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

, an eminent physician, was born at Maid’s Morton near Buckingham, 160S. At fourteen years of age he became one of the clerks of New college, in Oxford; from whence he was removed to Queen’s college, and afterwards to St. Edmund’s hall. When he had taken the degrees of bachelor and M. A. he entered on the study of physic; and having taken a bachelor’s degree in that faculty in 1629, he obtained a licence, and for some years practised in and about Oxford, chiefly amongst the Puritans, who at that time considered him as one of their party. In 1637 he took his degree of doctor in physic, and became so eminent in his profession, that when king Charles kept his court at Oxford, he was his principal physician. When the king’s affairs declined, Dr. Bate removed to London, where he accommodated himself so well to the times, that he became physician to the Charterhouse, fellow of the college of physicians, and afterwards principal physician to Oliver Cromwell, whom he is said to have highly flattered. Upon the restoration he got into favour with the royal parly, was made principal physician to the king, and fellow of the royal society; and this, we are told, was owing to a report raised on very slender foundation, and asserted only by his friends, that he gave the protector a dose which hastened his death. He died at his house in Hatton-garden, April 19, 1668, and not 1669, as in the Biog. Brit. and was buried at Kingstonupon-Thames.

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

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

, an English divine of the Hutchinsonian principles, was a younger son of the Rev. Richard Bate, vicar of Chilham and rector of Warehorn, who died in 1736. He was born about 1711, and matriculated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees, of B. A. 1730, and M. A. 1742. He was an intimate friend of the celebrated Hutchinson, as we learn from Mr. Spearman’s life of that remarkable author), by whose recommendation he obtained from Charles duke of Somerset a presentation to the living of Sutton in Sussex, near his seat at Petworth. Mr. Bate attended Hutchinson in his last illness (1737), and was by him in a most striking manner recommended to the protection of an intimate friend, “with a strict charge not to suffer his labours to become useless by neglect.” It having been reported that Hutchinson had recanted the publication of his writings to Dr. Mead a little before his death; that circumstance was flatly contradicted by a letter from Mr. Bate, dated Arundel, January 20, 1759. He died at Arundel, April 7, 1771. His evangelical principles of religion shone with a steady lustre, not only in his writings, but in his life. Disinterested, and disdaining the mean arts of ambition, he was contented with the small preferment he had in the church. As a Christian and a friend, he was humble and pious, tender, affectionate, and faithful; as a writer, warm, strenuous, and undaunted, in asserting the truth.

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

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

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

In 1772, he was advanced to the dignity of earl Bathurst. He lived to see his eldest surviving son, the second earl Bathurst (who died in 1794) several years chancellor of England, and promoted to the peerage by the title of baron Apsley. He died, after a few days illness, at his seat near Cirencester, Sept. 16, 1775, in his ninety-first year.

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

, one of the greatest painters of the last century, was born Feb. 5, 1708, at Lucca. His father, a goldsmith, devoted him to that art, to which he had but little inclination. It afforded him, however, occasion to exercise himself in drawing, and to exhibit his excellent talent for painting, and the first specimen of his skill which attracted notice was a golden cup of exquisite workmanship, which he executed so satisfactorily, that his capacity was thought to be far superior to the trade of a goldsmith: and, at the instance of his godfather Alexander Q,uinigi, several patriotic noblemen agreed to send him to the Roman academy of painting, at their common expence. We are told that until he had reached his seventh year, he was and deformed, and had not the power to turn his. head on either side without moving his whole body, and that throughout life his appearance was such as bespoke no extraordinary genius. When his friends took charge of his education as an artist, father Diversi, of the order of Philippines, and the abbe Fatinelli, envoy at Rome from the republic of Lucca, to whom he was recommended, took him to Sebastian Concha and Augustine Masucci, who were at that time the most renowned masters of the Roman school, that he might make choice of one of them for his tutor and guide. But the antiques, and Raphael’s works, from the very first, made so strong an impression on his mind, that he chose rather to avoid the modern manner, and form himself entirely on the old. The sensibility with which nature had endowed him, made him feel that there could be but one true manner in the practice of the art, and that none of the modern, which depart so far from the antique, could be the right. Accordingly, rejecting the advice of his masters, he devoted himself to the study of the antiques and the works of Raphael d'Urbino. How diligent he was in this practice is seen in the heads still in being, which he copied from the Dispute on the Sacrament, a copy of the school of Athens, painted in oil and not quite finished, and the various commissions he received from foreigners for drawings of the best originals.

As the excellency of Batoni was now decidedly confessed, he had frequent and advantageous orders. The learned prelate, and afterwards cardinal, Furietti, who had the direction of building the church of St. Celsus, gave him the picture of the high altar to execute, which Mengs held to be the purest and most ingenious of all his performances.

In the immaculate conception, which has been more than a thousand times a subject for painters, Batoni succeeded so well for the church of the Philippines at Chiari near Brescia, as to excite the attention and admiration of all good judges. His next piece was the story of Simon the magician for the church of St. Peter at Rome; and among his other most admired pictures we may notice the two great altar-pieces which he executed for the city of Brescia, whereof one represents St. Johannes Nepomucenus with Mary; and the other the offering of the latter; two others for the city of Lucca, one of St. Catherine of Siena, and the other of St. Bartholomew; another for Messina, of the apostle James; and for Parma, John preaching in the wilderness; as also the many scriptural pieces, and especially those which are so much admired in the summer-house in the papal gardens of Monte Cavallo; the chaste Susanna, in the possession of his heirs; the Hagar, in the collection of an English gentleman; the Prodigal son, in that of the cardinal duke of York; to which may be added, a multitude of pictures of the Virgin, of the holy family, and saints of both sexes, which he executed for private persons. He likewise acquired great fame by his Choice of Hercules, which he painted at first in the natural size, and afterwards smaller, for the Florentine Marchese Ginosi, as a companion to the Infant Hercules strangling the serpents. Not less animated and expressive is another picture of the same kind, in which, at the request of an English gentleman, he has depicted Bacchus and Ariadne. Another poetical fiction, which he has superiorly expressed, is in a painting that is still with his heirs. His intention was to delineate the cares and solicitudes of a blooming beauty. She lies sleeping on a magnificent couch: but her sleep is not so profound as to break off all correspondence between the mind and the senses; it is soft and benign, as usual when a pleasing dream employs the imagination. The effigies of Peace and War was one of his finest performances, and which he executed towards the latter end of his life. Mars, in complete armour, is rushing to the combat, sword in hand; an exceedingly beautiful virgin, who casts on him a look of sweetness and intreaty, at the same time presenting him with a branch of palm, places herself directly in his way.

As Batoni was accustomed to contemplate nature in all her changes and motions, he had acquired a wonderful facility in tracing out even the most imperceptible features of the human face, which betray the frame of mind and the character of the man. The portraits he drew during the long course of his life are not to be numbered: he had drawn not only the popes Benedict XIV. Clement XIII. and Pius VI. but almost all the great personages who visited Rome in his time, at their own particular request. When the emperor Joseph II. was at Rome in 1770, and was unexpectedly met by his brother the grand duke of Tuscany in that city, he was desirous that this meeting should be eternized on canvas by the ablest painter that could be found in Rome, and the emperor pitched upon Batoni for this purpose. The picture, when finished, so highly satisfied him, that he not only amply rewarded the master, but likewise presented him with a golden chain, to which was suspended a irudal with his portrait, and a snuff-box of gold. The late empress, mother of the two monarchs, augmented these presents by giving him a series of large golden medals, on which their principal achievements were struck, and a ring richly set with brilliants; and honoured him with a letter, in which she demanded that the likeness of her sons, which terminated at the knees, should be completed. Batoni finished the work accordingly, as is seen with universal admiration in the large copper-plates designed by himself, and engraved by Andrea Rossi. As an additional honour, Batoni, with all his male issue, were raised by the emperor to the rank of nobility, and he received from the empress a fresh commission, to paint her deceased husband, the emperor Francis, after a portrait executed at Vienna. He also here fully answered the expectation of her majesty, and, besides a suitable recompense, he received likewise the portrait of the emperor Francis, set round with large brilliants.

Batoni' s habitation was not only the chief residence of the Genius of painting at Rome, but her sister Music dwelt there in equal state. His amiable daughter Rufina, who was at too early an age snatched away by death, was one of the completest judges of vocal music in all Italy; and no person of quality came to Rome, who was not equally desirous of seeing the paintings of Batoni, and of hearing his daughters sing. Among these were also the grand duke of Russia and his duchess. He here saw an unfinished portrait of a nobleman belonging to his suite, which pleased him so much, that he gave him orders to paint his own. But, as the departure of the illustrious travellers was so very near, he set his hand to the work on the spot. In the few moments that were delightfully employed by the imperial guest in hearing the songs of the painter’s daughter, the artist himself was busy in sketching his picture with so striking a likeness, that the grand duchess too spared so much time from her urgent affairs in the last days of her stay, as to have her picture drawn.

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

, an English antiquary, was born at St. Edmund’s Bury, in Suffolk, in 1647. He was some time fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, and chaplain to archbishop Sancroft, afterwards, by his grace’s favour, rector of Adisham, in Kent, prebendary of Canterbury, and archdeacon of the diocese, and died Oct. 10, 1708. Dr. Thomas Terry, canon of Christ-church, Oxford, published Dr. Battely’s “Antiquitates Rutupinae,” in 1711, 8vo, a work composed in elegant Latin, in the form of a dialogue between the author and his two learned friends and brother chaplains, Dr. Henry Maurice, and Mr. Henry Wharton. The subject is the antient state of the Isle of Thanet. A second edition of the original was published in 1745, 4to, with the author’s “Antiquitates St. Edmondburgi,” an unfinished history of his native place, and its ancient monastery, down to the year 1272. This was published by his nephew, Oliver Battely, with an appendix also, and list of abbots, continued by sir James Burrough, late master of Caius college, Cambridge. The doctor’s papers are said, in the preface, to remain in the hands of his heirs, ready to be communicated to any who will undertake the work. In 1774, Mr. John Duncombe published a translation of the “Antiquitates Rutupinae,” under the title of “The Antiquities of Richborough and Reculver, abridged from the Latin of Mr. Archdeacon Battely,” Lond. 1774, 12mo. His brother Nicholas Battely, A. M. was editor of the improved edition of“Somner’s Antiquities of Canterbury,” and wrote some papers and accounts of Eastbridge hospital, in Canterbury, which are printed in Strype’s life of Whitgift.

And he, who lately in a learned freak

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

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

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

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

, professor of history in the university of Leyden, was born at Lisle, April 8, 1561. He began his studies at Aix la Chapelle, whether his parents, who were Protestants, had retired during the tyranny of the duke of Alva. He went afterwards to Leyden and Geneva, where he studied divinity: after residing here some time, he returned to Ghent, and again to Leyden, where he applied to the civil law, and was admitted elector of law, June 1585. Soon after, he accompanied the ambassadors from the states to England, and during his residence here became acquainted with several persons of distinction, particularly the famous sir Philip Sidney.

He was admitted advocate at the Hague, the 5th of Jarmary 1587; but being soon tired of the bar, went to France, where he remained ten years, and was much esteemed, acquiring both friends and patrons. Achilles de Harlai, first president of the parliament of Paris, got him to be admitted advocate of the parliament of Paris in 1592. In 1602, he went to England with Christopher de Harlai, the presidents son, who was sent ambassador thither by Henry the Great; and the same year, having been named professor of eloquence at Leyden, he settled in that university. He read lectures on history after the death of Morula, and was permitted also to do the same on the civil Jaw. In 1611, the states conferred upon him the office of historiographer in. conjunction with Meursius and in consequence thereof he wrote “The history of the Truce.” Baudius is an elegant prose-writer, as appears from his “Letters,” many of which were published after his death. He was also an excellent Latin poet: the first edition of his poems. was printed in 1587; they consist of verses of all the different measures: he published separately a book of iambics in 1591, dedicated to cardinal Bourbon. Some of his poems he dedicated to the king of England; others to the prince of Wales, in the edition of 1607, and went over to England to present them, where great respect was paid to him by several persons of rank and learning.

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

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

, in Latin Balduinus, a famous civilian, was born at Arras the first of January, 1520. He studied for six years in the university of Louvain, after which he was some time at the court of Charles V. with the marquis de Bergue, and then he went to France, where he gained the friendship of the most learned men, and among others of Charles du Moulin, at whose house he lodged. The curiosity of knowing the most famous ministers induced him to travel into Germany; where he became acquainted with Calvin at Geneva, Bucer at Strasburgh, and others of the reformed clergy. On his return to Paris he was invited to a professorship of civil law at Bourges, which office he filled for seven years with reputation enough to alarm the jealousy of his colleague Duarenus, and then went to Tubing, where he likewise intended to have taught civil law; but hearing that Du Moulin designed to return to that university, he remained at Strasburgh, and gave lectures for about a year. Thence he went to Heidelberg, and was professor of civil law and history near five years, until he was sent for by Anthony of Bourbon, king of Navarre, who made him preceptor to his natural son. About this time an idea was entertained of reconciling the Romish and Protestant churches, and Baudouin was recommended to the king of Navarre, as likely to promote such an attempt, which however did not succeed, and only served to involve Baudouin in disputes with the reformers, who saw at once the impracticability of the scheme, without injuring the reformation already successfully begun. Baudouin carried his pupil to Trent, but on the king of Navarre’s death, returned to France with him, and found his estate and library pillaged.

At this time, his old friend the marquis de Bergue, and several other lords of the low-countries, engaged Maximilian de Bergue, archbishop of Cambray, to procure Baudouin the professorship of civil law, intending to make use of his advice in affairs of state and religion; for they knevr that he was of opinion, that the laws against sectaries ought to be moderated. In consequence of this we find him next, professor of civil law m the university of Doway. He was very civilly received by the duke of Alva, who was then preparing his cruel proceedings for St. Bartholomew day; but, as he was afraid of being chosen one of the judges of those persons, whom they designed to put to death, he desired leave of absence under pretence of fetching his wife and his library thither; and having obtained it, he returned to Paris, where he read public lectures upon several passages of the Pandects with the applause of a large audience. He accepted the professorship of civrl law, which was offered him by the university of Bezancon; but understanding upon his going thither that the emperor had prohibited that university from erecting this pro-' fessorship, he refused to read any lectures, though he was solicited to it. He then returned to Paris, and agreeably to the advice of Philip de Hurault, which was to teach civil law in the university of Angers, he went thither, where he continued his lectures for four years, till the duke of Anjou, who was proclaimed king of Poland, sent for him to Paris at the time when the embassy from Poland was received there. He was designed for the professorship of civil law in the university of Cracow; and it is thought he would have attended the new king into that country, if death had not prevented him. He died in the college of Arras, at Paris, Oct. 24, 1573. Baudouin appears to have been of unsettled principles in religion. Affecting to be displeased with some things in popery, Calvinism, and Lutheranism, he allowed his mind to dwell on the hopes of forming a new sect out of them all. He was, however, a man of extensive learning and commanding eloquence, and often employed in political negociations, in the conduct of which he gave much satisfaction, yet it is supposed that he did not die rich, and it is certain that he never had any great preferments.

, a celebrated French geographer, was born at Paris the 28th of July, 1633. His father, Stephen Baudrand, was first deputy of the procurator-general of the court of aids, treasurer of France for Montauban, and master of the requests of his royal highness Gaston of France, and his mother’s name was Frances Caule. He began his studies in the year 1640. His inclination for geography was first noticed when he studied at the Jesuits college of Clermont under father Briet, who was famous for his geography, which was then printing, the proof sheets of which were corrected by our author. After he had finished his course of philosophy at the college of Lisieux under Mr. Desperier, cardinal Antonio Barberini took him as his secretary at Rome, and he was present with his eminence at the conclave, in which pope Alexander VII. was elected; and afterwards at thaHn which Clement IX. was chosen pope. Upon his return to France, he applied himself to the revisal of Ferrarius’s Geographical Dictionary, which he enlarged by one half, and published at Paris, 1671, fol. In the same year he attended the marquis of Dangeau, who was employed by the king in the management of his affairs in Germany, and also went to England with the duchess of York, who was afterwards queen of England. His travels were of great advantage to linn in furnishing him with a variety of observations in geography. He returned to France in 1677, and composed his geographical dictionary in Latin. In 1691 he attended the cardinal of Camus, who was bishop of Grenoble, to Rome, and went with him into the conclave on the 27th of March, where he continued three months ancha half, till the election of pope Innocent XII. on July 12th, the same year. Upon his return to Paris he applied himself to the completing of his French geographical dictionary, but he was prevented from publishing it by his death, which happened at Paris the 29th of May 1700. He had been prior of Rouvres and Neuf-Marche. He left all his books and papers to the Benedictine monks of the abbey of St. Germain des Prez.

, the first of a family of men of learning and fame, was born at Amiens, Aug. 24, 1511, and educated in the profession of medicine and surgery. In his eighteenth year he began practice as a surgeon, and acquired such reputation as to be frequently consulted by persons of the first rank; and queen Catherine of Navarre bestowed on him the title of her physician. His connections with the ct new heretics," as Moreri calls the Protestants, induced him to adopt their opinions. In 1532 he went to England, we are not told why, and practised there, for three years, after which he returned to Paris, and married; but having avowed his principles with boldness, and afforded assistance and protection to those of the reformed religion, he was thrown into prison in the reign of Francis I. and condemned to be burnt; but queen Margaret, who was sister to that prince, obtained his pardon and release, and appointed him her physician and surgeon in ordinary. Some time after, not thinking himself secure, even under her protection, he went to Antwerp and practised medicine, but even here the dread of the Spanish inquisition obliged him to retire to Germany, and at length he obtained an asylum at Basil, and for some time was corrector of the Froben press. He then resumed his profession, and was made assessor, and afterwards dean of the faculty. He died in 1582, leaving two sons, the subjects of the following articles.

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

, surnamed D'!Berville, professor of ecclesiastical history at Utrecht, was born at Rouen in 1639. His father, a Protestant and a man of opulence, had him educated with great care. He was first instructed in classical learning at Quevilli, a village near Rouen, where the Protestants had a college and church. Thence ne went to Saumur, where he learned Hebrew under Louis Cappel, and improved his knowledge of Latin and Greek under Tanaquil le Fevre, who was particularly attached to him, corresponded with him after he left Saumur, and dedicated to him one of his works. Bauldri also studied divinity in this university, and afterwards went to England, and resided some years at Oxford, passing most of his time in the Bodleian library, and becoming acquainted with Henry Justel, the king’s librarian, and Dr. Fell, bishop of Oxford. After having twice visited England, he returned to his own country, and gave himself up to study, enlarging his library by a judicious selection of valuable books. He brought from England an Arabian, with whom he studied that language. In 1682 he married, at Rouen, Magdalen Basnage, the daughter of Henry. After the revocation of the edict of Nantz, he intended to have taken refuge in England, but his friends and admirers in Holland invited him thither, and by their interest he was, in 1685, appointed professor of ecclesiastical history in the university of Utrecht. In 1692 he published, 1. A new edition of Lac ­tantius “De mortibus persecutorum,” with learned notes. He published also, 2. A new edition of Furetiere’s “Nouvelle allegorique, ou, Histoire des derniers troubles arrives au royaume d'eloquence,” Utrecht, 1703, 12mo. 3. “Critical remarks on the book of Job,” inserted in Basnage’s memoirs of the works of the learned, August 1696. 4. A letter on the same subject, July 1697, and some other dissertations in the literary journals. The states of Utrecht endeavoured to obtain for M. Bauldri the restitution of his property at the treaty of Ryswick, but did not succeed. He died at Utrecht, highly esteemed, Feb. 16, 1706.

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

In 1633, Mr. Wickstead persuaded him to lay aside his studies, and to think of making his fortune at court. Mr. Wickstead, we have said, was not a scholar, nor certainly a judge of character, when he fancied he saw the materials of a courtier in Richard Baxter’s mind. Baxter, however, who probably did not know what a courtier was, came to Whitehall, and was recommended to sir Henry Herbert, master of the revels, by whom he was very kindly received; but, in the space of a month, being tired of a court life, he returned to the country, where he resumed his studies, and Mr. Richard Foley of Stourbridge got him appointed master of the free-school at Dudley, with an assistant under him. During this time he imbibed many of those sentiments of piety, neither steady, nor systematic, which gave a peculiar bias to his future life and conduct, not only towards the church, but towards his brethren, the nonconformists. In 1638, he applied to the bishop of Winchester for orders, which he received, having at that time no scruples about conformity to the Church of England. The “Et caetera” oath was what first induced him to examine into this point. It was framed by the convocation then sitting, and all persons were thereby enjoined to swear, “That they would never consent to the alteration of the present government of the church by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, &c.” There were many persons who thought it hard to swear to the continuance of a church government which they disliked; and yet they would have concealed their thoughts, had not this oath, imposed under the penalty of expulsion, compelled them to speak. Others complained of the “Et caetera,” which they said contained they knew not what. Mr. Baxter studied the best books he could find upon this subject, the consequence of which was, that he utterly' disliked the oath.

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

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

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

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

, a brave and celebrated French officer, was born in 1476. The faroily name was Terrail, and Bayard the name of the castle in which he was born. The family of Terrail, now extinct, once held a very distinguished rank among the nobility of Dauphiny. It was one of the houses, which, in that province, were honoured with the name of the Scarlet Nobility, which served to distinguish the ancient nobility from those who were created by the letters patent of Louis XL which, when he invaded Dauphiny, he distributed witiiout distinction to whoever would purchase them. Although descended from a line of heroes, our chevalier eclipsed them all. His inclination for arms discovered itself very early, and an answer which he made to his father, when he was only thirteen years old, was a sufficient presage of his future achievements. His father asked him what kind of life he would chuse, to which he answered, that having derived from his ancestors an illustrious name, and the advantage of many shining examples of heroic virtue, he hoped he should at least be permitted to imitate them.

Bayard continued about six months in the service of the duke of Savoy, by whom he was then presented to Charles VIII. who sent him to the count de Ligny, of the imperial house of Luxembourg, that he might be brought up in his family. At the age of seventeen years he carried away all the honour of a tournament, which the lord of Vaudrey, one of the roughest knights of his time, held in the city of Lyons. In 1494, Charles VIII. resolved to assert his right to the crown of Naples, and therefore passed into Italy at the head of a numerous army, consisting of the prime nobility of his kingdom: so great an expedition, says Berville (from whom this article is taken) was never fitted out with so much speed, splendour, and success. The conquest, however, was almost as soon lost as gained. Charles, as he was returning to France with less than 10,000 men, was attacked near Fornoue by an army of six times the number. Upon this occasion he behaved with the greatest intrepidity, and gained a complete victory, and Bayard distinguished himself in an extraordinary manner. He took a standard from a party of fifty men, and presented it to the king, who rewarded him with a present of 500 crowns.

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

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

Bayard also made an expedition into Piedmont, where he took Prosper Colonnes, the pope’s lieutenant-general, prisoner. Chabannes, who was marshal of France, and Humbercourt and d‘Aubigny, two general officers, all much superior in rank to Bayard, gave up the honour of conducting the expedition to him, and served in it under his orders. But the defence of Mezieres completed the military reputation of this extraordinary man. This place was far from being in a condition to sustain a siege, and it had been resolved in a council of war to burn it, and ruin the adjacent country, that the enemy might find neither shelter nor subsistence. But Bayard opposed this resolution,­and told the king that no place was weak which had honest men to defend it. He then offered to undertake its defence, and engaged to give a good account of it. His proposal was accepted; and he went immediately and locked liimself up in the town. Two days after he had entered it, the count de Nassau, and capt.’ de Sickengen invested the place with 40,000 men. Bayard so animated his soldiers, sowed such dissention between the two generals who besieged him, and so effectually defeated all the attempts of the Imperialists, that in three weeks he obliged them to raise the siege, with the loss of many men, and without once making the assault. All France now resounded with the praises of Bayard: the king received him at Fervagues with caresses and encomiums of the most extraordinary kind: he created him a knight of his own order, and gave him, by way of distinction, a company of an hundred men armed in chief, which was scarce ever given but to princes of the blood.

In 1523, Bayard followed admiral Bonnivet into Italy, and, in a defeat which the French suffered near Re'oec m April 1524, he received a musket-shot in the reins, which broke the spinal bone. The moment he was struck he pronounced himself a dead man, kissed the guard of his sword, whicn had the figure of a cross, and recommended himself to God in prayer. He then ordered them to lay him under a tree, with his face towards the enemy, and to support his head by placing a stone under it, which he saw lying upon the ground. “Having never yet turned rny back upon an enemy,” said he, “I will not begin the last day of my life.” He desired the seigneur d'Alegre to tell the king that he should die contented because he died in his service, and that he regretted nothing but that with his life he should lose the power of serving him longer. He then made his military testament, and confessed himself. When the constable, Charles de Bourbon, who pursued the French army after the defeat, came up to the spot where Bayard was dying, he expressed his concern to see him in that condition. “Alas, captain Bayard, how sorry am I to see you thus! I have always loved and honoured you for your wisdom and valour, and I now sincerely pity your misfortune.” “Sir,” said Bayard, “I thank you; but there is no reason why you should pity me who die like an honest man in the service of my king, though there is great reason to pity you who are carrying arms against your prince, your country, and your oath.” The constable, far from taking offence at the freedom of Bayard’s address, endeavoured to justify himself by motives arising from the disgrace he had endured; but Bayard exhorted him, with a feeble and faltering voice, to reconcile himself to his sovereign, and quit the part which he had unjustly and precipitately taken, in obedience to the dictates of his passion. Bayard very soon after expired, in the forty-eighth year of his age, and was buried in the cathedral of Grenoble, with great funeral honours. Many anecdotes are told highly to the honour of Bayard’s courage, disinterested spirit, generosity, and presence of mind; but the religion so often attributed to him, seems to have consisted in a superstitious regard to forms and ceremonies; if, for example, before righting a duel, he heard mass, he was satisfied with the propriety of his conduct; but this, however, is to be attributed to the times in which he lived. His life was first written by Champier, Paris, 1525, 4to. 2. By one of his secretaries, 1619, 4to. 3. By Lazare Bocquiliot, prior of Louval, 1702, ISmoj and 4. by Guyard de BerviSle, 1760, 12mo, from which the present article is principally taken. A short, but well written memoir of him was published at London by the Rev. Joseph Stirling in 1781.

, grandson of the preceding, was born in 1694. He was first educated at Konigsburgh, where, besides philosophy and theology, he devoted much of his time to the study of the Oriental languages, under some rabbis, and under Dr. Abraham Wolff, professor of theology. In 1713 he began the study of the Chinese language, but his severe and uninterrupted application having injured his health, he was recommended to try change of air. With this view he went to Dantzic, to John Sartorius, professor of rhetoric, who was his maternal great-uncle, and as soon as he was able to return to Konigsburgh, he went through his disputation, and obtained a pension. Soon after, he went to Berlin, where M. Grabe, a privy-counsellor, assisted him with the means of prosecuting his studies, and there he formed an intimacy with de la Croze, Jablonski, des Vignoles, Chauvin, and many other learned men of the time. At Halle, professor Frank introduced him to Solomon Assadi, whose lessons removed many of the difficulties he had encountered in learning the Arabic; and M. Michaelis and Heineccius furnished him with much useful information respecting the Ethiopian and Greek churches. From Halle he went to Leipsic, where, in Feb. 1717, he was admitted to the degree of M. A. Here M. Sieber permitted him the free use of his fine library, and M. Goetze gave him access to the manuscripts of the public library, of which he made a catalogue. At the request of M. Mencke he drew up several curious articles for the Leipsic “Acta eruditorum,” particularly one on the triumphal arch of Trajan, another on the Malabaric new Testament, a third on the Coptic new Testament, &c. with all which Mencke was so well satisfied, as to make him very advantageous offers if he would consent to reside at Leipsic. The magistrates of Konigsburgh wrote to him at the same time, that if he wished to continue his travels, his expences should be defrayed; but the bad state of his health obliged him to return home. Recovering a little, he went to Wirtemberg and Berlin, where M. de la Croze gave him some lessons in the Coptic; and at Stettin he had the happiness to be admitted to inspect the Chinese collections made by Andrew Muller, which are preserved there. About the end of autumn 1717, having returned to Konigsburgh, the magistrates appointed him librarian, and in 1720 and 1721 he was chosen co-rector and pro-rector of the principal college. About the beginning of 1726, he was invited to Petersburgh to be professor of Greek and Roman antiquities. The same year he delivered some orations in the presence of the empress Catherine, who laid the foundation of the new academy, in honour of the coronation of Peter II. In 1730 the royal academy of Berlin enrolled him among its members. He was about to have retired to Konigsburgh, with his family, when he was attacked by a disorder which proved fatal, Feb. 21, 1738. Besides a number of philological and antiquary dissertations in the literary journals, he published, 1. “Museum Sinicum, in quo Sinicae Linguae et Literaturae ratio explicatur; item grammatica, lexicon, et diatribae Sinicce reperiuntur,” Petrop. 1730, 2 vols. 8vo. The first volume contains the grammar, the characters cut on numerous copperplates. The lexicon, in the second, is also on copperplates, with a Latin translation. This is a work of singular erudition, and the most perfect we have on the Chinese language. 2. “Historia regni Graecorum Bactriani,” ibid. 1738, 4to. 3. “Historia Osrhoena et Edessena ex nummis illustrata, in qua Edessae urbis, Osrhoeni regni, Abgarorum regum, &c. fata explicantur,” ib. 1734, 4to. Many of his academical dissertations were published by Christ. Adolphus Klotz, under the title of <c Opuscula ad historiam antiquam, chronologiam, geographiam, et rem nummariam spectantia," Halle, 1768, 8vo.

, father to the above, a gentleman of family in Anjou, was educated under Budoeus, and brought up to the profession of the bar. Happening, however, to go to Rome, he studied Greek under Musurus, a, learned Candiot, and pursued it with such pleasure and success, that on his return he determined to devote himself entirely to the study of classical and polite literature. From this design, however, he was partly diverted by Francis I. who being made acquainted with his merit, sent him, in 1531, as ambassador to Venice, where he remained near three years, and formed an intrigue with a lady of family in that place, by whom he had the subject of the preceding article. After his return to Paris he was made counsellor of parliament. In 1539 he was sent as ambassador to Germany, and about 1541 was appointed master of the requests. The abbeys also of Grenetiere and Charroux were bestowed upon him. Moreri says, that in 1547 he assisted at the funeral of Francis I. as one of the eight masters of the requests; but Saxius says that he died in 1545. In order to make his countrymen acquainted with the Greek drama, he published translations into French poetry, of the “Electra” of Sophocles, 1537, 8vo, and the “Hecuba” of Euripides, 1550, 12mo. His original works were principally, 1. “De re vestiaria liber,” Basil, 1526, 4to. 2. " Annotationes in Legem II. de captivis et postliminio reversis, in quibus tractatur tie re ttavali/' 1536, 4to, and often reprinted with the preceding work, as well as inserted in Groiiovius’ Thesaurus. He also translated some of Plutarch’s lives, but we do not find that they were published.

, a French writer who once made a great figure in the literary world, was born Nov. 18, 1647, at Carla, a small town in the county of Foix, the son of John Bayle, a Protestant minister. Peter gave early proofs of genius, which his father cultivated with the utmost care; he himself taught him the Latin and Greek languages, and sent him to the Protestant academy at Puylaurens in 1666. The same year, when upon a visit to his father, he applied so closely to his studies, that it brought upon him an illness which kept him at Carla above eighteen, months. On his recovery he returned to Puylaurens to prosecute his studies, and afterwards he went to Toulouse in 1669, where he attended the lectures in the Jesuits’ college. The controversial books which he read at Puylaurens raised several scruples in his mind in regard to the Protestant religion, and his doubts were increased by some disputes he had with a priest, who lodged in the same house with him at Toulouse. He thought the Protestant tenets were false, because he could not answer all the arguments raised against them; so that about a month after his arrival at Toulouse, he embraced the Roman catholic religion. This gave much uneasiness to all his relations, and Mr. Bertier, bishop of Rieux, rightly judging, that after this step young Bayle had no reason to expect any assistance from them, took upon him the charge of his maintenance. They piqued themselves much, at Toulouse, upon the acquisition of so promising a young man. When it came to his turn to defend theses publicly, the most distinguished persons of the clergy, parliament, and city, were present; so that there had hardly ever been seen in the university a more splendid and numerous audience. The theses were dedicated to the Virgin, and adorned with her picture, which was ornamented with several emblematical figures, representing the conversion of the respondent.

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

“I have received your excuses, and am willing you should know by this letter, that I am satisfied with them. I am obliged to the zeal of the person, who gave you occasion of writing to me; for I am very glad to know you. You express so much respect and affection for me, that I pardon you sincerely; and I would have you know, that nothing gave me offence but that ' remainder of protestantism, 7 of which you accused me. I am very delicate on that head, because nobody can suspect me of it, without lessening my glory, and injuring me in the most sensible manner. You would do well, if you should even acquaint the public with the mistake you have made, and with your regret for it. This is all that remains to be done by you, in order to deserve my being entirely satisfied with you. ”As to the letter which you have sent me, it is mine without doubt and since you tell me that it is printed, you will do me a pleasure if you send me some copies of Jt. As I fear nothing in France, so neither do I fear any thing at Rome. My fortune, my blood, and even my life, are entirely devoted to the service of the church; but I flatter nobody, and will never speak any thing but the truth. I am obliged to those who have been pleased to publish my letter; for I do not at all disguise my sentiments. I thank God, they are too noble and too honourable to be disowned. However, it is not true, that this letter was written to one of my ministers. As I have every where enemies, and persons who envy me, so I in all places have friends and servants; and I have possibly as many in France, notwithstanding the court, as any where in the world. This is purely the truth, and you may regulate yourself accordingly.

It now only remained that Mr. Bayle should acquaint the public with the mistake he had made, and his regret for it, in order to merit that princess’s entire satisfaction. This he did in his Journal of January, 1687. “We have been informed, to our incredible satisfaction,” says he, “that the queen of Sweden having seen the ninth article of the Journal of August, 1686, has been pleased to be satisfied with the explanation we gave there. Properly, it was only the words f remainder of protestanism,' which had the misfortune to offend her majesty; for, as her majesty is very delicate on that subject, and desires that all the world should know, that after having carefully examined the different religions, she had found none to be true but the Roman catholic, and that she has heartily embraced it; it was injurious to her glory to give occasion for the least suspicion of her sincerity. We are therefore very sorry that we have made use of an expression, which has been understood in a sense so very different from our intention; and we would have been very far from making use of it, if we had foreseen that it was liable to any ambiguity: for, besides the respect which, we, together with all the world, owe to so great a queen, who has been the admiration of the universe from her earliest days, we join with the utmost zeal in that particular obligation which all men of letters are under to do her homage, because of the honour she has done the sciences, by being pleased thoroughly to examine their beauties, and to protect them in a distinguishing manner.”

The persecution which the protestants at this time suffered in France affected Mr. Bayle extremely. He made occasionally some reflections on their sufferings in his Journal; and he wrote a pamphlet also on the subject. Some time after he published his “Commentaire philosophique,” upon these words, “Compel them to come in;” against compulsion in matters of religion; but the great application he gave to this and his other works, threw him into a fit of sickness, which obliged him to discontinue his Literary Journal. Being advised to try a change of air, he left Rotterdam, and went to Cleves;, whence, after having continued some time, he removed to Aix la Chapelle, and thenct? returned to Rotterdam. In 1690, the famous book, entitled, “Avis aux Refugiez,” &c. made its appearance: Mr. Jurieu, who took Mr. Bayle for the author, wrote a piece against it, and prefixed an advice to the public, wherein he calls Mr. Bayle a profane person, and a traitor engaged in a conspiracy against the state. As soon as Mr. Bayle had read this accusation, he went to the grand schout of Rotterdam, and offered to go to prison, provided his accuser would accompany him, and undergo the punishment he deserved, if the accusation was found unjust. He published also an answer to Mr. Jurieu’s charge; and as his reputation, and even his life was at stake, in case the accusation of treason was proved, he therefore thought himself not obliged to keep any terms with his accuser, and attacked him with the utmost severity. Mr. Jurieu applied to the magistrates of Amsterdam, who advised him to a reconciliation with Mr. Bayle, and enjoined them not to publish any thing against each other till it was examined by Mr. Boyer, the pensioner of Rotterdam.But, notwithstanding this prohibition, Mr. Jurieu attacked Mr. Bayle again, and drew from him to write a new vindication of his character and principles.

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

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

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

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

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

The works above mentioned occasioned the following answers; “A vindication of the Protestant Religion against the marquis of Worcester’s last papers. By Christ Cartwright, JLond. 1652, 4to.” An answer to the marquis of Worcester’s papers relating to king Charles I.“by L'Esstrange, Load. 1651, 8vo.” Answer to Dr. Bayly’s Challenge,“an imperfect work, by Rob. Sanderson.” Animadversions on Certamen Religiosum, &c. by Peter Hey1m, who in 1649, 1650, and 1659, published a collection of papers entitled “Bibliotheca Regia.” In this, says Wood, is inserted the conference between king Charles I. and the marquis of Worcester at Ragland, which is by many taken to be authentic, because published by Heylin.

Dr. Bayly’s name is likewise to a well-known “Life of bishop Fisher,” which is said to have been the production of Richard Hall, D.D. of Christ church, Cambridge, and afterwards canon and official of the cathedral church of St. Omer’s, where he died in 1604. The manuscript, after his death, came into the possession of the English monks of Dieulwart, in Lorrain; from whence a copy fell into the hands of one Mr. West, who presented it to Francis a St. Clara, alias Francis Davenport, a Franciscan friar. Davenport gave it to sir Wingfield Bodenham, who put it into the hands of Dr. Bayly. The doctor read it, took a copy of it, and sold it to a bookseller who published it with Dr. Bayly’s name. — Such is the account Wood gives, and in which he is followed by Dodd, on which we have only to remark that this life is preceded by a dedication signed with the doctor’s initials, and avowing himself to be the author.

, a learned English lady, the only daughter of Dr. Edward Baynard, a gentleman of an ancient family, and an eminent physician in London, was born at Preston, in Lancashire, in 1672. Her father, who discovered her early capacity, bestowed great care on her education, and was rewarded by the extraordinary proficiency she made in various branches of learning not usual with her sex^ She? was well acquainted with philosophy, mathematics, and physics. She was also familiar with the writings of the ancients in their original languages. At the age of twentythree she had the knowledge of a profound philosopher, and in metaphysical learning was a nervous and subtle disputant. She took great pains with the Greek language, that she might read in their native purity the works of St. Chrysostom. Her Latin compositions, which were various, were written in a pure and elegant style. She possessed an acute and comprehensive mind, an ardent thirst of knowledge, and a retentive memory. She was accustomed to declare, “that it was a sin to be content with a little knowledge.” To theendowments of the mind she added the virtues of the heart she was modest, humble, and benevolent, exemplary in her whole conduct, and in every relative duty. She was pious and constant in her devotions, both public and private; beneficent to the poor; simple in her manners; retired, and rigid in her notions and habits. It was her custom to lay aside a certain portion of her income, which was not large, for charitable uses; to this she added an ardent desire and strenuous efforts for the mental and moral improvement of those within her circle and influence. About two years previous to her death, she seems to have been impressed with an idea of her early dissolution which first suggested itself to her mind while walking alone among the tombs, in a church-yard and which she indulged with much complacency. On her death-bed she earnestly entreated the minister who attended her, that he would exhort all the young people of his congregation to the study of wisdom and knowledge, as the means of moral improvement and real happiness. “I could wish,” says she, “that all young persons might be exhorted to the practice of virtue, and to increase their knowledge by the study of philosophy; and especially to read the great book of nature, therein they may see the wisdom and power of the Creator, in the order of the universe, and in the production and preservation of all things.” “That vr omen are capably of such improvements, which will better their judgments and understandings, in past all doubt, would they but set sjbout it in earnest, and spend but half of that time in study thinking) which they do in visits, vanity, and folly. It would introduce a composure of mind, and lay a solid basis for wisdom and knowledge, by which they would be better enabled to serve God, and to help their neighbours.” These particulars are taken from her funeral sermon, preached at Barnes, where she died in her 25th year, June 12, 1697, by the rev. John Prade, and reprinted in that useful collection of such documents, “Wilford’s Memorials.” She was interred at the East end of the churchyard of Barnes, with a monument and inscription, of which no traces are now to be found, but the inscription is preserved in Aubrey.

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

, an eminent physician, and professor of music at Gresham-college, in London, was born about the year 1622, and educated at Christ’s college, in Cambridge, under the tuition of the learned Dr. Henry More, where he took the degree of B. A. about the year 1642. In 1649, he took the degree of M. A. and commenced the study of physic. He went into Italy in company with Mr. Finch (afterwards sir John), with whom he had contracted the strictest friendship; and at Padua they were both created doctors of physic. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. in 1660, Mr. Baynes and Mr. Finch returned into England, and the same year were created doctors of physic at Cambridge. On the 26th of February following, Mr. Baynes, together with sir John Finch, was admitted a fellow extraordinary, i. e. one bey.ond the then limited number, of the college of physicians of London. Dr. Petty having resigned his professorshjp of music in Gresham-coilege, Dr. Baynes was chosen to succeed him, the 8th of March, 1660; and the 26th of June following, he and his friend sir John Finch were admitted graduates in physic at Cambridge, in pursuance of the grace passed in their favour the year before. In March 1663, they were elected F. K. S. upon the first choice made by the council, after the grant of their charter, of which they had been members before; and May 15, 1661, had, with several others, been nominated a committee for a library at Gresham college, and for examining of the generation of insects. In March 1664, Dr. Baynes accompanied sir John Finch to Florence, where that gentleman was appointed his majesty’s resident, and returned back with him into England in 1670. Towards the end of the year 1672, sir John being appointed the king’s ambassador to the grand signer, Dr. Baynes was ordered to attend him as his physician, and before he left England, received from his majesty the honour of knighthood.' Nine years after, sir Thomas still continuing in Turkey, the Gresham committee Cound it necessary to supply his professorship, by chusing Mr. William Perry in his room, but of this he never heard, as he died at Constantinople about a month after, Sept. 5, 1681, to the inexpressible grief of his affectionate friend, sir John Finch, who died Nov. 18, 1682, and according to his own desire, was interred at Cambridge, in the chapel of Christ’s college, whither the remains of sir Thomas had been brought. Dr. Henry More inscribed a long epitaph to their memories, commemorating their many virtues and steady friendship. They jointly left four thousand pounds to that college, by which two fellowships and two scholarships were fouuded, and an addition made to the master’s income. Sir John was supposed to have paid most of the money, though he was willing that sir Thomas should share with him in the honour of this donation, as in all his other laudable actions. This instance of a long and inviolably mutual attachment, may be added to the histories of human friendship, which are so rare, and so gratifying when they do occur. Is it not probable that these two gentlemen imbibed something of the noble enthusiasm they were inspired with from tljeir tutor, Dr. Henry More; who was a man of the warmest and most generous affections, and a great adept in the Platonic philosophy?

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

a physician at Strasburgh, who died in May 1754, was not more esteemed for his successful practice, than for his knowledge of botany and natural history. In his pursuit of these studies, he published: 1. “Observations sur les Plantes,” Strasburgh, 1741, 8vo. 2. “Traite de Taccroissement des Plantes,” 1745, 8vo. 3. “Histoire des Abeilles,” Paris, 1744, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Lettre sur le Polypes,” 1745, 12mo. 5. “Abrege” de Phistoire des Insectes," Paris, 1747, 2 vols. 12mo, an excellent abridgment of Reaumur.

, engraver, and letter-founder, was born at Troyes, in 1525, son of Guilleaume le Be, a noble bourgeois, and Magdalen de St. Aubin. Being brought up in the house of Robert Stephens, whom his father supplied with paper, he got an insight into the composition of the types of that famous printing-house. He afterwards, by order of Francis I. made those beautiful oriental types which Robert Stephens used; and Philip II. employed him to prepare those with which his Bible of Antwerp was printed. In 1545 le B6 took a journey to Venice, and there cut for Mark Anthony Justiniani, who had raised a Hebrew printing-house, the punches necessary to the casting of the founts to be employed in that establishment. Being returned to Paris, he there practised his art till 1598, the year of his decease. Casaubon speaks of him highly to his credit in his preface to the Opuscula of Scaliger. Henry le Be, his son, was a printer at Paris, where he gave in 1581, a quarto edition of the “Institutiones Clenardi Gr.” This book, which was of great utility to the authors of the “Methode Grecque” of Port-royal, is a master-piece in printing. His sons and his grandsons signalised themselves in the same art. The last of them died in 1685.

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

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

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

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

Beaton, though at this time only coadjutor of St. Andrew’s, yet had all the power and authority of the archbishop; and in order to strengthen the catholic interest in Scotland, pope Paul III. raised him to a cardinalship, by the title of St. Stephen in Monte Ccelo, Dec. 20, 1538. King Henry VIII. having intelligence of the ends proposed! by the pope in creating him a cardinal, sent a very able ^minister to king James, with particular instructions for a deep scheme to procure the cardinal’s disgrace; but it did not take effect. A few months after, the old archbishop flying, the cardinal succeeded: and it was upon this promotion that he began to shew his warm and persecuting zeal for the church of Rome. Soon after his instalment, Jie got together, in the cathedral of St. Andrew’s, a great confluence of persons of the first rank, both clergy and laity; to whom, from a throne erected for the purpose, he made a speech, representing to them the danger wherewith tha church was threatened by the increase of heretics, who had the boldness to profess their opinions even in the king’scourt; where, said he, they find but too great countenance: and he mentioned by name sir John Borthwicl:, whom he had caused to be cited to that diet, for dispersing heretical books, ^nd holding several opinions contrary to the doctrine of the Roman church. Then the articles of accusation were read against him, and sir John appearing neither in person nor by proxy, was declared a heretic, his goodsconfiscated, and himself burnt in effigy. Sir John retired to England, where he was kindly received by king Henry, who seat him into Germany, in his name, to conclude a treaty with the protestant princes of the empire. Sir John Borthwick was not the^only person proceeded against for heresy; several others were also prosecuted, and among the rest, George Buchanan, the celebrated poet and historian: and as the king left all to the management of the cardinal, it is difficult to say to what lengths such a furious zealot might have gone, had not the king’s death put a stop to his arbitrary proceedings.

When the king died, there being none so near him as the cardinal, it was suggested by his enemies that he forged his will; and it was set aside, notwithstanding he had it proclaimed at the cross of Edinburgh, in order to establish the regency in the earls of Argyle, Huntley, Arran, and himself. He was expressly excluded from the government, and the earl of Arran was declared sole regent during the minority of queen Mary. This was chiefly effected by the noblemen in the English interest, who, after having-sent the cardinal prisoner to Blackness-castle, managed the public affairs as they pleased. Things did not remain long, however, in this situation for the ambitious enterprising“cardinal, though confined, raised so strong a party, that the regent, not knowing how to proceed, began to dislike his former system, and having at length resolved to abandon it, released the cardinal, and became reconciled to him. Upon the young” queen’s coronation, the cardinal was again admitted of the council, and had the high office of chancellor conferred upon him; and such was now his influence with the regent, that he got him to solicit the court of Rome to appoint him legate a latere from the pope, which was accordingly done.

His authority being now firmly established, he began again to promote the popish cause with his utmost efforts. Towards the end of 1545 he visited some parts of his diocese, attended with the lord governor, and others of the nobility, and ordered several persons to be executed for heresy. In 1546 he summoned a provincial assembly of the clergy at the Black friars in Edinburgh, in order to concert measures for restraining heresy. How far they proceeded is uncertain; but it is generally allowed that the cardinal was diverted from the purposes he had then in hand, by information he received of Mr. George Wisbart, the most famous protestant preacher in Scotland, being at the house of Mr. Cockburn at Ormiston. The cardinal, by an order from the governor, which was indeed with difficulty obtained, caused him to be apprehended. He was for some time confined in the castle of Edinburgh, and removed from thence to the castle of St. Andrew’s. The cardinal, having resolved to proceed without delay to his trial, summoned the prelates to St. Andrew’s. At this meeting the archbishop of Glasgow gave as his opinion, that application should be made to the governor, to grant a commission to some nobleman to try so famous a prisoner, that the whole blame might not lie upon the clergy. He was accordingly applied to; and notwithstanding his refusal, and his message to the cardinal, not to precipitate his trial, and notwithstanding Mr. Wishart’s appeal, as being the governor’s prisoner, to a temporal jurisdiction; yet the furious prelate went on with the trial, and this innocent gentleman was condemned to be burnt at St. Andrew’s. He died with amazing firmness and resolution: and it is averred by some writers, that he prophesied in the midst of the flames, not only the approaching death of the cardinal, but the circumstances alsa that should attend it. Buchanan’s account is as follows: After relating the manner in which Mr. Wishart spent the morning of his execution, he proceeds thus: “A while after two executioners were sent to him by the cardinal; one of them put a black linen shirt upon him, and the other bound many little bags of gun-powder to all the parts of his body. In this dress they brought him forth, and commanded him to stay in the governor’s outer chamber, and at the same time they erected a wooden scaffold in the court before the castle, and made up a pile of wood. The windows and balconies over against it were all hung with tapestry and silk hangings, with cushions for the cardinal and his train, to behold and take pleasure in the joyful sight, even the torture of an innocent man; thus courting the favour of the people as the author of so notable a deed. There was also a great guard of soldiers, not so much to secure the execution, as for a vain ostentation of power and beside, brass guns were placed up and down in all convenient places of the castle. Thus, while the trumpets sounded, George was brought forth, mounted the scaffold, and was fastened with a cord to the stake, and having scarce leave to pray for the church of God, the executioners fired the wood, which immediately taking hold of the powder that was tied about him, blew it up into flame and smoke. The governor of the castle, who stood so near that he was singed with the flame, exhorted him in a few words to be of good cheer, and to askpardon of God for his offences. To whom he replied, ` This flame occasions trouble to my body indeed, but it hath in no wise broken my spirit; but he, who now looks down so proudly upon me from yonder lofty place (pointing to the cardinal) shall ere long be as ignominiously thrown down, as now he proudly lolls at his ease.' Having thus spoken, they straitened the rope which was tied about his neck, and so strangled him; his body in a few hours being consumed to ashes in the flame.”

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

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

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

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

In the promotion of learning, he shewed a real concern, by founding the New-college in the university of St. Andrew’s, which he did not live to finish, and to which, though he left the best part of his estate, yet after his death it was misapplied, and did not come, as he intended, to that foundation. One of the last acts of his life was the being present at the baptism of the young prince, born at St. Andrew’s the very year in which he died. His nephew Dieted for several years as his co-adjutor, and had the whole management of affairs in his hands; but the king retained to the last so great an affection for the archbishop, that he allowed him to dispose of all his preferments, by which means, his relation, George Drury, obtained the rich abbey of Dumferline, and one Mr. Hamilton, of the house of Roplock, became Abbot of Killwinning. Our archbishop deceased in 1539, and was interred in the cathedral church of St. Andrew’s before the high altar. He enjoyed the primacy of Scotland sixteen years, and his character is very differently represented, according to the dispositions of those who have mentioned him in their writings; but upon the whole more favourably than that of his nephew, the cardinal.

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

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

, LL. D. an eminent philosopher, critic, and poet, was born at Laurencekirk, in the county of Kincardine, Scotland, on the 25th day of October, 1735. His father, who was a farmer of no considerable rank, is said to have had a turn for reading and fur versifying; but, as he died in 1742, when his son was only seven years of age, could have had no great share in forming his mind. James was sent early to the only school his birth-place afforded, where he passed his time under the instructions of a tutor named Milne, whoin he used to represent as a “good grammarian, and tolerably skilled in the Latin language, but destitute of taste, as well as of some other qualifications essential to a good teacher.” He is said to have preferred Ovid as a school-author, whom Mr. Beattie afterwards gladly exchanged for Virgil. Virgil he had been accustomed to read with great delight in Ogi ivy’s and Dryden'g translations, as he did Homer in that of Pope; and these, with Thomson’s Seasons, and Milton’s Paradise Lost, of all which he was very early fond, probably gave him that taste for poetry which he afterwards cultivated with so much success. He was already, according to his biographer, inclined to making verses, and among his schoolfellows went by the name of The Poet.

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

In 1753, having gone through every preparatory course of study, he took the degree of M. A. and had now technically finished his education. Having hitherto been supported by the generous kindness of an elder brother, he wished to exonerate his family from any further burden. With this laudable view, there being a vacancy for the office of school-master and parish-clerk to the parish of Fordoun, adjoining to Laurencekirk, he accepted the appointment, August 1, 1753; but this was neither suited to his disposition, nor advantageous to his progress in life. He obtained in this place, however, a few friends, particularly lord Gardenstown and lord Monboddo, who honoured him with encouraging notice; and his imagination was delighted by the beautiful and sublime scenery of the place, which he appears to have contemplated with the eye of a poet. His leisure hours he employed on some poetical attempts, which, as they were published in the “Scots Magazine,” with his initials, and sometimes with his place of abode, must have contributed to make him yet better known and respected.

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

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

Among other marks of respect, the university of Oxford conferred the degree of LL.D. on the author*, and on his second arrival in London he was most graciously received by his Majesty, who not only bestowed a pension on him, but admitted him to the honour of a private conference. Many years after, when Dr. Beattie went to pay his respects to his Majesty, he was still received with every mark of royal condescension and kindness.

The Essays added to this volume, and which he afterwards printed separately in 8vo, were “On Poetry and Music” on “Laughter and ludicrous Composition and” on the utility of Classical Learning." They were written many years before publication, and besides being read in the private literary society already mentioned, had been submitted to the judgment of his learned friends in England, who recommended them to the press.

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

After the loss of this amiable youth, who, in 1787, had

Her date. “Although it did not, for a till, at last, it unquestionably oonlriconsiderable time, breakout into open buted to bring him to his grave.” insanity, yet in a few years after their been appointed successor to his father, and had occasionally lectured in the professor’s chair, Dr. Beattie resumed that employment himself, and continued it, although with intervals of sickness and depression, until the unexpected death of his second and last child, in 1796. His hopes of a successor, of his name and family, had probably been revived in this youth, who exhibited many proofs of early genius, and for some time before his death had prosecuted his studies with great assiduity. But here too he was compelled again to subscribe to the uncertainty of all human prospects. From this period he began to withdraw from society, and brooded over the sorrows of his family, until they overpowered his feelings, and abstracted him from all the comforts of friendship and all power of consolation. Of the state of his mind, sir William Forbes has given an instance so extremely affecting, that no apology can be necessary for introducing it here.

, first professor of rhetoric in the college of the Grassins, and afterwards professor in the college-royal, secretary to the duke of Orleans, perpetual secretary and pensionary of the academy of inscriptions, was born at Paris, Oct. 19, 1701 (Saxius says 1709), and died in that city, March 13, 1778. He was married, and left only one daughter. This honest and laborious academician, the rival of Rollin in the art of teaching, idolized by his scholars, as that famous professor was, had perhaps a more extensive fund of learning, and particularly in Greek and Latin literature. His history of the Lower Empire, in 22 vols. 12mo, 1757, forming a continuation of Crevier’s History of the Emperors, is the more esteemed, as in the composition of it he had many difficulties to overcome, in reconciling contradictory writers, rilling up chasms, and forming a regular body out of a heap of mishapen ruins. It is strongly characterized by a judicious series of criticism, couched in a polished and elegant style. The logician sometimes appears too conspicuously; but in general it is read with pleasure and profit. The first volume of an English translation of this work was published in 1770, but, we believe, not continued. The memoirs of the academy of belles lettres are enriched with several learned dissertations by the same author, particularly on medals, on the Roman legion, on the Roman art of war, and thirty-four biographical eloges, distinguished for truth and impartiality. The religious sentiments, the sound principles, the sweetness of manners, and the inviolable integrity of M. le Beau, which inspired his friends and disciples with so much attachment to him when alive, occasioned them to feel a long and lasting regret at his departure. Several little anecdotes might here be related that do honour to his heart. A place in the academy of bt-iles lettres had been designed for him. Bougainville, the translator of the Anti-Lucretius, who applied for it, with fewer pretensions, and a less consummate knowledge, dreaded such a formidable competitor as M. le Beau, to whom, however, from his known character, he was not deterred from making his wishes known. The professor felt for his embarrassment, and hastened to the friends who had promised him their votes, desiring they might be transferred to the young student. “It is one of the smallest sacrifices,” said he, “1 should be ready to make in order to oblige a man of merit.' 1 M. le Beau was received at the election following; and M. Capperonier, surprised at his extensive erudition, and affected by his generosity, exclaimed,” He is our master in all things!“On another occasion, when highly praised for his acquisitions, he said,” I know enough to be ashamed that I knowno more." Thierrat published Le Beau’s Latin works, Paris, 1782, 2 vols. 8vo, consisting of orations, poetry, ancj fables; -the last inferior to his other productions.

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

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

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

There was another of the same name, a monk of St. Alban’s; who left behind him a collection of some treatises that are of no great value. They are extant in the king’s library.

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

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

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

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

When the American war took place, Beaumarchais speculated in supplying the Americans with arms, ammunition, &c. and although some of his ships were taken by the English, he was so successful with the rest as to realize a considerable fortune, and built a magnificent house in the Faubourg St. Antoine. He was planning the construction of a bridge over the Seine, when the revolution intervened to oppose his projects, and although he was one of those who had contributed to the public stock of discontent, he never became popular with the revolutionists. In 1792,. having signed a contract with the war minister, to furnish 60,000 musquets, which he was to procure from Holland, and not having delivered one, although he had received 500,000 francs in advance, the people accused him of forming a depot of them in his house on the Boulevard, and he was imprisoned for a time, but released, after which he took refuge in England. In 1794 he returned to Paris, and began to collect the remains of his fortune, but dissipated the principal part in a speculation on salt. In May 1799, he died of an apoplectic stroke, after a life of bustle and intrigue, and divided between literature and business. His countrymen do not represent his character in the most amiable light: his morals were not of the purest species, and his more favourable personal accomplishments were obscured by a self-conceit, and a love of talking about and praising himself, which he could never repress. It was said that if he had been ordered to be hanged, he would have requested a gallows as high as Hainan’s, that he might be more conspicuous.

He had seven sons and four daughters. Of his sons, the most noticeable were, John, his successor, the editor of his father’s poems, and himselfa minor poet Francis, the author of some verses on his father’s poems, who became afterwards a Jesuit; Gervase, who died at seven years old, and was lamented by his father in some very pathetic verses, in the late edition of the English poets; and Thomas, the third baronet. Sir John, who succeeded his father, is recorded as a man of prodigious bodily strength. He was killed in 1644 at the siege of Gloucester, and dying unmarried, was succeeded in title by his brother Thomas, who, like him, was plundered by the republicans.

, third son of Francis, the judge, was born at Grace-Dieu, in Leicestershire, 1586; and in the beginning of Lent term 1596, was admitted (with his two brothers Henry and John) a gentleman commoner of Broadgate’s-hall, now Pembroke-college, Oxford. Anthony Wood, who refers his education to Cambridge, mistakes him for his cousin Francis, master of the Charterhouse, who died in 1624. It is remarkable, that there were four Francis Beaumonts of this family, all living in 1615, and of these at least three were poetical the master of the Charter-house, the dramatic writer, and Francis Beaumont, a Jesuit.

Our poet studied for some time in the Inner Temple, and his “Mask of the Inner Temple and Gray’s-inn,” was acted and printed in 1612-13, when he was in his twenty-sixth year. His application to the law was probably not very intense, nor indeed is it possible to conceive that be could have been preparing for the practice of the bar, and producing his poems and plays within the limits of a life not exceeding thirty years. He appears to have devoted himself to the dramatic muse from a very early period; but at what time he commenced a partnership with Fletcher, who was ten years older, is not known. The date of their first play is 1607, when Beaumont was in his twenty-first year; and it was probably acted some time before. He brought, however, into this firm a genius uncommonly fertile and commanding. In all the editions of their plays, and in every notice of their 4 joint productions, notwithstanding Fletcher’s seniority, the name of Beaumont always stands first.

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

, D. D. master of Peter-house, Cambridge, and king’s professor of divinity, was a descendant of the ancient family of Beaumont in Leicestershire. His father, who died in 16 53, had been a woollen manufacturer at Hadleigh in Suffolk, where our author, his eldest son, was born March 13, 1615. His father, who discovered in him a turn for letters, placed him at the grammar school of his native place, where he made uncommon proficiency in classical learning, and in his sixteenth year was removed to Peterhouse in Cambridge, and distinguished himself, not more by his literary acquirements than by his pious and orderly deportment, acquiring the high esteem of Dr. Cosins, then master of that college, and afterwards bishop of Durham. After taking his degree of A. B. he was elected fellow, and afterwards tutor and moderator. In 1643, as he adhered loyally to his sovereign, he was obliged to leave the university, then in possession of the usurping powers, and being ejected from his fellowship, he retired to Hadleigh, where he associated with some other persons of his own sentiments, chiefly his former pupils and the sons of his friend and patron bishop Wren; and here he appears to have amused himself in writing his “Psyche,” which was begun in April 1647, finished before the end of March 1648, and published the same year; an allegorical poem, displaying the “Intercourse between Christ and the Soul,” which was much admired in his time, but has not preserved its popularity. Pope is reported to have said of it, that “there are in it a great many flowers well worth gathering, and a man who has the art of stealing wisely will find his account in reading it.” His biographer, however, confesses that he has generally preferred the effusions of fancy to the corrections of judgment, and is often florid and affected, obscure and perplexed. His Latin poems, although perhaps superior in style, are yet below the purity of the Augustan age. All his poetical efforts were the amusement of his leisure hours during the rebellion, by which he lost, besides his fellowship, some preferments which bishop Wren had bestowed on him, as the rectory of Kelshall in Hertfordshire in 1643, that of Elm with the chapel of Emneth in 1646, and the seventh canonry and prebend in the cathedral of Ely in 1647. And so zealous was bishop Wren for his interest and happiness, that he took him into his house as his domestic chaplain, and married him to his step-daughter in 1650. With her Mr. Beaumont retired to Tatingston-place, where they lived in a private manner until the restoration. On that event he took possession of his former livings, and was also admitted into the first list of his majesty’s chaplains, and by his majesty’s mandamus was created D. D. in 1660. In 1661 he removed, at bishop Wren’s desire, to Ely, where he had the misfortune to lose his wife in 1662. In April of that year, on the resignation of Dr. Pearson, master of Jesus’ college, Cambridge, the bishop of Ely appointed him successor, and in 1663, on the death of Dr. Hale, master of Peterhouse, he was removed to the headship of that college, which he governed with great care and liberality. The same year he was instituted to the rectory of Teversham near Cambridge, and in 1664 to that of Barley in Hertfordshire, where he alternately resided in the vacation months every summer, feeding the poor, instructing the ignorant, and faithfully discharging his pastoral charge. In 1665 he was drawn into a controversy with Dr. Henry More, who had advanced some doctrines in his “Mystery of Godliness,” which our author thought subversive of our constitution in church and state, and productive of manyevils to the Christian religion; Dr. More replied to this charge, but Dr. Beaumont received the thanks of the university for his services on this occasion. In 1670 he was elected to the divinity chair. In the course of his leetures, which he read for twenty-nine years, he went through the two epistles to the Romans and Colossians, with a view to explain the difficulties and controversies occasioned by some passages hi them. In 1689, when the Comprehension was attempted, in order to unite the church and dissenters, he was one of the commissioners appointed for that purpose, but never took his place at the board, convinced of the little probability that such a scheme should succeed. He continued to discharge the several duties of his office, even when advanced to his eighty-fourth year, and preached before the university in turn, Nov. 5, 1699; but a high fever came on the same evening, which, with the addition of the gout in his stomach, proved fatal on the 23d of the same month. His biographer sums up his character in these words “He was religious without bigotry, devout without superstition, learned without pedantry, judicious without censoriousness, eloquent without vanity, charitable without ostentation, generous without profusion, friendly without dissimulation, courteous without flattery, prudent without cunning, and humble without meanness.” Mr. Cole informs us, that in 1662 he obtained, from the vicechancellor of Cambridge, a dispensation to eat flesh in Lent, as fish did not agree with his constitution; probably this was among the last instances of such a scruple in the Protestant church. His “Psyche” was reprinted, with many of the author’s corrections, and the addition of four cantos, in 1702, by his son Charles Beaumont, A.M. of Peterhouse, who informs us that his father left all his works, critical and polemical, to the college, strictly forbidding the printing of any of them. In 1749 was published his lesser “Poems in English and Latin, with an appendix, containing some dissertations and remarks on the Epistle to the Colossians,” 4to. To this is prefixed an account of his life, from which the present sketch has been taken.

, an accurate military geographer, the descendant of an ancient family, was born at Aix in Issart in 1697, and at the age of nineteen went to Paris, where he studied geography under the celebrated Sanson, geographer to the king. His progress was so rapid, and his reputation so high, that at the age of twenty-five he was honoured with the same title. A perpetual almanac which he invented, and with which Louis XV. was much pleased, procured him the patronage of that prince, for whom he drew a great number of plans and charts. But his principal reputation rests on his topographical plans of the military kind, particularly his “Description topographique et militaire des campagnes de Flandre, depuis 1690 jusqu'en 1694,” Paris, 1756, 3 vols. folio, drawn up from the memoirs of Vaultier and the marshal Luxembourg. He had also the honour of contributing to the education of the dauphin, for which a pension was conferred on him in 1756, and, as he had talents of the political kind, he was not unfrequently employed in negociations by cardinal de Fleury and Amelot. He died at Paris, Feb. 11, 1771. His son, the chevalier de Beaurain, who appears to have inherited his father’s talents as a military draftsman, published “Cartes des campagnes de grande Conde” en Flandre," Paris, fol. 1774; and in 1781, those of Turenne, with the descriptions of Grimoard, compiled from Turenne’s original papers, the correspondence of Louis XIV. that of his ministers, and several other authentic memoirs, a most splendid folio, enriched with a great number of charts and plans, executed with uncommon fidelity, precision, and. minuteness, so as to describe every motion of the armies in the most distinct manner.

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

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

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

, one of the French academy, and professor of grammar in the military school, was born at Verdun, May 9, 1717, and died at Paris, Jan. 25, 1789. Of his early life we have no account, but he appears to have been selected by the encyclopedists to furnish the articles on grammar in their celebrated undertaking. The abbe BarrueL who says he was a layman much to be respected for his piety, once asked him, how a man of his principles came to be associated with the encyclopedists, who were notoriously infidels. “The very same question,” answered Beauzee, “have I put to d‘Alembert. At one of the sittings, seeing that I was almost the only person who believed in God, 1 asked him how he possibly could ever have thought of me for a member, when he -knew that my sentiments and opinions differed so widely from those of his brethren? D’Aiembert without hesitation answered,” I am sensible of your amazement, but we were in want of a skilful grammarian, and among our party not one had acquired a reputation in that study. We knew that you believed in God, but being a good sort of a man, we cast our eyes on you, for want of a philosopher to supply your place.“About the same time, probably, Beauzee published his” Grammaire generate, ou exposition raisonnee des elemens necessaires du Langage, pour servir de fondement a l'etude de toutes les Langues,“Paris, 1767, 2 vols. a work which, although it falls short of its title, contains much valuable instruction, especially respecting the French language. The chief fault is, that the author wants precision, and is frequently too metaphysical to be intelligible. He published also a new edition of the abbe” Girard’s “Synonymes,” with great additions, 2 vols. 12mo; translations of Sallust, often reprinted, and much admired of Quintus Curtius, which likewise became popular; and of Thomas a Kempis. He promoted the publication of the translation of sir Isaac Newton’s Optics by Marat, 2 vols. 8vo, 1787, which is thought to be very correct. The Dict. Hist, mentions another work by Beauzee, but without date, “Exposition abregee des preuves historique de le religion,” 12mo.

, a native of Justingen, in Suabia, where his father was a labourer, was educated at home, and in 1495 went to Cracow, where, and at Tubingen, he studied the languages, jurisprudence, and particularly poetry. In 1501, the emperor Maximilian I. honoured him with the poetical crown. Before this, in 1497, he was professor at Tubingen, and lectured on the ancient orators and historians, and is said to have been the first who introduced into Germany a relish for the purity of the Latin tongue, in which his works show that he had attained considerable excellence. His Latin dissertations of the historical kind, relating to Germany, are inserted in the first volume of Scharde’s Scrip. Her. Germanicarum. Ife is less to his credit that he wrote some tales of a very licentious kind. He formed, also, a collection of German proverbs, which with his poems were published at Strasburgh, in 1512, 4to, under the title “Opuscula BebeJiana.” A posthumous work of his, “De necessitate linguae Latinae,” was published at Augsburgh, in 1801, with his life in German, by Zapf. Saxius fixes his death in 1514.

, surnamed Panormita, from his native country, Palermo, in Latin Panormus, vvas born 'there in 1394, and at the age of six was sent to the university of Bologna, to study law, after which he was taken into the court of the duke of MiIan, Philip-Maria-Visconti. He vvas afterwards professor of the belles-lettres at Pavia, but without leaving the court, in which he enjoyed a revenue of eight hundred crowns of gold. The emperor Sigismond, when on a tour in Lombardy in 1432, honoured him with the poetic crown at Parma. Beccadelli then went to the court of Naples, where he passed the remainder of his life, always accompanying Alphonso, the king, in his expeditions and travels, who loaded him with favours, gave him a beautiful country house, enrolled him among the Neapolitan nobility, intrusted him with political commissions of great importance, and sent him as ambassador to Geneva, Venice, to the emperor Frederic III. and to some other princes. And after the death of Alphonso, he was not less a favourite with king Ferdinand, who made him his secretary, and admitted him of his council. He died at Naples, in 1471. While in the service of Alphonso, he wrote his history “De dictis et factis Alphonsi regis, lib. IV.” Pisa, 1485, 4to, and often reprinted. He was rewarded by his sovereign with a thousand crowns of gold for this performance. His five books of letters, orations, poems, tragedies, &c. were published at Venice, 1553, 4to, under the title “Epistolarum lib. V. Orationes II. Carmina praeterea quasdam, &c.” But the most extraordinary of his productions was his “Hermaphroditus,” which long remained in obscurity. This is a collection divided into two books of small poems, grossly indecent, and yet dedicated to Cosmo de Medicis, who is not said to have resented the insult. What renders this production the more extraordinary, is, that it was written when the author was advanced in life, and at a time when his character seemed to derive dignity from the honourable employments he held, and his reputation in the learned world. Of this work, written with great purity of Latin style, some copies got abroad, and ^excited the just indignation of the age. Filelfo and Laurentius Valla attacked it in their writings; the clergy preached against it, and caused it to be burnt; and the author was burnt in effigy at Ferrara and Milan. Valla even goes so far as to wish that he had been burnt in person. Even Poggio, not the most chaste of Italian writers, reproached his friend with having gone too far. Beccadelli defended himself by the example of the ancients, and Guarino of Verona quotes the example of St. Jerome, but sense and decency went against them, and these poems were confined to the Laurentian library strictly, as Mr, Koscoe says, but surely a more certain method might have been devised to consign them to perpetual oblivion. A copy, however, was by some means preserved, and printed at Paris in 1791, when the revolution had brought on a general dissolution of morals and public decency. “The editor,” says Ginguene, “no doubt thought that our morals were so confirmed as to have nothing to fear, and the book is now in every shop.”

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

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

was born at Konigsberg in 1627, the son of a father of the same names, who was doctor and professor of medicine, and first physician to the elector of Brandenburgh. He also followed his father’s profession, and took his doctor’s degree at Strasburgh in 1652. Next year he was appointed public professor at Konigsberg, and in 1663 the elector of Brandenburgh admitted him a counsellor, and to be his first physician. He died at Konigsberg in 1673, almost in the prime of life. His works were, 1. “Medicus Microcosmus,” Rostock, Leyden, and Lond. 1660. 2. “De Cultrivoro Prussiaco,” Konigsberg, 1636, Leyden, 1638. 3. “Hist, morbi academici Regiomontani,” Leyden, 1649. 4. “De unguento armario,” in the “Theatrum Sympatheticum,” Nuremberg, 1662. 5. “Commentarius de Theriaca,” Konigsberg, 1649.

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

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

In 1160, he was sent by the king to Paris, to treat of a marriage between prince Henry and the king of France’s eldest daughter, in which he succeeded, and returned with the young princess to England. He had not enjoyed the chancellorship above four years, when archbishop Theobald died; and the king, who was then in Normandy, immediately sent over some trusty persons to England, who managed matters so well with the monks and clergy, that Becket was almost unanimously elected archbishop.

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

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

As it was with visible reluctance that Becket had sworn to obey these constitutions, he soon began to give indications of his repentance, by extraordinary acts of mortification, and by refraining from performing the sacred offices of his function. He also dispatched a special messenger, with an account of what had happened, to the pope, who sent him a bull, releasing him from the obligation of his oath, and enjoining him to resume the duties of his sacred office. But though this bull reconciled his conscience to the breach of his oath, it did not dispel his fears of the royal indignation, to avoid which he determined to retire privately out of the kingdom. Accordingly he went aboard a ship, in order to make his escape beyond sea but before he could reach the coast of France, the wind shifting about, he was driven back to England, and, conscious that he had done amiss, he waited upon the king at Woodstock, who received him without any other expression of displeasure than asking him if he had left England because he thought it too little to contain both? Notwithstanding the mildness of this rebuke, Becket persisted in setting the clergy above the laws; and therefore the king summoned a parliament at Northampton, 1165, where the archbishop having been accused of failure of duty and allegiance to the king, was sentenced to forfeit all his goods and chattels. Becket made an appeal to the pope but this having availed nothing, and finding himself deserted by his brethren, he withdrew privately from Northampton, and went aboard a ship for Graveline in Holland, from whence he retired to the monastery of St. Bertin in Flanders.

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

The beginning of 1167, Becket was at length so far prevailed upon as to have an interview with Henry and the king of France, at Mont-Moral in Champaigne. He made a speech to Henry in very submissive terms and concluded with leaving him the umpire of the difference between them, saving the honour of God. Henry was provoked at this clause of reservation, and said, that whatever Becket did not relish, he would pronounce contrary to the honour of God. “However,” added the king, “to shew my inclination to accommodate matters, I will make him this proposition: I have had many predecessors, kings of England, some greater and some inferior to myself; there have been likewise many great and holy men in the see of Canterbury. Let Becket therefore but pay me the same regard, and own my authority so far, as the greatest of his predecessors owned that of the least of mine, and I am satisfied. And, as I never forced him out of England, I give him leave to return at his pleasure; and am willing he should enjoy his archbishopric, with as ample privileges as any of his predecessors.” All who were present declared that Henry had shewn sufficient condescension. The king of France, surprised at the archbishop’s silence, asked him why he hesitated to accept such reasonable conditions? Becket replied, he was willing to receive his see upon the terms his predecessors held it; but as for those customs which broke in upon the canons, he could not admit them; for he looked upon this as betraying the cause of religion. And thus the interview ended without any effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a French divine of the sixteenth century, principal of the college of Montaigu in 1507, and syndic of the faculty of theology at Paris, was born in Picardy. He published a violent attack on the paraphrases of Erasmus. That illustrious scholar condescended to take the trouble to refute it with great minuteness, averring that he had convicted his censurer of having advanced 181 lies, 210 calumnies, and 47 blasphemies. The doctor, having no reasonable answer to make, took extracts from the works of Erasmus, denounced him as a heretic to the faculty, and succeeded in getting him censured. It was he who prevented the Soroonne from deciding in favour of the divorce of Henry VIII. of England, an opinion not discreditable to him, although he is said to have carried it by his vehemence. “As Beda (says pere Berthier) could neither bridle his pen nor his tongue, he dared to preach against the king himself, under pretext, perhaps, that the court did not prosecute heretics with as much vigour as his bold and extravagant temper would have wished. His intolerant spirit drew upon him twice successively a sentence of banishment. Recalled for the third time, and continuing incorrigible, he was condemned by the parliament of Paris, in 1536, to make the amende-honorable before the church of Notre-Dame, for having spoken against the king, and against truth.” He was afterwards ex led to the abbey of Mont St. Michel, where he died Feb. 8, 15^7, with the reputation (adds pere Berthier) of being a violent declaimer and a vexatious adversary. Beda wrote, l.“A treatise” De unica Magdalena, Paris," 1519, 4to, against the publications of Faber Stapulensis. 2. Twelve books against the Commentary of Faber. 3. One against the Paraphrases of Erasmus, 1526, folio; and several other works, which are all marked with barbarism and rancour. His Latin is neither pure nor correct. Henry Stephens has preserved a circumstance of him, which sufficiently marks his character. He undertook to dissuade Francis I. from employing professors of languages in the university of Paris, and maintained before that prince, in the presence of Budaeus, that the Greek tongue was the cause of heresies.

, M. D. a gentleman of Welch extraction, was born at Shiffnall in Shropshire, April 15,1760, where he received the first rudiments of his education, but was soon removed to the school of Brewood in Staffordshire. He very early displayed a thirst for knowledge, and, as is frequently the case, appears to have been determined rather by accident than design to that pursuit in which he was afterwards most distinguished. From Brewood he was removed to the grammar-school at Bridgenorth, which he quitted at the age of thirteen. His manners and habits at school were particular, but study and the desire of knowledge were predominant. He seemed early to give way to deep thought and reflection; and this, added to a natural shyness of disposition, gave him an air of reserve, which distinguished him from his young associates. In May 1773, he was placed under the tuition of the Rev. Sam. Dickenson, rector of Blym-hill in Staffordshire, who supplied his biographer with some particulars of his character highly creditable to him. In 1776 he was entered of Pembroke college, Oxford, where he applied himself with remarkable industry and diligence to the study of modern languages, chemistry, mineralogy, and botany. In 1781, he visited the metropolis, and studied anatomy; and in the course of these studies he undertook to translate the works of Spallanzani, which appeared in 1784. It is also thought that he supplied the notes to Dr. Cullen’s edition of Bergman’s Physical and Chemical Essays. In 1783, he took the degree of M. A. and the following year went to Edinburgh, where he distinguished himself, not only as a member, but for some time as president of the royal medical and natural history societies. In 1786 he returned to Oxford, and took his doctor’s degree; and the same year he visited the continent, on his return from which he was appointed to the chemical lectureship at Oxford, in which situation he distinguished hiuisrlf much, and was generally attended by a numerous auditory. Mineralogy at this time appears to have occupied much of his attention: his theory of the earth being, according to his biographer, conformable to that of Hutton; but at this time he was rather hasty in his conclusions, and would frequently acknowledge that he had been misled in the judgment he had formed of certain, ibssus, especially in regard to the operations of fire. Of this a singular instance has been given. A gentleman had Jbr ught to Oxford, from the summit of one of the mountains surrounding Coniston lake in Lancashire, some specimens which had evidently undergone the operation of fire, but which happened to abound near a hollow on the top of the mountain, which some Italian gentlemen had not long before pronounced to be the crater of an extinct volcano. Upon shewing them to Dr. Beddoes, he was so persuaded of the fact, that he even summoned a particular assembly of the members of ]the university by an extraordinary notice, before whom he delivered a long lecture on the specimens supplied, as indicative of the natural operations of fire in those parts of England. A very short time after, he declared that they were evidently nothing better than mere slags from some old furnace, and that he had since discovered a criterion by which he could distinguish between the productions of natural and artificial fire; but this discovery, and the consequent change of his sentiments, he could not be prevailed on to announce as publicly as he had delivered his former opinions.

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

, bishop of Kilmore in Ireland, and one of the most pious and exemplary prelates of the seventeenth century, was descended from a good family, and born in the year 1570, at Black Notley in Essex, and being designed for the church, was sent to Emanuel college in Cambridge, where he was matriculated pensioner, March 12, 1584. He was placed under the care of Dr. Cbadderton, who was for many years head of that house, made great progress in his studies, and went early into holy orders. In 1593 he was chosen fellow of his college, and in 1599 took his degree of bachelor in divinity. He then removed from the university to St. Ednmndsbury in Suffolk, where he had a church, aud by an assiduous application to the duties of his function, was much noticed by many gentlemen who lived near that place. He continued there for some years, till an opportunity offered of his going as chaplain with sir Henry Wotton, whom king James had appointed his ambassador to the state of Venice, about the year 1604. While he resided in that city, he became intimately acquainted with the famous father Paul Sarpi, who took him into his confidence, taught him the Italian language, of which he became a perfect master, and translated into that tongue the English Common Prayer Book, which was extremely well received by many of the clergy there, especially by the seven divines appointed by the republic to preach against the pope, during the time of the interdict, and which they intended for their model, in case they had broken absolutely with Rome, which was what they then sincerely desired. In return for the favours he received from father Paul, Mr. Bedell drew up an English grammar for his use, and in many other respects assisted him in his studies. He continued eight years in Venice, during which time he greatly improved himself in the Hebrew language, by the assistance of the famous rabbi Leo, who taught him the Jewish pronunciation, and other parts of rabbinical learning; and by his means it was that he purchased a very fair manuscript of the Old Testament, which he bequeathed, as a mark of respect, to Emanuel-college, and which, it is said, cost him its weight in silver. He became acquainted there likewise, with the celebrated Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Spalata, who was so well pleased with his conversation, that he communicated to him his secret, and shewed him his famous book “de Kepublica Ecclesiastica,” which he afterwards printed at London. The original ms. is, if we mistake not, among bishop Tanner’s collections in the Bodleian. Bedell took the freedom which he allowed him, and corrected many misapplications of texts of scripture, and quotations of fathers; for that prelate, being utterly ignorant of the Greek tongue, committed many mistakes, both in the one and the other; and some escaped Bedell’s diligence. De Dorninis took all this in good part from him, and entered into such familiarity with him, and found liis assistance so useful, and indeed so necessary to himself, that he used to say, he could do nothing without him. At Mr. Bedell’s departure from Venice, father Paul expressed great concern, and assured him, that himself and many others would most willingly have accompanied him, if it had been in their power. He, likewise, gave him his picture, a Hebrew Bible without points, and a small Hebrew Psalter, in which he wrote some sentences expressing the sincerity of his friendship. He gave him, also, the manuscript of his famous “History of the Council of Trent,” with the Histories of the Interdict and Inquisition, all written by himself, with a large collection of letters, which were written to him weekly from Rome, during the dispute between the Jesuits and Dominicans, concerning the efficacy of grace, which it is supposed are lost. On his return to England, he immediately retired to his charge at St. Edmundsbury, without aspiring to any preferment, and went on in his ministerial labours. It was here he employed himself in translating the Histories of the Interdict and Inquisition (which he dedicated to the king); as also the two last books of the History of the Council of Trent into Latin, sir Adam Newton having translated the two first. At this time, he mixed so seldom with the world, that he was almost totally forgotten. So little was he remembered, that, some years after, when the celebrated Diodati, of Geneva, came over to England, he could not, though acquainted with many of the clergy, hear of Mr. Bedell from any person with whom he happened to converse. Diodati was greatly amazed, that so extraordinary a man, who was so much admired at Venice by the best judges of merit, should not be known in his own country; and he had given up all hopes of finding him out, when, to their no small joy, they accidentally met each other in the streets of London. Upon this occasion, Diodati presented his friend to Morton, the learned and ancient bishop of Durham, and told him how highly he had been valued by father Paul, which engaged the bishop to treat Mr. Bedell with very particular respect. At length sir Thomas Jermyn taking notice of his abilities, presented him to the living of Horingsheath, A. D. 1615: but he found difficulties in obtaining institution and induction from Dr. Jegon, bishop of Norwich, who demanded large fees upon this account. Mr. Bedell was so nice in his sentiments of simony, that he looked upon every payment as such, beyond a competent gratification, for the writing, the wax, and the parchment; and, refusing to take out his title upon other terms, left the bishop and went home, but in a few days the bishop sent for him, and gave him his title without fees, and he removed to Horingsheath, where he continued unnoticed twelve years, although he gave a singular evidence of his great capacity, in a book of controversy with the church of Rome, which he published and dedicated to king Charles I. then prince of Wales, in 1624. It is now annexed to Burnet’s Life of our author". However neglected he lived in England, yet his fame had reached Ireland, and he was, in 1627, unanimously elected provost of Trinity-college in Dublin, but this he declined, until the king laid his positive commands on him, which he obeyed, and on August 16th of that year, he was sworn provost. At his first entrance upon this scene, he resolved to act nothing until he became perfectly acquainted with the statutes of the house, and the tempers of the people whom he was appointed to govern; and, therefore, carTied himself so abstractedly from all affairs, that he passed some time for a soft and weak man, and even primate Usher began to waver in his opinion of him. When he went to England some few months after, to bring over his family, he had thoughts of resigning his new preferment, and returning to his benefice in Suffolk: but an encouraging letter from primate Usher prevented him, and he applied himself to the government of the college, with a vigour of mind peculiar to him.

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

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

The character given of this amiable prelate in Burnet’s life, drawn up partly by Burnet, and partly by his son-inlaw Mr. Clogy, is highly interesting. Bishop Bedell was tall and graceful, and had something in his looks and carriage that created a veneration for him. His deportment was grave without affectation; his apparel decent with simplicity he wore no silks, but plain stuffs and had a long and broad beard, and grey and venerable hair. His strength continued firm to the last, so that the week before his last sickness, he walked as vigorously ad nimbly as any of the company, and leaped over a broad ditch, insomuch that his sons, who were amazed at it, had enough to do to follow him. He never used spectacles. By a fall in his childhood he had unhappily contracted a deafness in his left ear. He had great strength and health of body, excepting that a few years before his death he had some severe fits of the stone, occasioned by his sedentary life, which he bore with wonderful patience. The remedy he used for it was to dig in the garden (in which he much delighted) until he heated himself, and that mitigated the pain. His judgment and memory remained with him to the last. He always preached without notes, but often wrote down his meditations after he had preached them. He shewed no other learning in his sermons but in clearing the difficulties of his text, by comparing the originals with the most ancient versions.

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

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

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

, of Sibsey, in Lincolnshire, a quaker, came to London, and settled there as a stationer between the years 1600 and 162.5. He married a daughter of Mr. William Plat, of Highgate, by whom he had a son, Hilkiah, a mathematical instrument maker in Hosier-lane, near West-Smithfield. In this house (which was afterwards burnt in the great fire of London, 1666), was born the famous Hilkiah, July 23, 1663; who was educated at Bradley, in Suffolk, and in 1679 was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, the first scholar on the foundation of his maternal grandfather, William Plat. Hilkiah was afterwards elected fellow of his college, and patronized by Heneage Finch earl of Winchelsea, but deprived of his preferment (which was in Lincolnshire), for refusing to take the oaths at the revolution, and afterwards kept a boarding-house for the Westminster scholars. In 1714, being tried in the court of king’s-bench, he was fined 1000 marks, and imprisoned three years, for writing, printing, and publishing “The hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted,” 1713, folio; the real author of which was George Harbin, a nonjuring clergyman, whom his friendship thus screened; and on account of his sufferings he received 100l. from the late lord Weymouth, who knew not the real author. His other publications were, a translation of “An answer to Fontenelle’s History of Oracles,” and the translation of the life of Dr. Barvvick, as noticed in the life of that gentleman. He died Nov. 26, 1724, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Margaret’s Westminster, with an epitaph.

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

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

, the son of a tanner, was born at Heidelberg, April 19, 1653, and received an education suitable to his promising talents. In compliance with his father’s request, he studied divinity, but after his death indulged his own inclination, by studying law. In 1677, when he was twenty-four years of age, Charles Louis, elector palatine, appointed him his librarian, and keeper of his museum. Beger retained those stations until 1685, when Charles, the son and successor of Charles Louis, being dead, the library passed into the hands of the landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, and the museum went to the elector of Brandenburgh. The latter, Frederick William, engaged Beger in his service, gave him the rank of counsellor, and appointed him to the care of his library and medals, a post which he likewise filled under his successor, until his death, April 21, 1705. He had been a member of the society of Berlin from its foundation. He left a great many works, the principal of which are: 1. “Thesaurus ex Thesauro Palatino selectus, seu Gemmae,” Heidelberg, 1685, fol. 2. “Spicilegium antiquitatis,” 1692, folio. 3. “Thesaurus, sive Gemmae, Numismata,” &c. 1696, and 1791, 3 vols. fol. 4. “Regum et Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata, a, Rubenio edita,” 1700, fol. 5. “De nummis Cretensium serpentiferis,” 1702, fol, 6. “Lucernae sepulchrales J. P. Bellorii,” 1702, fol. 7. “Numismata Pontificum Romanorum,” 1703, fol. 8. “Excidium Trojanum,” Berlin, 1699, 4 to, &c. Beger composed a work to authorise polygamy, at the request of Charles Louis, elector palatine, who was desirous of marrying his mistress in the life-time of his first wife; but he refuted it after the death of that prince. The refutation, however, never appeared. The book that gave occasion to it was entitled “Considerations on Marriage, by Daphnseus Arcuarius,” in German, 4to.

, born at Blois in 1638, of a family of distinction, in the former part of his life filled some of the first offices of the law, and soon distinguished himself by the acuteness of his penetration, and his attention to method. The marquis de Seignelei, his kinsman, having induced him to enter the marine, he successively filled the place of intendant of the French West India islands, of the gallies of Havre, and Canada, and of those of Rochefort and la Rochelle, till 1710, when he died, the 14th of March, much regretted. The people loved him as a disinterested officer, and the citizens as their friend and benefactor. The learned were not less warm in their praises of one who protected and encouraged them, took a lively interest in their prosperity, and kept his library open for their use. He had an excellent taste in the choice of his books. He possessed a rich cabinet of medals, antiques, prints, shells, and other curiosities, collected from the four quarters of the world. His books were generally marked in front with the words “Michaeiis Begon et amicorum.” His librarian having once represented to him, that by letting every body have access to them, he would lose several of them: he very liberally replied, “I had mjch rattier lose my books, than seem to distrust an honest man.” He caused to be engraved the portraits of several celebrated persons of the seventeenth century, and collected memoirs of their lives; from which materials Perrault composed his history of the illustrious men of France.

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

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

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

That Behem rendered some very important services to the crown of Portugal, is put beyond all controversy by the recompense bestowed on him by king John, who in. 1485 made him a knight^ and governor of Fayal; he is said also to have espoused the daughter of a great lord, “in consideration of the important services he had performed.” These marks of distinction conferred on a stranger, could not be meant as a recompense for the discovery of the Azores, which was made twenty years before, but as a reward for the discovery of Congo, from whence the chevalier Behem had brought gold and different kinds of precious wares. In 1492, crowned with honours and riches, he undertook a journey to Nuremberg, to visit his native country and family. He there made a terrestrial globe, which is looked on as a master-piece for that time, and which is still preserved in the library of that city. The outline of his discoveries may there be seen, under the name of western lands; and from their situation it cannot be doubted that they are the present coasts of Brazil, and the environs of the straits of Magellan. This globe was made in the same year that Columbus set out on his expedition; therefore it is impossible that Behem could have profited by the works of that navigator, who, besides, went a much more northerly course.

After having performed several other interesting voyages, the chevalier Behem died at Lisbon, in July 1506, regretted by every one, but leaving behind him no other work than the globe and chart, which we have mentioned. The globe is made from the writings of Ptolomy, Pliny, Strabo, and especially from the account of Mark Paul, the Venetian, a celebrated traveller of the thirteenth century; and of John Mandeville, an Englishman, who, about the middle of the fourteenth century published an account of a journey of thirty-three years in Africa and Asia. He has also added the important discoveries made by himself on the coasts of Africa and America.

For the silence of the Portuguese, many reasons might be assigned. The discoveries of Columbus were made so much farther north than those of Behem, that, in an age when geographical knowledge was so very limited, both Spaniards and Portuguese might very naturally believe that the country discovered by the former of these navigators had no connexion with that discovered by the latter. At any rate, the Portuguese, whose discoveries proceeded from avarice, were satisfied with scraping together gold wherever they could find it: and finding it in Africa, they thought not of searching for it in a more distant region, till the success of the Spaniards shewed them their mistake. One thing more is worthy of attention. The long stay of Columbus at Madeira makes his interview with Behem more than probable. It is impossible that he should have neglected seeing a man so interesting, and who could give hurt every kind of information for the execution of the plan which he had formed. The mariners who accompanied the Chevalier Behem might also have spread reports at Madeira and the Azores concerning the discovery of which they had been witnesses. What ought to confirm us in this is, that Mariana himself says (book xxvi. chap. 3.) that a certain vessel going to Africa, was thrown by a gaie of wind upon certain unknown lands; and that the sailors at their return to Madeira had communicated to Christopher Columbus the circumstances of their voyage. All authors agree that this learned man had some information respecting the western shores; but they speak in a very vague manner. The expedition of the Chevalier Behem explains the mystery.

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

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

Who fairly puts all characters to bed!"

, a native of Jena, where he was born in 1634. In 1658, he was made law professor in that university. He was the first who wrote systematically, on the laws, usages, and duties of corporations and wardens of arts and manufactures, collecting such scattered notices as he could find on these subjects, and throwing considerable light on a part of jurisprudence not then well understood. He died in 1712. His works are, 1. “Tyro prudentiae juris opificialii praecursorum emissarius,” Jena, 1685, 4to, and again in 1688, but the best edition is that edited with great improvements by Struvius, 1717, 4to. 2. “Tractatus de jure prohibendi, quod competit opincibus in opifices,” Jena, 1721, 4to, likewise improved by Struvius, 1721. 3. “Boethus, peregre redux conspectibus et judice conspicuus,” Jena, 1685 and 1717, 4to.

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

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

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

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

, in Latin, Becanus, a canon of the church of Utrecht, who lived about the middle of the fourteenth century, wrote a chronicle of his church, embracing its history from St. Willibrod, first bishop of Utrecht, to 1346. There are various editions of this chronicle, continued down by another hand to 1393, the worst of which, according to Vossius, is that of Furmerius, and the best that of Buchellius, Utrecht, 1643, fol. entitled “De Episcopis Ultrajectinis.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

His son Charles Andrew, who died by his own hand, in 1782, was in 1741 appointed professor extraordinary of philosophy at Leipsic, and in 1756 professor of poetry, and librarian to the university, with the title of counsellor of state. He wrote “De vera origine et epocha Hunnorum,” 1757, 4to, and was editor of the “Acta eruditorum” from 1754 to 1781.

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

, a member of the academies of sciences of Paris and Berlin, was born in Catalonia in 1697. Being left an orphan at the age of five years, he was educated by an engineer, a friend of his father’s family, and very early discovered a genius for mathematics. In the course of time he was appointed royal professor of the schools of artillery of la Fere, and superintended the education of some scholars who proved worthy of him. His success in this situation procured him also the place of provincial commissary of artillery, but here' his zeal cost him both places. Having discovered by some experiments that a smaller quantity of powder was sufficient to load a cannon than commonly employed: that, for example, eight pounds of powder would produce the same effect as twelve, which was the usual quantity, he thought to pay court to the cardinal de Fleury, then prime minister, by communicating to him in private a scheme by which government might make so important a saving. The cardinal, who was partial to all schemes of economy, listened with pleasure to this of Belidor, and spoke of it to the prince de Dombes, who was master of the ordnance. The prince was astonished that a mathematician, who served under him, and on whom he had conferred favours, should not have communicated this to him, and irritated by what he considered as a mark of disrespect, dismissed him from the posts he held, and obliged him to leave la Fere. t De Valliere, lieutenant-general of artillery, took upon him on this occasion to justify the prince’s conduct, in a printed memorial, and endeavoured at the same time to refute Belidor’s opinion and experiments, with what success we are not told. Belidor, however, originally born without fortune, was now stripped of the little he had acquired by his talents, and might probably have remained in poverty, had not the prince of Conti, who knew his merit, taken him with him to Italy, and bestowed on him the cross of St. Lewis, an honour which procured him some notice at court. The marshal Bellisle engaged him in his service, and when war-minister, appointed him to the office of inspector of artillery, and gave him apartments in the arsenal at Paris, where he died in 1761. During his laborious and checquered life, he found leisure to write, 1. “Sommaire d‘un cours d’architecture rnilitaire, civil et hydraulique,” 1720, 12 mo. 2. “Nouveau cours de Mathematique, a T usage de I'Artilierie et du Genie,” 4 to, Paris, 1725, a work previously examined by a committee of the academy of sciences, and approved and recommended by them. 3. “La Science des ingenieurs,”. 1729, 4to. 4. “Le Bombardier Francoise,” 1731, 4to. 5. “Architecture Hydraulique,” 1735 1737, 4 vols. 4to. 6. “Dictionnaire portatif de l'ingenieur,” 1738, 8vo. S. “Traite des Fortifications,” 2 vols. 4to. 9. “La science des Ingenieurs dans la concluite des travaux des Fortifications,” 1749, 4to. His biographer says that the most of these works are useful, but that Belidor was not a mathematician of the first order.

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

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

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

The late Mr. Cole, of tke Fen-office, editor of the second edition of sir William Dugdale’s “History of Embanking,” 1772, tells us that this edition was printed from two copies of the old one, one corrected by sir William himself, the other by Beaupré Bell, esq. “a diligent and learned antiquary, who had also made some corrections in his own copy, now in Trinity college library.” See his letters, dated Beaupré hall, May 11, and July 30, 1731, to T. Hearne, about the pedlar in Swaffham church, a rebus on the name of Chapman, prefixed to Hemingford, p. 180, and preface, p. 113. See also, on the same subject, preface to Caius, p. xlvii. and lxxxiv. and the speech of Dr. Spencer, vicechancellor of Cambridge, to the duke of Monmouth, when he was installed chancellor, 1674,ib.lxxxvi. In p. lii, Hearne styles him “Amicus eruditus, cui et aliis nominibus me devinctum esse gratus agnosco.” He also furnished him with a transcript, in his own hand-writing, of bishop Godwin’s catalogue of the bishops of Bath and Wells, from the original in Trinity college library; App. to Ann. de Dunstable, 835, 837. A charter relating to St. Edmund’s Bury abbey. Bened. Abbas, p. 865. The epitaph of E. Beckingham, in Bottisham church, in Cambridgeshire, Pref. to Otterbourue’s Chron. p. 82. App. to Trokelow, p. 378. Papers, &c. of his are mentioned in Bibl. Top. Brit. No. II. p. 57, 58, 62. Walsingham church notes, p. 59, entered in the Minutes; a paper on the Clepsydra, p. 60; and five of his letters to Mr. Blomfield are printed, pp. 290, 465 472; one to Dr. Z. Grey, p. 147; one to Mr. N. Salmon, p. 150; others to Mr. Gale, pp. 169, 191, 302 305; to Dr. Stukeley, p. 176, 178. See also pp. 176, 178, 181, 465, 469, 470, 471. In, Archaeologia, vol. VI. pp. 133, 139, 141, 143, are some letters between him and Mr. Gale, on a Roman horologium mentioned in an inscription found at Taloire, a poor small village in the district and on the lake of Annecey, &c. communicated to him by Mr. Cramer, professor of philosophy and mathematics.

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

, an eminent engraver, was born at Florence in 1610. His father was a goldsmith, and instructed his son in the same business; but while, for the purposes of his trade, he was learning to draw, some of Callot’s prints, which he had accidentally seen, gave a turn to his disposition, and he prevailed on his father to allow him to learn engraving. His first master, Canta Gallina, had also been the master of Callot, and our young pupil, after contenting himself for some time with an imitation of Callot, struck out a manner of his own, equally, if not more remarkable for freedom and spirit. In 1642 he went to Paris, where he formed an acquaintance with Israel Sylvestre, then newly returned from Rome, and was much employed by the uncle of that artist. Some time after, cardinal Richelieu engaged him to go to Arras, to make drawings of the siege, &c. of that town by the royal army, which he engraved at his return. From a considerable residence at Paris he returned to Florence, where the grand duke gave him a pension, and appointed him to instruct his son, the prince Cosmo, in the art of design; but his progress in his profession had been for some time much impeded by continual head-aches, which at last terminated his life in 1664. Without entering into the dispute so frequently agitated, respecting the comparative merits of De la Bella and Callot, it may be affirmed that De la Bella drew very correctly, and with great taste. His works manifest much genius and fertility of invention. The fire and animation which appears in them compensates for their lightness; and some degree of slightness seems pardonable in an artist who is said to have engraved no less than fourteen hundred plates.

, an Italian Jesuit, and one of the most celebrated controversial writers of his time, was born in Tuscany, 1542, and admitted amongst the Jesuits in 1560. In 1569 he was ordained priest, at Ghent, by Cornelius Jansenius, and the year following taught divinity at Louvain. After having lived seven years in the Low Countries, he returned to Italy, and in 1576 began to read lectures at Rome on points of controversy. This he did with so much applause, that Sixtus V. appointed him to accompany his legate into France, in 1590, as a person who might be of great service, in case of any dispute concerning religion. He returned to Rome about ten months after, where he had several offices conferred on him by his own society as well as by the pope, and in 1599 was created cardinal. Three years after, he had the archbishopric of Capua given him, which he resigned in 1605, when pope Paul V. desired to have him near himself. He was now employed in the affairs of the court of Rome, till 1621, when, finding himself declining in health, he left the Vatican, and retired to the house belonging to the Jesuits, where he died the 17th of Sept. 1621. It appeared on the day of his funeral that he was regarded as a saint, and the Swiss guards belonging to the pope were obliged to be placed round his coffin, in order to keep off the crowd, which pressed to touch and kiss the body; but they could not prevent every thing he made use of from being carried away a venerable relic.

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

Notwithstanding the zeal which Bellarmin had shewed in maintaining the power of the pope over the temporalities of kings, yet his book “De Romano Pontifice” was condemned by Sixtus V. who thought he had done great prejudice to the dignity of the pope, by not insisting that the power which Jesus Christ gave to his vicegerent, was direct, but only indirect. What he wrote against William Barclay upon the same subject, was treated with great indignity in France, as being contrary to the ancient doctrine, and the rights of the Galilean church.

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

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

, another brother of the preceding, lord of Langey, a French general, who signalized himself in the service of Francis I. was also an able negociator, so that the emperor Charles V. used to say, “that Langey’s pen had fought more against him than all the lances of France.” He was sent to Piedmont in quality of viceroy, where he took several towns from the Imperialists. His address in penetrating into an enemy’s designs was one of those talents in the exercise of which he spared no expence, and thereby had intelligence of the most secret councils of the emperor and his generals. He was extremely active in influencing some of the universities of France, to give their judgment agreeably to the desires of Henry VIII. king of England, when this prince wanted to divorce his queen, in order to marry Anne Boleyn. It was then the interest of France to favour the king of England in this particular, it being an affront to the emperor, and a gratification to Henry, which might serve for the basis of an alliance between him and Francis I. He was sent several times into Germany to the princes of the proiestant league, and was made a knight of the order of St. Michael.

, a French poet, born in 1528, at Nogent le llotrtm, lived in the family of Renatus of Lorraine, marquis of Elbeuf, general of the French gallies, and attended him in his expedition to Italy in 1557. This prince highly esteemed Belleau for his courage; and having also a high opinion of his genius and abilities, entrusted him with the education of his son Charles of Lorraine. Belleau was one of the seven poets of his time, who were denominated the French Pleiades. He wrote several pieces, and translated the odes of Anacreon into the French language; but in this he is thought not to have preserved all the natural beauties of the original. His pastoral pieces are in greatest esteem, and were so successful, that Ronsard styled him the painter of nature. He wrote also an excellent poem on the nature and difference of precious stones, which by some has been reputed his best performance; and hence it was said of him, that he had erected for himself a monument of precious stones. Belleau died at Paris, March 6, 1577. His poems were collected and published at Rouen, 1604, 2 vols. 12mo, with the exception, we believe, of a macaronic poem he wrote and published (without date) entitled “Dictamen metrificum de bello Huguenotico.”

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

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

, member of the academy of Montanban, and who held a benefice in the cathedral there, was born at Querci, and died at Paris in 1771. Several prizes gained at Marseilles, at Bourdeaux, at Pau, at Rouen, his literary and ecclesiastical learning, and the purity of his manners, caused him to be respected at Montauban. By him are, 1. “L'Adoration Chretienne, dans la devotion du rosaire,” 1754, 12mo. 2. Several pieces of eloquence. 3. “Les droits de la religion sur le coeur de rhomme,” 1764, 2 vols. 12mo.

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

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

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

, a celebrated Italian antiquary, was born at Rome about the year 1616, and was intended by his father for a place in some chancery, and with that view he was sent to his maternal uncle Francis Angeloni, secretary to the cardinal Aldobrandini; but here he imbibed a very different taste from that of official routine. Angeloni had early contracted a love for the study of antiquities, and purchased the best books he could find on the subject, and his pupil insensibly fell into the same track of curiosity, and even surpassed his master. Christina, queen of Sweden, having heard of his character, made him her librarian, and keeper of her museum. Bellori died in 1696, aged near eighty, the greater part of which long life he passed in the composition of his various works. He had also acccumulated a valuable collection of books, antiquities, &c. which afterwards made part of the royal collection at Berlin. One of his first works was written in defence of his master Angeloni, who, having, in 1641, published his “Historia Augusta, &c.” (see Angeloni) it was attacked in France by Tristan, the sieur de St. Amant, in his “Commentaires Historiques.” Bellori published a new edition of Angeloni’s work in 1685, much improved. His own works are, I. “Nota3 in numismata, turn Ephesia, turn aliarum urbium, Apibus insignita, cum eorum iconibus aeneis,” Rome, 1658, 4to. 2. “Fragmenta vestigii veteris Romae, ex lapidibus Farnesianis,” ibid, 1673, fol. 3. “La Colonna Trajana,” &c. ibid, oblong fol. 4. “Le pitture antiche del sepolcro de* Nasoni nelia via Flaminia, &c.” ibid, 1680, fol. 5. “J. P. Bellorii nummus Antonini Pii de anni novi auspiciis explicatus,” ibid, 1676, Bvo. 6. “Gli antichi sepolcri, owero Mausolei Romani et Etruschi, &c.” Rome, 1699, fol. Leyden, 1728. It was translated also into Latin by Alex. Duker, and published at Leyden, 1702, fol. Haym mentions an edition of the original at Rome, 1704. 7. “Le antiche lucerne sepolcrali, &c.” ibid. 1691, fol. 8. “Veteres arcus Augustorum, triumphis insignes, ex reliquiis quae Rom* adhuc supersunt,” Leyden, 1690, fol. 9. “Vite de pittori, scultori et architetti moderni,” Leyden, 1672, 4to. 10. “Vet. Philosophorum, Poetarum, &c. Imagines,” Rome, 1685, fol. and several of his antiquarian tracts are inserted in Gronovius’s Antiquities.

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

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

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

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

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

“You cannot imagine the horror which we have seen, nor can any believe it that has not seen it; my little courage has often almost failed me. May it please Almighty God to let us soon see an end of it. There is a great diminution of the mortality; and those who hold that the moon contributes to all this, are of opinion, that we owe this diminution to the decline of the moon, and that we shall have reason to fear when it comes to the full. For my part, I am convinced, we owe all to the mercies of God, from whom alone we must hope for relief in the deplorable condition we have been in so long a while.” I am, &c.

When the plague had ceased, M. de Lauzun asked an abbey in commendarn for the humane and benevolent prelate who had attended his flock with such assiduity during the time of that dreadful visitation. The regent, to whom the request was made, had forgotten M. de Lauzun’s request, and appeared much embarrassed at having neglected to prefer a man of such transcendant virtue as M. de Belsunce was. When M. de Lauzun iterated his request to him, the latter, looking archly at him, said merely, “Monseigneur, il sera mieux un autrefois” The regent, however, soon afterwards gave him a benefice to hold with the bishopric of Marseilles, which he could never be prevailed upon to quit for a more lucrative one. Father Vanier, in his poem of the “Prsedi an Rusticum,” and Pope, in his Essay on Man, Ep. iv. v. 107, 108, have paid that tribute to his memory, to which he is entitled, as the friend and benefactor of mankind.

, in Lat. Petrus Bembus, one of the restorers of polite literature in Italy, was born at Venice in 1470, of an ancient and honourable family. His father, Bernardo, who died in 1518, was an accomplished scholar, and distinguished statesman, who maintained a friendly intercourse with many illustrious and learned persons of the age, and is honourably spoken of by various writers. On one of his embassies to Florence he carried his son, then in his eighth year, to improve him in the Italian language, which was supposed to be spoken and written in that city with the greatest purity. Atter two years, he returned home with his father, and was placed under the tuition of Joannes Alexander Urticius, and continued to apply to his studies with great assiduity, acquiring in particular a critical knowledge of the Latin tongue. Being solicitous of acquiring a knowledge also of the Greek, the study of which was at that time confined to very few, he resolved to undertake a voyage to Messina, and avail himself of the instructions of the celebrated Constantino Lascaris. Accordingly he set out in 1492, accompanied by Agnolo Gabrielii, a young Venetian of distinction, his friend and fellow-student, and profited greatly by the instructions of Lascaris. During this residence in Sicily, which lasted more than two years, he composed a work in Latin, entitled “P. Bembi de vEtna ad Angelum Chabrielem liber,” which was published the same year in which he returned, 1495, 4to, and is said to have been the first publication from the Aldine press “in literis rotundis.” His compositions both in Latin and Italian soon began to extend his reputation, not only through the different states of Italy, but also to distant countries. His father, flattered with the approbation bestowed on his son, was desirous of employing his talents in the service of his country in some public station, and for some time Bembo occasionally pleaded as an advocate with success and applause, until being disappointed in obtaining a place which was given to a rival much inferior in merit, he discovered that reluctance for public life, which, in obedience to his father, he had but imperfectly concealed, and determined to devote his whole attention to literature, as connected with the profession of the church. About this time, it is said, that his resolution was confirmed by accidentally going into a church when the officiating priest was reading a portion of the evangelical history, and had just come to the words, “Peter, follow me,” which Bembo looked upon as a divine admonition. There is nothing in his character, however, that can give much credibility to this story, which, it ought to be mentioned, some say occurred long after, when he was hesitating whether he should accept the office of cardinal.

In 1513, when Leo X. became pope, he appointed Bembo one of his secretaries, who, now in his forty-third year, settled at Rome in this character, and had his friend Sadoleto for his colleague. By them the pope’s correspondence was carried on in pure and classical Latin, a thing which Casa says was neither practised before nor thought practicable, former secretaries having compounded their Latin of all manner of languages and provincialisms. Bembo in other respects rendered himself so acceptable to Leo, that he employed him in commissions of the highest trust, which he rewarded with liberality. But the court of this pope was at the same time the seat of voluptuousness, and what Bembo gained in courtly promotion and literary fame, he lost in morals and moral character. All the excuse Casa can make is that he was not yet in holy orders. He here formed an illicit connexion with, a, girl of sixteen years of age, by whom he had three sons and a daughter. Among other objections to Bembo’s character, it is said that he participated in Leo’s ill-concealed contempt for religion, and, what was perhaps true, because characteristic, he professed to avoid the perusal of his bible and breviary, for fear of spoiling his Latinity.