise of his talents. It abounds with almost all the various specimens of church architecture used in England to the time of the reformation. Having previously examined with great attention every historical monument and authority which could throw any light upon his subject, after he had circulated, in 1756, a catalogue of the principal members of this church (Ely), viz. abbesses, abbots, bishops, priors, deans, prebendaries, and archdeacons, in order to collect further information concerning them, he published “The History and Antiquities of the conventual and cathedral Church of Ely, from the foundation of the monastery, A. D. 675, to the year 1771, illustrated with copper-plates,” Cambridge, 1771, 4to. The sheets of Mr. Bentham’s work were carefully revised by his brother Dr. Bentham, and by the Rev. W. Cole, of Milton; and both were considerable contributors to it. This was probably the cheapest book ever published, the subscription price being only eighteen shillings, which was raised to non-subscribers to a guinea and a half. It has of late years seldom been sold under twelve or fourteen guineas, but a new edition has just been published, 1812, which, for paper and typography, reflects honour on the Norwich press.

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

, a learned and pious English divine, bishop of Litchfield and Coventry in the sixteenth century, was born about the year 1513, at Shirebourne in Yorkshire, and educated at Magdalen-college in Oxford. He took his bachelor’s degree in arts, Feb. 20, 1543, and was admitted perpetual fellow of that college, November 16, 1546, and took his master’s degree in arts the year following, about which time he applied himself wholly to the study of divinity and the Hebrew language, in which he was extremely well skilled, as well as in the Latin and Greek tongues. The compiler of “Anglorum Speculum” tells us, that he was converted from popery in the first year of queen Mary; but we find him very zealous against the popish religion during the reign of king Edward VI. upon which account, and his assisting one Henry Bull of the same college, in wresting the censer out of the bands of the choristers, as they were about to offer their superstitious incense, he was ejected from his fellowship by the visitors appointed by queen Mary to regulate the university; soon after which he retired to Zurich, and afterwards to Basil in Switzerland, and became preacher to the English exiles there, and expounded to them the entire book of the Acts of the Apostles; a proper subject and portion of scripture, Fuller observes, to recommend patience to his banished countrymen; as the apostle’s sufferings so far exceeded theirs. This exposition was left by him at the time of his death, very fairly written, and fit for the press, but it does not appear to have been printed. In exile, as at home and in college, he led a praise-worthy, honest, and laborious life, with little or no preferment. Afterwards, being recalled by some of his brethren, he returned to London under the same queen’s reign, where he lived privately and in disguise, and was made superintendent of a protestant congregation in that city; whom Bentham, by his pious discipline, diligent care and tuition, and bold and resolute behaviour in the protestant cause, greatly confirmed in their faith and religion; so that they assembled with the greatest constancy to divine worship, at which there often appeared an hundred, sometimes two hundred persons; no inconsiderable congregation this to meet by stealth, notwithstanding the danger of the times, daily, together at London, in spite of the vigilant and cruel Bonner. At length, when queen Elizabeth came to the throne, he was, in the second year of her reign, nominated for the see of Litchfield and Coventry, upon the deprivation of Dr. Ralph Bayne, and had the temporalities of that see restored to him, Feb. 20, 1559, being then about forty-six years of age. On the 30th of October 1556, he was created, with some others, professor of divinity at London, by Laurence Humphrey, S.T.P. and John Kenal, LL. D. who were deputed by the university of Oxford for that purpose; and in the latter end of October 1568, he was actually created doctor of divinity, being then highly esteemed on account of his distinguished learning. He published a Sermon on Matth. iv. 1—11, printed at London, 8vo. Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, tells us, that our author translated into English the Book of Psalms, at the command of queen Elizabeth, when an English version of the Bible was to be made, and that he likewise translated Ezekiel and Daniel. He died at Eccleshal in Staffordshire, the seat belonging to the see, Feb. 19, 1578, aged sixty-five years, and was buried under the south wall of the chancel of that church.

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

, one of the best Italian poets of the sixteenth century, was born at Bologna in 1506, of one of the most illustrious families of that city and of all Italy. His father, Hannibal II. being obliged, by pope Julius II. to leave his country, of which his ancestors had been masters from the commencement of the fifteenth century, and to go to Milan, he took his son with him, then an infant. Seven years after, he settled with his whole family at Ferrara, under the protection of the princes of the house of Este, to whom he was nearly related. His son here made rapid progress in his studies, and became distinguished at the court of duke Alphonso I. He was accomplished in music, singing, and the sports and exercises of manly youth; and to all this he added a solidity of judgment which procured him to be employed by the dukes of Ferrara in state-affairs of importance. He was employed on one of these negociations when he died, Nov. 6, 1573. His works, which were printed at first separately, and inserted in many of the collections, were published together under the title of “Opere poetiche del sig. Ercole Bentivoglio,” Paris, 1719, 12mo. They consist of sonnets, stanzas, eclogues, satires, which for easy elegance of style are inferior only to those of Ariosto; five epistles or capitoli, in the manner of Berni, and two comedies of great merit. Of these last there was a French translation by Fabre, printed at Oxford, 1731, 8vo.

After he had passed some years at Rome, where he made many friends, pope Paul V. appointed him his referendary, and sent him, with the title of archbishop of Rhodes, as apostolic nuncio, into Flanders, where he arrived in 1607. After remaining there nine years, he was, in 1617, appointed nuncio in France, and acted with so much dexterity with respect to the affairs of both courts, that when he was made cardinal, Jan. 11, 1621, Louis XIII. chose him to be the agent of France at the court of Rome. Here he soon became the confidential friend of pope Urban VIII. who, in 1641, bestowed on him the bishopric of Palestrina. On the death of this pope in 1644, it was generally thought that cardinal Bentivoglio would be his successor; but he had scarcely entered the conclave when the heat overpowered him, and brought on a fever, of which he died September 7, of that year. He was interred in the church of the Theatins of St. Silvester, in a private manner, agreeably to his own desire, owing to his affairs being deranged. He owed large sums at his death, in order to pay part of which he had been obliged, some time before, to sell his palace at Rome. A magnificent style of living was then one of the means by which the Romish ecclesiastics endeavoured to acquire the humble title of “Servant of servants,” and Bentivoglio had not neglected this or any other expedient. He was in truth a consummate politician, knew how to re^ concile clashing interests, and how to assume every necessary change of character; his historical memoirs partake of this character, being cautious, reserved, yet amusing and illustrative of the characters and events of the times in which he lived. His works are, 1. “Relazioni del card. Bentivoglio in tempo delle sue nunziature di Fiandra e di Francia, date in luce da Ericio Puteano (Henry Dupuy), Antwerp, 1629; Cologne, 1630; Paris, 1631; all in 4to; translated into English by Henry earl of Monmouth, London, 1652, folio. 2.” Delia guerra di Fiandra,“in six books, printed at various times, but all included in the edition of Cologne, 1639, 4to, which is considered as the best. This likewise was translated into English by the earl of Monmouth, 1654, folio. 3.” Kaccolta di lettere scritte in tempo delle sue nunziature di Fiandra et di Francia,“Cologne, 1631, 4to. A fine edition of this was lately published by M. Biagioli, at Didot’s press, Paris, 1807, 12mo, with French notes, grammatical and philosophical, and a literal translation was published at London, 1764, for the use of learners of the Italian tongue, but it was feebly executed. In 1727, an edition of the original was printed at Cambridge. 4.” Memorie^ owero diario del cardinal Bentivoglio,“Amst. 1648, 8vO. He wrote these memoirs in 1642, with a view, as he says in his preface, to please himself, and he relates what he would wish posterity to know of his history and character. The whole of his works, with the exception of his” Memoirs," were published together at Paris, 1645, folio, and apparently reprinted 1648, but this is the same publication with a new title-page. They were also printed, including the Memoirs, at Venice, 1668, 4to.

, regius professor of divinity, and master of Trinity college, Cambridge, a very eminent critic of*he last age, was born January 27, 1661-2, at Oulton, in the parish of Wakefield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire. His ancestors, who were of some consideration, possessed an estate, and had a seat at Hepenstall, in the parish of Halifax. His grandfather, James Bentley, was a captain in king Charles I.'s army, at the time of the civil wars, and being involved in the fate of his party, had his house plundered, his estate confiscated, and was himself carried prisoner to Pomfret castle, where he died. Thomas Bentley, the son of James, and father of Dr. Bentley, married the daughter of Richard Willis of Oulton, who had been a major in the royal army. This lady, who was a woman of exceeding good understanding, taught her son Richard his accidence. To his grandfather Willis, who was left his guardian, he was, in part, indebted for his education; and having gone through the grammar-school at Wakefield with singular reputation, both for his proficiency and his exact and regular behaviour, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Johnson, on the 24th of May, 1676, being then only four months above fourteen years of age. On the 22d of March, 1681-2, he stood candidate for a fellowship, and would have been unanimously elected, had he not been excluded by the statutes, on account of his being too young for priest’s orders. He was then a junior bachelor, and but little more than nineteen years old. It was soon after this that he became a schoolmaster at Spalding. But that he did not continue Jong in this situation is certain from a letter of his grandfather Willis’s, still preserved in the family, from which it appears that he was with Dr. Stillingfleet, at the deanery of St. Paul’s, on the 25th of April, 1683. He had been recommended by his college to the dean, as preceptor to his son and Dr. Stillingfleet gave Mr. Bentley his choice, whether he would carry his pupil to Cambridge or Oxford. He fixed upon the latter university, on account of the Bodleian library, to the consulting of the manuscripts of which he applied with the closest attention. Being now of age, he made over a small estate, which he derived from his family, to his elder brother, and immediately laid out the money he obtained for it in the purchase of books. It is recorded of him, that having, at a very early age, made surprising progress in the learned languages, his capacity for critical learning soon began to display itself. Before the age of twenty-four, he had written with his own hand a sort of Hexapla, a thick volume in 4to, in the first column of which was every word of the Hebrew bible, alphabetically disposed, and in five other columns all the various interpretations of those words, in the Chalclee, Syriac, Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, and Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodosian, that occur in the whole Bible. This he made for his own private use, to know the Hebrew, not from the late rabbins, but the ancient versions, when, excepting Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic, he must then have read over the whole Polyglott. He had also at that time made, for his own private use, another volume in 4 to, of the various lections and emendations of the Hebrew text, drawn out of those ancient versions, which, though done at such an early age, would have made a second part to the famous Capellus’s “Critica Sacra.”

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

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

The life of this eminent scholar and critic, as given in the Biographia Britannica, although professedly corrected from the first edition of that work, remains a confused collection of materials, from which we have found it difficult to form anything like a regular sketch. Few names were more familiar to the scholar and the wit in the first three reigns of the eighteenth century, than that of Bentley, but no approach has yet been made to a regular and impartial narrative of his life. This is the more to be regretted, because he occupied a large space of the literary world, and was connected by friendship or controversy with some of the most eminent writers of his age, both at home and abroad. It has been justly observed, that when we consider the great abilities and uncommon eruvlition of Dr. Bentley, it reflects some disgrace on our country, that even his literary reputation should so long be treated with contempt, that he should be represented as a mere verbal critic, and as a pedant without genius. The unjust light in which he was placed, was not entirely owing to the able men who opposed him in the Boylean controversy. It arose, perhaps, principally from the poets engaging on the same side of the question, and making him the object of their satire and ridicule. The “slashing Bentley” of Pope will be remembered and repeated by thousands who know nothing of the doctor’s real merit. Perhaps it may be found that this asperity of Mr. Pope was not entirely owing to the combination of certain wits and poets against Dr. Bentley, but to personal resentment. We are told that bishop Atterbury having Bentley and Pope both at dinner with him, insisted on knowing what opinion the doctor entertained of the English Homer; he for some time eluded the question, but, at last, being urged to speak out, he said: “The verses are good verses; but the work is not Homer, it is Spondanus.”

Amidst all the opposition, however, raised against Dr. Bentley, by the wantonness of wit, or the spleen of controversy, it may not be difficult to form a correct opinion of his general character from his critical and controversial writings. His extensive learning is universally acknowledged, yet the stern and unaccommodating manners of the pedant are not less obvious. His critical powers were perhaps equal, if not superior, to any man of his time, and would have been the object of unmixed admiration, had he exerted them with less rashness, and with less of that conceit which sometimes made him value a happy yet merely probable conjecture, as if it had been a decision founded on incontrovertible proof. Although he possessed what his enemies have not denied him, a peculiarly acute and comprehensive mind, he too often consulted his imagination, and was seduced by that to enlarge the fair boundaries of critical conjecture beyond all reasonable measure. Of his works, now to be found in libraries, one may surely be esteemed a valuable proof of his talents and judgment; his edition of Horace: and the loss of his Greek Testament, by whatever means that work was interrupted, may be considered as depriving the author of what would probably have handed down his name to posterity with the highest honours due to critical acumen and accuracy.

Besides the estimate we form of him as a scholar, Bentley may be viewed in two lights, as a public and a private character. On the former, it must be confessed that his disputes with the university have thrown a dark shade; and in both it may be said, that no man could have created so many enemies, without some just provocation. Whether this consisted only in a certain haughty and repulsive address, or coarseness of manners, and in a want of those amiable qualities which dignify social life and official station; or whether the accusations brought against him were of sufficient importance to justify the treatment he met with, independent of all personal considerations, may perhaps be ascertained by a close examination of the evidence (yet accessible) which was produced on this controversy. The restoration to his honours and privileges by a court of law, was undoubtedly a triumph, as far as those honours and privileges were valuable to him; but we do not find that he was restored to, or indeed ever possessed^ that general esteem which his vast erudition and rank in academic life might have commanded under other circumstances.

* f He was communicative to all without distinction that sought information, or that resorted to him for assistance; fond of his college almost to enthusiasm, and ever zealous for the honour of the purple gown of Trinity. When he held examinations for fellowships, and the modest candidate exhibited marks of agitation and alarm, he never failed to interpret cancLdly of such symptoms: and on those occasions he was never known to press the hesitating and embarrassed examinant, but oftentimes, on the contrary, would take all the pains of expounding on himself, and credit the exonerated candidate for answers and interpretations of his own suggesting/'

We shall now attempt a catalogue of Dr. Bentley’s works, not hitherto noticed, and of the principal of those published respecting his controversies, as far as the latter can be ascertained. His first publication, as already noticed, was his epistle to Dr. Mill, under the title: 1. “Johannis Antiocheni Cognomento Malaise Historia Chronica e Mss. Cod. Bibliothecre Bodleianae, nunc primum edita, cum interp. et notis Edm. Chilmeadi et triplice indice rerum, autorum et vocum barbarum. Prsemittitur dissertatio de autore, per Humfredum Hodium, S. T. B. Coll. Wadhami Socium. Accedit Epistola Richardi Bentleii ad CI. V. Jo. Millium, S. T. P. cum indice scriptorum, qui ibi emendantur,” Oxonii, 1691, 8vo. 2. His “Sermons at Boyle’s Lectures,” 1693-4, 4to. His controversy with Mr. Boyle on the edition of Phalaris, which produced in 1697, 3. His “Dissertation upon the Epistles of Themistocles, Socrates, Euripides, Phalaris, and the Fables of Æsop,” at the end of the second edition of Wotton’s “Reflections on ancient and modern learning.” This occasioned Mr. Boyle’s work, “Dr. Bentley’s Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris and the Fables of Æsop examined, 1698; usually known by the title of” Boyle Against Bentley.“Dr. fientley then published, 4.” Dr. Bentley’s answer to the above,“commonly known by the name of” Bentley against Boyle,“a curious piece, interspersed with a great deal of true wit and humour. This was for some time a scarce book; but it was reprinted in 1777, by Bowyer and Nichols, with the advantage of several valuable notes and observations, either collected from, or communicated by, bishops Warburton and Lowth, Mr. Upton, Mr. W. Clarke, Mr. Markland, Dr. Salter, Dr. Owen, and Mr. Toup. These were the several pieces which appeared in this great dispute, excepting some few that were published against the doctor, hardly any of which are now known, except” A short review of the controversy between Mr. Boyle and Dr. Bentley,“1701, 8vo.; and previous to that,” A short account of Dr. Bentley’s humanity and justice to those authors who have written before him, with an honest vindication of Thomas Stanley, esq. and his notes on Callimachus. To which are added some other observations on that poet, in a letter to the honourable Charles Boyle, esq. with a Postscript, in relation to Dr. Bentley’s late book against him. To which is added an Appendix, by the bookseller, wherein the doctor’s misrepresentations of all the matters of fact, wherein he is concerned, in his late book about Phalaris’s Epistles, are modestly considered, with a letter from the honourable Charles Boyle on that subject,“Lond. 1699, 8vo. 5.” Annotationes, in Callimachum ultra, 1697. Collectio fragmentorum Callimachi et Annotationes ad eadem.“Of this an edition was published in 1741, 8vo. 6.” Remarks upon a late discourse on Free-thinking (by Collins) in two parts, by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,“Lond. 1713, 8vo 1719, 1725. 7.” Q. Horatius Flaccus ex recensione, et cum notis et emendationibus R. Bentleii,“Camb, 1711, 4to; Amst. 1713 and 1728, 8vo Leipsic, 1763, 2 vols. 8.” Proposals for printing a new edition of the Greek Testament,“Lond. 1721, 4to. Of the pamphlets pro and con respecting his disputes with his college and with the university, a very correct catalogue may be seen in Gough’s” British Topography."

, an Italian Jesuit, physician, and mathematician of considerable eminence, was born at Leghorn, Feb. 8, 1716. He began his noviciate among the Jesuits at the age of sixteen, but did not take the four vows, according to the statutes of that order, until eighteen years afterwards. He had already published a funeral oration on Louis Ancajani, bishop of Spoleto, 1743, and a species of oratorio, to be set to music, entitled “Cristo presentato al tempio,” but it was neither as an orator or poet that he was destined to shine. He became professor of philosophy at Fermo, and when father Boscovich was obliged to leave Rome to complete the chorographical chart of the papal state, which he published some years afterwards, Benvenuti succeeded him in the mathematical chair of the Roman college, and also resumed his lectures on philosophy in the same college. His first scientific work was an Italian translation of Clairaut’s Geometry, Rome, 1751, 8vo and he afterwards published two works, which gained him much reputation: 1. “Synopsis Physics generalis,” a thesis maintained by one of his disciples, the marquis de Castagnaga, on Benvenuti’s principles, which were those of sir Isaac Newton, Rome, 1754, 4to. 2. “De Lumine dissertatio physica,” another thesis maintained by the marquis, ibid. 1754, 4to. By both these he contributed to establish the Newtonian system in room of those fallacious principles which had so long obtained in that college; but it must not be concealed that a considerable part of this second work on light, belongs to father Boscovich, as Benvenuti was taken ill before he had completed it, and after it was sent to press. After the expulsion of the Jesuits, there appeared at Rome an attack upon them, entitled “Riflessioni sur Gesuitismo,” 1772, to which Benvenuti replied in a pamphlet, entitled “Irrefiessioni sur Gesuitismo” but this answer gave so much offence, that he was obliged to leave Rome and retire into Poland, where he was kindly received by the king, and became a favourite at his court. He died at Warsaw, in September, 1789.

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

, an adventurer of very dubious, but not uninteresting character, one of the Magnates of the kingdoms of Hungary and Poland, was born in the year 1741, at Verbowa, the hereditary lordship of his family, situated in Nittria, in Hungary. After receiving the education which the court of Vienna affords to the youth of illustrious families, at the age of fourteen years, he fixed on the profession of arms. He was accordingly received into the regiment of Siebenschien, in quality of lieutenant; and joining the Imperial army, then in the field against the king of Prussia, was present at the battles of Lowositz, Prague, Schweidnitz, and Darmstadt. In 17,38, he quitted the Imperial service and hastened into Lithuania, at the instance of his uncle the starost of Benyowsky, and succeeded as his heir to the possession of his estates. The tranquillity, however, which he now enjoyed was interrupted by intelligence of the sudden death of his father, and that his brothers-in-law had taken possession of his inheritance. These circumstances demanding his immediate presence in Hungary, he quitted Lithuania with the sole view of obtaining possession of the property of his family; but his brothers-in-law by force opposed his entrance into his own castle. He then repaired to Krussava, a lordship dependant on the castle of Verbowa, where, after having caused himself to be acknowledged by his vassals, and being assured of their fidelity, he armed them, and by their assistance gained possession of all his effects; but his brothers, having represented him at the court of Vienna as a rebel and disturber of the public peace, the empress queen issued a decree in chancery against him, by which he was deprived of his property, and compelled to withdraw into Poland. He now determined to travel; but after taking several voyages to Hamburgh, Amsterdam, and Plymouth, with intention to apply himself to navigation, he received letters from the magnates and senators of Poland, which induced him to repair to Warsaw, where he joined the con?­federation then forming, and entered into an obligation, upon oath, not to acknowledge the king, until the confederation, as the only lawful tribunal of the republic, should have declared him lawfully elected to oppose the Russians by force of arms and not to forsake the colours of the confederation so long as the Russians should remain in Poland. Leaving Warsaw, in the month of December, he attempted to make his rights known at the court of Vienna; but disappointed in this endeavour, and deprived of all hope of justice, he resolved to quit for ever the dominions of the house of Austria. On his return to Poland, he was attacked, during his passage through the county of Zips, with a violent fever and being received into the house of Mr. Hensky, a gentleman of distinction, he paid his addresses and was married to one of his three daughters, but did not continue long in possession of happiness or repose. The confederate states of Poland, a party of whom had declared themselves at Cracow, observing that the count was one of the first who had signed their union at Warsaw, wrote to him to join them and, compelled by the strong tie of the oath he had taken, he departed without informing his wife, and arrived at Cracow on the very day count Panin made the assault. He was received with open arms by martial -Czarnesky, and immediately appointed colonel general, commander of cavalry, and quarter-master-general. On the 6th of July 1768, he was detached to Navitaig to conduct a Polish regiment to Cracow, and he not only brought the whole regiment, composed of six hundred men, through the camp of the enemy before the town, but soon afterwards defeated a body of Russians at Kremenka rechiced Landscroen, which prince Lubomirsky, who had joined the confederacy with two thousandregular troops, had attempted in vain and, by his great gallantry and address, contrived the means of introducing supplies into Cracow when besieged by the Russians but the count, having lost above sixteen hundred men in affording this assistance to the town, was obliged to make a precipitate retreat the moment he had effected his purpose; and being pursued by the Russian cavalry, composed of cossacks and hussars, he had the misfortune to have his horse killed under him, and fell at last, after receiving two wounds, into the hands of the enemy. Apraxin, the Russian general, being informed of the successful manoeuvre of the count, was impressed with a very high opinion of him, and proposed to him to enter into the Russian service but rejecting the overture with disdain, he was only saved from being sent to Kiovia with the other prisoners by the interposition of his friends, who paid 962 1. sterling for his ransom. Thus set at liberty, he considered himself as released from the parole which he had given t the Russians; and again entering the town of Cracow, he was received with the most perfect satisfaction by the whole confederacy. The town being no longer tenable, it became an object of the utmost consequence to secure another place of retreat and the count, upon his own proposal and request, was appointed to seize the castle of Lublau, situated on the frontier of Hungary; but after visiting the commanding officer of the castle, who was not apprehensive of the least danger, and engaging more than one half of the garrison by oath in the interests of the confederation, an inferior officer, who was dispatched to assist him, indiscreetly divulged the design, and the count was seized and carried into the fortress of Georgenburgh, and sent from thence to general Apraxin. On his way to that general, however, he was rescued by a party of confederates, and returned to Lublin, a town where the rest of the confederation of Cracow had appointed to meet, in order to join those of Bar, from which time he performed a variety of gallant actions, and underwent great vicissitudes of fortune. On the 19th of May, the Russian colonel judging that the count was marching towards Stry, to join the confederate parties at Sauok, likewise hastened his march, and arrived thither half a day before the count, whose forces were weakened by fatigue and hunger. In this state he was attacked about noon by colonel Brincken, at the head of four thousand men. The count was at first compelled^ to give way but, on the arrival of his cannon, he, in his turn, forced the colonel to retire, who at last quitted the field, and retreated towards Stry. The advantage of the victory served only to augment the misery of the count, who iivthis single action had threahundred wounded and two hundred and sixty-eight slain, and who had no other prospect before him than either to perish by hunger with his troops in the forest, or to expose himself to be cut to pieces by the enemy. On the morning of the 20th, however, by the advice of his officers and troops, he resumed his march, and arrived about ten o‘clock at the village of Szuka, where, being obliged to halt for refreshment, he was surprised by a party of cossacks, and had only time to quit the village and form his troops in order of battle on the plain, before he was attacked by the enemy’s cavalry, and soon, after by their infantry, supported by several pieces of cannon, which caused the greatest destruction among his forces. At length, after being dangerously wounded, the Russians took him prisoner. The count was sent to the commander in chief of the Russian armies, then encamped at Tam’pool, who not only forbade the surgeons to dress his wounds, but, after reducing him to bread and water, loaded him with chains, and transported him to Kiow. On his arrival at Polene, his neglected wound had so far endangered his life, that his conductor'was induced to apply to colonel Sirkow. the commanding officer at that place, and he was sent to the hospital, cured of his wounds, and afterwards lodged in the town, with an advance of fifty roubles for his subsistence. Upon the arrival, however, of brigadier Bannia, who relieved colonel Sirkow in his command, and who had a strong prejudice against the count, he was ac^ain loaded with chains, and conducted to the dungeon with the rest of the prisoners, who were allowed no other subsistence than bread and water. Upon his entrance he recognized several officers and soldiers who had served under him and their friendship was the only consolation he received in his distressed situation. Twentytwo days were thus consumed in a subterraneous prison, together with eighty of his companions, without light, and even without air, except what was admitted through an aperture which communicated with the casements. These unhappy wretches were not permitted to go out even on their natural occasions, which produced such an infection, that thirty-five of them died in eighteen or twenty days; and such were the inhumanity and barbarity of the commander, that he suffered the dead to remain and putrefy among the Ining. On the 16th of July the prison was opened, and one hundred and forty- eight prisoners, who had survived out of seven hundred and eighty-two, were driven, under every species of cruelty, from Polene to Kiow, where the strength of the count’s constitution, which had hitherto enabled him to resist such an accumulation of hardships and fatigue, at length gave way, and he was attacked with a malignant fever, and delirium. The governor, count Voicikow, being informed of his quality, ordered that i-.e should be separately lodged in a house, and that two roubles a day should he paid him for subsistence but when he was in a fair way of recovery, an order arrived from Petersburgh to send all the prisoners to Cazan, and this severity bringing on a relapse, the officer was obliged co leave the count at Nizym, a town dependant on the government of Kiow. At this place, a Mr. Lewner, a German merchant, procured him comfortable accommodation, superintended the restoration of his health, and on his departure made him a present of two hundred roubles, which he placed for safety in the hands of the officer until his arrival at Cazan, but who had afterwards the effrontery to deny that he had ever received the mont.y, accused the count of attempting to raise a revolt among the ^riauners, and caused him. to be loaded with chains and committed to the prison of Cazan, from which he was delivered at the pressing instances of marshal Czarnesky Potockzy, and the young Palanzky. He was then lodged at a private house, and being invited to dine with a man of quality in the place, he was solicited, and consented to join in a confederacy against the government. But on the 6th of November 1769, on a quarrel happening between two Russian lords, one of them informed the governor that the prisoners, in concert with the Tartars, meditated a design against his person and the garrison. This apostate lord accused the count, in order to save his friends and countrymen, and on the 7th, at eleven at night, the count not suspecting any such event, heard a knocking at his door. He came down, entirely undressed, with a candle in his hand, to inquire the cause; and, upon opening his door, was surprised to see an officer with twenty soldiers, who demanded if the prisoner was at home. On his replying in the affirmative, the officer snatched the candle out of his hand, and ordering his men to follow him, went hastily up to the count’s apartment. The count immediately took advantage of his mistake, quitted his house, and, after apprising some of the confederates that their plot was discovered, he made his escape, and arrived at Petersburgh on the 19th of November, where he engaged with a Dutch captain to take him to Holland. The captain, however, instead of taking him on-board tho ensuing morning, pursuant to his promise, appointed him to meet on the bridge over the Neva at midnight, and there betrayed him to twenty Russian soldiers collected for the purpose, who carried him to count Csecserin, lieutenantgeneral of the police. The count was conveyed to the fort of St. Peter and St. Paul, confined in a subterraneous dungeon, and after three days fast, presented with a morsel of bread and a pitcher of water; but, on the 22d of November 1769, he at length, in hopes of procuring his discharge, was induced to sign a paper promising for ever to quit the dominions of her imperial majesty, under pain of death.

The count having signed this engagement, instead of being set at liberty, was re-conducted to his prison, and there confined till 4th December 1769, when, about two hours after midnight, an officer with seven soldiers came to him and he was thrown upon a sledge to which two horses were harnessed, and immediately driven away with the greatest swiftness. The darkness of the night prevented the count from discerning the objects around him but on the approach of day-light he perceived that major Wynblath, Vassili Panow, Hippolitus Stephanow, Asaph Baturin, Ivan Sopronow, and several other prisoners, were the companions of his misfortunes and after suffering from the brutality of their conductor a series of hardships, in passing through Tobolzk, the capital of Siberia, the city of Tara, the town and river of Tomsky, the villages of Jakutzk and Judorua, they embarked in the harbour of Ochoczk, on the 26th October 1770, and arrived at Kamschatka on the 3d December following. The ensuing day they were conducted before Mr. Nilow, the governor; when it was intimated to them that they should be set at liberty on the following day, and provided with subsistence for three days, after which they must depend upon themselves for their maintenance that each person should receive from the chancery a musket and a lance, with one pound of powder, four pounds of lead, a hatchet, several knives and other instruments, and carpenter’s tools, with which they might build cabins in any situations they chose, at the distance of one league from the town but that they should be bound to pay in furs, during the first year, each one hundred roubles, in return for these advantages; that every one must work at the corvee one day in the week for the service of government, and not absent themselves from their huts for twenty-four hours without the governor’s permission and after some other equally harsh terms, it was added, that their lives being granted to them for no other purpose than to implore the mercy of God, and the remission of their sins, they could be employed only in the meanest works to gain their daily subsistence. Under these regulations the exiles settled the places of their habitations, built miserable huts to shelter, themselves from the inclemency of the weather, formed themselves into a congress, and after choosing the count de Benyowsky their chief or captain, they swore with great solemnity mutual friendship and eternal fidelity. Among the number of unhappy wretches who had long groaned under the miseries of banishment, was a Mr. Crustiew, who had acquired considerable ascendancy over his fellow-sufferers; and to obtain the particular confidence and esteem of this man was the first object of the count’s attention in which he sogn succeeded,. The pains and perils incident to the situation to which these men were reduced, were borne for some time in murmuring sufferance, until the accidental finding an old copy of Anson’s Voyage inspired them with an idea of making an escape from Kamschatka to the Marian islands; and the count, Mr. Panow, Baturin, Stephanow, Solmanow, majors Wynblath, Crustiew, and one Wasili, an old and faithful servant of the count’s, who had followed his master into exile, formed a confederacy for this purpose. While these transactions were secretly passing, the fame of count Benyowsky’s rank and abilities reached the ear of the governor and as he spoke several languages, he was after some time admitted familiarly into the house, and at length appointed to superintend the education of his son. and his three daughters. “One day,” says the count, ft while I was exercising my office of language-master, the youngest of the three daughters, whose name was Aphanasia, who was sixteen years of age, proposed many questions concerning my thoughts in my present situation^ which convinced me that her father had given them some information concerning my birth and misfortunes. I therefore gave them an account of my adventures, at which my scholars appeared to be highly affected, but the youngest wept very much. She was a beautiful girl, and her sensibility created much emotion in my mind but, alas, I was an exile" The merits of the count, however, soon surmounted the disadvantages of his situation, in the generous mind of miss Nilow, and the increasing intimacy and confidence which he daily gained in the family, joined to the advantages of a fine person and most insinuating address, soon converted the feelings of admiration into the flame of love; and on the llth of January 1771, madame Nilow, the mother, consented that her daughter should do the honours of an entertainment then in contemplation, and be publicly declared his future spouse. But the count, though he had cultivated and obtained the affections of his fair pupil, had acted more from policy than passion, and, intending to use her interest rather as a means of effectuating the meditated escape of himself and his companions, than as any serious object of matrimonial union, contrived to suspend the nuptials, by persuading the governor to make an excursion from Kamschatka to the neighbouring islands, with a view or under pretence of establishing a new colony. During these transactions the exiles were secretly at work; and in order to conceal their design from all suspicion, Mr. Crustiew and Mr. Panow were on the 30th of March deputed to wait on the governor with five and twenty of their associates, to request that he would be pleased to receive the title of Protector of the new colony; and the embassy was not only favourably received, but orders were given to prepare every thing that might be necessary for the execution of the project. At this crisis, however, an accident occurred which had nearly overturned the success of the scheme; and as it tends to discover the disposition of the count, we shall relate it in his own words.

"On finishing these words she fainted, and though I was exceedingly alarmed and distressed on the occasion, yet I did not fail to arrange a plan in my mind, during the interval of her insensibility. When this amiable young lady recovered, she asked if she might give credit to what she had heard. I then threw myself at her feet, and entreated her to hear me calmly, and judge whether 1 was to blame or not. She promised she would, and I addressed her in the following terms:

On the 23d of April 1771 however, “Miss Aphanasia,” says the count, “came to me incognito. She informed me that her mother was in tears, and her father talked with her in a manner which gave reason to fear that he suspected our plot. She conjured me to be careful, and not to come to the fort if sent for. She expressed her fears that it would not be in her power to come to me again, but promised she would in that case send her servant and she entreated me at all events, if I should be compelled to use force against the government, I would be careful of the life of her father, and not endanger my own. I tenderly embraced this charming young lady, and thanked her T^ the interest she took in my preservation and as it appeared important that her absence should not be discovered, I begged her to return and recommend the issue of our intentions to good fortune. Before her departure I reminded her to look minutely after her father, and to send me a red ribband in case government should determine to arrest or attack me and, in the second place, that at the moment of an alarm, she would open the shutter of her window which looked to the garden, and cause a sledge to be laid over the ditch on that side. She promised to comply with my instructions, and confirmed her promises with vows and tears.”

This measure was, of course, the signal of resistance, and the count marshalling his associates, who had secretly furnished themselves with arms and ammunition by the treachery of the store-keepers, issued forth from the house to oppose, with greater advantage, another detachment who had been sent to arrest him. After levelling several soldiers to the ground, the count, by the mismanagement of their commander, seized their cannon, turned them with success against the fort itself, and, entering by means of the drawbridge, dispatched the twelve remaining guards who were then within it. “Madame Nilow and her children,” says the count, “at sight of me implored my protection to save their father and husband. I immediately hastened to his apartment, and begged him to go to his children’s room to preserve his life, but he answered that he would first take mine, and instantly fired a pistol, which wounded me. I was desirous nevertheless of preserving him, and continued to represent that all resistance would be useless, for which reason I entreated him to retire. His wife and children threw themselves on their knees, but nothing would avail he flew upon me, seized me by the throat, and left me no other alternative than either to give lip my own life, or run my sword through his body. At this period the petard, by which my associates attempted to make a breach, exploded, and burst the outer gate. The second was open, and I saw Mr. Panow enter at the head of a party. He entreated the governor to let me go, but not being able to prevail on him, he set me at liberty by splitting his skull.” The count by this event became complete master of the fort, and by the cannon and ammunition which he found on the rampart, was enabled, with the ready and active assistance of his now increased associates, to repel the attack which was made upon him by the cossacks; but flight, not resistance, was the ultimate object of this bold commander; and in order to obtain this opportunity, he dispatched a drum and a woman as a sign of parley to the cossacks, who had quitted the town and retired to the heights, with a resolution to invest the fort and starve the insurgents, informing them of his resolution to send a detachment of associates into the town to drive all the women and children into the church, and there to burn them all to death, unless they laid down their arms. While this embassy was sent, preparation was made for carrying the threat it contained into immediate execution; but by submitting to the proposal, the execution of this horrid measure was rendered unnecessary, and the count not only received into the fort fifty-two of the principal inhabitants of the town, as hostages for the fidelity of the rest, but procured the archbishop to preach a sermon in the church in favour of the revolution. The count was now complete governor of Kamschatka; and having time, without danger, to prepare every thing necessary for the intended departure, he amused himself with ransacking the archives of the town, where he found several manuscripts of voyages made to the eastward of Kamschatka. The count also formedt chart, with details, respecting Siberia and the sea-coast of Kamschatka, and a description of the Kurelles and Aleuthes islands. This chart has not survived the fate of its composer.

To a romantic mind and adventurous spirit such as the count possessed, a proposal like the present was irresistible and after receiving the most positive assurances from the French ministry, that he should constantly receive from them the regular supplies necessary to promote the success of his undertaking, he set sail on the 22d of March, 1773, from Port L‘Orient for Madagascar, under the treacherous auspices of recommendatory letters to Mr. De Ternay, governor of the isle of France, where he landed with a company of between four and five hundred men on the 22d of September following. Instead, however, of receiving the promised assistance at this place, the governor endeavoured by every means in his power to thwart the success of his enterprise and no other step remained for him, to take, than that of hastening for Madagascar. He accordingly set sail in the Des Torges, a vessel badly provided with those stores that were most likely to be of use, and came to an anchor at Madagascar on the 14th of February 1774. The opposition which he met from the several nations placed him in a dangerous situation but he at length, with great difficulty, formed an establishment on Foul Point, entered into a commercial intercourse, and formed treaties of friendship and alliance with the greater part of the inhabitants of this extensive island. But whether the count, whose commission only extended to open a friendly intercourse with the natives, was abandoned by the minister from the cruelty of neglect, whilst he was in the regular execution of the ’commands of his sovereign, or because his exorbitant spirit and ambition began to soar to more than an ordinary pitch of power and greatness, the following curious and extraordinary narrative of his subsequent conduct will manifestly shew.

The island of Madagascar, as is well known, is of vast extent, and is inhabited by a great variety of different nations. Among these is the nation of Sambarines, formerly governed by a chief of the name and titles of Rohandrian Ampansacab6 Ramini Larizon whose only child, a lovely daughter, had, it seems, been taken prisoner, and sold as a captive and from this circumstance, upon the death of Ramini, his family was supposed to be extinct. “On the 2d of February,” says the count, “M. Corbi, one of my most confidential officers, with the interpreter, informed me, that the old negress Susanna, whom I had brought from the isle of France, and who in her early youth had been sold to the French, and had lived upwards of fifty years at the isle of France, had reported, that her companion, the daughter of Ramini, having likewise been made a prisoner, was sold to foreigners, and that she had certain marks that I was her son. This officer likewise represented to me, that in consequence of her report the Sambarine nation had held several cabars to declare me the heir of Ramini, and consequently proprietor of the province of Manahar, and successor to the title of Ampansacabe, or supreme chief of the nation. This information appeared to me of the greatest consequence, and I determined to take the advantage of it, to conduct that brave and generous nation to a civilized state. But as I had no person to whom I could entruLo the secret of my mind, I lamented how blind the minister of Versailles was to the true interests of France. On the same day I interrogated Susanna on the report she had spread concerning my birth. The good old woman threw herself at my knees, and excused herself by confessing that she had acted entirely upon a conviction of the truth. For she said that she had known my mother, whose physiognomy resembled mine, and that she had herself been inspired in a dream by the Zahanhar to publish the secret. Her manner of speaking convinced me that she really believed what she said. J therefore embraced her, and told her that I had reasons for keeping the secret respecting my birth; but that nevertheless if she had any confidential friends she might acquaint them with it. At these words she arose, kissed my hands, and declared that the Sambarine nation was informed of the circumstances, and that the Rohandrian Raffangour waited only for a favourable moment to acknowledge the blood of Ramini.”

The fallacy to which the old woman thus gave evidence, feeble as the texture of it may appear to penetrating minds, was managed by the count with such profound dexterity and address, that he was declared the heir of Ramini, invested with the sovereignty of the nation, received ambassadors and formed alliances in the capacity of a king with other tribes, made war and peace, led his armies in person into the field, and received submission from his vanquished enemies. In this situation it is not wonderful that he should forget the allegiance he was under to the king of France; and, representing to his subjects the difficulties he had experienced from the neglect of the minister, and the probable advantages that might result by forming a new and national compact either with that or some other powerful kingdom in Europe, he persuaded them to permit him to return to Europe for that purpose and “on the llth of October, 1776,” says the count, “I took my leave to go on board and at this single mofnent of my life I experienced what a heart is capable of suffering, when torn from a beloved and affectionate society to which it is devoted.”

, archbishop of Upsal, and brother tc the preceding, was born at Strengnes in 1689, and studied at Upsal. During his subsequent travels he happened to arrive at Bender, where Charles XII. was. This prince, who had more taste for the pursuit of scientific knowledge than is generally supposed, was desirous at this tim to send some men of learning to the East, and Benzehus was one whom he applied to, and who accordingly began his travels in 1714, visiting Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and returning to Sweden through Italy, Germany, and Holland. The journal of this tour is preserved in manuscript at Upsal but a considerable part of Benzelius’s observations were printed in a Latin collection, under the title of “Syntagma dissertationum in Academia Lundensi habitarum,” Leipsic, 1745, 4to. Benzelius, after his return to Sweden, was made professor of theology, bishop of Lunden, and archbishop of Upsal, where he died in 1758. He was succeeded in the archbishopric by his brother Jacob, who wrote in Latin, an abridgment of theology, and a description of Palestine, and some other works. H. Jasper Benzelius, of the same learned family, who died about the end of the last century, bishop of Strengnes, had studied under Mosheim, and published in 1744 at Helmstadt, a Latin life or dissertation on John Dury, who in the seventeenth century, travelled over a considerable part of Europe, in hopes of reconciling the Lutherans and Calvinists.

, a French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Lyons, March 5, 1703, entered among the Jesuits, and became professor of humanity at Vienne and at Avignon, and of mathematics and philosophy at Aix. In 1740 he was invited to Lyons and appointed professor of mathematics, director of the observatory, and keeper of the medals and the same year he became astronomer to the academy, the memoirs of which are enriched by a great many of his observations, particularly that on the passage of Mercury on the Sun, May 6, 1753, during which he saw and demonstrated the luminous ring round that planet, which had escaped the notice of all the astronomers for ten years before. In all his results, he entirely agreed with Lalande, who had made the same observations at Paris, and with the celebrated Cassini. All his observations, indeed, are creditable to his talents, and accord with those of the most eminent astronomers. Among his other papers, inserted in the memoirs of the academy, we find several on vegetation, on the evaporation of liquids, and the ascent of vapours, on light, a physical theory on the rotation of the earth and the inclination of its axis, &c. In meteorology, he published observations on the tubes of thermometers, with an improvement in the construction of them, which was the subject of three memoirs read in the academy of Lyons in 1747. He has also endeavoured to account for metals reduced to calcination weighing heavier than in their former state, and maintains, against Boyle, that fire is incapable of giving this additional weight, and likewise refutes the opinion of those who attribute it to air, or to substances in the air which the action of fire unites to the metal in fusion. This memoir was honoured with the prize by the academy of Bourdeaux in 1747, and contained many opinions which it would have been difficult to contradict before the experiments of Priestley, Lavoisier, and Morveau. In 1748, he received the same honour, from that academy, for a paper in which he maintained the connexion between magnetism and electricity, assigning the same cause to both. In 1760, he received a third prize from the same academy, for a dissertation on the influences of the moon on vegetation and animal oeconomy. Beraud was also a corresponding member of the academy of sciences in Paris, and several of his papers are contained in their memoirs, and in those of the academy of Lyons. He wrote several learned dissertations on subjects of antiquity. On the dissolution of the society of Jesuits, he left his country for some time, as he could not conscientiously take the oaths prescribed, and on his return, notwithstanding many pressing offers to be restored to the academy, he preferred a private life, never having recovered the shock which the abolition of his order had occasioned. In this retirement he died June 26, 1777. His learning and virtues were universally admired he was of a communicative disposition, and equal and candid temper, both in his writings and private life. Montucla, Lalande, and Bossu, were his pupils and father Lefevre of the Oratory, his successor in the observatory of Lyons, pronounced his eloge in that academy, which was printed at Lyons, 1780, 12mo. The Dict. Hist, ascribed to Beraud, a small volume, “La Physique des corps animus,” 12mo.

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

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

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

, a French poet of the sixteenth century, was born at Albenas or Aubenas in the Vivarais. From the preface to one of his works it appears that he studied law, and that his family had intended him for some post in the magistracy, but that he had found leisure to cultivate his poetical talents, in which he was not unsuccessful. His verses are easy and natural. The greater part were addressed to the poets of his time, many of whose names are not much known now, or to persons of distinction. We learn from one of his pieces that he lived under Francis I. from another, under Henry II. and it is supposed that he died about 1559. His published works are, 1. “Le Siecle d'or,” and other poems, Lyons, 1551, 8vo. 2. “Choreide,” or, “Louange du Bal aux Dames,” ibid. 1556, 8vo. 3. “L'Amie des Amies,” an imitation of Ariosto, in four books, ibid. 1558, 8vo. 4. “L'Amie rustique,” and other poems, ibid. 1558, 8vo. This last, a work of great rarity, is printed with a species of contractions and abbreviations which render the perusal of it very difficult.

, a man utterly unknown, who appeared in Holland in 1670, was thought to be a Jesuit, or a renegade from some other religious fraternity. He got his bread by sweeping chimnies and grinding knives, and died at length in a bog, suffocated in a fit of drunkenness. His talents, if the historians that mention him are to be credited, were extraordinary. He versified with so much ease, that he could recite extempore, and in tolerably good poetry, whatever was said to him in prose. He has been known to translate the Flemish gazettes from that language into Greek or Latin verse with the utmost facility. The dead languages, the living languages, Greek, Latin, French, and Italian, were us familiar to him as his mother tongue. He could repeat by heart Horace, Virgil, Homer, Aristophanes, and several pieces of Cicero and of the Plinies; and, after reciting long passages from them, point out the book and the chapter from whence they were taken. It is supposed that the “Georgarchontomachia sive expugnatae Messopolis” is by him.

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

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

Bergen is the author of a great many works on botany, and various branches of natural history. In 1742 he published a dissertation to prove the superiority of the system of Linnæus to that of Tournefort, but afterwards he changed his opinion, and his “Francfort Flora,” published in 1750, is arranged on the Tournefortian system, although with improvements. This Flora was originally only a new edition of the “Vade Mecum” of Johrenius, one of his predecessors in the botanical chair, but unquestionably his additions were then new and important. He also proposed a new classification of shells, published observations on the anatomy of frogs, and several dissertations or memoirs on various plants and animals. His academical dissertations on anatomy were published by Haller, who particularly praises those on the intercostal nerve and on the cellular membrane. His works not included in that collection are, 1. “Icon nova ventriculorum cerebri,” Francfort, 1734. 2. “Programma de pia matre,” Nuremberg, 1736, 4to. 3. “Programma de nervis quibusdam cranii ad novem paria hactenus non relatis,” Francfort, 1738. 4. “Methodus cranii ossa dissuendi, et machinse hunc in finem constructs, delineatio,” 1741, 4to. 5. “Pentas obervationum anatomico-physiologicarum,” 1743, 4to. 6. “Elementa physiologias,” Geneva, 1749, 8vo, after the manner of Boerhaave’s Institutes. 7. “Anatomes experimentalis, pars prima et s’ecunda,” Francfort, 1755, 17.58, 8vo. 8. Several dissertations and theses, in the medical journals. 9. “Programma,” already mentioned, on the comparative merits of the Linnsean and Tournefortian systems, Francfort, 1742, 4to Leipsic, 1742, 4to. 10. “Dissertatio de Aloide,” Francfort, 1753, 4to, with a supplement in the Nova Act. Acad. Nat. Curiosor. vol. II. 11. “Catalogus stirpium quas hortus academiie Viadrinae (Francfort) cotnplectitur,” 1744, 8vo. 12. “Flora Francofurtanaj” ibid. 1750, 8vo. 13. “Classes conchy liorum,” Nuremberg, 1760, 4to. Adanson consecrated a genus to the memory of Bergen under the name of Bergena, but it was not adopted by Linnæus.

, a celebrated chemist and natural philosopher, was born March 20, 1735, at Catharineberg in Westgothland. His father was receiver-gene^ ral of the finances, and had destined him to the same employment but nature had designed him for the sciences, to which he had an irresistible inclination from his earliest years. His first studies were confined to mathematics and physics, and all efforts that were made to divert him from science having proved ineffectual, he was sent to Upsal with permission to follow the bet of his inclination. Linnaeus at that time filled the whole kingdom with his fame. Instigated by his example, the Swedish youth flocked around him; and accomplished disciples leaving his school, carried the name and the system of their master to the most distant parts of the globe. Bergman, struck with the splendour of this renown, attached himself to the man whose merit had procured it, and by whom he was very soon distinguished. He applied himself at first to the study of insects, and made several ingenious researches into their history; among others into that of the genus of tenthredo, so often and so cruelly preyed on by the larvae of the ichneumons, that nestle in their bowels and devour them. He discovered that the leech is oviparous, and that the coccus aquaticus is the egg of this animal, from whence issue ten or twelve young. Linnæus, who had at first denied this fact, was struck with astonishment when he saw it proved. “Vidi et obstupui” were the words he pronounced, and which he wrote at the foot of the memoir when he gave it his sanction. Mr. Bergman soon distinguished himself as an astronomer, naturalist, and geometrician; but these are not the titles by which he acquired his fame. The chair of chemistry and mineralogy, which had been filled by the celebrated Wallerius, becoming vacant by his resignation, Mr. Bergman was among the number of the competitors and without having before this period discovered any particular attention to chemistry, he published a memoir on the preparation of alum, that astonished his friends as well av his adversaries but it was warmly attacked in the periodi­^cal publications, and Wallerius himself criticised it without reserve. The dispute, we may suppose, was deemed of high importance, since the prince Gustavus, afterwards king of Sweden, and then chancellor of the university, took cognizance of the affair, and after having consulted two persons, the most able to give him advice, and whose testimony went in favour of Bergman, he addressed a memorial, written with his own hand, in answer to all the objections urged against the candidate, to the consistory of the university and to the senate, who elected him agreeably to his highness’s wishes.

In 1709, came forth the “Theory of Vision,” which, of all his works, seems to do the greatest honour to his sagacity; being, as Dr. Reid observes, the first attempt that ever was made to distinguish the immediate and natural objects of sight, from the conclusions we have been accustomed from infancy to draw from them. The boundary is here traced out between the ideas of sight and touch; and it is shewn, that, though habit has so connected these two classes of ideas in our minds, that they are not without a strong effort to be separated from each other, yet originally they have no such connection; insomuch, that a person born blind, and suddenly made to see, would at first be utterly unable to tell how any object that affected his sight would affect his touch; and particularly would not from sight receive any idea of distance, outness, or external space, but would imagine all objects to be in his eye, or rather in his mind. This was surprisingly confirmed in the case of a young man born blind, and couched at fourteen years of age by Mr. Cheselden, in 1728. “A vindication of the Theory of Vision” was published by him in 1733.

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

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

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

But the bishop, ever, active and attentive to the public good, was continually sending forth something or o-ther in 1735, the “Querist;” in 1736, “A Discourse addressed to Magistrates,” occasioned by the enormous licence and irreligion of the times and many other things afterwards of a smaller kind. In 1744 came forth his celebrated and curious book, entitled, “Siris a chain of philosophical reflections and inquiries concerning the virtues of Tar Water” a medicine which had been useful to himself in a case of nervous colic. This work, he has been heard to declare, cost him more time and pains than any other he had ever been engaged in. It underwent a second impression, with additions and emendations, in 1747 and was followed by “Farther thoughts on Tar Water,” in 1752. In July, the same year, he removed with his lady and family to Oxford, partly to superintend the education of his son, the subject of the following article, but chiefly to indulge the passion for learned retirement, which had ever strongly possessed him, and was one of his motives to form the Bermuda project. But as none could be more sensible tban his lordship of the impropriety of a bishop’s nonresidence, he previously endeavoured to exchange his high preferment for some canonry or headship at Oxford. Failing of success in this, he actually wrote over to the secretary of state, to request that he might have permission to resign his bishopric, worth at that time at least 1400l. per annum. So uncommon a. petition excited his majesty’s curiosity to inquire who was the extraordinary man that preferred it: being told that it was his old acquaintance Dr. Berkeley, he declared that he should die a bishop in spite of himself, but gave him- full liberty to reside where he pleased. The bishop’s last act before he left Cloyne was to sign a lease of the demesne lands in that neighbourhood, to be renewed yearly at the rent of 200l. which sum he directed to be distributed every year, until his return, among poor house-keepers of Cloyne, Youghal, and Aghadtla. The author of his life in the Biog. Brit, magnifies his love for the beauties of Cloyne, but the fact was, that he had never any idea of Cloyne as a beautiful situation, and we are happy to draw from the same authority which corrects this error, some additional particulars of his disinterested spirit. He declared to Mrs. Berkeley, soon after he was advanced to the prelacy, that his resolution was never to change his see; because, as he afterwards confessed to the archbishop of Tuam, and the late earl of Shannon, he had very early in life got the world under his feet, and he hoped to trample on it to his latest moment. These two warm friends had been pressing him to think of a translation but he did not love episcopal translations. He thought that they were sometimes really hurtful to individuals, and that they often gave, though unjustly, a handle to suspect of mean views, an order to which that holy and humble man was himself an honour, and to which it may be said, without adulation, that he would have been an honour in any age of the church. Humble and unaspiring as was the bishop of Cloyne, the earl of Chesterfield sought him out and when, as a tribute to exalted merit, that nobleman offered to him tl e see of Clogher, where he was told he might immediately receive fines to the amount of ten thousand pounds, he consulted Mrs. Berkeley, as having a family, and, with her full approbation, not only declined the bishopric of Clogher, but the offer which accompanied that proposal, of any other translation which might become feasible during lord Chesterfield’s administration. The primacy was vacated before the expiration of that period. On that occasion, the bishop said to Mrs. Berkeley, “I desire to add one more to the list of churchmen, who are evidently dead to ambition and avarice.” Just before his embarkation for America, queen Caroline endeavoured to stagger his resolution, by the offer of an English mitre but, in reply, he assured her majesty, that he chose rather to be president of St. Paul’s college, than primate of all England.

, second son of the preceding, by Anne, eldest daughter of the right hon. John Forster, a privy-counsellor and speaker of the Irish house of commons, by Anne, daughter to the right hon. John Monck, brother to the duke of Albemarle, was born on the 28th of September 1733, old style, in Grosvenor-street, Grosvenor-square. In his infancy he was removed with the family to Ireland, where he was instructed in the classics by his father only, the bishop taking that part of the education of his sons on himself. Instructed in every elegant and useful accomplishment, Mr. Berkeley was, at the age of nineteen, sent over to Oxford his father leaving it to his own choice to enter a gentleman commoner, either at Christ church or St. John’s college. But bishop Conybeare, then dean of Christ church, on his arrival offering him a studentship in that society, he accepted it, finding many of the students to be gentlemen of the first character for learning and rank in the kingdom. His first tutor was the late learned archbishop of York, Dr. Markham; on whose removal to Westminsterschool, he put himself under the tuition of Dr. Smallwell, afterwards bishop of Oxford. Having taken the degree of B. A. he served the office of collector in the university, and as he was allowed by his contemporaries to be an excellent Latin scholar, his collector’s speech was universally admired and applauded. In 1758 he took a small living from his society, the vicarage of East Garston, Berks, from which he was removed, in 1759, by archbishop Seeker, his sole patron, to the vicarage of Bray, Berks of which he was only the fifth vicar since the reformation. In 1759, also, he took the degree of M. A. The kindness of archbishop Seeker (who testified the highest respect for bishop Berkeley’s memory by his attention to his deserving son) did not rest here he gave him also the chancellorship of Brecknock, the rectory of Acton, Middlesex, and the sixth prebendal stall in the church of Canterbury. In 1768 he had taken the degree of LL. D. for which he went out grand compounder, and soon afterwards resigned the rectory of Acton. Some time after he had obtained the chancellorship of Brecknock, he put himself to very considerable expence in order to render permanent two ten pounds per annum, issuing out of the estate, to two poor Welch curacies. The vicarage of Bray he exchanged for that of Cookham near Maidenhead, and had afterwards from the church of Canterbury the vicarage of East-Peckham, Kent, which he relinquished on obtaining the rectory of St. Clement’s Danes which with the vicarage of Tyshurst, Sussex (to which he was presented by the church of Canterbury in 1792, when he vacated Cookham), and with the chancellorship of Brecknock, he; held till his death. His illness had been long and painful, but borne with exemplary resignation and his death was so calm and easy that no pang was observed, no groan was heard, by his attending wife and relations. He died Jan. 6, 1795, and was interred in his father’s vault in Christ church, Oxford. Not long before his death, he expressed his warmest gratitude to Mrs. Berkeley, of whose affection he was truly sensible, and of whom he took a most tender farewell. Dr. Berkeley’s qualifications and attainments were such as occasioned his death to be lamented by many. He was the charitable divine, the affectionate and active friend, the elegant scholar, the accomplished gentleman. He possessed an exquisite sensibility. To alleviate the sufferings of the sick and needy, and to patronize the friendless, were employments in which his heart and his hand ever co-operated. In the pulpit his manner was animated, and his matter forcible. His conversation always enlivened the social meetings where he was present; for he was equalled by few in affability of temper and address, in the happy recital of agreeable anecdote, in the ingenious discussion of literary subjects, or in the brilliant display of a lively imagination.

Dr. Berkeley published two or three single sermons; one of which, preached on the anniversary of king Charles’s martyrdom, 1785, entitled “The danger of violent innovations in the state, how specious soever the pretence, exemplified from the reigns of the two first Stuarts,” has gone through six editions, the last in 1794 one on Good Friday 1787 one at Cookham on the king’s accession, 1789. His Sermon on the consecration of bishop Home was not published until after his death. In 1799, his widow published a volume of his Sermons with a biographical preface. He married, in 1761, Eliza, eldest daughter and coheiress of the rev. Henry Finsham, M. A. by Eliza, youngest daughter and one of the coheiresses of the truly pious and learned Francis Cherry, esq. of Shottesbrook-house in the county of Berks, by whom he had four children, now no more. The late bishop Home, we may add, was one of Dr. Berkeley’s earliest and most intimate friends, the loss of whom he severely felt, and of whom he was used to speak with the sincerest respect and the most affectionate regard.

This memoir, we have some reason to think, was drawn up for the preceding edition of this work, by his widow, a lady who claims some notice on her own account. She died at Kensington, Nov. 4, 1800, leaving a character rather difficult to appreciate. In 1797, she published the “Poems” of her son George Monck Berkeley, esq. in a magnificent quarto volume, with a very long, rambling preface of anecdotes and remarks, amidst which she exhibits many traits of her own character. She was unquestionably a lady of considerable talents, but her fancy was exuberant, and her petty resentments were magnified into an importance visible perhaps only to herself. She had accumulated a stock of various knowledge, understood French perfectly and spoke it fluently. She likewise read Spanish and Hebrew, and always took her Spanish Prayer-book with her to church. This was but one of her peculiarities. In conversation, as in writing, she was extremely entertaining, except to those who wished also to entertain; and her stories and anecdotes, although given in correct and fluent language, lost much or their effect, sometimes from length, and sometimes from repetition. She had, however, a warm friendly heart, amidst all her oddities and her very numerous contributions to the Gentleman’s Magazine contain no small portion of entertainment and information. Her son, the above-mentioned George Monck Berkeley, published in 1789, an amusing volume of anecdote and biography, under the title of “Literary Kelics.”

, one of the justices of the king’s bench in the time of Charles I. was born in 1584, the second son of Rowland Berkeley, esq. of Spetchly in Worcestershire, where his descendants yet live and was by the female line, descended from Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, who flourished in the reigns of Henry IV. and V. In the 12 James I. he served the office of high sheriff for the county of Worcester in the 3d Charles I. was made king’s serjeant, and in the 8th of the same reign, was made a justice of the court of king’s bench. While in this office, he, with eleven of his brethren, gave his opinion in favour of ship-money; and if we may judge from the tenor of his conduct in private life, as well as upbn the bench, from honest motives but as he had been active on other occasions in what he seems to have thought his duty, and was a man of fortune, he was singled out by parliament as a proper object of their vengeance. He was accordingly impeached of high treason, and adjudged to pay a fine of 20,000l. to be deprived of his office of judge, and rendered incapable of holding any place, or receiving any honour in the state or commonwealth: he was also to be imprisoned in the Tower during the pleasure of the house of lords. Having made some “satisfaction” for his fine to the parliament, he was by their authority, discharged from the whole, and set at liberty, after he had been upwards of seven months in the Tower. But he af terwards suffered greatly by the plunderings and exactions of the rebels, and a little before the battle of Worcester, the Presbyterians, though engaged in the king’s service, retained their ancient animosity against him, and burnt his house at Spetchly to the ground. He afterwards converted the stables into a dwelling-house, and lived with content, and even dignity, upon the wreck of his fortune. He was a true son of the church of England, and suffered more from the seduction of his only son Thomas to the church of Home, at Brussels, than from all the calamities of the civil war. He died Aug. 5, 1656.

, an English miscellaneous writer, was born, about 1730, at Leeds in Yorkshire, and educated at the grammar-school in that town. His father, Xvho was a merchant, and a native of Holland, intended him for trade and with that view sent him at an early age to Germany, in order to learn foreign languages. After continuing a few years in that country, he made the tour of Europe in company with one or more English noblemen. On their return to Germany they visited Berlin, where Mr. Berkenhout met with a near relation of his father’s, the baron de Bielfeldt, a nobleman then in high estimation with the late king of Prussia; distinguished as one of the founders of the royal academy of sciences at Berlin, and universally known as a politician and a man of letters. With this relation our young traveller fixed his abode for some time; and, regardless of his original. destination, became a cadet in a Prussian regiment of foot. He soon obtained an ensign’s commission; and, in the space of a few years, was advanced to the rank of captain. He quitted the Prussian service on the declaration of war between England and France in 1756, and was honoured with the command of a company in the service of his native country. When peace was concluded in 1760, he went to Edinburgh, and commenced student of physic. During his residence at that university he compiled his “Clavis Anglica Lingux Botanicæ” a book of singular utility to all students of botany, and at that time the only botanical lexicon in our language, and particularly expletive of the Linnsean system. It was not, however, published until 1765.

Having continued some years at Edinburgh, Mr. Berkenhout went to the university of Leyden, where he took the degree of doctor of physic, in 1765, as we learn from his “Dissertatio medica inauguralis de Podagra,” dedicated to his relation baron de Bielfeldt. Returning to England, Dr. Berkenhout settled at Isleworth in Middlesex, and in 1766, published his “Pharmacopoeia Medici,” 12mo, the third edition of which was printed in 1782. In 1769, he published “Outlines of the Natural History of Great Britain and Ireland,” vol. I.; vol. II. appeared in 1770, and vol. III. in 1771. The encouragement this work met with afforded at least a proof that something of the kind was wanted. The three volumes were reprinted together in. 1773, and in 1788 were again published in 2 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Synopsis of the Natural History of Great Britain, &c.” In 1771, he published “Dr. Cadogan’s dissertation on the Gout, examined and refuted” and in 1777, “Biographia Literaria, or a Biographical History of Literature; containing the lives of English, Scotch, and Irish authors, from the dawn of letters in these kingdoms to the present time, chronologically and classically arranged,” 4to, vol.1, the only volume which appeared. The lives are very short, and the author frequently introduces sentiments hostile to religious establishments and doctrines, which could not be very acceptable to English readers. The dates and facts, however, are given with great accuracy, and in many of the lives he profited by the assistance of George Steevens, esq. the celebrated commentator on Shakspeare. This was followed by “A treatise on Hysterical Diseases, translated from the French.” In 1778, he was sent by government with certain commissioners to treat with America, but neither the commissioners nor their secretary were suffered by the congress to proceed further than New- York. Dr. Berkenhout, however, found means to penetrate as far as Philadelphia, where the congress was then assembled. He appears to have remained in that city for some time without molestation but at last on suspicion that he was sent by lord North for the pui'pose of tampering with some of their leading members, he was seized and committed to prison. How long he remained a state prisoner, or by what means he obtained his liberty, we are not informed but we find from the public prints, that he rejoined the commissioners at New York, and returned with them to England. For this temporary sacrifice of the emoluments of his profession, and in consideration of political services, he obtained a pension. In 1780, he published his “Lucubrations on Ways and Means, inscribed to lord North,” proposing certain taxes, some of which were adopted by that minister, and some afterwards by Mr. Pitt. Dr. Berkenhout’s friends at that time appear to have taken some pains to point him out as an inventor of taxes. His next work was “An essay en the Bite of a -Mad Dog, in which the claim to infallibility of the principal preservative remedies against the Hydrophobia is examined.” In the year following Dr. Berkenhout published his “Symptomatology” a book which is too universally known to require any recommendation. In 1788, appeared “First lines of the theory and practice of Philosophical Chemistry,” dedicated to Mr. Eden, afterwards lord Auckland, whom the doctor accompanied to America. Of this book it is sufficient to say, that it exhibits a satisfactory display of the present state of chemistry. His last publication was “Letters on Education, to his son at Oxford,” 1791, 2 vols. 12mo but in 1779, he published a continuation of Dr. Campbell’s “Lives of the Admirals,” 4 vols. 8vo and once printed “Proposals for a history of Middlesex, including London,” 4 vols. fol. which, as the design dropt, were never circulated. There is also reason to suppose him the author of certain humorous publications, in prose and verse, to which he did not think fit to prefix his name, and of a translation from the Swedish language, of the celebrated count Tessin’s letters to the late king of Sweden. It is dedicated to the prince of Wales, his present majesty of Great Britain and was, we believe, Mr. Berkenhout’s first publication. He died the 3d of April 1791, aged 60.

, one of the most, if not the most distinguished character of the twelfth century, was born at Fountaine, a village of Burgundy, in 1091, and was the son of Tecelinus, a military nobleman, renowned for what was then deemed piety. His mother, Aleth, who has the same character, had seven children by her husband, of whom Bernard was the third. From his infancy he was devoted to religion and study, and made a rapid progress in the learning of the times. He took an early resolution, to retire from the world, and engaged all his brothers, and several of his friends in the same monastic views with himsell. The most rigid rules were most agreeable to his inclination, and hence he became a Cistertian, the strictest of the orders in France. The Cistertians were at that time but few in number, men being discouraged from uniting with them on account of their excessive austerities. Bernard, however, by his superior genius, his eminent piety, and his ardent zeal, gave to this order a lustre and a celebrity, which their institution by no means deserved. At the age of twenty-three, with more than thirty companions, he entered into the monastery. Other houses of the order arose soon after, and he himself was appointed abbot of Clairval. To those noviciates who desired admission, he used to say, “If ye hasten to those things which are within, dismiss your bodies, which ye brought from the world let the spirits alone enter the flesh profiteth nothing.” Yet Bernard gradually learned to correct the harshness and asperity of his sentiments, and while he preached mortification to his disciples, led them on with more mildness and clemency than he exercised towards himself. For some time he injured his own health exceedingly by austerities, and, as he afterwards confessed, threw a stumbling block in the way of the weak, by exacting of them a degree of perfection, which he himself had not attained. After he had recovered from these excesses, he began to exert himself by travelling and preaching from place to place, and such were his powers of eloquence, or the character in which he was viewed, that he soon acquired an astonishing prevalence, and his word became a law to princes and nobles. His eloquence, great as it was, was aided in the opinion of his hearers by his sincerity and humility, and there can be no doubt that his reputation for those qualities was justly founded. He constantly refused the highest ecclesiastical dignities, among which the bishoprics of Genoa, Milan, andRheims, may be instanced, although his qualifications were indisputable. Such was his influence, that during a schism which happened in the church of Rome, his authority determined both Louis VI. king of France and Henry I. king of England, to support the claims of Innocent II., one instance, among many, to prove the ascendancy he had acquired. Yet although no potentate, civil or ecclesiastical, possessed such real power as he did, in the Christian world, and though he stood the highest in the judgment of all men, he remained in his own estimation the lowest, and referred all he did to divine grace.

His power, however, was not always employed to the best purposes. The crusade of Louis VII. was supported by Bernard’s eloquence, who unhappily prevailed to draw numbers to join that monarch in his absurd expedition, which was, in its consequences, pregnant with misery and ruin. In his dispute with the celebrated Abelard, he appears more in character. At a council called at Soissons in 1121, Abelard was’ charged with tritheism, and with having asserted, that God the father was alone Almighty. He was ordered to burn his books, and to recite the symbol of Athanasius, with all which he complied, and was set at liberty: but it was long after this before Bernard took any particular notice of Abelard, having either heard little of the controversy, or not being called upon to deliver his sentiments. Abelard, however, notwithstanding his retractations, persevered in teaching his heresies, and it became, at length, impossible for his errors to escape the observation of the abbot of Clairv.il. Having studied the subject, his first step was to admonish Abeiard in a private conference, but finding that that had no effect, he opposed him in some of his writings, on which Abelard challenged him to dispute the matter at a solemn assembly which was to be held at the city of Sens in 1140. Bernard was at first unwilling to subu-it these important doctrines to a decision which was rather that of personal talent, than of deliberative wisdom, and would have declined appearing, had not his friends represented that his absence might injure the cause. He accordingly met his antagonist, and began to open the case, when Abelard very unexpectedly put an end to the matter by appealing to the pope. Bernard, who afterwards wrote to the same pope an account of Abelard’s conduct, very justly blames him for appealing from judges whom he had himself chosen. Notwithstanding this tippeal, however, Abelard’s sentiments were condemned, and the pope ordered his books to be burned, and himself confined in some monastery; and that of Cluni being chosen, he remained in it until his death about two years after.

Bernard has had the fate of most of the eminent characters during the early ages of the church, to be excessively applauded by one party, and. as much and as unjustly depreciated by the other. Of his austerities and his miracles, little notice need be now taken. The former he was himself willing to allow were unjustifiable, and the latter are probably the forgeries of a period later than his own. In his conduct as well as his writings we see many intolerant prejudices and much superstition a strong predilection for the Roman hierarchy, and particularly for the monastic character. On the other hand, although his learning was but moderate, he could have been no ordinary man who attained such influence, not only over public opinion, but over men of the highest rank and power and he has been praised by the protestant writers for deviating in many respects from the dogmas of the popish religion, and maintaining some of those essential doctrines which afterwards occasioned a separation between the two churches. He denied transubstantiation, allowed of only two sacraments, and placed salvation on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, denying all works of supererogation, &c. As to his talents, one of his modern biographers allows that his style was lively and florid, his thoughts noble and ingenious, his imagination brilliant^ and fertile in allegories. He is full of sensibility and tenderness, first gains the mind by a delicate and insinuating manner, then touches the heart with force and vehemence. The Holy Scripture was so familiar to this writer, that he adopts its words and expressions in almost every period and every phrase. St. Bernard’s sermons are considered as master-pieces of sentiment and force. Henry de Valois preferred them to all those of the ancients, whether Greek or Latin. It appears that he preached in French that monks who were not learned assisted at his conferences, and that Latin was then not understood by the people. His Sermons are to be seen in old French at the library of the fathers Fuillautines, rue St. Honore at Paris, in a ms. which is very near St. Bernard’s time; and the council of Tours, held in the year 813, ordered the bishops when they delivered the homilies of the fathers, to translate them from Latin into Langue romance, that the people might understand them. This proves that it was the custom to preach in French long before the time of St. Bernard. The best edition of the works of St. Bernard, who is regarded as the last of the fathers, is that of Mabillon, 2 vots. 1690, fol. the first of which contains such pieces as are undoubtedly Bernard’s. Those in the second volume are not of equal authority. Besides the lives prefixed to this edition by various writers, there are three separate lives, one by Lemaistre, Paris, 1649, 8vo; another by Villefore, 1704, 4to and a third by Clemencet, 1773, 4to, which is usually considered as the thirteenth volume of the literary history of France.

, a monk in the tenth century, who was born in the year 923, in the neighbourhood of Annecy, of one of the most illustrious houses of Savoy, rendered himself not more celebrated in the annals of religion than of benevolence, by two hospitable establishments which he formed, and where, for nine hundred years, travellers have found relief from the dangers of passing the Alps in the severe part of the season. Bernard, influenced by pious motives and a love of study, refused in his early years a proposal of marriage to which his parents attached great importance, and embraced the ecclesiastical life. He afterwards was promoted to be archdeacon of Aoste, which includes the places of official and grand-vicar, and consequently gave him considerable weight in the government of the diocese. This he employed in the laudable purposes of converting the wretched inhabitants of the neighbouring mountains, who were idolaters, and made very great progress in ameliorating their manners, as well as religious opinions. Affected at the same time with the dangers and hardships sustained by the French and German pilgrims in travelling to Rome, he resolved to build on the summit of the Alps two hospitia, or hotels, for their reception, one on mount Joux (mons Jcrffis, so called from a temple of Jupiter erected there), and the other, the colonnade of Jove, so called from a colonnade or series of upright stones placed on the snow to point out a safe track. These places of reception were afterwards called, and are still known by the names of the Great and Little St. Bernard. The care of them the founder entrusted to regular canons of the order of St. Augustin, who have continued without interruption to our days, each succession of monks during this long period, zealously performing the duties of hospitality according to the benevolent intentions of St. Bernard. The situation is the most inhospitable by nature that can be conceived even in spring, the cold is extreme; and the whole is covered with snow or ice, whose appearances are varied only by storms and clouds. Their principal monastery on Great St. Bernard, is probably the highest habitation in Europe, being two thousand five hundred toises above the sea. Morning and evening their dogs, trained for the purpose, trace out the weary and perishing traveller, and by their means, many lives are saved, the utmost care being taken to recover them, even when- recovery seems most improbable. After thus establishing these hospitia, Bernard returned to his itinerant labours among the neighbouring countries until his death in May 28, 1008. The Bollandists have published, with notes, two authentic lives of St. Bernard de Menthon, one written by Richard, his successor in the archdeaconry of Aoste y by which it appears that he was neither a Cistertian, nor of the regular canons, as some writers have asserted. The two hospitals possessed considerable property in Savoy, of which they were deprived afterwards, but the establishment still subsists, and the kind and charitable duties of it have lately been performed by secular priests.

, successively poet laureate of Henry VII. and VIII. kings of England, was a native of Tholouse, and an Augustine monk. By an instrument in Rymer’s Foedera, Vol. XII. p. 317, pro Potta laureafo, dated 1486, the king grants to Andrew Bernard, poet& laureato, which, as Mr. Warton remarks, we may construe either “the laureated poet,” or “a poet laureat,” a salary of ten marks, until he can obtain some equivalent appointment. He is also supposed to have been the royal historiographer, and preceptor in grammar to prince Arthur. All the pieces now to be found, which he wrote in the character of poet laureat, are in Latin. Among them are, an “Address to Henry VIII. for the most auspicious beginning of the tenth year of his reign,” with “An epithrflamium on the Marriage of Francis the dauphin of France with the king’s daughter.” These were formerly in the possession of Mr. Thomas Martin of Palgrave, the antiquary; - A New Year’s gift for 1515,“in the library of New college, Oxford and” Verses wishing prosperity to his Majesty’s thirteenth year,“in the British museum. He has also left some Latin hymns, a Latin life of St. Andrew, and many Latin prose pieces, which he wrote as historiographer to both monarchs, particularly a” Chronicle of the life and achievements of Henry VII. to the taking of Perkin Warbeck," and other historical commentaries on thq reign of that king, which are all in the CotIonian library. He was living in 1522, but is not mentioned by Bale, Pits, or Tanner.

, called Father Bernard, or the Poor Priest, was born December 26, 1588, at Dijon, sou of Stephen Bernard, lieut.-gen. of Chalons-sur-Saone. He had a lively imagination and wit, which, joined to a jovial temper, made him a welcome guest in all gay companies. Going to Paris with M. de Bellegarde, governor of Dijon, he gave himself up to public amusements, and all the vanities of the age, making it his business to act comedies for the diversion of such persons of quality as he was acquainted with but at length he grew disgusted with the world, and devoted himself wholly to relieving and comforting the poor. He assisted them by his charities and exhortations to the end of his days, with incredible fervour, stooping and humbling himself to do the meanest offices for them. Father Bernard having persisted in refusing all the benefices offered him by the court, cardinal Richelieu told him one day, that he absolutely insisted on his asking him for something, and left him alone to consider of it. When the cardinal returned half an hour after, Bernard said, “Monseigneur, after much study, I have at last found out a favour to ask of you When I attend any sufferers to the gibbet to assist them in their last moments, we are carried in a cart with so bad a bottom, that we are every moment in danger of falling to the ground. Be pleased, therefore, Monseigneur, to order that some better boards may be put to the cart.” Cardinal Richelieu laughed heartily at this request, and gave orders directly that the cart should be thoroughly repaired. Father Bernard was ever ready to assist the unhappy hy his good offices, for which purpose he one day presented a petition to, a nobleman in place, who being of a Very hasty temper, flew into a violent passion, and said a thousand injurious things of the person for whom the priest interested himself, but Bernard still persisted in his request; at which the nobleman was at last so irritated, that he gave him a box on the ear. Bernard immediately fell at his feet, and, presenting the other ear, said, “Give me a good blow on this also, my lord, and grantmy petition.” The nobleman was so affected by this apparent humility as to grant Bernard’s request. He died March 23, 1641. The French clergy had such a veneration for him as often to solicit that he might be enrolled in the calendar of saints. In 1638 he founded the school of the Thirty-three, so called from the number of years our Saviour passed on earth, and a very excellent seminary. Immediately after his death appeared “Le Testament du reverend pere Bernard, et ses pensdes pieuses,” Paris, 1641, 8vo, and “Le Recit des choses arrivees a la mort du rev. pere Bernard,” same year. The abbé Papillon also quotes a work entitled “Entretiens pendant sa derniere maladie.” His life was written by several authors, by Legauffre, Giry, de la Serre, Gerson, and Lempereur the Jesuit. This last, which was published at Paris, 1708, 12mo, is too full of visions, revelations, and miracles, to afford any just idea of Bernard.

At his return to Oxford, he examined and collated the most valuable manuscripts in the Bodleian library; which induced those who published ancient authors, to apply to him for observations or emendations, which he readily imparted, and by this means became engaged in a very extensive correspondence with the learned in most countries. In 1669, the celebrated Christopher Wren, Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford, having been appointed surveyor-general of his majesty’s works, and being much detained at London by this employment, obtained leave to name a deputy at Oxford, and pitched upon Mr. Bernard, which obliged the latter to confine his application more particularly to the study of astronomy. In 1672, the master and fellows of his college presented him to the rectory of Cheame in Surrey and February following, Dr. Peter Mews, the master, being advanced to the bishopric of Bath, and Wells, appointed Mr. Bernard one of his chaplains. But the following year he quitted all views of preferment, by accepting the Savilian professorship of astronomy, vacant by the resignation of sir Christopher Wren for, by the statutes of the founder, sir Henry Savile, the professors are not allowed to hold any other office either ecclesiastical or civil.

About this time a scheme was set on foot at Oxford, of collecting and publishing the ancient mathematicians. Mr. Bernard, who had first formed the project, collected all the books published on that subject since the invention of printing, and all the Mss. he could discover in the Bodleian and Savilian libraries, which he arranged in order of time, and according to the matter they contained. Of this he drew up a synopsis or view, which he presented to bishop Fell, a great encourager of the undertaking. This was published by his biographer, Dr. Thomas Smith, at the end of his life. As a specimen, Mr. Bernard published also a few sheets of Euclid, in folio, containing the Greek text, and a Latin version, with Proclus’s commentary in Greek and Latin, and learned scholia and corollaries. He undertook also an edition of the “Parva syntaxis Alexandrina” in which, besides Euclid, are contained the small treatises of Theodosius, Autolycus, Menelaus, Aristarchus, and Hipsicles but it was never published. In 1676, he was sent to France by Charles II. to be tutor to the dukes of Grafton and Northumberland, natural sons of the king, by the duchess of Cleveland, with whom they then lived at Paris; but the plainness and simplicity of his manners not suiting the gaiety of the duchess’s family, he continued with them only one year, when he returned to Oxford having reaped however the advantage, during his stay at Paris, of becoming acquainted with most of the learned men in that city, particularly Justel, Huet, Mabillon, Quesnel, Dacier, Renaudot, and others.

Upon his return to the university, he applied himself to his former studies and though, in conformity to the obligation of his professorship, he devoted the greatest part of his time to mathematics, yet his inclination was now more to history, chronology, and antiquities. He undertook a new edition of Josephus, but it was never completed. The history of this undertaking is somewhat curious. Several years before, bishop Fell had resolved, with our author’s assistance, to print at the theatre at Oxford a new edition of Josephus, more correct than any of the former. But, either for want of proper means to complete that work, or in expectation of one promised by the learned Andrew Bosius, this design was laid aside. Upon the death of Bosius, it was resumed again and Mr. Bernard collected all the manuscripts he could procure out of the libraries of Great Britain, both of the Greek text and Epiphanius’s Latin translation, and purchased Bosius’s valuable papers of his executors at a great price. Then he published a specimen of his edition of Josephus, and wrote great numbers of letters to his learned friends in France, Holland, Germany, and other countries, to desire their assistance in that work. He laboured in it a good while with the utmost vigour and resolution, though his constitution was much broken by intense application. But this noble undertaking was left unfinished, for these two reasons. First, many persons complained of Epiphanius’s translation, because it was defective, and not answerable to the original in many places, and required a new version, or at least to have that of Gelenins revised and corrected. Secondly, objections were made to the heap of various readings that were to be introduced in this edition, and with the length of the commentaries, in which whole dissertations were inserted without any apparent necessity, that ought to have been placed at the end of the work, or printed by themselves. These things occasioning a contest between Mr. Bernard and the curators of the Oxford press, the printing of it was interrupted and at last the purpose of having it done at the expence of the university, was defeated by the death of bishop Fell. However, about six or seven years after, Mr. Bernard was prevailed upon by three booksellers of Oxford to resume the work, and to publish it in a less form upon the model of his specimen but they not being able to bear the expence of it, on account of the war, after a few sheets were printed off, desisted from their undertaking. These repeated discouragements hindered the learned author from proceeding further than the four first books, and part of the fifth, of the Jewish Antiquities and the first book, tmd part of the second, of the Destruction of Jerusalem; which were printed at the Theatre at Oxford in 1686 and 1687, and published in 1700, fol. In the notes, the learned author shews himself an universal scholar and discerning critic and appears to have been master of most of the Oriental learning- and languages. These notes have been incorporated into Havercamp’s edition.

In 1683, he went again to Leyden, to be present at the sale of Nicholas Heinsius’s library; where he purchased, at a great price, several of the classical authors, thut had been either collated with manuscripts, or illustrated with the original notes of Joseph Scaliger, Bonaventure Vulcanius, the two Heinsiuses, and other celebrated critics. Here he renewed his acquaintance with several persons of eminent learning, particularly Gruevius, Spanheim, Triglandius, Gronovius, Perizonius, Ryckius, Gallaeus, Rulaeus, and especially Nicholas Witsen, burgomaster of Amsterdam, who presented him with a Coptic dictionary, brought from Egypt by Theodore Petraeus of Holsatia; and afterwards transmitted to him in 1686, the Coptic and Ethiopic types made of iron, for the use of the printingpress at Oxford. With such civilities he was so much pleased, and especially with the opportunities he had of making improvements in Oriental learning, that he would have settled at Leyden, if he could have been chosen professor of the Oriental languages in that university, but not being able to compass this, he returned to Oxford. He began now to be tired of astronomy, and his health declining, he was desirous to resign but no other preferment offering, he was obliged to hold his professorship some years longer than he intended; in 1684 he took his degree of D. D. and in 1691, being presented to the rectory of Brightwell in Berkshire, he quitted his professorship, and was succeeded by David Gregory, professor of mathematics at Edinburgh. In 1692, he was employed in drawing up a catalogue of the manuscripts in Great Britain and Ireland, which was published at Oxford 1697, fol. Dr. Bernard’s share in this undertaking was the drawing up a most useful and complete alphabetical Index to which he prefixed this title, “Librorum manuscriptorum Magnae Britanniae et Hibernise, atque externarum aliquot Bibliothecarum Index secundum alphabetum Edwardus Bernardus construxit Oxonii.” In this Index he mentions a great number of valuable Greek manuscripts, which are to be found in several foreign libraries, as well as our own. Towards the latter end of his life, he was much afflicted with the stone, yet, notwithstanding this and other infirmities, he took a third voyage to Holland, to attend the sale of Golius’s manuscripts. After six or seven weeks absence, he returned to London, and from thence to Oxford. There he fell into a languishing consumption, which put an end to his life, Jan. 12, 1696, before he was quite fifty-nine years of age. Four days after, he was interred in St. John’s chapel, where a monument of white marble was soon erected for him by his widow, to whom he had been married only three years. In the middle of it there is the form of an Heart carved, circumscribed with these words, according to his own direction a little before he died, Habemus Cor Bernard!: and underneath E. B. S. T. P. Obiit Jan. 12, 1696. The same is also repeated on a small square marble, under which he was buried. As to this learned man’s character, Dr. Smith, who knew him well, gives him a very great one. “He was (says he) of a mild disposition, averse to wrangling and disputes and if by chance or otherwise he happened to be present where contests ran high, he would deliver his opinion with great candour and modesty, and in few words, but entirely to the purpose. He was a candid judge of other men’s performances; not too censorious even on trifling books, if they contained nothing contrary to good manners, virtue, or religion and to those which displayed wit, learning, or good sense, none gave more ready and more ample praise. Though he was a true son of the Church of England, yet he judged favourably and charitably of dissenters of all denominations. His piety and prudence never suffered him to be hurried away by an immoderate zeal, in declaiming against the errors of others. His piety was sincere and unaffected, and his devotions both in public and private very regular and exemplary. Of his great and extensive learning, the works he published, and the manuscripts he has left, are a sufficient evidence.” This character is supported by the concurring evidence of all his learned contemporaries. The works he published were 1. “Tables of the longitudes and latitudes of the fixed Stars.” 2. “The Obliquity of the Ecliptic from the observations of the ancients, in Latin.” 3. “A Latin letter to Mr. John Flamsteed, containing observations on the Eclipse of the Sun, July 2, 1684, at Oxford.” All these are in the Philosophical Transactions, 4, “A treatise of the ancient Weights and Measures,” printed first at the end of Dr. Edward Pocock’s Commentary on Hosea, Oxford, 1685, fol. and afterwards reprinted in Latin, with very great additions and alterations, under this title, “De mensuris & ponderibus antiquis, libri tres,” Oxon. 1688, 8vo. 5. “Private Devotions, with a brief explication of the Ten Commandments,” Oxford, 1689, 12mo. 6. “Orbis eruditi Literatura a charactere Samaritico deducta” printed at Oxford from a copper-plate, on one side of a broad sheet of paper: containing at one view, the different forms of letters used by the Phoenicians, Samaritans, Jews, Syrians, Arabs, Persians, Brachmans, and other Indian philosophers, Malabarians, Greeks, Cophts, Russians, Sclavonians, Ethiopians, Francs, Saxons, Goths, &c. all collected from ancient inscriptions, coins, and manuscripts together with the abbreviations used by the Greeks, physicians, mathematicians, and chymists. 7. “Etymologicum Britannicum, or derivations of the British and English words from the Russian, Sclavonian, Persian, and Armenian languages printed at the end of Dr. Hickes’s Grammatica Anglo- Saxonica & Moeso-Gotthica,” Oxon. 1689, 4to. 8. He edited Mr. William Guise’s “Misnoe pars prima, ordinis primi Zeraim tituli septem,” Oxon. 1690, 4to. 9. “Chronologiae Samaritanae Synopsis,” in two tables the first containing the most famous epochas, and remarkable events, from the beginning of the world the second a catalogue of the Samaritan High Priests from Aaron, published in the “Acta Eruditqrum Lipsiensia,” April 1691, p. 167, &c. He also was author of the following: 10. “Notse in fragmentum Seguierianum Stephani Byzantini” in the library of monsieur Seguier, chancellor of France part of which, relating to Dodone, were published by Gronovius, at the end' of his “Exercitationes de Dodone,” Leyden, 1681. 11. “Adnotationes in Epistolam S. Barnabce,” published in bishop Fell’s edition of that author, Oxon. 1685, 8vo. 12. “Short notes, in Greek and Latin, upon Cotelerius’s edition of the Apostolical Fathers, printed in the Amsterdam edition of them. 13.” Veterum testimonia de Versione LXXII interpretum," printed at the end of Aristeae Historia LXXII interpretum, published by Pr. Henry Aldrich, Oxon. 1692, 8vo. 14. He translated into Latin, the letters of the Samaritans, which Dr. R. Huntington procured them to write to their brethren, the Jews in England, in 1673|­while he was at Sichem. Dr. Smith having obtained a copy of this translation, gave it to the learned Job LudoL fus, when he was in England, who published it in the collection of Samaritan Epistles, written to himself and other learned men. Besides these works, he also assisted several learned men in their editions of books, and collated manuscripts for them and left behind him in manuscript many books of his own composition, with very large collections which, together with the books enriched in the margin with the notes of the most learned men, and collected by him in France and Holland, were purchased by the curators of the Bodleian library, for the sum of two hundred pounds. They likewise bought a considerable number of curious and valuable books out of his library, which were wanting in the Bodleian, for which they paid one hundred and forty pounds. The rest of his books were sold by auction, all men of letters striving to purchase those which had any observations of Dr. Bernard’s own hand.

The favourable sentiments which the province entertained for sir Francis before the controversy took place between Great Britain and the colonies, are shown by the expressions of acknowledgement and affection in their several addresses to him up to that period, and the constant approbation with which he was honoured by his majesty, appears from the dispatches of the different secretaries of state laid before the House of Commons, and printed by their order. His “Case before the Privy Council,” printed in 1770; and his “Select Letters,” in 1774; explain in a very satisfactory manner his conduct during the progress of the American revolution. After the war commenced, sir Francis returned to England, and resided mostly at Nether Wichendon, or Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. He died June 16, 1779, leaving a numerous family, of whom his third son, sir Thomas, the present baronet, chancellor of the diocese of Durham, is well known as a scholar and philanthropist. In 1752, sir Francis, who cultivated a highly classical taste, published “Antonii Alsopi Odarum libri duo,” 4to. (See Alsop), dedicated in an elegant copy of verses to Thomas duke of Newcastle.

, a learned Dutch physician, was born in 1718, at Berlin, where his father, Gabriel Bernard, was a minister of the reformed church. His son came to Holland to study physic and determined to remain there. Having an extraordinary fondness for the study of Greek, in which he had made great progress, he wished to render this knowledge subservient to his profession, and with that view projected a new edition of the lesser Greek physicians, whose works were become very scarce and dear. He began first at Leyden, in 1743, with Demetrius Pepagomenus on the gout; and next year published an introduction to anatomy by an anonymous author, and a nomenclature of the parts of the human body by Hypatius, both in one volume. In 1745, he published Palladius on fevers, and an inedited Chemical glossary, with some extracts, likewise inedited from the different poetical chemists. The same year appeared his edition of Psellus on the virtues of stones. In 1749, he published Synesius on fevers, hitherto inedited, and wrote, in the ninth volume of Dorville’s “Miscellaneae Observationes Novae,” an account of the variations of a manuscript copy of the lexicons or glossaries of Erotian, and Galen. In 1754, when Neaulme, the Dutch bookseller, designed a new edition of Longus’s romance, Bernard read the proofs, and introduced some important corrections of the text. As he did not put his name to this edition, Messrs. Boden, Dutens, and Villoison, who were also editors of Longus after him, knew no other way of referring to him than as the “Paris editor,” being deceived hy Neaulrne’s dating the work from Paris, instead of Amsterdam, where it was printed. In 1757, he superintended an edition of Thomas Magister, but his professional engagements not allowing him sufficient leisure, the preface was written by Oudendorp. From this time, Bernard having ceased to write, and having retired to Arnheim, was completely forgot until, says the editor of the Biog. Universelle, his death was announced by Saxius in 1790 but this seems a mistake. Saxius gives an account of him, as of some other living authoi’s, but leaves his death blank. Bernard, however, to contradict such a rumour, or, as his biographer expresses himself, in order to “show some signs of life,” published a Greek fragment on the dropsy. It was his purpose next to publish Theophilus Nonnus, “De curatione morborum.” This work, on which he had bestowed the labour of many years, and which is one of his best editions, was published at Gotha in 1794, a year after his death. A short time before this event, he sent to the society of arts and sciences at Utrecht, remarks on some Greek authors, which appeared in the first volume of the “Acta Litteraria” of that society. In 1795, Dr. Gruner published various letters and pieces of criticism, which Bernard, who was his intimate friend, had sent to him, under the title of “Bernardi Reliquiae medico-criticae.” Several very learned and curious letters from Bernard were also published in Reiske’s Memoirs, Leipsic, 1783.

, a learned English divine of the seventeenth century, was educated in the university of Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. and was incorporated to the same degree at Oxford, July 15, 1628. He was probably created D. D. of the university of Dublin, but this has not been exactly ascertained. He was ordained by primate Usher, in 1626, in St. Peter’s church, Drogheda, while he was only B. A. and made his chaplain, and soon after, by his interest, was promoted to the deanery of Ardagh. His Grace having daily opportunities ojf taking notice of the learning and judgment of Mr. Bernard, employed him in making collections for some works he was then meditating, particularly for the antiquities of the British churches; which did not appear till 1639. The primate always expressed great friendship and esteem for him; and upon taking his leave of him at Drogheda in 1640, gave him “A serious preparative against the heavy sorrows and miseries that he should feel before he saw him again, and spoke of them with that confidence, as if they had been within his view.” This serious discourse proved in the event to be a prophecy, as will be noticed in the life of that prelate. The year following, Dr. Bernard published a book and a sermon which gave offence. These were entitled, 1. “The penitent death of a woful Sinner; or, the penitent death of John Atherton, late bishop of Waterford in Ireland, who was executed at Dublin the fifth of December, 1640; with some annotations on several passages,” London, 1641, 4to 1642, 8vo. 2. “A sermon preached at the burial of John Atherton, the next night after his execution, in St. John’s church, Dublin,” Lond. 1641, 4to 1642, 8vo. Dr. Bernard had the best opportunity in the world of knowing the truth of the fact for which bishop Atherton suffered, having attended him in his exemplary preparation for death, and in his last moments, and he gives us his behaviour and confession fairly and honestly. The cause of offence seems, upon the whole, to have been an opinion that this disgraceful affair had better be buried in oblivion. Archbishop Usher, however, who saw Dr. Bernard’s good intentions, did not withdraw from him his favour or countenance. The same year was published a pamphlet of his writing, upon the siege of Drogheda, of which he was an eye-witness. In the summer of 1642, having lost most of his substance, he returned safe to England to attend on the lord primate, and carried with him Usher’s valuable library, which was afterwards removed to Ireland, and is now in Trinity-college, Dublin. Upon his arrival in England, he was presented, by the earl of Bridgwater, to the rich rectory of Whitchurch in Shropshire, and after the declension of the royal cause, was made chaplain to the Protector, one of his almoners, and preacher to the society of Gray’s inn. Being thus comfortably settled, in 1642 he found leisure, from his pastoral charge, to publish “The whole proceedings of the siege of Drogheda,” London and Dublin, 1642, 4to and Dublin, 1736; and “A Dialogue tetweeu Paul and Agrippa,” London, 1642, 4to. After the restoration of king Charles II. in 1660, having no confidence in the settlement of the state of Ireland, he declined returning and taking possession of his deanery, and contilined at VV hitchurch to his death, which iiappened in winter, 1661. His other works were, 1. “A farewell sermon of comfort and concord, preached at Drogheda,” 1651, 8vo. 2. “The life and death of Dr. James Usher, late archbishop of Armagh, primate and metropolitan of all Ireland, in a sermon preached at his funeral in the abbey of Westminster, on the 17th of April, 1656,” London, 1656, 12mo, afterwards enlarged. 3. “The judgment of the late archbishop of Armagh and primate of Ireland concerning first, the extent of Christ’s death and satisfaction secondly, of the Sabbath, and observation of the Lord’s day,” &c. London, 1657, 8vo. This treatise was answered by Dr. Peter Heylyn, in a book entitled “Respondet Petrus or, the answer of Peter Heylyn, D. D. to so much of Dr. Bernard’s book entitled” The judgment of the late primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party by the said lord primate in the point of the Sabbath,“London, 1658, 4to. He also published several letters which passed between him and Dr. Heylyn, and published and enlarged several posthumous works of Dr. Usher as,” His judgment on Babylon being the present see of Rome, Rev. xviii. 4, with a sermon of bishop Bedell’s upon the same words,“London, 1659.” Devotions of the ancient church, in seven pious prayers,“&c. London, 1660, 8vo.” Clavi trabales, or nails fastened by some great masters of assemblies, confirming the king’s supremacy, the subject’s duty, and church government by bishops being a collection of some pieces written on these subjects by archbishop Usher, Mr. Hooker, bishop Andrews, and Dr. Hadrian Saravia; with a preface by the bishop of Lincoln," London, 1661, 4to.