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

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

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

, an eminent mathematician in the seventeenth century, the son of James Baker of Ikon in Somersetshire, steward to the family of the Strangways of Dorsetshire, was born at Ikon about the year 1625, and entered in Magdalen-hall, Oxon, in the beginning of the year 1640. In April 1645, he was elected scholar of Wadham college and did some little servicb to king Charles I. within the garrison of Oxford. He was admitted bachelor of arts, April 10, 1647, but left the university without completing that degree by determination. Afterwards he became vicar of Bishop’s-Nymmet in Devonshire, where he lived many years in studious retirement, applying chiefly to the study of the mathematics, in which he made very great progress. But in his obscure neighbourhood, he was neither known, nor sufficiently valued for his skill in that useful branch of knowledge, till he published his famous book. A little before his death, the members of the royal society sent him some mathematical queries to which he returned so satisfactory an answer, that they gave him a medal with an inscription full of honour and respect. He died at Bishop’s-Nymmet aforementioned, on the 5th of June 1690, and was buried in his own church. His book was entitled “The Geometrical Key, or the Gate of Equations unlocked, or a new Discovery of the construction of all Equations, howsoever affected, not exceeding the fourth degree, viz. of Linears, Quadratics, Cubics, Biquadratics, and the rinding of all their roots, as well false as true, without the use of Mesolahe, Trisection of Angles, without Reduction, Depression, or any other previous Preparations of Equations, by a Circle, and any (and that one only) Farabole, &c.” London, 1684, 4to, in Latin and English. In the Philosophical Transactions, it is observed, that the author, in order to free us of the trouble of preparing the equation by taking away the second term, shews us how to construct all affected equations, not exceeding the fourth power, by the intersection of a circle and parabola, without omission or change of any terms. And a circle and a parabola being the most simple, it follows, that the way which our author has chosen is the best. In the book (to render it intelligible even to those who have read no conies), the author shews, how a parabola arises from the section of a cone, then bow to describe it in piano, and from that construction demonstrates, that the squares of the ordinates are one to another, as the correspondent sagitta or intercepted diameters then he shews, that if a line be inscribed in a parabola perpendicular to any diameter, a rectangle made of the segments of the inscript, will be equal to a rectangle rr.ade of the intercepted diameter and parameter of the axis. From this last propriety our author deduces the universality of his central rule for the solution of ai! 2 biquadratic and cubic equations, however affected or varied in terms or signs. After the synthesis the author shews the analysis or method, by which he found this rule which, in the opinion of Dr. R. Plot (who was then secretary to the royal society) is so good, that nothing can be expected more easy, simple, or universal.

, a very ingenious and learned antiquary, was descended from a family ancient and wellesteemed, distinguished by its loyalty and affection for the crown. His grandfather, sir George Baker, knt. to whom our author erected a monument in the great church at Hull, almost ruined his family by his exertions for Charles I. Being recorder of Newcastle, he kept that town, 1639, against the Scots (as they themselves wrote to the parliament) with a “noble opposition.” He borrowed large sums upon his own credit, and sent the money to the king, or laid it out in his service. His father was George Baker, esq. of Crook, in the parish of Lanchester, in the county of Durham, who married Margaret, daughter of Thomas Forster of Edderston, in the county of Northumberland, csq. Mr. Baker was born at Crook, September 14, 1656. He was educated at the free-school at Durham, under Mr. Battersby, many years master, and thence removed with his elder brother George, to St. John’s college, Cambridge, and admitted, the former as pensioner, the latter as fellow-commoner, under the tuition of Mr. Sanderson, July 9, 1674. He proceeded, B. A. 1677; M. A. 1681; was elected fellow, March 1680; ordained deacon by bishop Compton of London, December 20, 1685; priest by bishop Barlow of Lincoln, December 19, 1686. Dr. Watson, tutor of the college, who was nominated, but not yet consecrated, bishop of St. David’s, offered to take him for his chaplain, which he declined, probably on the prospect of a like offer from Crew, lord bishop of Durham, which he soon after accepted. His lordship collated him to the rectory of Long- Newton in his diocese, and the same county, June 1687; and, as Dr. Grey was informed by some of the bishop’s family, intended to have given him that of Sedgefieid, worth six or seven hundred pounds ayear, with a golden prebend, had he not incurred his displeasure, and left his family, for refusing to read king James the Second’s declaration for liberty of conscience. Mr. Baker himself gives the following account of this affair: “When the king’s declaration was appointed to be read, the most condescending thing the bishop ever did was coming to my chambers (remote from his) to prevail with me to read it in his chapel at Auckland, which I could not do, having wrote to my curate not to read it at my living at Long-Newton. But he did prevail with the curate at Auckland to read it in his church, when the bishop was present to countenance the performance. When all was over, the bishop (as penance I presume) ordered me to go to the dean to require him to make a return to court of the names of all such as did not read it, which I did, though I was one of the number.” But this bishop, who disgraced Mr. Baker for this refusal, and was excepted out of king William’s pardon, took the oaths to that king, and kept his bishopric till his death. Mr. Baker resigned Long-Newton August 1, 1690, refusing to take the oaths; and retired to his fellowship at St. John’s, in which he was protected till January 20, 1717, when, with one-and-twenty others, he was dispossessed of it. This hurt him most of all, not for the profit he received from it but that some whom he thought his sincerest friends came so readily into the new measures. particularly Dr. Robert Jenkin the master, who wrote a defence of the profession of Dr. Lake, bishop of Chichester, concerning the new oaths and passive obedience, and resigned his precentorship of Chichester, and vicarage of Waterbeach, in the county of Cambridge. Mr. Baker could not persuade himself but he might have shewn the same indulgence to his scruples on that occasion, as he had done before while himself was of that way of thinking. Of all his sufferings none therefore gave him so much uneasiness. In a letter from Dr. Jenkin, addressed to Mr. Baker, fellow of St. John’s, he made the following remark on the superscription “I was so then I little thought it should be by him that I am now no fellow; but God is just, and I am a sinner.” After the passing the registering act, 1723, he was desired to register his annuity of forty pounds, which the last act required before it was amended and explained. Though this annuity left him by his father for his fortune, with twenty pounds per annum out of his collieries by his elder brother from the day of his death, August 1699, for the remaining part of the lease, which determined at Whitsuntide 1723, was now his whole subsistence, he could not be prevailed on to secure himself against the act, but wrote thus in answer to his friend “I thank you for your kind concern for me; and yet I was very well apprized of the late act, but do not think it worth while at this age, and under these infirmities, to give myself and friends so much trouble about it. I do not think that any living besides myself knows surely that my annuity is charged upon any part of my cousin Baker’s estate or if they do, I can hardly believe that any one, for so poor and uncertain a reward, will turn informer or if any one be found so poorly mean and base, I am so much acquainted with the hardships of the world, that I can bear it. I doubt not I shall live under the severest treatment of my enemies or, if I cannot live, I am sure I shall die, and that’s comfort enough to me. If a conveyance will secure us against the act, I am willing to make such a conveyance to them, not fraudulent or in trust, but in as full and absolute a manner as words can make it and if that shall be thought good security, I desire you will have such a conveyance drawn and sent me by the post, and I'll sign it and leave it with any friend you shall appoint till it can be sent to you.” He retained a lively resentment of his deprivations and wrote himself in all his books, as well as in those which he gave to the college library, “socius ejectus,” and in some “ejectus rector.” He continued to reside in the college as commoner-master till his death, which happened July 2, 1740, of a paralytic stroke, being found on the floor of his chamber. In the afternoon of June 29, being alone in his chamber, he was struck with a slight apoplectic fit, which abating a little, he recovered his senses, and knew all about him, who were his nephew Burton, Drs. Bedford and Heberden. He seemed perfectly satisfied and resigned and when Dr. Bedford desired him to take some medicine then ordered, he declined it, saying, he would only take his usual sustenance, which his bedmaker knew the times and quantities of giving he was thankful for the affection and care his friends shewed him, but, hoping the time of his dissolution was at hand, would by no means endeavour to retard it. His disorder increased, and the third day from this seizure he departed. He was buried in St. John’s outer chapel, near the monument of Mr. Ash ton, who founded his fellowship. No memorial has yet been erected over him, he having forbidden it in his will. Being appointed one of the executors of his elder brother’s will, by which a large sum was bequeathed to pious uses, he prevailed on the other two executors, who were his other brother Francis and the hon. Charles Montague, to layout 1310l. of the money upon an estate to be settled upon St. John’s college for six exhibitioners. Mr. Masters gives a singular instance f his unbiassed integrity in the disposal of these exhibitions. His friend Mr. Williams, rector of Doddington, had applied to Mr. Baker for one of them for his son, and received the following answer

Mr. Baker likewise gave the college lOOl. for the consideration of six pounds a-year (then legal interest) for his life and to the library several choice books, both printed and ms. medals, and coins besides what he left to it by his will which were “all such books, printed and ms. as he had, and were wanting there.” All that Mr. Baker printed was, 1. “Reflections on Learning, shewing the insufficiency thereof in its several particulars, in order to evince the usefulness and necessity of Revelation, London, 1710,” which went through eight editions; and Mr. Boswell, in his “Method of Study,” ranks it among the English classics for purity of style; a character perhaps too high, yet it is a very ingenious work, and was at one time one of the most popular books in our language. Its principal fault is, that the author has too much depreciated human learning, and is not always conclusive in his arguments. 2. “The preface to bishop Fisher’s funeral sermon for Margaret countess of Richmond and Derby, 1708” both without his name. Dr. Grey had the original ms. of both in his own hands. The latter piece is a sufficient specimen of the editor’s skill in antiquities to make us regret that he did not live to publish his “History of St. John’s college, from the foundation of old St. John’s house to the present time; with some occasional and incidental account of the affairs of the university, and of such private colleges as held communication or intercourse with the old house or college collected principally from Mss. and carlied on through a succession of masters to the end of bishop Gunning’s mastership, 1670.” The original, fit for the press, is among the Harleian Mss. No. 7028. His ms collections relative to the history and antiquities of the university of Cambridge, amounting to thirty-nine volumes in folio, and three in 4to, are divided between the British Museum and thfe public library at Cambridge the former possesses twenty-three volumes, which he bequeathed to the earl of Oxford, his friend and patron the latter sixteen, in folio, and three in 4to, which he bequeathed to the university. Dr. Knight styles him “the greatest master of the antiquities of this our university;” and Hearne says, “Optandum est ut sua quoqn^ collectanea de antiquitatibus Cantabrigiensibus juris taciat publici cl. Bakerus, quippe qui eruditione summa judicioque acri et subacto polleat.” Mr. Baker intended something like an Athenae Cantabrigienses on the plan oLthe Athenae Oxonienses. Had he lived to have completed his design, it would have far exceeded that work. With the application and industry of Mr. Wood, Mr. Baker united a penetrating judgment and a great correctness of style, and these improvements of the mind were crowned with those amiable qualities of the heart, candour and integrity. He is very frequently mentioned by the writers of his time, and always with high respect. Although firm in his principles, he corresponded with and assisted men of opposite ways of thinking, and with the utmost readiness made them welcome to his collections. Among his contemporaries who distinguished themselves in the same walk with himself, and derived assistance from him, may be reckoned Mr. Hearne, Dr. Knight, Dr. John Smith, Hilkiah Bedford, Browne Willis, Mr. Strype, Mr. Peck, Mr. Ames, Dr. Middleton, and professor Ward. Two large volumes of his letters to the first of these antiquaries are in the Bodleian library. There is an indifferent print of him by Simon from a xnemoriter picture but a very good likeness of him by C. Bridges. Vertue was privately engaged to draw his picture by stealth. Dr. Grey had his picture, of which Mr. Burton had a copy by Mr. Ilitz. The Society of Antiquaries have another portrait of him. It was his custom, in every book he had, or read, to write observations and an account of the author. Of these a considerable number are at St. John’s college, and several in the Bodleian library, among Dr. Rawiinson’s bequests. A fair transcript of his select ms observations on Dr. Drake’s edition of archbishop Parker, 1729, was some time ago in the hands of Mr. Nichols. Dr. John Bedford of Durham had Mr. Baker’s copy of the “Hereditary Right,” greatly enriched by him. Dr. Grey, who was advised with about the disposal of the books, had his copy of Spelman’s Glossary. Mr. Crow married a sister of Mr. Baker’s nephew, Burton; and, on Burton’s death intestate in the autumn after his uncle, became possessed of every thing. What few papers of Mr. Baker’s were among them, he let Mr. Smith of Burnhall see and they being thought of no account, were destroyed, excepting the deed concerning the exhibitions at St. John’s, his own copy of the historyof the college, notes on the foundress’s funeral sermon, and the deed drawn for creating him chaplain to bishop Crew, in the month and year of the revolution, the day left blank, and the deed unsubscribed by the bishop, as if rejected by him.

, a learned printer, son of Mr. William Baker, a man of amiable character and manners, of great classical and mathematical learning, and more than forty years master of an academy at Reading, was born in 1742. Being from his infancy of a studious turn, he passed so much of his time in his father’s library as to injure his health. His father, however, intended to have sent him to the university, but a disappointment in a patron who had promised to support him, induced him to place him as an apprentice with Mr. Kippax, a printer, in Cullum- street, London, where, while he diligently applied to business, he employed his leisure hours in study, and applied what money he could earn to the purchase of the best editions of the classics, which collection, at his death, was purchased by Dr. Lettsom. This constant application, however, to business and study, again 'endangered his health, but by the aid of country air and medicine he recovered and on the death of Mr. Kippax he succeeded to his business, and removed afterwards to Ingram court, where he had for his partner Mr. John William Galabin, now principal bridgemaster of the city of London. Among his acquaintance were some of great eminence in letters Dr. Goldsmith, Dr. Edmund Barker, the Rev. James Merrick, Hugh Farmer, Caesar de Missy, and others. An elegant correspondence between him and Mr. Robinson, author of the “Indices Tres,” printed at Oxford, 1772, and some letters of inquiry into difficulties in the Greek language, which still exist, are proofs of his great erudition, and the opinion entertained of him by some of the first scholars. Such was his modesty, that many among his oldest and most familiar acquaintance were ignorant of his learning, and where learning was discussed, his opinion could never be known without an absolute appeal to his judgment. There are but two little works known to be his; 1. “Peregrinations of the Mind through the most general and interesting subjects which are usually agitated in life, by the Rationalist,” 12mo, 1770, a collection of unconnected essays, not, as hie biographer says, in the manner of the Rambler, but somewhat in the manner of a periodical paper. 2. “Theses GrifcciE et Latince selectse,” 8vo, 1780, a selection from Greek and Latin authors. He left behind him some manuscript remarks on the abuse of grammatical propriety in the English language in common conversation. He wrote also a few minor poems, which appeared in the magazines, and is said to have assisted some of his clerical friends with sermons of his composition. la the Greek, Latin, French, and Italian languages, he was critically skilled, and some knowledge of the Hebrew. He died after a lingering illness, Sept. 29, 1785, and was interred in the vault of St. Dionis Backchurch, Fenchurch-street, and an elegant Latin epitaph to his memory was placed on the tomb of his family in the church-yard of St. Mary, Reading, by his brother John.

, the most successful and celebrated experimental farmer ever known in England, was born at Dishley in Leicestershire, about 1725 or 1726. His grandfather and father had resided on the same estate since the beginning of the last century; and his father, who died about the year 1760, had the reputation of being a very ingenious farmer. Mr. Bakewell having conducted the Dishley farm several years before the decease of his father, began about fifty -five years ago, that course of experiments which has procured him such extensive fame. He originally adopted a principle, a priori, which was confirmed by the whole experience of his future life. Having remarked that domestic animals, in general, produced others possessing qualities nearly similar to their own, he conceived he had only to select from the most valuable breeds such as promised to return the greatest possible emolument to the breeder; and that he should then be able, by careful attention to progressive improvements, to produce a race of sheep, or other animals, possessing a maximum of advantage. Under the influence of this excellent notion, Mr. Bakewell made excursions into different parts of England, to inspect the various breeds, and to ascertain those which were best adapted to his purposes, and the most valuable 0f their kinds.

, of Sicily, was physician to pope Leo X. who had a high esteem for him. He was no less skilled in the belles lettres than in medicine and cultivated poetry and Greek with much success. He translated, from the Greek into Latin, several pieces of Galen; which were first printed separately, and afterwards inserted in the works of that ancient physician, published at Venice in 1586, in folio. He flourished at Rome about the year 1555.

, a Genoese Dominican, named also Janua or Januensis, composed, in the thirteenth century, Commentaries, and several >ther works. His “Catholicon, seu Summa Grammaticalis,” was printed at Mentz, 1460, folio, by Fust and Schceffer. He entitled it Catholicon, or Universal, because it is not a simple vocabulary, but a kind of classical encyclopaedia, containing a grammar, a body of rhetoric, and a dictionary. Notwithstanding that this book is badly digested, yet it was much wanted in the time of Balbi. A surprising number of copies were printed of it and it was one of the first books on which the art of printing was employed. It is very dear, and said to be very scarce, but the Diet. Hist, speaks of thirtysix copies being in existence. It was reprinted at Augsburgh, in 1469, fol. also a very rare book. This John Balbi is to be distinguished from Jerom Balbo, bishop of Goritz, who died at Venice in 1535, author of the following works: 1. “De rebus Turcicis,” Rome, 1526, 4to. 2. “De civili et beliica Fortitudine,” 1526, 4to. 3. “De futuris Caroli V. successibus,” Bologna, 1529, 4to. 4. “Carmina,” in the “Deliciae Poetarum Italorum,” and in 1792, Retzer published the whole under the title “Opera Poetica, Oratoria, ac Poetica-moralia,” Vienna, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a Spanish poet, was bishop of St. John in Porto Rico, in North America, to which he was appointed in 1620. He was a native of Valdepeguas, a village in the diocese of Toledo, took his doctor’s degree at Salamanca, from whence he was sent to America, and had the charge of judicature in Jamaica, and then was made bishop of Porto Rico. He was there when in 1625 it was plundered by the Dutch, who carried away his library. He died in 1627. He is reputed to be one of the first poets Spain has produced, although one of the least known. His productions are, a heroic poem, printed at Madrid, 4to, in 1624, entitled “El Bernardo, 6 Victoria de Roncesvalles;” ten eclogues, entitled “Siecle d‘or dans les bois d’Eriphile,” Madrid, 8vo, 1608; and a work in prose and verse, on “the grandeur of Mexico,” printed at the same place, 1604, 8vo. Antonio censures the age very severely for having neglected the writings of Bernard, in which he discovers great majesty and elevation of verse, a prolific invention, a pleasing variety, and a style not inferior in purity to that of any writer of the present age. His comparisons are just, and his descriptions rich and elegant, and lively beyond all the Spanish poets.

, an eminent German poet, was born at Ensisheim, in Alsace, in the year 1603. He entered the order of Jesuits in 1624, and after bestowing several years on the study of theology and the languages, became a preacher of note, even at the court of Bavaria. He was requested to write the history of Bavaria, and Leibnitz says he saw some parts of the performance but such was his attachment to the muses, that his history suffered many interruptions, while he gratified with eagerness those friends who asked him for poetical pieces. He died at Nieubourg, Aug. 9, 1663. His works are, 1. “Carmen panegyricum Henrico Ottoni Fuggero vellere aureo donate,” Augs. 1629. 2. “Francisco Andrew, comiti de Tilly, geniale ac praesagum carmen,” Ingold. 1631, 8vo. 3. “Maximilianus primus Austriacus,” Ingold. 1631, and Munich, 1639. This work is in prose and verse, and contains the history of Maximilian the First. 4. “Epithalamion Maximiliano Boiarioe duci et Marise Austriacae,” Munich, 1635. 5. “Hecatombe de vanitate mundi,” Munich, 1636, 8vo, in German and Latin. 6. “Poema de vanitate mundi,” Munich, 1638, 16mo, and 1651, 12mo. 7. “Batrachomyomachia Homeri, tuba Romana cantata, et in libros V distributa.” 8. “Interpretatio Homeric! poematis oratione soluta.” 9. “Usus Batrachomyomachix ethicus, politicus, et polemicus,” Ingold. 1637, and 1647, 12mo. 10. “Templum honoris apertum virtute Ferdinand! III. Austriaci, regis Romanorum,” Ingold. 1637, 8vo. 11. “Agathyrsus; encomii etbiGorum,” in Anacreontic verse, Munich, 1638, 24mo. 12. “Ode Parthenia, sive de laudibus beatae Mariae Virginis,” in German, Munich, 1638 and 1647. 13. “Olympia sacra in stadio Mariano, sive certamen poeticum de laudibus beatse Mariae Virginis super ode Parthenia Germairica,” Cologne. 14. “Lyricorum lib. IV. Epodon lib. I.” Munich, 1643, but a more correct and complete edition was published by Bleau at Amsterdam, which has, however, Cologne in the*title, 1646, 12mo. 15. “Sylvae Lyricae,” Munich, 1648, 12rao. Cologne (i.e. Amsterdam, Bleau), 12mo. 16. “Medicinas gloria per Satyras XXII. asserta prcemittitur hymnus in laudem sanctorum Cosmae etDamiani.” 17. “Vultuosae torvitavis encomium, in gratiam philosophorum et poetarum explication, cum dissertatione de studio poetico.” 18. “Satyra contra abusnm tabaci.” 19. “Antagathyrsus, apologia pro pinguibus,” in heroic verse, Munich, 1643 and, 1651, 12mo. 20. “Poesis osca, sive drama Georgicum, in quo belli mala, pacis bona carmine antique, aetellano, osco, casco,” Munich, 1647, 4to. 21. “Chorea mortalis, sive Lessus in obitu augustissimae imperatrices Leopoldinae, Caesari Fernandino III. nuptae an. 1648, in puerperio mortuae anno 1649,” Munich, 1649, Latin and German. 22. “Jephtias, tragcedia,” Amberg, 1654, 8vo. 23. “Eleonorae Magdalenae Theresiae Neoburgicae genethliacon,” Nieubourg, 1655. 24. “Musae Neoburgicae in ortum J. G. J. Ignatii ducis Neoburgici,” Nieubourg, 1658. 25. “Paraphrasis lyrica in Philomelam sancti Bonaventurae.” 26. “Poematum tomi IV.” 1660, 12mo, an incorrect collection of odes, epodes, and lyric pieces. 27. “Solatium podagricorum,” Munich, 1661, 12mo. 28. et De eclipsi solari anno 1654, die 12 Augusti a pluribus spectata tubo optico, iterum a Jacobo Balbe tubo satyrico perlustrata lib. duo,“Munich, 1662, 12mo. 29.” Urania victrix, sive animse Christianae certamina adversus illecebras quinque sensuum corporis sui,“Munich, 1663, 8vo. This work, which is in elegiac verse, gave so much pleasure to pope Alexander VII. that he sent the author a gold medal, a very considerable mark of regard from one who was himself a good Latin poet. 30.” Paean Parthenius, sive hymnus in honorem S. Ursulas et sociarum martyrum,“Cologne, 1663, 8vo. 31.” Expeditio polemico-poetica sive castrum ignorantise, a poetis veteribus ac novis obsessum, expugnatum, eversum.“32.” Apparatus novarutn inventionum et thematum scribendorum," Munich, 1694, 12mo. who object to the style and taste of some of his works, allow that if he had not written too rapidly, he might have attained great excellence and reputation.

, born at Urbino in the year 1553, was made abbot of Guastalla in 1586, without any solicitation of his own. He began his studies with the mechanics of Aristotle, and a course of history he had also made verses but, on being appointed abbot, he applied himself entirely to the canon law, the fathers, the councils, and to the oriental languages. He died in 1617, with the reputation of a very laborious man, who understood sixteen several languages. We have by him a great number of tracts on mechanics, as “De tormentis bellicis et eorum inventoribus;” “Commentaria in mechanica Aristotelis,” 1582. “De Verborum Vitruvianorum significatione.” “Novæ Gnomonices, lib. V.” 1595. “Vitæ Mathematicorum, &c.” Some of these are to be seen in the Vitruvius of Amsterdam, 1649, folio. “Versi e Prose,” Venice, 1690, 4to. Crescembini put his fables into Italian verse, Rome, 1702, 12mo. He had begun an historical and geographical description of the world, in all its parts; but he did not live to finish this great undertaking.

, a celebrated lawyer of the fourteenth century, was a native of Perugia, and the son of Francis Ubaldi, a learned physician, who had him educated with great care. After studying philosophy and belles lettres, he became the pupil of Bartolus in law studies, and afterwards was his powerful rival. He taught law himself at Perugia, where he had for his scholar cardinal Peter Beaufort, afterwards pope Gregory XI. He next became professor at Padua, from which the duke of Milan invited him to the same office at Pavia. He died April 28, 1400, aged 76, of the consequences of the bite of a favourite cat, a circumstance thus expressed on his epitaph:

, of Florence, an useful biographer of the academy of la Crusca, was born in 1624. Having acquired great knowledge in painting and sculpture, and made many discoveries by studying the works of the best masters, he was qualified to gratify cardinal Leopold of Tuscany, who desired to have a complete history of painters. Baldinucci remounted as far as to Cimabue, the restorer of painting among the moderns and he designed to come down to the painters of the last age inclusive. He only lived to execute part of his plan, which was published in his life-time, in 3 vols. After his death (in 1696), three more appeared, and a new edition of the whole in ^1731. The work, without being free from errors, is a valuable addition to Vasari. He published also, in Italian, a “Treatise on Engraving, and the lives of the principal Engravers,” 1686, 4to.

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

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of Henry II. and Richard I. was born of obscure parents at Exeter, where he received a liberal education, and in his younger years taught school. Afterwards, entering into holy orders, he was made archdeacon of Exeter; but soon quitting that dignity and the world, he took the habit of the Cistertian order in the monastery of Ford in Devonshire, and in a few years became its abbot. From thence he was promoted to the see of Worcester (not Winchester, as Dupin says), and consecrated August 10, 1180. Upon the death of Richard, archbishop of Canterbury in 1184, he was translated to that see, with some difficulty, being the first of his order in England, that was ever advanced to the archiepiscopal dignity. He was enthroned at Canterbury the 19th of May 1185, and the same day received the pall from pope Lucius III. whose successor Urban III. appointed him his legate for the diocese of Canterbury. Soon after he was settled in his see, he began to build a church and monastery at Hackington, near Canterbury, in honour of St. Thomas Becket, for the reception of secular priests but, being violently opposed by the monks of Canterbury, supported by the pope’s authority, he was obliged to desist. The 3d of September 1189, he solemnly performed the ceremony of crowning king Richard I. at Westminster. The same year, the king having given the see of York to his bastard brother Geoffry bishop of Lincoln, archbishop Baldwin took this occasion to assert the pre-eminence of the see of Canterbury,' forbidding the bishops of England to receive consecration from any other than the archbishop of Canterbury. The next year, designing to follow king Richard to the Holy Land, he made a progress into Wales, where he performed mass pontifically in all the cathedral churches, and induced several of the Welsh to join the crusade. Afterwards embarking at Dover, with Hubert bishop of Salisbury, he arrived at the king’s army in Syria where being seized with a mortal distemper, he died at the siege of Acre, or Ptolemais, and was buried there. Giraldus Cambrensis, who accompanied this prelate, both in his progress through Wales and in his expedition to the Hgly Land, tells us, he was of a dark complexion, an open and pleasing aspect, a middling stature, and a spare, but healthful, constitution of body modest and sober, of great abstinence, of few words, and not easily provoked to anger. The only fault he charges him with is a remissness in the execution of his pastoral office, arising from an innate lenity of temper whence pope Urban III. in a letter addressed to our archbishop, began thus, “Urban, &c. to the most fervent monk, warm abbot, lukewarm bishop, and remiss archbishop” intimating, that he behaved better as a monk than as an abbot, and as a bishop than as an archbishop. His principal works were, 1. “Of the Sacrament of the Altar.” 2. “Faith recommended.” 3. “Of Orthodox Opinions. 4.” Of Heretical Sects.“5.” Of the Unity of Charity.“6.” Of Love.“7.” Of the Priesthood of John Hircanus.“8.” Of the Learning of Giraldus.“9.” Thirty-three Sermons.“10.” Concerning the Histories of Kings.“11.” Against Henry bishop of Winchester.“12.” In praise of Virginity.“13.” Concerning the Message of the Angel.“14.” Of the Gross.“15.” Concerning Mythology.“16.” A Devotionary Poem.“17.” Letters," These were collected and published by Bertrand Tissier, in 1662.

, according to Wood, was born in the west of England, and spent several years at Oxford in the study of logic and philosophy there he supposes him to have been the same William Baldwin, who supplicated the congregation of regents for a master’s degree in 1532, but it does not appear by the register that it was granted. He afterwards became a schoolmaster and a minister, and was one of those scholars who followed printing, in order to promote the reformation. In this character, we find him employed by Edward Whitchurch, probably as the corrector of the press, though he modestly styles himself “seruaunt with Edwarde Whitchurche.” This, however, seems to have been his employment at first, and chiefly: yet he afterwards appears to have qualified himself for a compositor. As an author, Bale and Pits ascribe some comedies to him, which were probably mysteries or moralities now unknown, but he compiled “A treatise of moral Philosophy,” which was printed by Edw. Whitchurch, in 1547, and in 1550, and without date. This was afterwards enlarged by Thomas Paifryman, and went through several editions. His next performance was “The Canticles or Balades of Solomon, phraselyke declared in English metres,” printed by himself, 1549, 4to. He wrote also “The Funeralles of king Edward VI.” in verse, printed in 1560, 4to. But he is perhaps best known now by the share he had in the publication of “The Mirror of Magistrates,” originally projected by Thomas Sackville, first lord Buckhurst, and afterwards earl, of Dorset, who wrote the poetical preface, and the legend of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, and recommended the completion of the whole to our William Baldwin and George Ferrers. The time of his death is not specified, but he appears to have lived some years after the accession of queen Elizabeth.

, in Latin Baleus or Balæus, bishop of Ossory in Ireland, about the middle of the sixteenth century, was born the 21st of November 1495, at Cove, a small village in Suffolk, near Dunwich. His parents, whose names were Henry and Margaret, being incumbered with a large family, young Bale was entered, at twelve years of age, in the monastery of Carmelites at Norwich, and from thence was sent to Jesus college in Cambridge. He was educated in the Romish religion but afterwards, at the instigation of the lord Wentworth, turned Protestant, and gave a proof of his having renounced one of the errors of popery (the celibacy of the clergy) by immediately marrying his wife Dorothy. This, as may be conjectured, exposed him to the persecution of the Romish clergy, against whom he was protected by lord Cromwell, favourite of king Henry VIII. But, on Cromwell’s death, Bale was forced to retire into the LowCountries, where he resided eight years; during which, time he wrote several pieces in English. He was then recalled into England by king Edward VI. and obtained the living of Bishop’s Stocke in the county of Southampton. The 15th of August 1552, he was nominated by king Edward, who happened to be at Southampton, to the see of Ossory. This promotion he appears to have owed to his accidentally waiting on his majesty to pay his respects to him. Edward, who had been told he was dead, expressed his surprize and satisfaction at seeing him alive, and immediately appointed him to the bishopric, which he refused at first, alleging his poverty, age, and want of health. The king, however, would not admit of these excuses, and Bale set off for Dublin, where Feb. 2, 1553, he was consecrated by the archbishop. On this occasion, when he found that it was become a question whether the common prayer published in England should be used, he positively refused to be consecrated according to the old popish form, and remaining inflexible, the new form was used. He underwent, however, a variety of persecutions from the popish party in Ireland, and all his endeavours to reform the people and priesthood in his diocese, and to introduce the reformed religion, were not only frustrated by the death of Edward VI. and the accession of queen Mary, but in the mean time exasperated the savage fury of his enemies so much, that he found it necessary to withdraw from his see, and remain concealed in Dublin. Afterwards, endeavouring to make his escape in a small trading vessel in that port, he was taken prisoner by the captain of a Dutch man of war, who rifled him of all his money, apparel, and effects. This ship was driven by stress of weather into St. Ives in Cornwall, where our prelate was taken up on suspicion of treason, but was soon discharged. From thence, after a cruize of several days, the ship arrived in Dover road, where he was again in danger by a false accusation. Arriving afterwards in Holland, he was kept a prisoner three weeks, and then obtained his liberty on the payment of thirty pounds. From Holland he retired to Basil in Switzerland and continued abroad during the short reigu of queen Mary. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he returned to England, but not to his bishopric in Ireland, contenting himself with a prebend in the cathedral church of Canterbury, to which he was promoted the 15th of January, 1560. He died Nov. 1563, in the 68th year of his age, at Canterbury, and was buried in the cathedral of that place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, citizen of Geneva, who was born in 1726, and died in 1774, is known by a judicious performance, entitled “Ueducation physique des enfans,” 1762, 8vo, of which M. David, physician at Paris, gave a second edition in 1780, with annotations. This dissertation, crowned by the society of sciences at Haerlem in 1762, abounds with excellent observations. The author begins from the moment of birth, and conducts his pupils tp the age of puberty. We have likewise of him a dissertation of no less importance than the foregoing, on this question What are the principal causes of the death of so great a number of children 1775.

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

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

, an eminent scholar of the Greek church, who flourished about the end of the twelfth century, was chancellor and library keeper of the church of Constantinople, and provost of that of Blachern. He was also nominated patriarch of Antioch, but never was installed, and was flattered by the emperor Isaac Comnenus, with the hope of being advanced to the patriarchal see of Constantinople, which he never attained. He composed several valuable works, the chief of which are 1. “Cornmentarius in Canones Ss. Apostolorum, &c.” Paris, 1620, fol. but a far better edition, by Beveridge, Oxf. 1672, in his Pandects o*f Canons. 2. “Commentarius in Photii Nomocanonem,” Paris, 1615, 4to. 3. “Collectio ecclesiasticarum Constitutionum,” printed in Justelli Bibliotheca Juris Canon, vol. II. 4. “Responsa ad varias questiones Jus Canonicum spectantes,” in Leunclavius’ Jus Gr. Rom. lib. 2. 5. “Responsa ad interrogationes Murci patriarchs Alexandria!,” Gr. et Lat. ibid. 6. “Meditata, sive responsa ad varios casus,” ibid. &c. The time of Balsamon’s death is not ascertained, but he was certainly alive in 1203, when Constantinople was taken by the Latins. Baronius and other adherents to the church of Rome speak with disrespect of Balsamon, but Dupin, with his usual candour.

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

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

, a famous Italian musician, lived in the reign of Henry III. of France. The marechal de Brissac, governor in Piedmont, sent this musician to the king, together with the whole band of violins, of which he was chief. The queen conferred on him the place of her valet-de-chambre and Henry, after her example, gave him the same office in his house. Balthazarini was the delight of the court, as well by his skill on the violin, as by his invention of ballets, of pieces of music, festivities, and representations. It was he who composed in 1581 the ballet of the nuptials of the due de Joyeuse with mademoiselle de Vaudemont, sister of the queen, a ballet that was represented with extraordinarypomp it was printed under the title of “Ballet Comique de la Heine, fait aux Noces de M. le due de Joyeuse et de Mademoiselle de Vaudemont,” Paris, 1582. Dr. Burney thinks this the origin of the heroic and historical ballets in France.

, a learned French writer, was born in 1631, at Tulles, in the province of Guienne, where he began his education, and finished it at Toulouse, obtaining a scholarship in the college of St. Martial. In 1656, Peter de Marca, archbishop of Toulouse, invited him to Paris, which he accepted, and in a little time gained the esteem and entire ron-adence of this prelate. But upon his death, in June 1662, Baluze, looking out for another patron, was agreeably prevented by M. le Tellier, afterwards chancellor of France, who having an intention to engage him in the service of abbe le Tellier his son, afterwards archbishop of Rheims, made him several considerable presents. Some obstacles, however, having happened to prevent his continuance in this family, and Mr. Colbert having offered to make Baluze his library-keeper, he accepted the office with the consent of M. le Tellier. He continued in, this employment till some time after the death of M. Colbert when, not being so well treated by the archbishop of Rouen, he declined being any longer librarian. The excellent collection, however, of manuscripts, and many other books, which are to be found in that library, was formed by his care and advice.

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

, a French writer, Lorn in 1594 at Angouleme. When about seventeen years of age he went to Holland, where he composed a discourse on the state of the United Provinces. He accompanied also the duke d'Epernon to several places. In 1621 he was taken into the service of the cardinal de la Valette, with whom he spent eighteen months at Rome. Upon his return he retired to his estate at Balzac, where he remained for several years, till he was drawn thence by the hopes he had conceived of raising his fortune under cardinal llichelieu, who had formerly courted his friendship but being in a few years tired of the dependent state of a court- life, he went again to his country retirement all he obtained from the court was a pension of two thousand livres, with the addition of the titles of counsellor of state and historiographer of France, which he used to call magnificent trifles, He was much esteemed as a writer, especially for his letters, which went through several editions, but there were in his own time some critics who started up against him the chief of these was a young Feuillant, named Andre de St. Denis, who wrote a piece entitled, “The conformity of M. de Balzac’s eloquence, with that of the greatest men in the past and present times.” Although this piece was not printed, yet it was circulated very extensively, which made Balzac wish to have it publicly refuted, which was accordingly done by prior Ogier in 1627, with the assistance of Balzac himself. Father Goulu, general of the Feuillants, undertook the cause of brother Andre, and, under the title of Phyllarchus, wrote two volumes of letters against Balzac. Several other pieces were also written against him, but he did not think proper then to answer his adversaries he did, indeed, write an apology for himself, but this was never made public till it appeared witli some other pieces of his in 1645. The death of his chief adversary father Goulu having happened in 1629, put an end to all his disputes, and restored him to a state of tranquillity for father Andre de St. Denis, who had been the first aggressor, became heartily reconciled, and went to pay him a visit at Balzac.

Balzac had a very infirm constitution, insomuch that, when he was only 30 years of age, he used to say he was older than his father and that he was as much decayed as a ship after her third voyage to the Indies yet -he lived till he was 60, when he died Feb. 18, 1654, and was interred in the hospital of Notre Dame des Anges. He bequeathed twelve thousand livres to this hospital, and left uu estate of an hundred franks per annum, to be employed eveiy two years for a prize to him who, in the judgment of the French academy, should compose the best discourse ou some moral subject. The prize is a golden medal, representing on one side St. Lewis, and on the other a crown of laurel, with this motto, A P Immortality which is the device of the academy.

Of all these, his Letters, of which there is an English translation, and which passed through many editions in French, contributed most to his reputation. During his time he was not only deemed the most eloquent, but the only eloquent writer, and Maynard, a contemporary poet, pronounced him not mortal who could speak like Balzac. It was not only by such praises that he was encouraged. It became a fashion to write to Balzac, in hopes of an answer, which was a treasure worth boasting of. “1 am,” says he, “the butt of all the aukward compliments in Christendom, not to speak of the genteel ones, which give me still more trouble. I am harassed I am teazed to death with encomiums from the four quarters of the globe yesterday, there lay upon the table tir'ty letters requiring answers and oh unconscionable! well turned, eloquent answers answers it to be shewn, copied, and printed. At this instant, I see before me not less than a hundred letters, which must all have their answers; I am in arrears to crowned heads.” As he seems, therefore, to have suspected the use that would be made of his letters, we cannot be surprised at the artificial and inflated style which frequently occurs, Voltaire, however, allows that he contributed to the harmony of French prose. But the magic which gave them for many years an unprecedented popu<­larity was dispelled probably in Boileau’s time, who asserts that what Balzac employed himself most upon, viz. writing letters, was what he least understood in them all, he adds, we meet with the two faults that are the most inconsistent with the epistolary style affectation, and bombast. Boileau, also, in his two letters to the marechal de Vivonne, very successfully imitates the style of Balzac and Voiture but Dr. Warton considers Balzac as much superior to Voiture, and adds, that although he was affectedly turgid, pompous, and bloated on all subjects and on all occasions alike, yet he was the first that gave form and harmony to the French prose.

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

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

, archbishop of York, and cardinal-priest of the Roman church, was born at Hilton near Appleby in Westmorland, and educated at Queen’s college in Oxford. Having taken holy orders, he became rector of Aller in the diocese of Bath and Wells. He enjoyed three prebends successively in the cathedral church of Salisbury that of South-Grantham in 14&5, that of Chardstock the same year, and that of Horton in 1486i He was elected provost of Queen’s college in 1495, and about the same time created doctor of laws. On September 28, 1503, he was admitted prebendary of Strenshall in the cathedral church of York, void by the consecration of Jeoffrey Blyth to the see of Litchfield and Coventry and on the 2 1st of December following, he was installed in the deanery of that church, in the room of the said Blyth. In 1505 he was made dean of Windsor, and the same year master of the rolls, and one of the king’s privy council. In 1507, he was advanced to the see of Durham, and received the temporalities the 1.7th of November. The next year he was translated to the archbishopric of York, and received the temporalities the 12th of December. Pits assures us, that Bambridge had been very intimate with Morton archbishop of Canterbury, and shared in that prelate’s sufferings during the usurpation of Richard III. after whose death, his affairs took a more prosperous turn, as he was appointed almoner to king Henry VII. and employed by that prince on several embassies to the emperor Maximilian, Charles VIII. king of France, and other potentates of Europe. But he distinguished himself chiefly by his embassy from king Henry VIII. to pope Julius II. who created him a cardinal, with the title of St. Praxede, in March 1511, and, eight days after, appointed him legate of the ecclesiastical army, which had been sent into the Ferrarese, and were then besieging the fort of Bastia. In return for which marks of honour, our new cardinal and legate prevailed with the king his master, to take part with his holiness against the king of France, nor was he less zealous in the service of that pontiff during his life, than in honouring and defending his memory after his death. There are extant in Rymer’s Fœdera, &c, two letters; one from cardinal Barnbridge, during his residence at Home, to king Henry VIII. concerning the pope’s bull giving him the title of mostChristian king and another from the cardinal de Sinigallia, to the king, acquainting his highness that he had delivered that instrument to cardinal Bamhridge. This prelate died at Rome July 14, 1514, being poisoned by one of his domestics, whom he had chastised, and was buried there in the English church of St. Thomas. Pits commends him for his extensive learning, and adds, that he wrote some treatises on subjects of civil law, but that biographer erroneously calls him Urswic, which was the name of his predecessor in the deanery of.Windsor.

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

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

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

, a celebrated Italian novelist, was born at Castelnuovo in the district of Tortona, where he remained for some years, under the patronage of his uncle Vincenzio Bandello, general of the order, of Do^ minicans, with whom he also travelled through various parts of Italy, France, Spain, and Germany, where it was the 4uty of the general to inspect the convents of his order. After the death of his uncle, at the convent of Altomonte in Calabria, in 1506, Bandello passed a considerable part of his time at the court of Milan, where he had the honour of instructing the celebrated Lucretia Gonzaga, in whose praise he wrote an Italian, poem, which still remains, and where he formed an intimacy with many eminent persons of the age, as appears from the dedicatory epistles prefixed to his novels. Having early enrolled himself in the order of Dominicans, in a fraternity at Milan, he entered deeply into the ecclesiastical and political affairs of the times, and after various vicissitudes of fortune, obtained at length, in 1550, the bishopric of Agen in France, conferred on him by Henry II. but being fond of the poets, ancient and modern, addicted himself much more to the belles lettres than to the government of his diocese. He filled the episcopal chair of Agen for several years, and died about 1561, at the chateau de Bazens, the country seat of the bishops of Agen. His monument was erected in the church of the Jacobins du port St. Marie. He had resigned the bishopric of Agen in 1555, when his successor, Janus Fregosa, son of the unhappy Cæsar, assassinated by the marquis de Guast, had attained his twenty-seventh year. Henry II. who had a regard for the Fregosas, Jiad agreed with the pope, on the death of the cardinal de Lorraine, bishop of Agen, to give, by interim, this bishopric to Bandello, till Janus should arrive at the age required. Bandello consented to this arrangement, and gave up the see according to promise. The best edition of his novels is that of Lucca, 1554, 3 vols. 4to, to which belongs a fourth volume, printed at Lyons in 1573, 8vo. This edition is scarce and dear. Those of Milan, 1560, 3 vols. 8vo, and of Venice, 1566, 3 vols. 4to, are curtailed and little esteemed but that of London, 1740, 4 vols. 4to, is conformable to the first. Boaisteau and Belleforest translated a part of them into French, Lyons, 1616, et seq. 7 vols. 16mo. It is entirely without reason that some have pretended that these novels are not by him, but were composed by a certain John Bandello, a Lucchese, since the author declares himself to be of Lombardy, and even marks Castelnuovo as the place of his nativity. On the other hand, Joseph Scaliger, his contemporary and his friend, who calls him Bandellus Insuber,. positively asserts that he composed his novels at Agen. Fontanini is likewise mistaken in making him the author of a Latin translation of the history of Hegesippus, which he confounds with the novel of Boccace entitled Sito e Gisippo, which Bandello did really translate into Latin. We have by him likewise the collection of poems beforementioned, entitled “Canti xi. composti del Bandello, ilelle lodi della signora Lucrezia Gonzaga,” &c. printed at Agen in 1545, 8vo, which is excessively scarce, and sought after by the curious.

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

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

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

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

The abbe already began to perceive the attacks of a distemper, which seemed to be conducting him insensibly to the grave, when some booksellers at Paris prevailed upon him to superintend the new edition, which they designed to give^ of “A general History of the ceremonies, manners, and religious customs of all the nations in the world;” a magnificent edition of which had made its appearance, about twenty years before, in Holland. Banier embarked in this attempt, with l'abbe le Mascrier, a Jesuit, who had assisted in the French translation of Thuanus. This, which was finished in 1741, in seven volumes folio, is much more valuable than the Dutch edition as there are in it numberless corrections, a larger quantity of articles, and several new dissertations, written by these ingenious compilers. The Dutch author, particularly where he mentions the customs and ceremonies of the Roman church, is more occupied in attempting to make his readers laugh, than solidly to instruct them. The new editors, whilst they retained these passages, were also careful to amend them. The abbe Banier died on Nov. 19, 1741, in the 69th year of his age. An English translation of his Mythology and Fables of the Ancients, was published in London, 1741, in 4 vols. 8vo.

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

, mentioned by Mr. Ray in very high terms, as a man of talents in natural history, first made a voyage to the East Indies, about the close of the seventeenth century, and remained there some time but was afterwards fixed in Virginia. In that country he industriously sought for plants, described them, and himself drew the figures of the rare species he was also celebrated for his knowledge of insects and meditated writing the natural history of Virginia, for which, Mr. Ray observes that he was every way qualified. He sent to Ray. in 1680, “A catalogue of Plants observed by him in Virginia,” which was published in the second volume of Ray’s history, p, 1928. The world was deprived of much of the fruit of his labours, by his untimely death. Banister increased the martyrs to natural history. In one of his excursions in pursuit of his object, he fell from the rocks, and perished. His herbarium came into the possession of Sir Hans Sloane, who thought it a considerable acquisition. Four papers by him, on subjects of natural history, peculiar to Virginia, are inserted in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 198, and 247.

, lord chief justice of the common pleas, in the reign of king Charles I. was descended from a good family seated at Keswick, in Cumberland, where he was born, in A. D. 1589. The first part of his education he received at a grammar-school in his own county, whence, in 1604, he removed to Queen’s college, in Oxford, being then about fifteen, -and there, for spine time, pursued his studies. He left the university without a degree, and taking chambers in Grays inn, he applied himself to the law, in which science he quickly became eminent. His extraordinary diligence in his profession, his grave appearance, and excellent reputation, recommended him early to his sovereign, Charles I. by whom he was firsi made attorney to the prince. He was next year, 1630, lent-reader at Gray’s inn, and in 1631, treasurer of that society. In August 1634, he was knighted, and made attorney -general, in the place of Mr. Noy, deceased. He discharged this arduous employment, in those perilous times, with great reputation, till in hilary term 1640, he was made chief justice of the common pie.as, in the room of Sir Edward Littleton, now lord keeper. In this high station he acted also with universal approbation, remaining at London after the king was compelled to leave it, in order to discharge the duties of his office. But when he once understood that his continuance amongst them was looked on by some as owning the cause of the Parliamentarians, he retired to York. So just an idea the king had of this act of loyalty, that when he had thoughts of removing the lord-keeper, he at the same time was inclined to deliver the great seal to the lord chief-justice Bankes, whose integrity was generally confessed; but he was by some suspected (though wrongfully as it afterwards appeared) in point of courage. He subscribed the declaration made June 15, 1642, by the lords and gentlemen then with his majesty at York; and yet his conduct was so free from aspersion, that even the Parliament in their proposals to the king, in January 1643, desired he might be continued in his office. Beforethis, viz January 31, 1642, the university of Oxford, to manifest their high respect for him, created him LL. D. His majesty also caused him to be sworn of his privy council, and always testified a great regard for his advice. In the summer circuit he lost all his credit at Westminster, for having declared from the bench at Salisbury, that the actions of Essex, Manchester, and Waller, were treasonable, the commons voted him, and the rest of the judges in that sentiment, traitors. In the mean time, lady Bankes with her family being at Sir John’s seat, Corffe-castle, in the Isle of Purbeck, in Dorsetshire, the friends of the Parliament, who had already reduced all the sea coasts but that place, resolved tft reduce it likewise. The courageous lady Bankes, though she had about her only her children, a few servants and tenants, and little hopes of relief, yet refused to surrender the fortress. Upon this*, sir W. Earl, and Thomas Trenchard, esq. who commanded the Parliament forces, had recourse to very rough measures. Thrice they attempted the place by surprize, and as often were repulsed with loss, though the first time lady Bankes had but five men in the place, and during the whole time her garrison never exceeded forty. Then they interdicted her the markets, and at length formally besieged the house with a very considerable force, a train of artillery, and a great quantity of ammunition. This forced the little town dependant on the castle to surrender, which inclined the besiegers to be remiss, of which lady Bankes taking advantage, procured a supply of provision an-d ammunition, which enabled her still to hold out. At last, the gallant earl of Carnarvon, having with a considerable body of horse and dragoons, cleared a great part of the west, came into the neighbourhood of Purbeck, and sir W. Earl raised his siege, August 4, 1643, so precipitately, that he left his tents standing, together with his ammunition and artillery, all which fell into the hands of lady Bankes’s household. There is no question but this action was very pleasing to the king, at Oxford, where sir John continued in the discharge of his duty, as a privy counsellor, till the last day of his life, vis. December 28, 1644. But that be ever had any other preferment, much less was chief-­justice of the king’s bench, as Wood has affirmed, is certainly erroneous. He was interred with great solemnity in the cathedral of Christ-church, and a monument erected to his memory, with an inscription, signifying his titles, &c. and that he was distinguished by his knowledge, integrity, and fidelity. He left a numerous posterity, both male and female. By his will, he gave Carious sums to pious and charitable uses.

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

, an eminent English sculptor, born in 1735, was the son of Mr. William Banks, land-steward to the then duke of Beaufort, a situation which he occupied with honour and credit to himself, and from which he derived very handsome emolument. His eldest son Thomas, evincing a strong partiality for the arts, was placed with Mr. Kent, whose name is well known in the architectural annals of that period but, shewing afterwards a preference for sculpture, he studied that art with greater success in the royal academy, then lately instituted, and obtained the geld medal and other prizes for his productions he was also elected to be sent for three years to pursue his studies on the continent, at the expence of that establishment which was one of its regulations previous to the French revolution, when the disturbances in Italy rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for Englishmen to travel in that country. The residence of Mr. Banks was prolonged beyond the limits allowed by the academy for his enthusiastic admiration of the antique, which could then be seen only in perfection in that now despoiled country, and his eager endeavours to imitate the simplicity and elegance of its best specimens, made him unwilling to quit a spot where he could contemplate its beauties with unremitting delight. He met with some patronage from his countrymen who visited Rome and among others of his productions which were sent to this country, was a basso-relievo in marble, representing Caractacus with his family broughtprisoners before Claudius which now ornaments the entrance-hall at Stowe, the seat of the marquis of Buckingham a beautiful little figure of Pysche stealing the golden fleece, in marble also, which was intended as a portrait of the princess Sophia of Gloucester, and is still in her family and an exquisite figure of Cupid catching a butterfly, an emblem of loye tormenting the soul, the size of life, which perhaps for grace, symmetry of form, and accuracy of contour, has scarcely been equalled by a modern hand, and might almost vie with those productions of the ancients, to which his admiration, as well as emulation, had been so constantly directed.

Finding, at length, that it was impossible on the Continent to meet with that patronage which, with just ambition, he aspired to, he determined on returning to his native country from which, however, he was soon after again enticed, by very favourable prospects held out to him by the court of Russia, whither he repaired, taking with him the above-mentioned figure of Cupid, which was purchased by the empress Catherine, and placed in a temple constructed for the purpose in her gardens at Czarscozelo. After a residence of nearly two years, in a climate which proved very destructive to his health, an,d disappointed in his hopes, he returned to his family in England, there to wait the tide of favour, which was not long in turning its course towards him. In that branch which the profession of a sculptor chiefly embraces, that of monumental subjects, there is not so much scope for fancy and variety, as in the productions of an historical painter, but whenever an opportunity offered of deviating from the established rules usually adopted in these cases, our artist did not omit to avail himself of it, of which there is a striking instance in a monument to the memory of a daughter of sir Brooke Boothby, in Ashbourne church. The first great work which was to have been executed by Mr. Banks, on his return from Petersburg, was a colossal statue of Achilles bewailing the loss of Brise'is on the sea shore, for col. Johnes, of Hafod, in Cardiganshire but, as it was likely to be a work of immense labour and expence, other smaller things were undertaken for the same distinguished gentleman, some of which unfortunately perished in the conflagration which destroyed his unique abode of classic taste and elegance, in 1807. Various events afterwards combined to prevent the completion of this magnificent statue, in marble and since Mr. Banks’ s death, it has been presented, by his family, to the British institution in Pall Mall, where it forms a grand and simple ornament to the entrance-hall. The exterior of tnat building, which was originally the Shakspeare gallery, is also a specimen of our artist’s varied talents the whole front of it having been designed by him, as well as the beautiful groupe of figures over the entrance, which are allusive to its original destination. In the latter years of Mr. Banks’s career, his monument for sir Eyre Coote in Westminster abbey, and those in St. Paul’s to the memory of the captains (Hutt, Westcott, and Rundle Burges), who fell in some of our great naval victories, are the most conspicuous and, as they are within the reach of general observation, may be duly appreciated by persons of taste. Mr. Banks’ s election to be one of the members of the royal academy took place not long after after his return from Russia. On this occasion, he presented that body with a piece of sculpture, representing one of the fallen Titans, which is placed among the deposits in the council chamber of that institution, and is a striking example of the knowledge he possessed in anatomy, which enabled him to execute a subject of this nature with as much correctness and energy, as the elegance of his taste led him to represent tender and pathetic subjects with that peculiar delicacy and feeling which so eminently characterize his works.

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

, a celebrated lawyer of the fifteenth century, was a native of Placentia, and professor of feudal law at Pavia and Ferrara. He made a new arrangement of the law of Lombardy, and sent it to the duke of Mila,n, who placed it in the library of Pavia, and ordered that the professors of Pavia should use it as a textbook. This manuscript, as well as the library in which it was deposited, was removed to France under the reign of Louis XII. Nicolas Rigault printed it at Paris in 1612, under the title “De Feudis liber singularis,” and John Schilter reprinted it in 1695, 4to, under its proper title of “Libeilus feudorum reformatus.”

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

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

With regard to common life he had some peculiarities he could not bear music, and if ever he was engaged at play, could not attend to it. He neither loved wine nor entertainments, nor dancing, nor sports of the field, nor relieved his studies with any other diversion than that of walking and conversation. He ate little flesh, and lived almost wholly upon milk, tea, bread, fruits, and sweetmeats. He had great vivacity in his imagination, and ardour in his desires, yet was always reserved and silent except among his favourites, who were few and the delicacy of his habit, together with his constant application, suppressed those passions which often betray others of his age into irregularities. The last of his works was entitled “Disquisitio historico-chronologica de successione antiquissima episcoporum Romanorum, cum quatuor dissertationibus,” c. 1740, 8vo.

, grandson of the preceding, was born in 1454. After a slight education at Venice, he was placed, when very young, under the tuition of Matteo Bosso, then resident at Verona. At the age of eight he became the scholar of Pomponius Lactus at Rome, and studied under him for the space of ten years, commencing an intimacy with the most celebrated literati of the age, and in particular with Theodore Gaza, who formed the most honourable opinion of his talents. On his return to Venice, by his father’s advice he went to reside at Padua, in order to finish his education in that university. Here he first applied himself to the version of “Themistii Paraphrasis,” which was finished in the nineteenth, but not published until (1473) the twenty-sixth year of his age. The following year he was nominated to pronounce the funeral oration of the doge Niccolo Marcello, a composition which is at present extant. Retiring again to Padua, he was authorised, by a special faculty from the senate, to read lectures on philosophy, and with great public approbation expounded Aristotle’s Ethics, and drew up an epitome of them for the benefit of his hearers. Hermolaus spent five years uninterruptedly at this seat of learning, and having attained his twenty-third year, was, by the general approbation, created a doctor of the civil and canon law. In 1479 he returned to his native city, where he was speedily admitted to all those honours which were compatible with his rank and age. Yet persevering in his studies, he this year interpreted “Aristotelis Rhetorica,” published his “Themistius” in the following in 1482 he translated tf Dioscorides,“and in 1484,” Aristotelis Dialecticen," besides a number of poems and other occasional productions.

In June 1484, having again retired to Padua, to avoid the plague then raging at Venice, he undertook, at the earnest request of several of the students, to expound some of the Grecian poets and orators, particularly Theocritus and Demosthenes. He had already borne two important offices in the republic, and was exulted to the dignity of senator in 1484, in the thirtieth year of his age. In the same year he opened, at his own house at Venice, a private school of philosophy, delivering his lectures at an early hour in the morning, and although he meant to admit only a few friends, his audience speedily increased, and he continued this employment until June 1485, when he was appointed on an embassy to congratulate the archduke Maximilian, who had recently been elected king of the Romans. On this occasion, Maximilian, whom he addressed in a complimentary oration, conferred on him order of knighthood. In 1488, the senate again interrupted his favourite studies, by appointing him ambassador to Ludovico Sforza, duke of Milan, an office which his grandfather and father had both formerly filled. At Milan, his house became the general resort of the learned, and he contrived, amidst his public labours, to resume his criticisms on Aristotle and Dioscorides. In 1490, he returned to his native city, and about a year after, was appointed ambassador in ordinary to pope Innocent VIII. who conferred the patriarchate upon Hermolaus, and he accepted it, notwithstanding he knew that the republic of Venice had made an express law forbidding all the ministers they sent to Rome to accept of any benefice. Hermolaus excused himself by saying the pope forced him to accept of the prelacy but this availed nothing with the council of ten, who signified to him that he must renounce the patriarchate, and if he refused to comply, that Zachary Barbarus his father should be degraded from all his dignities^ and his estate confiscated. Zachary was a man much advanced in years, and filled one of the chief posts in the commonwealth. He employed all the interest in his power to gain the consent of the republic to his son’s being patriarch but his endeavours proved ineffectual, and Hernaolaus was condemned by the Venetians to perpetual exile.

From this time he resided at Rome, where, in 1491, he began a work of great erudition, his “Castigationes PliniansE,” the first part of which was published in the following year, and the second in 1493. Erasmus assigns him the most honourable place among those critics who have undertaken to illustrate Pliny the naturalist but his labours have not wholly escaped censure, particularly that of father Harduin, who accuses him of too frequently indulging conjecture, from which, and other charges, Apostolo Zeno defends him with great ability. Hermolaus died of the plague in July 1493. Besides the works already mentioned, he is said to have left some volumes of letters in manuscript, and to have written at least twelve thousand Latin verses, of which only two short epigrams remain.

, a French antiquary, was born at St. Fargeau in Puisay, in the diocese of Auxerre, in 1696, and died at Paris in 1770, after having passed the greater part of his life in the study of the ancient French writers, from the twelfth to the fifteenth century. This pursuit recommended him to many of the literati, who invited him to Paris, and there the abbe La Porte and Graville engaged him to assist them, in a prolix, but curious work, entitled “Recueil alphabetique depuis la lettre C jusqu‘a la fin de l’alphabet,” which was begun by the abbe Perau, and printed in 24 vols. 12mo, Paris, 1745, &c. He published afterwards, 1. “Fabliaux et contes des poetes Franc,ais des 12, 13, 14,et 15 siecles,” Paris, 1756, 3 vols. 12mo. 2. “L'Ordene de chivalerie,” ib. 1759, 12mo. This is preceded by a dissertation on the origin of the French language, an essay on its etymologies, and a glossary. 3. “Le Castoiement, ou instructions d' une pere a son fils,” a moral work of the thirteenth century, ib. 1760, 12mo, to which are added several pieces, historical and moral, of the same period in verse, a dissertation on the Celtic, and some remarks on its etymologies. These three works were reprinted at Paris in 1808, 4 vols. 8vo. Barbazan had read the ancient authors with great attention, and wa$ zealous to rescue them from the oblivion to which they had been unjustly consigned. Before his death he had prepared several other works for the press, the manuscripts of which are not known, except one entitled “Glossaire du nouveau tresor de Borel,” the manuscript of which is in the library of the French arsenal, with the exception of the first part, which has been lost.

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

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

, an eminent French physician of the seventeenth century, was born at Cereste in Provence, and studied at Aix and Montpellier, at which last university he took his doctor’s degree in 1649, and in this place he settled, and acquired very great reputation as a practitioner and a man of learning. In his practice he appears to have attained the simplicity and sound principles of modern times, founded on experience. The celebrated Locke, who visited him at Montpellier, compared him to cur Sydenham in manners and opinions. He died in 1699. The only works he published are, 1. “Traites de Medicine,” 12mo, 1654. 2. “Questiones Medicae duodecim,” 1658, 4to.

, nephew of the preceding, was born the 15th of March 1674, at Bariers, a city of Lower Languedoc, in France. He went to Lausanne in 1686, with his father: and, in 1697, was at Berlin, where he taught philosophy at the French college. At the desire of his father, he applied himself at first to divinity, but afterwards quitted it, and gave himself up to the study of the law, especially that of nature and nations. In 1710 he was invited to Lausanne, to accept of the new professorship of law and history, which the magistrates of Bern had instituted, and he enjoyed it for seven years, during which time he was thrice rector. In 1713, he was elected a member of the royal society of sciences at Berlin and in 1717, chosen professor of public and private law at Groningen. He translated into French the two celebrated works of Puffendorf, his “Law of nature and nations,” and his “Duties of a man and citizen” he wrote excellent notes to both these performances, and to the former he gives an introductory preface. He translated also the two discourses of Mr. Noodt, concerning the power of a sovereign and liberty of conscience, and Tillotson’s sermons, in 6 vols. 8vo, 1709, &c. The piece entitled “Traite de jeu,” printed at Amsterdam, in 1709, is also of his composition and the following “Traite sur la morale des peres,” 1728, 4to. This was written against Mr. Ceillier, who had attacked what Barbeyrac had said upon that subject in his Preface to Puffendorf, “A translation, with notes, of a treatise of M. Bynckershoek,” 1723. 2. “La defence du droit de la compagnie Hollandoise des Indes Orientales, contre les nouvelles pretensions des habitans des Pais Bas Autrichiens, &c.” 1725; b.esides several critical and Ute^ tary remarks, inserted in different journals, and some academical discourses published at Geneva, Lausanne, and Amsterdam. He published also in 1724, a translation into French of Grotius’s treatise, “De jure belli ac pacis,” with large and excellent notes. He died in 1744.

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

, a native of Aveiro in Portugal, one of the restorers of learning in Spain, in the end of the fifteenth century, was the son of Ferdinand Barbosa, and of Catherine Figuera, who took great pains with his education-. After studying for some time in the Spanish universities, he went into Italy, and at Florence studied under the celebrated Politian. Here he made great progress in the languages, particularly the Greek, which he had an opportunity of acquiring more perfectly from those Greeks, who, at the taking of Constantinople, came into Italy. About the year 1494, Barbosa returned to Spain in order to teach Greek, which had long been forgotten in that country. After teaching it at Salamanca, with Antony of Lebrixa, for twenty years, he was invited to the court of Portugal, to be preceptor to the two young princes Alphonsus and Henry, who were afterwards cardinals, and the latter, king of Portugal in 1578. He remained in this employment for seven years, and afterwards went home, and died of a very advanced age in 1540. Barbosa, with Lebrixa and Resendius, contributed very successfully to the restoration of classical and polite literature in Spain. His works are, 1. “In Aratoris presbyter! poema de Apostolorum rebus gestis commentarium,” Salamanca, 1515, fol. 2. “De Prosodia, relectio, seu de re poetica, ac recte scribendi ratione” and with it, “ Epometria, sive relectio alia,” Salamanca, 4to. 3. “QuodJibeticae questiones,” a work mentioned by Valerius Andreas, but unknown to Antonio. 4. “Epigrammatum li^ bellus,” 8vo.

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

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

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

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

In 1604, his father carried him to France, and was himself chosen professor of civil law at Angers. It is said that John attended his father’s lectures, and indeed it appears from many passages in his works, that he was conversant in that science which his father taught. In 1605, allured by some proffers of countenance and advancement, the sou returned to England, and remained there about a year. On his father’s death in 1606, he went to Paris, married Louisa Debonnaire, and soon after settled with his family in London. There he published the second part of his “Euphormion,” dedicated to that able and unpopular minister, the earl of Salisbury, in a style of gross flattery. The same writer, adds lord Haiies, who could discover no faults in Salisbury, aimed the shafts of his ridicule at Sully. Perhaps it was to conciliate favour with king James, that in this second part of “Euphormion,” he satirized tobacco and the puritans. In this year he also published a brief narrative of the gunpowder-plot, which he had composed a few weeks after the dfscovery of that treason, entitled “Series patefacti divinitus parricidii contra Maximum Regem regnumque Britanniae cogitati et instructi.” It is hard to say what could have induced him to withhold this narrative from the public, while the events which it relates were peculiarly interesting from their strange nature: and then, after so long an interval, to send it abroad without the addition of a single circumstance that was not already known throughout Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a native of Edessa, a city in Syria, in the country of Mesopotamia, flourished in the second century. He is held up to us as a man of very acute genius, and acquired a shining reputation by his numerous writings. He first followed the doctrine of Valentine, and afterwards retracted from it. He gave rise to a considerable sect known in ecclesiastical history by the name of the Barclesanists. His sentiments were, that there is one supreme God, perfectly good and benevolent, who made the world and all its inhabitants in a state of perfection, all souls being clothed with bodies celestial and pure but the prince of darkness, having seduced men into sin, God permitted them to fall into gross bodies, formed of malignant and corrupt matter by the evil principle, and hence permitted the inward disorder of their breasts, as the punishment of their sin. At last, Jesus Christ, the son of God, descended to this world, clothed with an aerial body, and taught men how to subdue their bodies, and by abstinence, fasting, and contemplation, disentangle themselves from the dominion of malignant matter, that at death they may ascend to immortal happiness. His followers continued in these opinions for a considerable time He was a man of acute genius, and acquired great reputation by his writings, which were numerous and learned.

, a late eminentFrench historical painter, was born in 1732, at Montbar, and died at Orleans October 6, 1809. His parents, who were not rich, sent him to Paris to be brought up to some trade; 'but his taste and genius guided him to the profession in which he lived to make a distinguished figure. In 1764, while a pupil of Lagrenee, he carried off the prize his subject on this occasion was, Tullia driving her chariot over the body of her father. He also made a beautiful design of the “Rape of the Sabines,” and others of “St. Charles Borromeo,” and the “Massacre of the Innocents.” He passed some time at Rome, and on his return to France, painted some pieces which fully established his reputation. Among these are “The Immaculate Conception,” “the Apotheosis of St. Theresa,” and “St Catherine disputing with the Doctors,” the merit of which last procured him admission into the royal academy of painting. In 1795, he was elected a corresponding member of the national institute, and was professor of design in the central school of the Loiret, which took the name of the Orleans Lyceum. His death was much regretted by his family, friends, and scholars.

, was born at Turin about the year 1716. His father was an architect under don Philip Invara, the famous Sicilian, who left many specimens of his abilities in and about Turin. From this parent he appears to have received a good education, and had some little property left him, which he tells us himself he gamed away at faro by which means he was forced to have recourse to his wits, and thus turned author in spite of his teeth, as he phrases it, to keep them going. To the early part of his life we are strangers, except that we learn from himself, that he had been employed two years at Cuneo assisting at the fortifications there, but left the place a few days before the siege of it, by the combined powers of France and Spain, commenced in 1744. What became of him after this period we are not informed, except that in 1748 he was at Venice a teacher of Italian to English gentlemen. From circumstances scattered through his works, we can collect that he had travelled much had experienced some vicissitudes of fortune had encountered several difficulties and at length, with little money in his pocket, with a very imperfect knowledge of the English tongue, and without any recommendations, he bent his course towards England, where he arrived in 1750, and where he continued to reside (with a short interval) during the rest of his life.

A facility to acquire languages he possessed in a very extraordinary degree, and his perseverance was not inferior to his natural genius. With such advantages he soon overcame those difficulties which obstruct a foreigner on his arrival in England. In a short time he was sufficiently master of the English language to be enabled to write in it; and in 1753 published, what we apprehend td have been his first performance, a defence of the poetry of his native country against the censures of Voltaire, who had treated it with too great contempt. About the same time accident brought him acquainted with a person who was the means of introducing him to the notice of Dr. Johnson, who to the end of his life regarded him with great esteem. The origin of this intimacy has been frequently mentioned by Mr. Baretti to have happened in the following manner Mrs. Lennox, the authoress of “The Female Quixote,” having an intention to publish a translation of the novels from whence Shakspeare had taken some of his plays, wished to acquire a sufficient knowledge of the Italian language to enable her to execute the work with some degree of credit. To accomplish this point Mr. Lennox, her husband, went to the Orange coffee house to learn whether any foreigner was desirous of improving himself in the English language, and by that means receive the same advantage as he should communicate. Mr. Baretti happened to be present when the inquiry was made, and eagerly accepted the offer. After some time he was introduced to Dr. Johnson, when an intimacy commenced, which appears to have continued until nearly the end of Dr. Johnson’s life.

Mr. Baretti, it is said, received his first encouragement to come to England from lord Charlemont, to whom he became known in Italy, and to whom he afterwards dedicated his Account of the manners and customs of his native country. “Upon your arrival in Italy several years ago,” he says, addressing himself to this nobleman, “a lucky chance brought me within the sphere of your notice and from that fortunate moment a friendship began on your lordship’s side, that has never suffered any abatement; and an attachment on mine, which will never cease as long as I have. life.” During his stay in London, he met with much kindness from its inhabitants. To most of the first persons both for rauk and literature he procured himself to be introduced, with many he lived on terms of friendship, and with some he was permitted to make a part of their family during their seasons of retirement. At length he resolved on his return to Italy, and accordingly left London on the 13th of August 1760. In his first letter to his brothers, he thus speaks of the kingdom he was about to leave. “Now therefore, England, farewell I quit thee with less regret, because I am returning to my native country, after a very long absence, considering the shortness of life. Yet I cannot leave thee without tears. May heaven guard and prosper thee, thou illustrious mother of polite men and virtuous women Thou great mart of literature I thou nursery of invincible soldiers, of bold navigators and ingenious artists, farewell, farewell I have now forgotten all the crosses and anxieties I have undergone in thy regions for the space of ten years but never will I forget those many amongst thy sons who have assisted me in my wants, encouraged me in my difficulties, comforted me in my adversities, and imparted to me the light of their knowledge in the dark and intricate mazes of life Farewell, imperial England, farewell, farewell”

His journey home was taken through Portugal and Spain. Previous to his setting out, he was recommended by Dr. Johnson to write a daily account of the events that might happen, and with all possible minuteness, and by him were pointed out the topics which would most interest and most delight in a future publication. To those who have read the narrative which he afterwards gave the world, it will be unnecessary to applaud Dr. Johnson’s suggestion. It must be admitted to be one of the most entertaining journals which the public had then received, containing a description of places then little known, and placing the character of the writer (as far as any dependence can be had on an author’s character, as drawn from his writings) in a very amiable point of view. During the progress of his tour, good sense and good humour, a playfulness not inconsistent with youth, nor yet unworthy of age, seem always to have attended him. He arrived at Genoa on the 18th of November.

He had been settledbut a short time in Italy, before he projected a periodical paper which was published in Venice under the title of “Frusta Literaria,” written in the name and character of an old, ill-natured, and ferocious soldier, who was supposed to have quitted his native try when scarcely fifteen years old, and to have returned home no less than fifty years after his departure. In this the satire was very pointed and severe, and the publication had great success. One who appears to have known him asserts, that it brought him in a considerable profit, but raised such a flame in Venice, as to make his stay in that country at least disagreeable, if not dangerous. After six yeans absence he returned to England, and almost immediately dipped his pen in a controversy with Mr. Sharp, who had just then published “Letters from Italy, describing the customs and manners of that country in the years 1765 and 1766.” Mr. Sharp’s representation was certainly extravagant, and perhaps taken on too slight grounds. It excited Mr. Baretti’s resentment, and it is well known that he seldom expressed himself in gentle terms when he felt himself entitled to shew his anger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, was born in 1690 in Hildesheim, and obtained the place of sub-librarian of the royal library of Hanover. He was particularly eminent for historical and diplomatic researches, and was the first who collected materials to form a diplomatic library. His first publication was “Succincta Notitia Scriptorum rerum Brunsvicensium ac Luneburgensium, cum recensione legum atque constitutionurn terrarum Brunsvico-Luneburgica'rum,” Hanover, 1729, 8vo. But his chief work was his “Clavis diplomatica, specimina veterum scripturarum tradens, &c.” Hanover, 1737, 4to, of which was published a much enlarged and improved edition in 1754, 4to, with a life of the author, by his son Daniel. Baring died in 1753.

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

, a very learned divine and antiquary, in the end of the sixteenth, and part, of the seventeenth century, was born in the parish of St. Mary the More, in the city of Exeter, about 1572. He was the second son of Lawrence Barkham, of St. Leonard’s, near that city, by Joan his wife, daughter of Edward Bridgeman of Exeter, a near relation of John Bridgeman, bishop of Chester. In Michaelmas term, 15^7, he was entered a sojourner.of Exeter college in Oxford; and on the 24th of August, the year following, admitted scholar of Corpus Christi college in the same university. He took the degre of B. A. February 5 1590-1, and that of M. A. December 12, 1594. On “the 21st of June, 1596, he was chosen probationer fellow of Corpus Christi college, being then in orders and July 7, 1603, took the degree of B. D. Some time after, he became chaplain to Ric. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury: and, after his death, to George Abbot, his successor in that see. On the llth of June, 1608, he was collated to the rectory of Finchleyin Middlesex, and on the 31st of October, 1610, to the prebend of Brownswood, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s on the 29th of March, 1615, to the rectory of Packlesham; the 27th of May following to the rectory of Lachingdon and, the 5th of December, 1616, to the rectory and deanery of Bocking, all in the county of Essex. But, in 1617, he resigned Packlesham, as he had done Finchley in 1615. March 14, 1615, he was created D. D. He had great skill and knowledge in most parts of useful learning, being an exact historian, a good herald, an able divine, a curious critic, master of several languages, an excellent antiquarian, and well acquainted with coins and medals, of which he had the best collection of any clergyman in his time. These he gave to Dr. Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, who presented them to the university of Oxford. He died at Bocking, March 25, 1642, and was buried in the chancel of that church. He was a man of strict life and conversation, charitable, modest, and reserved, but above all, exemplary in his duties as a clergyman. Dr. Barkham wrote nothing in his own name, but assisted others in their works, particularly Speed in his history of Great Britain, which that author gratefully acknowledges. In this work Barkham wrote” The life and reign of king John,“one of the most valuable in the book and” The life and reign of king Henry II.“in the same history. He is likewise the author of” The display of Heraldry,“&c. first published at London in 1610, folio, under the name of John Guillim. The learned author having mostly composed it in his younger years, thought it too light a subject for him (who was a grave divine) to own, and gave Guillim the copy, who, adding some trivial things, published it, with the author’s leave, under his own name. He published also Mr. Ric, Crakanthorpe’s book against the archbishop of Spalato, entitled” Defensio Ecclesiie Anglicanee,“Lond. 1625, 4to, with a preface of his own. It is said also that he wrote a treatise on coins, which was never published. Fuller, in his usual, way, says, that he was <fr a greater lover of coins than of money; rather curious in the stamps than covetous for the metal thereof.”

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

, a modern Latin poet of great reputation, was born at Antwerp, 1584, and studied eight years at Leyden. Bertius, the sub-principal of his college, having been appointed principal, recommended Barlseus to be his successor, who was accordingly named sub-principal, and some time after made professor of logic in the university of Leyden; but he interested himself so much in the disputes of the Armiaians, that he lost his professorship as soon as the opposite party prevailed in the synod of Dort. He now applied himself to physic, and in two years took a doctor’s degree at Caen, but scarce ever practised. In 1631, the magistrates of Amsterdam having erected a seminary, offered him the professorship of philosophy, which he accepted, and discharged with great honour. He pubiished several sharp controversial pieces against the adversaries of Arminius; and being looked upon as a favourer of that sect, many people murmured against the magistrates of Amsterdam for entertaining such a professor. He was continued, however, in his professorship till his death, which happened in 1648. We have a volume of orations of his, which he pronounced on different occasions, and which are admired for their style and wit but his poetical compositions are what chiefly raised his reputation. His letters were published after his death in two volumes. The following are the dates of his principal works, 1. “Britannia triumphans,” Leyden, 1626, fol. 2. “Poemata,” ib. 1631, 12mo. 3. “Mercator sapiens,” Amst. 1632, fol. 4. “De Cceli admirandis, oratio,” ib. 1636, fol. 5. “Oratio de victa Hispanorum regis classe,” ib. 1639, fol. 6. “Laurus Flandrica,” ib. 1644, fol. 7. “Mauritius Redux,” ib. 1644, fol. 8. “Hist. Rerum in Brasilia et alibi nilper gestarum, sub praefectiira Mauritii principis Nassoviae,” “ib. 1647, fol. 9.” Orationes,“ib. 1661^ 12mo. 10.” Faces Sactae," Lond. 4to.

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

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

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

, a learned bishop in the sixteenth century, descended of the ancient family of the Barlowes in Wales, and was born in the county of Essex. He was at first a monk in the Augustin monastery of St. Osith in Essex, and was educated there, and at Oxford, where the religious of that order had an abbey and a priory and, arriving to a competent knowledge of divinity, Was made doctor in that faculty. He was afterwards prior of the canons of his order at Bisham in Berkshire, and by that title was sent on an embassy to Scotland, in 1535. At the dissolution of the monasteries, he readily resigned his house, and prevailed upon many abbots and priors to do the same. Having by this means ingratiated himself with the king, he was appointed bishop of St. Asaph and the temporalities being delivered to him on February 2, 1535, he was consecrated the 22d of the same month. Thence he was translated to St. David’s, in April 1536, where he formed the project of removing the episcopal see to Caerniardhyn, as being more in the midst of the diocese, but without success. In 1547, he was translated to Bath and Wells, of which he alienated most of the revenues; but being a zealous professor and preacher of the Protestant religion, he was, in 1553, upon queen Mary’s accession to the throne, deprived of his bishopric, on pretence of his being married. He was, likewise, committed to the Fleet, where he continued prisoner for some time at length, finding means to escape, he retired, with many others, into Germany, and there lived in a poor condition, till queen Elizabeth’s happy inauguration. Tanner says that he went early in life to Germany, and heard Luther, and some other of the reformers. On his return now to his native country, he was not restored to his see, but advanced to the bishopric of Chichester, in December 1559; and, the next year, was made the first prebendary of the first stall in the collegiate church of Westminster, founded by queen Elizabeth which dignity he held five years with his bishopric. He died in August, 1568, and was buried in Chichester cathedral. What is most particularly remarkable concerning him is, that by his wife Agatha Wellesbourne, he had five daughters, who were all married to bishops, namely, 1. Anne, married first to Austin Bradbridge, anc| afterwards to Herbert Westphaling, bishop of Hereford, 2. Elizabeth, wife of William Day, dean of Windsor, afterwards bishop of Winchester. 3. Margaret, wife of William Overtoil, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. 4. Frances, married first to Matthew Parker, younger son of Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, and afterwards to Toby Matthew, archbishop of York. 5. Antonia, wife of William Wick ham, bishop of Winchester. He had also a son, of whom we shall give an account in the next article; and five more, of whom nothing memorable is recorded.

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

, son of the above, an eminent mathematician and divine, in the sixteenth century, was born in Pembrokeshire. In 1560 he was entered commoner of Baliol college in Oxford; and in 1564, having taken a degree in arts, he left the university, and went to sea; but in what capacity is uncertain however, he thence acquired considerable knowledge in the art of navigation, as his writings afterwards shewed. About the year 1573, he entered into orders, and became prebendary of Winchester, and rector of Easton, near that city. In 1588 he was made prebendary of Lichneld, which he exchanged for the office of treasurer of that church. He afterwards was appointed chaplain to prince Henry, eldest son of king James the first and in 1614, archdeacon of Salisbury. Barlowe was remarkable, especially for having been the first writer on the nature and properties pf the loadstone, twenty years before Gilbert published his book on that subject. He was the first who made the inclinatory instrument transparent, and to be used with a glass on both sides. It was he also who suspended it in a compass-box, where, with two ounces weight, it was made fit for use at sea. He also found out the difference between iron and steel, and their tempers for magnetical uses. He likewise discovered the proper way of touching magnetical needles and of piecing and cementing of loadstones and also why a loadstone, being double-capped, must take up so great a weight.

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

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

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

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

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

On 5th of March 1734-5, a motion was made by sir John Barnard, for leave to bring in a bill “For restraining the number of houses for playing of interludes, and for the better regulating common players of interludes.” In support of his motion, he represented the mischief that was done to the metropolis by the effect which the play-houses had in corrupting the youth, encouraging vice and debauchery, and prejudicing the spirit of industry and trade and he urged that these evils would be much increased, if, according to a project which was then set on foot, another play-house should be erected in the very heart of the city. He was seconded by Mr. Sandys, and was so ably sustained by Mr. Pulteney, sir Robert Walpole, sir Joseph Jekyll, sir Thomas Saunderson, and Mr. James Erskine, that it was ordered, nemine eontradicente, that a bill should be brought in, pursuant to sir John Barnard’s motion. This was accordingly done; but the affair was afterwards dropped, on account of a clause which was offered to be inserted in the bill, for enlarging the power of the lord chamberlain, with regard to the licensing of plays. At midsummer, 1735, sir John Barnard was chosen, together with his brother-inlaw, alderman Godschall, to the office of sheriff for the city of London and county of Middlesex. When, on the 2d of February, 1736-7, Mr. Pulteney moved in the house of commons for an address to his majesty, that he would graciously be pleased to settle 100,000l. a year upon his royal highness Frederick prince of Wales, sir John was one of the gentlemen who spoke in its favour.

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

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

In 1745, the whole kingdom was indebted to the weight and influence of sir John Barnard, in assisting to prevent the public confusion. The successes of the rebels in Scotland, at that time, and their march into the heart of England, had spread such a terror through the city, that public credit began to be shaken, and there was a run upon the Bank, the notes of which had sunk to ten per cent, below their value. In this crisis, sir John Barnard took the lead at the head of one thousand and six hundred merchants and principal traders, who, at Garraway’s coffeehouse, signed the following agreement

All who have written concerning sir John Barnard, and all who were acquainted with him, have united in testifying to the universal excellence of his character. He was not only blameless, but eminently exemplary^ as a son, a husband, a father, a master, a benefactor, a merchant, a magistrate, and a senator. To the faithful and active discharge of the personal and social duties, he added a most devout sense of religion. The first hour, at least, of every day was employed in prayer, and the study of the scriptures. He attended public worship twice on a Sunday, and was constant in receiving the communion. He had such a high reverence for the Bible, that he always expressed a great dislike of any attacks which were made upon its sacred original and authority. Sir John Barnard did not, in leaving the Quakers, lay aside the simplicity of his manners. He was plain in his dress and address clear, unaffected, and concise in his language. Though modest in his deportment, he feared no man in the discharge of his duty. Once, when he had risen in a debate, sir Robert Walpole, then in the height of his power, was whispering to the speaker, who leaned towards him, over the arm of his chair. Upon this sir John Barnard cried out, “Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I address myself to you, and not to your chair. I will be heard. I call that gentleman to order.” The speaker turned about, dismissed sir Robert, asked sir John’s pardon, and desired him to proceed. Another time, when sir Robert Walpole had taken a roll of paper from off the table, and was reading it, sir John Barnard obliged him to lay it down, and attend to the business of the house.

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

, was an English Roman Catholic, of the seventeenth century, whose history has been imperfectly related. According to Moreri (who refers to “Memoires du temps”) he was an Englishman by birth, and studied with great success at Lou vain. Wood savs he was of a Lancashire family, and educated for some time at Oxford, whence he went to Spain, and studied divinity and philosophy under the famous Dr. J. Alph. Curiel, who, adds Wood, was wont to call Barnes by the name of John Hiiss, because of a spirit of contradiction which was always observed in him, but which, it appears by his writings, was a spirit of thinking for himself that could not be very acceptable to his superiors. He is said to have been young when he entered among the English Benedictines near Douay, for fear of the inquisition, with which he was threatened at Louvain and some time after he was obliged to leave the Benedictines, under the same alarm, for holding some sentiments they did not approve. Wood says, that before this he was sent into England on a mission, but being discovered there, he was imprisoned and sent to Normandy with certain priests and Jesuits. Moreri says, that on leaving Douay, he took refuge in Paris, where he was protected by some persons of distinction, and admitted into the friendship of several men of learning. In 1625, at which time he was one of the confessors of the abbey of Chelles, he published a work against mental reservation, entitled “Dissertatio contra equivocationes,” Paris, 8vo, of which a French translation was published at the same time. In the approbation of the faculty of theology at Paris prefixed to this work, he is styled doctor of arts and divinity, professor of the English mission, and first assistant of the congregation of Spain. This work made a considerable noise, and was attempted to be answered by father Theophilus Raynaud in 1627. His next work, entitled “Catholico-Romanus Pacificus,” gave yet more offence, and the pope wrote to the king of France, and to cardinal Richelieu, desiring they would send the author of these publications to Rome. Barnes was accordingly taken up in December 1625. He wrote also an answer to Clement Reyner’s “Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia,” which Wood makes to precede the former. It appears certain, however, that in consequence of the moderation of his opinions, he was hurried like a malefactor from place to place through Germany. While confined at Mechlin, he contrived to make his escape from the room by means of the strings of a bass viol, of which he had procured a quantity under pretence that the dampness of the place had injured what belonged to his instrument; but he was discovered while stepping into a vessel at Antwerp, and conveyed to Rome. Here he was put into the prison belonging to the inquisition, in which he died, after thirty years confinement. During part of this time, his sufferings had brought on insanity. An edition of his “CatholicoRomanus Pacificus” was printed at the theatre at Oxford in 1680, 8vo, and part of it had been before made use of by Dr. Basire in his “Ancient Liberty of the Britannic church.” Wood mentions other writings by Barnes, but without specifying their titles.

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

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

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

, a learned divine, born at Estampes in France, was of the Protestant religion, and. obliged to leave his native country in order to avoid persecution. He removed to England, where he was kindly received and generously supported by lord treasurer Burleigh, who admitted him into his family. He afterwards settled in Cambridge, upon the invitation of Dr. Pierce, master of Peterhouse. In 1574, he was chosen the lady Margaret’s professor at Cambridge, which he enjoyed for some years very quietly; but, on account of some opinions which he held, a party was at length formed against him in the university. At this time absolute predestination in the Calvinistical sense was held as the doctrine of the church of England. The chief advocates for it at Cambridge were Dr. Whitacre, regius professor of divinity, Dr. Humphry Tindal, and most of the senior members of the university. Dr. Baro had a more moderate notion of that doctrine: and this occasioned a contest between him and Mr. Laurence Chadderton, who attempted to confute him publicly in one of his sermons. However, after some papers had passed between them, the affair was dropped.

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

, whose true name was Fitz-Gerald, was descended from a branch of the FitzGcralds of Burnchurch in the county of Kilkenny, a family settled in Ireland soon after the English acquisitions in that country, which has produced several men of figure in the church. But he has been more remarkable in the learned world for his maternal genealogy, being the son of a sister of Luke Wadding, that eminent Franciscan friar, who, in the seventeenth century, demonstrated his great abilities and industry, by many voluminous treatises of genius and labour. His uncle Wadding took great care of his education in his youth, which he saw rewarded by an uncommon diligence: and when he was of a proper age procured his admission into the Franciscan order, and sent for him toRome; where he lived under his own eye in the college of St. Isidore, a society of thut order founded by himself in 1625, for the education of Irish students in the study of the liberal arts, divinity, and controversy, to serve as a seminary, out of which the mission into England, Scotland, and Ireland, might be supplied. Baron, after some time, grew into high reputation, and became especially remarkable for the purity of -his Latin style, which procured him great reputation. He was for a considerable time lecturer on divinity in the above-mentioned college, and in all resided at Rome about sixty years, where he died, very old, and deprived of sight,. March 18, 1696, and was buried at St. Isidore’s. His works are, 1. “Orationes Panegyricce Sacro-Prophanre decem,” Romae, 1643, 12mo. '. <; Mctra Miscellanea, sive Carminum diversoruin libri duo; Epigrammatum unus alter Silvulte quibus adduntur Elogiaillustriumvirorum,“Romse, 1645, 24to. 3.” Prolusiones Philosophicee,“Romae, 1651, 12mo. 4. a Harpocrates quinque Ludius; seu Diatriba silentii,” Romce, 1651, 12mo. 5. “Obsidio et Expugnatio Arcis Duncannon ia Hibernia, sub Thoma Prestono.” 6. “Boetius Absolutus; sive de ConsolationeTheologiae, lib. iv.” Roma-, 1653, 12mo. 7. “Controversial et Stratagemata,” Lug'­duni, 1656, 8vo. 8. “Scotus Defensus,” Colonize, 1662, folio. 9. “Cursus Philosophicus,” Colonise, 1664, folio. 10. “Epistolæ Familiares Parceneticse,” &c. These are among his 11. “Opuscula varia Herbipoli,” 1666, folio. 12. “Theologia,” Paris, 1676, 6 vols. 13. “Johannes Duns Scotus, ordinis minorum, Doctor subtilis de Angeiis contra adversantes defensus, nunc quoque Novitate amplificatus,” FlorentitE, 1678. 14. “Annales Ordinis S. S. Trinitatis Redemptions Captivorum, Fundatoribus 8. S. Johanne de Matha, et Felice de Valois,” in vols. folio. The first volume was printed at Rome in 1686, and begins with the year 1198, in which pope Innocent the Third gave habit to the founders, and is carried down to the year 1297, just one hundred years. In this volume we have an account of the foundations of their convents, their privileges, and benefactions, the eminent fathers of their order, their miracles and actions; as also, the number of slaves delivered by them from bondage.

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

, ancient professor and dean of the faculty of medicine at Paris, the place of his birth, died July 29, 1758, at about the age of 72. He had a great share in the Pharmacopoeia of Paris, for 1732, 4to; and in 1739, gave an academical dissertation in Latin on chocolate, “An senibus Chocolate potas?” which has been often reprinted. His son, of the same name, war also dean of the faculty at Paris, where he died in 1787, at the age of eighty. He was long a surgeon in the armies of Italy and Germany, and published some medical works. There was a Theodore Baron before these, probably their ancestor, who, in 1609, published a curious work entitled “De operationis meiendi triplici lacsione et curatione,” of which Haller gives a brief analysis.

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

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

Baron, in common with all great painters and great poets, was fully sensible that the rules of art were not invented for enslaving genius. “We are forbid by the rules,” said this sublime actor, “to raise the arms above the head; but if they are lifted there by the passion, it is right: passion is a better judge of this matter than the rules.” He died at Paris, Dec. 22, 1729, aged 77, Three volumes in 12mo of theatrical pieces were printed in 1760, under the name of this comedian; but it is doubted whether they are all his. “L'Andrienne” was attributed to pere de la Rue, at the very time when it was in full representation. It was to this that Baron alluded in the advertisement he prefixed to that piece. “I have here a fair field,” said he, “for complaining of the injustice that has been intended me. It has been said that I lent my name to the Andrienne. I will again attempt to imitate Terence; and I will answer as he did to those who accused him of only lending his name to the works of others (Scipio and Lselius). He said, that they did him great honour to put him in familiarity with persons who attracted the esteem and the respect of all mankind.” The other pieces that merit notice are, “L'homme à bonne fortune,” “La Coquette,” “L'Ecole des Peres,” &c. The dramatical judgment that reigns in these pieces, may perhaps be admitted as a proof that they are by Baron. The dialogue of them is lively, and the scenes diversified, although they rarely present us with grand pictures: but the author has the talent of copying from nature certain originals, not less important in society than amusing on the stage. It is evident that he had studied the world as well as the drama. As to the versification, if Baron was an excellent actor, he was but an indifferent poet. The abbé d'Alainval published the “Lettres sur Baron et la le Couvreur.” The father of this famous actor possessed also in a superior degree the talent of declamation. The manner of his death is remarkable. Playing the part of Don Diego in the Cid, his sword fell from his hand, as the piece requires; and kicking it from him with indignation, he unfortunately struck against the point of it, by which his little toe was pierced. This wound was at first treated as a trifle; but the gangrene that afterwards appeared requiring the amputation of his leg, he would not consent to the operation. “No, no,” said he; “a theatrical monarch would be hooted if he should appear with a wooden leg” and he preferred the gentle expectation of death, which happened in 1655.

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

, an eminent ecclesiastical writer, and a cardinal of the Roman church, was born at Sora, an episcopal city in the kingdom of Naples, October the 30th, 1538, of Camillo Baronio and Porcia Phebonia, who educated him with great care. He went through his first studies at Veroli, and afterwards applied himself to divinity and civil law at Naples. But the troubles of that kingdom obliged his father to remove him in 1557 to Rome, where he finished his studies in the law under Cesar Costa, afterwards archbishop of Capua, and put himself under the discipline of St. Philip de Neri, founder of the congregation of the oratory, who employed him in the familiar instructions which his clerks gave to the children. After he was ordained priest, St. Philip de Neri sent him, with some of his disciples, in 1564, to establish his congregation in the church of St. John the Baptist. He continued there till 1576, when he was sent to 8,t. Mary in Vallicella, and in both houses he was much admired for his pious zeal and charity. St. Philip de Neri having, in 1593, laid down the office of superior of the congregation of the oratory, thought he could not appoint a more worthy successor than Baronius, and pope Clement VIII. who knew his merit, in compliance with the desires of the founder and his congregation, approved the choice, and some time after made him his confessor. The esteem which that pope had for him, increased as he had an opportunity of growing more intimately acquainted with him, and induced him to appoint our author apostolical prothonotary in 1595, and to advance him to the dignity of cardinal, June 5th, 1596, to which he afterwards added the post of library-keeper to the see of Rome. Upon the death of Clement VIII. m 1605, Baronius had a great prospect of being chosen pope, one and thirty voices declaring for him; but the Spaniards strongly opposed his election on account of his treatise, “Of the Monarchy of Sicily,” in which he argued against the claim of Spain to Sicily. His intense application to his studies weakened his constitution in such a manner, that towards the end of his life he could not digest any kind of food. He died June the 30th, 1607, aged sixtyeight years and eight months, and was interred in the church of St. Mary in Vallicella, in the same tomb where his intimate friend cardinal Francesco Maria Taurusio was buried the year following. Dupin observes, that “an high regard ought to be paid to the memory of Baronius, who was a man of sincere religion, probity, learning, and extensive reading, and laboured with success for the service of the church, and the clearing up of ecclesiastical antiquity. But it were to be wished that he had been exempt from the prejudices which his education and country inspired him with*” In a book of lather Parsons, printed in 1607, and entitled “I)e sacris alienis non adeundis qusestiones du; ad usum praximque Angliae breviter explicate,” is published the judgment of Baronius, together with that of cardinal Bcllarmin and others, declaring that it was absolutely unlawful for the Roman Catholics to be present at the religious worship of the Protestants in England. The work for which Baronius was most celebrated, and which is certainly a wonderful monument of industry and research, was his “Ecclesiastical Annals.” He undertook this work at the age of thirty, and laboured for thirty years in collecting and digesting the materials for it, by reading over carefully the ancient monuments of the church, as well in printed books as in manuscripts, in the Vatican library. He published in 1588 the first volume, which contains the first century after the birth of Christ. The second, which followed after, contains two hundred and five years. These two volumes are dedicated to pope Sixtus V. The third, dedicated to king Philip 11. of Spain, comprehends the history of fifty-five years immediately following. The fourth, dedicated to Clement VIII. contains the history of thirty-four years, which end in the year 395. The fifth, dedicated to the same pope, as well as the following volumes, extends to the year 440. The sixth ends in the year 518. The seventh contains seventy-three years. The eighth extends to the year 714. The ninth, dedicated to king Henry IV. of France, concludes with the year 842. The tenth, dedicated to the emperor Rodolphus II. begins with the year 843, and reaches to 1000. The eleventh, dedicated to Sigismond III. king of Poland, and published in 1605, continues the history to the year 1099. The twelfth, printed under the pontificate of Paul V. in 1607, concludes with 1198. So that we have, in these twelve volumes, the history of the twelve first ages of the church. Henry Spoudunns informs us, that Baronius had left memoirs for three more volumes, which were used by Odoricus Kaynaldus in the continuation of his work. The first edition of Baronius’ s Annals, begun in 158S, and continued the following years, was printed at Rome, where the first volumes were reprinted in 1593. It was followed by some others, with alterations and additions. The second edition was that of Venice, and was begun in 1595. The third was printed at Cologne in 1596, and the foil owing years. The fourth at Antwerp in 1597, &c. The fifth at Mentz in 1601, The sixth at Cologne in 1609. There were several other editions published afterwards, at Amsterdam in 1610, at Cologne in 1624, at Antwerp in 1675, at Venice in 1705, and at Lucca in 1738—1759, by far the best. Before this, the best editions, according to the abbe Longlet de Fresnoy, in his “New method of studying History,” were that of Home, as the original, and that of Antwerp, and the most convenient for study, is that of Mentz, because the authorities of the ecclesiastical writers are marked in it by a different character from the text of Baronius, and the impression is in two columns. The edition of Cologne has the same advantage, though ill printed.

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

Cardinal de Laurea drew up an index to this work for his own private use, which he afterwards left to the public “Index alphabeticus rerum et locorum omnium memorabilium ad Annales Cardinalis Baronii. Opus posthumum Rev. Cardinalis de Laurea,” Rome, 1694, in 4to. This is a posthumous work, for being put to the press during the author’s life, the impression was not finished till after his death, which happened November the 30th, 1693. These annals were begun to be translated into various languages, but probably owing to the vast expense, none of the translators proceeded farther than the iirst volume. Several abridgments, however, have been published. The most extensive is that of Henry Spondanus, Paris, 1612, 1622, 1630, 1639, and often afterwards. They were also abridged byAurelio, Bzovius, Bisciola, Scogli, Sartorius, Schuhingius, &c. &c. and in various languages. The continuators are also numerous. Bzovius published a continuation from 1199 to 1572, Rome, 9 vols. fol. 1616 1672, which, however, are rather the annals of the Dominicans than of the church. Raynaldns’ continuation from 1199 to 1567, also 9 vols. folio, is said to be worse than the former; the best is Spondanus, extending to the year 1639, and printed at Paris in that year, 2 vols. folio. The great fame of Baroaius excited the attention of many Protestant writers, who criticised his work with acuteness. Among the best of these is Isaac Casaubon, in his “Exercitationes contra Baronium,” London, 1614, folio, but perhaps Dupin’s opinion, which we have quoted, is sufficient to point out the leading errors of the work. Besides these annals, Baronius wrote, 1. “Marty rologium Romanum restitutum,” 1586, folio. These notes on the Roman martyrology, for these are all which Baronius contributed, were intended as a prelude to his Annals. This work was often reprinted, and as often corrected by the author, but it is still erroneous in many points. 2. “Tractatus de Monarchia Siciliae,” Paris, 1609, 8vo. 3. “Parsenesis ad RempublicamVenetam,” Rome, 1606, 4to, written on occasion of the interdict of Venice. 4. “Contra ser. Rempublicam Venetam Votum,” not published by Baronius, but containing his opinion in the consistory. 5. “Historica relatio de Legatione Ecelesise Alexanclrinse ad Apostolicam sedem,” 1598, 8vo, respecting the re-union of the church of Alexandria to the see of Home, which did not last long. And some other works of less reputation.

, physician of Perpignan, who practised some time at Cayenne, and died in 1755, was well versed both in the theory and practice of his art, and had the reputation of being an accurate observer. His principal works are, 1. “Relation et essai sur Phistoire de la France equinoxiale,” with a catalogue of plants collected at Cayenne, 1748, 12mo. 2. “Dissertation sur la couleur drs” N ogres,“1741, 4to. 3.” Observations sur Torigine des pierres figurees," 1646, 4to, &c.

, an English landscape painter, was born about 1728, in the city of Dublin. It is not known that he received any regular instructions in painting. He began his attempts in the very humble line of colouring prints, in which he was employed by one Silcock, in Nicholas street, Dublin. From this feeble commencement he rose to considerable powers as a landscape painter, by studying from the scenes of nature in the Dargies, and in the park at Powerscourt, places near Dublin, and is said to have received patronage and encouragement from the noble owner of Powerscourt. About this time a premium was offered by the Dublin society for the best landscape in oil, which Mr. Barret won. In 1762 he visited London, where he soon distinguished himself; and, the second year after his arrival, gained the premium given by the society for the encouragement of arts, &c. for the best landscape in oil. The establishment of the royal academy was in a great measure indebted to the efforts of Mr. Barret, who formed the plan, and became one of its members.

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

, a scholar of Cambridge of the sixteenth century, who had travelled various countries for languages and learning, is known now principally as the author of a triple dictionary in English, Latin, and French, which he entitled an “Alvearie,” as the materials were collected by his pupils in their daily exercise, like so many diligent bees gathering honey to their hive. When ready for the press, he was enabled to have it printed by the liberality of sir Thomas Smith, and Dr. Nowell, dean of St. Paul’s, whose assistance he gratefully acknowledges. It was first printed by Denham in 1573, with a Latin dedication to the universal Maecenas, lord Burghlev, and various recommendatory verses, among which the Latin of Cook and Grant, the celebrated masters of St. Paul’s and Westminster schools, and the English of Arthur Golding, the translator of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, have chief merit. This book was more commodious in size than in form, for as there is only one alphabet, the Latin and French words are to be traced back by means of tables at the end of the volume. In the then scarcity of dictionaries, however, this must have been an useful help, and we find that y, second and improved edition, with the title of a “Quadruple Dictionarie,” (the Greek, thinly scattered in the first impression, being now added) came out after the decease of the author in 1580, and is the only edition of which Ames and Herbert take any notice, nor does Ainsworth, who speaks of it in the preface to his dictionary, seem to be aware of a prior edition. Of Baret’s life we have not been able to discover any particulars. In the Ashmole Museum is his patent by queen Elizabeth, for printing this dictionary for fourteen years.

, first lord viscount Harrington, a nobleman of considerable learning, and author of several books, was the youngest son of Benjamin Shute, merchant (youngest son of Francis Sbute, of Upton, in the county of Leicester, esq.) by a daughter of the Kev. Jos. Caryl, author of the commentary on Job. He was born at Theobalds in Hertfordshire, in 1678, and received part of his education at Utrecht, as appears from a Latin oration which he delivered at that university, and published there in 1698, in 4to, under the following title “Oratio de studio Philosophise conjungendo cum studio Juris Roman!; habita in inclyta Academia Trajectina Kalendis Junii, 1698, a Johanne Shute, Anglo, Ph. D. et L. A. M.” He published also three other academical exercises; viz. 1. “Exercitatio Physica, de Ventis,” Utrecht, 1696, 4to. 2. “Dissertatio Philosophica, de Theocratia morali,” Utrecht, 1697. 3, “Dissertatio Philosophica Inauguralis, de Theocratia civili,” Utrecht, 1697. The second of these tracts has been cited, with great commendation, by two eminent writers on the civil law, Cocceius and Heineccius. After his return to England, he applied himself to the study of the law in the Inner Temple. In 1701 he published, but without his name, “An essay upon the interest of England, in respect to Protestants dissenting from the Established Church,” 4to. This was reprinted two years after, with considerable alterations and enlargements, and with the title of “The interest of England considered,” &c. Some time after this he published another piece in. 4to, entitled “The rights of Protestant Dissenters,” in two parts. During the prosecution of his studies in the law, he was applied to by queen Anne’s whig ministry, at the instigation of lord Sorners, to engage the Presbyterians in Scotland to favour the important measure then in agitation, of an union of the two kingdoms. Flattered at the age of twenty-four, by an application which shewed the opinion entertained of his abilities, and influenced by the greatest lawyer and statesman of the age, he readily sacrificed the opening prospects of his profession, and undertook the arduous employment. The happy execution of it was rewarded, in 1708, by the place of commissioner of the customs, from which he was removed by the Tory administration in 1711, for his avowed opposition to their principles and conduct. How high Mr. Shute’s character stood in the estimation even of those who differed most widely from him in religious and political sentiments, apyears from the testimony borne to it by Dr. Swift, who writes thus to archbishop Kitig, in a letter dated London, Nov. 30, 1708. “One Mr. Shute is named for secretary to lord Wharton. He is a young man, but reckoned the shrewdest head in England, and the person in whom the Presbyterians chiefly confide; and if money be necessary towards the good work, it is reckoned he can command as far as 100,000l. from the body of the dissenters here. As to his principles, he is a moderate man, frequenting the church and the meeting indifferently.” In the reign of queen Anne, John Wildman, of Becket, in the county of Berks, esq. adopted him for his son, after the Roman custom, and settled his large estate upon him, though he was no relation, and said to have been but slightly acquainted with him. Some years after, he had another considerable estate left him by Francis Harrington, of Tofts, esq. who had married his tirst cousin, and died without issue. This occasioned him to procure an act of parliament, pursuant to the deed of settlement, to assume the name and bear the arms of Barrington. On the accession of king George he was chosen member of parliament for the town of Berwick-upon-Tvveed. July 5, 1717, he had a reversionary grant of the office of master of the rolls in Ireland, which. he surrendered Dec. 10, 1731. King George was also pleased, by privy seal, dated at St. James’s, June 10, and by patent at Dublin, July 1, 1720, to create him baron Barrington of Newcastle, and viscount Barrington of Ardglass. In 1722 he was again returned to parliament as member for the town of Berwick; but in 1723, the house of commons, taking into consideration the affair of the Harburgh lottery, a very severe and unmerited censure of expulsion was passed upon his lordship, as sub-governor of the Harburgh company, under the prince of Wales.

"This exorbitant rise upon the stock put some gentlemen and merchants of London, who thought themselves not enough considered in the manufacture charter, upon soliciting for a separate charter, for opening the port of Harburgh, and carrying on the foreign commerce there; and agents on behalf of the manufacture company, with others on behalf of the separate charter, followed his Majesty to Hanover, each party for some time endeavouring to carry their respective points; the manufacture company to get likewise the charter for commerce, the other party to get a separate charter for commerce, exclusive of the manufacture company. At length both sides agreed to accept one charter for commerce and manufactures, which should take in the members of the old company, and those who solicited for the separate commerce charter; and that the capital of the united company should be 1,500,000l. It was likewise agreed, that the members of the old company should, over and above the 500,000l. already subscribed, be entitled to a certain share of the new stock, upon advancing, as before, 2l. upon each share, and that the residue of the stock should be divided amongst the new members and their friends. One gentleman in particular secured to himself, as I am informed, no less than 300,000l. to be disposed of by him amongst his friends.

"At this time shares were commonly sold at 20l. a share but before the end ofthe year, Harburgh stock sunk, as all other projects of that kind did and no money having been paid on the new stock, and no charter for commerce being passed, the gentlemen who solicited the new charter refused to be any farther concerned in the affair, since the opportunity for exorbitant profits was lost; and a new set of gentlemen and merchants, with the members of the old company, undertook to carry it on, and were incorporated by charter under the great seal of the electorate, for opening the port and carrying on the trade and manufactures at Harburgh.

"It was, as I have been informed, part of the original scheme, that the expence of opening the port, which was computed at 100,000l. should be defrayed by the profits of a lottery, to be drawn at Harburgh. Accordingly, after the new charter was passed, his majesty, by warrant under his sign manual and the privy seal of the electorate, empowered and required the company to lay before him a scheme for the lottery, which they did; and sometime afterwards his majesty, by a second warrant under his sign manual and privy seal of the electorate, signed his approbation of the scheme, and empowered the company to proceed upon it, and to deliver out tickets here for the lottery, and he named trustees to manage and direct the drawing at Harburgh. Before the lottery was opened, lord Barrington, who was sub-governor of the company, (his royal highness the present prince of Wales being named governor) thought it necessary to procure a British charter of incorporation, and measures were taken for that purpose with the British ministers; for hitherto everything touching the company had been transacted with the German ministers.

"Within a few clays after the subscription for the lottery was opened, advertisements were published by some of the gentlemen who had formerly solicited the commerce charter, and afterwards when the price of stock fell, had refused to accept their shares, treating the affair as a public cheat; and the matter was soon brought before the house of commons.

"While it was there depending, I was, in lord Barrington’s absence, consulted by the gentlemen concerned touching the best method for avoiding the storm which seemed to be gathering, and threatened the ruin of the company. My advice was, that the company should, without any hesitation, lay. their charter, with the two warrants for the lottery, before the house; and submit their case upon the foot of those powers; since it would appear by those powers, thut what they had done in the affair was done by virtue of powers received from his majesty. But this advice was soon laid aside, and the secretary (Mr. Ridpath) was instructed to acquaint the house, as he did, that the company having acted under powers received from his majesty as elector, in an affair concerning his electorate, they did not think themselves at liberty to lay such powers before the house without his majesty’s permission. This answer exactly suited the views of those people who intended to ruin the company, without seeming to do a thing which reflected dishonour on his majesty. Accordingly the houss was satisfied with the answer, so far as not to insist on a sight of the charter and warrants; and immediately came to a resolution, that the persons concerned in the affair, had acted therein without any authority from his majesty; and lordBarrington, who then served for Berwick upon Tweed, was expelled the house.

“This matter was made an occasion for bringing this severe censure on lord Barrington who was suspected to have formerly taken some steps very disagreeable to the reigning minister, sir Robert Walpole. His lordship was firmly attached to the administration during the time of lord Sunderland’s ministry, and employed all his credit and influence with the dissenters, which was then very great, to keep that body in the same interest but upon the death of lord Sunderlandj sir Robert Walpole, who, for many years during lord Sunderland’s administration, had opposed every public measure, succeeded him, as pi-hue minister, and could not forget the part which lord B irrington had acted again-st him.”

Lord Barrington married Anne, eldest daughter of sir William Daines, by whom he left six sons and three daughters. William, his eldest son, succeeded to his father’s honours; was elected, soon after he came of age, member for the town of Berwick, and afterwards for Plymouth; and, in the late and present reigns, passed through the successive offices of lord of the admiralty, master of the wardrobe, chancellor of the exchequer, treasurer of the navy, and secretary at war. He died in 1793. Francis, the second, died young. John, the third, was a majorgeneral in the army, commanded the land forces at the reduction of the island of Guadaloupe in 1758, and died in 17CM-. Of Daines and Samuel some notice will follow; Shutc, the sixth, is now bishop of Durham. Of the three daughters, who survived their father, Sarah married Robert Price, esq. of Foxley in Herefordshire Anne, Thomas Clarges, esq. only son of sir Thomas Clarges, bart. and Mary died unmarried.

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

, a Portuguese historian, was born at Viseu in 1496, and brought up at the court of king Emanuel, with the younger branches of the royal family. He made a rapid progress in Greek and Latin learning. The infant Juan, to whom he was attached, in quality of preceptor, having succeeded the king his father in 1521, de Barros had a place in the household of that prince. In 1522 he became governor of St. George de la Mine, on the coast of Guinea in Africa. Three years afterwards, the king having recalled him to court, appointed him treasurer of the Indies: this post inspired him with the thought of writing the history of those countries, and in order to finish it, he retired to Pombal, where he died in 1570, with the reputation of an excellent scholar and a good citizen. De Barros has divided his History of Asia and the Indies into four decads. He published the first under the title “Decadas d'Asia,” in 1552, the second in 1553, and the third in 1563. The fourth did not appear till 1615, by command of king Philip III. who purchased the manuscript of the heirs ofde Barros. This history is in the Portugueze language. Possevin and the president de Thou speak more favourably of it than la Boulaye-le Goux, who considers it as a very confused mass; but certainly Barros has collected a great many facts that are not to be found elsewhere, and with less love of the hyperbole, and a stricter attachment to truth, he would have deserved a place among the best historians. Several authors have continued his work, and brought it down to the xiiith decad. There is an edition of it, Lisbon, 1736, 3 vols. folio. Alfonso Ulloa translated it into Spanish. Barros also wrote “Chronica do imperador Clarimando,” a species of romance in the style of Amadis, and some treatises on subjects of morality, religion, and education, for the use of the young princes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appointment of professor of painting, honourable as it was, and the duties of which he might have discharged with reputation to himself, became in his hands the source of misfortune and disgrace. Original, and in many respects extremely singular in his opinions, he proposed changes and innovations which could not consistently be complied with, and by these means he often subjected himself to the pain of a refusal. His great object was, to appropriate a fund, accumulated from the receipts of exhibitions, to form a gallery of the old masters, for the use of the pupils. In this, and in many other efforts which he made with the same view, he entirely failed; so that, by continual opposition, he at length rendered himself so obnoxious to the jealousy of his brethren, that early in March 1799, a body of charges was received by the council at the royal academy, against the professor of painting; upon which the following resolution was passed, “that the charges and information were sufficiently important to be laid before the whole body of academicians to be examined; and if they coincide in opinion, the heads of those charges to be then communicated to the professor of painting.” This was intimated to Mr. Barry, by order of the council. On the 19th of March, the academy received the minutes of the council respecting the charges, and referred them to a committee elected for the purpose. The academy met again the 15th of April, to receive the report of the committee, when Mr. Barry arose, and demanded to be furnished with a copy of the report. This being denied, he protested against the injustice of the whole proceeding, and withdrew, declaring in plain terms, that “if they acted in conjunction with his enemies, without giving him the opportunity of answering for himself, and refuting the charges alleged against him, he should be ashamed to belong to the academy.” Having withdrawn, Mr. Barry was removed by a vote from the professor’s chair, and by a subsequent vote, expelled the academy. The whole proceedings were then laid before his majesty, who was pleased to approve them, and Mr, Barry’s name was accordingly struck off from the roll of academicians.

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

, a native of Dunkirk, an eminent naval hero, was the son of an humble fisherman, and was born in 1651. Before the year 1675, he was famous for a variety of acts no less singular than valiant, to particularize which would take up too much of our room. His courage having been signalised on a variety of occasions, he was appointed in 1692 to the command of a squadron consisting of seven frigates and a fire-ship. The harbour of Dunkirk was then blocked up by thirty-two ships of war, English and Dutch. He found means to pass this fleet, and the next day took four English vessels, richly freighted, and bound for the port of Archangel. He then proceeded to set fire to eighty-six sail of merchant ships of various burdens. He next made a descent on the coast of England, near Newcastle, where he burnt two hundred houses, and brought into Dunkirk prizes to the amount of 500,000 crowns. About the close of the same year, 1692, being on a cruise to the north with three men of war, he fell in with a Dutch fleet of merchant ships loaded with corn, under convoy of three ships of war; Barth attacked them, captured one of them, after having put the others to flight, which he then chased, and made himself master of sixteen of their number. In 1693, he had the command of the Glorieux, of sixty-six guns, to join the naval armament commanded by Tourville, which surprised the fleet of Smyrna. Barth, being separated from the rest of the fleet by a storm, had the fortune to fall in with six Dutch vessels, hear to Foro, all richly laden; some of these he burnt, and drove the rest ashore. This active and indefatigable seaman set sail a few months afterwards with six men of war, for convoying to France, from the port of Velker, a fleet loaded with corn, and conducted it successfully into Dunkirk, though the English and the Dutch had sent three ships of the line to intercept it. In the spring of 1694 he sailed with the same ships, in order to return to Velker to intercept a fleet loaded with corn. This fleet had already left the port, to the number of a hundred sail and upwards, under escort of three Danish and Swedish ships. It was met between the Texel and the Vice, by the vice-admiral of Friesland. Hidde, who commanded a squadron composed of eight ships of war, had already taken possession of the fleet. But on the morrow, Earth came up with him at the height of the Texel; and, though inferior in numbers and weight of metal, retook all the prizes, with the vice-admiral, and two other ships. This brilliant action procured him a patent of nobility. Two years afterwards, in 1696, Barth occasioned again a considerable loss to the Dutch, by capturing a part of their fleet, which he met at about six leagues from the Vlee. His squadron consisted of eight vessels of war, and several privateers; and the Dutch fleet of two hundred sail of merchant ships, escorted by a number of frigates. Barth attacked it with vigour, and boarding the commander himself, took thirty merchant ships and four of the convoy, suffering only a trifling loss. He was, however, unable to complete his triumph. Meeting almost immediately with twelve Dutch men of war, convoying a fleet to the north, he was obliged to set fire to his prizes, to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy, and himself escaped only by being in a fast-sailing ship. This celebrated mariner died at Dunkirk the 27th of April 1702, of a pleurisy, at the age of 51. Without patrons, and without any thing to trust to but himself, he became chef d'escadre, after having passed through the several inferior ranks. He was tall in stature, robust, well made, though of a rough and clumsy figure. He could neither write nor read; having only learnt to subscribe his name. He spoke little, and incorrectly; ignorant of the manners of polite companies, he expressed and conducted himself on all occasions like a sailor. When the chevalier de Forbin brought him to court in 1691, the wits of Versailles said to one another: “Come, let us go and see the chevalier de Forbin with his led-bear.” In order to be very fine on that occasion, he appeared in a pair of breeches of gold tissue, lined with silver tissue; and, on coming away, he complained that his court-dress had scrubbed hiui so thut he was almost flaved. Louis XIV, having ordered him into his presence, said to him: “John Barth, I have just now appointed you chef-d'escadre.” “You have done very well, sir,” returned the sailor. This answer having occasioned a burst of laughter among the courtiers, Louis XIV. took it in another manner. “You are mistaken, gentlemen,” said he, “on the meaning of the answer of John Barth; it is that of a man who knows his own value, and intends to give me fresh proofs of it.” Barth, in fact, was nobody, except when on board his ship; and there he was more fitted for a bold action than for any project of much extent. In 1780, a life of this celebrated commander was published in 2 vols. 12mo, at Paris.

, an eminent French writer, was born at Cassis, a sea-port in Provence, the 20th Jan. 1716. His family had been long established at Aubagne, in that neighbourhood, where it had been universally respected. His mother, the daughter of a merchant at Cassis, he lost at the age of four years. When he arrived at the age of twelve years, he was sent to school at Marseilles, whence he was transferred to the seminary of the Jesuits, where he received the tonsure. While witli the Jesuits, he formed a plan of study for himself, independent of the professors of the college, and applied with unwholesome sedulity to the study of Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, and Syriac, by which he for some time lost his health, and nearly his life. At the beginning of this arduous course of study, he became acquainted with a young Maronite, who had been educated at Home, but was then resident at Marseilles, from whom he acquired a fundamental knowledge of the Arabic language, and learned to speak it with facility. By the advice of this person he committed to memory several Arabic sermons, which he delivered to a congregation of Arabian and Armenian Catholics, who were ignorant of the French language.

At the outset of these pursuits, when he was about twenty-one years of age, some merchants of Marseilles came to him with a kind of beggar, who had made his appearance on 'change, giving himself out for a Jewish rabbi, learned but distressed, and who boldly challenged to have his pretensions investigated by some Oriental scholar. Our author endeavoured to evade the task, by representing, that his mode of study could at most enable him to read, but not at all to converse in the dialects of the East; but there was no resisting. The Jew began to repeat the first Psalm in Hebrew. Our author recognized it, stopped him at the end of the first verse, and addressed him with one of the colloquial phrases from his Arabic Grammar. The Jew then repeated the second verse, and our author another phrase; and so on to the end of the Psalm, which comprised the whole scriptural knowledge of the rabbi. Our author closed the conference with another sentence in Arabic, and, with more good nature than strict propriety, said, that he saw no reason to intercept the intended charity of the merchants. The Jew, delighted beyond expectation, declared, that he had travelled over Turkey and Egypt, but had no where met with the equal of this young theologian; who acquired prodigious honour by this ridiculous adventure. In vain he endeavoured to tell the story fairly; every one chose the marvellous colouring; he was extolled as a prodigy; and his reputation established at Marseilles.

In 1744-he went to Paris, carrying a letter with him to Mons. de Boze, keeper of the royal medals, a learned man, whose age and infirmities predisposing him to retire from labour, he selected our author as an associate in the care and arrangement of the cabinet, and his appointment was confirmed by Mons. de Maurepas, minister of that department. Our author lost no time in arranging in perfect order the large and valuable collection of Mons. D'Etrees and the abbe llothelin, which had remained in a very confused state. These he separated, compared, and described in a supplementary catalogue. At this time his career in these pursuits was threatened with an interruption. His friend and countryman, Mons. de Bausset, had engaged to promote him in the church, and being now bishop of Beziers, invited him to accept the office of vicar-general. Having promised to follow the fortunes of his friend, our author had no intention of retracting his engagement; but wishing to be released from it, he submitted his thoughts on the subject to the bishop, who with great kindness discharged him from the obligations he held himself under, and left him to follow the bent of his inclinations. In 1747 he was elected associate of the academy of inscriptions, and in 1753, on the death of M. de Boze, with whom he had been associate seven years, he was made keeper of the cabinet of medals, to which office he was promoted, notwithstanding some considerable opposition.

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

In 1757, Mons. de Stainville returned to Paris, and being appointed to the embassy of Vienna, our author joined him there, with madame de Stainville, who had remained behind at Rome, and an offer was made him to undertake a voyage to Greece, and up the Levant, at the king’s expense; but he declined the undertaking, on the same ground as he had avoided a former proposal, as being incompatible with the duties of his office. In this place, we may observe, that he has shewn his gratitude to his patron, M. de Stainville, and his lady, by describing them in the “Travels of Anacharsis,” under the names of Arsames and Phedrina.

Through the means of this patron, then become duke of Choiseul, and principal of the king’s ministers, in the room of cardinal de Bernis, our author, in 1758, was amply provided for, first hy pensions on the archbishopric of the Abbey and the treasure of St. Martin of Tours, and afterwards by the place of secretary-general of the Swiss; besides which he enjoyed a pension of 5000 livres on the Mercure. His attachment to his patron was highly honourable to him. In 1771, on the dismission of the duke de Choiseul, and his banishment to Chanteloup, our author did not hesitate to follow him: and when that minister was compelled to resign the office of general of the Swiss, he would have given up his place of secretary immediately, if his patron had not interfered. He went, however, to Paris, and offered the surrender of his brevet to the count d‘Affry, who refused to accept it, being willing to protect our author if he would give up his friend. This he, positively refused to do: upon which M. d’Affry, much to his honour, accepted the resignation, granting him 10,000 livres out of the annual profits of the place, and Barthelemi set off next day for Chanteloup.

The principal of Bartholine’s works are, 1. “Anatomia Caspari Barthqlini parentis novis observationibus primuin locupletata,” L. Bat. 1641, 8vo. 2. “De unicornu observationes novae. Accesserunt de aureo cornu Olai Wormii eruditorum judicia,” Patavii, 1645, 8vo. 3. “De monstris in Natura et Meclicina,” Basil, 1645, 4to. 4. “Antiquitatum veteris puerperii synopsis, operi magno ad eruditos praemissa,” Hafniae, 1646, 8vo. 5. “De luce animalium. libri tres, admirandis historiis ratiouibusque novis rcferti,” L. Bat. 1647, 8vo. 6. “De armillis veterurn, pracsertiiii Danorum Schedion.” Hafniae, 1643, 8vo. A more full catalogue, including all his papers, memoirs, &c. may be seen in Mangel’s Bibiiotheca. Bartholiue has the honour to rank with those who have contributed essentially to the improvement of medical science. He added considerably to the discovery of the lacteal vessels, and that of the lymphatics.

, a pious and learned Dominican, and archbishop of Braga in Portugal, was born in May, 1514, in the city of Lisbon. His father’s name was Dominic Fernandez; but as the son happened to be baptised in the church of our Lady of the Martyrs, he adopted this last name instead of that of his family. In 1528 he took the habit of the order of St. Dominic, and after arriving at his doctor’s degree, was appointed preceptor to Don Antonio, son of the infant Don Lewis, brother of king John III. For twenty years also he taught divinity, and acquired such a character for sanctity and talents, that on a vacancy for the archbishopric of Braga, Bartholomew was universally recommended; but he persisted for a long time in refusing it, until threatened with excommunication. Nor was this reluctance affected, for he had such a fixed repugnance against undertaking this high charge, that the compulsion employed threw him into a disorder from which it was thought he could not recover. When it abated, however, he went to his diocese, and began to exercise his functions in the most exemplary manner. In 1561 he was present at the council of Trent, under pope Pius IV. where he discovered such knowledge and spirit as to acquire general esteem. It was he who advised the fathers of this council to begin business by a reformation of the clergy; and when some of the bishops demanded if he meant to extend his reform to the most illustrious cardinals, he replied, that those “most illustrious” cardinals stood very much in need of a “most illustrious” reformation. In 1563 he went with cardinal de Lorraine to Rome, where the pope received him with every mark of esteem and confidence. Here he spoke his mind on ecclesiastical abuses with great freedom, and observing the custom in one of their assemblies, that the bishops stood uncovered, while the cardinals sat covered, he remonstrated with the pope so effectually, that this affront to the episcopal dignity was no longer tolerated. His principal motive, however, for this journey to Rome, was to obtain leave to resign his archbishopric; but the pope refused, on which he returned to Trent, and as soon as the council was over, went to Braga, where he remained until the pontificate of Gregory XIII. who at length accepted his resignation. After this he led a retired life, entirely occupied in acts of charity and devotion. He died in the convent of Viana, July 16, 1590, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. His works were published at Rome, 1744, 2 vols. fol. and consist of pious treatises, and an itinerary of his travels, in which we discover much of the excellence of his character. M. le Maitre de Saci published his life in 4to and 12mo, 1664. He was beatified by pope Clement XIV. in 1773.

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

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

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

, physician in ordinary to king Charles II. was brother to the preceding, and born in 1619, at Wetherslack in Westmoreland. From the same grammar-school as his elder brother, he removed to St. John’s college in Cambridge in 1637, and continued there about six years. In 1642, being then in the twenty-fourth year of his age, he took his degree of bachelor of arts. In 1644, he was nominated by the bishop of Ely, to a fellowship of St. John’s, in his gift, but the usurper being then in power, he never availed himself of it. Probably, indeed, he had left the college before he obtained this presentation, and perhaps about the same time his brother did, which was in the foregoing year. It is uncertain, whether, at that time, he had made any choice of a profession; so that being invited into Leicestershire, in order to become tutor to Ferdinando Sacheverell, esq. of Old Hayes in that county, a young gentleman of great hopes, he readily accepted the proposal, and continued with him for some time. In 1647, he returned to Cambridge, and took his degree of master of arts, applying himself then assiduously to the study of physic, and ahout the same time, Mr. Sacheverell died, and bequeathed our author an annuity of twenty pounds. How he disposed of himself for some years, does not very clearly appear, because he who so elegantly recorded the loyal services of his brother, has studiously concealed his own. It is, however, more than probable, that he was engaged in the service of his sovereign, since it is certain that he was at Worcester in 1651, where he had access to his royal master king Charles II. who testified to him a very kind sense of the fidelity of his family. In 1655, he was created doctor of physic, and two years afterwards, he took a house in St. Paul’s church-yard, and much about the same time, married the widow of Mr. Sayon, an eminent merchant. Being thus settled, he soon gained a very great repute in the city, for his skill in his profession, and among the learned, by his judicious defence of Dr. Harvey’s discovery of the Circulation of the Blood, which was then, and is still, admired as one of the best pieces written upon that subject. At this house he entertained his brother Dr. John Barwick, who repaired at his own expence an oratory he found there, and daily read the service of the established church, and with a few steadyroyalists, prayed for his exiled master. After the restoration in 1660, he was made one of the king’s physicians in ordinary, and in the year following, received a still stronger proof of his majesty’s kind sense of his own and his brother’s services by a grant of arms expressive of their loyalty. In 1666, being compelled by the dreadful fire to remove from St. Paul’s church yard, where, much to his honour, he was one of the few physicians who remained all the time of the plague, and was very active and serviceable in his profession, he took another house near Westminster-abbey, for the sake of being near that cathedral, to which he constantly resorted every morning at six o'clock prayers. He was a very diligent physicum, and remarkably successful in the small-pox, and in most kinds of fevers. Yet he was far from making money the main object of his care; for during the many years that he practised, he not only gave advice and medicines gratis to the poor, but likewise charitably administered to their wants in other respects. In. 1671, he drew up in Latin, which he wrote with unusual elegance and purity, the life of the dean his brother, and took care to deposit it, and the original papers serving to support the facts mentioned, in the library in St. John’s college at Cambridge. Another ms. he gave to Dr. Woodward, and one he left to his family. Twenty years after this, when our author was in the seventy-fourth year of his age, and his eye-sight so much decayed, that he was forced to make use of the hand of a friend, he added an appendix in defence of the Ewwv BacrimKti, against Dr. Walker, who was very well known to him, and of whom in that treatise he has given a very copious account. This piece of his is written with a good deal of asperity, occasioned chiefly by the frequency of scurrilous libels against the memory of Charles I. In 1694, being quite blind, and frequently afflicted with fits of the stone, he gave over practice, and dedicated the remainder of his life to the service of God, and the conversation of a few intimate friends, amongst whom was Dr. Busby, the celebrated master of Westminster-school. He died Sept. 4, the same year, in the eighty-sixth year of his age, and by his own. direction, was interred without any monument, as well as with great privacy, near the body of his dear wife, in the parish church of St. Faith’s, under St. Paul’s. He was a man of a very comely person, equally remarkable for the solidity of his learning, and for a wonderful readiness as well as elegance in expressing it. His piety was sincere, his reputation unspotted, his loyalty and his modesty most exemplary. In all stations of life he was admired and beloved, and of a chearful and serene mind in all situations. He was happy in the universal approbation of all parties, as he was himself charitable to all, and never vehement but in the cause of truth. He left behind him an only daughter, Mary, who married sir Ralph Dutton of Sherbounie in Dorsetshire, bart. The life of his brother was published, in Latin, 1721, 8vo, and in English, with an account of the writer, 1724. Mr. Hilkiah Bedford was editor of both.

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

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

, surnamed The Great, on account of his learning and piety, was born at Caesarea in Cappadocia, in. the year 326. He received the first part of his education under his father. He went afterwards and studied under the famous Libanius at Antiochia and Constantinople, and from thence to Athens, where he met with Gregory Nazianzen, with whom he had a very cordial intimacy. After finishing his studies, he returned to his native country in the year 355, and taught rhetoric. Some time after he travelled into Syria, Egypt, and Libya, to visit the monasteries of these countries; and the monastic life so much suited his disposition, that upon his return home he resolved to follow it, and became the first institutor of it in Pontus and Cappadocia. Eusebius bishop of Csesarea conferred the order of priesthood upon Basil, who soon after retired into his solitude, having had some misunderstanding with his bishop; but he came to a reconciliation with him about three years after, and his reputation was at length so great, that, upon the death of Eusebius, in the year 370, he was chosen his successor. It was with some difficulty that he accepted of this dignity; and no sooner was he raised to it, than the emperor Valens began to persecute him because he refused to embrace the doctrine of the Arians. Valens came twice to Ca?sarea, and finding he was not able to influence Basil, resolved to banish him from that place. He ceased at length, however, to molest Basil, who now began to use his utmost endeavours to bring about a re-union betwixt the eastern and western churches, then much divided about some points of faith, and in regard to Meletius and Paulinus, two bishops of Antioch. The western churches acknowledged Paulinus for the lawful bishop, and would have no communion with Meletius, who was supported by the eastern churches. But all his efforts were ineffectual, this dispute not being terminated till nine months after his death. Basil was likewise engaged in some contests relating to the division the emperor had made of Cappadocia into two provinces. Anthimus, bishop of Tayane, the metropolis of the new province, was desirous to extend his limits, which Basil opposed. They contested chiefly about a little village named Zazime. Basil, in order to preserve it in his jurisdiction, erected a bishopric, and gave it to his friend Gregory of Nazianzen, but Anthimus took possession before him; and Gregory, who loved peace, retired from thence. Basil had also some disputes with Eustathius, and was engaged in most of the controversies of his age. Calumny, malice, and the domineering power of Arianism afflicted him with various trials, in which his patience was unwearied; and as his body became enfeebled by increasing distempers, his mind seems to have collected more vigour. Finding himself rapidly declining, after he had governed the church of Csesarea eight years and some months, he ordained some of his followers, and was then obliged to take to his bed. The people flocked about his house, sensible of the value of such a pastor. For a time he discoursed piously to those about him, and sealed his last breath with the ejaculation, “Into thy hands I commend my spirit.” He died in the year 379. By studying the works of Origen, he contracted a taste for exposition by no means very perspicuous. It is more to be regretted that a man of such extensive learning and piety should have been so attached to the monastic spirit, the excessive austerities of which impaired his constitution. His doctrines are consequently clouded with superstitious mixtures, although it is evident that he held the essential articles of Christianity in the utmost reverence.

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

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

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

This doctrine, in point of morals, if we may credit the accounts of most ancient writers, was favourable to the lusts and passions of mankind, aud permitted the practice of all sorts of wickedness. But those whose testimonies are equally worthy of regard, give a quite different account of this teacher, ind represent him as recommending the practice of virtue and piety in the strongest manner, and as having condemned not only the actual commission of iniquity, but even every inward propensity of the mind to a vicious conduct. But in some respects he certainly gave offence to all real Christians. He affirmed it to be lawful for them to conceal their religion, to deny Christ, when their lives were in danger, and to partake of the feasts of the Gentiles that were instituted in consequence of the sacrifices offered to idols. He endeavoured also to diminish the character of those who suffered martyrdom for the cause of Christ, impiously maintaining, that they were heinous sinners than others, and that their sufferings were to be looked upon as a punishment inflicted upon them by the divine justice. He was led into this enormous error, by a notion that all the calamities of this life were of a penal nature. This rendered his principles greatly suspected: and the irregular lives of some of his disciples deemed to justify the unfavourable opinion that was entertained of their master. Bcausobre, in his history of Mahicheism, discusses these points with great candour. Basilides wrote many books, which are now lost. Clemens Alexandrinus, cites the 23d of his explications of the

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

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

His works are, 1. “Deoet Ecclesiae Sacrum; Sacrilege arraigned and condemned by St. Paul, Romans ii. 22,” Oxford, 1646, 4to, London, 1668, 3vo. 2. “Diatriba de antiqua Ecclesiae Britannicae libertate;” written on occasion of Chr. Justell’s intended Geographia Sacro-politica, but which was never published. It was found in the lord Hopton’s cabinet after his decease, by Richard Watson, an exile for his loyalty, who not only caused it to be printed at Bruges in 1656, 8vo, but also translated it into English, and published it under the title of “The ancient Liberty of the Britannic church, and the legitimate exemption thereof from the Roman patriarchate, discoursed on four positions, and asserted, &c.” 1661, 8vo. III. “The history of the English and Scotch Presbytery,” Loncl. 1659, 1660, 8vo.“4.” Oratio privata, boni Theologi (speciatim concionatoris practici) partes praecipuas complectens,“Lond. 1670, 8vo, inhalf a sheet. 5.” The dead man’s real speech being a sermon on Hebr. xi. 4. at the funeral of Dr. John Cosin, late bishop of Durham, 29th of April, 1672. Together with a brief (account) of the life, dignities, benefactions, principal actions and sufferings of the said bishop: And an Appendix of his profession and practice, and of his last will concerning religion." Lond. 1673, 8vo. Mr. Wood thinks he published some other things, but does not mention what they were.

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

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

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

, the first of a family of French Calvinists, celebrated for learning and piety, was the son of N. Basnage, minister of Norwich in England, and afterwards of Carentan in Normandy, and was born in 1580. After studying divinity, he succeeded his father as minister of Carentan, and remained in that sacred charge the whole of his life, although invited to Roan, and some other more considerable churches, and even permitted by the national synod of Charenton to change his situation. He used to say that his first church was his spouse, from which he ought not to be separated unless by death. At the abovementioned synod, he satin 1623, as deputy from the province of Normandy, but when named again in 1631, by the same province, the king forbad his going to the synod, and deprived him of his church, until the remonstrances of the assembly induced his majesty to restore him. In 1637, he presided as moderator of the national synod of Alenc.on, and contributed very essentially to preserve moderation during a crisis peculiarly important to the reformed church of France. In 1644, being chosen assistant moderator to the national synod of Charenton, he was deputed by them to the queen-dowager, who received him with marks of favour. He entered into the usual controversies with Lescrivain, Draconis, and other adherents of the church of Rome. His principal work, “Treatise on the Church,” printed at Rochelle in 1612, was much esteemed, and he left behind him, but in an imperfect state, a work against worshipping the Virgin Mary. He died in 1652, after having been in the ministry fifty-one years. He is frequentlymentioned in Quick’s Synodicum, having been deputed to king James I. and having gone to Scotland, where he served the churches in matters pertaining to their temporal interest. King James’s letter of leave styles him, “deputy from all the churches of France.”

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

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

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

It does not at all appear in what manner he spent the remainder of his life after he came back to Scotland; but it is certain he did not survive long, since his decease happened, as those who were well acquainted with him attest, in 1568. As to his learning, we are told by those who admired it most, it lay not in languages, of which, except his mother-tongue, he knew none thoroughly, though he spoke and taught in French, but in a very incorrect manner, and wrote much worse. He had very clear notions in most parts of his writings, and was far from being a contemptible astronomer, though the commendations bestowed on him by some authors very far surpass his deserts. He was too nauch tinctured with the superstition of the times, not to intermix a vast deal of false, and even ridiculous matter in his writings, on the virtuous aspects, and influences of the planets; yet in other respects he shews much good sense and industry, which render his works worth reading, and ought to secure both them and his memory from oblivion. As to his religion, he is reported to have been a zealous Protestant; and, with regard to his political principles, he is said to have adhered to the famous earl of Murray, then struggling for that power which he afterwards obtained. The works published by our author were: 1. “Astronomia, Jacobi Bassantini Scoti, opus absolutissimum,” &c. in which the observations of the most expert mathematicians on the heavens are digested into order and method, Latin and French, Geneva, 1599, fol. 2. “Paraphrase de l‘Astrolabe, avec une amplification de l’usage de l'astrolabe,” Lyons, 1555; and again at Paris, 1617, 8vo. 3. “Super mathematica genethliaca;” i. e. of the calculation of nativities. 4. “Arithmetical” 5. “Musica secundnm Platonem.” 6. “De Mathesi in genere.” The very titles of his works, joined to the age in which he flourished, sufficiently justify his right to a place in this work; and, though he might have foibles, yet, without doubt his practical skill was great, and the pains he took contributed not a little to bring in that accuracy and correctness in observations, which have effectually exploded those superstitions to which, with other great men, he was too much addicted.

, bishop of London in the reign of king Henry III, was brother of Gilbert Basset, one of the barons, who died by a fall from his horse, leaving behind him one only son, an infant, by whose death soon alter, the inheritance devolved to Fulk. In 1225, he was made provost of the collegiate church of St. John of Beverly, and in 1230, dean of York. In December 1241, he was elected by the chapter of London, bishop of that see, in the room of Roger Niger, both in regard of his family and his great virtues, and notwithstanding the king’s recommendation of Peter de Egueblanche, bishop of Hereford. The see of Canterbury being vacant at the time of this prelate’s election, he was not consecrated till the 9th of October, 1244, at which time the solemnity was performed at London in the church of the Holy Trinity. In the year 1250, bishop Basset began to have a warm dispute with archbishop Boniface, concerning the right of metropolitical visitation. The see of Canterbury had from the beginning an undoubted authority over all the churches of that province, received appeals, censured offenders, and occasionally exercised a jurisdiction over the bishops and canons of the cathedral churches. But hitherto solemn metropolitical visitations at stated times were not in use. Boniface was the first who introduced them, and loaded the bishops and chapters with a prodigious expence, under the name of procurations. On the 12th of May, 1250, be visited the bishop of London, and, being intolerably insolent, as well as avaricious, treated the good prelate with the grossest indignities, and most opprobrious language. Designing to visit the chapter of St. Paul’s, and the priory of St. Bartholomew, he was opposed by the canons of both places, alleging that they had a learned and diligent bishop, who was their proper visitor, and that they neither ought, nor would submit to any other visitatorial power. The archbishop on hearing this, excommunicated the canons, and involved the bishop, as favouring their obstinacy, in the same sentence. Both sides appealed to Rome, where the archbishop, supported by money and the royal favour, pleaded his cause in person; and, notwithstanding the English clergy, by their proctors, offered the pope four thousand marks to be exempted from the archiepiscopal visitation, he obtained a confirmation of his visitatorial power, with this restriction only, that he should be moderate in his demand of procurations.

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

In 1256, this prelate began to build the church of St. Faith, near St. Paul’s, on the spot which king John had formerly given to the bishops and chapter of London for a market. In the latter part of his life he is said to have inclined to the side of the barons. But we have only the authority of Matthew Paris for this, while bishop Godwin informs us that our other historians, who acknowledge Basset to have been a good man, and a wise, pious, and vigilant pastor, censure him for not joining the barons, but remaining faithful to his prince. He died of the plague in 1259, having sat near fifteen years from the time of his consecration, and was buried May 25, in St. Paul’s church. Bishop Basset founded two chantries in his cathedral church, near the altar of the blessed virgin, for himself and his father and mother. He also bequeathed to his church a golden apple, two rich chests for relics, some ecclesiastical vestments, and several books relating to church matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bastwick was alive in 1648, but when he died is uncertain. He appears to have been one of those turbulent lovers of popularity, who lose their fame by endeavouring to carry the principles of liberty into practice. He evidently quar^ relied with the leaders of some of the parties which arose out of the convulsions of the times, and was suffered to depart in obscurity. This is evident from the titles of the pamphlets he published, besides those above-mentioned, which were, 1. “Independency not God’s Ordinance;” to which H. Burton wrote an answer under this title “Viridicire Veritatis; truth vindicated against calumny. In a brief answer to Dr. Bastwick’s two late books, entitled `Independency not God’s Ordinance,'” Lond. 1645, 4to. 2. “The utter routing of the whole army of all the Independents and Sectaries, with the total overthrow of their monarchy.” 3. “Defence of Himself against Lilburn.”