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

In the following year he was preferred to the see of Canterbury, and confirmed April 9, and on the 23d of June he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privycouncil. At this time he was in the highest favour both with prince and people, and appears to have taken an active part in all the great transactions in church and state. Although not thought excessively fond of power, or desirous of carrying his prerogative, as primate of England, to an extraordinary height, yet he was resolute in maintaining the rights of the high commission court, and would not submit to lord Coke’s prohibitions. In the case of Vorstius, his conduct was more singular. Vorstius had been appointed to a professorship hi the university of Leyden, and was a noted Arminian. King James, by our archbishop’s advice, remonstrated with the States on this appointment; and the consequence was that Vorstius was banished by the synod of Dort, as will appear more at length in his life. This condact on the part of the archbishop alarmed those who were favourers of Arminianism, and who dreaded Calvinism from its supposed influence on the security of the church; but their fears as far as he was concerned appear to have been groundless, his attachment to the church of England remaining firm and uniform. He had soon, however, another opportunity of testifying his dislike of the Arminian doctrines. The zeal which the king had shewn for removing, first Arminius, and then Vorstius, had given their favourers in Holland so much uneasiness, that the celebrated Grotius, the great champion of their cause, was sent over to England to endeavour to mitigate the King’s displeasure, and, if possible, to give him a better opinion of the Remonstrants, as they then began to be called. On this occasion the archbishop wrote an account of Grotius and his negociation in a letter to sir Ralph Winwood, in which he treats Grotius with very little ceremony. For this he has met with an advocate in archdeacon Blackburn, who, in his Confessional, observes in his behalf, that “his disaffection to Grotius was owing to the endeavours and proposals of the latter, towards a coalition of the Protestants and Papists, which every wise and consistent Protestant, in every period lince the Reformation, as well as Abbot, has considered as a snare, and treated accordingly.” Another affair which occurred in 1613, created no little perplexity to our archbishop, while it afforded him an opportunity of evincing a decidedness of character not common at that period. This was the case of divorce between lady Frances Howard, daughter to the earl of Suffolk, and Robert, earl of Essex, her husband, which has always been considered as one of the greatest blemishes of king James’s reign. The part Abbot took in this matter displayed his unshaken and incorruptible integrity; and he afterwards published his reasons for opposing the divorce, as a measure tending to encourage public licentiousness. If this conduct displeased the king, he does not appear to have withdrawn his favour from the archbishop, as in 1615 he promoted his brother, Robert, to the see of Salisbury. The archbishop was less prudent in recommending -to the king, George Villiers, afterwards the celebrated duke of Buckingham; but of this he lived to repent, and to leave a satisfactory vindication.

, LL. D. an English divine and civilian, of whose birth and family we have no account. During the reign of queen Mary, he travelled in France and Italy, where he studied the civil law. In 1560, he was public orator at Cambridge; and, in the following year, created doctor of laws. In 1562, he was admitted an advocate in the Arches court; and afterwards lived in the family of archbishop Parker, who gave him a prebend, probably that of Southwell. In 1567, he was vicar-general to Home, bishop of Winchester; and, in 1575, the archbishop of Canterbury permitted him to hold the rectory of Elington, alias Wroughton, in the diocese of Sarum, with any other benefice. In 1576, he was appointed master of the faculties, and judge of the prerogative court, in Ireland, after he had been turned out of all the situations he held in England, on account of his dissolute conduct. When, he died is not known. He wrote, in his better days:

Afflitto’s works are: 1. “Commentarius in Constitutiones Siciliae et Neapolis,” Francfort, 1603, fol. 2. “Commentarius-buper tres libros Feudorum,” Venice, 1534, fol.; Lyons, 1548, and 1560 4 Francfort, 1598, 1608, 1629. 3. “Decisiones Neapolitans antiquse et novae,” Venice, 1564, 1600, and 1635, fol.; and Francfort, 1616, and 1635, fol. 4. “Lecturæ super consuetudinibus Neapolitani Siciliaeque regni,” Leyden, 1535, fol.; reprinted under different titles, and with the additions of other writers on the subject. 5. “De Jure Protomiseos cum Baldo et Marantha, Tr. Tr. xviii.” Francfort, 1571, and 1588; reprinted at Spires, 1603, 8vo. 6. “Enumeratio u fisci,” Basle, 1550, fol. 7. “Lecturse super 7 Codicis Justiniani,” 1560. 8. “De consiliariis principum et officialibus eligendis, ad justitiam regendam,” Naples; a very scarce work. The frequent editions of these voluminous works sufficiently prove the high estimation in which they were held. The family of Afflito has produced other celebrated men, as 1. John Afflito, an eminent mathematician, particularly skilled in the art of fortification, and employed as an engineer by John of Austria in some of his wars. He published, in Spanish, a treatise on the subject, 2 vols. 4to, and a volume of “Theological and Philosophical Miscellanies.” He died at Naples, 1673. 2. Gaetan-Andre D‘Afflitto, advocate-general, who published law-pleadings and decisions at Naples, 1655. And lastly, Cæsar D’Afflitto, who left a work on the feudal laws.

, a Greek historian, who lived in the 6th century, under the emperor Justinian, was born at Myrina in Asia Minor. Some have concluded from Suidas, that he was an advocate at Smyrna; but Fabricius thinks that he was in general an advocate, or scholasticus, as he is called, from having studied the law in the schools appointed for that purpose. In his youth he was strongly inclined to poetry, and published some small pieces of the gay and amatory kind, under the title of “Daphniaca:” he tells us likewise, that he was author of a “Collection of epigrams” written by divers hands, a great part of which are presumed to be extant in the Greek Anthologia, where, however, he calls himself Agathius. These are also in Brunck’s Analecta. There have been doubts about his religion: Vossius and others have supposed him a pagan; and they have concluded this chiefly from a passage in the third book of his history; where, giving a reason why the fortress of Onogoris in Colchis was called, in his time, St. Stephen’s fort, he says, that this first Christian martyr was stoned there, but uses the word φασὶ, they say; as if he did not himself believe what he might think it necessary to relate. But this is by no means conclusive; and Fabricius supposes him, upon much better grounds, to have been a Christian, because he more than once gives very explicitly the preference to the doctrines of Christians: and in the first book he speaks plainly of the Christians as embracing the most reasonable system of opinions.

In the year 1515 he read lectures upon Mercurius Trismegistus at Pavia. He left this city the same year, or the year following; but his departure was rather a flight than a retreat. By his second book of letters we find, that his friends endeavoured to procure him some honourable settlement at Grenoble, Geneva, Avignon, or Metz: he chose the last of these places; and in 1518 was employed as syndic, advocate, and counsellor for that city. The persecutions raised against him by the monks, because he had refuted a vulgar notion about St. Anne’s three husbands, and because he protected a countrywoman who was accused of witchcraft, obliged him to leave the city of Metz. The abuse which his friend Jacobus Faber Satulensis, or Jacques Faber d'Estaples, had received from the clergy of Metz, for affirming that St. Anne had but one husband, had raised his indignation, and incited him to maintain the same opinion. Agrippa retired to Cologn in the year 1520, leaving without regret a city, which those turbulent inquisitors had rendered hostile to all polite literature and real merit. He^eft his own country in 1521, and went to Geneva: here his income must have been inconsiderable, for he complains of not having enough to defray his expences to Chamber!, in order to solicit a pension from the duke of Savoy. In this, however, his hopes were disappointed; and in 1523 he removed to Fribourg in Switzerland. The year following he went to Lyons, and obtained a pension from Francis I. He was appointed physician to the king’s mother; but this was not much to his advantage; nor did he attend her at her departure from Lyons, in August 1525, when she went to conduct her daughter to the borders of Spain. He was left behind at Lyons, and was obliged to implore the assistance of his friends in order to obtain his salary; and before he received it, had the mortification of being informed that he was struck off the list. The cause of his disgrace was, that, having received orders from his mistress to examine by the rules of astrology, what success would attend the affairs of France, he too freely expressed his dislike that she should employ him in such idle curiosities, instead of things of consequence: at which she was highly offended; and became yet more irritated against him, when she understood that his astrological calculations promised new successes to the constable of Bourbon. Agrippa finding himself thus abandoned, gave way to the utmost rage and impetuosity of temper: he wrote several menacing letters, and threatened to publish some books, in which he would expose the secret history of those courtiers who had worked his ruin: nay, he proceeded so far as to say, that he would for the future account that princess, to whom he had been counsellor and physician, as a firuel and perfidious Jezebel.

Agrippa had been twice married. Speaking of his first wife, lib. II. ep. 19. “I have (says he), the greatest reason to return thanks to Almighty God, who has given me a wife after my own heart, a virgin of a noble family, well behaved, young, beautiful, and so conformable to my disposition, that we never have a harsh word with each other; and what completes my happiness is, that in whatever situation my affairs are, whether prosperous or adverse, she still continues the same, equally kind, affable, constant, sincere, and prudent, always easy, and mistress of herself.” This wife died in 1521. He married his second wife at Geneva, in 1522. The latter surpassed the former very much in fruitfulness; he had but one son by the former, whereas the latter was brought to bed thrice in two years, and a fourth time the year following. The third son by this marriage had the cardinal Lorrain for his godfather. She was delivered of her fifth son at Antwerp, in March 1529, and died there in August following. Some say that he married a third time, and that he divorced his last wife; but he mentions nothing thereof in his letters. Mr. Bayle saysj that Agrippa lived and died in the Romish communion; but Sextus Senensis asserts, that he was a Lutheran. Agrippa, in some passages of his letters, does indeed treat Luther with harsh epithets; however, in the 19th chapter of his Apology, he speaks in so favourable a manner of him, and with such contempt of his chief adversaries, that it is likely Sextus Senensis’s assertion was founded upon that passage. Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, speaks of Agrippa as if he had been an advocate for the divorce of Henry VIII. Mr. Bayle refutes this, and says that the ambassador of the emperor at London wrote to Agrippa, desiring him to support the interest of the queen: Agrippa replied, that he would readily engage, if the emperor would give him orders for that purpose; and declares that he detested the base compliance of those divines who approved of the divorce: and with regard to the Sorbonne, “I am not ignorant (says he), by what arts this affair was carried on in the Sorbonne at Paris, who by their rashness have given sanction to an example of such wickedness. When I consider it, I can scarce contain myself from exclaiming, in imitation of Perseus, Say, ye Sorbonnists, what has gold to do with divinity What piety and faith shall we imagine to be in their breasts, whose consciences are more venal than sincere, and who have sold their judgments and decisions, which ought to be revered by all the Christian world, and have now sullied the reputation they had established for faith and sincerity, by infamous avarice.” Agrippa was accused of having been a magician and sorcerer, and in. compact with the devil; but it is unnecessary to clear him, from this imputation. Bayle justly says, that if he was a conjuror, his art availed him little, as he was often in want of bread.

, a French statesman of great worth and talents, was born at Limoges, Nov. 7, 1668, the son of Henry d'Aguesseau, then intendant of the Limoisin, and afterwards counsellor of state. The family was distinguished for having produced many able magistrates, among whom was Anthony, the grandfather of the chancellor, who was first president of the parliament of Bourdeaux. Henry-Francis, the subject of the present article, was educated under his father in every species of knowledge which promised to qualify him for the office of magistrate. After being admitted, in 1690, an advocate, he became, a few months after, advocate-general of the parliament of Paris, at the age of only twenty-two years. The king, in appointing one so young to an office of very great consequence, was guided solely by the recommendation of his father. “I know him,” said his majesty, “to be incapable of deceiving me, even in the case of his own son;” and the young advocate completely justified the confidence reposed in him. The celebrated Denis Talon, who had obtained great reputation in the same office, declared that he should have been willing to conclude his career as that young man had begun his. After having performed the functions of his office with reputation equal to his commencement, he became procurator-general; and the nature of his new office furnished him with occasion to display new talents in the public service. In particular, he introduced a complete system of reformation in the management of the hospitals, by which abuses were prevented or corrected; and he restored order and discipline in the tribunals, by which the criminal code was greatly improved. In questions respecting estates, he discovered much acuteness and knowledge of antiquities.

, an eminent lawyer and law writer, the son of Anthony Agylæus, originally of an Italian family, was born at Bois-le-duc, about 1533, where he was educated, and became a distinguished Greek scholar. lu his youth he carried arms against the king of Spain, was appointed a deputy to the States Genera], a member of the supreme council, and advocate fiscal. But he is less known by his share in the defence of his country, than by his learning and writings. He published: 1. “Novellae Justiniani Imp. Constitutiones,” with Holoander’s translation corrected, Paris, 1560, 4to. 2. “Justiniani edicta: Justini, Tiberii, Leonis philosophi constitutiones, et Zenonis nna,” Paris, 1560, 8vo. 3. A Latin translation of the Nomo-Canon of Photius, with Balsamon’s commentary, a better translation, and from a more complete copy than that of Gentian Hervet, Basil, 1561, fol. It bas been reprinted by Christopher Justel, with the Greek, in 1615, and in 1661 by Henry Justel in his Collection of the ancient canon law, 4. “Inauguratio Philippi II. Hisp. regis, qua se juraraento ducatui Brabantige, &c. obligavit,” Utrecht, 1620, 8vo. He died April 1595.

, a Spanish writer, born at Medina del Campo, in Castile, about the end of the sixteenth century. After having studied the law at Salamanca, he entered into the service of Anthony Perez, secretary of state under Philip II. He was in high esteem and confidence with his master, upon which account he was imprisoned after the disgrace of this minister, and kept in confinement eleven years, when Philip III. coming to the throne, set him at liberty, according to the orders given by his father in his will. Alamos continued in a private capacity, till the duke of Olivarez, the favourite of Philip IV. called him to public employments. He was appointed advocate-general in the court of criminal causes, and in the council of war. He was afterwards chosen member of the council of the Indies, and then of the council of the king’s patrimony, and a knight of the order of St. James. He was a man of wit as well as judgment, but his writings were superior to his conversation. He died in the 88th year of his age. His Spanish translation of Tacitus, and the aphorisms which he added in the margin, gained him great reputation: the aphorisms, however, have been censured by some authors, particularly by Mr. Amelot, who says, “that instead of being more concise and sententious than the text, the words of the text are always more so than the aphorism.” This work was published at Madrid in 1614, and was to have been followed, as mentioned in the king’s privilege, with a commentary, which, however, has never yet appeared. The author composed the whole during his imprisonment. He left several other works which have never yet been printed.

We may presume our barrister shone as an advocate with meridian lustre, since the celebrated Pope has recorded his name, by prefixing it to his Imitation of Horace, Sat. II. 1. and distinguished his legal abilities, by asking his opinion, as to libels, in the following lines:

, an Italian lawyer, the sort of Alberic Rosiati of Bergamo, one of the most learned men of his time, was born at Arezzo, near Florence, in the fourteenth century. He studied under the celebrated Baldi, and made a rapid progress in philosophy, law, history, &c. He afterwards became an advocate at Arezzo, but went to Florence in 1349. Here his learning, talents, and integrity, procured him one of those titles which were frequently bestowed at that time on men of celebrity. He was called doctor solids veritatis. By the republic of Florence he was entrusted to negociate several very important affairs, particularly with the Bolognese in 1558; and as the recompense of his services, he was ennobled. He died at Florence in 1376, leaving three sons; two eminent in, the church, and one as a lawyer. His works are principally “Commentaries on the Digest,” on “some books of the Civil Code,” and consultations, much praised by Bartholi. His father, mentioned above, wrote on the sixth book of the Decretals, a work much esteemed and often reprinted, and a Dictionary of Law, with other professional treatises.

, a celebrated Roman orator in the time of Augustus, was a native of Novarre, and advanced to the office of sedile, but he left it on account of an insult offered to him by some persons who had lost their suit. He then went to Rome, where he associated himself v.-ith Munacius Plancus, the orator, but rivalship soon parted them, and he formed a separate auditory, and at length ventured to plead causes. In this office, he met with a disgrace which obliged him to renounce it. In the warmth of pleading he one day made use of an expression which he meant only as a nourish: “Swear,” said he to his adversary, “by the ashes and by the memory of your fathers, and you shall gain your cause.” After he had amplified this thought, the advocate on the opposite side coolly replied, “We accept the condition;” and the judges admitting the oath, Albutius lost his cause, and his temper, at least, if not his credit. We hear no more of him, until he returned to Novarre, old and afflicted with an abscess, when he called the people together, and explained to them in a long speech the reasons that hindered him from desiring to live, and so starved himself to death. Seneca the father gives him the singular character of one who could neither bear nor offer an injury. A passage in Quintilian seems to intimate that he composed a “Treatise on Rhetorick.”

was a native of Florence, and for some time a professor of law at Pisa. Oa his return to his own country, he involved himself in the prevailing political contests; and having taken a part in opposition to the house of Medici, he was banished, and deprived of all his property. Paul III. however, received him at Rome, and appointed him advocate of the treasury and apostolic chamber. He died in 1558, aged 58, leaving several works on jurisprudence, which are enumerated by Mazzuchelli. He was the father of Hypolitus Aldobrandini, who reached the papal chair, and assumed the name of Clement VIII.

As M. d'Alembert’s fortune did not far exceed the demands of necessity, his friends advised him to think of a profession that might enable him to augment it. He accordingly turned his views to the law, and was admitted an advocate in 1738, but soon abandoned this plan, and applied to the study of medicine, which he continued only for about a year. Geometry was always drawing him back to his former pursuits; and after many ineffectual efforts to resist its attractions, he renounced all views of a lucrative profession, and gave himself over entirely to mathematics.

, a French advocate, was born at Montpeliier, and died at Paris, March 7, 1785, in the eighty-second year of his age. Having no talents to make a figure at the bar, he became an author by profession, and compiled a great number of works for the booksellers, some of which had considerable success. The principal productions of his industry were, 1. Several dictionaries, particularly “L'Agronome,” 2 vols. 8vo; a good abridgment of the “Maison Rustique;” a “Dictionnaire Theologique,” and another “Des Conciles,” both in 8vo, concise, but not remarkable for perspicuity. 2. “Manuel de l'homme du monde,” 8vo; and “L'Encyclopedie de Penseés,” 8vo; compilations made with little care. 3. “Synopsis Doctrinæ Sacræ,” 8vo, a collection of the passages in the Bible which regard the articles of belief. 4. “Tableau de l'histoire de France,” 2 vols. 12mo, which was adopted into some schools, and although negligently written, and with little attraction, gives the principal facts of the French history with fidelity and simplicity. 5. “Les Princes celebres qui ont regné dans le monde,” 4 vols. 12mo. 6. “L'Histoire des Papes,” 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “L'Histoire des Singes,” 2 vols. 12mo. This transition from the history of princes and popes to that of apes and monkeys, may be thought a proof of the versatility of our author’s genius: his history of princes, however, is the best of the three; that of popes is said to be superficial, and not very impartial. 8. “Les ornamens de la memoire,” 12mo, in which the title is more happy than usual in such works, is a collection of the beauties of the French poets, and has been often reprinted and enlarged. 9. “Les Lemons de Thalie,” 3 vols. 12mo; these are portraits and characteristic pieces from the comic poets. 10. “Connoisances des Poetes Françoises,” 2 vols. 12mo. 11. “Catechisme de l'age mur,” 12mo, an abridgment of the proofs of religion by question and answer. 12. “L'Albert moderne,” 2 vols. 12mo. 13. “L'Esprit des Journalistes de Trevoux,” 4 vols. 12mo. 14. “L'Esprit des Journalistes de Hollande,” 2 vols. 12mo. The former of these is a judicious selection. He compiled likewise several books for schools, and abridgments of the Greek history, the “Magasin des Adolescens,” lives of the saints, &c. &c. This copious list, in which we have not given all his compilations, is no small testimony to the industry of M. Alletz, who was at least virtuously, and often usefully employed, and whose character made his death, although at a very advanced period, be much regretted by his friends and family.

, a Portugueze priest, who had the courage in Portugal to study and teach philosophy, xipon more rational and experimental principles than had ever been known in that country, was born in 1722. His most celebrated work, written in Portuguese, and entitled “Itecreaceo Filosofica,” 5 vols. 8vo, 1751, occasioned a revolution in the philosophical studies of the Portugueze, and would probably have involved the author in much danger, had not the Jesuits been soon after banished from that kingdom. He was nevertheless a zealous advocate for the pretensions of the court of Rome, at the time of the famous rupture between Joseph II. and that court; and this rendered him so obnoxious to the marquis de Pombal, that he was obliged to seek an asylum in France, during the ministry of that nobleman. On his return to Portugal, the royal academy of sciences of Lisbon was eager to admit him a member; but it was soon evident that Almeida had not kept pace with the progress which the nation had made in twenty-five years, and he was suffered to eclipse himself, although without losing any of the respect due to his former services in promoting liberal science. He published, after his return to Lisbon, a moral romance, called “The Happy Independant,” which had little success; and it was said that a better title would have been “The Happy Impertinent.” He died in 1805, leaving behind him several manuscripts, for the publication of which he had obtained the permission of the Censor. His works altogether are said to amount to forty volumes, besides five of translations; but we have not been able to obtain a list of their titles or subjects. At the time of his death he was a member of the Royal Academy of Lisbon, and of the Royal Society of London.

a modern German poet, was born at Vienna, Jan. 24, 1755; his father was a civilian, and consistory counsellor to the bishop of Passau, He studied the classics under the celebrated antiquary Eckhel, keeper of the medals at Vienna, and while with him, imbibed such a taste for reading-the ancient poets, that he knew most of their writings by heart, and was always so fond of this study, that he remembered with gratitude, to the last hour of his life, the master who had initiated him in it, nor did he neglect his favourite authors, even when obliged to attend the courts of law. When the death of his parents had put him in possession of a considerable patrimony, he made no other use of his doctor’s and advocate’s titles, than in reconciling the differences of such clients as addressed themselves to him for advice. His first poetical attempts appeared in the Muses’ Almanack, and other periodical publications at Vienna, and of these he published a collection at Leipsic in 1784, and at Klagenfurth in 1788, which procured him the honour of being ranked among the best poets of his country for elegance, energy, and fertility of imagination. In the “New Collection of Poetry,” printed at Vienna in 1794, he contributed some pieces not so favourable to his character; but he completely re-established his fame by the publication of “Doolin of Mentz,” and “Bliomberis,” two poems of the romantic cast, in imitation of.Wieland, to whom the last was dedicated. In 1791, he published a German translation of Florian’s “Numa Pompilius,” which some have thought equal to the original, but in many parts it is deficient in elegance. It was, however, his last performance, except the assistance he gave to some literary contemporaries in translating the foreign journals. During the three last years of his life, he was secretary and inspector of the court theatre, and died May 1, 1797, of a nervous fever. He was a man of warm affections and gaiety of temper, and of his liberality he afforded a striking instance in the case of Haschka the poet, whom he regarded as one of the cipal supporters of German literature. He not only ac commodated him with apartments in his house, but made him a present of 10,000 florins. Of his faults, it is only recorded that he was a little vain, and a little given to the pleasures of the table.

, an advocate in the parliament of Aix, who died in 1760, is known by some works in natural science: 1. “Observations experimentales sur les eaux des rivieres de Seine, de Marne, c.” 1749, 12mo. 2. “Nouvelles fontaines filtrantes,” 1757, 12mo. 3. “Reflexions sur les vaisseaux de cuivre, de plomb, et d'etain,” 1757, 12mo. &c. His works discover the author to have been a great friend to mankind, employing his knowledge in the investigation of whatever may prove useful or noxious to his fellowcreatures.

Amyraut was a man of such charity and compassion, that he bestowed on the poor his whole salary during the last ten years of his life, without distinction of 'saffholic or protestant. He died the 8th of February 1664, and was interred with the usual ceremonies of the academy. He left but one son, who was one of the ablest advocates of the parliament of Paris, but fled to the Hague after the revocation of the edict of Nantes: he had also a daughter, who died in 1645, a year and a half after she had been married. His works are chiefly theological, and very voluminous; but, notwithstanding his fame, few of them were printed a second time, and they are now therefore scarce, and perhaps we may add, not in much request. He published in 1631 his “Traite des Religions,” against those who think all religions indifferent, and five years after, six “Sermons upon the nature, extent, &c. of the Gospel,” and several others at different times. His book of the exaltation of Faith, and abasement of Reason, “De Pelevation de la foi, &c.” appeared in 1641; and the same year was published in Latin the “Defence of Calvin with regard to the doctrine of absolute reprobation,” which in 1644 appeared in French. He began his “Paraphrase on the Scripture” in 1644: the Epistle to the Romans was paraphrased the first; then the other Epistles; and lastly the Gospel but like Calvin, he did not meddle with the Revelations, nor did he prefix his name to his Paraphrases lest it should deter the Roman Catholics from perusing them. He pub^ lishedin 1647 an “Apology for the Protestants,” “A treatise of Free Will,” and another “De Secessione ab Ecclesia Romana, deque pace inter Evangelicos in negotio Religionis constituenda.” But he treated this subject of the re-union of the Calvinists and Lutherans more at length in his “Irenicon” published in 1662. His book of the “Vocation of Pastors” appeared in 1649. He had preached on this subject before the prince of Tarento, at the meetings of a provincial synod, of which he was moderator. The prince desired the sermon might be printed, and the subject treated more at length, it being then the common topic of all missionaries. Mr. Amyraut, therefore, not only printed his sermon, but published a complete treatise upon that important controversy, and dedicated them both to the said prince. His Christian Morals, “Morale Chre-= tienne,” in six vols. 8vo, the first of which was printed in 1652, were owing to the frequent conferences he had with Mr. de Villornoul, a gentleman of an extraordinary merit, and one of the most learned men of Europe, who was heir in this respect also to Mr. du Plessis Mornai his grandfather by the mother’s side. He published also a treatise of dreams, “Traité des Songes;” two volumes upon “the Millenium,” wherein he refutes an advocate of Paris, called Mr. de Launoi, who was a zealous Millenarian; the “Life of the brave la None, surnamed Iron-arm,” from 1560 to the time of his death in 1591, Leyden, 1661, 4to; and several other works, particularly a poem, entitled “The Apology of St. Stephen to his Judges.” This piece was attacked by the missionaries, who asserted that the author had spoke irreverently of the sacrament of the altar; but he published a pamphlet in which he defended himself with great ability.

, son of the above, was born at Metz, July 29, 1659: he began his studies in that city, and went to Hanau for the prosecution of them. He afterwards applied himself to the civil law at Marpurg, Geneva, and Paris, in the last of which cities he was admitted an advocate. Upon his return to Metz, in 1679, he followed the bar, where he began to raise himself a considerable reputation. After the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685, the protestants of Metz deputed him to court, in order to represent that they ought not to be comprehended in this revocation. But all that he could obtain was, that this city should be treated with more lenity and favour. He followed his father to Berlin, where the elector of Brandenbourg appointed him judge and director of the French in that city. In 1695, that prince gave him, new marks of his confidence and favour, by sending him to Swisserland in order to negociate some affairs of importance. The marquis of Baden Dourlach, who was then at Basil, having had an opportunity of seeing him, entertained so great an esteem for him, that he chose him for his counsellor, and desired the elector of Brandenbourg to give Ancillon leave that he should serve him for some time. Our author did not return to Berlin till the end of the year 1699, and was then appointed inspector of all the courts of justice which the French had in Prussia, and counsellor of the embassy. The elector, being crowned king of Prussia, made him likewise his historiographer and superintendant of the French school, which had been founded at Berlin, according to the scheme which he had formed. He died in that city the 5th of July, 1715, being fifty-six years of age. His works are, 1. “L‘Irrevocabilité de l’Edit de Nantes prouvé par les principes du droit & de la politique,” Amsterdam, 1688, 12mo. 2. “Reflexions politiques, par lesquelles on fait voir que la persecution des reformez est contre les veritable interets de la France,” Cologne, 1686, 12mo. Mr. Bayle is mistaken in supposing, that this work was written by Sandras des Courtils, the author of the “Nouveaux Interets des Princes.” 3. “La France interessée a rétablir l'Edit de Nantes,” Amsterdam, 1690, 12mo. 4. “Histoire de l'Etablissement des François Refugiez dans les Etats de son altesse electorate de Brandebourg,” Berlin, 1690, 8vo. He wrote this out of gratitude to the elector for the generosity which he had shewn to the French Protestants. It appears from this piece, that the elector’s humanity extended to all the different ranks of persons among them. The men of learning tasted all the satisfactions of ease notwithstanding the pressure of misfortune and distress, and enjoyed the charms of society in the conferences which were held at Mr. Spanheim’s, their patron and Mæcenas, who was one of the ornaments of that court, as well as of the republic of letters. 5. “Melange Critique,” mentioned before in his father’s article. 6. “Dissertation sur l‘usage de mettre la premiere pierre au fondement des edifices publics, addressée au prince electoral de Brandebourg, à l’occasion de la premiere pierre, qu‘il a posée lul même au fondement du temple qu’on construit pour les François Refugiez dans le quartier de Berlin nommé Friderichstadt,” Berlin, 1701, 8vo. The author having given an account of every thing which his knowledge and reading would supply him with on this subject, acknowledges at last, that this custom is very like those rivers, whose source is unknown, though we may observe the course of them. 7. “Le dernier triomphe de Frederic Guillaume le Grand, electeur de Brandebourg, ou discours sur la Statue Equestre érigée sur le Pont Neuf du Berlin,” Berlin, 1703. Mr. Beauval says that this piece is an oration and a dissertation united together, and that the style is a little too turgid. 8. “Histoire de la vie de Soliman II. empereur des Turcs,” Rotterdam, 1706, 8vo; a work not very correct, but the preliminary matter is valuable, and contains, among other particulars, some curious information respecting Thuanus, taken from the “Bibliotheque Politique Heraldique Choisie,” 1705, 8vo. 9. “Traité des Eunuques, par C. Dollincan,” 1707, 12mo, Dollincan is an assumed name, and the work unworthy of our author’s abilities. 10. “Memoires concernant les vies et les ouvrages de plusieurs modernes celebres dans la Republique des Lettres,” Amst. 1709, 12mo. This piece, which he was induced to undertake by the persuasion of a bookseller of Rotterdam, as a supplement to Bayle’s dictionary, contains the lives, somewhat diffusely written, of Valentine Conrart, whose article contains 133 pages; Bartholomew d'Herbelot, Urban Chevreau, Henry Justel, Adrian Baillet, James Aubery, Benjamin Aubery Sieur du Maurier, Lewis Aubery, John Aubery, Claudius Aubery, John Baptist Cotelier, and Laurence Beger. 11. “Histoire de la vie de M. Ltscheid,” Berlin, 1713.

, an eminent French actor and dramatic writer, was born at Fontainbleau, Nov. 1, 1661. He studied in the Jesuits’ college at Paris, under father de la Rue; who, discovering in him a remarkable quickness and capacity for learning, was extremely desirous of engaging him in their order, but d'Ancourt’s aversion to a religious life rendered all his efforts ineffectual. After he had gone through a course of philosophy, he applied himself to the civil law, and was admitted advocate at seventeen years of age, but falling in love with an actress, he went upon the stage; and, in 1680, married this woman. As he had all the qualifications necessary for the theatre, he soon greatly distinguished himself, and began to write pieces for the stage, many of which had such success, that most of the players grew rich from the profits of them. His merit in this way procured him a very favourable reception at court, where Lewis XIV. shewed him many marks of his favour. Ais sprightly conversation and polite behaviour made his company agreeable to all the men of figure both at court and in the city, and the most considerable persons were extremely pleased to have him at their houses. Having taken a journey to Dunkirk, to see his eldest daughter who lived there, he took the opportunity of paying his compliments to the elector of Bavaria, who was then at Brussels. This prince received him with the utmost civility; and, having retained him a considerable time, dismissed him, with a present of a diamond valued at a thousand pistoles; he likewise rewarded him in a very generous manner, when, upon his coming to Paris, d'Ancourt composed an entertainment for his diversion. At length grown weary of the theatre, which he quitted in Lent, 1718, he retired to his estate of Courcelles le Roy, in Berry; where he applied himself wholly to devotion, and composed a translation of David’s psalms in verse, and a sacred tragedy, which were never printed. He died the 16th of December, 1726, 65 years of age. His plays consist of fifty-two, of which twentyfive are said to keep their reputation on the stage. They were published in 1710 and 1750, in 9 vols. 12mo, and the best of them in 3 vols. 12mo, under the title of “Chefsd‘œuvre de d’Ancourt.”

, a French historian, and ecclesiastical writer, was born in the Artois, in 1723, and became a Benedictine, but being appointed procurator of one of the houses of that order, he disappeared with the funds intrusted to his care. How he escaped afterwards, his biographer does not inform us, but he attached himself to the order of Malta, became an advocate of parliament, and doctor of laws of the faculty of Paris. He was afterwards made prior of Villeconin, and a member of the academies of Arras and of the arcades of Rome. He died about 1790, after having published: 1. “Dialogues sur l'utilité des moines rentés,” 1768, 12mo. 2. “Exposition sur le Cantique des Cantiques de Salomon,” 1770, 12mo. 3. “Histoire de S. Maur, abbé de Glanfeuil,” 1772, 12mo. The first part contains the life of St. Maur; the second and third give an account of his relics; and the fourth is a history of the abbey of St. Maur-des-Fosses. 4. “Eloge de Charles V. empereur,” from the Latin of J. Masenius, 1777, 12mo. 5. “Esprit de St. Vincent de Paul,” proposed as a pattern to ecclesiastics, 1780, 12mo. 6. “Histoire de Sainte Reine d‘Alise, et de I’abbaye de Flavigny,” 1783, 12mo. 7. “Histoire de S. Fiacre,” 1784, 12mo. 8. “Bibliotheque litteraire du Maine,” Chalons sur Marne, 1784, 8vo, in which he has revived the memory of above three hundred authors. The work was intended to consist of eight volumes, but no more was printed than this. 9. “La Vie de Gregoire Cortez, Benedictine, eveque d'Urbin, et cardinal,” 1786. Ansart, according to his biographer, was both ignorant and idle, and took the substance of all the works he published with his name, from the archives of the Regime, formerly at Germain-des-Pres.

, a lawyer, the contemporary of Luther, was one of the professors of the university of Wittemberg, and assisted in the reformation. He was born at Nuremberg, in 1486, of which place his father was a citizen. Having married a nun while canon of Wurzburgh, he was arrested by orders of the bishop, but protected by an imperial regiment in the garrison of^ Nuremberg. He was, however, obliged to resign all his preferments, in lieu of which he was afterwards appointed advocate of the republic of Nuremberg, and counsellor to the elector of Brandenburgh. He died at Nuremberg in 1536. He published a defence of his marriage, addressed to the prince bishop of Wurzburgh, entitled l.“DefensioJo. Apelli pro suo conjugio,” with a preface by Luther, Wittemberg, 1523, 4to. 2. “Methodica dialectices ratio, adjurisprudentiam accommodata,” Norimb. 1535, 4to. This is a treatise on the Roman law, or rather a system of logic applicable to that study, and divested of the rage for allegory which had long prevailed in the schools. Reusner reprinted it in his “Cynosura.” 3. “Brachylogus juris civilisj sive corpus legum,” an abridgment of the civil law, which was long thought to be a production of the sixth century, and was even attributed to the emperor Justinian.

, an Italian lawyer, and a scholar of great learning, was born at Cremona, Feb. 3, 1657, the son of Louis Arisi and Lucia Negri, both of distinguished families in that place. His infirm state of health in his infancy made him be consigned, for some time, to the care of a private tutor; but he afterwards studied philosophy in the Jesuits’ college. In 1674, his father sent him to Rome to study law, from whence, in 1677, he went to Bologna with a view to continue that pursuit, but the death of his father obliged him next year to return to his own country. Still desirous, however, to complete his course, he went first to Pavia, where he obtained a doctor’s degree, and then to Milan for six months, where he improved himself under an able advocate. On his return to Cremona, he divided his time between his professional studies, and that of polite literature, particularly poetry, for which he had a very early taste. Connecting himself, by correspondence or personal acquaintance, with the most eminent scholars of nis time, he became a member of many of the Italian academies; and the extensive knowledge and probity he displayed as a lawyer, occasioned his being employed in many public transactions, in which he acquitted himself to the entire satisfaction of the government of his country. He died of a lingering disorder, Jan. 25, 1743. Mazzuchelli’s list of his works, printed and manuscript, amounts to sixtyfour articles. The most esteemed of the printed works are, 1. “La Tirranide soggiogata,” an oratorio for St. Anthony of Padua, Cremona, 1677, 4to, and he published three others in different years for the festival of that saint. 2. “Cremona litterata, sen in Cremonenses, doctrina et litterariis dignitatibus eminentiores, chronologic^ adnotationes,” 3 vols. fol. The first two were published at Parma, 1702 and 1705, and the third at Cremona, 1741. 3. “Scnatorum Mediolanensium ex collegio judicum Cremonae ab ipso erecto, usque ad hocc tempora continuata series,” &c. Cremona, 1705, fol. 4. “Rime per le sacre stimate del Santo Patriarca Francesco,” &c. Cremona, 1713, 4to, an astonishing instance of superstitious poetry, containing no less than three hundred and twenty-five sonnets on the marks on the body of St. Francis. He published many other poems separately, and in collections.

If, without regard to the fictions either of calumny or panegyric, the merit of Aristotle be weighed in the equal balance of historical truth, it will, perhaps, be found, that neither were his virtues of that exalted kind which command admiration, nor his faults so highly criminal as not to admit of some apology. He may, perhaps, be justly censured for having taught his pupil Alexander, principles of morals and policy which were accommodated to the manners of a court, and which might easily be rendered subservient to his ambitious views. And it cannot be doubted that his philosophical doctrines concerning nature were not favourable to the public forms of religion. But neither his doctrine, nor his life, afford sufficient grounds for condemning him as the advocate of immorality or impiety.

, a French miscellaneous writer of considerable note, was born at Aubignan, near Carpentras, July 27, 1721, and afterwards became an ecclesiastic. In 1752 he came to Paris, and in 1762 was admitted into the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres. He was for some time attached to prince Louis of Wirtemberg, afterwards sovereign of that duchy, but then in the service of France. The advocate Gerbier, his friend, having in 1765, gained an important cause for the clergy of France against the Benedictines, he demanded, as his reward, that Arnaud should be placed at the head of the abbey of Grandchamp. In 1771 he was elected a member of the French academy, and became librarian to Monsieur, with the reversion of the place of historiographer of the order of St. Lazarus. He died at Paris Dec. 2, 1784. The abbé Arnaud was a man of learning, much information, and taste, but too much a man of the world, and too indolent, to give his talents fair play. His “Lettre sur la Musique, au Comte de Caylus,” 1754, 8 vo, which made him first known to the learned world, and has been generally praised, was little more than the prospectus of a far larger work on the music of the ancients, but he never could bring himself to execute his plan, and for the rest of his life employed his pen only on occasional papers and essays. Being a warm admirer of Giuck, when the disputes took place in 1777 respecting music, he wrote in the Journal de Paris a considerable number of articles in favour of German music, and against Marmontel, who patronized Piccini; and in, concert with his friend M. Suard, edited “L‘Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Europe par de Buat,” 1772, 12 vols. 12mo. He assisted also in the following works: 1. “Journal Etranger,” with M. Suard, from Jan. 1760 to March 1762. The complete work consists of 54 vols. 12mo, beginning 1754. Suard and he afterwards quitted it to translate the Gazette de France. 2. “Gazette litteraire de l'Europe,” also with M. Suard, 1764 1766, 8 vols. 8vo. 3. “Varietes litteraires, ou Ilecueil des pieces tant originales que traduites, concernant la philosophic, la litterature, et les arts,” 1768 1769, 4 vols. 12mo. This consists of the best pieces from the two first mentioned journals; and M. Suard' s “Melanges de litterature,” 1803 4, 5 vols. 8vo, may be considered as a new edition, but with many additions and omissions. It is in the “Varietes” only, that we find Bissy’s translation of Young’s Night Thoughts. 4. “Description des principales pierres gravees du cabinet du due d'Orleans,” 1730, 2 vols. fol. Arnaud compiled the articles in the first volume of this magnificent work: the second bears the names of the abbés de la Chau and le Blond. 5. Various dissertations in the “Memoires de l'Academie des inscriptions,” collected and published under the title of “Œuvres completes de l'abbé Arnaud,” 3 vols. 8vo, but incorrectly printed. The “Memoires pour servir a l'histoire de la revolution opere dans la Musique par le chevalier Gluck,” 1781, 8vo, attributed to our author, was written by the abbé le Blond. Arnaud was well acquainted with ancient literature, and improved his style, which, however, is not quite pure, by the study of the best ancient writers. Although at first an enemy to the new philosophy introduced in France, he was afterwards ranked among its supporters, but did not live to witness its consequences.

, eldest son of Anthony Arnauld, and advocate-general to Catherine de Medicis, was born at Paris in 1550, or, according to some, in 1560, and in that city he was educated, and took his degree of M. A. in 1573. Some time after, he was admitted advocate of the parliament of Paris, in which capacity he acquired great reputation by his integrity and extraordinary eloquence. Henry IV. had great esteem for Arnauld; and his majesty once carried the duke of Savoy on purpose to hear him plead in, parliament. He was appointed counsellor and attorneygeneral to queen Catherine of Medicis. Mr. Marion, afterwards advocate-general, was one day so pleased with hearing him, that he took him into his coach, carried him home to dinner, and placed him next his eldest daughter, Catherine, and afterwards gave her to him in marriage. One of the most famous causes which Arnauld pleaded, was that of the university against the Jesuits, in 1594. There was published about this time a little tract in French, entitled “Franc et veritable discours,” &c. or, A frank and true discourse to the king, concerning the re-establishment of the Jesuits, which they had requested of him. Some have ascribed this to Arnauld, but others have positively denied him to be the author. Some have supposed that Arnauld was of the reformed religion; but Mr. Bayle has fully proved this to be a mistake. His other works were, 1. “Anti-Espagnol,” printed in a collection of discourses on the present state of France, 1606, 12mo, and in the “Memoires de la Ligue, vol. IV. p. 230. 2.” La Fleur de Lys,“1593, 8vo. 3.” La Delivrance de la Bretagne.“4.” La Premiere Savoisienne,“8vo. 1601, 1630. 5.” Avis au roi Louis XIII. pour bien regner,“1615, 8vo. 6. The first and second” Philippics" against Philip II. of Spain, 1592, 8vo. He died Dec. 29, 1619, leaving ten children out of twenty-two, whom he had by his wife Catherine.

, bishop of Rochester in the reigns of queen Anne and king George I. was born March 6, 1662-3, at Milton or Middleton Keynes, near Newport- Pagnel, Bucks. He was admitted a king’s scholar in 1676 at Westminster-school; and thence, in 1680, was elected a student of Christ-Church college, Oxford, where he soon distinguished himself by his wit and learning and gave early proofs of his poetical talents, in a Latin version of Dryden’s “Absalom and Achitophel,” published in 1682; and in 1684 he edited the “Ανθολογια, seu selecta quædam poematum Italorum qui Latin escripserunt,” which was afterwards enlarged and published by Pope in 1740, with the omission, however, of Atterbury’s excellent preface. In 1687 he made his first essay in controversial writing, and shewed himself as an able and strenuous advocate for the Protestant religion, in “An Answer to some Considerations on the spirit of Martin Luther, and the original of the Reformation.” These Considerations were published under the name of Abraham Woodhead, who was a popish writer, but were really written by Obadiah Walker, master of University college, Oxford. Mr. Atterbury’s answer was soon after animadverted upon by Mr. Thomas Deane, fellow of University college, at the end of “The Religion of Martin Luther, whether Catholic or Protestant, proved from his own works.” This spirited performance of Atterbury induced bishop Burnet to rank the author among the eminent divines who had distinguished themselves by their admirable defences of the Protestant religion. Atterbury also pleads this pamphlet in his speech at his trial, as a proof of his zeal in that cause, and the same was urged by his counsel.

, sieur de Massouignes, was born in 1534, at Poitiers, and became an advocate of parliament at Paris, where he died in 160U He published, 1. “Histoire des guerres de Chretiens centre les Turcs, sous Godefroy de Bouillon,” Paris, 1559, 4to. 2. “Vers au chancelier de L'Hopital,” 8vo. Scevola de St. Marthe has translated these poems into Latin verse. 3. “Le Retranchemens,” 1585, 8vo. This is a collection of such of his pieces as he thought worthy of being handed down to posterity; among them is an “Essay on Self-knowledge,” and a eulogium on the president Thuanus.

, an eminent civilian in queen Elizabeth’s reign, is said to have been a native of Cantre in Brecknockshire. He was educated at Oxford, where he took* his bachelor’s degree in law, and was elected fellow of All Souls college in 1547. He was made regius professor of civil law, Oct. 7, 1553, and proceeded D. C. L. in 1554. He was also principal of New Inn hall, Oxford, from 1550, probably to 1560, but the exact year has not been ascertained. He executed the office by deputies, as he was about that time judge advocate of the queen’s army at St. Quintin in France. He also was successively, advocate in the court of arches, master in Chancery, chancellor to archbishop Whitgift, and lastly, by the special favour of queen Elizabeth, he was made one of the masters of requests in ordinary. He died July 23, 1595, aged 66, and was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral under a monument which perished in the destruction of that church in 1666. Dr. Aubrey was a man of high character in his time, and is mentioned with great respect by Thuanus. His only writings remain in manuscript, except a few letters published in Strype’s Life of Grindal. He wrote some letters to Dr. Dee respecting the dominion of the seas and something respecting the reformation of the court of Arches in 1576.

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

, advocate of the parliament of Bourdeaux, was born in 1587, at Agenois. He undertook an edition of the “Corps du Droit,” the expence of which the chancellor had promised to defray, but in this our author was disappointed, and was exposed to the demands of his creditors, when he was relieved by the generosity of le Bret, a counsellor of state. Automne was a man of study, and wrote several works on professional subjects, which were much approved. The most celeb rated of these is his “Commentaire surla Coutume de Bourdeaux,” the best edition of which was published by Dupin, in 1728, fol. with notes. He wrote also a “Conference du Droit Romain avec le Droit Franois y” 1644, 2 vols. fol. and “Censura Gallica in Jus Civile Romanum,” Paris, 1625, 8vo, or according to Saxius, 1613. Some of these works are thought to be deficiennn judgment and in perspicuity of arrangement. He is said to have been the editor of Juvenal and Persius, with copious notes in Latin, 2 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1607, which we do not find mentioned in any of the lists of editions of those poets, yet it is noticed by Saxius. Moreri thinks he died about 162^, but in the Diet. Historique it is said he died in 1666 at the age of ninety-nine years, which does not correspond with the date of his birth, which we have given from Moreri.

, in Latin Ærodius, lieutenant-criminal in the presidial of Angers, was born there in 1536. He studied Latin and philosophy at Paris, and law at Toulouse from thence he went to Bourges for the advantage of the public lectures of Duarenus, Cujas, and Doneau, three of the most excellent civilians of that age. Having taken the degree of bachelor at Bourges, he returned to his own country, where he read public lectures upon the civil law, and pleaded several causes. He returned to Paris some time after, and became one of the most famous advocates in the parliament. He published there, in 1563, “The Declamations of Quintilian,” which he corrected in a variety of places, and illustrated with notes. The year following he published, in the same city, a treatise “ coneerning the power of Redemption,” written by Francis Grimaudet, the king’s advocate at Angers, and wrote a preface to it concerning “the nature, variety, and change of Laws.” In 1567 he published “Decretorum Rerumve apud diversos populos et omni antiquitate judicatarum libri duo accedit tractatus de origine et auctoritate rerum judicatarum,” which he much enlarged in the subsequent editions. He left Paris the year following, in order to take upon him the office of lieutenant-criminal in his own country, and performed it in such a manner as to acquire the name of “the rock of the accused.” Some other writings came from his pen, political or controversial, but that which acquired most fame among foreigners was his treatise “De Patrio Jure,” on the power of fathers, written in French and Latin, and occasioned by his son having been seduced by the Jesuits. His father, for the purposes of education, had put him under their tuition, but perceiving that he had a lively genius, a strong memory, and other excellent qualifications, he very earnestly desired both the provincial of that order, and the rector of the college, not to solicit him to enter into their society, which they readily promised, but soon broke their word and, though he made the greatest interest, and even prevailed on the king of France and the pope to take his part, he could never recover him from their snares. The young man answered his father’s book, but his superiors were ashamed to publish it, and employed Richeome, the provincial of the Jesuits at Paris, to answer it, but even this they did not venture to publish. Peter Ayrault died July 21, 1601. His son not until 1644.

, king’s advocate in the exchequer of Paris, flourished about the close of the sixteenth century, and was profoundly skilled in the municipal and civil law. He wrote many treatises on different branches of these laws, which were first published in 1608, and again in 1688, with the commentaries of Claude de Ferrieres, A third, and improved edition was printed at Lyons, 1744, 2 vols. fol. He died in April 1597, of grief for the death of his son-in-law, Charpentier, a professor of medicine in the university of Paris, who was executed for being concerned in the league, or insurrection against the succession of Henry IV.

In 1676, he received holy orders, and passed his examinations with high approbation. Monnoye, one of his biographers, mentions a circumstance very creditable to his superiors, that, although they were satisfied with his learning, they would not have admitted him into orders, if they had not discovered that he was superior to the vanity which sometimes accompanies a reputation for learning. The bishop of Beauvais now gave him the vicarage of Lardieres, which netted only 30l. yearly, yet with this pittance, Baillet, who maintained a brother, and a servant, contrived to indulge his humanity to the poor, and his passion for books, to purchase which he used to go once a year to Paris. His domestic establishment was upon the most temperate scale, no drink but water, and no meat, but brown bread, and sometimes a little bacon, and a few herbs from his garden boiled in water with salt, and whitened with a little milk. The cares of his parish, however, so much interrupted his favourite studies that he petitioned, and obtained another living, the only duties of which were singing at church, and explaining the catechism. A higher and more grateful promotion now awaited him, as in 1680, he was made librarian to M. Lamoignon, not the first president of the parliament, as Niceron says, for he was then dead, but his son, who at that time was advocate-general. To this place he was recommended by M. Hermant, a doctor of the Sorbonne, who told Lamoignon that Baillet was the proper person for him, if he could excuse his awkwardness. Lamoignon answered that he wanted a man of learning, and did not regard his outward appearance. To Baillet such an appointment was so gratifying that for some time he could scarcely believe M. Hermant to be serious. When he found it confirmed, however, he entered upon his new office with alacrity, and one of his first employments was to draw up an index of the library, which extended to thirty-five folio volumes, under two divisions, subjects and author’s names. The Latin preface to the index of subjects, when published, was severely, but not very justly censured by M. Menage, as to its style. After this, he completed four volumes of his celebrated work “Jugemens des Savans,” and gave them to the bookseller with no other reserve than that of a few copies for presents. The success of the work was very great, and the bookseller urged him to finish the five volumes that were, to follow. He did not, however, accomplish the whole of his design, which was to consist of six parts. I. In the first he was to treat of those printers, who had distinguished themselves by their learning, ability, accuracy, and fidelity. Of critics, that is, of those who acquaint us with authors, and their books, and in general those, who give an account of the state of literature, and of all that belongs to the republic of letters. Of philologists, and all those who treat of polite literature. Of grammarians and translators of all kinds. II. Poets, ancient and modern writers of romances and tales in prose rhetoricians, orators, and writers of letters, either in Latin, or in any of the modern languages. III. Historians, geographers, and chronologists of all sorts. IV. Philosophers, physicians, and mathematicians. V. Authors upon the civil and canon law, poJitics, and ethics. VI. Writers on divinity particularly the fathers, school-divinity heretics, &c. He published, however, only the first of these divisions, and half of the second, under the title of “Jugemens des Savans sur les principaux ouvrages des Auteurs,” Paris, 1685, 12mo. It is, in fact, a collection of the opinions of others, with seldom those of the author, yet it attracted the attention of the literary world, and excited the hostility of some critics, particularly M. Menage, to whom, indeed, Baillet had given a previous provocation, by treating him rather disrespectfully. The first attack was by father Commire, in a short poem entitled “Asinus in Parnasso,” the Ass on Parnassus, followed afterwards by “Asinus ad Lyram,” and “Asinus Judex,” all in defence of Menage and the poets and an anonymous poet wrote “Asinus Pictor.” It does not appear, however, that these injured the sale of the work; and in 1686, the five other volumes, upon the poets, were published, with a preface, in which the author vindicates himself with ability. M. Menage now published his “Anti-Baillet,” in which he endeavoured to point out Baillet' s errors and another author attacked him in “Reflexions sur le Jugemens des Savans, [envoy 6ez a l'auteur par un Academicien,” 1691, with Hague on the title, but really in France, and, according to Niceron, written by father Le Tellier, a Jesuit, all of which order resented Baillet' s partiality to the gentlemen of Port Royal. The editor of the Amsterdam edition of the “Jugemens,” attributes this letter to another Jesuit, a young man not named. Of these censures some are undoubtedly just, but others the cavils of caprice and hypercriticism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, sieur d'Aviron, advocate of the presidial court of Evreux, was celebrated in the sixteenth century for his knowledge of law. Henry III. king of France, having, in 1586, appointed commissioners to investigate and adjust some disputes respecting certain parts of the Norman law, the report they gave in, and the proceedings which followed, suggested to le Bathelier that able work on the Norman law, by which principally he is now known. Groulard, first president of the parliament of Normandy, to whom the manuscript was submitted, was so delighted with it, that he caused the whole to be printed, but without the name of the author, and when some insinuated that this might be interpreted to his disadvantage, as an attempt to pass for the author, Groulard answered, that the book was so excellent, it must always appear the? work of James le Bathelier, and nerer could be mistaken under any other name. These “Commentaries on the Norman law” were reprinted with those of Berault and Godefroi, at Rouen, 1684, 2 vols. fol. We have no account of the time of Bathelier’s death.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

, 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.

, 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.

, pastor and professor of theology at Montauban, about the beginning of the seventeenth century, was chosen to enter into conference with cardinal du Perron at Mantes, in 1593; and in 1598, wrote against him “Brieve et claire defense de la vocation des ministres de l'Evangile,” 8vo. The lively interest he took in the affairs of the duke of Rohan, during the civil wars of France, induced him to publish several writings, particularly one, in which he maintained that the clergy were bound to take up arms and shed blood, for which he was censured by the synod. Another Berault (Claude) succeeded D'Herbelot, as professor of the Syriac in the royal college of Paris, but is best known by his edition of “Statius,” 1685, 2 vols. 4to, which, owing to most of the copies having been burnt by a fire in the printing-office, is the most scarce and dear of all the Delphin quartos. This author died in 1705. Berault (Josias), an advocate of the parliament of Rouen under Henry III. was born in 1563, and died about 1640. He published a “Commentaire sur la Coutume de Normandie,” 1650 and 1660, fol. The booksellers of Rouen, in 1626, republished this with the commentaries of Godefroi and Aviron, 2 vols. fol. which were again reprinted in 1684 and" 1776.

, an eminent French antiquary, was born at Rheims, March 1, 1567, and not 1557, as asserted by Bayle, Moreri, and Niceron. After finishing his studies at the university of that city, he became preceptor to the children of count de St. Souplet, who always testified his respect for him on account of the pains he bestowed on their education. He then was admitted an advocate, and appointed law-professor and syndic of the city, a place which he filled during many of the elections. His talents and virtues were so highly estimated by his fellow-citizens, that as a mark of their confidence they employed him on their affairs at Paris. During his visits to that metropolis, he commenced a friendship with Dupuy and Peiresc, and formed an acquaintance with the president de Bellievre, who obtained for him the place of historiographer by brevet, with a pension of two hundred crowns. He was on a visit at the country-house of this celebrated magistrate, when he was attacked by a fever, which terminated fatally, August 18, 1623, in his fifty -seventh year. The president honoured him with an affectionate epitaph, which is printed in his two principal works. He is particularly known in the literary world by his “Histoire des grands chemins de l'empire Remain,” a work in which he was assisted by his friend Peiresc, who furnished him with many necessary documents. It was first printed in 4to, 1622, and in the course of a century became very scarce. In 1712 the first book of it was translated into English, and published at London, in 8vo, entitled “The general history of the Highways in all parts of the world, particularly in Great Britain.” In 1728, John Leonard, bookseller and printer at Brussels, published a new edition of the original, 2 vols. 4to, from a copy corrected by the author; and one yet more improved was printed at the same place, in 1736, 2 vols. 4to. They are both scarce, but the first is reckoned the best printed. It has also been translated into Latin by Henninius, professor in the university of Duisbourg, with learned notes, and the remarks of the abbé Du Bos, for Graevius’s antiquities, vol. X. but Bayle is mistaken in supposing that this work was translated into Latin and Italian by Benedict Baccliini, who, however, made some progress himself in a work “De viis antiquorum Romanorum in Italia,” and doubtless would have availed himself of Bergier’s labours. Besides this history of the Roman roads, Bergier had begun a history of Rheims, the manuscript of which the president de Bellievre wished Andre Duschesne to complete, but some obstruction arising on the part of the chapter of Rheims, who refused Duschesne access to their archives, he declined proceeding with the undertaking. The son of the author, however, John Bergier, unwilling that the whole should be lost, published the two books left complete by his father, with a sketch of the other fourteen of which it^as to consist. This wasentitled “Dessein de I'Histoire de Reims,” ibid. 1635, 4fo. Bergier was also author of 1. “Le point du Jour, ou Traite du Commencement des Jours et de l'endroit ou il est etabli sur la terre,” Rheims, 1629, 12 mo. The first, a Paris edition, 1617, wasentitled “Archemeron.” His object is to attain some general rule for avoiding the disputes respecting the celebration of the Catholic festivals. 2. “Le Bouquet royal,” Paris, 1610, 8vo; Rheims, 16:57, 4to, enlarged, an account of the devises and inscriptions which graced the entrance of Louis XIII. into Rheims. 3. “Police generale de la France,” 1617. 4. Various Latin and French poems inserted in the collections, but we cannot pronounce him very successful as a poet.

, an eminent cardinal, was born in 1575, at the chateau de Serilli, near Troyesin Champagne, of a noble family, and. having embraced the ecclesiastical state, distinguished himself early in life by his piety and his learning. He got great reputation in the famous conference of Fontainbleau, where du Perron contended with du Plessis-Mornay, called the pope of the Huguenots. He was sent by Henry IV. to whom he was chaplain, into Spain, for the purpose of bringing some Carmelites to Paris, and it was by his means that this order flourished so much in France. Some time afterwards he founded the Congregation of the Oratory of France, of which he was the first general. This new institution was approved by a bull of pope Paul V. in 1613, and has always been reckoned by the catholics a great service done to the church. In that gregation, according to the expression of Bossuet, the members obey without dependance, and govern without commanding; their whole time is divided between study and prayer. Their piety is liberal and enlightened, their knowledge useful, and almost always modest. Urban VIII. rewarded the merit of Berulle by a cardinal’s hat. Henry IV. and Louis XIII. vainly strove to make him accept of considerable bishoprics on Louis’s telling him that he should employ the solicitation of a more powerful advocate than himself (meaning the pope) to prevail upon him to accept the bishopric of Leon, he said, “that if his majesty continued to press him, he should be obliged to quit his kingdom.” This cardinal came over with Henrietta Maria, queen of Charles I. to England, as her confessor, to the court of which he endeared himself by the sanctity of his morals, and the extreme propriety of his behaviour, although his errand had afterwards its weight in encreasing the fatal unpopularity of the royal family. He died suddenly, Oct. 2, 1629, aged fifty-five, while he was celebrating the sacrament, and had just repeated the words, “bane igitur obiationem,” which gave occasion to the following distich:

, king’s advocate at Fontenaye-le-Comte, and an able French antiquary, was born at Coulonges-lesRoyaux in Poitou, in 1572, and died in 1644. In 1614, he distinguished himself in the assembly of the states by opposing the receiving of the council of Trent, but he was better known by his assiduous attention to the antiquities of France and his works published after his death by his son and Peter Dupuis his friend, justly entitle him to be considered as an accurate and judicious historian. These are, 1. “Histoire des comtes de Poitou et dues de Guienne,” Paris, 1647, fol. This was the result of forty years research, and the extraordinary light he has been able to throw upon circumstances before in comparative obscurity, may form a sufficient apology for some few mistakes. 2. “Des eveques de Poitiers, avec les preuves,” 1647, 4to. This is a collection of useful documents, but without any arrangement, and evidently left unfinished by the author. He wrote also some pieces of less note, such as a “Cornmen taire sur llonsard,” something of which kind was attempted by many of his contemporaries.

, born at Midclleburgh in Zealand, in 1653 or 1654, was a man of genius, but prostituted his talents by employing them in the composition of loose and impious pieces. He took the degree of doctor of law, and became an advocate; but his passion for polite literature diverted him from any pursuits in that way. He was a passionate admirer of Ovid, Catullus, Petronius, and appears to have derived from them that corruption of morals which, more or less, appeared in the whole of his life and writings. Mr. Wood tells us, that Beverland was at the university of Oxford in 1672. In 1675, he published his treatise on original sin. It is entitled “Peccarnm orlginale we Eo%W, sic nuncupaturn philologice problem aticos elncubratum a Tiiemidis alunrmo. Vera redit facies, tiissimuluta pent. Eleutheropali. Extra plateum obscuram, privilegio authoris, absqtie ubi et quan Jo.” At the end of tue book are these words “In horto Hesperidum typis Ad ami Evse Terrae fiiii, 1673.” His design in this piece is to shew, that Adam’s sin consisted entirely in the commerce with his wife, and that original sin is nothing else but the inclination of the sexes to each other. For this he was summoned before the university of Leyden, sent to prison, and his name struck out of the list of students but he was discharged after he had paid a fine, and taken an oath that he would never write again upon such subjects. He then removed to Utrecht, where he led a most dissolute life, and boasted every where of his book, which had beeu burnt at Leyden. His behaviour at length obliged the magistrates to send him notice privately, that they expected he should immediately leave the city. He wrote a severe satire against the magistrates and ministers of Leyden, under the title of “Vox claaiantis in deserto,” which was dispersed in manuscript but finding after this, that it would not be safe for him to remain in Holland, he went over to England, where Dr. Isaac Vossius procured him a pension. His income was inconsiderable, yet he spent the greatest part of it in purchasing scarce books, indecent prints, pictures, medals, and strange shells. He seems afterwards to have repented of his irregular life: and as an atonement, he is said to have published his treatise “De Fornicatione cavenda,” in 1698. He tells us, in an advertisement prefixed to this book, that it was the result of his repentance and speaks of his loose pieces in the following terms “I condemn the warmth of my imprudent youth I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil which blinded my sight in a miserable manner, and who would not suffer me any longer to seek out weak arguments to defend this crime. He has likewise inspired me with such a resolution, that I have burnt all that I have written upon this subject, and sent to the rector magniticus of the university of Leyden, the books `De Prostibulis Veterum.' I desire all persons who have procured any manuscript of my writing either privately, or in any other method, to return it to me, that I may burn it myself. And if any person should refuse this, I wish him all the misfortunes which use to happen to one who violates his trust.” Yet, notwithstanding these expressions, his sincerity has been suspected; and it has been alleged, that he wrote this last piece with no other view than to raise the curiosity of mankind, to inquire after the former. After Vossius’s death, he fell into extreme poverty, and incurred universal hatred from the many violent satires which he had written against different persons. Besides this misfortune, his reason began to be affected; and in the year 1712, he wandered from one part of England to another, imagining that two hundred men had confederated together to assassinate him. It is probable that he died soon after; for we hear no more of him from that time. In 1746, twelve Latin letters of Beverland were published, addressed to some learned men of his time; but our authority does not state where this publication made its appearance. While in England, he must at one time have been in some reputation, as sir Godfrey Kneller made a fine portrait of him, dated 1689, which is now in the picture gallery, Oxford.

Upon his return from his travels, he applied himself to the practice of the bar with great success. His father procured for him the post of advocate general in the grand council; which office he discharged with such reputation, that the king nominated him some time after counsellor of state, and at last advocate general in the parliament. In 1641 he resolved to confine himself entirely to his business in the council of state, and therefore resigned his place of advocate-general to Mr. Briquet his son -in- law,. The year following he was appointed the king’s librarian. His sonin-law dying in 1645, he was obliged to resume his post of advocate- general, in order to preserve it for his son. He had also a considerable share in the ordinance of the year 1639; and he discharged with great integrity various commissions with which he was intrusted at different times. Queen Anne of Austria, during her regency, sent for him to council upon the most important occasions. He adjusted the differences between Mr. d‘Avaux and Mr. Servien, plenipotentiaries at Minister and he had a share, with M. de Brienne and d’ Emery, in making the treaty of alliance with the states of Holland in 1649. He was appointed, in 1651, to regulate the great affair of the succession of Mantua; and in 1654, to conclude the treaty with the Hans Towns. Mr. Bignon died, aged 66, on the 7th of April, 1656, of an asthma, with which he waa seized the autumn before. In 1757, the abbé Perau published Bignon’s life, two parts, 12mo. His grandson, John Paul Bignon, was librarian to the king, a man of great erudition, and a writer of great powers of invention, if he could compose, as we are told he did, four panegyrics on St. Louis, all different, two of which were pronounced the same day, one at the French academy, and the other at the academy of inscriptions. He wrote also “Vie de Francois Levesque,” 1684, 12mo; and “Les Aventures d‘Abdalla, fils d’Hanif.” 1713, 2 vols. 12mo. often reprinted. He had also a hand in the medallic history of the jreign of Louis XIV. and the Journal des Savans. He warmly patronized Tournefort, who named a plant after him Bignonia. He died May 14, 1743.

at a subsequent period, a tragedy; Crosbie, then an eminent advocate at

On the 16th of November 1713, he began a paper, printed three times a week, called the “Lay Monk.” Only forty numbers of it were published, which, in 1714, were collected into a volume, under the title of the “Lay Monastery.” The Friday’s papers in this collection were written by Hughes, and the rest by sir Richard. In a letter to Mr. Hughes, he declared that he was not determined to the undertaking by a desire of fame or profit, hut from a regard to the public good. In 1716, he published in 2 vols. 8vo, “Essays upon several subjects,” and in 1718, “A collection of poems,” in 1 vol. 8vo. But the work which procured him the greatest reputation, was his “Creation, a philosophical poem, demonstrating the Existence and Providence of a God, in seven books.” This passed through several editions, and was greatly applauded by Mr. Addison. Mr. Locke also formed a very favourable opinion of sir Richard Blackmore; although perhaps he estimated his poetical talents too highly. In 1721, our author published in 12mo, “A new version of the Psalms of David, fitted to the tunes used in churches.” This was recommended by public authority, as proper to be used in the churches and chapels of England, but it does not appear to have been generally adopted. Towards the close of his life, his practice as a physician is said to have declined which might probably arise from the numerous attempts which were made to lessen his reputation. He died on the 8th of October, 1729, in an advanced age; and manifested in his last illness the same fervent piety, which had distinguished him in his life. He was certainly a man of considerable learning and abilities, and a most zealous advocate for the interests of religion and virtue. He wrote, indeed, too much, and was deficient in point of taste nor did he take sufficient time to polish his compositions. But he was far from being destitute of genius; and it is sufficiently manifest, that it was not his dullness, which excited so much animosity against him. Hardly any author has ever been more satirized than sir Richard Blackmore, and yet, so far as we can judge from his writings, there have been few, perhaps none, who have had better intentions. He had very just ideas of the true ends of writing and it would have been happy for the world, if such ideas had been adopted by, and really influenced, authors of more brilliant genius. And though his historical and epic poems exposed him to some degree of ridicule, yet he was far from being a proper object of the extreme contempt with which he was treated. The merit of his poem on Creation, and the excellency of his life, might have procured him better usage. And whatever were the defects of his compositions, he was justly entitled to commendation for the morality of their tendency. He who labours to reform mankind is more deserving of our esteem, than he who would corrupt them, whatever may be the powers of genius possessed by the latter, or whatever reputation his wit may have procured him. The fashion of the times, or the mutual jealousies and animosities of contemporary wits and authors, often occasion great injustice to be done to worthy men and useful writers. But time will, generally, in a great degree, remove such prejudices; and those who form an impartial estimate of the character and various productions of Blackmore, will acknowledge, that as a writer, with all his faults, he had considerable merit; that as a man, he was justly entitled to great applause. For, numerous as his enemies and opponents were, they seem to have been incapable of fixing the least imputation upon his character; and those who personally knew him spoke highly of his virtues. We think it an act of justice to endeavour to remove from a worthy man some part of that load of obloquy with which his memory has been overwhelmed. To this character, from the Biog. Britannica, we may add, that Dr. Johnson has increased the number of those liberal-minded men who have endeavoured to rescue sir Richard Blackmore’s name from the contempt with which it has been treated, and to do justice to his abilities as well as his virtues. To his “Creation” the doctor has given high praise, and has drawn the character of it with singular precision and elegance. From the inaccuracy with which Blackmore in his poems has pronounced the ancient, names of nations or places, Dr. Johnson has inferred, that the thirteen years he spent at the university, seem to have passed with very little attention to the business of the place. A strong testimony, however, to his diligence whilst at Edmund-hall, has lately been produced in the Gentleman’s Magazine, from Turner’s “Book of Providence.” “Dr. Richard Blackmore,” says Turner, “my contemporary and colleague (fellow collegian) at Oxon, now living, and one of the college in London, was, in his first years, one of the most eager and diligent students I ever knew sitting up at his book till twelve, one, two, and sometimes three o'clock in the morning, and then lying down only upon his chairs till prayer-time, till his health broke, and he was constrained by necessity to retire into the country, to repair himself by physic.”

, an English physician, born in England, of a French family, and a licentiate of the college of physicians, about the beginning of the last century, published in 1727, “The strength of imagination in pregnant women examined, &c.” This excited a controversy with Dr. Turner, who, in his work on the diseases of the skin, was a strong advocate for the power of imagination in producing marks and deformities. Blondel answered him; and by his humour, as well as argument, contributed much to remove the common prejudices on that popular subject.

A great number of persons have been inveigled by the visions of this fanatic; among others the famous Quirinus Kahlman in Germany, who says, that he had learned more, being alone in his study, from Boehmen, than he could have learned from all the wise men of that age together: and that we may not be in the dark as to what sort of knowledge this was, he acquaints us, that amidst an infinite number of visions it happened, that being snatched out of his study, he saw thousands of thousands of lights rising round about him. But our author is better known among ou-rselves, where he has hundreds of admirers and no wonder, since, as Dr. Henry More observes, the sect of the Quakers have borrowed a great many of their doctrines from our Teutonic philosopher of whom we shall venture to say, from a perusal of some of his writings, that he possessed the grand arcanum of mysterizing plain truths by an inextricably oenigmatical expression. He has still many disciples in England and we are sorry to add, met with a warm advocate and industrious disciple in the late pious Mr. William Law, who employed many years in preparing an edition and translation of Bcehmen’s works, and which were published after his decease in 2 vols. 4to, to which two others were afterwards added. The titles of these writings will be perhaps sufficient, without entering farther into their merits, or that of their author. 1. Aurora, or the rising of the sun, 1612. 2. Of the three principles, together with an appendix of the threefold life of man, 1619. 3. Of the threefold life of man, 1620. 4. An answer to the forty questions of the soul, propounded by Dr. Walter, &c. ibid. 5. Three books; the first, of the incarnation of Jesus Christ; the second, of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ; the third, of the tree of faith, ibid. 6. Of six parts, ibid. 7. Of the heavenly and earthly mysterium, ibid. 8. Of the last times, to P. K. ibid. 9. De signatura rerum, or the signature of all things, 1621. 10. A consolatory book of the four complexions, ibid. 11. An apology to Balthazar Tilken, in two parts, ibid. 12. A consideration upon Esaias Steefel’s book, ibid. 13. Of true repentance, 1622. 14. Of true resignation, ibid. 15. Of regeneration, ibid. 16. Of predestination and election of God; at the end of which is a treatise, entitled, 17. A short compendium of repentance, 1623. 18. The mysterium magnum upon Genesis, ibid. 19. A table of the principles, or key of his writings, to G. F. and J. H. 20. Of the supersensual life, ibid. LM. Of the two testaments of Christ, viz. baptism and the supper of the Lord, ibid. 22. A dialogue between the enlightened and unenlightened soul, ibid. 23. An apology upon the book of true repentance, directed against a pasquil of the principal minister of Gorlitz, called Gregory Rickter, ibid. 24. An epitome of the mysterium magnum, ibid. 25. A table of the divine manifestation, or an exposition of the threefold world, to J. S. V. S. and A. V. F. ibid. The following are without date. 26. Of the errors of the sects of Ezekiel Meths, to A. P. A. or an apology to Esaias Steefel. 27. Of the last judgment. 28. Certain letters to diverse persons, written at diverse times, with certain keys for some hidden words. Besides these our author left unfinished, 29. A little book of divine contemplation. 30. A book of one hundred and seventy-seven theosophic questions. 3 1 The holy weeks, or the prayerbook.

, called sometimes Bolognese, from the place of his birth, flourished in the sixteenth century, and is better known as an engraver than as a painter. He is supposed, but without sufficient authority, to have been a scholar of Sabbatini. Some remaining oil-pictures of his, on canvas, which are, in general, weak, and of different styles, make it probable, says Lanzi, that he resolved to be a painter when he had passed youth. There is, however, in the church of St. Stephano, in Bologna, a Purgatory of his, which has great beauties, and is suspected to have been done with the assistance of Sabbatini. As an engraver, he worked from the pictures of Raphael, Julio Romano, and other great masters; and occasionally from his own designs. Mr. Strutt’s opinion is, that excepting one or two subjects, in which he called in the assistance of the point (the use of which, however, he never well understood), his plates are executed chiefly with the graver, in a manner though much varied from that of his tutor, Marc Antonio Raimondi, yet evidently founded upon it, although neither so firm, clear, or masterly. His drawing is often heavy, and the extremities of his figures frequently neglected; the folds of his draperies are seldom well expressed, and the back grounds to his prints, especially his landscapes, are extremely flat and stiff. However, with all these faults (which are not always equally conspicuous), his best prints possess an uncommon share of merit; and though not equal to those of his master, are deservedly held in no small degree of estimation by the greatest collectors. Bonasone has lately found an ingenious and able advocate in George Cumberland, esq. who, in 1793, published “Some Anecdotes” of his life, with a catalogue of his engravings, &c.

, a French minister, and the greatest preacher in his time among the protestants, was son of William du Bosc, advocate to the parliament of Roan, and born at Bayeux, February 21, 1623. He made such progress, after having studied divinity eighteen months at Montauban, and three years at Saumur, that although he was but in his three and twentieth year, he was qualified to serve the church of Caen, to which he was presented Nov. 15, 1645, and received the imposition of hands Dec. 17, the same year. The merit of his colleagues, and above all that of Mr. Bochart, did not hinder Mr. du Bosc from acquiring speedily the reputation of one of the first men of his function; and his eloquence became so famous throughout the whole kingdom, that the church of Charenton would have him for their minister, and sent to desire him of his church, in the beginning of 1658. The strongest solicitations were made use of; but neither the eloquence of the deputies of Paris, nor the letters of persons of the greatest eminence in France amongst the protestants, could engage the church of Caen to part with him, nor him to quit his flock. It was impossible that such talents and fame should not give umbrage to the enemies of the protestant religion, which they shewed in 1664, by procuring a lettre de cachet, which banished him from Chalons till a new order, for having spoke disrespectfully of auricular confession. Mr. du Bosc, as he passed through Paris to go to the place of his banishment, explained to Mr. le Tellier his opinion on confession, and in what manner he had spoken of it, with which Le Tellier was satisfied, and told him that he had never doubted of the falseness of the accusation. Mr. du Bosc recovered the liberty of returning to his church October 15, 1664, and the joy which was at Caen among the brethren, when he came there, November 8, was excessive, A great many honourable persons of the other party congratulated him; and there was a catholic gentleman who celebrated the event in a very singular manner, as thus related by Du Bosc’s biographer. “A gentleman of the Roman religion, of distinction in the province, whose life was not very regular, but who made open profes&ion of loving the pastors who had particular talents, and seemed particularly enamoured with the merit of Mr. du Bosc, having a mind to solemnize the feast with a debauch, took two Cordeliers whom he knew to be honest fellows, and made them drink so much, that one of them died on the spot. He went to see Mr. du Bosc the next day, and told him that he thought himself obliged to sacrifice a monk to the public joy; that the sacrifice would have been more reasonable, if it had been a Jesuit; but that his offering ought not to displease him, though it was but of a Cordeiier. This tragical accident, of which he was only the innocent occasion, did not fail to disturb the joy which he had upon seeing himself again in his family and amongst his flock.” During the prosecutions of the protestant churches in 1665, he defended that of Caen, and many others of the province, against the measures of the bishop of Bayeux. The king having published in 1666 a severe proclamation against the protestants, all the chrrches sent deputies to Paris to make humble remonstrances to his majesty. The churches of Normandy deputed Mr. du Bosc, who departed from Caen July 3, 1668. As soon as he was arrived at Paris, the other deputies chose him “to draw up several memoirs. It being reported that the king would suppress some chambers of the edict, all the deputies ran to Mr. de Ruvigni, the deputy general, to speak with him about so important an affair, in hopes of procuring leave to throw themselves at his majesty’s feet; but Mr. du Bosc only was admitted to the audience. He harangued the king, who was alone in his closet, November 27, 1668; and after having ended his discourse, he had the courage to represent several things, and succeeded so well as to make all the court speak of his eloquence and prudence. After several conferences with Mr. le Tellier, and many evasions and delays, in April 1669, he obtained some relaxation of the declaration of 1666. After that time Mr. du Bosc went several journies about the churches’ affairs, and supported them, before the ministers of state and the intendants, with great force and ability, until he was commanded himself, by an act of the parliament of Normandy June 6, 1685, not to exercise his ministry any more in the kingdom. It was, however, universally acknowledged, t.iat if it had been possible to preserve the reformed church of France by the means of negotiation, he was more likely to succeed than any one that could be employed. He retired into Holland after his interdiction, and was minister of the church of Rotterdam, until his death, which happened January 2, 1692. He published some volumes of sermons; and after his death, P. Le Gendre, his son-in-law, published his” Life, Letters, Poems, Orations, Dissertations," and other curious documents respecting the history of the reformed churches in his time, Rotterdam, 1694, 8vo, dedicated to lord viscount Galloway.

The writings of Bossuet gained him no less fame than his sermons. From the year 1655 he had entered the lists against the protestants; and the most famous piece he wrote against them was his “Refutation du catechisme de Paul Ferri.” In 1671 he wrote another, intituled “L‘exposition de la doctrine de l’église catholique sur les matieres de controverse.” This had the approbation of the bishops of France, as well as of the prelates and cardinals of Rome. Innocent XI. wrote him two letters on the subject, and the work was translated into most of the European languages: M. l'abbé Montague, a relation of the Sandwich family, was the author of the English translation. He is said to have brought back several to the Romish church who had embraced the protestant religion; and it was for the benefit of such that in 1682 he published his “Traite de la communion sous les deux espèces,” and his “Lettre pastorale aux nonveaux catholiques.” In 1686 he published his “Histoire des églises protestantes,” for which, as well as several other of his writings, he was successfully attacked by Mess. Jurieu, Burnet, Basnage, and several other protestant ministers. He always distinguished himself as a zealous advocate for the catholic religion; and so great was his desire to bring about a re-union of the protestants with the church of Rome, that for this purpose he voluntarily offered to travel into foreign countries. He formed several schemes for this purpose, which were approved of by the church of Rome, but the succeeding wars prevented his putting them in execution. His writings in controversy with the protestants, and against quietism, the religion of Madame Guion, Fenelon, and many of the pious French, make several volumes.

The politeness, affability, and insinuating urbanity of manners, which distinguished Mr. Boswell, introduced him into the company of many eminent and learned men, whose acquaintance and friendship he cultivated with the greatest assiduity. In truth, the esteem and approbation of learned men seem to have been one chief object of his literary ambition; and we find him so successful in pursuing his end, that he enumerated some of the greatest men in Scotland among his friends even before he left it for the first time. Notwithstanding Mr. Boswell by his education was intended for the bar, yet he was himself earnestly bent at this period upon obtaining a commission in the guards, and solicited lord Auchinleck’s acquiescence; but returned, however, by his desire, into Scotland, where he received a regular course of instruction in the law, and passed his trials as a civilian at Edinburgh. Still, however, ambitious of displaying himself as one of the “manly hearts who guard the fair,” he visited London a second time in 1762; and, various occurrences delating the purchase of a commission, he was at length persuaded by lord Auchinleck to relinquish his pursuit, and become an advocate at the Scotch bar. In compliance, therefore, with his father’s wishes, he consented to go to Utrecht the ensuing winter, to hear the lectures of an excellent civilian in that university; after which he had permission to make his grand tour of Europe. The year 1763 may be considered the most important epocha in Mr. Boswell’s life, as he had, what he thought a singular felicity, an introduction to Dr. Johnson. This event, so auspicious for Mr. Boswel!, and eventually so fortunate for the public, happened on May 16, 1763. Having continued one winter at Utrecht, during which time he visited several parts of the Netherlands, he commenced his projected travels. Passing from Utrecht into Germany, he pursued his route through Switzerland to Geneva; whence he crossed the Alps into Italy, having visited on his journey Voltaire at Ferney, and Rousseau in the wilds of Neufchatel. Mr. Bosweli continued some time in Italy, where he met and associated with lord Mountstuart, to whom he afterwards dedicated his Theses Juridicae. Having visited the most remarkable cities in Italy, Mr. Bosweli sailed to Corsica, travelled over every part of that island, and obtained the friendship of the illustrious Pasquale de Paoli, in whose palace he resided during his stay at Corsica. He afterwards went to Paris, whence he returned to Scotland in 1766, and soon after became an advocate at the Scotch bar. The celebrated Douglas cause was at that time a subject of general discussion. Mr. Boswell published the “Essence of the Douglas cause;” a pamphlet which contributed to procure Mr. Douglas the popularity which he at that time possessed. In 1768 Mr. Bosweli published his “Account of Corsica, with memoirs of General Paoli.” Of this printed performance Dr. Johnson thus expresses himself: “Your journal is curious and delightful. I know not whether I could name any narrative by which curiosity is better excited or better gratified.” This book has been translated into the German, Dutch, Italian, and French languages; and was received with extraordinary approbation. In the following winter, the theatre-royal at Edinburgh, hitherto restrained by party -spirit, was opened. On this occasion Mr. Bosweli was solicited by David Ross, esq. to write a prologue.‘ The effect of this prologue upon the audience was highly flattering to the author, and beneficial to the manager; as it secured to the latter, by the annihilation of the opposition which had been till that time too successfully’exerted against him, the uninterrupted possession of his patent, which he enjoyed till his death, which happened in September 1790. Mr. Bosweli attended his funeral as chief mourner, and paid the last honours to a man with whom he had spent many a pleasant hour. In 1769, was celebrated at Stratford on Avon the jubilee in honour of Shakspeare. Mr. Boswell. an enthusiastic admirer of the writings of our immortal bard, a. id ever ready to join the festive throng, repaired thither, and appeared at the masquerade ay an armed Corsican chief; a character he was eminently qualified to support. This year he married miss Margaret Montgomery, a lady who, to the advantages of a polite education, united admirable good sense and a brilliant understanding. She was daughter of David Montgomery, esq. related to the illustrious family of Eglintoune, and representative of the antient peerage of Lyle. The death of this amiable woman happened in June 1790. Mr. Boswell has honoured her memory with an affectionate tribute. She left him two sons and three daughters; who, to use Mr. Boswell' s own words, “if they inherit her good qualities, will have no reason to complain of their lot. Dos magna parentum virtus.” In 1782 lord Auchinleck died. In 1783, Mr. Boswell published his celebrated Letter to the People of Scotland; which is thus praised by Johnson in a letter to the author; “I am very much of your opinion your paper contains very considerable knowledge of history and the constitution, very properly produced and applied.” Mr. Boswell communicated the pamphlet to Mr. Pitt, who naturally gave it his approbation. This first letter was followed by a second, in which I.Ii. Bosweil displayed his usual energy and political abilities. In 1785, Mr. Boswell published “A journal of a tour to the Hebrides” with Dr. Johnson; which met a success similar to his entertaining account of Corsica, and to which we owe his life of that illustrious character. This year Mr. Boswell removed to London, and was soon after called to the English bar, but his professional business was interrupted by preparing his most celebrated work, “The life of Samuel Johnson, LL. D.” which was published in 1790, and was received by the world with extraordinary avidity. It is a faithful history of Johnson’s life; and exhibits a most interesting picture of the character of that illustrious mom list, delineated with a masterly hand. The preparation of a second edition of this work was the last literary performance of Mr. Boswell. Mr. Boswell undoubtedly possessed considerable intellectual powers; as he could never have displayed his collection of the witticisms of his friend in so lively a manner as he has done, without having a picturesque imagination, and a turn for poetry as well as humour. He had a considerable share of melancholy in his temperament; and, though the general tenor of his life was gay and active, he frequently experienced an unaccountable depression of spirits. In one of these gloomy moods he wrote a series of essays under the title of “The Hypochondriac,” which appeared in the London Magazine, and end with No. 63 in 1732. These he had thoughts of collecting into a volume, but they would have added little to his reputation, being in general very trifling. Soon after his return from a visit to Auchinleck, he was seized with a disorder which put an end to his life, at his house in Portland-street, on the 19th of June 1795, in the 55th year of his age. Of his own character he gives the following account in his journal of the tour to the Hebrides: “I have given a sketch of Dr. Johnson. His readers may wish to know a little of his fellow-traveller. Think, then, of a gentleman of ancient blood; the pride of which was his predominant passion. He was then in his 33d year, and had been about four years happily married: his inclination was to be a soldier; but his father, a respectable judge, had pressed him into the profession of the law. He had travelled a good deal, and seen many varieties of human life. He had thought more than any body supposed, and had a pretty good stock of general learning and knowledge. He had all Dr. Johnson’s principles, with some degree of relaxation. He had rather too little than too much prudence; and, his imagination being lively, he often said things of which the effect was very different from the intention. He resembled sometimes * The best good maH, with the worstnatured muse.‘ He cannot deny himself the vanity of finishing with the encomium of Dr. Johnson, whose friendly partiality to the companion of this tour represents him as one ’ whose acuteness would help my enquiry, and whose gaiety of conversation, and civility of manners, are sufficient to counteract the inconveniencies of travel, in countries less hospitable than we have passed'.”

, a learned French critic, who distinguished himself in the republic of letters by writing notes upon Lucian, Petronius, and Heliodorus, lived at the end of the 16th, and in the beginning of the 17th century, was of a good family of Sens, and educated with care. He applied himself to the study of the belles lettres and of the learned languages; and Baillet tells us, that he passed for a great connoisseur in the oriental tongues, and in the knowledge of manuscripts. These pursuits did not hinder him from being consummate in the law. He exercised the office of advocate to the parliament of Paris in 1627, when Mary of Medicis, hearing of his uncommon merit, made him master of the requests. He died suddenly at Paris in 1638. His edition of Heliodorus, which is one of the best, was published in 1619, 8vo That of Lucian at Paris, 1615, fol. with the notes of Micyllus, Guerinus, Marsilius, and Cognatus, and some short and learned ones by himself, at that time a very young man. Among the sources from which Bourdelot professes to have compiled his edition, are two ancient Mss. in the royal library at Paris, the existence of which Faber (ad Luciani Timonem, c. 1.) denies in the most positive terms. His Petronius was first published at Paris, 12mo, in 1618, a very scarce edition, and reprinted in 1645, 1663, and 1677.

, a celebrated English lawyer in the thirteenth century, was, according to Mr. Prince, born in Devonshire; and studied at Oxford, where he took the degree of LL. D. Applying himself afterwards to the study of the laws of England, he rose to great eminence at the bar; and, in 1244, was by king Henry III. made one of the judges itinerant. At present he is chiefly known by his learned work, “Delegibus et consuetudinibus Angliae,” the first printed edition of it was in 1569, folio, Jn 1640 it was printed in 4to, and great pains was taken to collate various Mss. One of the most authentic manuscripts of this work was burnt in the fire which consumed a part of the Cotton library, Oct. 23, 1731. It is a finished and systematic performance, giving a complete view of the law in all its titles, as it stood at the time it was written. It is divided into five books, and these into tracts and chapters. Consistently with the extensiveness and regularity of the plan, the several parts of it are filled with a curious and accurate detail of legal learning, so that the reader ever fails of deriving instruction or amusement from the study of this scientific treatise on our ancient laws, and customs. It is written in a style much beyond the generality of the writers of that age; being though not always polished, yet sufficiently clear, expressive, and nervous. The excellence of Bracton’s style must be attributed to his acquaintance with the writings of the Roman lawyers and canonists, from whom likewise he adopted greater helps than the language in which he wrote. Many of those pithy sentences which have been handed down from him as rules and maxims of our law, are to be found in the volumes of the imperial and pontifical jurisprudence. The familiarity with which Bracton recurs to the Roman code has struck many readers more forcibly than any other part of his character; and some have thence pronounced a hasty judgment upon his fidelity as a writer upon the English law. It seems, indeed, to be a fashion to discredit Bracton, on a supposition of his having mingled too much of the civilian and canonist with the common lawyer; any notion that has got into vogue on such a subject is likely to have many to retail it, and few to examine its justness. Among others who have most decidedly declared against Bracton, we find M. Houard, the Norman advocate: this gentleman was at the pains to give an edition of Glanville, Jb'leta, and Britton but has omitted Bracton, because his writings had corrupted the law of England. But his conceptions about the purity of the law of England have seduced him into a very singular theory. He lays it down that Littleton’s tenures exhibit the system introduced by William the Conqueror in all its genuine purity; that this system was corrupted by a mixture from other polities in the writings of Britton, Fleta, and Glanville, but more particularly in those of Bracton. Full of this preposterous idea, he published an edition of Littleton, with a commentary, and, to decide the point without more debate, has entitled it “Anciennes Loix des Francois.” After this, the admirers of Bracton will not apprehend much from this determined enemy to his reputation as an English lawyer.

, or Brantz, a learned philologer, was born at Antwerp in Sept. 1554, and after receiving the early part of his education at home, studied philosophy at Louvain. The troubles in the Netherlands obliging him to remove to France, he took that opportunity to study law at Orleans under John and William Fournier, and then at Bourges under the celebrated Cujacius. After travelling for some time in Italy, he settled at Brussels, and for five years practised as an advocate; but in 1591 was invited to Antwerp, and appointed secretary to the city, which office he discharged for more than thirty years with much reputation, and there he died iti 1639. He was considered as a man of great learning, modesty, and candour, laborious in his own studies, and always desirous of assisting others in theirs. His motto was “Libenter, Ardenter, Constanter,” not inapplicable to a man of studious industry. His principal works were, 1. “Notae cum Politico turn CriticiE in C. Julii Cæsaris et A. Hirtii Commentaries,” with the text of Cæsar in Greek and Latin, &c. Francfort, 1606, 4to, the same year in which Jungerman’s edition appeared, which is said to have been the first in which theGreek translation of the commentaries was published, but none of our bibliographers have noticed this contemporary edition by Brandt. 2. “Elogia Ciceroniana llomanoruni domi militiaque illustrium,” Antwerp, 1612, 4to. This contains biographical notices of the eminent political and military Romans, extracted from the works of Cicero, and in his words. Brandt intended to have compiled a volume on the same plan, respecting the orators, poets, and philosophers mentioned by Cicero, but this, if ever executed, has not been printed. 3. “Vita Philippi Rubenii,” with Rnbenius* posthumous works, 1615, 4to. 4. “Senator, sive de perfect! et veri Senatoris officio,” ibid. 1633, 4to. 5. “Spicilegium Criticum in Apuleium,” 1621, &c.

, advocate of the parliament of Paris, and an eminent law writer and pleader, was born at Montrotier, about four leagues from Lyons, Feb. 24, 1656. After studying languages and philosophy at Lyons, he came to Paris in 1677 to apply himself to law, and in 1680 was appointed an advocate. Having conceived a preference to the written over the common law, -he made the former his particular study, and traced its origin with the true spirit of an antiquary. This course of study produced a very much improved edition of the works of Claude Henrys, 1708, 2 vols. fol. and afterwards a work of great utility in the French law, which he undertook at the request of the chancellor D'Aguesseau, entitled “Recueil des principals questions de droit qui se jugent diversement dans differens tribunaux du royaume,” 1718, 12mo, reprinted with additions in 1756, 2 vols. and in 1785, 4to, both with additions by Boucher d'Argis. He died April 21, 1727.

, president of the parliament of Paris, and an eminent lawyer, was born at Fontenay in Poictou, about the middle of the sixteenth century. He appeared at first with great eclat at the bar of the parliament; and, by his knowledge and skill in the law, recommended himself so powerfully to Henry III. of France, that this prince first made him his advocate general, then counsellor of state, and in 1580, honoured him with the dignity of president of the parliament. Scsevola Sammarthanus relates, that Henry III. declared in his hearing, that there was not a prince in Christendom, who could boast of so learned a man as Barnaby Brisson. The king employed him in several negociations, and sent him ambassador into England. At his return, he employed him to make a collection of his own ordinances, and of those of his predecessors; which he performed with wonderful expedition. He wrote some works in law: “De verbormxi, qua) ad jus pertinent, significatione.” “De formulis et solemnibus populi Romani verbis,” Paris, 1583, fol. “De regip Persarum principatu,” &c. 1580, 1590, 1599, 8voj 1606, 4to; but the best edition is that of Strasburgh, 1710, 8vo, with Sylburgius’ notes. H gave an expectation of more considerable performances; but his life was shortened by a very unfortunate accident. Living at Paris when that rebellious city was besieged by Henry IV. he remonstrated against the treasonable practices of the leaguers, who, under pretence of the holy union, contemned the royal authority, which was much more sacred. These religious traitors, being dissatisfied with his loyalty, fell violently upon him, dragged him to prison, and cruelly strangled him the 15th of Nov. 1591.

Brissot, at the period of his residence at Boulogne, had been introduced to mademoiselle Dupont, who was employed under mad. de Genlis as reader to the daughter of the duke of Orleans, and whose mother kept a lodginghouse in that place: and having married this lady, he found it necessary to exert his literary talents for gaining a subsistence. But as France did not afford that liberty, which he wished to indulge, he formed a design of printing, in Swisserland or Germany, a series of works in a kind of periodical publication, under the title of “An universal Correspondence on points interesting to the welfare of Man and of Society,” which he proposed to smuggle into France. With this view, he visited Geneva and Neuchatel, in order to establish correspondences; and he also made a journey to London, which was to be the central point of the establishment, and the fixed residence of the writers. His intentions, however, were divulged by the treachery of some of his confidential associates; and the scheme totally failed. During his abode in London, he concerted the plan of a periodical work or journal, on the literature, arts, and politics of England, which, being published in London, was allowed to be reprinted at Paris, and first appeared in 1784. The avowed object of this publication, as he himself declares, was “the universal emancipation of men.” In London, he was arrested for debt; but, being liberated by the generosity of a friend, he returned to Paris, where he was committed to the Bastille in July 1784, on the charge of being concerned in a very obnoxious publication. But by the interest of the duke of Orleans, he was released, on condition of never residing in England, and discontinuing his political correspondence. In 1785, he published two letters to the emperor Joseph II. “Concerning the Right of Emigration, and the Right of the People to revolt,” which he applied particularly to the case of the Waiachsans: and in the following year appeared his “Philosophical Letters on the History of England,” in 2 vols. and “A critical Examination of the Travels of the marq is de Chatelleux in North America.” With a view of promoting a close, political, and commercial union between France and the United States, he wrote in 1787, with the assistance of Claviere, a tract, entitled “De la France et des Etats Unis, &c.” “On France and the United States or on the Importance of the American Revolution to the kingdom of France, and the reciprocal advantages which will accrue from a commercial Intercourse between the two nations.” Of this work, an English translation was published, both in England and America. At this time he was in the service of the duke of Orleans, as secretary to his chancery, with a handsome salary, and apartments in the palais royal; and, without doubt, employed in aiding that monster in his schemes of ambition. In this situation, he wro:e a pamphlet against the administration of the archbishop of Sens, entitled “No Bankruptcy, &c.” which occasioned the issuing of a lettre de cachet against him. But to avoid its effect, he went to Holland, England, and the Low Countries; and at Mechlin, he edited a newspaper, called “Le Courier Beigique.” For the purpose of promoting the views of a society at Paris, denominated “Les Amis des Noirs,” and established for the purpose of abolishing negro slavery, he embarked for America in 1788; and, during his residence in that country, he sought for a convenient situation, in which a colony of Frenchmen might be organized into a republic, according to his ideas of political liberty. But his return was hastened in 1789 by the intelligence he received of the progress of the French revolution. After his arrival, he published his “Travels in America;” (Nouveau Voyage dans les Etats Unis, &. Paris, 1791, 3 vols. 8vo), and as he found the attention of the public directed to the approaching assembly of the states-general, he wrote his “Plan of Conduct for the Deputies of the People.” At this time, he had withdrawn from the partisans of the duke of Orleans; and he took an active part in the plans that were then projected for the organization of the people, with a view to their union and energy in accomplishing the revolution. To the lodgings of Brissot, as a person who was held in estimation at this period, the keys of the Bastille, when it was taken, were conveyed; he also became president of the Jacobin club; and he distinguished himself in various ways as a zealous promoter of those revolutionary principles, which afterwards gave occasion to a great jiumber of atrocious excesses. After the king’s flight to Varennes, Brissot openly supported the republican cause; but, as some form of monarchy was still the object of the national wish, he was obliged to restrain his impetuosity. The popularity acquired by his writings and conduct was such, as to induce the Parisians to return him as one of their members in the “Legislative national assembly,” which succeeded the “Constituent assembly,” in October 1791, of which assembly he was appointed secretary; and he became afterwards a member of the committee of public instruction. Although inferior to many others in talents and knowledge, his activity raised him to the rank of head or chief, in the party denominated “Girondists” or “La Gironde,” the name of the department to which several of its members belonged, and also from his own name “Brissotins.” In his career of ambition, he does not seem to have been influenced by pecuniary cc nsiderations; power, more than wealth, being the object of his aim; for, at this time, he and his family lodged in an apartment up four pair of stairs, and subsisted on his stipend as deputy, and the inconsiderable gains accruing from a newspaper. As a determined enemy to monarchy, he was unremitting in his efforts to engage the nation in a war, with the avowed purpose of involving the king and his ministers in difficulties which would terminate in their ruin, and this part of his political conduct must ever be lamented and execrated by the friends of freedom and of mankind. In the impeachment of M. Delessart, the minister for foreign affairs, Brissot took a principal lead; and alleged against him several articles of accusation, in consequence of which, he was apprehended, tried by the high national court at Orleans, and condemned to die, without being h'rst heard in his own defence, so that he became the first victim to that desperate faction, which afterwards deluged France with blood. His colleagues were so complex ly terrified by this event, that they requested leave to resign, and the ministry was at once completely dissolved. Their successors, appointed by the king, under the direction and inriuence of Brissot, were Dumourier, Roland, and Ciaviere. This appointment was followed bya declaration of war, decreed by the national assembly, against the king of Hungary and Bohemia; and Brissot, during the existence of this administration, which terminated soon, was considered as the most powerful person in France. About this time, Brissot began to entertain secret jealousy and suspicion of La Fayette, and concurred with other members of the assembly, in signing an accusation against him, which, however, he was not able to substantiate. He and his republican party were likewise industrious in their endeavours to throw an odium on the court, by alleging, that a private correspondence was carried on between the king and queen and the emperor; and they even averred, that an “Austrian Committee,” and a conspiracy in favour of the enemies of the country, existed among the friends of the court. The charge seemed to be unsupported by sufficient evidence; the king publicly contradicted these accusations as calumnies; nevertheless, they made no small impression on the minds of the public. To the writings and conduct of Brissot, the horrid massacres at the Tuiileries, on the 10th of August, 1792, have been principally ascribed; and it is a poor excuse that he is said to have preserved the lives of several of the Swiss guards on that fatal day. He was employed to draw up the declaration to the neutral powers concerning the suspension of the king’s authority; but he is said to have regarded with horror the sanguinary spirit that was now predominant among the leaders of the jacobins. Whilst, indeed, he was ascending to the pinnacle of power, he seems to have been the ardent advocate of insurrection and the revolutionary power: but as he found himself raised to that station, he began to inculcate “order and the constitution,” the usual cant of all demagogues who think they have attained their object. In the shocking massacre of the prisoners at Paris in September, he had probably no other concern, than the inwhich his irritating speeches and writings had created on the minds of the more active agents. When the “National convention,” the idea of which is said to have been suggested by him, assumed the direction of the state, and assembled on the 20th of September, 1792, he was returned as member for the department of Eure and Loire, his native country. In this assembly, he openly avowed himself an advocate for a republican government, in opposition both to the Jacobins and Orleanists; and was expelled the Jacobin club. On this occasion, he wrote a vindication of his public conduct, under the title of “An Address to all the Republicans.” He is said to have been so far shocked by the prospect of the fatal issue of the king’s trial, as to have attempted the preservation of his life, by deferring his execution till the constitution should be perfected; a proposition of which the absurdity and cruelty are nearly equal. The war with England, which soon followed the death of Louis, is ascribed to his ardour find credulity; for he was led to imagine, that the consequence of it would be a civil war in this country; and it is said, that this, as well as the war with Holland, was decreed in the national convention, Feb. 1, 1793, at his motion. This charge, however, he retorts on his accusers, and says, that the anarchists, by voting the death of the king, were themselves the authors of the war,

, of France, was born at Lyons in 1671. He was at first a Jesuit, but afterwards an advocate, a member of the academy of Lyons, and librarian of the public library there. In 1716, he published the works of Boileau, in 2 vols. 4to, with historical illustrations: and, after that, the works of Regnier. He reformed the text of both these authors from the errors of the preceding editions, and seasoned his notes with many useful and curious anecdotes of men and things. His only fault, the fault of almost all commentators, is, that he did not use the collections he had made with sufficient sobriety and judgment; and has inserted many things, no ways necessary to illustrate his authors, and some that are even frivolous. He wrote also “L'Histoire abrege*e de la ville de Lyon,” with elegance and precision, 1711, 4to; and died there in 1746. He had a friendship and correspondence with many of the literati, and particularly with Rousseau the poet, and Voltaire. The latter used to tell him, that he “resembled Atticus. who kept terms, and even cultivated friendship, at the same time with Caesar and Pompey.” The enmity between Rousseau and Voltaire is well known.

, a French Protestant and martyr, was born at Nismes, in 1647, He was an advocate, and distinguished by his 'pleadings at Castres and Toulouse; and it was at his house that the deputies of the Protestant churches assembled in 1683: where they took a resolution to continue to assemble, although their churches were demolished. The execution of this project occasioned violent conflicts, seditions, executions, and massacres, which ended at length in an amnesty on the part of Lewis XIV. Brousson retired then to Nismes; but, fearing to be apprehended with the principal authors of this project, who do not seem to have been comprised within the amnesty, he became a refugee at Geneva first, and thence at Lausanne. He shifted afterwards from town to town, and kingdom to kingdom, to solicit the compassion of Protestant princes towards his suffering brethren in France. Returning to his own country, he travelled through several provinces, exercised some time the ministry in the Cevennes, appeared at Orange, and passed to Berne, in order to escape his pursuers. He was at length taken at Oleron, in 1698, and removed to Montpellier; where, being convicted of having formerly held secret correspondence with the enemies of the state, and of having preached in defiance of the edicts, he was broke upon the wheel the same year. He was a man of great eloquence as well as zeal, greatly esteemed among strangers, and regarded as a martyr by those of his own persuasion. The states of Holland added six hundred florins, as a pension for his widow, to four hundred which had been allowed to her husband. His writings being principally those which, arose out of the circumstances in which the reformed church were then placed, we shall refer to Moreri for the exact titles and dates, and give only the subjects, namely: 1. “The state of the reformed in France.” 2. “Letters to the French clergy in favour of the reformed religion.” 3. “Letters from the Protestants in France to all other Protestants,” printed and circulated at the expence of the elector of Brandenburg. 4. “Letters to the Roman Catholics.” 5. “A summary relation of the wonders, wrought by God in the Cevennes and Lower Languedoc, for the consolation of his church.” 6. A volume of Sermons. 7. “Remarks on Amelotte’s translation of the New Testament;” and some religious tracts, which he published for circulation in France.

Mr. Brown was not only known as an exquisite drafts.­man, he was also a good philosopher, a sound scholar, and endowed with a just and refined taste in all the liberal and polite arts, and a man of consummate worth and integrity. Soon after his death his “Letters on the Poetry and Music of the Italian Opera,” 12mo, were published. They were originally written to his friend lord Monboddo, who wished to have Mr. Brown’s opinion on those subjects, which have so intimate a connection with his work on the Origin and Progress of Language; and who was so pleased with the style and observations contained in them, that he wrote an introduction, which was published with them, in one volume, 12mo, 1789, for the benefit of his widow. The letters, written with great elegance and perspicuity, are certainly the production of a strong and fervid mind, acquainted with the subject; and must be useful to most of the frequenters of the Italian opera, by enabling them to understand the reasons on which the pleasure they receive at that musical performance is founded, a knowledge in which they are generally very deficient. Not being written for publication, they have that spirit and simplicity which every man of genius diffuses through any subject which he communicates in confidence, and which he is but too apt to refine away when he sits down to compose a work for the public. Lord Monboddo, in the fourth volume of the Origin and Progress of Language, speaking of Mr. Brown, says, “The account that I have given of the Italian language is taken from one who resided above ten years in Italy; and who, besides understanding the language perfectly, is more learned in the Italian arts of painting, sculpture, music, and poetry, than any man I ever met with. His natural good taste he has improved by the study of the monuments of ancient art, to be seen at Rome and Florence; and as beauty in all the arts is pretty much the same, consisting of grandeur and simplicity, variety, decorum, and a suitableness to the subject, I think he is a good judge of language, and of writing, as well as of painting, sculpture, and music.” A very well-written character in Latin, by an advocate of Edinburgh, is appended to the Letters. Mr. Brown left behind him several very highly-finished portraits in pencil, and many very exquisite sketches in pencil and in pen and ink, which he had taken of persons and of places in Italy; particularly a book of studies of heads, taken from the life, an inestimable treasure to any history painter, as a common-place book for his pictures, the heads it contained being all of them Italian ones, of great expression, or of high character. He was so enraptured with his art, and so assiduous in the pursuit of it, that he suffered no countenance of beauty, grace, dignity, or expression, to pass him unnoticed; and to be enabled to possess merely a sketch for himself, of any subject that struck his fancy, he would make a present of a high-finished drawing to the person who permitted his head to be taken by him. The characteristics of his hancl were delicacy, correctness, and taste, as the drawings he made from many of Mr. Townley’s best statues very plainly evince. Of his mind, the leading features were acuteness, liberality, and sensibility, joined to a character firm, vigorous, and energetic. The last efforts of this ingenious artist were employed in making two very exquisite drawings, the one from Mr. Townley’s celebrated bust of Homer, the other from a fine original bust of Pope, supposed to have been the work of Rysbrac. From these drawings two very beautiful engravings have been made by Mr. Bartolozzi and his pupil Mr. Bovi. After some stay in London, his health, which had never been robust, yielded to extraordinary application, and he was forced to try a seavoyage, and return on a visit to Edinburgh, to settle his father’s affairs, who was then dead, having been some time before in a state of imbecility. On the passage from London to Leith, he was somehow neglected as he lay sick on his hammock, and was on the point of death when he arrived at Leith. With much difficulty he was brought up to Edinburgh, and laid in the bed of his friend Runciman, the artist, who had died not long before in the same place. Here he died, Sept. 5, 1787. His portrait with Runciman, disputing about a passage in Shakspeare’s Tempest, is in the gallery at Dryburgh abbey. This was the joint production of Brown and Runciman before the death of the latter in 1784.

Whilst he was under the influence of this strange frenzy, it was extremely remarkable, that his faculties appeared to be in every other respect in their full vigour. He continued to apply himself to his studies, and discovered the same force of understanding which had formerly distinguished him, both in his conversation and in his writings. Having, however, quitted the ministry, he retired into the country, to his native town of Shepton-Mallet. Here, for some time, he amused himself with translating several parts of the ancient Greek and Latin poets into English verse. He afterwards composed several little pieces for the use of children, an English grammar and spelling-book, an abstract of the scripture -history, and a collection of fables, the two last both in metre. With great labour he also amassed together, in a short compass, all the themes of the Greek and Latin tongues, and compiled likewise a dictionary to each of these works, in order to render the learning of both those languages more easy and compendious. But neither of these pieces, nor several others which were written by him during his retirement, were ever printed. During the last two years of his life, he employed himself in the defence of the truth of Christianity, against some of the attacks which were then made against it; and also in recommending mutual candour to Christians of different sentiments concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. In 1732, he published, in 8vo, “A sober and charitable disquisition concerning the importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity; particularly with regard to Worship, and the doctrine of Satisfaction: endeavouring to shew, that those in the different schemes should bear with each other in their different sentiments; nor separate communions, and cast one another out of Christian-fellowship on this account.” The same year he published, “A fit Rebuke to a ludicrous Infidel, in some remarks on Mr. Woolston’s fifth Discourse on the Miracles of our Saviour. With a preface concerning the prosecution of such writers by the civil powers.” It was in the same year also that he published his “Defence of the Religion of Nature, and the Christian Revelation, against the defective account of the one, and the exceptions against the other, in a book, entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation.” In all these pieces, though written in his retirement, with little assistance from books, or learned conversation, he yet displayed considerable extent of knowledge, and of argumentative powers. But to the last of these performances, he prefixed a very singular dedication to queen Caroline, expressive of the unhappy delusion under which he laboured; and which his friends prudently suppressed, aU though it is too great a curiosity to be lost . After his retirement into the country, he could not be prevailed upon to use any kind of exercise or recreation; so that a complication of disorders, contracted by his sedentary mode of living, at length brought on a mortification in his leg, which put a period to his life, at the close of the year 1732, in the fifty-second year of his age. He had several daughters, who survived him. He was a man of extensive knowledge, and very considerable learning. He was well skilled in theology, his sentiments were liberal, and he was a zealous advocate for freedom of inquiry. He appears, from the general tenor of his life, and of his writings, to have been a man of distinguished virtue, and of the most fervent piety, and to have been animated by an ardent zeal for the interests of rational and practical religion. His abilities made him respected, and his virtues rendered him beloved: but such was the peculiarity of his case, that he lived a melancholy instance of the weakness of human nature.

, a learned antiquary, was born in Lincolnshire, in the sixteenth century, and flourished in the beginning of the seventeenth. He was descended from the ancient family of the Bucs, or Buckes, of West Stanton, and Herthill, in Yorkshire, and Melford-hall, in Suffolk. His great grandfather, sir John Buc, knight, was one of king Richard the Third’s favourites, and attended that unfortunate prince to the battle of Bosworth, where he lost his crown and life. In the first parliament of king Henry VII. this sir John Buc was attainted for being one of the chief aiders and assistants to the king just now mentioned, in the battle of Bosworth, and soon after was beheaded at Leicester. By this attainder his posterity were reduced to very great distress; but, through the interest of Thomas duke of Norfolk, the great patron of the family, they had probably some of their estates restored to them, and, among others, that in Lincolnshire, where our author was born. In the reign of king James I. he was made one of the gentlemen of his majesty’s privy-chamber, and knighted. He was also constituted master of the revels, whose office was then kept on St. Peter' s-hill, in London. What he mostly distinguished himself by, was writing “The Life and Reign of Richard III. in five books,” wherein, in opposition to the whole body of English historians, he endeavours to represent that prince’s person and actions in a quite different light from what they have been by others; and takes great pains to wipe off the bloody stains that have been fixed upon his character. He has also written: “The third universitie of England; or, a treatise of the foundations of all the colledges, ancient schooles of priviledge, and of houses of learning, and liberall arts, within and about the most famous citie of London. With a briefe report of the sciences, arts, and faculties therein professed, studied, and practised.” And a treatise t)f “The Art of Revels.” Mr. Camden gives him the character of “a person of excellent learning,” and thankfully acknowledges that he “remarked many things in his historiei, and courteously communicated his observations to him.” He has since received very able support, and Richard III. has found a powerful advocate in Horace Walpole, the late lord Orford, who in his “Historic Doubts” has, with much ingenuity, at least, shewn that the evidence produced in confirmation of Richard’s crimes, is far from being decisive, But we have now an “historic doubt” to bring forward of more importance to the present article, which we find in a note on Malone’s Shakspeare, in the following words: “I take this opportunity of correcting an error into which Anthony Wood has fallen, and which has been implicitly adopted in the new edition of the Biographia Britannica, and many other books. The error I allude to, is, that this sir George Buc, who was knighted at Whitehall by king James the day before his coronation, July 23, 1603, was the author of the celebrated * History of king Richard the Third;' which was written above twenty years after his death, by George Buck, esq. who was, I suppose, his son. The precise time of, the father’s death, I have not been able to ascertain, there being no will of his in the prerogative office; but I have reason to believe that it happened soon after the year 1622. He certainly died before August 1629.”

, an elegant Latin scholar, was born at Toulouse in 1499, and studied at Paris, where he was distinguished by his quick progress and promising talents. On his return to Toulouse, finding his family unable to maintain him, he went to Padua, where he was supported by Emilius Perrot. He was afterwards taken into the family of Lazarus de Baif, the French ambassador at Venice, by whose generosity he was not only maintained, but enabled to study the Greek tongue, and he afterwards studied Hebrew. George de Selve, bishop of Lavaur, who succeeded de Baif as ambassador, retained Bunel in his service, and when his embassy was finished, carried him with him to Levaur. Upon the death of that prelate, which happened in 1541, Bunel returned to Toulouse^ where he would have been reduced to the greatest indigence, had not messieurs de Faur, the patrons of virtue and science, extended their liberality to him unasked. One of these gentlemen appointed him tutor to his sons; but whilst he was making the tour of Italy with them, he was cut off at Turin by a fever, in 1546. Mr. Bayle says, that he was one of the politest writers of the Latin tongue in the sixteenth century; but though he was advantageously distinguished by the eloquence of his Ciceronian style, he was still more so by the strictness of his morals. The magistrates of his native town of Toulouse set up a marble statue to his memory in their town-house. He left som'e Latin epistles written with the utmost purity, which were first published by Charles Stevens in 1551, and afterwards by Henry Stevens in 1581. Another, but a more incorrect edition, was printed at Toulouse in 1687, with notes by Mr. Gravero, advocate of Nimes.

, D. D. another Nonconformist, but of a very different stamp, was descended from the Burgesses of Batcomb, in Somersetshire. In 1611 he was entered at Oxford, but in what college is uncertain. He translated himself, however, to Wadham, and afterwards to Lincoln. When he took orders, he had the rectory of St. Magnus, London-bridge, the date of which promotion is not mentioned, and the living of Watford, in Hertfordshire, in 1618. In the beginning of Charles the First’s reign he became one of his chaplains in ordinary, and in 1627 took both degrees in divinity, at which time Dr. Prideaux, the regius professor, told him he was a sorry disputant, but might make a good preacher. At this time and for several years after he was a zealous friend to the church of England, but either from being disappointed in certain expected preferments, as Wood insinuates, or from being vexed, as Calamy says, for opposing archbishop Laud’s party, he became a powerful advocate for the principles which soon overthrew church and state; and particularly directed his attacks against the revenues of deans and chapters, and bishops. He procured, however, that St. Paul’s cathedral might be opened, and himself appointed lecturer there, with a salary of 400l. and the dean’s house to reside in. Enriched by this and similar advantages, he not only purchased church lands, but even wrote a book in vindication of such purchases. On the restoration, however, he lost all this plunder, to the amount of many thousand pounds, and died in extreme poverty, June 9, 1665. Calamy, his continuator, and Mr. Neal, find great difficulty in refuting Wood’s account of this Dr. Burgess. Their strongest plea is, that he was against the king’s murder, and drew up the paper signed by the London ministers to prevent that act. At his death, although he had been obliged from poverty to dispose of his library, he left some curious editions of the Prayer-book to the university of Oxford. He wrote some devotional tracts, enumerated by Calamy, and several of the controversial kind.

Mr. Burgh having, for many years, led a very laborious life, and having acquired also a competem, though not a large fortune (for his mind was always far raised above pecuniary views), he determined to retire trona business. In embracing this resolution, it was by no means his intention to be unemployed. What he had particularly in contemplation was, to complete his “Political Disquisitions,” for which he had, during ten years, been collecting suitable materials. Upon quitting his school at Newrngton-greenj which was in 1771, he settled in a house at Colebrooke-row, Islington, where he continued till his decease. He had not been long in his new situation before he became convinced (of what was only suspected before) that he had a stone in his bladder. Witn this dreadful malady he was deeply afflicted the four latter years of his life; and for the two last of these years his pain was exquisite. Nevertheless, to the astonishment of all who were witnesses of the misery he endured, he went on with his “Political Disquisitions.” The two first volumes were published in 1774, and the third volume in 1775. Their title is, “Political Disquisitions: or, an enquiry into public errors, defects, and abuses. Illustrated by, and established upon, facts and remarks extracted from a variety of authors ancient and modern. Calculated to draw the timely attention of government and people to a due consideration of the necessity and the means of reforming those errors, defects, and abuses; of restoring the constitution, and saving the state.” The first volume relates to government in general, and to parliament in particular; the second treats of places and pensions, the taxation of the colonies, and the army; and the third considers manners. It was our author’s intention to have extended his Disquisitions to some other subjects, if he had not been prevented by the violence of his disease, the tortures of which he bore with uncommon patience and resignation, and from which he was happily released, on the 26th of August, 1775, in the sixty-first year of his age. Besides the publications already mentioned, and a variety of manuscripts which he left behind him, he wrote, in 1753 and 1754, some letters in the General Evening Post, called “The Free Enquirer;” and in 1770, a number of papers entitled “The Constitutionalist,” in the Gazetteer; which were intended to recommend annual parliaments, adequate representation, and a place bill. About the same time he also published another periodical paper in the Gazetteer, under the title of “The Colonist’s Advocate;” which was written against the measures of government with respect to the colonies. He printed likewise for the sole use of his pupils, “Directions, prudential, moral, religious, and scientific;” which were pirated by a bookseller, and sold under the title of “Youth’s friendly Monitor.”

His speech to the electors was as liberal as their invitation. He did not, like other candidates, on a spur of mistaken gratitude, or the artifice of popular conciliation, pledge himself to be the mere vehicle of their instructions; he frankly told them his opinion of the trust they had reposed in him; and what rendered this conduct still more creditable to his feelings was, that his colleague (Mr. Cruger) had just before expressed himself in favour of the coercive authority of his constituents’ instructions. Mr. Burke' s sentiments on this occasion are well worth transcribing, as, in our opinion, they place that point, “How far representatives are bound by the instructions of their constituents,” out of the reach of all future litigation. “Certainly, gentlemen,” says he, “it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention; it is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own: but his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men. Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates: but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole: you choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far as any other from any endeavour to give it effect.”

, or, as some have called him, Lucius Cælius Arianus, an ancient physician, and the only one of the sect of the methodists of whom we have any remains, is supposed to have been a native of Sicca, a town of Numidia, in Africa. This we learn from the elder Pliny; and we might almost have collected it, without any information at all, from his style, which is very barbarous, and much resembling that of the African writers. It is half Greek, half Latin, harsh, and difficult; yet strong, masculine, and his works are valuable for the matter they contain. He is frequently very acute and smart, especially where he exposes the errors of other physicians and always nervous. What age Cælius Aurelianus flourished in we cannot determine, there being so profound a silence about it amongst the ancients; but it is very probable that he lived before Galen, since it is not conceivable that he should mention, as he does, all the physicians before him, great as well as small, and yet not make the least mention of Galen. Le Clerc places him in the fifth century. He was not only a careful imitator of Soranus, but also a strenuous advocate for him. He had read over very diligently the ancient physicians of all the sects and we are obliged to him for the knowledge of many dogmas, which are not to he found but in his books “De celeribus et tardis passionibus.” The best edition of these books is that published at Amsterdam, 1722, in 4to. He wrote, as he himself tells us, several other works; but they are all perished. This, however, which has escaped the ruins of time and barbarism, is highly valued, as being the only monument of the Medicina methodica which is extant. He is allowed by all to be judicious in the history and description of diseases

, an eminent but unfortunate French minister, was born at Douay in 1734. His father was president of the parliament of Flanders, and descended from a noble family, originally of Tournay, and well known in the history of that city, which makes honourable mention of his ancestors in the remotest times. Having finished his studies at the university of Paris with extraordinary success, young Calonne was appointed, in histwenty-third year, advocate or solicitor- general of the superior council of Artois and before he had attained the age of twenty -five, was promoted to the office of procurator-general of the parliament of Flanders, the duties of which he performed with distinguished ability for six years. He was then called as rapporteur to the king’s council, to report to his majesty the most momentous affairs of administration, of which arduous and laborious task he acquitted himself in a manner that evinced his profound knowledge of the government, constitution, history, and jurisprudence of France, and established his reputation as a writer of no less perspicuity and judgment, than elegance and energy of diction.

His impartiality has been attacked on several parts of this work. He has been charged with being influenced in his account of the queen of Scots by complaisance for her son, and with contradictions in the information given by him to M. deThou, and his own account of the same particulars. It is not to be wondered if James made his own corrections on the ms. which his warrant sets forth he had perused before he permitted it to be published. It was no easy matter to speak the truth in that reign of flattery in points where filial piety and mean ambition divided the mind of the reigning monarch. An English historian in such a reign could not indulge the same freedom as Thuanus. The calumnies cast upon him for his detail of Irish affairs were thought by him beneath the notice his friends wanted to take of them. But though he declined adding his own justification to that which the government of Ireland thought proper to publish of their own conduct, we have the letters he wrote on the subject to archbishop Usher and others and it had this effect on him, that he declined publishing in his life-time the second part of his history, which he completed in 1617. He kept the original by him, which was preserved in the Cottonian library, and sent an exact copy of it to his friend Mr. Dupuy, who had given him the strongest assurances that he would punctually perform the duty of this important trust, and faithfully kept his word. It was first printed at Leyden, 1625, 8vo, again London, 1627, folio, Leyden, 1639, 8vo, &c. But the most correct edition of the whole is that by Hearne from Dr. Smith’s copy corrected by Mr. Camden’s own hand, collated with another ms. in Mr. Rawlinson’s library. Both parts were translated into French by M. Paul de Belligent, advocate in the parliament of Paris; and from thence into English with many errors, by one Abraham D'Arcy, who did not understand English. The materials whence Camden compiled this history are most of them to be found in the Cottonian library. We learn from a ms letter of Dr. Goodman’s, that he desired them as a legacy, but received for answer, that they had been promised to archbishop Bancroft, upon whose death he transferred them to his successor Abbot, and archbishop Laud said they were deposited in the palace at Lambeth, but whereever they were archbishop Sancroft could not find one of them.

, grand nephew of the preceding, was born at Besanon, where his father was an advocate, in 1697, and died at Amsterdam in 1732. In this city he was employed in the journals, to relieve the distress he brought upon himself by quitting the post of secretary and librarian to marechal d'Estres, and marrying without any fortune. He left “Hist. Critiques des Journaux qui s’imprimenten France,” 2 vols. 12mo; “Bibliotheque des Livres nouveaux,” of which only 2 vols. have appeared. The first four volumes of the “Bibliotheque Fran9oise,” which consists of 34 vols. 4to; “Melanges de Litterature,” taken from manuscript letters of Chapelain, &c. 12mo. He appears to have been of an unsteady temper, never studying but to relieve his necessities, and shifting from one pursuit to another without completing any.

, seigneur du Fresne, counsellor of state, was born 1551 at Paris, and carefully educated by his father James de la Canaye, an eminent advocate. At the age of fifteen, having declared himself a Calvinist, he went into Italy, Germany, and to Constanstinople; and published an account of his travels to that city, under the title of “Ephemerides.” He shone afterwards at the bar, and was counsellor of state under Henry III. Henry IV. sent him ambassador into England, Germany, and to Venice. He assisted at the famous conference of Fontainebleau, 1600, between cardinal du Perron and DuplessisMornay, and afterwards turned catholic. The year following he was sent ambassador to Venice, where he contributed greatly to the termination of the disputes between that republic and pope Paul V. He died at his return to Paris, February 27, 1610. Three vols. fol. of his embassies were published in 1635, with his life prefixed to the first.

, a Genoese advocate, who lived in the seventeenth century, and acquired much fame as a lawyer, is now only known as a historian. His Italian history comprehends the transactions that occurred in Italy during his own time, which he has related with clearness, and with sagacity traced to their causes; maintaining at the same time, as he says, a perfect impartiality between the powers of France and Spain, that were concerned in them. The two first parts of this history were published by Capriata in his life-time, from 1613 to 1644; and the third part, extending to 1660, was published by his son after his death. The whole was translated into English by Henry earftrfTVloninoutb, and published Lond. 1663, fol.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born, as is supposed, at Burford in Oxfordshire, about 1610. He received his academical learning at Trinity college in Dublin, and St. John’s college in Cambridge* Before he came to be twenty years of age, he was muster of an ample fortune, which descended to him by the gift of a grandfather, without passing through his father and mother, who were then alive. Shortly after that, and before he was of age, he went into the Low Countries, with a resolution of procuring a command; but was diverted from it by the complete inactivity of that summer. On his return to England, he entered upon a very strict course of study. We are informed by lord Clarendon, that his house being within a little more than ten miles of Oxford, he contracted familiarity and friendship with the most polite and accurate men of that university, who found such an immenseness of wit, and such a solidity of judgment in him, so infinite a fancy, bound in by most exact reasoning, such a vast knowledge, that he was not ignorant in any thing, yet. such an excessive humility, as if he had known nothing, that they frequently resorted, and dwelt with him, as in a college situated in a purer air; so that his house was a university in a less volume, whither they came, not so much for repose, as study; and to examine and refute those grosser propositions which laziness and consent made current in vulgar conversation. Before he was twenty-three years of age, he had read over all the Greek and Latin fathers, and was indefatigable in looking over all books, which with great expence he caused to be transmitted to him from all parts. About the time of his father’s death, in 1633, he was made one of the gentlemen of the privy-chamber to Charles I. In 1639 he was in the expedition against the Scots, and afterwards went a volunteer with the earl of Essex. He was chosen, in 1640, a member of the house of commons for Newport in the isle of Wight, in the parliament which began at Westminster April 13, the same year. The debates being there managed with all imaginable gravity and sobriety, he contracted such a reverence for parliaments, that he thought it really impossible they could ever procjiice mischief or inconvenience to the kingdom, or that the kingdom could be tolerably happy in the intermission of them. From the unhappy and unseasonable dissolution of that parliament, he probably harboured some jealousy and prejudice to the court, towards which he was not before immoderately inclined. He was chosen again for the same place in that parliament which began the 3d of November following;, and in the beginning of it declared himself very sharply and severely against those exorbitances of the court, which Vo*. Viij, Z had been most grievous to the state. He was so rigid an observer of established laws and rules, that he could not endure a breach or deviation from them; and thought no mischief so intolerable, as the presumption of ministers of state to break positive rules for reasons of state, or judges to transgress known laws upon the plea of conveniency or necessity. This made him so severe against the earl of Strafford and the lord Finch, contrary to his natural gentleness and temper. He likewise concurred in the first bill to take away the votes of bishops in the house of lords. This gave occasion to some to believe that he was no friend to the church, and the established government of it; it also caused many in the house of commons to imagine and hope that he might be brought to a further compliance with their designs. Indeed the great opinion he had of the uprightness and integrity of those persons who appeared most active against the court, kept him longer from suspecting any design against the peace of the kingdom; and though he differed from them commonly in conclusions, he believed their purposes were honest. When better informed what was law, and discerning in them a desire to controul that law by a vote of one or both houses, no man more opposed those attempts, and gave the adverse party more trouble, by reason and argumentation. About six months after passing the above-mentioned bill for taking away the bishops’ votes, when the same argument came again into debate, he changed his opinion, and gave the house all the opposition he could, insomuch that he was by degrees looked upon as an advocate for the court; to which he contributed so little, that he declined those addresses, and even those invitations which he was obliged almost by civility to entertain. He was so jealous of the least imagination of his inclining to preferment, that he affected even a moroseness to the court and to the courtiers, and left nothing undone which might prevent and divert the king’s or queen’s favour towards him, but the deserving it. When the king sent for him once or twice to speak to him, and to give him thanks for his excellent comportment in those councils which his majesty termed doing him service, his answers were more negligent, and Jess satisfactory, than might be expected; as if he cared only that his actions should be just, not that they should be acceptable: and he took more pains, and more forced his nature to actions unagreeable and unpleasant to it, that he might not be thought to incline to the court, than most men have done to procure an office there: not that he was in truth averse from receiving public employment, for he had a great devotion to the king’s person* and had before used some small endeavour to be recommended to him for a foreign negotiation, and had once a desire to be sent ambassador into France; but he abhorred an imagination or doubt should sink into the thoughts of any man, that in the discharge of his trust and duty in parliament he had any bias to the court; or that the king himself should apprehend that he looked for a reward for being honest. For this reason, when he heard it first whispered, that the king had a purpose to make him a privy-counsellor, for which there was in the beginning no other ground but because he was known to be well qualified, he resolved to decline it, and at last suffered himself to be over-ruled by the advice and persuasion of his friends to submit to it. Afterwards, when he found that the king intended to make him secretary of state, he was positive to refuse it, declaring to his friends that he was most unfit for it, and that he must either do that which would be great disquiet to his own nature, or leave that undone which was most necessary to be done by one that was honoured with that place; for the most just and honest men did, every day, that which he could not give himself leave to do. He was so exact and strict an observer of justice and truth, that he believed those necessary condescensions and applications to the weakness of other men, and those arts and insinuations which are necessary for discoveries and prevention of ill, would be in him a declension from his own rules of life, though he acknowledged them fit, and absolutely necessary to be practised in those employments. However, he was at last prevailed upon to submit to the king’s command, and became his secretary: but two things he could never bring himself to whilst he continued in that office (which was to his death), for which he was contented to be reproached, as for omissions in a most necessary part of his place. The one, employing of spies, or giving any countenance or entertainment to them; not such emissaries, as with danger would venture to view the enemy’s camp, and bring intelligence of their number* or quartering, or any particulars that such an observation can comprehend; but those who, by communication of guilt, or dissimulation of manners, wind themselves into such trusts and secrets, as enable them to make discoveries. The other, the liberty of opening letters, upon a suspicion that they might contain matter of dangerous consequence. For the first, he would say such instruments must be void of all ingenuity and common honesty, before they could be of use and afterwards they could never be fit to be credited and that no single preservation could be worth so general a wound and corruption of human society, as the cherishing such persons would carry with it. The last he thought such a violation of the law of nature, that no qualification by office could justify him in the trespass; and though he was convinced by the necessity and iniquity of the time, that those advantages of information were not to be declined, and were necessarily to be practised, he found means to put it off from himself, whilst he confessed he needed excuse and pardon for the omission. In all other particulars he filled his place with great sufficiency, being well versed in languages, and with the utmost integrity, being above corruption of any kind.

, a Spaniard, and the illustrious bishop of Chiapa, was born at Seville in 1474; and, at the age of nineteen, attended his father, who went with Christopher Columbus to the Indies in 1493. Upon his return he became an ecclesiastic, and a curate in the isle of Cuba; but quitted his cure and his country -in order to devote himself to the service of the Indians, who were then enslaved to the most ridiculous superstitions, as well as the most barbarous tyranny. The Spanish governors had long since made Christianity detested by their unheardof cruelties, and the Indians trembled at the very name of Christian. This humane and pious missionary resolved to cross the seas, and to lay their cries and their miseries at the feet of Charles V. The affair was discussed in council; and the representations of Casas so sensibly affected the emperor, that he made ordinances, as severe to the persecutors as favourable to the persecuted. But these ordinances were never executed the Spanish governors, or rather tyrants, continued to plunder and murder; and they had a doctor, one Sepulveda, who undertook even to justify these outrages by human and divine laws, and by the examples of the Israelites who conquered the people of Canaan. This horrible book was printed at Rome, but proscribed in Spain; and Casas, now become bishop of Chiapa, refuted this apology for tyranny and murder. His treatise, entitled, “The Destruction of the Indians,” and translated into most European languages, is full of details which shock humanity. Soto, the emperor’s confessor, was appointed arbiter of the difference between Casas, a bishop worthy of the first ages of the church, and Sepulveda, a doctor and advocate for principles which would not have been adopted by an heathen: and the result of all this was laid before Charles V. who, however, had too many affairs upon his hands to pay a due attention to it; and the governors continued to tyrannize as usual. Casas employed above fifty years in America, labouring with incessant zeal, that the Indians might be treated with mildness, equity, and humanity: but, instead of succeeding, he drew upon himself endless persecutions from the Spaniards; and, though he escaped with his life, might properly enough be called a martyr to the liberty of the Indians. After refusing several bishoprics in America, he was constrained to accept that of Chiapa in 1544. He reided there till 1551, when the infirm state of his health obliged him to return to his native country; and he died at Madrid in 156G, aged ninety-two. Besides his “Destruction of the Indians,” and other pieces on the same subject, there is a very curious Latin work of his upon this question “Whether kings or princes can in conscience, by any right, or by virtue of any title, alienate citizens and subjects from their natural allegiance, and subject them to a new and foreign jurisdiction?” Ail his writings shew a solid judgment, and profound learning and piety.

His indefatigable application to business having ruined his constitution, he died at Marlborough in his return from Bath, May 24, 1612, and was buried at Hatfield. He was undoubtedly a very able minister, but not very popular while living, nor characterised with much praise since his death. Dr. Birch, however, appears his ablest advocate, in his “Historical View of the Negociations,” &c. and his researches being carried farther than perhaps those of any modern writer, what he advances seems more entitled to credit.

, member of the supreme council of Bouillon, and advocate in the parliament of Paris, died in that capitol in 1785. Born to no fortune, his days were shortened by difficulties and cares. His works give proof of considerable talents, and his manners are said to have attracted universal esteem. His book entitled “Of the French monarchy and its laws,” 1785, 2 vols. 12mo, displays a novelty in the design, and a variety of knowledge in the execution. He is thought to have taken Montesquieu for his model, whose energy and precision he copies, as well as his dryness. He obtained in 1782 the prize of the French academy for the encouragement of literature. Diderot proposed him to Catherine II. of Russia as a proper person to assist her in her new code of laws, and as one profoundly versed in the subject, but Chabrit died before her imperial majesty returned an answer.

, in Latin Calventius, president of the Inquests of the parliament of Toulouse, was born in May 1523. He was brought to Paris in 1539 by Mr. Lizet his uncle, at that time advocate-general in the parliament of Paris, who kept him six years to his studies under Orontius Fineus, Tusan, Buchanan, and some other learned persons. He went to Toulouse in 1546, to learn the civil law, and lodged in the same house with Turnebus, Mercerus, and Govea. He travelled into Italy in 1550, in order to pursue his studies, and was Alciat’s disciple at Pavia, and Socinus’s at Bologna. Being returned to France, he went to Toulouse, and there completed his course of law-studies, and was associated with Roaldes and Bodinus, reading law lectures together in the public schools with reputation. Having taken his doctor’s degree in that university, he resolved to go to Paris, in order to make his fortune; but though this resolution of his was strengthened by some letters he received from Mr. Lizet, yet he chose rather to settle in Toulouse, where he married, in 1552, Jane de Bernuy, daughter of the lord de Palficat, baron of Villeneufve. He was admitted counsellor in the parliament of that city in 1553, afterwards created judge of French poesy, and maintainer of the floral sports. He was appointed president of the inquests by the parliament in 1573. Being of a peaceable temper, he retired to his house in Auvergne, during the first and last furies of the civil wars, in order that he might not be an eye-witness of the confusions which he saw would break out in Toulouse. It was in this retirement he studied and translated Seneca, to administer some consolation to himself during the wild havock that was then making, and to employ his leisure to advantage. His attachment to his sovereign gained him the particular esteem of Henry IV. who in 1603 appointed him counsellor of state and privy counsellor. The year after, he resigned his dignity of president to Francis Chalvet sieur de Fenouiliet, one of his sons, and retired from business to spend the remainder of his days in peace and among his books. He spent two years in this -retirement, with so much satisfaction to himself, that he used frequently to declare to his relations, that he could not say he had lived during the previous years of his life. He died at Toulouse the 20th of June, 1607, being seventy-nine years of age. Several authors have honoured him with eulogiums. His “Translation of Seneca,” was published at Paris, 1604, folio, and reprinted there in 1638, with a life of the translator, and some encomiastic verses in French and Latin. Chalvet himself wrote much French and Latin poetry, which was not published. Huet, in his treatise “De claris interpretibus,” thinks that his translation of Seneca is too diffuse.

The unfortunate loss of the Grosvenor East Indiaman, in 1782, was a calamity in which the private share of sir Robert Chambers was disproportionately heavy. He lost his eldest son, a promising youth, then going to England for education and the uncertain circumstances of the case left to imagination the most dreadful materials for conjecture. In this, as in every other situation, in proportion to the exigence, the firm and truly Christian piety of sir Robert Chambers afforded a great example; and he appeared a worthy son of that excellent national church which, on some occasions, he had strenuously defended while he was an advocate. On the resignation of sir Elijah Impey, in 1791, sir Robert Chambers was advanced to the office of chief justice: and in 1797 he became president of the Asiatic society. At length, after having remained in India twenty-five years, he also obtained permission to resign, and was succeeded by sir John Anstruther.

, an ingenious French writer, the son of an advocate, was born at Paris in 1741, and became teacher of the French language in a military school in Spain, where he published a French grammar, entitled “Arte de Hablar bien Frances,” Madrid, 4ta, which went through six editions. On his return to France he was appointed professor of history in the central school of Gers, and afterwards in the imperial school at Fountainbleau. He died at Auch, Oct. 15, 1808. His works were, 3. “Dictionnaire des mots et usages introduits par la resolution,” 8vo, a curious medley of cant phrases, which he published under the name of M. L'Epithete of Politicopolis. 2. “Voyage dans les trois royaumes d‘Angleterre, d’Ecosse, et d'Irlande:” this journey he took in 1788 and 1789, and the work appeared in 1792, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “Lettres ecrites de Barcelonne a un zelateur de la liberte” qui voyage en Allemande,“1792, 8vo. 4.” Voyage philosophique, politique, et litteraire, fait en Russie pendant les annees 1788 and 1789, &c.“2 vols. 8vo, replete with curious and original information. 5.” Essai didactique sur la forme que doivent avoir les livres elementaires faits pour les ecoles nationales,“1795, 8vo. 6.” Tables chronologiques,“a translation of Blair’s Chronology, 1797, 4to. 7. The Index to Beau marc hais’s edition of Voltaire’s works, which forms the 71st and 72d volume of that edition. 8.” Rudimens de i'histoire,“a work of very considerable merit. 9.” La Science de I'histoire,“1803, et seqq. 4 vols. 4to. This work is peculiarly happy in the plan, and judicious and accurate in its execution. 10.” Histoire de France abregee ct chronologique depuis les Gaulois et les Francs jusqu'en 1808," 2 vols. 8vo.

, esq. F. S. A. an ingenious but unfortunate writer, was born Nov. 28, 1756, the only son of John Charnock, esq. a native of the island of Barbadoes, and formerly an advocate of eminence at the English bar, by Frances, daughter of Thomas Boothby, of Chingford in Essex, esq. About 1767 he was placed at the rev. Reynell Cotton’s school at Winchester, and went from thence to the college, where, in the station of a commoner, he was under the immediate care of the celebrated Dr. Joseph Warton, the head master, in whose house he boarded, and became the peculiar favourite of that eminent tutor. Having attained to the seniority of the school, and gained the prize medal annually given for elocution, he removed from Winchester to Oxford, and was, in 1774, entered a gentleman-commoner of Merton college. Here he soon discovered his passion for literary composition, in a multiplicity of fugitive pieces on various subjects, which appeared in the periodical papers; many of them, however, were not of a kind likely to confer permanent reputation, being invectives against the American war, written in a vehement spirit of opposition, under the signatures of Casca, Squib, or Justice.

, was born at Paris in 1541. Though his parents were in narrow circumstances, yet discovering their son’s capacity, they were particularly attentive to his education. After making a considerable proficiency in grammar-learning, he applied to logic, metaphysics, moral and natural philosophy, and afterwards studied civil and common law at the universities of Orleans and Bourges, and commenced doctor in that faculty. Upon his return to Paris, he was admitted an advocate in the court of parliament. He always declared the bar to be the best and most improving school in the world; and accordingly attended at all the public hearings for five or six years: but foreseeing that preferment in this way, if ever attained at all, was like to come very slow, as he had neither private interest, nor relations among the solicitors and proctors of the court, he gave over that employment, and closely applied to the study of divinity. By his superior pulpit eloquence, he soon came into high reputation with the greatest and most learned men of his time, insomuch that the bishops seemed to strive which of them should get him into his diocese; making him an offer of being theological canon or divinity lecturer in their churches, and of other dignities and benefices, besides giving him noble presents. He was successively theologal of Bazas, Aqcs, Lethoure, Agen, Cahors, and Condom, canon and schoolmaster in the church of Bourdeaux, and chanter in the church of Condom. Queen Margaret, duchess of Bulois, entertained him for her preacher in ordinary; and the king, though at that time a protestant, frequently did him the honour to be one of his audience. He was also retained by the cardinal d'Armagnac, the pope’s legate at Avignon, who had a great value for him; yet amidst all these promotions, he never took any degree or title in divinity, but satisfied himself with deserving and being capable of the highest. After about eighteen years absence from Paris, he resolved to end his days there; and being a lover of retirement, vowed to become a Carthusian. On his arrival at Paris, he communicated his intention to the prior of the order, but was rejected, notwithstanding his most pressing entreaties. They told him that he could not be received on account of his age, then about forty-eight, and that the order required all the vigour of youth to support its austerities. He next addressed himself to the Celestines at Paris, but with the same success, and for the same reasons: in this embarrassment, he was assured by three learned casuists, that as he was no ways accessary to the non -performance of his vow, it was no longer binding; and that he might, with a very safe conscience, continue in the world as a secular. He preached, however, a course of Lent sermons at Angers in 1589. Going afterwards to Bourdeaux, he contracted a very intimate friendship with Michael de Montagne, author of the well known Essays, from whom he received all possible testimonies of regard; for, among other things, Montagne ordered by his last will, that in case he should leave no issue-male of his own, M. Charron should, after his decease, be entitled to bear the coat of arms plain, as they belonged to his noble family, and Charron, in return, made Montagne’s brotherin-law his residuary legatee. He staid at Bourdeaux from 1589 to 1593; and in that interval composed his book, entitled, “Les Trois Verge’s,” which he published in 1594. These three truths are the following 1. That there is a God and a true religion 2. That of all religions the Christian is the only true one 3. That of all the Christian communions the Roman catholic is the only true church. This work procured him the acquaintance of M. de Sulpice, Bishop and count of Cahors, who sent for him and offered him the places of his vicar-general and canon theological in his church, which he accepted. He was deputed to the general assembly of the clergy in 1595, and was chosen first secretary to the assembly. In 1599 he returned to Cahors; and in that and the following year composed eight discourses upon the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; and. others upon the knowledge and providence of God, the redemption of the world, the communion of saints, and likewise his “books of Wisdom.” Whilst he was thus employed, the bishop of Condom, to draw him into his diocese, presented him with the chaptership in his church; and the theologal chair falling vacant about the same time, made him an offer of that too, which -Charron accepted, and resolved to settle there. In 1601 he printed at Bourdeaux his books “of Wisdom,” which gave him a great reputation, and made his character generally known. October 1603, he made a journey to Paris, to thank the Bishop of Boulogne; who, in order to have him near himself, had oifered him the place of theologal canon. This he was disposed to accept of; but the moisture and coldness of the air at Boulogne, and its nearness to the sea, not only made it, he said to a friend, a melancholy and unpleasant place, but very unwholesome too; adding, that the sun was his visible god, as God was his invisible sun. At Paris he began a new edition of his books “of Wisdom,” of which he lived to see but three or four sheets printed, dying Nov. 16, 1603, of an apoplexy. The impression of the new edition of his book “of Wisdom,” with alterations by the author, occasioned by the offence taken at some passages in the former, was completed in 1604, by the care of a friend; but as the Bourdeaux edition contained some things that were either suppressed or softened in the subsequent one, it was much sought after by the curious. Hence the booksellers of several cities reprinted the book after that edition; and this induced a Paris bookseller to print an edition, to which he subjoined all the passages of the first edition which had been struck out or corrected, and all those which the president Jeannin, who was employed by the chancellor to examine the book, judged necessary to be changed. This edition appeared in 1707. There have been two translations of it into English, the last by George Stanhope, D. D. printed in 1697. Dr. Stanhope says, that M. Charron “was a person that feared God, led a pious and good life, was charitably disposed, a person of wisdom and conduct, serious and considerate; a great philosopher, an eloquent orator, a famous and powerful preacher, richly furnished and adorned with the most excellent virtues and graces both moral and divine; such as made him very remarkable and singular, and deservedly gave him the character of a good man and a good Christian; such as preserve a great honour and esteem for his memory among persons of worth and virtue, and will continue to do so as long as the world shall last.” From this high praise considerable deductions may surely be made. Charron’s fame has scarcely outlived his century; his book on “Wisdom” certainly abounds in ingenious and original observations on moral topics, but gives a gloomy picture of human nature and society. Neither is it free from sentiments very hostile to revealed religion, but so artfully disguised as to impose on so orthodox a divine as dean Stanhope.

, who was born August 17, 1659, at Paris, studied at the college de la Marche, and there became acquainted with M. de Seigneley, who procured him an employment in the marine. The greatest part of his life passed in voyages to the Levant, Canada, and the East Indies. In Canada he was taken prisoner by the English; he was also a prisoner in Turkey. Chasles was gay, sprightly, and loved good cheer, but yet satirical, particularly against the monks, and the constitution. He was banished from Paris to Chartres, for some of these liberties, where he was living in a sordid manner, in 1719 or 1720. He wrote “Les Illustres Francoises,” 3 vols. 12mo, containing seven histories, to which two others are added in the edition of Utrecht, 1737, 4 vols. 12mo, and of Paris, 4 vols.; but these two are much inferior to the rest. “Journal d'un Voyage fait aux Indes Orientales sur Tescadre de M. du Quesrie en 1690 et 1691,” Rouen, 1721, 3 vols. 12mo; and a sixth volume of Don Quixote. Though Chasles was an advocate, the “Diet, de Justice, Police, et Finances,”, written by Francis James Chasles, 1725, 3 vols. fol. must not be ascribed to him.

, was born at IssyTEveque, in Burgundy, 1480. He held theoffice of king’s advocate at Autiin till 1522, when Francis I. appointed him counsellor to the parliament of Paris, then president of that of Provence. Chasseneuz was in the latter office when that court gave sentence against the inhabitants of Cabrieres and Merindol. He prevented the execution of it during his life, and died 1542, leaving several works: among the rest, a “Commentary on the Custom of Burgundy,” of which there were five editions in his life-time, and above fifteen since. The last edition is by the president Bouhier, 1717, 4to, new modelled in that which he has since published in 2 vols. fol.

, a gentleman descended froman ancient family in Bretany, one of the members of the French, academy, advocate-general to the parliament of Rennes, afterwards master of the requests, and counseller of state, was born in 1593. The court entrusted him with several important commissions; but, upon his refusing to be among the judges at the trial of the marechal de Marillac, he was sent to prison, but set at liberty some time after. It is said, that, being one day with M. de St. Preuil, who was soliciting the due de Montmorenci’s pardon, the king said to him, “I believe M. du Chatelet would willingly part with an arm to save M. de Montmorenci.” To which he replied, “I would, sire, that I could lose them both, for they can do you no service, and save one who has gained many battles for you, and would gain many more.” After his release from prison above noticed, he went to the king’s chapel; but that prince affecting to look another way that he might not meet the eyes of a person to whom he had lately done such a flagrant injury, Du Chatelet whispered one of the noblemen, “Be so good, my lord, as to tell the king, that I freely forgive him, and beg the honour of one look.” This made the king smile, and Du Chatelet was forgiven. It was after the same release, that, when the cardinal de Richelieu (most of whose state papers were the products of Lis pen) made some excuses for his detention, he answered, “I make a great difference betwixt any ill your eminency does of yourself, and any which you permit to be done nor shall you find me the less devoted to your service.” Du Chatelet died April 6, 1636, leaving several works in prose and verse, the principal of which are, 1. “Histoire de Bertrand du Gueschin, connetable de France,” 1666, fol. and 1693, 4to. 2. “Observations sur la vie et la condamnation du mareschal de Marillac,” Paris, 1633, 4to. 3. “Plusieurs de pieces pour servir a l'Histoire,” 1635, fol. and some satires and poems which are not in much estimation.

Churchill does not appear, but he was have beeo any cordiality. an*>ng the first to revive the memory of from his principal subject. Of this “The Prophecy of Famine,” which, for original creative power, may perhaps be preferred to all his other writings, appears to be a striking example. It consists of a long introduction which might suit any other subject, and detached parts which have no natural connexion, and of which the order might be changed without injury. “The Rosciad” seems to have owed its popularity more to its subject, and the clamour of the players and their friends, than to its poetry. In his other works, there are few of the essential qualities of a poet which he has not frequently exemplified. He has fully proved that he was not incapable of the higher species of poetry; he has given specimens of the sublime and the pathetic, “the two chief nerves of all genuine poesy.” In personification he is peculiarly happy, and sometimes displays the fine fancy of Spenser united with great strength of colouring and force of expression. His bursts of indignation are wonderfully eloquent, and with a love of virtue, he might have been her irresistible advocate, and the first of ethic writers. Where he does put on the character of a moral satirist, he is perhaps inferior to none of the moderns. But unfortunately his genius was biassed by personal animosity, and where he surpasses all other writers, it is in the keenness, not of legitimate satire, but of defamation. His object is not to reform, but to revenge; and that the greatness of his revenge may be justified, he exaggerates the offences of his objects beyond all bounds of truth and decency.

, or rather Cleiveland (for so he and his family spelt their name) (John), a noted loyalist and popular poet in the reign of Charles I. was the eldest son of the rev. Thomas Cleiveland, M. A. some time vicar of Hinckley, and rector of Stoke, in the county of Leicester. He was born in 1613, at Loughborough, where his father was then assistant to the rector; but educated at Hinckley, under the rev. Richard Vynes, a man of genius and learning, who was afterwards as much distinguished among the presbyterian party as his scholar was among the cavaliers. In his fifteenth year our poet was removed to Cambridge, and admitted of Christ’s college, Sept. 4, 1627, where he took the degree of B. A. in 163 1 He was thence transplanted to the sister foundation of St. John’s college in the same university, of which he was elected fellow March 27, 1634, and proceeded to the degree of M. A. in 1635. Of this society he continued many years a principal ornament, being one of the tutors, and highly respected by his pupils, some of -whom afterwards attained to eminence. By the statutes of that college, he should have taken orders within six years after his being elected fellow: but he uas admitted on the law line (as the phrase there is) November 2, 1640, and afterwards on that of physic, January 31, 1642, which excused him from complying with this obligation; though it does not appear that he made either law or physic his profession: for, remaining at college, he became the rhetoric reader there, and was usually employed by the society in composing their speeches and epistles to eminent persons (of which specimens may be seen in his works), being in high repute at that time for the purity and terseness of his Latin style. He also became celebrated for his occasional poems in English, and, at the breaking out of the civil wars, is said to have been the first champion that appeared in verse for the royal cause; which he also supported by all his personal influence: particularly by exerting his interest in the town of Cambridge, to prevent Oliver Cromwell (then an obscure candidate, but strongly supported by the puritan partv) from being elected one of its members. Cromwell’s stronger genius in this, as hi every other pursuit, prevailing, Cleveland is said to have shown great discernment, by predicting at so early a period, the fatal consequences that long after ensued to the cause of royalty. Cromwell got his election by a single vote, which Cleveland declared “had ruined both church and kingdom.” The parliament party carrying all before them in the eastern counties, Cleveland retired to the royal army, and with it to the king’s head quarters at Oxford, where he was much admired and caressed for his satirical poems on the opposite faction, especially for his satire on the Scottish covenanters, entitled “The Rebel Scot.” In his absence he was deprived of his fellowship, Feb. 13, 1644, by the earl of Manchester, who, under the authority of an ordinance of parliament, for regulating and reforming the university of Cambridge, ejected such fellows of colleges, &c. as refused to take the solemn league and covenant. From Oxford Cleveland was appointed to be judge-advocate in the garrison at Newark, under sir Richard Willis the governor, and has been commended for his skilful and upright conduct in this difficult office, where he also distinguished his pen occasionally, by returning smart answers to the summons, and other addresses to the garrison. Newark, after holding out the last of all the royal fortresses, was at length, in 1646, by the express command of the king (then a prisoner in the Scots army), surrendered upon terms, which left Cleveland in possession of his liberty, but destitute of all means of support, except what he derived from the hospitality and generosity of his brother loyalists, among whom he lived some years, obscure and unnoticed by the ruling party, till, in November 1655, he was seized at Norwich, as “a person of great abilities,” adverse and dangerous to the reigning government; and being sent to Yarmouth, he was there imprisoned for some time, till he sent a petition to the lord-protector, wherein the address of the writer has been much admired, who, while he honestly avows his principles, has recourse to such moving topics, as might sooth his oppressor, and procure his enlargement: in which he was not disappointed, for the protector generously set him at liberty, disdaining to remember on the throne the opposition he had received in his canvass for parliament as a private burgess. Cleveland thence retired to London, where he is said to have found a generous Maecenas; and, being much admired among all persons of his own party, became member of a club of wits and loyalists, which Butler, the author of Hiir dibras, also frequented. Cleveland then lived in chambers at Gray’s-inn (of which Butler is said to have been a member), and, being seized with an epidemic intermitting fever, died there on Thursday morning, April 29, 1659. His friends paid the last honours to his remains by a splendid funeral: for his body was removed to Hunsdon -house, and thence carried for interment, on Saturday May 1, to the parish church of St. Michael Royal, on College-hill, London, followed by a numerous attendance of persons eminent for their loyalty or learning: to whom his funeral sermon was preached by his intimate friend Dr. John Pearson, afterwards bishop of Chester, author of the Exposition of the Creed.

, an eminent surgeon, of whom little is known, except what can be collected from his works, flourished in the time of queen Elizabeth, and was for some time a navy surgeon, serving on board one of the queen’s ships, called the Aid, when the emperor’s daughter married Philip II. king of Spain, in 1570. He returned home, and resided several years at London, where he acquired great reputation, as may be inferred from his having been several years surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s and Christ’s hospitals, before he was sent for by letters from the earl of Leicester, general of the English forces in the Low Countries, to take upon him the care of the sick and wounded in 1586. He was surgeon to her majesty, and mentions his having served with Banister under the earl of Warwick; and also speaks in another place of having been a retainer to lord Abergavenny. He seems to have been in full practice about 1596, the date of his last publication, a treatise on the venereal disease, reprinted in 1637; and he laments the frequency of this disorder in England; of which he gives this proof, that in the space of five years he had cured upwards of a thousand venereal patients in vSt. Bartholomew’s hospital. His most capital performance is his approved Practice for all young chirurgeons, 1591, re-printed in 1596 and 1637. He is a strong advocate for writing medical chirurgical books in the vernacular language, and his practice was always ingenious, and often successful.

, an eminent French lawyer, was born at Paris June 10, 1687, and admitted a counsellor in 1706, in the grand council, where he acquired such reputation, that at the age of thirty, he was looked upon as one of the ablest canonists, and he now determined, with the advice of his friends and clients, to plead in the parliament. He was heard there with universal applause, and, from that time till his death, there was scarce any affair of importance at the palace but the public crowded to hear him, and returned convinced that M. Cochin possessed all the extraordinary talents which characterise a great orator. He was consulted from every part of the kingdom, and never ceased to serve the public by his assiduous and unremitted labours. He died at Paris, after several attacks of an apoplexy, February 24, 1747, aged 60. His works were published at Paris, 1751, and the following year, 6 vols. 4to, with his life. These, however, have not preserved his reputation undiminished; and M. la Cretelle, in along article on them in the French Mercure for April 1782, concludes with asserting that Cochin was an advocate of great merit, but a genius of the second order. This sen*­tence, however, seems in some measure to proceed from an opinion that no man can be a genius who does not introduce novelties in his profession. France has unfortunately abounded of late years in such geniuses.

, a person of considerable learning in the sixteenth century, was born at Godshill in the Isle of Wight, and educated in Wykeham’s school near Winchester. From thence he was chosen to New college, Oxford, of which he became perpetual fellow in 1523, and studying the civil law, took the degree of bachelor in that faculty, March 3, 1529-30. He then travelled into Italy, and improved himself in his studies at Padua, being a zealous Roman catholic, but upon his return to England, he acknowledged king Henry VIII. to be the supreme head of the church of England. In 1540, he took the degree of doctor of the civil law; and the same year resigned his fellowship, being then settled in London, an advocate in the court of arches, prebendary of Yatminster Secunda in the church of Sarum, and about the same time was made archdeacon of Ely. In September, 1540, he was admitted to the rectory of Chelmsford in Essex; and in October following, collated to the prebend of Holbora, which he resigned April 19, 1541; and was the same day collated to that of Sneating, which he voiding by cession in March ensuing, was collated to the prebend of Wenlakesbarne. In 1542 he was elected warden of New College; and in 1545 made rector of Newton Longville in Buckinghamshire. Soon after, when king Edward VI. came to the crown, Dr. Cole outwardly embraced, and preached up the reformation, but altering his mind, he resigned his rectory of Chelmsford in 1547; and in 1551 his wardenship of New College; and the year following, his rectory of Newton Longville. After queen Mary’s accession to the crown, he became again a zealous Roman catholic and in 1554 was made provost of Eton college, of which he had been fellow. The same year, June 20, he had the degree of D. D. conferred on him, and was one of the divines that disputed publicly at Oxford with archbishop Cranmer, and bishop Ridley. He also preached the funeral sermon before archbishop Cranmer' s execution. He was appointed one of the commissioners to visit the university of Cambridge; was elected dean of St. Paul’s the llth of December, 1556; made (August 8, 1557) vicar-general of the spiritualities under cardinal Pole, archbishop of Canterbury; and the first of October following, official of the arches, and dean of the peculiars; and in November ensuing, judge of the court of audience. In 1558 he was appointed one of the overseers of that cardinal’s will. In the first year of queen Elizabeth’s reign he was one of the eight catholic divines who disputed publicly at Westminster with the same number of protestants, and distinguished himself then and afterwards, by his writings in favour of popery, for which he was deprived of his deanery, fined five hundred marks, and imprisoned. He died in or near Wood -street compter, in London, in December, 1579. Leland has noticed him among other learned men of our nation. He is called by Strype “a person more earnest than wise,” but Ascham highly commends him for his learning and humanity. It is evident, however, that he accommodated his changes of opinions to the times, although in his heart he was among the most bigotted and implacable opponents of the reformed religion. His writings were, 1. “Disputation with archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley at Oxford,” in 1554. 2. “Funeral Sermon at the Burning of Dr. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury.” Both these are in Fox’s Acts and Monuments. 3. “Letters to John Jewell, bishop of Salisbury, upon occasion of a Sermon that the said bishop preached before the queen’s majesty and her honourable council, anno 1560,” Lond.1560, 8vo, printed afterwards among Bishop Jewell’s works. 4. “Letters to bishop Jewell, upon occasion of a Sermon of his preached at Paul’s Cross on the second Sunday before Easter, in 1560.” 5. “An Answer to the first proposition of the Protestants, at the Disputation before the lords at Westminster.” These last are in Burnet’s History of the Reformation.

, a learned advocate of parliament of Dombes, was born February 15, 1643, at Chatilon-­les-Dombes, where he died March 31, 1718, aged seventy-­six. He left “Traité des Excommunications,” 1689, 12mo; “Tr. de l'Usure,” 1690, 8vo; Notes on the custom of Bresse, 1698, fol. and several other works containing singular sentiments, more free than his church permitted.

, judge advocate and historian of the new settlement in South Wales, the son of gen. A. T. Collins, and of Harriet Frazer, of Pack, in the king’s county, Ireland, was born March 3, 1756, and received a liberal education at the grammar-school of Exeter, where his father then resided. In 1770 he was appointed lieutenant in the marines; and, in 1772, was with the late admiral M'Bride, in the Southampton frigate, when the unfortunate Matilda, queen of Denmark, was rescued from the dangers that awaited her by the energy of the British government, and conveyed to a place of safety in the king her brother’s Hanoverian dominions. On that occasion he commanded the guard that received her majesty, and had the honour of kissing her hand. In 1775, he was at the battle of Bunker’s-hill; in which the first battalion of marines, to which he belonged, so signally distinguished itself, having its commanding officer, the gallant major Pitcairne, and a great many officers and men, killed in storming the redoubt, besides a very large proportion of wounded. In 1777, he was adjutant of the Chatham division; and, in 1782, captain of marines on-board the Courageux, of 74 guns, commanded by the late lord Mulgrave, and participated in the partial action that took place with the enemy’s fleet, when lord Howe relieved Gibraltar. Reduced to half-pay at the peace of 1782, he resided at Rochester in Kent (having previously married an American lady, who survives him, but without issue); and on its being determined to found a colony, by sending convicts to Botany Bay, he was appointed judge advocate to the intended settlement, and in that capacity sailed with governor Philip in May 1787 (who also appointed him his secretary), which situation he filled with the greatest credit to himself and advantage to the colony, until his return to England in 1797. The History of the Settlement, which he soon after published, followed by a second volume, is a work abounding with information, highly interesting, and written with the utmost simplicity. The appointment of judge advocate, however, proved eventually injurious to his real interests. While absent, he had been passed over when it came to his turn to be put on full pay; nor was he permitted to return to England to reclaim his rank in the corps; nor could he ever obtain any effectual redress; but was afterwards compelled to come in as junior captain of the corps, though with his proper rank in the army, and died a captain instead of a colonel-commandant, his rank in the army being merely brevet. He had then the mortification of finding that, after ten years’ distinguished service in the infancy of a colony, and the sacrifice of every real comfort, his only reward had been the loss of many years’ rank, a vital injury to an officer. A remark which his wounded feelings wrung from him at the close of the second volume of his History of the Settlement, appears to have awakened the sympathy of those in power; and he was, almost immediately after its publication, offered the government of the projected settlement on Van Diemen’s land, which he accepted, and sailed once more for that quarter of the globe, where he founded his new colony; struggled with great difficulties, which he overcame; and, after remaining there eight years, was enjoying the flourishing state his exertions had produced, when he died suddenly, after a few days’ confinement from a slight cold, on, the 24rth of March, 1810.

, a miscellaneous writer of some note in his day, was born in Ireland, and bred to the law, in which we do not find that he ever made any great figure. From thence he came over to London, in company with a Mr. Stirling, a dramatic poet of little note, to seek his fortune; and finding nothing so profitable, and so likely to recommend him to public notice, as political writing, he soon commenced an advocate for the government. There goes a story of him, however, but we will hope it is not a true one, that he and his fellow-traveller, who was embarked in the same adventure, for the sake of making their trade more profitable, resolved to divide their interests; the one to oppose, the other to defend the ministry. Upon which they determined the side each was to espouse by lots, or, according to Mr. Reed’s account, by tossing up a halfpenny, when it fell to Concanen’s part to defend the ministry. Stirling afterwards went into orders, and became a clergyman in Maryland. Concanen was for some time concerned in the “British” and “London Journals,” and in a paper called “The Specnlatist,” which last was published in 1730, 8vo. In these he took occasion to abuse not only lord Bolingbroke, who was naturally the object of it, but also Pope; by which he procured a place in the Dvwiciad. In a pamphlet called “A Supplement to the Profound,” he dealt very unfairly by Pope, as Pope’s commentator informs us, in not only frequently imputing to him Broome’s verses (for which, says he, he might seem in some degree accountable, having corrected what that gentleman did), but those of the duke of Buckingham and others. His wit and literary abilities, however, recommended him to the favour of the duke of Newcastle, through whose interest he obtained the post of attorney-general of the island of Jamaica in 1732, which office he filled with the utmost integrity and honour, and to the perfect satisfaction of the inhabitants, for near seventeen years; when, having acquired an ample fortune, he was desirous of passing the close of his life in his native country; with which intention he quitted Jamaica and came to London, proposing to pass some little time there before he went to settle entirely in Ireland. But the difference of climate between that metropolis and the place he had so long been accustomed to, had such an effect on his constitution, that he fell into a consumption, of which he died Jan. 22, 1749, a few weeks after his arrival in London. His original poems, though short, have considerable merit; but much cannot be said of his play, entitled “Wexford Wells.” He was also concerned with Mr. Roome and other gentlemen in altering Richard Broome’s “Jovial Crew” into a ballad opera, in which shape it is now frequently performed. Concanen has several songs in “The Musical Miscellany, 1729,” 6 vols. But a memofable letter addressed to him by Dr. Warburton will perhaps be remembered longer than any writing of his own pen. This letter^ which Mr. Malone first published (in his Supplement to Shakspeare, vol. I. p. 222), shews that, in 1726, Warbtirton, then an attorney at Newark, was intimate with Concanen, and an associate in the attacks made on Pope’s fame and talents. In 1724, Concanen published 3, volume of “Miscellaneous Poems, original and translated,” by himself and others.

, a French historian, was born at Paris, of a noble family, originally of Auvergne, and having studied law, was admitted to the bar, which he quitted for the philosophy of Descartes. Bossuet, who was no less an admirer of that philosopher, procured him the appointment of reader to the dauphin, which office he filled with success and zeal, and died the 8th of October 1684, member of the French academy, at an advanced age. We are indebted to his pen for, 1. “The general History of France during the two first races of its kings,” 1685, 2 vols. fol. a work which the French critics- do not appreciate so justly as it deserves. 2. Divers tracts in metaphysics, history, politics, and moral philosophy, reprinted in 1704, 4to, under the title of “CEuvres de feu M. de Cordemoi.” They contain useful investigations, judicious thoughts, and sensible reflections on the method of writing history. He had adopted in philosophy, as we before observed, the sentiments of Descartes, but without servility; he even sometimes differs from them. In the latter part of his life, he was assisted in his literary labours by his son Lewis, who was born in 1651, and who became successively a licentiate of Sorbonne, and an abbot in the diocese of Clermont. He was a voluminous writer, chiefly on theological subjects; and was considered among the catholics as an able advocate of their cause against the attacks of the defenders of protestantism. He was, however, of considerable service to his father in the latter part-of his “General History of France;” and, it is believed, wrote the whole of that part which extends from about the conclusion of the reign of Lewis V. to the end of the work. By order of Lewis XIV. he continued that history from the time of Hugh Capet until the year 1660, which he did not live to finish. He died at the age of seventy-one, in the year 1722.

, an advocate in the parliament of Paris, and a native of Aix or of Avignon, who died at the beginning of the eighteenth century, gained a reputation in the literary world by several works. The principal are: 1. “The voyages of Peter Texeira, or the history of the kings of Persia down to 1609,” translated from the Spanish into French, 1681, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “The Life of St. Francis de Sales,” 1689, 4to. 3. “The Life of Christopher Columbus,” translated into French, 1681, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “The Life of the Duchess of Montmorenci,” 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Arlequiniana, or bon-mots,” &c. collected from the conversations of Harlequin, 1694. 6. “The book without a name,” 1711, 2 vols. 12rno, and, as his countrymen say, worthy of its title. 7. “Dissertation on the works of St. Evremont,” 1704, 12rno, under the name of Dumont. “I find many things in this work, justly censured,” says St. Evremont; “I cannot deny that the author writes well; but his zeal for religion and morals surpasses all things else. 1 should gain less in changing iny style for his, than my conscience for his. Favour surpasses severity in the judgment, and I feel more gratitude for the former than resentment against the latter.” This certainly discovers modesty, which, if sincere, should atone for many faults in St. Evremont.

, a Jesuit, born in 1564, at Neronde near the Loire, of which place his father was governor, distinguished himself early in life by his zeal for the conversion of protestants, and by his success in the pulpit. He was called to the court of Henry IV. at the instance of the famous Lesdiguieres, whom he had converted, and the king pleased with his wit, manners, and conversation, appointed him his confessor. M. Mercier censures the king, for “having too peculiar a deference for this Jesuit, a man of very moderate talents, solely attached to the narrow views of his order;” and it was commonly said, “Our prince is good, but he has cotton in his ears.” Henry was desirous of making him archbishop of Aries, and procuring him a cardinal’s hat; but Cotton persisted in refusing his offers. His brotherhood, after their recall, unable easily to settle themselves in certain towns, that of Poitiers especially, started great difficulties, and Cotton wished to persuade the king that this opposition was the work of Sulli, governor of Poitou; but Henry having refused to listen to this calumny, and blaming Cotton for having adopted it with too much credulity: “God forbid,” said Cotton, “that I should say any harm of those whom your majesty honours with his confidence! But, however, I am able to justify what I advance. I will prove it by the letters of Sulli. I have seen them, and I will shew them to your majesty.” Next day, however, he was under the necessity of telling the king that the letters had been burnt by carelessness. This circumstance is related in the “Cours d'histoire de Condillac,” tom. XIII. p. 505. After the much lamented death of Henry, Cotton was confessor to his son Louis XIII, but the court being a solitude to him, he asked permission to quit it, and obtained it in 1617, so much the more easily as the duke de Luynes was not very partial to him. Mezerai and other historians relate, that when Ravaillac had committed his parricide, Cotton went to him and said: “Take care that you do not accuse honest men!” There is room to suppose that his zeal for the honour of his society prompted him to utter these indiscreet words, and his notions on the subject appear to be rather singular. We are told that Henry IV. having one day asked him, “Would you reveal the confession of a man resolved to assassinate me?” he answered “No; but I would put my body between you and him.” The Jesuit Santarelli having published a work, in which he set up the power of the popes over that of kings, Cotton, then provincial of Paris, was called to the parliament the 13th of March 1626, to give an account of the opinions of his brethren. He was asked whether he thought that the pope can excommunicate and dispossess a king of France “Ah” returned he, “the king is eldest son of the church and he will never do any thing to oblige tae pope to proceed to that extremity” “But,” said the first president. “are you not of the same opinion with your general, who attributes that power to the pope?” —“Our general follows the opinions of Rome where he is and we, those of France where we are.” The many disagreeable things experienced by Cotton on this occasion, gave him so much uneasiness, that he fell sick, and died a few days afterwards, March 19, 1626. He was then preaching the Lent-discourses at Paris in the church of St. Paul. This Jesuit wrote, “Traite du Sacrifice de la Messe;” “Geneve Plagiaire,” Lyons, 1600, 4to; “L'Institution Catholique,” 1610, 2 torn, fol; “Sermons,” 1617, 8vo; “La Rechute de Geneve Plagiaire;” and other things, among which is a letter declaratory of the doctrine of the Jesuits, conformable to the doctrine of the council of Trent, which gave occasion to the “Anti Cotton,” 1610, 8vo, and is found at the end of the history of D. Inigo, 2 vols. 12mo. This satire, which betrays more malignity than wit, was attributed to Dumoulin and to Peter du Coignet, but is now given to Caesar de Plaix, an advocate of Paris. Fathers Orleans and Rouvier wrote Cotton’s Life, 12mo, and as well as Gramont, give him a high character, which from the society of the Jesuits, at least, he highly deserved.

, president of the Mint, one of the forty members of the French academy, was born Aug. 12, 1627, at Paris. He was intended for the ecclesiastical profession, and admitted bachelor of the Sorbonne; but, quitting that situation afterwards, was received advocate, married, and attended the bar till 1657, when he was appointed president of the Mint. He assisted in the “Journal des Savans” from 1687 to 1702. President Cousin was well acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity, and learned Hebrew at the age of 70, that he might spend his last years in reading the Scripture in the original. He died. February 26, 1707, at Paris, aged 80. He founded six scholarships at the college of Laon, and left his library to the abbey of St. Victor, with 20,000 livres; the interest to be employed in augmenting that library. His works are, “The Roman History of Xiphilin,” &c. 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo, a French translation of the “Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoret,” 4 vols. 4to, or 6 vols. 12 mo: there are often hut five, because the History of Constantine has been taken out, and added to that of Constantinople. A translation of the authors of the “Byzantine History,” 1672—1674, in 8 vols. 4to, or 11 12mo and some other works. These translations are written in very good French.

In the mean time Bancroft was so satisfied with the abilities and learning shewn in the “Interpreter,” that he appointed the author his vicar-general in 1608: nor was this performance censured for some time. But at last great offence was taken at it, because, as was pretended, the author had spoken too freely, and with expressions even of sharpness, of the common law, and some eminent professors of it, Littleton in particular: and this irritated sir Edward Coke especially, who was not only privately concerned for the honour of Litileton, whom he had commented upon, but also valued himself as the chief advocate of his profession. Sir Edward took all occasions to affront him, and used to call him in derision Doctor Cow-heel; and, not satisfied with this, he endeavoured to hurt him with the king, by suggesting that Dr. Cowell “had disputed too nicely upon the mysteries qf this our monarchy, yea, in some points, very derogatory to the supreme power of this crown and had asserted that the king’s prerogative is in some cases limited.” This was touching James ia a most tender part, and had probably ruined Cowell, if the archbishop had not stood his friend. The common lawyers, however, whose contests with the civilians then ran very high, finding that they coukl not hurt him with the king, resolved to try what they could do with the people, and represented him now as a betrayer of the rights and liberties of the people; in consequence of which a complaint was carried up against him in the house of commons, and the author was committed to custody, and his book publicly burnt. The commons also complained of him to the lords, as equally struck at; and he was censured by them for asserting, 1. That the king was solutus a legibus, and not bound by his coronation-oath. 2. That it was not ex necessitate, that the king should call a parliament to make laws, but might do that by his absolute power: for that voluntas regis with him was lex populi. 3. That it vvas a favour to admit the consent of his subjects in giving of subsidies. 4. That he draws his arguments from the imperial laws of the Roman emperors, which are of no force in England." The commons were therefore very desirous to proceed criminally against him, if the king had not interposed. But upon his majesty’s promise to condemn the doctrines of the book as absurd, together with the author of them, they proceeded no farther. In both prosecutions of this work, the malice of Cowell’s enemies was obvious, for the same book could not have had a tendency to infringe upon the prerogative of the king and the liberties of the subject.

, was born at Edinburgh in 1548, and studied the civil law in the university of Paris. While very young, he was called to the bar as an advocate in the court of session: his practice at the bar was great, and he was treated with every mark of respect by his countrymen; and when on a visit to London, he was knighted by king James. Bering well skilled in British and European antiquities, he wrote a learned treatise on the feudal law, entitled “Jus Feudale,” which is still in very great esteem. In 1535 he wrote a treatise on the sovereignty of Scotland, which was translated into very bad English by Ridpath in 1675. In 1602 he wrote a large treatise in folio to prove the legality of James’s succession to the crown of England on the death of queen Elizabeth. His book on the feudal law is esteemed all over England and the continent of Europe, and often quoted both by historians and lawyers. If others have excelled him in general researches and abstract speculation, few have united such practical utility with a profound and comprehensive view of the feudal system. He died at Edinburgh 1608, aged 60.

, who has been called the Æsehvlus of France, was born at Dijon, Feb. 13, 1671, and was educated among the Jesuits, who are said to have recorded him in their registers “as a boy of parts, but remarkably graceless.” His family, long distinguished in the magistracy both on the father’s and mother’s side, wishing to preserve its acquired lustre, his father, who was chief register in the chamber of accounts at Dijon, recommended the law to him, without, it would appear, consulting his inclination. He studied it, however, at Paris; was admitted advocate, and afterwards entered as pupil to a solicitor. His frequent attendance on public spectacles, appears to have early given him a relish for the stage, and he could not conceal it from his master, the solicitor, who, from the eloquence with which Crebillon spoke of the master-pieces of the drama, predicted that he would one day make a figure on the theatre. He even ventured to advise his pupil to renounce the bar, and follow the impulse of his genius. This, however, rather disheartened, than encouraged him, as he had a great diffidence of himself; but at length, daily urged by counsels, the sincerity of which he could not suspect, and still more by inclination, he hazarded a piece which he ventured to read to the players, but it was rejected, and he almost forswore the pursuit of dramatic fame.

, an Italian poet, and poetical historian, the son of John Philip Crescimbeni, a lawyer, and Anna Virginia Barbo, was born Oct. 9, 1663, at Macerata in the marche ofAncona. Jerome Casanati, afterwards cardinal, was his godfather, and gave him the names of John-Maria-Ignatius-Xavier-Joseph-Antony, of which he retained only John Maria, and afterwards changed the latter into Mario. After receiving grammatical education at home, his uncle Antony-Francis, an advocate, invited him to Rome in 1674; hut the following year his father and mother recalled him to Macerata, where he engaged in a course of study among the Jesuits. His teacher of rhetoric was Charles d' Aquino, under whom he made great progress in eloquence and poetry. Among his early attempts, he wrote a tragedy in the style of Seneca, “The Defeat of Darius, king of Persia,” and translated the first two hooks of Lucan’s Pharsalia into Italian verse from which performances he derived so much reputation, as to be admitted a member of the academy of the Disposti, in the town of Jesi, although only in his fifteenth year. About that time he continued his classical studies for eight months under Nicolas Antony Raffaelli, and entered upon a course of philosophy. His father now recommending the law as a profession, Crescimbeni took his doctor’s degree Oct. 3, 167 y, and was appointed to lecture on the institutes, which he did for a year. His uncle before mentioned, aoain inviting him to Rome, he divided his time there between law and polite literature, and in 1685, the academy of the Infecondi admitted him a member. Hitherto his studies in Italian poetry had not been conducted so as to inspire him with a very pure taste; but about 1687, he entered on a course of reading of the best Italian poets, which not only enabled him to correct his own taste and style, but gave him hopes that tie might improve those of his countrymen. With this intention he endeavoured to form a new society, or, as they are called in Italy, academy, rindcr the name of Arcadia, the members to be called the shepherds of Arcadia, and each to take the name of a shepherd, and that of some place in ancient Arcadia, and his own name accordingly was Alfesibeo Cario. Such was the origin of this celebrated academy, and surely no origin was ever mure childishly romantic, or unpromising as to any beneficial e licet on solid or elegant literature, to which purposes, however, we are told it has eminently contributed. It was established Oct. 5, 1690. A short account of it, written in 1757, informs us that the first members were those itained persons chiefly who were about queen Christina of Sweden. (See Christina, vol. IX.) It admits all sciences, all arts, all nations, all ranks, and both sexes. The number of its members is not determined; they are said at present to be upwards of two thousand, but we have heard a much larger number assigned, for they sometimes aggregate whole academies. At Home, the academicians assemble in pastoral habits, in a most agreeable garden, called Bosco Parrhasia. The constitution of the society being democratic, they never chusje a prince for their protector. At the end of each olympiad, for that is the method of computing adopted by the Arcadians, they cbuse a custode, who is the speaker, and has the sole right of assembling the society, who are also represented by him alone, when they are not assembled. In order to be admitted a member, it is requisite that the person should be twenty-four years of age complete, of a reputable family, and to have given some specimen of abilities in one or more branches of education. As to the ladies, a poem, or a picture, is a testimony of genius that is held sufficient. The stated assemblies of this academy are fixed to seven different days, between the first of May and the seventh of October. In the first six they read the works of the Roman shepherds, the productions of strangers being reserved for the seventh and last. Each author reads his own compositions, except ladies and cardinals, who are allowed to employ others.

, was a Scotch gentleman, who lived in the sixteenth century, and has furnished a sort of biographical romance. His endowments both of body and mind were esteemed so great, that he obtained the appellation of “The admirable Crichton,” and by that title he has continued to be distinguished down to the present day. The accounts given of his abilities and attainments are indeed so wonderful, that they seem scarcely to be credible; and many persons have been disposed to consider them as almost entirely fabulous, though they have been delivered with the. utmost confidence, and without any degree of hesitation, by various writers. The time of Crichton’s birth is said, by the generality of authors, to have been in 1551; but according to lord Buchan, it appears from several circumstances, that he was born in the month of August, 1560. His father was Robert Crichton of Elliock in the county of Perth, and lord advocate of Scotland in queen Mary’s reign, from 1561 to 1573; part of which time he held that office in conjunction with Spens of Condie. The mother of James Crichton was Elizabeth Stuart, the only daughter of sir James Stuart of Beath, who was a descendant of Robert duke of Albany, the third son of king Robert II. by Elizabeth Muir, or More, as she is commonly called. It is hence evident, that when the admirable Crichton boasted, as he did abroad, that he was sprung from Scottish kings, he said nothing but what was agreeable to truth. Nevertheless, Thomas Dempster, who sufficiently amplifies his praises in other respects, passes a severe censure upon him on this account; which is the more remarkable, as Dempster lived so near the time, and was well acquainted with the genealogies of the great families of Scotland. James Crichton is said to have received his grammatical education at Perth, and to have studied philosophy in the university of St. Andrew. His tutor in that university was Mr. John Rutherford, a professor at that time famous for his learning, and who distinguished himself by writing four books on Aristotle’s Logic, and a commentary on his Poetics. But nothing, according to Mackenzie, can give us a higher idea of Rutherford’s worth and merit, than his being master of that wonder and prodigy of his age, the great and admirable Crichton. However, it is not to this professor alone that the honour is ascribed of having formed so extraordinary a character. There are others who may put in their claim to a share in the same glory; for Aldus Manutius, who calls Crichton first cousin to the king, says that he was educated, along with his majesty, under Buchanan, Hepburn, and Robertson, as well as Rutherford. Indeed, whatever might be the natural force of his genius, jnany masters must have been necessary, in order to his acquiring such a variety of attainments as he is represented to have possessed. For it is related, that he had scarcely reached the twentieth year of his age, when he had run through the whole circle of the sciences, and could speak and write to perfection in ten different languages. Nor was this all; for he had likewise improved himself to the highest degree in riding, dancing, and singing, and in playing upon all sorts of instruments. Crichton, being thus accomplished, went abroad upon his travels, and is said to have gone to Paris; of his transactions at which place the following account is given. He caused six placards to be fixed on the gates of the schools, halls, and colleges belonging to the university, and on the pillars and posts before the houses of the most renowned men for literature in the city, inviting all those who were well versed in any art or science to dispute with him in the college of Navarre, that day six weeks, by nine o'clock in the morning, where he would attend them, and be ready to answer to whatever should be proposed to him in any art or science, and in any of these twelve languages, Hebrew, Syrlac, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, English, Dutch, Flemish, and Sclavonian; and this either in verse or prose, at the discretion of the disputant. During this whole time, instead of closely applying to his studies, he regarded nothing but hunting, hawking, tilting, vaulting, riding of a well-managed horse, tossing the pike, handling the musquet, and other military feats; or else he employed himself in domestic games, such as balls, concerts of music, vocal and instrumental; cards, dice, tennis, and other diversions of youth. This conduct so provoked the students of the university, that, beneath the placard that was fixed on the Navarre gate, they caused the following words to be written: “If you would meet with this monster of perfection, to search for him either in the tavern or t)ie brothel is the readiest way to find him.” Nevertheless, when the day appointed arrived, Crichton appeared in the college of Navarre, and acquitted himself beyond expression in the disputation, which lasted from nine in the morning till six at night. At length, the president, after extolling him highly for the many rare and excellent endowments which God and nature had bestowed upon him, rose from his chair; and, accompanied by four of the most eminent professors of the university, gave him a diamond ring and a purse full of gold, as a testimony of their approbation and favour. The whole ended with the repeated acclamations and huzzas of the spectators; and henceforward our young disputant was called “The admirable Crichton.” It is added, that he was so little fatigued with the dispute, that he went the very next day to the Louvre, where he had a match'at tilting, an exercise then in great vogue; and, in presence of some princes of the court of France, and a great many ladies, carried away the ring fifteen times successively, and broke as many lances on the Saracen, whatever that might be; probably a sort of mark.

, an ingenious printer in the sixteenth century, and a native of Arras, was originally clerk to Charles du Moulin, and admitted advocate to the parliament of Paris; but afterwards, forming a friendship with Beza, he embraced the reformed religion, and retired to Geneva, where he gained great reputation by his printing, and died of the plague, 1572. Crispin was author of a Greek Lexicon, Geneva, 1562, 4to, and reprinted in folio. He also published a martyrology under the title of “Histoire des vrais temoings de la verité, &c. depuis Jean Hus, jusqu'au tems present,” ibid. 1570, fol. and reprinted in 1582, 1597, and 1609. Moreri and Foppen, while they allow Crispin’s merit as a man of learning and an useful and accurate printer, cannot forgive him for this last publication.

Odious as Cromwell’s reign had been, many marks of public approbation were bestowed upon his memory. The poems of Waller, Sprat, and Dryden, though the authors lived to change their sentiments, give a very high idea of him, but allowance must be made for poetical evidence. In his life-time his actions had been celebrated by the learned abroad, as well as by his own secretary Milton at home; and with these panegyrics he seems not to have been displeased. We have indeed various characters of him from persons of various sentiments; yet in most of these there seems to be a mixture of flattery or prejudice. His panegyrists knew not where to stop their praises; and his enemies were as extravagant in their censures. Lord Hollis, in his “Memoirs,” will hardly allow him any great or good qualities; and one principal design of Ludiow’s Memoirs is to represent him as the vilest oi men. Cowley seems to have excelled all others, as well in respect to the matter as the manner of representing him in the different lights of praise and censure; so that his performance may justly be esteemed the most perfect of any, as it is beyond comparison the most beautiful. It is said, that cardinal Mazarine styled him a fortunate madman: but father Orleans, who relates this, dislikes that character, and would substitute in its place that of a judicious villain. Clarendon calls him a brave, wicked man: and Burnet is of opinion, that “his life and his arts were exhausted together; and that, if he had lived longer, he would scarce have been able to preserve his power.” But this only proves, that the bishop did not discern what resources he had. “how blameworthy soever the protector might have been in the acquisition of his high office, or how wickedly soever he acquired it, certain it is, he rivalled the greatest of the English monarchs in glory, and made himself courted and dreaded by the nations around him. The peace he gave the Dutch was honourable to himself and the nation; and whether he acted prudently or not in breaking with Spain, and allying himself with France, the inequality between the two crowns was far from being as visible then as it has since appeared, and Cromwell always had it in his power to throw himself into the opposite scale if necessary; and he distinguished himself by his interposition in behalf of the persecuted subjects of the French crown. His own government was, however, far from being free from blame. His edict against the episcopal clergy was very cruel, as it deprived them in a good measure of their maintenance, and liberty of worshiping God in a way that appeared best to their own understandings. The cavaliers had hard measure from him, as they were almost without exception subjected to heavy taxes and other inconveniences, on account of the rashness and imprudence of some of their party. Nor must we forget his institution of major-generals, who, in a variety of instances, lorded over an oppressed country; nor his sometimes making use of packed juries, and displacing judges for refusing to follow his directions, establishing high-commission courts, and so frequently violating the privileges of parliament.” Concessions like these make part of the character of Oliver Cromwell, as drawn by Mr. Harris, a professed advocate: but when he attempts to vindicate his illegal and tyrannical actions, on the ground of his being disappointed of regal power, and that had he accepted the kingship, which was offered by his parliament, a firmer settlement and a milder administration might have taken place, there seems little reason to doubt but the support even of that rank, considering the dangerous and uncertain terms on which he must have held it, would have urged him to the same violent and unwarrantable measures. Such biographers as Harris are generally employed in striking a balance between good and bad deeds; but it is not a few of the former that can redeem the character of Cromwell, who has been more justly said to be the strangest compound of villainy and virtue, baseness and magnanimity, absurdity and good sense, that we find upon record in the annals of mankind.

, a divine and poet, was born either in Gloucestershire, or, according to Bale, in Northamptonshire, and entered a student of Magdalen college, Oxford, about the year 1534; and after taking the degree of B. A. was elected probationer fellow in 1542. In the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. he settled in London, took a house in Ely-rents, Holborn, and there exercised the trade of printer and bookseller, and being, we suppose, in orders, occasionally preached but being at the same time a zealous friend to the reformation, on the accession of queen Mary he went with the other exiles to Francfort, where he remained until the queen’s death. After his return to England he had several benefices bestowed on him, among which were the archdeaconry, and a prebend in Hereford, both which he resigned in 1567; a prebend of St. Paul’s, the rectory of St. Peter le Poor, and the vicarage of St. Giles’s Cripplegate; but he was deprived of the latter, the only promotion which he appears to have held at that time (1566), for a riot in the church, because the choristers wore surplices. In 1576, however, it appears that he was collated to the living of St. Lawrence Jewry, and probably was now more reconciled to the ceremonies and habits of the church. In 1578 he was presented with the freedom of the Stationers’ company, and soon after is found with the wardens, licensing copies. He died June 18, 1588, and was buried in his former church of St. Giles’s. He was, according to Tanner, a person of a happy genius, an eminent preacher, and a zealous advocate for reformation. His works, both in prose and verse, enumerated by Wood and Tanner, are now merely objects of curiosity. In 1550 he printed the first edition of “Pierce Plowman’s Vision,” with the view of helping forward the reformation by the revival of a book which exposed the absurdities of popery. He translated into popular rhyme, not only the Psalter, but the Litany, with hymns, all which he printed together in 1549. In the same year, and in the same measure, he published “The Voice of the Last Trumpet blown by the seventh angel,” a piece containing twelve several lessons for the instruction of all classes. He also attacked the abuses of his age in thirty-one “Epigrams,” 1550, and twice reprinted. In the same year he published a kind of metrical sermon on “Pleasure and Pain, Heaven and Hell Remember these four, and all shall be well.” In his “Dialogue between Lent and Liberty,” written to prove that Lent is a superstitious institution, Mr. Warton thinks that the personification of Lent is a bold and a perfectly new prosopopeia. Crowley likewise wrote and printed in 1588, a rhyming manual, “The School of Virtue and Book of Good Nature,” a translation, into metre, of many of the less exceptionable Latin hymns anciently used by the catholics. Among his prose works are “An Apology of those English preachers and writers which Cerberus, the three-headed dog of hell, chargeth with false doctrine under the name of Predestination,” 1566, 4to, and “Brief Discourse concerning those four usual notes whereby Christ’s Catholic Church is known,” 1581, 4 to, &c. In controversy he was usually warm, and not nice in his language; and in his poetry he consulted usefulness rather than taste.

The erudition of lord Hailes, says his friend the late lord Woodhousiee, was not of a dry and scholastic nature; he felt the beauties of the composition of the ancients; he entered with taste and discernment into the merits of the Latin poets, and that peculiar vein of delicate and ingenious thought which characterises the Greek epigrammatists; and a few specimens which he has left of his own composition in that style, evince the hand of a master. It would not, adds his lordship, be easy to produce from the works of any modern Latin poet, a more delicate, tender, and pathetic effusion, or an idylliou of greater classical purity, than the iambics he wrote “On the death of his first wife, in child-bed of twins.” Lord Hailes was a man of wit, and possessed a strong feeling of the absurd and ridiculous in human conduct and character, which gave a keen edge of irony both to his conversation and writings. To his praise, however, it must be added, that that irony, if not always untinctured with prejudice, was never prompted by malignity, and was generally exerted in the cause of virtue and good morals. How much he excelled in painting the lighter weaknesses and absurdities of mankind, may be seen from the papers of his composition in the “World” and the “Mirror.” His private character was every thing that is praise-worthy and respectable. In a word, he was an honour to the station which he filled, and to the age in which he lived. That such a man should not yet have found a biographer worthy of his merits, cannot be ascribed either to the obscurity of his character and station, or to the incapacity of his contemporaries. But lord Hailes was a man of piety of the old stamp, and a strenuous advocate for revealed religion, and therefore did not share, as he uould not have been ambitious to share, the celebrity that has been conferred on some of his countrymen of a very opposite character.

, the seventh baron and first viscount Stair, was born in 1609, studied at the college of Glasgow, and passed all the regular degrees of learning in that university. On the commencement of the rebellion in the reign of Charles I. he accepted a captain’s commission from the parliament, in the earl of Glencain.'s regiment, but was soon called off to a more suitable province, that of filling a philosophy chair in the university of Glasgow. Having applied himself particularly to the study of the laws, he entered as an advocate in 1648, and became eminent for his judgment and skill, if not for his integrity. When the estates of the nation sent commissioners to Breda to invite Charles II. to Scotland, he was appointed secretary to the embassy, and acquitted himself entirely to his majesty’s satisfaction. He then resumed his practice at the bar, but could not be prevailed upon to take any oaths to the government during the usurpation. When Charles II. was restored to the throne, he conferred on Mr. Dalryrnple the honour of knighthood, appointed him a senator of the college of justice, and in 1671, lord president of the session, in which office his conduct was very unpopular; and in 1682, being dismissed from all his offices, he retired to Holland, where he became such a favourite with William prince of Orange, that when advanced to the throne of these kingdoms, his majesty restored him to his place of lord president, and raised him to the dignity of viscount Stair, lord Glenluce and Stranrawer. His lordship continued to enjoy his high legal office, and the favour of his prince, till his death, Nov. 25, 1695 4 His character as a politician has not been favourably drawn by some historians, particularly Mr. Laing, in. his lately -published “History of Scotland.” His personal character seems liable to less objection, and of his learning no doubt can be justly entertained. He wrote: 1. “The Institutions of the Law of Scotland,” second edit. fol. 1693. 2. “Decisions of the Court of Session from 1661 to 1681,'” 2 vols. fol. 3. “Philosophia nova experimentalis,” published in Holland during his exile, and much commended by Bayle in his Journal. 4. “A Vindication of the Divine Perfections, &c. by a Person of Honour,” 1695, 8vo. 5. “An Apology for his own Conduct,” 4to, the only copy of which extant is said to be in the advocates’ library at Edinburgh. Had lord Orford read much of his history, he needed not have added that “it is not known on what occasion-he published it.”

, a scholar and antiquary of the sixteenth century, was an advocate at Orleans, where he mostly resided, and assessor to the abbey of St. Benoitsur-Loire, which he was frequently obliged to visit, in the discharge of his office. His taste for polite literature, and general reputation for such learning as was not very common in his time, recommended him to the esteem of the cardinal de Chatillon, a liberal Maecenas of that age. The abbey of St. Benoit having been pillaged during the war in 1562, Daniel with great difficulty saved some manuscripts, and purchased others from the soldiers, and removed them to Orleans. Among these was the Commentary of Servius on Virgil, which he published in 1600 and the “Aulularia” of Plautus, which he had printed immediately after rescuing these Mss. in 1564. He prepared also an edition of Petronius, but it was not published until 1629, after his death. This event took place at Paris, in 1603, when his friends Paul Petau, and James Bongars, purchased his library for 15OO livres, and divided the Mss. between them. Among other eminent men, Daniel was particularly intimate with Buchanan, and has been highly praised by Scioppius, Scaliger, and Turnebus.

. See Darcy. D‘Arcon (John Claudius Eleonore Limiceaud), an eminent French engineer, and memorable in history as the contriver of a mode of besieging Gibraltar which proved so fatal to his countrymen, was born at Pontarlier in 1733. His father, an advocate, intended to bring him up for the church, and had provided him with a benefice, but Dar5011 from his infancy had a turn for the military life; and when at school, instead of learning Latin, was copying drawings and sketches of fortifications. On one occasion he took a singular mode of acquainting his parents with the error they had committed, in seeking a profession for him. Having by their desire sat for his portrait, he substituted, with his own hand, the uniform of an engineer, instead of the dress of an abbe, in which the artist had clothed him. His father, struck with this silent hint, no longer opposed his inclinations. In 1754 he was admitted into the school of Mezieres, and the following year was received as an ordinary engineer. He served afterwards with distinguished honour in the seven years’ war, and particularly in 1761, at the defence of Cassel. He atterwar is devoted himself to improvements in the military art, and even in the making of drawings and charts; and having great ambition, with a warmth of imagination that presented every thing as practicable, he at length in 1780 conceived the memorable plan of the siege of Gibraltar. This, say his countrymen, which has made so much noise in Europe, has not been fairly estimated, because everyone has judged from the event. Without entering, however, in this place, on its merits, all our historians have attributed to Darcon’s ideas a grandeur and even sublimity of conception vviiich did him much honour, and it is yet remembered that almost all Europe was so perfectly convinced of the success of the plan as to admit of no doubt or objection. Nothing of the kind, however, was ever attended with a discomfiture more complete, and D’Arcou wrote and printed a species of justification, which at least shows the bitterness of his disappointment. On the commencement of the revolutionary war, he engaged on the popular side; but, except some concern he had in the invasion of Holland, does not appear to have greatly distinguished himself. He was twice denounced by Hnctuating governments; and being treated in the same manner after his Dutch campaign, he retired from the service, and wrote his last work on fortifications. In 179y the first consul introduced him into the senate, but he did not enjoy this honour long, as he died July 1, 1800. He was at that time a member of the Institute. His works, still in high estimation in France, are: 1. “Reflexions d'un ingenieur, en reponse a un tacticien,” Amst. 1773, 12mo. 2. “Correspondanee sur Part de la Guerre entre un colonel de dragons et un capitaine d'infanterie,” Bouillon, 1774, 8vo. 3. “Defense d‘une systeme de Guerre Nationale, ou analyse raisonne d’un ouvrage, intitule * Refutation complete du systeme, 1 &c.” This is a defence of M. Menil Durand’s system, which had been attacked by Guibert and the preceding pamphlet has a respect to the same dispute concerning what the French call the ordre projond and the ordre mince. 4. “Conseil de Guerre prive, sur revenement de Gibraltar en 1782,” 1785, 8vo. 5. “Memoires pour serrir a l‘histoire du siege de Gibraltar, par l’auteur des batteries flottantes,” 1783, 8vo. 6. “Considerations sur l'influence du genie de Vauban dans la balance des forces de Petat,” 1786, 8vo. 7. “Examen detaillté de l'importante question de Putilite des places fortes et retranchments,” Strasburgh, 1789, 8vo. 8. “De la force militaire considered dans ses rapports conservateurs,” Strasburgh, 1789, 8vo, with a continuation, 1790. 9. “Reponse aux Memoires de M. de Montalembert, sur la fortification dite perpendiculaire,” 1790, 8vo. 10. “Considerations militaires et politiques sur les Fortifications,” Paris, 1795, 8vo. This, which is the most important of all his works, and was printed at the expence of the government, contains the essence of all his other productions, and the result of his experience on an art which he had studied during the whole of his life.

This play had success enough to procure him the recommendation, if nothing more substantial, of many persons of distinction, and of the wits of the times; and with such encouragement he renewed his attendance at court, adding to its pleasures by his dramatic efforts, and not sparingly to the mirth of his brethren the satirists, by the unfortunate issue of some of his licentious gallantries. For several years his plays and masks were acted with the greatest applause, and his character as a poet was raised very high by all who pretended to be judges. On the death of Ben Jonson, in 1638, the queen procured for him. the vacant laurel, which is said to have given such offence to Thomas May, his rival, as to induce him to join the disaffected party, and to become the advocate and historian of the republican parliament. In 1639, Davenaut was appointed “Governor of the king and queen’s company acting at the Cockpit in Drurv-lane, during the lease which Mrs. Elizabeth Beeston, alias Hutcheson, hath or doth hold in the said house.” When the civil commotions had for some time subsisted, the peculiar nature of them required that public; amusements should be the decided objects of popular resentment, and Davenant, who had administered so copiously to the pleasures of the court, was very soon brought under suspicions of a more serious kind. In May 16M, he was accused before the parliament, of being a partner with many of the king’s friends, in the design of bringing the army to London for his majesty’s protection. His accomplices effected their escape, but Davenant was apprehended at Feversham, and sent up to London. In July following he was bailed, but on a second attempt to withdraw to France, was taken in Kent. At last, however, he contrived to make his escape without farther impediment, and remained abroad for some time. The motive of his flight appears not to have been cowardice, but an unwillingness to sacrifice his life to popular fury, while there was any prospect of his being able to devote it to the service of his royal master. Accordingly, when the queen sent over a considerable quantity of military stores for the use of the earl of Newcastle’s army, Davenant resolutely ventured to return to England, and volunteered his services under that nobleman, who had been one of his patrons. The earl ma.le him lieutenant-general of his ordnance, a post for which, if he was not previously prepared, he qualified himself with so much skill and success, that in September 1643, he was rewarded with the honour of knighthood for the service he rendered to the royal cause at the siege of Gloucester. Of his military prowess, however, we have no farther account, nor at what time he found it necessary, on the decline of the king’s affairs, to retire again into France. Here he was received into the confidence of the queen, who in 1646 employed him in one of her importunate and ill-advised negociations with the king, who was then at Newcastle. About the same time Davenant had embraced the popish religion, a step which probably recommended him to the queen, but which, when known, could only tend to increase the animosity of the republicans against the court, which was already too closely suspected of an attachment to that persuasion. The object of his negociation was to persuade the king to save his crown by sacrificing the church; a proposition which his majesty rejected with becoming dignity; and this, as lord Clarendon observes, “evinced an honest and conscientious principle in his majesty’s mind, which elevated him above all his advisers.” The queen’s advisers in the measure were, his majesty knew, men of no religious principle, and he seems to have resented their sending an ambassador of no more consequence than the manager of a play-house.

As a poet, his fame rests chiefly on his “Gondibert,” but the critics have never been agreed in the share he derives from it. The reader who declines to judge for himself, may have ample satisfaction in the opinions of the late bishop Hurd, and of Dr. Aikin, as detailed in the conclusion of his life in the Biographia Britannica. It will, probably be found on an unprejudiced perusal of this original and very singular poem, that the opinions of Dr. Aikin and Mr. Headley are founded on those principles of taste and feeling which cannot be easily opposed; yet in considering the objections of Dr. Hurd, allowance is to be made for one who is so powerful and elegant an advocate for the authorized qualities of the Epic species, and for arguments which if they do not attach closely to this poem, may yet be worthy of the consideration of those whose inventive fancy leads them principally to novelty of manner, and who are apt to confound the arbitrary caprices with the genuine powers of a poet. His miscellaneous pieces are of very unequal merit. Most of them were probably written in youth, and but few can be reprinted with the hope of satisfying a polished taste. Complimentary poetry, so much the fashion in his times, is now perused with indifference, if not disgust; and although the gratitude which inspired it may have been sincere, it is not highly relished by the honest independence which belongs to the sons of the muses.

, a political writer of great abilities, was born at Geneva about 1745. He received a liberal education, and embraced the profession of the law, but diJ not long practise as an advocate before he formed the resolution of quitting his native country, that he might display his lively talents and his literary attainments on a more conspicuous theatre of action, and might personally observe the constitutions and customs of more powerful states. The English) government, in particular, excited his curiosity; and he resolved to study its nature and examine its principles with particular care and attention. He even endeavoured in the first work which he published after his arrival in England, to lead his readers into an opinion that he was a native of this favoured country. It was written in our language, and appeared in 1772, with the title “A parallel between the English Government and the former Government of Sweden; containing some observations on the late revolution in that kingdom, and an examination of the causes that secure us against both aristocracy and absolute monarchy.” Many of our countrymen were apprehensive that our constitution might be subverted like that of Sweden; but the learned doctor (for M. De Lolme had previously taken the degree of LL. D.) by contrasting with the polity of England the government which Gustavus III. had overturned, plausibly argued that such fears were ill-founded.

, a French dramatic and miscellaneous writer, a member of the national institute, the philotechnic society, that of letters, sciences, and arts, and of the Athenaeum at Paris, was born at Villers-Coterets, March 11, 1760. After studying with assiduous application and success at the college of Lisieux, he for some years followed the profession of an advocate, which he then quitted to give up his whole time to general literature and a country life. In this retreat he wrote the greater part of his published works, and was meditating others, when death snatched him away at the age of thirty-eight, March 2, 1801. He died in the arms of his mother, to whom he was exceedingly attached, and often mentioned, with tender regard, how much her company had contributed to his happiness. Nor was he less happy in the society of some friends of his youth, whose affection he preserved to the last by his amiable disposition. He published, 1. “Lettres a Emilie sur la Mythologie,” 1790, 6 vols. 18mo, an agreeable and familiar system of mythology, which has gone through several editions, and which has no fault but what is common with young writers of great promise, rather too much glitter and finery. 2. Several comedies and operas, printed at different times, and all performed with great success, particularly “Le Conciliateur.” 3. “Le Siege de Cythere,” a poem, 1790. 4. “La Liberte du Cloitre,” a poem. He left several manuscripts, among which the “Cours de morale, addresse aux Femmes,” a work partly in prose, and partly in verse, read at the Lycasum, is highly praised. He had also begun a long work which was to have been entitled “Galerie du dixhuitieme Siecle,” in which the great characters that illustrated the close of the reign of Louis XIV. were to have been pourtrayed; but he had composed only some parts of this work, which were read in some of the literary societies, of which he was a member.

, a French adventurer, of whose private life little is known, and whose public history is not of the most reputable kind, requires, however, some notice, as the author of various publications, and an agent in some political transactions which once were deemed of importance. He styled himself advocate in the parliament of Bourdeaux. The first notice of him occurs about 1763, when he had a concern in the quarrel between the count de Guerchy, ambassador extraordinary from the court of France, and the chevalier D‘Eon, (see D’EoN). About this time D‘Eon published a letter to the count de Guerchy, by which we learn that De Vergy solicited his (D’Eon’s) acquaintance, which he declined unless he* brought letters of recommendation, and that De Vergy, piqued at the refusal, boasted of being perfectly well known to the count de Guerchy, which proved to be a falsehood. This produced a quarrel between D‘Eon and De Vergy, and a pamphlet in answer to D’Eon’s letter, and another answer under the title of “Centre Note.” After the more celebrated quarrel between de Guerchy and D‘Eon, De Vergy published a parcel of letters from himself to the due de Cboiseul, in which he positively asserts that the count de Guerchy prevailed with him to come over to England to assassinate D’Eon. He even went farther, and before the grand jury of Middlesex, made oath to the same effect. Upon this deposition, the grand jury found a bill of intended murder against the count de Guerchy; which bill, however, never came to the petty jury. The king granted a noli prosequi in favour of De Guerchy, and the attorney-general was ordered to prosecute De Vergy, with the result of which order we are unacquainted; but it is certain that De Vergy, in his last will, confesses his concern in a plot against D'Eon, and intimates that he withdrew his assistance upon finding that it was intended to affect the chevalier’s life. After the above transaction, we find him in 1767, publishing “Lettre centre la Raison,” or, “A Letter against Reason, addressed to the chevalier D'Eon,” in which he repeats some of the hacknied doctrines of the French philosophical school, and professes himself a free-thinker. This was followed by a succession of novels, entitled “The Mistakes of the Heart;” “The Lovers” “Nature” “Henrietta;” “The Scotchman;” and “The Palinode,” written in remarkably good English, and with much knowledge of human nature; but scarcely one of them is free from the grossest indelicacies. He wrote also, in 1770, “A Defence of the duke of Cumberland,” a wretched catchpenny. De Vergy died Oct. 1, 1774, aged only forty-two, and remained unburied until March, his executor waiting for directions from his family. He had desired in his will that his relations would remove his body to Bourdeaux, but it was at last interred in St. Pancras church-yard.

, a native of the island of Melos, surnamed the Atheist, lived in the ninety-first olympiad, or 412 B. C. and was a follower of Democritus. Having been sold as a captive in his youth, he was redeemed by Democritus for 10,000 drachmas, and instead of being made his servant, was trained up in the study of philosophy, for which he had probably showed a capacity. At the same time he cultivated polite learning, and distinguished himself in the art of lyric poetry, which was so successfully practised about that period by Pindar, Bacchylis, and others. His name has been transmitted to posterity as an. avowed advocate for the rejection of all religious belief; and although Clemens Alexandrinus and others have taken pains to exculpate him, by pleading that his only intention was to ridicule heathen superstitions, the general voice of antiquity has so strongly asserted his atheistical principles, that we cannot refuse credit to the report without allowing too much indulgence to historical scepticism. It is easy to conceive, that one who had studied philosophy in the school of Democritus, who admitted no other principles in nature than atoms and a vacuum, would reject the whole doctrine of Deity as inconsistent with the system which he had embraced. And it is expressly asserted by ancient writers, that when, in a particular instance, he saw a perjured person escape punishment *, he publicly declared his disbelief of divine providence, and from that time not only spoke with ridicule of the gods, and of all religious ceremonies, but even attempted to lay open the sacred mysteries, and to dissuade the people from submitting to the rites of initiation. These public insults offered to religion brought upon him the general hatred of the Athenians; who, upon his refusing to obey a summons to appear in the courts of judicature, issued forth a decree, which was inscribed upon a brazen column, offering the reward of a talent to any one who should kill him, or two talents to any one who should bring him alive before the

, one of the early martyrs to the protestant religion, was born at Cnenza, in Spain, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and studied theology at Paris, where, from reading the books of Luther and his disciples, he soon embraced his doctrines. This circumstance rendering it necessary to quit Paris, he went to Calvin at Geneva, with whom, and with Budeus and Crispinus, he studied for some time. He then went to Strasburgh, and became known to Bucer, who, perceiving his promising talents, obtained leave of the council of that town to take him with him to the conference at Ratisbon. Diaz was no sooner arrived there, than he found out Malvenda, whom he had known at Paris, who employed the strongest arguments he could muster to induce him to return into the bosom of the church; but Diaz persevered in his opinions. Soon after, having got\e to Nenbnrg, to attend the correcting of a book of Bucer’s which was then at press, he was surprised to see arrive at that place one of his brothers named Alfonsus, an advocate at the court of Rome, who, having heard of his apostacy, as he termed it, immediately set out in hopes to reclaim him, but was not more successful than Malvenda. Instead, however, of lamenting what he might term the obduracy of his brother, he laid a plan against his life; to execute which base purpose, he feigned to return home, and went as far as Augsburg; but the day following he returned, accom.­panied by a guide, and at break of day was again at Neuburg. His first business was to seek his brother accordingly he went straight to his lodgings with his companion, who was disguised as a courier, and waited at the foot of the staircase, while the accomplice went up to the apartment of Diaz, for whom he pretended he had letters to deliver from his brother. Dia/ being roused from sleep, the pretended messenger delivered lam the letters, and while he read them, made a fatal stroke at his head with an axe which he had concealed under his cloak, and fled with his instigator Alfonsus. The report of this murder, which happened March 27, 1546, excited great indignation at Augsburg and elsewhere; the assassins were vigorously pursued, were taken, and imprisoned atlnspruck; but the emperor Charles V. put a stop to the proceedings under pretext that he would take cognizance himself of the affair at the approaching diet. This did not, however, appease the conscience of Alfonsus, the fratricide, who put an end to the torments of reflection by hanging himself. A particular history of the whole transaction was published in Latin under the name of Claude Senarclaeus, 8vo, which is very scarce. Jt was addressed to Bucer, under the title “Historia vera de morte J. Diazii.” Diaz was the author of a “Summary of the Christian Religion,” of which a French translation was published at Lyons, 1562, 8vo.

He was a zealous advocate for, and a great friend to, the religious societies (particularly that for the reformation of manners), then in their infancy. His temper was naturally warm and impatient; but he was formed by nature also with a generous and forgiving mind, and his warmth and impatience were generally under the government of his reason. His principles of religion were orthodox in regard to points of doctrine and articles of faith: in respect to the principles of others, they were truly catholic. Mr. Disney’s correspondence with some persons of high name for literature in his age does honour to both parties. His own learning was acknowledged, and the great work which he had designed to have published, under the title of “Corpus Legum de Moribus Reformandis,” was greatly approved by several judicious and learned men, and forwarded by their ready answers to queries proposed to them by the writer, as occasion suggested them, and not unfrequently by their voluntary contributions. His own library contained a very extensive and valuable collection of books in all languages; but he spared not journies to the public libraries in London, and both of our universities, for the consultation of such scarce books and manuscripts as were nowhere else to be met with. His manuscripts, which are numerous, are preserved in his family, and his exactness and precision in their arrangement, and the fairness of their transcript, are peculiar to himself.

Soon after this, without abating from the ardour of his other literary pursuits, or relaxing from the labours of his profession, he began to study anatomy, and likewise to read divinity; and finding the knowledge of Latin and Greek indispensably necessary towards attaining those ends, he applied himself diligently, and was soon able to translate the Greek Testament into Latin; and as he admired the power and wisdom of the Creator in the mechanism of the human frame, so he adored his goodness displayed in his revealed word. It might from hence be concluded that his sabbath was devoted to retired reading and philosophical objects; but he was not content with private devotion, as he was always an advocate for social worship, and with his family regularly attended the public service of the French protestant church, and occasionally heard Benson and Lardner, whom he respected as men, and admired as preachers. In his appearance he was grave, and the strong lines of his face were marked with deep thought and reflection; but in his intercourse with his family and friends, he was cheerful and affectionate; and his language and sentiments are distinctly recollected as always making a strong impression on the minds of those with whom he conversed. His memory was extrordinarily retentive; and amidst the variety of his reading, he could recollect and quote the most important passages of every book which he had at any time perused.

, a French lawyer, was born of a good family, at Clermont, in Auvergne, in 1625. Father Sirmood, who was his great uncle, had the care of his education, and sent him to the college at Paris, where he learned the Latin, Greek, Italian, and Spanish tongues, applied himself to the study of philosophy and the belles-lettres, and made himself a competent master in the mathematics. Afterwards he went to study the law, and to take his degrees at Bourges, where professor Emerville made him an offer of a doctor’s hood, though he was but twenty years of age. Upon his return from Bourges, he attended the bar of the high court of judicature at Clermont, and began to plead with extraordinary success. In 1648 he married, and by that marriage had thirteen children. Three years before he had been made advocate to the king, in the high court of Clermont; which place he filled for thirty years with such uncommon reputation for integrity as well as ability, that he became arbiter, in a great measure, of all the affairs of the province. The confusion which he had observed in the laws, put him upon forming a design of reducing them to their natural order. He drew up a plan for this purpose, and communicated it to his friends, who approved of it so much, and thought it so useful, that they persuaded him to shew it to some of the chief magistrates. With this view he went to Paris in 1685, where the specimen of his work, which he carried along with him, was judged to be so excellent, that Lewis XIV. upon the report which Pelletier, then comptroller general, made to him of it, ordered Domat to continue at Paris, and settled upon him a pension of 2000 livres. Henceforward he employed himself at Paris, in finishing and perfecting his work; the first volume of which, in 4to, was published there, under the title of “Les Lois civiles, dans leur ordre naturel,” 1689. Three other volumes were published afterwards, which did their author the highest honour; who, upon the publication of the first, was introduced by Pelletier, to present it to the king. It was usual to recommend this work to young lawyers and divines, who wished to apply themselves to the study of morality and the civil law; and an improved edition was published so recently as 1777. It was also translated and published in English by Dr. William Strahan, 1720, 2 vols, fol. and reprinted and enlarged in 1741. His “Legum Delectus,” which is a part of this great work, was printed separately, and very elegantly by Wetstein; and in 1806, M. d'Agard published the first volume of a translation of this “Delectus,” with notes, &c.

, a French Jesuit, a native of Vernon, who died at Orleans Sept. 21, 1716, filled several high offices belonging to his order, and was said to have been the author of the famous problem levelled at the cardinal de Noailles, “Whom are we to believe? M. de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, condemning the exposition of faith, or M. de Noailles, bishop of Chalons, approving the moral reflections?” alluding to an apparent change in Noailles* opinions of the disputes between the Jansenists and Jesuits. Doucin was a member of the club or cabal which the Jansenists called the Norman cabal, and which was composed of the Jesuits Tellier, Lallemand, and Daniel; and his zeal and activity were of great service to them. During the dispute on the famous bull Unigenitus, he was sent to Rome, and was a powerful advocate for that measure. He wrote a very curious piece of ecclesiastical history, entitled “Histoire de Nestorianisme,” Paris, 1698, 4to another, entitled “Histoire de I'Origenisme,” 4to, and “Memorial abrege touchant l'etat et les progres de Jansenistne en Hollande,” written in 1697, when he accompanied the count de Creci to the congress at Ryswick. He was also the author of many pamphlets of the controversial kind, strongly imbued with the spirit of party.

, a learned French advocate and classical scholar, was born in 1609 at Toulouse, of a family distinguished by their talents. After having studied classics and philosophy with great success, he went through a course of law, and was admitted an advocate of the parliament of Toulouse in 1637. Removing afterwards with a view to settle in Paris, he was admitted to the same rank in the parliament of that city in 1639. Here his reputation for knowledge and eloquence became soon acknowledged, and in 1650, on the death of Balthazar Baro, he was chosen into the French academy in his place. The following year, according to the “Menagiana,” he went to Bourges as candidate for a law professorship, but we are not told whether he succeeded; in the same year, however, he was appointed professor of the canon law in the royal college; and four years after, in 1655, had the appointment of regent doctor of the faculty of the law, and filled both offices with the highest reputation, nor did their laborious duties prevent him from finding sufficient leisure to write many of his published works. He was also appointed preceptor to the dauphin in history, and became one of the learned editors of the Dauphin classics. He died Oct. 27, 1688, in his 79th year, being then dean of the French academy, of the royal college, and of the faculty of law. He had an extensive knowledge of languages, wrote fluently in Latin and French, and spoke Italian, Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, and even the Turkish, and understood English, German, and Sclavonic. With all these accomplishments, he was a man of singular modesty, probity, and disinterestedness. His talents having procured him what he thought a competent maintenance, he had no ambition for riches, and employed what was not necessary for his own moderate wants, upon the poor. His works are numerous, and justify the fame he acquired. 1. “Dictionnaire de la' langue Toulousaine,” lt)38, 8vo. This, which is without Doujat’s name, was printed at the end of Goudelin’s works, which are in that language. 2. “Grammaire Espagnole abregee,” Paris, 1644, 12mo, also without his name. 3. “Moyen aise d'apprendre les langues mis en pratique sur la langue Espagnole,” ibid. 1646, 12rao. 4. “Joannis Dartis opera Canonica, edente J. Doujatio,” ibid. 1656, fol. 5. “De Pace a Ludovico XIV. constituta, oratio panegyrica,” ibid. 1660, 12mo. 6. “Historica juris Pontificii Synopsis,” added afterwards to his edition of Lancelot’s Institutions, ibid. 1670, 12mo. 7. “Synopsis Conciliorum et Chrono* logia Patrum, Pontificum, Imperatorum,” &c. ibid. 1671, 12mo. 8. A Latin translation of the “Panegyrique duRoy,” by M. Pellison, ibid. 1671, 4to. 9. “La Clef du grand Pouille de France,” ibid. 1671, 2 volumes, 12mo. 10. “Specimen Juris Canonici apud Gallos usu recepti,” &c. ibid. 1671, 2 vols. 12mo, often reprinted. 11. A French translation of Velleius Paterculus, with notes, ibid. 1672 and 1708, 12mo. 12. “Histoire du droit Canonique,” ibid. 1675, 12mo. 13. “Historia Juris Civilis Romanorum,” ibid. 1678, 12mo. 14. “Francisci Florentii opera Canonica et Juridica,” with additions, ibid. 1679, 2 vols. 4to. 15. The Delphin “Livy,” ibid. 1679, 6 vols. 4to. 16. “Theophili Antecessoris Institutionum lib. quatuor,” with notes, &c. ibid. 1681, 2 vols. 12mo. 17. “Institutiones Juris Canonici a J. P. Lancelotto Perusino conscriptae,” with notes, ibid. 1685, 2 vols. 12mo. Inconsequence of a new statute of the university of Paris, every regent doctor was obliged to lecture for three years on some branch of jurisprudence, and Doujat in obedience to this statute lectured on the subject of this work. 18. “Pra?­notionum canonicarum libri quinque,” ibid. Paris, 1687, 4to. 19. “Eloges des personnes illustres de l‘Ancient Testament^ pour donner quelque teinture de l’Histoire Sacree, a I‘usage de monseigneur le due de Bourgogne,’” ibid. 1688, 8vo, in verse, but not of the best sort. 20. “Reponse a M. Furetiere,” Hague, 1688, 4to. 21. “Lettre touchant un passage conteste de Tite Live,” printed in the Journal des Savans, Dec. 1685. 22. “Martini Bracarensis episcopi Collectio Canonum Orientalium.” This Doujat revised and corrected, for insertion in the “Bibl. Juris Canon, veteris,” by Justell, Paris, 1661, 2 vols. fol. Doujat wrote also several shorter pieces in the literary journals, some prefaces, &c. and had made some progress in a history of the regency of queen Anne of Austria, in consequence of the king’s having appointed him historiographer; but before a sheet had been printed, it was thought proper to suppress it. In the British Museum catalogue we find an article attributed to him under the title “Supplementa Lacunarum Livianarum,” 4to, without date, and probably part of his edition of Livy.

, minister of the Calvinist church of Paris, was born July 1595, at Sedan; where his father had a considerable post. He passed through the study of polite literature and divinity at Sedan, but was sent to Saumur, to go through a course of philosophy there under professor Duncan. He was admitted minister in 1618, and discharged his function near Langres, till he was called by the church of Paris in 1620. He had all the qualifications requisite to a great minister. His sermons were very edifying; he was assiduous and successful in comforting the sick; and he managed the atTairs of the church with such skill, that he never failed of being consulted upon every important occasion. His first essay was a “Treatise of Preparation for the Lord’s Supper.” This, and his “Catechism,” the “Short View of Controversies,” and “Consolations against the fears of Death,” have, of all his works, been the most frequently reprinted. Some of them, his book upon death in particular, have passed through above forty editions; and have been translated into several languages, as German, Dutch, Italian, and English. His “Charitable Visits,” in 5 volumes, have served for a continual consolation to private persons, and for a source of materials and models to ministers. He published three volumes of sermons, in which, as in all the forementioned pieces, there is a vein of piety very affecting to religious minds. His controversial works are 1. “The Jubilee” 2. “The Roman Combat” 3. “The Jesuit’s Owl” 4. “An Answer to father Coussin” 5. “Disputes with the bishop of Bellai, concerning the honour due to the Holy Virgin” 6. “An answer to La Milletierre” 7. “Dialogues, against the Missionaries,” in several volumes 8. “The False Pastor Convicted,” 9. ; 'The False Face of Antiquity;“10.” The Pretended Nullities of the Reformation;“11.” An Answer to prince Ernest of Hesse;“12.” An Answer to the speech of the clergy spoken by the archbishop of Sens;“13.” A Defence of Calvin." He wrote some letters, which have been printed; one to the duchess of Tremouille, upon her husband’s departure from the protestant religion; one of consolation, addressed to Madam de la Tabariere; one upon the restoration of Charles II. king of Great Britain; some upon the English episcopacy, &c. He published also certain prayers, some of which were made for the king, others for the queen, and others for the dauphin. Bayle tells us, that what he wrote against the church of Rome, confirmed the protestants more than can be expressed; for with the arms with which he furnished them, such as wanted the advantage of learning, were enabled to oppose the monks and parish priests, and to contend with the missionaries. His writings made him considered as the scourge of the papists; yet, like mons. Claude, he was much esteemed, and even beloved by them. For it was well known that he had an easy access to the secretaries of state, the first president, the king’s advocate, and the civil lieutenant; though he never made any other use of his interest with them than to assist the afflicted churches. He was highly esteemed by the great persons of his own religion; by the duke de la Force, the marshals Chatillon, Gascon, Turenne, and by the duchess of Tremouille. They sent for him to their palaces, and honoured him from time to time with their visits. Foreign princes and noblemen, the ambassadors of England and France, did the same; and he was particularly esteemed by the house of Hesse, as appears from the books he dedicated to the princes and princesses of that name. He died Nov. 3, 1669.

All his other children died, either in their infancy, or in the flower of their youth, except a daughter, married to mons. Malnoc, advocate of the parliament of Paris; and who instead of following him into Holland, whither he retired with his protestantism at the time of the dragoonade, continued at Paris, where she openly professed the Roman catholic religion.

, advocate, born at Chateauneuf, in Thimerais, the 10th of May, 1714, was for some time of the magistracy of that town. Preferring at an early period of life the pursuits of literature to the practice of the bar, he quitted his station, and composed a great number of pieces in verse and prose. His poetical productions are very indifferent, but several of his works in prose are curious. The principal are: 1. “Bibliotheque historique & politique du Poitou,” 1754, 5 vols. 12mo, containing much sound and judicious criticism.

, a learned priest of the oratory, was born December 9, 1649, at Montbrison, the son of Claude Duguet, king’s advocate in the presidial of that city. Having entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris, in 1667, he taught philosophy at Troyes, and was afterwards recalled to St. Magloir, at Paris, where he gained great reputation, as professor of divinity, by his “Ecclesiastical Conferences.” Ill health obliged him to resign all his employments in 1680, and in 1685 he quitted the oratory, and retired to M. Arnauld, at Brussels; but returned to Paris afterwards, where he lived in a very retired manner, at the house of M. the president de Menars, 1690, where he continued till the death of that magistrate and his wife. He was afterwards frequently forced to change his dwelling and country, in consequence of his opposition to the Constitution Unigenitus. He was successively in Holland, at Troyes, Paris, &c. and died in the last-named city October 25, 1733, aged eighty-four. His works are numerous, and well written in French. The principal are, 1. “Lettres de Piete et de Morale,” 9 vols, 12mo; 2. “La Conduite d'une Dame Chretienne,” 12mo; 3. “Traite de la Priere publique, et des Saints Mysteres,” 12mo; 4. “Traite dogmatique sur l‘Eucharistie, sur les Exorcismes, et sur l’Usure.” The three last are much admired by Catholics, and are printed together, 1727; 12mo; 5. “Commentaires sur l'Ouvrage des 6 jours.” 12mo; 6. “Sur Job,” 3 tom, in 4 vols. 12mo; 7. “Sur la Genese,” 6 vols. 12mo; 8. “Explication sur les Pseaumes,” 5 tom. in 8 vols. 12mo; 9. “Explication des Rois, Esdras, et Nehemias,” 6 tom. in 7 vols. 12mo; 10. “Explication du Cantique des Cantiques, et de la Sagesse,” 2vols. 12mo; 11. “Explication sur Isaïe, Jonas, et Habacuc,” 6 tom. in 7 vols. 12mo; 12. “Regles pour l‘Intelligence de l’Ecriture Sainte,” 12mo. The preface to this work is by M. d'Asfeld. 13. “Explication du Mystere de la Passion de N. S. J. C.” 9 tom. in 14 vols. 12mo; 14. “Les Characters de la Charité,” 12mo; 15. “Traité des Principes de la Foi Chretienne,” 3 vols. 12mo; 16. “De l‘Education d’un Prince,” 4to, or in 4 vols. 12mo; 17. “Conferences Ecclesiastiques,” 2 vols. 4to; 18. “Je sus crucifié,” 1 vol. or 2 vols. 12mo; and some other pieces, which procured him considerable reputation while works of piety remained popular in France. The history, and an analysis of his work on the education of a prince, may be seen in our third authority.

He was suddenly taken ill in the night, June 2!, 1785. A suffocation was rapidly coming on; but a surgeon being called, he was almost instantly relieved by bleeding a good sleep ensued, but he waked in the morning almost speechless; a paralytic stroke on the organs of articulation only, seemed to have taken place; medical assistance was applied; he partly recovered articulation; but great debility was perceivable, and he could no longer write as usual: however, by slow degrees he regained strength, beyond the expectation of iiis distressed friends; and appeared after the summer passed at Herne, to be quite restored to health and spirits, and pursued every avocation as before the stroke, and with the same power of mind; but those who were most constantly with him, and watched with the tender eye of affection, never lost the alarm, never rested without apprehension, and perceived, by some suaden starts, and nervous complaints, that all was not sound within. In January following he coughed much, two or three days, but without any dangerous symptom, till, on the night of the 18th, a suffocation as before came on; assistance was immediately procured, but not with the former success; the disorder increased, and loss of life ensued. His gentle spirit, as he had lived, departed, easy to himself in his exit; distressful alone to all that knew him, to those most who knew him best. His family, his friends, the servants, and the poor, all by their affliction spoke his real worth. He left one daughter. His temper never changed by any deprivation of the world’s enjoyments, nor by any bodily suffering; no peevishness, no complaints escaped; though it is observed that a great alteration often attends such disorders, and warps the temper naturally good. But he silently used his piety to the laudable purpose of regulating not only his actions, but his words; yet this was discovered rather from observation than from his own profession, as he was remarkably modest and humble on religious topics; and, for fear of ostentation on that subject, might rather err on the opposite side, from an awful timidity, which might not always give a just idea of his unaffected zeal and real faith. His friendship, where professed, was ardent; and he had a spirit in a friend’s cause that rarely appeared on other occasions. He was amiable, affectionate, and tender, as a husband and father; kind and indulgent as a master; and a protector and advocate of the poor; benevolent to all, as far as his fortune could afford.

, of Arniston, lord-president of the court of session, was the second son of Robert Dundas, esq. an eminent Scotch lawyer, and was born Dec. 9, 1685. Though in no period of his life distinguished for laborious application to study, he had in his earlier years improved his mind by an acquaintance with general literature; and he gained by practice, aided by uncommon acuteness of talents, a profound knowledge of the law. He had been but eight years at the bar, when his reputation pointed him out as the fittest person to hold the office of solicitor general, to which he was appointed by king George I. in 1717, and which was preparatory to that of lord advocate for Scotland, to which he was appointed in 1720. In 1722 he was elected member of parliament for the county of Edinburgh; and in that situation, he distinguished himself by a most vigilant attention to all public measures, in which the welfare of his country was concerned, and by a steady and patriotic regard for its interests. On the change of ministry, which took place in 1725, when sir Robert Walpole and the Argyle party came into power, Mr. Dundas was removed from his office of king’s advocate, and resumed his station without the bar, distinguished only by the honourable title of dean of the faculty of advocates, till he was raised to the bench, in 1737. For nine years he filled the seat of an ordinary judge of the court of session, by the title of lord Arniston, till 1748, when, on the death of Mr. Duncan Forbes, of Culloden, he was appointed to succeed him in the honourable and important office of president of the court.

In Scotland, though general verdicts appear to have been authorised by the most ancient practice of the criminal court, it had long been customary to consider jurymen as tied down to determine simply, whether the facts in the indictment were proved or not proved. This change from the ancient practice is supposed, with much reason, to have been introduced in the latter part of the reign of Charles II. at a time when we find the king’s advocate (Mackenzie) strenuously contending in his “System of Criminal Law,” for the entire abolition of juries. The latter was too strong a measure, and would have been found of difficult accomplishment; the former was of easier attainment, and answered nearly the same end. The accused person, to satisfy appearances, and for the show of justice, was still to be tried by his peers; but his guilt or innocence was rarely within their cognizance; that was decided by the laws, or by their interpreters, the judges; and the jury, tied down to determine solely on the proof of facts, was compelled to surrender into the hands of these judges, and thus often to sacrifice the life of a fellow citizen, though convinced of his innocence, and earnestly desirous of his acquittal. Thus matters stood till the trial of Carnegie, who, had the powers of a Scotch jury remained thus circumscribed, must have suffered the punishment due to the foulest malefactor; the court had found the facts in the indictment “relevant to infer the pains of law” and the proof of these facts was as clear as noon-day. There remained no hope for the prisoner, unless the jury should be roused to assert a right which they had long relinquished, and vindicate the privilege of deciding on the guilt or innocence of the accused; and this great point was gained by the powerful eloquence of the prisoner’s counsel. The jury found the prisoner not guilty; and from that time, the right of a Scotch jury to return a general verdict, is acknowledged to be of the very essence of that institution.

In the beginning of 1754, Mr. Dundas was elected member of parliament for the county of Edinburgh; and in the following snmmer he was appointed his majesty’s advocate for Scotland. In parliament, the share which Mr. Dundas took in public business, and his appearances on many interesting subjects of discussion, which occurred in that important period during which he sat in the house of commons, were such as fully to justify the character he had already attained for talents and ability. Such was the complexion of the times, and so high the tide of party, that it was perhaps impossible for human wisdom to have pointed out a line of political conduct which could entirely exempt from censure. The lord advocate shared with the rest of his party in the censure of those who followed an pposite plan of politics but of him it may certainly with truth be affirmed, that in no instance was he ever known to swerve from his principles, or to act a part in which he had not the countenance of many of the firmest friends to the interest of their country. He was chiefly censured for the opposition which he gave to the establishment of a militia in Scotland, by a great party in that country, who warmly supported that measure. But when the question is dispassionately viewed, it will appear to be one of those doubtful points, on which the wisest men and the best patriots may entertain opposite opinions.

, Lord Viscount Melville, brother to the preceding, by a different mother, was born about 1741, and was educated at the high school and university of Edinburgh. Having studied the law, he was, in 1763, admitted a member of the faculty of advocates, and soon rose to a considerable degree of eminence, and very extensive practice. In 1773 he was appointed solicitorgeneral, and in 1775, lord advocate of Scotland, which office he retained till 1783. In March 1777, he was appointed joint keeper of the signet for Scotland. His office as lord advocate necessarily requiring a seat in parliament, he was elected for the county of Mid- Lothian, and soon distinguished himself as a supporter of administration in all the measures which were pursued in the conduct of the war with America, and from this time appears to have abandoned all thoughts of rising in his profession as a lawyer. In his new pursuit as a statesman, he was highly favoured by natural sense and talents, which were indeed so powerful as to form a balance to his defects in elocution, which were striking. He had taken no

pains to conquer his native pronunciation, which, as it frequently provoked a smile from his hearers, would have proved of the greatest disadvantage in the heat and acrimony of debate, had he not evinced by the fluency and acuteness of his arguments that he was deserving of serious attention, and was an opponent not to be despised. For declamatory speaking, and addresses to the passions, he had neither taste nor talent; his mind was intent on the practical part of every measure, and in every debate that concerned what maybe termed business, he had few equals, and his speeches were perhaps the more attended to, as he made it a point to reserve them for such occasions. During lord North’s administration he was introduced to no ostensible station; but when that nobleman and his colleagues were obliged to retire in 1782, and a few months after, by the death of the marquis of Rockingham, their successors were obliged to resign, Mr. Dundas joined the young minister, Mr. Pitt, and was sworn into the privy council, and appointed treasurer of the navy. During Mr. Pitt’s first administration the general peace was concluded, which, however necessary, did not add much popularity to the ministry, and lord North and Mr. Fox, with their respective friends, or the greater part of them, having formed what was termed the coalition, Mr. Pitt’s administration was obliged to give way to a host of opponents, which was considered as invincible. On this occasion, in 1783, Mr. Dundas was deprived of his offices as treasurer of the navy, and lord advocate for Scotland.

and his friends were then seated in power, supported by a majority in both houses, and Mr. Dundas resumed his office as treasurer of the navy; but, by his recommendation, the office of lord advocate of Scotland was given to ]VIr. Hay Campbell, afterwards lord president of the court of session. The first measure of the new administration was a bill for the better regulation of the affairs of the East India Qompany, which, although in the opinion of many, not very different from that of Mr. Fox, as far as regarded the controul to be established over the affairs of the company, was less unpopular in other respects. Among its other provisions was the creation of a board of controul, of which Mr. Dundas was appointed president.

, at first advocate-general, and afterwards president à mortier in the parliament of Bourdeaux, was born at Rochelle, and died at Paris in 1788, at no very advanced age, with the character of an upright, enlightened, and eloquent magistrate. He acquired considerable honour, by his inflexible constancy in the revolution of the magistracy in 1771, and still more, by delivering from punishment three poor wretches of Chaumont, condemned to be broke alive upon the wheel. The statement he published in his defence does credit to his talents and humanity, which may likewise be said of his “Historical reflections on Penal Laws.” The president Du Paty employed himself for a length of time in endeavouring to reform these laws; and displayed no less sagacity than zeal in combating the obstacles he met with from inveterate prejudices. As a literary man, we have by him, “Academical Discourses,” and “Letters on Italy,” 1788, 2 vols. 8vo, of which last, two rival translations were published in this country in the same year. Yet, although he shows himself a man of considerable taste, and possessed of descriptive talents, his travels are frequently disfigured by emphatical phrases, and by attempts at wit, savouring of conceit and affectation. It was his misfortune to aim at imitating Diderot and Thomas, who furnished him with many of his phrases. His adversaries have spread abroad an anecdote, that Voltaire, being asked his opinion of his abilities as a magistrate, answered, “He is a good scholar.” And, when he was urged to give his sentiments on his talents for literature and the arts, he said, “He is a good magistrate.”

, not Durand (GiLLEs), Sieur de la Bergerie, an eminent advocate to the parliament of Paris, is supposed, according to Pasquier, book xix. letter 15, to be the same who was one of the nine advocates commissioned by the court to reform the custom of Paris. He was also among the best poets before Malherbe, wrote odes, sonnets, elegies, &c. and translated, or imitated part of the Latin pieces written by his friend John Bounefons the father; under the title of, “Imitations tirees du Latin de Jean Bonnefons, avec autres amours et melanges poetiques,” 1727, 12mo. This work has gone through several editions. “The verses to his godmother on the decease of her ass, who died in the flower of his age during the siege of Paris, Tuesday, Aug. 28, 1590,” are esteemed a masterpiece in the ironical and sportive style. They may be found in the ingenious work, entitled, " Satyre MenipeeY* and in the works of Durant, 1594, 12mo. He was broken on the wheel, July 16, 1618, with two Florentine brothers of the house des patrices, for a libel against the king. Some, however, doubt if this is the same.

, son of a counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, was advocate general, and afterwards appointed first president of the parliament by Henry III. in 1581, at the time when the fury of the league was at its height. Duranti opposed it with all his might; but was unable to restrain the factious either by threats or caresses. After having many times narrowly escaped death, once, as he was endeavouring to appease a tumult, one of the rebels killed him by a musket ball, on the 10th of February, 1589. While Duranti with uplifted hands was imploring heaven for his assassins, the people stabbed him in a thousand places, and dragged him by the feet to the place of execution. As there was no gibbet prepared, they tied his feet to the pillory, and nailed behind him the picture of king Henry III., accompanying their cruelties with every brutal insult to his lifeless remains. Such was his recompense for the pains he had taken the foregoing year to preserve Toulouse from the plague. To this piece of service may be added the foundation of the college of FEsquille, magnificently constructed by his orders; the establishment of two brotherhoods, the one to portion off poor girls, and the other for the relief of prisoners; and, many other acts of liberality to several young men of promising hopes, &c. The church of Rome too was no less obliged to him for his book “De ritibus ecclesioe,” which was thought so excellent by pope Sixtus V. that he had it printed at Rome, in 1591, folio. It has been falsely attributed to Peter Danes. The life of Duranti was published by Martel, in his Memoirs. The day after his death, Duranti was secretly buried at the convent of the Cordeliers; on which occasion he had no other cerecloth than the picture representing Henry III. that had been hung up with his body to the prllory. His heirs raised a monument to him, when the troubles were appeased.

, a Swedish divine, who became professor of philosophy at the university of Halle, and died at Stockholm, Jan. 6, 171)6, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, was a member of several learned societies, and owed much of his reputation to a work he published in German, called “An Inquiry into the doctrine respecting the salvation of Heathens,” or “The New apology for Socrates,” which was translated from German into French by Dumas, and published at Amsterdam in 1773, 8vo. It contains also a defence of Marmontel’s “Belisarius,” which at that time had occasioned a controversy in Holland and Germany. Eberhard had among his countrymen the reputation of a man who was a powerful advocate for revealed religion in its original simplicity.

After about ten weeks’ absence, though Mr. Emlyn received discouraging accounts of the rage that prevailed against him in Dublin, he thought it necessary to return, to his family. Finding that both his opinions and his person lay under a great odium among many who knew little of the subject in dispute, he wrote his “Humble Inquiry into the Scripture account of Jesus Christ: or, a short argument concerning his Deity and Glory, according to the Gospel.” A few days after this work was prinjted, our author intended to return to England; but some zealous dissenters, getting notice of his design, resolved to have him prosecuted. Two of them, one of whom was a presbyterian, and the other a baptist-church officer, were for presenting Mr. Emlyn; but, upon reflection, this method was judged to be too slow, and too uncertain in its operation. Mr. Caleb Thomas, therefore, the latter of the two dissenters, immediately obtained a special warrant from the lord chief justice (sir Richard Pyne) to seize our author and his books. Our author, with part of the impression of his work, being thus seized, was carried before the lord chief justice, who at first refused bail, but afterwards said that it might be allowed with the attorney-general’s consent; which being obtained, two sufficient persons were bound in a recognizance of eight hundred pounds for Mr. Emlyn’s appearance. This was in Hilary term, February 1703, at the end of which he was bound over to Easter term, when the grand jury found the bill, wherein he was indicted of blasphemy. To such a charge he chose to traverse. The indictment was altered three times before it was finally settled, which occasioned the trial to be deferred till June 14, 1703. On that day, Mr. Emlyn was informed, by an eminent gentleman of the long robe, sir Richard Levins, afterwards lord chief justice of the common pleas, that he would not be permitted to speak freely, but that it was designed to run him down like a wolf, without law or game; and he was soon convinced that this was not a groundless assertion. The indictment was for writing and publishing a book, wherein he had blasphemously and maliciously asserted, that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the father, to whom he was subject; and this with a seditious intention. As Mr. Emlyn knew that it would be difficult to convict him of being the author of the work, he did not think himself bound to be his own accuser, and the prosecutor not being able to produce sufficient evidence of the fact, at length sent for Mr. Boyse. This gentleman, being examined as to what Mr. K.mlyn had preached of the matters contained in the book, acknowledged that he had said nothing of tlu-tn in the pulpit directly, but only some things that gave ground of suspicion. Mr. Boyse being farther asked, what our author had said in private conference with the ministers, answered, “that what he had declared there was judged by his brethren to be near to Arianism.” Though this only proved the agreement of the book with Mr. Emlyn’s sentiment, it yet had a great effect upon the minds of the jury, and tended more than any other consideration to produce a verdict against him. The queen’s counsel, having thus only presumption to allege, contended,that strong presumption was as good as evidence; which doctrine was seconded by the lord chief justice, who repeated it to the jury, who brought him in guilty, without considering the contents of the book whether blasphemy or not, confining themselves, as it would appear, to the fact of publishing: for which some of them afterwards expressed their concern. The verdict being pronounced, the passing of the sentence was deferred to June 16, being the last day of the term. In the mean time Mr. Emlyn was committed to the common jail. During this interval, Mr. Boyse shewed great concern for our author, and used all his interest to prevent the rigorous sentence for which the attorney-general (Robert Kochford, esq.) had moved, viz. the pillory. It being thought proper that Mr. Emlyn should write to the lord chief justice, he accordingly did so; but with what effect we are not told. When he appeared to have judgment given against him, it was moved by one of the queen’s counsel (Mr. Brodrick) that he should retract: but to this our author could not consent. The lord chief justice, therefore, proceeded to pass sentence on him; which was, that he should suffer a year’s imprisonment, pay a thousand pounds fine to the queen, and lie in prison till paid; and that he should find security for good behaviour during life. The pillory, he was told, was the punishment due; but, on account of his being a man of letters, it was not inflicted. Then, with a paper on his breast, he was led round the four courts to l>e exposed. After judgment had been passed, Mr. Emlyn was committed to the sheriffs of Dublin, and was a close prisoner, for something more than a quarter of a year, in the house of the under-sheriff. On the 6th of October he was hastily hurried away to the common jail, where he lay among the prisoners in a close room filled with six beds, for about five or six weeks; and then, by an habeas corpus, he was upon his petition removed into the Marshalsea for his health. Having here greater conveniences, he wrote, in 1704, a tract, entitled “General Remarks on Mr. Boyse’s Vindication of the true Deity of our blessed Saviour.” In the Marshalsea our author remained till July 21, 1705, during the whole of which time his former acquaintances were estranged from him, and all offices of friendship or.civility in a manner ceased; especially among persons of a superior rank. A few, indeed, of the plainer tradesmen belonging to his late congregation were more compassionate; but not one of the dissenting ministers of Dublin, Mr. Boyse excepted, paid him any visit or attention. At length, through the zealous and repeated solicitations of Mr. Boyse, the generous interference of Thomas Medlicote, esq. the humane interposition of the duke of Ormond, and the favourable report of the lord chancellor (sir Richard Cox, to whom a petition of Mr. Emlyn had been preferred), and whose report was, that such exorbitant fines were against law, the fine was reduced to seventy pounds, and it was accordingly paid into her majesty’s exchequer. Twenty pounds more were paid, by way of composition, to Dr. Narcissus March, archbishop of Armagh, who, as queen’s almoner, had a claim of one shilling a pound upon the whole fine. During Mr. Emlyn’s confinement in the Marshalsea, he regularly preached there. He had hired a pretty large room to himself; whither, on the Sundays, some of the imprisoned debtors resorted; and from without doors there came several of the lower sort of his former people and usual hearers. Soon after his release Mr. Emlyn returned to London, where a small congregation was found for him, consisting of a few friends, to whom he preached once every Sunday. This he did without salary or stipend; although, in consequence of his wife’s jointure having devolved to her children, his fortune was reduced to a narrow income. The liberty of preaching which our author enjoyed, gave great offence to several persons, and especially to Mr. Charles Leslie, the famous nonjuror, and Mr. Francis Higgins, the rector of Balruddery, in the county of Dublin. Complaint was made upon the subject to Dr. Teniaon, archbishop of Canterbury, who was not inclined to molest him. Nevertheless, in the representation of the lower house of convocation to the queen in 1711, it was asserted, that weekly sermons were preached in defence of the Unitarian principles, an assertion which Mr. Emlyn thought proper to deny in a paper containing some observations upon it. After a few years, his congregation was dissolved by the death of the principal persons who had attended upon his ministry, and he retired into silent obscurity, but not into idleness; for the greater part of his life was diligently spent in endeavouring to support, by various works, the principles he had embraced, and the cause for which he had suffered. The first performance published by him, after his release from prison, was “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Willis, 'dean of Lincoln; being some friendly remarks on his sermon before the honourable house of commons, Nov. 5, 1705.” The intention of this letter was to shew that the punishment even of papists for religion was not warranted by the Jewish laws; and that Christians had been more cruel persecutors than Jews. In 1706 Mr. Emlyn published what his party considered as one of his most elaborate productions, “A Vindication of the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, on Unitarian principles. In anMver to what is said, on that head, by Mr. Joseph Boyse, in his Vindication of” the Deity of Jesus Christ. To which is annexed, an answer to Dr. Walerland on the same head.“Two publications came from our author in 1707, the first of which was entitled” The supreme Deity of God the Father demonstrated. In answer to Dr. Sherlock’s arguments fur the supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ, or whatever can be urged against the supremacy of the first person of the Holy Trinity.“The other was” A brief Vindication of the Bishop of Gloucester’s (Dr. Fowler) Discourses concerning the descent of the man Christ Jesus from Heaven, from Dr. Sherlock the dean of St. Paul’s charge of heresy. With a confutation of his new notion in his late book of The Scripture proofs of our Saviour’s divinity.“In 1708 Mr. Emlyn printed three tracts, all of them directed against Mr. Leslie. The titles of them are as follow: 1. Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 2. A Vindication of the Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 3. An Examination of Mr. Leslie’s last Dialogue relating to the satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Together with some remarks on Dr. Stillingfleet’s True reasons of Christ’s Sufferings. In the year 1710 he published” The previous question to the several questions about valid and invalid Baptism, Lay-baptism, &c. considered viz. whether there be any necessity (upon the principles of Mr. Wall’s History of infant baptism) for the continual use of baptism among the posterity of baptised Christians.“But this hypothesis, though supported with ingenuity and learning, has not obtained many converts. Our author did not again appear from the press till 1715, when he published” A full Inquiry into the original authority of that text, 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, &c. containing an account of Dr. Mill’s evidence, from antiquity, for and against its being genuine; with an examination of his judgment thereupon.“This piece was addressed to Dr. William Wake, lord archbishop of Canterbury, president, to the bishops of the same province, his grace’s suffragans, and to the clergy of the lower house of convocation, then assembled. The disputed text found an advocate in Mr. Martin, pastor of the French church at the Hague, who published a critical dissertation on the subject, in opposition to Mr. Emlyn’s Inquiry. In 1718 our author again considered the question, in” An Answer to Mr. Martin’s critical dissertation on 1 John v. 7; shewing the insufficiency of his proofs, and the errors of his suppositions, by which he attempts to establish the authority of that text from supposed manuscripts." Mr. Martin having published an examination of this answer, Mr. Emlyn printed a reply to it in 1720, which produced a third tract upon the subject by Mr. Martin, and there the controversy ended; nor, we believe, was it revived in a separate form, until within these few years by Mr. archdeacon Travis and professor Person.

Another cause of the discredit, into which Epicurus and his followers fell, may he discovered in the nature and constitution of his philosophy. He made pleasure the end of his doctrine, and only employed wisdom as a guide to happiness. The stoics would easily perceive, that a preceptor who attempted to correct the false and corrupt taste of the times, and to lead men to true pleasure, by natural and easy steps in the path of virtue, would be more likely to command the public attention, than one who rested his authority and influence upon a rigid system of doctrine, and an unnatural severity of manners. In order, therefore, to secure their own popularity, they thought it necessary to misrepresent the principles and character of Epicurus, and held him to public censure as an advocate for infamous pleasures. That they might gain the greater credit by their misrepresentations, they invented and circulated many scandalous tales, which would obtain a ready reception among the indolent and credulous Athenians. This might be the more easily effected, as Epicurus passed his time in his garden, remote from the crowd, and did not scruple, in his retirement, to enjoy such pleasures as he judged to be not inconsistent with that virtuous tranquillity, which was the chief end of his philosophy. The calumnies which were thus ingeniously fabricated, and industriously propagated, against the Epicurean sect, would be the more willingly believed, on account of the contempt with which Epicurus treated the vulgar superstitions, and Iris avowed rejection of the doctrine of fate, or providence, so strongly maintained by the stoics; and especially on account of the perverse abuse of his doctrine to the encouragement of licentiousness, by which many of his followers brought disgrace upon their sect. These abuses ought not, however, to be imputed to the founder of the school. Seneca himself acknowledges, that the profligates, who in his time professed themselves disciples of Epicurus, were not led into their irregularities by his doctrine; but, being themselves strongly addicted to vice, sought to hide their crimes in the bosom of philosophy, and had recourse to a master who encouraged the pursuit of pleasure, not because they set any value upon that sober and abstemious ivind of pleasure which the doctrine of Epicurus allowed, but because they hoped, in the mere name, to find some pretext or apology for their debaucheries. If these circumstances be duly considered and compared, it will no longer appear strange, that many eminent men, who had addicted themselves to other schools, have given an unfavourable judgment concerning Epicurus, whilst the force of truth has sometimes led them, at the expence of their own consistency, to attest his merit. Others, however, have penetrated through the thick cloud of calumny, which has hung over the character of Epicurus, and, in opposition to the general current of censure, have ventured to give him that praise, which, amidst all the absurdities of his speculative system, was so justly due to his personal virtues, and to his laudable attempts to conduct men, by innocence and sobriety, to the tranquil enjoyment of life.

, D. D. an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was born June 2, 1721. He was the eldest son of John Krskiue, esq. of Carnock, afterwards of Cardross, advocate, and professor of Scotch law in the university of Edinburgh, who is well known by his “Institutes of the Law of Scotland,” a work of the highest authority and reputation. His grandfather, colonel John Erskine, third son of Heury lord Cardross, was a man of eminent piety, and distinguished by his services in support of the revolution in 1688. Mr. Erskine, the subject of this article, was originally intended by his relations for the profession of the law, and received a suitable education. He appears, however, from his earliest years, to have been of a serious turn of mind, and to have preferred the study of theology, and the employment of the ministry. He entered the university of Edinburgh in 1734, where he acquired much useful knowledge, and formed an intimate connection with some fellow-students, who afterwards rose to great eminence both in the political and literary world. At this time it was the practice to prescribe discourses to the students, on subjects connected with the lectures which they heard. A volume of essays of this description is preserved in the college library, and in it are two theses delivered April 30, 1737, one by the late eminent historian, Dr. Robertson, afterwards Dr. Erskine’s colleague in the ministry, and at that time his fellow-studeiU, under the title “De probabilitate historiea, sive de evidentia morali,” the other by Dr. Erskine, entitled “De rectae rationis usu Icgitimo, sive de libertate cogitandi.” They are both written in very pure Latin, and discover a considerable acquaintance with philosophical discussions.

, president of the parliament of Grenoble, was born Dec. 22, 1561, at Voiron in Dauphiny. His father Claude Expilli had acquired great reputation in the army. This his son studied first at Turin, and in 1581 and 1582 went through a course of law studies at Padua, where he became acquainted with many of the most learned men of his time, particularly Speroni, Torniel, Decianus, I'ancirollus, Pinelli, Zabarella, Picolomini, &c. On his return to France, he took his doctor’s degree at Bourges, where the celebrated James Cujas bestowed high praise on. him. He then settled at Grenoble, and acquired such distinction among the advocates of the parliament, that the king Henry IV. considered him as fit for the highest offices in law. Expilli was accordingly promoted to that of king’s procurator in the chamber of finances, king’s advocate in parliament, and lastly that of president. The same monarch, as well as Louis XIII. employed him in many important affairs in thecomte Venaissin, Piedmont, and Savoy, where he was first president of the parliament of Chamberi, after that city was taken in 1C 30. Three years after, the king made use of his services at Piguerol; but on his return to Grenoble, he died July 22 or 23, 1636, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. James Philip Thomasini, bishop of Citta Nova, wrote his eloge, and his life was written by Antony Boniel de Catilhon, his nephew, and advocate general of the chamber of accounts in Dauphiny. It was printed at Grenoble in 1660, 4to. Cherier, in his History of that province, says of him, that his works are an incontestable proof of his learning, which was by no means confined. He. was an orator, lawyer, historian, and poet, a man of excellent private character, and a liberal patron of merit, which alone was a sure introduction to his favour. His works are both in prose and verse. His “Pleadings” were printed at Paris, 1612, 4to. His French poems, after the greater part of them had been printed separately, were collected in a large volume, 4to, printed at Grenoble in 1624; and among them are some prose essays on the fountains of Vals and Vivarez, and on the use of medicinal waters; a supplement to the history of the chevalier Bayard, &c. He wrote also a treatise on “French orthography,” Lyons, 1618, folio, in which, however, he has not shewn much judgment, having proposed to spell according to pronunciation; and upon the whole, it appears that, although a man of learning as well as probity, he was a better magistrate than a writer.

, a very learned antiquary of Italy, was born at Urbino, of a noble family, in 1619. After he had passed through his first studies at Cagli, he returned to Urbino to finish himself in the law, in which he was admitted doctor at eighteen. Having an elder brother at Rome, who was an eminent advocate, he also went thither, and applied himself to the bar; where he soon distinguished himself to such advantage, that he was likely to advance his fortune. Cardinal Imperiali entertained so great an esteem for him, that he sent him into Spain, to negociate several important and difficult affairs; which he did with such success, that the office of the procurator fiscal of that kingdom falling vacant, the cardinal procured it for him. Fabretti continued thirteen years in Spain, where he was for some time auditor general of the Nunciature. These employments, however, did not engage him so much, but that he found time to read the ancients, and apply himself to polite literature. He returned to Rome with cardinal Bonelli, who had been nuncio in Spain; and from his domestic became his most intimate friend. He was appointed judge of the appeals to the Capitol; which post he afterwards quitted for that of auditor of the legation of Urbino, under the cardinal legate Cerri. His residence in his own country gave him an opportunity of settling his own private affairs, which had been greatly disordered during his absence. He continued there three years, which appeared very long to him, because his inclination to study and antiquities made him wish to settle at Rome, where he might easily gratify those desires to the utmost. He readily accepted, therefore, the invitation of cardinal Corpegna, the pope’s vicar, who employed him in drawing up the apostolical briefs, and other dispatches belonging to his office, and gave him the inspection of the reliques found at Rome and parts adjacent. Alexander VIII. whom Fabretti had served as auditor when cardinal, made him secretary of the memorials, when he was advanced to the pontificate; and had so great a value and affection for him, that he would certainly have raised him to higher dignities, if he had lived a little longer.

, a very learned lawyer and scholar, was born in 1580, at Aix in Provence, whither his father, a native of Nismes in Languedoc, had retired during the civil wars. After making very distinguished progress in Greek and Latin, the belles lettres, and jurisprudence, he was admitted doctor of laws in 1606, and then became an advocate in the parliament of Aix. Among the many friends of distinction to whom his talents recommended him, were M. de Peiresc, a counsellor of that parliament, and William de Vair, first president. By the interest of this last-mentioned gentleman, he was promoted to the law-professorship at Aix, which office he filled until 1617, when Du Vair being made keeper of the seals, invited him to Paris. On Du Vair’s death in 1621, Fabrot resumed his office in the university of Aix, where he was appointed second professor in 1632, and first professor in 1638. At this time he was absent, having the preceding year gone to Paris to print his notes on the institutes of Theophilus, an ancient jurist. This work he dedicated to the chancellor Seguier, who requested him to remain in Paris, and undertake the translation of 1 the Basilics, or Constitutions of the Eastern emperors, and gave him a pension of 2000 livres. This work, and his editions of some of the historians of Constantinople, which he published afterwards, procured him from the king the office of counsellor of the parliamentof Provence, but the intervention of the civil wars rendered this appointment null. During his stay at Paris, however, several of the French universities were ambitious to add him to the number of their teachers, particularly Valence and Bourges, offers which his engagements prevented his accepting. His death is said to have been hastened by the rigour of his application in preparing his new edition of Cujas; but his life had already been lengthened beyond the usual period, as he was in his seventy-ninth year when he died, Jan. 16, 1659. His works are: 1. “Antiquite’s de la ville de Marseille,” Lyons, 1615 and 1632, 8vo. This is a translation from the Latin ms. of Raymond de Soliers. 2. “Ad tit. Codicis Theodosiani de Paganis, Sacrificiis, et Templis notae,” Paris, 1618, 4to. 3. “Exercitationes duae de tempore humani partus et de numero puerperii,” Aix, 1628, 8vo; Geneva, 1629, 4to, with a treatise by Carranza, on natural and legitimate birth. 4. “Car. Ann. Fabroti Exercitationes XII. Accedunt leges XIV. quae in libris digestarum deerant, Gr. et Lat. mine primum ex Basilicis editnc,” Paris, 1639, 4to. 5. rt Thcophili Antecessoris InstituiK-iies,“Gr. et Lat. Paris, 1638 and 1657, 4to. 6.” Inatiuuiones Justiniani, cum notis Jacobi Cujacii,“ibid. I, 12mo. 7.” Epistolae de Mutuo, cum responsionc Claudii Salmasii ad ^gidium Menagium,“Leyden, 1645, 8vo. 8.” Replicatio adversus C. Salmasii refutationem,“&c. Paris, 1647, 4to. 9.” Basilicorum libri sexaginta,“Gr. et Lat. ibid. 1647, 7 vols. folio. The whole of the translation of this elaborate collection of the laws and constitutions of the Eastern emperors, was performed by Fabrot, except books 38, 39, and 60, which had been translated by Cujas, whose version he adopted. 10.” Nicetae Acominati Choniatoe Historia,“ibid. 1647, fol. 11.” Georgii Cedreni Compendium historiarum,“Gr. et Lat. ibid. 1647, 2 vols. fol. 12.” Theophylacti Simocattse Hist, libri octo,“ibid. 1647, fol. 13.” Anastasii Bibliothecarii Hist. Ecclesiastica,“ibid. 1649, fol. 14.” Laonici Chalcondyla? Hist. de origine ac rebus gestis Turcarum, libri decem,“ibid. 1650. fol. 15.” Praelectio in tit. Decret. Gregorii IX. de vitaet honestate Clericorum,“ibid. 1651, 4to. 16.” Constantini Manassis Breviarium Historicum,“Gr. et Lat. ibid, 1655, fol. 17.” Cujacii Opera omnia,“ibid. 1658, 10 vols. fol. 15.” J. P. de Maurize Juris Canonici Selecta,“ibid. 1659, 4to. 19.” Notae in T. Balsamonis collectionem constitutionum Ecclesiasticarum." This is inserted in the second volume of Justel and VoePs Bibliotheca of Canon law. Ruhnkenius published a supplementary volume to his edition of Cujas at Leyden in 1765.

, a French topographical writer, was born at Castelnaudari in Upper Languedoc, Oct. 30, 1616. after going through a course of studies at Toulouse, he was in 1638 appointed king’s advocate to the presidial of his native city, which office he resigned in 1655 on being chosen syndic to the city of Toulouse, and came to reside in the latter, where he was enabled to cultivate his taste for the belles lettres; and during the discharge of the duties of his office, which he executed with zeal and disinterestedness, the opportunity he had of inspecting the archives suggested to him the design of writing the annals of Toulouse. On making known his intentions, the parliament granted him permission to examine its registers, and the city undertook to defray the expense of printing his work. Having been advanced to the rank of capitoul, or alderman of the city, which office he served for the third time in 1673, he communicated to his brethren a plan of ornamenting their capitolium, or town -hall, with busts of the most distinguished personages who had filled the offices of magistracy, and they having allowed him to make choice of the proper objects, a gallery was completed in 1677 with the busts of thirty persons whom he had selected as meriting that honour. This, and other services which he rendered to the citizens of Toulouse, induced them to confer a handsome pension on him, and likewise to bestow the reversion of the place of syndic on his nephew, who dying before La Faille, they gave it to his grand-nephew. In 1694 the academy of the “Jeux Floraux” elected him their secretary, a situation which he filled for sixteen years with much reputation; for, besides the fame he had acquired as an historian and magistrate, he possessed considerable literary taste and talents, and even in his ninetieth year produced some poetical pieces in which there was more spirit and vivacity than could have been expected at that very advanced period. He died at Toulouse Nov. 12, 1711, in his ninety-sixth year. His “Annales de la ville de Toulouse” were published there in 2 vols. fol. 1687 and 1701. The style, although; somewhat incorrect, is lively and concise. The annals are brought down only to 1610, the author being afraid, if he proceeded nearer to his own times, that he might be tempted to violate the impartiality which he had hitherto endeavoured to preserve. He published also “Traité de la noblesse des Capitouls,” 1707, 4to, a very curious work,. which is said to have given offence to some of the upstart families. To the works of Goudelin of Toulouse, a poet, published in 1678, 12mo, he prefixed a life, and criticism on his poems. Some of his own poetical pieces are in the “Journal de Verdun,” for May 1709.

, an eminent lawyer, was born October 30, 1554, at Rome. He was a Roman advocate, and fiscal procurator ^ took pleasure in defending the least supportable causes, and is said to have acted with extreme rigour and severity in his office of fiscal procurator. This conduct drew him into very disagreeable situations, and would have proved his ruin, had not some cardinals, who admired his wit and genius, interceded for him with Clement VIII. who said, alluding to the name of Farinaccio, that “the farina was excellent, but the sack which contained it was good for nothing.” Farinaccio died at Rome October 30, 1618, aged sixty-four. His works have been printed at Antwerp, 1620 and the following make 13 vols.' folio “Decisiones Rotse,” 2 vols. “Decisiones Rotas novissimse,” 1 vol. “Decisiones Rotae recentissimae,” 1 vol.; “Repertorium Judiciale,” 1 vol.; “De Haeresi,” i Tol.; “Consilia,” 2 vols. “Praxis Criminalis,” 4 vols. “Succus praxis criminalis,” 1 vol. All these were considered as valuable works by the Roman lawyers.

, lord of Pibrac, by which name he is much better known, was born at Toulouse in 1528, and distinguished himself at the bar in that city. He perfected his knowledge of jurisprudence in Italy, and then returned to be advanced to honours in his own country. In 1560 he was deputed by his native city to the states-general held at Orleans, and there presented to the king its petition of grievances, which he had himself drawn up. By Charles IX. he was sent as one of his ambassadors to the council of Trent, where he eloquently supported the interests of the crown, and the liberties of the Gallican church. In 1565 the chancellor de PHopital, appointed him advocate-general in the parliament of Paris, where he revived the influence of reason and eloquence. In 1570, he was, made a counsellor of state, and two years afterwards, probably constrained by his superiors, wrote his defence of the massacre of St. Bartholomew, published in 4to, and entitled “Ornatissimi cujusdam viri, de rebus Gallicis, epistola, et ad hanc de iisdem rebus responsio” but this barbarous measure was too repugnant to the mildness of Pibrac’s character to be approved by him. For this, after the accession of Henry III. he made the best amends in his power, by proposing and bringing to a conclusion, a treaty of peace between the court and the protestants. While that prince was duke of Anjou, and was elected king of Poland, he attended him as minister in that country; but when the succession to the crown of France, on the death of his brother, tempted Henry to quit that kingdom clandestinely, Pibrac was in danger of falling a sacrifice to the resentment of the people. He afterwards tried in vain to preserve that crown to his master. His services were rewarded by being created one of the chief presidents of the courts of law. He died in 1584, at the age of fifty-six. The story of his falling in love with Margaret wife of Henry IV. is supposed to be chiefly owing to the vanity of that lady, who wished to have the credit of such a conquest. Pibrac published, besides his letter on the massacre, which was in Latin, pleadings and speeches, “Les plaisirs de la vie rustique,” Paris, 1577, 8vo, and a discourse on the sool and the sciences. But the work by which he is best known, is his “Quatrains,” or moral stanzas of four lines, which were first published in 1574. The last edition we know of, is that of 1746. They have been extravagantly admired, and translated into almost all languages, even Greek, Turkish, Arabic, and Persian. They were rendered into English by Sylvester, the translator of du Bartas, in a manner not likely to give an advantageous notion of the original, which, though now antiquated, stiil preserves graces that recommend it to readers of taste. Pibrac was a classical scholar; and to the taste he drew from that source, his “Quatrains” owe much of their excellence. The subjects of some of them he took from the book of Proverbs, which he used to say contained all the good sense in the world.

the eldest son of Fearne, esq. judge advocate of the admiralty in the latter end of the late king’s reign. He presided at the trial of admiral Byng; and on that trial, and in the general course of his profession, was distinguished as a very able and learned man. He gave his son Charles the first rudiments of education himself, and at a proper age sent him to Westminster school, where he soon began to distinguish himself in classical and mathematical learning. Being designed for the law, as soon as he had finished his education at this seminary, he was entered of the Inner Temple; but at that time with no fixed resolution to become a barrister. His life had hitherto passed in making excursions from one branch of learning to another, in each of which he made very considerable advances, and might perhaps have succeeded in any. During this state of irresolution, his father died; and his fortune, which (from his habits of living) was very inconsiderable, was equally partitioned between our author, and a brother and sister. Here it was that young Fearne exhibited that generosity and independence that distinguished him through the greater part of his life. His father had given him, on his entrance into the Inner Temple, a few huudred pounds, to purchase chambers and books; and, as he had likewise given him a superior education to his younger brother, be nobly resolved on accepting this as a full equivalent for his share in the remainder of his father’s fortune. His brother and sister had affection and delicacy enough to resist this conduct for a while; but Fearne was immoveable. “My father,” said he, “by taking such uncommon pains with my education, no doubt meant it should be my whole dependence; and if that won't bring me through, a fevV hundred pounds will be a matter of no consequence.” His brother and sister therefore shared the father’s fortune between them: the former settled in the Admiralty-office, and the latter afterwards married a gentleman of equal rank and condition with herself.

In all that he has written there appears sound judgment and good taste, but his “Dialogues upon the Lives of the Painters’ 7 is the work which has done him the greatest honour. His only fault is, that he is sometimes prolix and immethodical. Voltaire informs us, that he was the first who gave Lewis XIV. the surname of Great, in the inscriptions in the hotel-de-ville. Felibien had many good qualities, and, free from ambition, was moderate in his desires, and of a contented disposition. He was a man of probity, of honour, of piety, Though he was naturally grave and serious, and of a hasty and somewhat severe temper, yet his conversation was generally chearful and lively. He was a steady advocate for truth; and he used to encourage himself in it by this motto, which he caused to be engraved on his seal,” Bene facere, et vera dicere,“that is,” To do good, and speak the truth." His biographers seem agreed that he lived in a constant practice of these two duties.

, a French lawyer, born at Toulon, in 1645, became an advocate in the parliament of Paris, and died in that city, in 1699. Though a layman, he lived with the rigour of a strict ecclesiastic; and though a lawyer, his works turn chiefly upon subjects of sacred learning. They are full of erudition, but not remarkable for brilliancy or clearness. They are, 1. “A large Commentary on the Psalms,” in Latin, 1683, 4to. 2. “Reflections on the Christian Religion,” 1679, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “A Psalter,” in French and Latin. 4. Some controversial writings against the Calvinists, and others. 5. “A Letter and Discourse to prove that St. Augustin was a Monk,” an opinion which several learned men have rejected.

, a learned lawyer, a good historian, a celebrated poet, and a most accomplished courtier, in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary, and Elizabeth, was descended from an ancient family in Hertfordshire, and born in a village near St. Alban’s, about 1512. He was bred at Oxford, and removed thence to Lincoln’s-inn, where he applied himself with so much success to the study of the law, that he was soon taken notice of in Westminster-hall as an advocate, at the same time that he was much admired at court for his wit and good-breeding. His first rise in his profession, and at court, was owing to Cromwell earl of Essex, who was himself a man of great parts, and took a pleasure in countenancing and advancing others who had talents. Upon the fall of this patron, he quitted the public exercise of his profession as a lawyer; not, however, before he had given evident testimonies of his knowledge and learning, as appears from, 1. “The double translation of Magna Charta from French into Latin and English.” 2. “Other laws enacted in the time of Henry III. and Edw. I. translated into English.”

, in Latin Ferrettus, one of the learned civilians in the sixteenth century, was born at Castello Franco in Tuscany, Nov. 14th, 1489. At twelve years old he was sent to Pisa, where he studied the civil and canon law for three years; he spent two other years in the university of Sienna, after which he went to Rome, and was made secretary to cardinal Salviati. He was admitted an advocate at the age of nineteen years, after a public disputation before a numerous audience of cardinals and bishops. He then left his Christian name of Dominicus, and took that of Æmilius, according to a custom very prevalent among the literati of Italy. Having accepted of the chair of law-professor, he explained so learnedly the law de Rebus creditis (of things with which persons are trusted) that it gained him the title of secretary to Leo the Xth. He exercised that office for some years, after which he regigned it voluntarily, and retired into his native country. He left it again at the end of two years, his father having been killed there, and went to Tridino in the dukedom of Montferrat, where he married; and having continued there four years, he attended the marquis of Montferrat to Rome and to Naples, that marquis commanding part of the French army. This expedition of, the French proving unsuccessful, Ferreti endeavoured to return into his native country, but he was taken by the Spaniards, and could not obtain his liberty but by paying a ransom. He went into France, and taught the law at Valencewith so much reputation, that Francis I. made him counsellor in the parliament of Paris, and sent him as envoy to the Venetians, and to the Florentines. He acquitted himself so well of that employment, that it determined the marquis of Montferrat to send him to the court of Charles V. after he had obtained Francis I.'s consent for that journey. Ferreti attended the emperor in the expedition of Africa; and as soon as he was returned into France, the king sent him to the Florentines during the war in which they were engaged against the emperor. He went back to France when they were subdued, and followed the court to Nice, where the pope, Charles V. and the king of France had an interview: having afterwards resigned the post of counsellor in the parliament, he went to Lyons, and thence to Florence, where he was admitted a citizen. He was sent for to Avignon to teach the law there. His yearly stipend was at first 550 crowns, then 800, and then 1000; a sum that had never been given to any professor in that university. He gained the love both of the inhabitants and of the students, who shewed it in a very remarkable manner after his death; for when his successor Craveta began his lectures by strictures upon Ferreti, the scholars shewed their attachment to their old master by hissing and driving him from the place. He died at Avignon July 14, 1552. Ferreti was a man of general learning, and well acquainted with classical literature. He gave an edition of the principal orations of Cicero, printed at Lyons by Gryphius, 8vo, “M. T. Ciceronis Orationes Verrinae ac Philippics,” dedicated to cardinal Salviati. His “Opera Juridica” were published in 1553, and 1598, 4to. An epitaph written for him by Antonius Goveanus, speaks of him in the most extravagant terms of encomium.

, an eminent French civilian, was born at Semur, the capital of Auxois, Dec. 16, 1583. After studying at Dijon, Orleans, and other places, he was received as an advocate of parliament in 1602, when only nineteen years old, and the same year he went into Germany to attend the celebrated Bongars, who was sent by Henry IV. resident from France, into the empire; but soon left him, to study the law at Heidelberg, where the well-known Codefroy was at that time law-professor. Godefroy paid great attention to Fevret, who was recommended by several persons of quality: he received him into his house, and caused him to hold public disputations, which; he did with great applause. In 1607, Fevret returned to Dijon, where he married Mrs. Anne Brunet of Beaulne, by whom he had nineteen children; fourteen of which they brought up together during eight years. After his wife’s death, which happened in 1637, he very whimsically caused his bed to be made one half narrower, and never would marry again. He gained great reputation at the bar at Dijon; and was chosen counsellor to the three estates of the province. In 1629, Lewis the Thirteenth being come to Dijon in order to punish a popular insurrection, Fevret was chosen to petition the king that he would graciously be pleased to pardon the guilty. He spoke for all the corporations, and made so elegant a discourse, that the king commanded him to print it, and to send it to him at Lyons. His majesty then pardoned the authors of the sedition, and granted to Fevret the place of counsellor in the parliament of Dijon; but not being permitted to employ a deputy, he refused it, because he would not quit his profession of an advocate, and contented himself with the posts of king’s counsellor and secretary to the court, with a pension of 900 livres. He wrote a history of this insurrection, which was published some time after. As he was frequently sent a deputy to the court, he was known to de Morillac, keeper of the seals of France, who honoured him with his friendship. As early as 1626 and 1627, Monsieur, the king’s brother, had chosen him for his counsellor in ordinary in all his affairs; and the prince of Conde had made him intendant of his house, and of his affairs in Burgundy. He was continued in the same post by his son Louis de Bourbon prince of Cond6; and, during the life of these two princes, he was honoured with their favour in a distinguished manner. Frederic Casimir, prince palatine of the Rhine, and his consort Amelia Antwerpia, born princess of Orange, chose him also their counsel and intendant for their affairs in Burgundy. He had an extensive correspondence with all the learned civilians in his time. He died at Dijon, in 1661.

, so called from his native city, Florence (in Italian Firenze), though his family name was Nannini, was celebrated in his time as a poet, but his works are now in less repute, which, from their light character and indecencies, is not much to be regretted. He originally practised as an advocate at Rome, and then became an ecclesiastic of the congregation of Vallombrosa. He was personally esteemed by pope Clement VII. who was also an admirer of his works. He died at Rome in 1545. His works in prose were published in 8vo, at Florence, in 1548, and his poetry, the same size, in 1549. These editions, as well as his translation of the Golden Ass of Apuleius, are scarce, but a complete edition of his whole works was published at Florence, 4 vols. 8vo, in 1765-66, in which are some comedies, and other productions.

, an English historian of the twelfth century, and author of the earliest description of London extant, was of Norman extractio/i, but born of creditable parents in London. He was a monk of Canterbury, was dispatched to his holiness the pope, who was then probably at Rome or Benevento, once at least, and was much connected with archbishop Becket. He tells us h msel f that he was one of his clerks, and an inmate in h s family. He was also a remembrancer in his exchequer; a subdeacon in his chapel whenever he officiated a reader of Lil’s and petitions, when the archbishop sat to hear and determine causes, and sometimes, when his grace was pleased to order it, Fitzstephen performed the office of an advocate. He was also present with him at Northampton, and was an eye-witness of his murder at Canterbury, continuing with him after his other servants had had deserted him. He has reported a speech which he made on occasion of the archbishop’s sitting alone, with the cross in his hand, at Northampton, when he was forsaken by his suffragans, and expected, as he relates it, to be assaulted and murdered. This speech is memorable, and breathes more of a Christian spirit than we should have expected in those days. One of the archbishdp’s friends had recommended, that if any violent attempt was made upon his person, immediately to excommunicate the parties, which then was the most dreadful vengeance an ecclesiastic could inflict. Fitzstephen, on the contrary, said, “Far be that from my lord. The holy apostles and martyrs, when they suffered, did not behave in that manner,” and endeavoured to dissuade the archbishop from taking a step that would appear to proceed from anger and impatience, &c. This worthy monk is supposed to have died in 1191; but authors vary much as to the particular time when he composed his work, although it seems certain that he wrote it in the reign of Henry II. and that it was part of another work, “The Life and Passion of archbishop Becket.” Dr. Pegge fixes the period between the years I 170 and 1182. This “Description of the City of London,” affords, after Domesday Book, by far the most early account we have of that metropolis, and, to use his editor’s words, we may challenge any nation in Europe to produce an account of its capital, or any other of its great cities, at so remote a period as the twelfth century. It was accordingly soon noticed by Leland and Stowe, who inserted a translation of it in his “Survey of London.” But this edition was grown not only obsolete, but incorrect, when Dr. Pegge published in 1772, 4to, a more accurate translation, with notes, and a preliminary dissertation on the author. Fitzstephen was a person of excellent learning for his age. He was well versed in Horace, Virgil, Sallust, Ovid, Lucan, Persius, and with perhaps many other of the Latin classics, and had even peeped into Plato and some of the Greeks. If he was in some respects a little too credulous, it must be imputed to the times he lived in. His account of London, however, is in all views, curious and interesting, and the composition easy, natural, and methodical.

. If a man deserves to be celebrated who employs fifty years on one work, the name of Flaust should not be omitted. He was an advocate in the parliament of Rouen, and his great work was entitled “Explication de la Jurisprudence et de la coutume de Normandie, dans une ordre simple et facile.” “Explication of the Jurisprudence and Usage of Normandy, in an easy and simple order.” In 2 vols. folio. He died in 1783, at the age of seventy-two.

, an English lawyer, and recorder of London in the reign of Elizabeth, was the natural son of Robert Fleetwood, esq. who was the third sou of William Fleetwood, esq. of Hesketh in Lancashire. He had a liberal education, and was for some time of Oxford, whence he went to the Middle Temple, to study the law; and having quick as well as strong parts, became in a short time a very distinguished man in his profession. In 1562 he was elected summer reader, and in 1568 double reader in Lent. His reputation was not confined to the inns of court; for when it was thought necessary to appoint commissioners in the nature of a royal visitation in the dioceses of Oxford, Lincoln, Peterborough, Coventry, and Litchtield, Fleetwood was of the number. In 1569 he became recorder of London. It does not appear whether his interest with the earl of Leicester procured him that place or not; but it is certain that he was considered as a person entirely addicted to that nobleman’s service, for he is styled in one of the bitterest libels of those times, “Leicester’s mad recorder;” insinuating, that he was placed in his office to encourage those of this lord’s faction in the city. He was very zealous against the papists, active in disturbing mass-houses, committing popish priests, and giving informations of their intrigues: so zealous, that once rushing in upon mass at the Portuguese ambassador’s house, he was, for breach of privilege, committed prisoner to the Fleet, though soon released. In 1580 he was made serjeant at law, and in 1592, one of the qneen’s Serjeants; in which post, however, he did not continue long, for he died at his house in Noble-street, Aldersgate, February 28, 1594, and was buried at Great Missenden in Buckinghamshire, where he had purchased an estate. He was married, and had children. Wood says that “he was a learned man, and a good antiquary, but of a marvellous merry and pleasant conceit,” He was farther esteemed an acute politician; which character was most likely to recommend him to his patron Leicester. He was a good popular speaker, and wrote well upon subjects of government. He made a great figure in his profession, being equally celebrated for eloquence as an advocate, and for judgment as a lawyer.

, a celebrated French ecclesiastical historian, was the son of an advocate, and born at Paris. Dec. 6, 1640. He discovered early a strong inclination, for letters, but applied himself particularly to the law, in. consequence of which he was made advocate for the parliament of Paris in 1658, and attended the bar nine years. He then took orders, for which he was more eagerly disposed, and more highly qualified by virtues as well as learning; and in 1672 was made preceptor to the princes of Conti. In 1680 he had the care of the education of the count de Vermandois, admiral of France. After the death of this prince, which happened in about four years, the king preferred him to the abbey of Loc-Dieu, belonging; to the Cistercians, and in the diocese of Rhodez. In 1689 the king made him sub-preceptor to the dukes of Burgundy, Anjou, and Berri, in which important employment he acted under the celebrated Fenelon. In 1696 he was admitted a member of the French academy. In 1706, when the education of the three princes was finished, the king gave him the rich priory of Argenteuil, belonging to the Benedictines, in the diocese of Paris, upon which promotion he resigned the abbey of Loc-Dieu. If he had possessed ambition to solicit the greatest situations, he would have obtained them, but his disinterestedness was equal to his other virtues. He was a hermit in the midst of the court. In 1716 he was chosen confessor to Louis XV. in which situation it was said of him that his only fault wati that of being seventy-five years old; and on July 14, 1725, he died, in his eighty-third year.

Of his mental talents and literary acquirements, those who knew him before the infirmities of age came on, entertained a high opinion. Few persons possessed a' more., extensive and accurate acquaintance with English history. His memory was so retentive as to supersede recourse to written authorities; and it served him for the recital of dau s an i minute circumstances, which the most laborious researches can scarcely ascertain. This rendered him capable of communicating important information on various occasions, and he was often consulted by men of the first rank and character. In discussions of a political as well as literary kind, his knowledge was of considerable service; and it gave him access to many members of both houses of parliament, who availed themselves of hints and references with which he supplied them. In 1770 he was appointed one of the compilers of the “General Index to the Journals of the house of commons.” The interesting period of parliamentary proceedings from 1660 to 1697, comprehending vol. VIII, XI. was assigned to him. His plan was submitted to a committee of the house, soon after his appointment: and the execution of this elaborate work, begun in 1776, and completed in 1780, was much approved and liberally rewarded. He was frequently employed on making Indexes to inferior works; and among others that to the Rambler. Dr. Johnson, who sometimes founded his dislikes on very slender circumstances, on hearing Dr. Flexman’s name mentioned, exclaimed, “Let me hear no more of him, sir. That is the fellow who made the Index to my Ramblers, and set down the name of Milton thus; Milton, Mr. John.” Dr. Flexman was rather more creditably employed in superintending by far the best edition of Burnet’s “Own Times,” published in 1753, 4 vols. 8vo. His original works consist of a few occasional seripons and tracts. Among the latter are: 1. “The plan of divine worship in the churches of Dissenters justified,” 1754. 2. “Critical, historical, and political miscellanies; remarks on various authors, Potter, Seeker, Sherlock, &c.” 1752 1762. He wrote also the lives of the rev. S. Bourn, and of Dr. Chandler, prefixed to their respective works. In religious opinions he was a strenuous advocate for the pre-existent dignity of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. He maintained also the essential distinction between the soul and body, and the liberty of the human will, in opposition to Materialists and Necessarians. But whatever ardour he might show in maintaining his opinions, it was united with the most comprehensive charity and good will nor was his integrity less laudable.

Though Florian was reared in the very bosom of nobility, he never sacrificed to adulation the dignity of a man. Esteemed and patronised by a benevolent and sensible prince, he became the active agent of his bounty; and the orphan and the poor, especially the unfortunate man of letters, ever found in Florian a zealous advocate and an active protector.

, the son of Frangois le Bovier de Fonienelle, advocate in the parliament of Rouen, and of Martha Corneiile, sister to the great dramatic poet Corneille, was born at Rouen Feb. 11, 1657, and lived to the age of an hundred, though so weak at his birth, that his life was not expected. Voltaire declares him to have been the most universal genius the age of Louis the Fourteenth produced; and compares him to lands situated in so happy a climate as to produce all sorts of fruits. Before he was twenty, he had written a great part of Bellerophon,“a tragic opera; and some time after his opera of” Thetis and Peleus“appeared, in which he had closely imitated Quinault, and met with great success. That of” yneas and Lavinia“did not succeed so well. He tried his genius in writing tragedy; and assisted mademoiselle Bernard in some of her dramatic pieces. Two he wrote himself, one of which was acted in 1680, but never printed. He was too long and too unjustly censured on account of this piece; for he had the merit to discover, that though his genius was unconfined, yet he did not possess those talents which so greatly distinguished his uncle, Peter Corneille, in the tragic drama. He wrote several smaller compositions, in which that delicacy of wit and profoundness of thought, which promise greater efforts, might already be discovered. In his poetical performances, and” Dialogues of the Dead,“the spirit of Voiture was displayed, though more extended and more philosophical. His” Plurality of Worlds“is a work singular in its kind; his design in it was to present that part of philosophy to view in a gay and pleasing dress; for which purpose he has introduced a lady, and drawn up the whole in a most agreeable as well as instructing dialogue. In the same manner he made an entertaining book from” Van Dale’s Oracles." The controversial matters treated of in this work (for he went upon Van Dale’s scheme of exploding the Oracles as human impostures) raised him secret enemies, whose malice he had the good fortune to disappoint. He found, says Voltaire, how dangerous it is for a man, though in the right, to differ in opinion from those whose judgment receives a sanction from authority.

, a very eminent Scottish lawyer, was born at Culloden, in the county of Inverness, in 1685, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, whence he removed to Utrecht, and afterwards to Paris, where he studied the civil law. He returned, in 1710, to Scotland, and was called to the bar in the court of session. His abilities as an advocate were soon noticed, and he obtained great practice. In 1717, he was appointed solicitor-general of Scotland. In 1722, he was returned member for the county of Inverness; and in 1725, was promoted to the dignity of lord-advocate. He was further advanced in 1742, to be lord-president of the court of session, in which high station he acted with such integrity, that he was esteemed and honoured by his country. During the rebellion in 1745 and 6, he used the utmost of his power to oppose the pretender, and mortgaged his estate to support the government. With great reason he applied to the ministry for a repayment of those expences which he had incurred by his loyalty, and their refusal, undoubtedly a stain on the history of the times, is said to have operated so strongly upon his mind, as to produce a fever, of which he died in 1747, at the age of 62. His writings were chiefly on theological subjects, without any reference to his profession; they are, 1. “Thoughts on Religion.” 2. “A Letter to a Bishop.” 3. “Reflections on Incredulity,” 1750, in 2 vols. 12mo. Father Houbigant translated the two former of these works into French, but they were not greatly admired in that country; the solidity of the Scottish lawyer could not be expected to suit with the vivacity of French reasoners. Duncan Forbes of Culloden, says a recent biographer, was in all respects one of the most eminent men of his time. His learning was extensive and profound, reaching even to the oriental languages; and he had that acuteness and subtlety of parts, which is peculiarly fitted for the nice discriminations of the law; but which was always regulated in him by the prevailing principles of his nature, probity, candour, and a strong sense of the beauty of virtue and moral excellence. In the eloquence of the bar, he outshone all his contemporaries; for he united to great knowledge of jurisprudence, a quickness of comprehension that discovered to him at once the strong ground of argument which he was to press, or the weakness of the doctrine he wished to assail. When raised to the presidency of the court, the vigour of his intellect, his patience in the hearing of causes, his promptitude in the dispatch of business, the dignity, of his deportment, and above all, the known probity and integrity of his mind, gave the highest weight to the decisions of that tribunal over which he presided.

This is a strange tale; but we trust it will not prove useless. The latter part of it, at least, shows, that when men divest themselves of the principles of religion, they soon degenerate from the dignity of philosophers to the level of mere sensualists; and that the woman who can, in defiance of decorum and honour, transfer her affections and her person from man to man, ranks no higher in the scale of being than a female brute of more than common sagacity. It shows, likewise, that the contempt of our modern sages for those partial attachments, which unite individuals in one family, is a mere pretence that the dictates of nature will be heard and the laws of nature’s God obeyed. George Forster, though he was such a zealous advocate for liberty and equality as to vindicate the adultery of his wife, yet felt so sensibly the wound which her infidelity inflicted on his honour, that he could not survive it, but perished, in consequence, in the flower of his age.

, an eminent lawyer, was born at Marlborough in Wiltshire, Dec. 16, 1689. His father Michael, and his grandfather John, were attornies in that place. After attending the free-school there, Mr. Foster was matriculated at Oxford May 7, 1705, and studied about two years at Exeter college, but like many eminent men in the profession of the law, left it without taking a degree. On May 23, 1707, he was admitted into the society of the Middle Temple, and in due time was called to the bar, but not having much success as an advocate, he retired into the country, and settled in his native town. Here he contracted an intimacy with Algernon, earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, which continued many years, and until the death of the noble duke, who by his will appointed his friend executor in trust with his son-in-law Hugh, earl (afterwards duke) of Northumberland. In 1725 he married Martha, the eldest daughter of James Lyde, esq. of Stantonwick in Somersetshire; and in a few years afterwards he removed to Bristol, where he exercised his profession with great reputation and considerable success; and in August 1735 he was chosen rer corder of the city, which office he retained many years. Soon after accepting this office in Easter term, 1736, he took on him the degree of serjeant at law. In 1720 he had published “A Letter of Advice to protestant Dissenters,” in which he is said to discover the most liberal and enlarged views; and in 1735 he published a pamphlet which engaged the public attention very much, entitled “An Examination of the scheme of Church power laid down in the Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani, &c.” In this he controverted the system of church power vested in the clergy, and which forms the ground-work of bishop Gibson’s “Codex.” Several answers, however, were published to Mr. Foster’s pamphlet, the principal one by Dr. Andrews, a civilian. Mr. Foster seems to have promised a continuation, in reply to him and others, but did not pursue the subject. In the postscript, however, to the third edition of his pamphlet, he adverts to “the personal severity,” with which Dr. Andrews had treated him; and adds, “It is not in my nature to make any return of that kind. I forgive him with all my heart. If, upon poor reflection, he can forgive himself, I pity him.”

, born at Paris Jan. 8, 1643, was a man of some political rank, advocate-general to the grand council, a celebrated intendant, and chief of the council to ber royal highness madame, duchess of Orleans, and in the literary world was an eminent antiquary, and an honorary member of the academy of belles-lettres; He was successively intendant of Montauban, of Pau, and of Caen, and within six miles of the latter place, discovered in 1704 the ancient town of the Vinducassians. An exact account of this discovery is inserted in the first volume of the history of the academy of inscriptions, with an enumeration of the coins, marbles, and other antiquities there found. His museum, formed from this and other sources, was of the most magnificent kind. Some time before this, he had made a literary discovery also, having found, in the abbey of Moissac in Querci, a ms. of “Lactantius de mortibus Persecutorum,” then only known by a citation of St. Jerom from it. From this ms. Baluce published the work. He died Feb. 7, 1721. He was of gentle manners, though austere virtue; and pleasing, though deeply learned.

He afterwards was employed in reading lectures: he explained the Greek fathers to some, and the Hebrew and Syriac languages to others. After. that, he undertook the education of the sons of the duke d'Antin, who were committed to his care, and studied in the college of Harcourt. He was at the same time received an advocate; but the law not being suited to his taste, he returned to his former studies. He then contracted an acquaintance with the abbé Bignon, at whose instigation he applied himself to the Chinese tongue, and succeeded beyond his expectations, for he had a prodigious memory, and a particular turn for languages. He now became very famous. He held conferences at his own house, once or twice a week, upon subjects of literature; at which foreigners, as well as French, were admitted and assisted. Hence he became known to the count de Toledo, who was infinitely pleased with his conversation, and made him great offers, if he would go into Spain; but Fourmont refused. In 1715 he succeeded M. Galland to the Arabic chair in the royal college. The same year he was admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions; of the royal society at London in 1738; and of that of Berlin in 1741. He was often consulted by the duke of Orleans, who had a particular esteem for him, and made him one of his secretaries. He died at Paris in 1743.

This event was not occasioned by any opposition on the part of Mr. Fox to lord North’s measures, but to a difference of opinion as to the best mode of carrying them into effect, and that in an instance of comparatively smalt importance. This was a question respecting the committal of Mr. H. S. Woodfall, the printer of the Public Advertiser, who had been brought to the bar of the house for inserting a letter supposed to have been written by the rev. J. Home, afterwards J. Home Tooke, in which most unjustifiable liberties had been taken with the character of the speaker, sir Fletcher Norton, with a coarse virulence of language peculiar to Tooke. Mr. Woodfall having given up the author, and thrown himself on the mercy of the house, it was moved by Mr. Herbert that he should be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. Mr. Fox, at that period a zealous advocate for the privileges of the house, declared that the punishment was not sufficiently severe, and moved “that he be committed to Newgate, as the only proper place to which offenders should be sent; though hints,” he said, “had been thrown out that the sheriffs would not admit him.” To this lord North replied, that he was very sorry that hints had been thrown out of what the sheriffs would or would not do; he hoped there were no persons who would dispute the power of that house; he therefore moved that the printer be committed to the Gate-house, as he thought it imprudent to force themselves into a contest with the city; but Mr. Herbert carried his motion in opposition both to lord North and Mr. Fox, by a majority of 152 to f>8, to the great displeasure of lord North, who asserted that it was entirely owing to the interference of Mr. Fox, that he was left in a minority.

In 1788, Mr. Fox repaired to the continent, in company with the lady who was afterwards acknowledged as his wife, and after spending a few days with Gibbon, the historian, at Lausanne, departed for Italy, but was suddenly recalled home, in consequence of the king’s illness, and the necessity of providing for a regency. On this memorable occasion, Mr. Fox, and his great rival, Mr. Pitt, appeared to have exchanged systems; Mr. Pitt contending for the constitutional measure of a bill of limitations, while Mr. Fox was equally strenuous for placing the regency in the hands of the heir apparent, without any restrictions; and powerful as he and his party were at this time, and perhaps they never shone more in debate, Mr. Pitt was triumphant in every stage of the bill, and was supported by the almost unanimous voice of the nation. Yet the ministers must have retired, as it was well known that Mr. Fox and his party stood high in favour with the future Regent, and Mr. Pitt had actually meditated on the ceconomy of a private station, when the intemperance of Mr. Burke, who was never less Joyal than at this crisis, delayed the passing of the bill, on one pretence or another, until by his majesty’s recovery, it became happily useless. On this great question Mr,' Fox had again the misfortune to forfeit the regard of those who have been considered as the depositories of constitutional principles, and consequently appeared to have traversed the system of which he had been considered,as the most consistent and intrepid advocate. In 1790 and 1791 he recovered some of the ground he had lost, by opposing with effect a war with Spain, and another with Russia, for objects which he thought too dearly purchased by such an experiment; and in 1790 he appeared again the friend of constitutional liberty, by his libel bill respecting the rights of juries in criminal cases. This, although strongly opposed, terminated at last in a decision that juries are judges of both the law and the fact. But the time was now arrived when he was, by a peculiarity in [his way of thinking, to be for ever separated from the political friends who had longest adhered to him, and many of whom he loved with all the ardour of affection.

, was born at the castle of Sales, in the diocese of Geneva, August 21, 1567. He descended from one of the most ancient and noble families of Savoy. Having taken a doctor of law’s degree at Padua, he was first advocate at Chambery, then provost of the church of Geneva at Annecy. Claudius de Granier, his bishop, sent him as missionary into the valleys of his diocese to. convert the Zuinglians, and Calvinists, which he is said to have performed in great numbers, and his sermons were attended with wonderful success. The bishop of Geneva chose him afterwards for his coadjutor, but was obliged to use authority before he could be persuaded to accept the office. Religious aftairs called him afterwards into France, where he was universally esteemed; and cardinal du Perron said, “There were no heretics whom he could not convince, but M. de Geneva must be employed to convert them.” Henry IV. being informed of his merit, made him considerable offers, in hopes of detaining hioi in France; but he chose rather to return to Savoy, where he arrived in 1602, and found bishop Grimier had died a few days before. St. Francis then undertook the reformation of his diocese, where piety and virtue soon flourished through his zeal; he restored regularity in the monasteries, and instituted the order of the Visitation in. 1610, which was confirmed by Paul V. 1618, and of whicli the baroness de Chantal, whom he converted by his preaching at Dijon, was the foundress. He also established a congregation of hermits in Chablais, restored ecclesiastical discipline to its ancient vigour, and converted nnmerous heretics to the faith. At the latter end of 1618 St. Francis was obliged to go again to Paris, with the cardinal de Savoy, to conclude a marriage between the prince of Piedmont and Christina of France, second daughter of Henry IV. This princess, herself, chose de Sales for her chief almoner; but he -would accept the place only on two conditions; one, that it should not preclude his residing in his diocese; the other, that whenever he did not execute his office, he should not receive the profits of it. These xinusual terms the princess was obliged to consent to, and immediately, as if by way of investing him with his office, presented him with a very valuable diamond, saying, “On condition that you will keep it for my sake.” To which he replied, “I promise to do so, madam, unless the poor stand in need of it.” Returning to Annecy, he continued to visit the sick, relieve those in want, instruct the people, and discharge all the duties of a pious bishop, till 1622, when he died of an apoplexy at Lyons, December 28, aged fifty-six, leaving several religious works, collected in 2 vols. fol. The most known are, “The Introduction to a devout Life;” and “Philo,” or a treatise on the love of God. MarsoHier has written his life, 2 yols. 12mo, which was translated into English by Mr. Crathornc. He was canonized in 16 65.

, an early poet of France, father of the celebrated Iveteaux, and the first who wrote satires in French, and an Art of Poetry, was born of a noble family at Fresnaye, near Falaise, iiv 1534-. He was bred a lawyer, and became the king’s advocate for the bailliage of Caen, and afterwards lieutenantgeneral and president of that city, where he died at the age of seventy-two, in 1606. He wrote, 1. “Satires,” which though esteemed less strong than those of Regnier, and less witty than those of Boileau, have truth and nature, and contain simple narratives, the style of which has, something pleasing. 2. “The Art of Poetry.” Copious specimens of this performance may be seen in the notes of St. Marc, on Boileau’s Art of Poetry. It has considerable merit, but a merit which haa been superseded by later efforts. 3. Two books of Idyllia, and three of epigrams, epitaphs, and sonnets. 4. A poem on the monarchy. All these were collected by himself in an edition of poems, published at Caen in 1605.

, commonly called Du Cange, a learned Frenchman, was descended from a good family, and born at Amiens in 1610. After being taught polite literature in the Jesuits college there, he went to study the Jaw at Orleans, and was sworn advocate to the parliament of Paris in 1631. He practised some time at the bar, but without intending to make it the business of his life. He then returned to Amiens, where be devoted himself to study, and ran through all sorts of learning, languages and philosophy, law, physic, divinity, and history. In 1668, he went and settled at Paris; and soon after a proposal was laid before Colbert, to collect all the authors who at different times had written the history of France, and to form a body out of them. This minister liking the proposal, and believing Du Fresne the best qualified for the undertaking, furnished him with memoirs and manuscripts for this purpose. Du Fresne wrought upon these materials, and drew up a large preface, containing the names of the authors, their character and manner, the time in which they lived, and the order in which they ought to be arranged. Being informed from the minister that his plan was not approved, and that he must adopt another, and convinced that if he followed the order prescribed, the whole work would be spoiled, he frankly told his employers that since he had not been happy enough to please those in authority, his advice was, that they should look out some of the best hands in the kingdom; and at the same time he returned them all their memoirs. (See Bouquet). Being thus disengaged from a tedious and laborious undertaking, he finished his Glossary of low Latin, or “Glossarium Mediæ et infimæ Latinitatis,” which was received with general commendation; and though Hadrian Valesius, in his preface to the Valesiana, notes everal mistakes in it, it is nevertheless a very excellent and useful work. It was afterwards enlarged by the addition of more volumes; and the edition of Paris, by Carpentier, in 1733, makes no less than six in folio; to which Carpentier afterwards added four of supplement. Both have been since excellently abridged, consolidated, and improved, in 6 vols. 8vo, published at Halle, 1772 1784. His next performance was a “Greek Glossary of the middle age,” consisting of curious passages and remarks, most of which are drawn from manuscripts very little known. This work is in 2 vols. folio. He was the author and editor also of several other performances. He drew a genealogical map of the kings of France. He wrote the history of Constantinople under the French emperors, which was printed at the Louvre, and dedicated to the king. H published an historical tract concerning John Baptist’s head, some relics of which are supposed to be at Amiens. He published, lastly, editions of Cinnamus, Nicephorus, Anna Commena, Zonaras, and the Alexandrian Chronicon, with learned dissertations and notes.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, was born in 1518, at Werdeti, near Nuremberg. He adopted the doctrine of Osiander, whose daughter he married, and particularly became a strenuous advocate for Osiander 1 s opinions on the subject of justification. He was a minister in Prussia, and wrote a “Chronology,” from Adam to 1560, published at separate times, but completely at Wittemberg, 1570, fol. with various other tracts. At length being convicted of giving Albert, duke of Prussia, to whom he was chaplain, advice disadvantageous to Poland, he was condemned, with some others, as a disturber of the public peace, and beheaded at Konigsberg, October 28, 1566. He is said to have composed the following distich a little before his execution

, an ingenious and learned lawyer, was born at Paris in 1620; and, after a liberal education, became eminent in the civil and canon law. He was first an advocate in the parliament; and afterwards, taking orders, was presented to the abbey of Chalivoy, and the priory of Chuines. Many works of literature recommended him to the public; but he is chiefly known and valued for his “Universal Dictionary of the French Tongue,” in which he explains the terms of art in all sciences. He died in 1688. He was of the French academy, but, though a very useful member, was excluded in 1685, on the accusation of having composed his dictionary, by taking advantage of that of the academy, which was then going on. He justified himself by statements, in which he was very severe against the academy; but wished, a little before his death, to be re-admitted; and he offered to give any satisfaction, which could reasonably be expected from a man, who owned he had been carried too far by the heat of disputation. His dictionary was not printed till after his death, in 2 vols. fol. Basnage de Beauval published an edition at Amsterdam, 1725, 4 vols., fol. This dictionary was the foundation of that known by the name of Trevoux, the last edition of which is, Paris, 1771, 8 vols. fol. His other works are: “Facta,” and. other pieces, against his brother academicians. “Relation des Troubles arrives au Ro‘iaume d’Eloquence;” a tolerably good critical allegory. “Le Roman Bourgeois,” 12mo or 8vo; a book esteemed in its time. Five “Satires” in verse, 12mo, which are not valued. “Paraboles Evangeliques,” inverse, 1672, 12mo. There is also a “Furetieriana,” in which there are some amusing anecdotes.

In this work, partly, as we have already noticed, but chiefly in his “Philosophia generalis,” he was induced, says Brucker, to become a zealous advocate for Platonism through a violent antipathy to the Cartesian system, which he thought unfriendly to morals, and contradictory to the doctrine of revelation. He undertook to trace back philosophy to its origin, and maintained, that there was a wonderful agreement between the ancient barbaric philosophy, and the Jewish and Christian theology. He brought every philosophical tenet to the test of the scriptures, and thought that it would not be a difficult undertaking, to separate from the pagan philosophy those doctrines which originated in divine revelation, and had been transmitted by tradition from the Hebrews to the gentiles. Having persuaded himself that these doctrines had passed in a direct line, and without material corruption, from the Hebrew fountain to Plato, he recommended his philosophical writings as, next to the scriptures, the most valuable remains of ancient wisdom. The chief point which he labours to maintain in his “Philosophia generalis” is, that Plato received his knowledge of theology from the Hebrews, and that the doctrine on this subject taught by him and his followers, for the most part, agrees with that of the holy scriptures. This opinion he implicitly adopts from the ancient fathers, whose authority, with respect to this matter, Brucker thinks there is reason to call in question. His account of other philosophers is given, without much appearance of accurate discrimination, chiefly from Laertius. He divides the Aristotelian philosophy into pure and impure, and supposes, gratuitously enough, that the former passed from Moses to the Stagy rite through the channel of Plato’s instruction.

, a pious bishop among the Moravian brethren, was born near Haverford Wes in SouthWales, and became a member of Christ- church, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. May 30, 1734; and was afterwards vicar of Stanton Harcourt, in Oxfordshire, to which he was presented by Dr. Seeker, when bishop of Oxford. At this place, in 1740, he wrote “The Martyrdom of Ignatius, a Tragedy,” published after his death by the rev. Benjamin La Trobe with the Life of Ignatius, drawn from authentic accounts, and from the epistles written by him from Smyrna and Troas in his way to Rome, 1773, 8vo. A sermon, which he preached before the university of Oxford, was published under the title of “Christianity, Tidings of Joy,” 1741, 8vo. In 1742 he published at Oxford, from the university-press, a neat edition of the Greek Testament, but without his name, “Textu per omnia Milliano, cum divisione pericoparum & interpunctura A. Bengelii,” 12mo. Joining afterwards the Church of the Brethren, established by an act of parliament of 1749, and known by the name of “Unitas Fratrum,” or, the United Brethren; he was, for many years, the regular minister of the congregation settled at London, and resided in Neville’s-court, Fetter-lane, where he preached at the chapel of the society. His connexion with these sectaries commenced in 1748, when Peter Boehler visited Oxford, and held frequent meetings with John and Charles Wesley, for the edification of awakened people, both learned and unlearned. His discourses were in Latin, and were interpreted by Mr. Gambold. He was consecrated a bishop at an English provincial synod held at Lindsey house in Nov. 1754, and was greatly esteemed for his piety and learning by several English bishops, who had been his contemporaries in the university of Oxford. In 1765 a congregation was settled by bishop Gatnbold, at Cootbill, in Ireland. Soon after he had joined the brethren, he published a treatise, written while he was at Stariton Haiv.ourt, and which proves his steady attachment to the church of England, entirely consistent with his connexion with, and ministry in, the church of the brethren. The title of it is, “A short summary of Christian Doctrine, in the w.iy ol question and answer; the answers being all made in the sound and venerable words of the Common-? prayer-book of the church of England. To which are added, some extracts out of the Homilies. Collected for the service of a few persons, members of the established church i but imagined not to be unuseful to others.” We know not the exact date of this treatise; but a second edition of it was printed in 1767, 12mo. Mr. Gam-bold also published in 1751, 8vo, “Maxims and Theological Ideas and Sentences, collected out of several dissertations and discourses of count Zinzendorf, from 1738 till 1747*” His “Hymns for the use of the Brethren” were printed in 174-8, 1749, and 1752; Some Hymns, and a small hymnbook for the children belonging to the brethren’s congregations, were printed entirely by Mr. Gambold’s own hand in Lindsey house at Chelsea. A letter from Mr. Gambold to Mr. Spangenberg, June 4, 1750, containing a concise and well-written character of the count of Zinzendorf, was inserted in Mr. James Mutton’s “Essay towards giving some just ideas of the personal character of count Zinzendorf, the present advocate and ordinary of the brethren’s churches,” 1755, 8vo. In 1752 he was editor of “Sixteen Discourses on the Second Article of the Creed, preached at Berlin by the ordinary of the Brethren,” 12mo. In June 1753 appeared “The ordinary oi' the Brethren’s churches his short and peremptory remarks on the way and manner wherein he has been hitherto treated in controversies, &c. Translated from the High Dutch, with a preface, by John Gambold, minister of the chapel in Fetterlane.” In the same year he published, “Twenty-one discourses, or dissertations, upon the Augsburg Confession, which is also the Brethren’s Confession of Faith; delivered by the ordinary of the Brethren’s churches before the seminary. To which is prefixed a synodical writing relating to the subject. Translated from fche High Dutch, by F. Okeley, A. B.” In 1754 he was editor of “A clest Plea for the Church of the Brethren,” &c. 8vo with a preface hy himself. In the same year, in conjunction with Mr. Hutton, secretary to the brethren, he also drew up 4< The representation of the committee of the English congregation in union with the Moravian church,“addressed to the archbishop of York; and also” The plain case of the representatives of the people known by the name f the Unitas Fratrum, from the year 1727 till these times, with regard to their conduct in this country under misrepresentation.“And in 1755 he assisted in the publication of” A letter from a minister of the Moravian branch of the Unitas Fratrum, together with some additional notes by the English editor, to the author of the Moravians compared and detected;“and also of” An exposition, or true state of the matters objected in England to the people known by the name of Unitas Fratrutn; by the ordinary of the brethren; the notes and additions by the editor.“In 1756 he preached at Fetter-lane chapel, and printed afterwards, a sermon upon a public fast and humiliation, setting forth” the reasonableness and extent of religious reverence.“He was not only a good scholar, but a man of great parts, and of singular mechanical ingenuity. It was. late in both their lives before the learned Bowyer was acquainted with his merits; but he no sooner knew them, than he was happy in his acquaintance, and very frequently applied to him as an occasional assistant in correcting the press; in which capacity Mr. Gambold superintended (among many other valuable publications) the beautiful and very accurate edition of lord chancellor Bacon’s works in 1765; and in 1767 he was professedly the editor, and took an active part in the translation from the High Dutch, of” The History of Greenland;“containing a” description of the country and its inhabitants; and particularly a relation of the mission carried on for above these thirty years by the Unitas Fratrum at New Herrnhut and Lichtenfels in that country, by David Crantz; illustrated with maps and other copper-plates: printed for the brethren’s society for the furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen," 2 vols. 8vo. In the autumn of 1768 he retired to his native country, where he died, at Haverford West, universally respected, Sept. 13, 1771.

, better known to the public by the title of Lord Gardenstone, was born at Edinburgh June 24, 1721. His father was Alexander Garden, of Troop, an opulent land-holder in Aberdeenshire; and his mother was Jane, daughter of sir Francis Grant, of Cullen, one of the senators of the college of justice. After passing through the usual course of liberal education at school and at the university, he applied to the study of law as a profession, and in 1744 was admitted a member of the faculty of advocates, and called to the Scottish bar. In his practice as an advocate he soon began to be distinguished by a strong native rectitude of understanding; by that vivacity of apprehension and imagination, which is commonly denominated genius; by manly candour in argument, often more persuasive than subtilty and sophistical artifice; by powers which, with diligence, might easily attain to the highest eminence of the profession. But the same strength, openness, and ardour of mind which distinguished him so advantageously among the pleaders at the bar, tended to give him a fondness for the gay enjoyments of convivial intercourse, which was in some respects unfavourable to his progress in juridical erudition, yet without obstructing those promotions to which his talents entitled him. In 1764 he became his, majesty’s solicitor, and afterwards one of the judges in the courts of session and justiciary, the supreme judicatures, civil and criminal, for Scotland. On this occasion he assumed, according to the usual practice, the title of lord Gardenstone. His place in the court of session he continued to occupy till his death, but had some years before resigned the office of a commissioner of justiciary, and in recompense got a pension of 200l. per annum. Clear discernment, strong good sense, conscientious honesty, and amiable benevolence, remarkably distinguished his opinions and conduct as a judge.

, a French divine of the eighteenth century, descended from a family of distinction, was born at Aix, in Provence, and being at an early age admitted into orders, officiated for some years as priest in the parish church of St. Paul. Among his theological publications is “A Collection, of Homilies on the Epistles to the Romans,” in two volumes, 12mo, with a delineation of the character of St. Paul prefixed. But on the death of his elder brother, a celebrated advocate in the parliament of Provence, he retired into the country, studied law, and being admitted an advocate, practised with uncommon success. The interests of the poor he advocated without hope of reward; and in 1717 he gained a famous cause against the Jesuits, of whom he was an active opponent. Not contented with pleading professionally against them, he attacked them by means of the press, and wrote a piece entitled “The Jesuits unmasked.” He published some treatises against the bishop of Marseilles, who procured him to be banished twice to Viviers, where he died in 1731, and on account of his reputed heresy he was denied the rites of Christian burial.

, a French author, remarkable rather for the magnitude of his work entitled “Causes Cé1ebres,” in twenty volumes duodecimo, than for any merit as a writer, was born at Lyons in 1673, of a noble family of the robe, and was educated at Paris, but seemed destined to fail in every walk of life. He began by taking orders, and became an abbé; he then quitted the church for the army, where he obtained no distinction, and at the age of fifty, became an advocate. Not succeeding in this occupation, he applied himself diligently to his pen; in which employment he rather proved his assiduity than his powers. His great work, though interesting in its subject, is rendered intolerable by the heaviness and badness of the style, with the puerilities and bad verses interspersed. It has been two or three times, abridged. His other works are not more admired. They are, 1. “An Account of the Campaigns of 1713 and 1714;” a compilation from the Memoirs of Vilbart 2. “The Art of adorning and improving the Mind,” a foolish collection of witticisms and 3. A compilation entitled “Bibliotheque des Gens de Cour.” He died in 1743, after repeated strokes of palsy.

Dr. Geddes died the day after this interview, Feb. 26, 1802, and was buried in Paddington church-yard. IJe was unquestionably a man of extensive learning, although, not entitled to the superiority which his friends have assigned to him, and which indeed he too frequently arrogated to himself. It was this want of knowledge of his real powers, and the vanity superinduced upon it, that made him ambitious of the character of a wit and a poet, without either temper or genius. His wit was mere flippancy, and his poetry had rarely any other attribute than that of rhyme. The list of his works will show that in the employment of his talents there was something undignified and trifling, that showed a mind vexed with restlessness, rather than seriously anduniformly employed for the public good. While engaged in so important a work as the translation of the Bible., he was perpetually stooping to pick up any little paltry anecdote of the day, as the subject -for a pamphlet or <a poem, and while he was suffering: by the neglect or censure of those whose religious opinions he had shocked, he was seeking comfort in ridiculing the characters of men who had never offended him by any species of provocation. Of his private character, while he is praised for his benevolence and catholic 1 spirit, we find also, and not very consistently, that its leading feature was irritability upon the most trifling provocations, if they deserved the name, which discovered itself in the most gross and offensive language. One instance of this species of insanity, for such it appeared to be in him, is given by his biographer, which we shall throw into a note, for its excellence as a genuine portrait of the man . Dr. Geddes published, 1. “Select Satires of Horace,” &c. London, 1779, 4to. 2. “Linton, a Tweedale Pastoral,” Edinburgh, 4to. 3. “Cursory Remarks on a late fanatical publication entitled a Full Detection of Popery,” Lond. 1783, 8vo. 4. Prospectus of a New Translation of the Bible,“&c. ibid. 1786, 4to. 5.” Letter to the Bishop of London, containing doubts, queries, &c. relative to a vernacular translation of the Holy Scriptures,“ibid. 1787, 4to. 6.” Letter to the Rev. Dr. Priestley, in which the author attempts to prove by one prescriptive argument, that the divinity of Jesus Christ was a primitive tenet of Christianity,“ibid. 1787, 8vo. 7.” Letter to a, member of parliament on the case of the Protestant Dis-' senters, and the expediency of a general repeal of all penal statutes that regard religious opinions,“ibid. 1787, 8vo. 8.” Proposals, &c.“for his translation, ibid. 1788, 4to. 9.” Dr. Geddes’s general answer to queries, counsels,“&c. ibid. 1790, 4to. 10.” An answer to the bishop of Comana’s pastoral letter; by a protesting catholic,' 1 1790, 8vo. II. “A Letter to the right rev. the archbishops and bishops of England; pointing out the only sure means of preserving the church from the dangers that now threaten her. By an Upper Graduate,” 1790, 8vo. 12. “Epistola macaronica ad fratrem, de iis quo; gesta stint in nupero Dissentientium conventu,” 1790, 4to. 13. “Carmen seculare pro Gallica gente tyrannicli aristocraticae erepta,” 1790, 4to. 14. “Encyclical letter of the bishops of Rama, Acanthos, and Centuriæ, to the faithful clergy and laity of their respective districts, with a continued commentary for the use of the vulgar,” 1791, 8vo. 15. “An (ironical) apology for Slavery,” 1792, 8vo. 16. “The first book of the Iliad of Homer, verbally rendered into English verse; being a specimen of a new translation of that poet; with critical annotations,” 1792, 8vo. This was intended to rival Cowper’s Homer. 1*7. “L'Avocat du Diable the Devil’s Advocate,” &c. 1792, 4to. 18. “The Holy Bible, translation of, vol. I.” 1792, 4to. 19. Carmina Saecularia tria, pro tfibus celeberrirnis libertatis Gallicae epochis,“1793, 4to. 20.” Ver-Vert,“from the French of Gresset, 1793, 4to. 21.” Dr. Geddes’s address to the public on the publication of the first volume of his new Translationof the Bible,“1793. 22.” Letter to the right rv. John Douglas, bishop of Centurice, and vicar-apostolic in the London district/' 1794, 4to. 23. “A Norfolk Tale; or a Journal from London to Norwich,” 1794, 4to. 24. “Ode to the Hon. Thomas Pelham, occasioned by his speech in the Irish House of Commons on the Catholic bill,” 1795, 4to. 25. “A Sermon preached before the university of Cambridge, by H. W. C(6ulthurst)> D. D. &c.” in doggrel rhymes, 1796, 8vo. 26. “The Battle of B(a)ng(o)r; or the Church’s triumph a comic-heroic poerh,” 1797, 8vO. 27. “Translation of the Bible, vol. II.” 1797. 28. “A New-year’s gift to the good people of England, being a sermon, or something like a sermon, in defence of the present War,” &e. 1798, 8vo. 29. “A Sermon preached on the day of the general fast, Feb. 27, 1799, by Theomophilus Brown,” &c. 1799, 8vo. 30. “A Modest Apology for the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, addressed to all moderate Protestants,” &c. 1800, 8vo. 31. “Critical Remarks,” before mentioned, vol. I. 1800, 4to. 32. “Bardomachia, poema macaronico-Latinum,” 1800, 4tb. 33. “Paci feliciter feduci Ode Sapphica,” 1801, 4to. Besides these Dr. Geddes wrote many fugitive pieces, essays, poems in the riews- papers and magazines, and was a considerable contributor to the Analytical Review. After his death appeared in 1807, his “Translation of the Book of Psalms,” as far as Psalm CXVIII. In this, as may be expected, he gives up the prophetic sense of the Psalms.

, the eldest son of an old and respectable family in the shire of Tweedale, in Scotland, was born about 1710, and received the first rudiments of learning in his father’s family, under private tutors. His genius was quick, and, as he took great pleasure in reading, he soon made considerable progress in the learned languages, and the elements of philosophy. As soon as he understood Latin and Greek, he entered with remarkable spirit into the sentiments of the ancient writers, and discovered an ardent desire for a more intimate knowledge of them. He afterwards studied the different branches of philosophy at the university of Edinburgh, and particularly applied to mathematical learning, in which he made uncommon proficiency, under the tuition of the late learned Colin Maclaurin. After he had acquired a competent knowledge of philosophy, his thoughts were turned to the law, which he proposed to make the peculiar study and profession of his life. After the usual course of preparatory study for this employment, he was admitted advocate, and practised at the bar for several years with growing reputation; but he did not arrive to the greatest eminence in his profession, as he was cut oft“by a lingering consumption in 1749, before he was forty years of age. His character was in all respects amiable and worthy. He retained through his whole life that keen relish for ancient literature which he had imbibed in his youth and what time he could spare from the duties of his profession, and the necessary affairs of his family, was devoted to the study of the ancient poets, philosophers, and historians. The fruit of these studies was” An Essay on the Composition and Manner of Writing of the Ancients, particularly Plato," Glasgow, 1748, 8vo. He is said to have left papers sufficient to make another volume, but they have not been published.

, an eminent Greek philosopher, palled also Pletho, was born at Constantinople, in 1390, He was a zealous advocate for Platonism, and maintained a violent controversy with the Aristotelians. He was a strenuous defender of the Greek church against the Latins, and was consulted as an oracle on the points in debate, being unquestionably a man of learning and acuteness. He is principally noticeable as being the first Greek who gave occasion to the revival of Platonism in Italy, where he made many illustrious converts, and was the means of laying the foundation of a Platonic academy at Florence. He afterwards returned to Greece, where he died at the advanced age of nearly one hundred and one years. His heretical and philosophical writings afford unquestionable proofs of his learning, and particularly of his intimate knowledge of the Alexandrian philosophy. In his “Kxplanation of the Magic Oracles of Zoroaster,” Gr. and Lat. Paris, 1599, 8vo, and Lond. 1722, 4to, he exhibits twelve fundamental articles of the Platonic religion, and gives an elegant compendium of the whole Platonic philosophy. His other philosophical writings are, “On the Virtues,” Oxon. 1752, 8vo; “On the difference between the Platonic and Aristotelian Philosophy,” Paris, 1541, 8vo; and il Natural arguments concerning God.“He had a profound acquaintance with Grecian history, as appears by his” De iis qu post pugnam ad Mantinaam gesta sunt,“printed with the Venice edition of” Herodian,“1503, foL and with the Aldus” Xenophon" of the same year.

, a native of Cosenza, in the kingdom of Naples, left his country on account of religion about the middle of the sixteenth century, and retired to Geneva, where several Italian families had already formed a church. Among those Italian refugees there weie some who began to subtilize with regard to the mystery of the Trinity, and the words essence, person, coessential, &c. Blandrata, and John Paul Alciatus, were the chief of these innovators, with an advocate named Matthew Gribaud. But although the subject was treated without noise, and by private writings, their zeal occasioned the articles of faith, which were drawn up in the Italian consistory, the 18th of May 1558, and contained the most pure and orthodox doctrine with relation to that mystery, and by which the subscribers promised in precise terms, and on pain of being reputed perjured and perfidious, to do nothing, directly or indirectly, which might wound it, Gentilis subscribed these articles, and yet persisted in propagating his errors clandestinely. The magistrates then took cognizance of the affair, and he was convicted of having violated his subscription; which he endeavoured to excuse by pleading his conscience. He presented several writings, at first to palliate his opinions, and afterwards to confess and abjure them; in consideration of which the magistrates of Geneva sentenced him only to throw his writings into the fire with his own hands, and to engage not to stir out of the city without permission. This sentence was executed the 2d of September 1558. He was discharged from prison a few days after; and on the petition which he presented, alleging his inability to give bail, he was excused from it; but they obliged him to swear that he would not go out of Geneva without the consent of the magistrates. Notwithstanding all this, he made his escape, and went to Lyons, and afterwards wandered about from place to place in Dauphirie and Savoy; but being every where obnoxious, he returned to the village whither he first retired, in the territory of the canton of Bern. He was quickly known there, and put in prison; but he was set at liberty in a few days, and published a confession of faith supported by some proofs, and some invectives against St. Athanasius. About the same time he was imprisoned at Lyons for his doctrine; but, being artful enough to persuade them that his design was against Calvin, and not against the mystery of the Trinity, he was discharged. Blandrata and Alciatus, who used their utmost efforts in Poland to establish their errors, invited him to come to them, and assist them in their work; but the king of Poland in 1566 published an edict for the banishing of all strangers who should teach such doctrines. Gentilis retired into Moravia, from whence he went to Vienna, in Austria, and then resolved fo return tp Savoy, where he was again apprehended in June 1566, and the cause being carried to Bern, it was under examination from the 5th of August to the 9th of September. Gentilis being duly convicted of having obstinately and contrary to his oath attacked the mystery of the trinity, was condemned to lose his head, which sentence was accordingly executed at a time when the principles of toleration were little understood.

, a Scotch divine of considerable talents and zeal, and one of the founders of the Secession church in Scotland, (See Erskine, Ebenezer, and Ralph), and the leader of that division of the seceders called the Antiburghers, was born in Perthshire, in 1713, and was educated at the university of Edinburgh. Soon after 1730, violent disputes occurring in the general assembly of the church of Scotland, respecting the law of patronage, Mr. Gib was among the keenest opponents of private church patronage, and in 1733 was with three others dismissed from his pastoral charge. These afterwards formed congregations of their own, to one of which, at Edinburgh, Mr. Gib was ordained, in April 1741. This congregation gradually increased, and with others of the same kind, was in a flourishing state, when in 1746 a schism took place among them respecting the swearing of the oaths of burgesses, and from this time the secession church was divided into two parties, called burghers and antiburghers, and Mr. Gib was considered as the ablest advocate for the latter. In 1774 he published “A display of the Secession testimony,” 2 vols. 8vo, and in 1786 his “Sacred Contemplations,” at the end of which was an “Essay on Liberty and Necessity,” in answer to lord Kames’s Essay on that subject. Mr. Gib died at Edinburgh, June 18, 1788, and was buried in the Grey-friars church-yard, where art elegant monument has been erected to his memory, at the expence of his congregation, among whom he had unweariedly laboured for the long period of forty-seven years.

Gilpin now embarked for Holland, whence he immediately went to Mechlin to visit his brother George, then a 2ealous papist, but afterwards a warm advocate for the reformation, and the translator from Dutch into English of that keen satire against popery, entitled “The Beehive of the Roman church.” He went afterwards to Louvain, where he resolved to settle for sometime, making occasional excursions to other placet. Loinrain was then one of the chief places for students in divinity. Some of the most eminent divines on both sides of the question resided there, and the most important topics of religion were discussed with gfeat freedom. Of such opportunities he soon began to avail himself, and the consequence was his imbibing juster notions of the doctrines of the reformation: he saw things in a clearer and stronger light, and felt a satisfaction in the change he Uad made, to whichhe had hitherto been n stranger. While thus pursuing his studies, he heard the important news from England of queen Mary’s accession to the crown, whose bigotry was well known, and in whom the signs of a persecuting spirit already appeared; and at the same time learned that his relation bishop Tonstal was released from the Tower, and reinstated in his bishopric. The first consequence of this last event was the offer of a living, which Mr. Gilpin declined in a long letter, the unaffected piety of which disarmed all resentment on the part of the bishop, and led him rather to admire a behaviour, in which the motives of conscience shewed themselves so superior to those of interest. After remaining two years in Flanders, to which his countrymen were daily flocking to escape the sanguinary laws of queen Mary, he took a journey to Paris, in order to print the bishop of Durham’s book on the Sacrament, with which that prelate had intrusted him. This work of Tonstal’s was written so much in a spirit of moderation respecting the extravagant popish doctrine of the Sacrament, that Gilpin was generally supposed to have corrupted it, which he refuted by shewing the bishop’s letter of thanks for his “care and fidelity” as an editor. While Mr. Gilpin staid at Paris, he lodged with Vascosan, the eminent printer, to whom he had been recommended by his friends in the Netherlands, and who shewed him great regard, introducing him to the most considerable men in that city. Here popery became quite his aversion; he saw more of its superstition and craft than he had yet seen; the former among the people, the latter among the priests, who scrupled not to avow how little truth was their concern. Here also he found his old acquaintance Mr. Neat, of New college, who was now become an inflexible bigot to popery, and resisted all Gilpin’s endeavours to reclaim him. This was the same Neal, who was afterwards chaplain to bishop Bonner, and distinguished himself by being sole voucher of the very improbable and silly story of the Nag’s head consecration.