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

, a Danish historian, flourished about the year 1186, and appears to have been secretary to the archbishop Absalon, by whose orders he wrote a history of Denmark, intituled, “Compendiosa historia regurn Daniae a Skioldo ad Canutum VI.” This work is thought inferior in style to that of Saxo Grammaticus; but, on some points, his opinions are in more strict conformity to what are now entertained by the literati of the North. He was also author of “Historia legum castrensium Regis Canuti magni,” which is a translation into Latin of the law called the law of Witherlag, enacted by Canute the Great, and re-published by Absalon in the reign of Canute VI. with an introduction by Aagesen. on the origin of that law. Both works are included in “Suenonis Agonis filii, Christierni nepotis, primi Daniæ gentis historici, quæ extant opuscula. Stephauus Johannis Stephanius ex vetustissimo codice membraneo ms. regiæ bibliothecæ Hafniensis primus publici juris fecit. Soræ, typis Henrici Crusii,” 1642, 8vo. His history is also printed, with excellent notes, in Langebek’s “Scriptores rerum Danicarum,” vol. I.; and the “Leges castrenses,” are in vol. III.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was born at Guildford, in Surrey, Oct. 29, 1562, the son of Maurice Abbot, a clothworker in that town, and Alice March, who, having been sufferers by the persecution in queen Mary’s reign, educated their children in a steady zeal for the Protestant religion. George was sent, with his elder brother Robert, to the free-school of Guildford, where he was educated under Mr. Francis Taylor, and in 1578 was entered of Baliol college, Oxford. On April 31, 1582, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and Nov. 29, 1583, was elected probationer fellow of his college. After taking his master’s degree, Dec. 17, 1585, he entered into holy orders, became a celebrated preacher in the University, and was sometime chaplain to Thomas lord Buckhurst. In 1593, March 4, he commenced bachelor of divinity, and proceeded doctor of that faculty May 9, 1597. On September 6 he was elected master of University college, to which he afterwards proved a benefactor. About this time some differences took place between him and Dr. Laud, which subsisted as long as they lived.

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.

Towards the close of 1616, the learned Antonio de Dominis, archbishop of Spalato, took shelter in England, from the persecution with which he was threatened by the Pope, for discovering his dislike both of the doctrine and discipline of the church of Rome, and was very kindly received by his majesty, and hospitably entertained by the archbishop. It was by his means that the archbishop got Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent transmitted into this country. Mr. Nathaniel Brent was employed on this service, and succeeded in procuring the whole of the manuscript, although with some hazard to himself. In 1618, while lamenting the death of his brother the bishop of Salisbury, which happened in March of that year, he encountered a fresh anxiety from the king’s declaration for permitting sports and pastimes on the Lord’s day. This declaration, usually called the Book of Sports, was ordered to be read in the churches; but the archbishop, being at Croydon when it came thither, had the courage to forbid its being read.

In 1619 he executed a design which he had long formed, of founding an hospital at Guildford, where, on the 5th of April, he was present when sir Nicholas Kempe laid the first stone. The archbishop endowed it with lands to the value of three hundred pounds per annum: one hundred of which was to be employed in setting the poor to work, and the remainder for the maintenance of a master, twelve brothers, and eight sisters, who were to have blue clothes, and gowns of the same colour, and half-a-crown a week each. Oct. 29, being the anniversary of the archbishop’s birth, is commemorated at Guildford; and the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being is visitor of the hospital. Towards the end of this year, the Elector Palatine accepted of the crown of Bohemia, which occasioned great disputes in king James’s councils. Some were desirous that his majesty should not interfere in this matter, foreseeing that it would produce a war in Germany; others were of opinion, that natural affection to his son and daughter, and a just concern for the Protestant interest, ought to engage him to support the new election. The latter was the archbishop’s sentiment; and not being able at that time to attend the privy council, he wrote his mind with great boldness and freedom to the secretary of state. The archbishop, now in a declining state of health, used in the summer to go to Hampshire for the sake of recreation; and, being invited by lord Zouch to hunt in his park at Branzill, he met there with the greatest misfortune that ever befel him; for he accidentally killed that nobleman’s keeper, by an arrow from a cross-bow, which he shot afc one of the deer. This accidentthrew him into a deep melancholy; and he ever afterwards kept a monthly fast on Tuesday, the day on which this fatal mischance happened. He also settled an annuity of 20l. on the widow. There were several persons who took advantage of this misfortune, to lessen him in the king’s favour; but his majesty said, “An angel might have miscarried in this sort.” But his enemies representing, that, having incurred an irregularity, he was thereby incapacitated for performing the offices of a primate, the king directed a commission to ten persons, to inquire into this matter. The points referred to their decision were, 1. Whether the archbishop was irregular by the fact of involuntary homiciue 2. Whether that act might tend to scandal in a churchman 3. How his grace should be restored, in case the commissioners should find him irregular All agreed, that it could not be otherwise done, than by restitution from the king; but they varied in the manner. The bishop of Winchester, the lord chief justice, and Dr. Steward, thought it should be done by the king, and by him alone. The lord keeper, and the bishops of London/ Rochester, Exeter, and St. David’s, were for a commission from the king directed to some bishops. Judge Doddridge and sir Henry Martin were desirous it should be done both ways, by way of caution. The king accordingly passed a pardon and dispensation; by which he acquitted the atchbishop of all irregularity, scandal, or infamation, and declared him capable of all the authority of a primate. From that time an increase of infirmities prevented his assistance at the council. But when, in the last illness of James I. his attendance was required, he was attentive to the charge till the 27th of March 1625, the day on which the king expired. Though very infirm, and afflicted with the gout, he assisted at the ceremony of the coronation of Charles I. whose favour, however, he did not long enjoy. His avowed enemy, the duke of Buckingham, soon found an opportunity to make him feel the weight of his displeasure. Dr. Sibthorp had in the Lent assizes 1627 preached before the judges a sermon at Northampton, to justify a loan which the king had demanded. This sermon, calculated to reconcile the people to an obnoxious measure, was transmitted to the archbishop with the king’s direction to license it; which he refused, and gave his reasons for it : and it was not licensed by the bishop of London, until after the passages deemed exceptionable had been erased. On July 5, lord Conway, who was then secretary of state, made him a visit; and intimated to him, that the king expected he should withdraw to Canterbury. The archbishop declined this proposal, because he had then a law-suit with that city; and desired that he might rather have leave to retire to his house at Ford, five miles beyond Canterbury. His request was granted; and, on Oct. 9 following, the king gave a commission to the bishops of London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and Bath and Wells, to execute the archiepiscopal authority; the cause assigned being, that the archbishop could not at that time in his own person attend those services which were otherwise proper for his cognizance and direction. The archbishop did not remain long in this situation; for, a parliament being absolutely necessary, he was recalled about Ciuistmas, and restored to his authority and jurisdiction. On his arrival at court he was received by the archbishop of York and the earl of Dorset, who conducted him to the king, and his regular attendance was from that time required. He sat in the succeeding parliament, and continued afterwards in the full exercise of his office. On the 24th of August 1628, the archbishop consecrated to the see of Chichester Dr. Richard Montague, who had before been active in supporting the pretence of irregularity which had been alleged against him. Laud, bishop of London, one of his former enemies, also assisted at the consecration. When the petition of right was discussed in parhament, the archbishop dehvercd the opinion of the House of Lords at a conference with the House of Commons, offering some propositions from the former, and received the thanks of sir Dudley Digges. Dr. Manwaring, having preached before the House of Commons two sermons, which he afterwards published, and in which he maintained the king’s authority in raising subsidies without the consent of parliament, was brought before the bar of the House of Lords, by impeachment of the Commons. Upon this occasion the archbishop, with the king’s consent, gave the doctor a severe admonition, in which he avowed his abhorrence of the principles maintained in the two discourses. The interest of bishop Laud being now very considerable at court, he drew up instructions, which, having the king’s name, were transmitted to the archbishop, under the title of “His majesty’s instructions to the most reverend father in God, George, lord archbishop of Canterbury, containing certain orders to be observed and put in execution by the several bishops in his province.” His grace communicated them to his suffragan bishops; but, to prove that he still intended to exercise his authority in his own diocese, he restored Mr. Palmer and Mr. Unday to their lectureships, after the dean and archdeacon of Canterbury had suspended them. In other respects he endeavoured to soften their rigour, as they were contrived to enforce the particular notions of a prevailing party in the church, which the archbishop thought too hard for those who made the fundamentals of religion their study, and were not so zealous for forms. His conduct in this and other respects made his presence unwelcome at court; so that, upon the birth of the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles H. Laud had the honour to baptize him, as dean of the chapel. It appears, ho.vever, from almost the last public act of his life, that Abbot was not so regardless of the ceremonial parts of religious duty in the church of England as his enemies have represented him; for he issued an order, dated the 3d of July 1633, requiring the parishioners of Crayford in Kent to receive the sacrament on their knees, at the steps ascending to the communion table. On the 5th of August, in the same year, he died at Croydon, worn out with cares and infirmities, at the age of 71, and was according to his own direction buried in the chapel of Our Lady, within the church dedicated to the Holy Trinity at Guildford. A stately monument was erected over the grave, with the effigies of the archbishop in his robes. He shewed himself, in most circumstances of his life, a man of great moderation to all parties; and was desirous that the clergy should attract the esteem of the laity by the sanctity of their manners, rather than claim it as due to their function. His notions and principles, however, not suiting the humour of some writers, have drawn upon him many severe reflections. Heylin asserts, “That marks of his benefactions we find none in places of his breeding and preferment;” an aspersion which is totally groundless. Dr. Wellwood has done more justice to the merit and abilities of our prelate: “Archbishop Abbot,” says he, “was a person of wonderful temper and moderation; and in all his conduct shewed an unwillingness to stretch the act of uniformity beyond what was absolutely necessary for the peace of the church, or the prerogative of the crown, any farther than conduced to the good of the state. Being not well turned for a court, though otherwise of considerable learning and genteel education, he either could not, or would not, stoop to the humour of the times; and now and then, by an unseasonable stiffness, gave occasion to his enemies to represent him as not well inclined to the prerogative, or too much addicted to a popular interest; and therefore not fit to be employed in matters of government.”

Others of the contemporary historians, besides Heylin, have given unfavourable characters of the archbishop; but their accounts disagree. Lord Clarendon likewise bears hard on his religious principles and general character. “He had,” says his lordship, “been master of one of the poorest colleges in Oxford, and had learning sufficient for that province.” The Editor of the Biog. Britannica has here supplied the name (Balliol), a blunder which lord Clarendon was not likely to have made, as our archbishop was master of University College, and his brother Robert, master of Balliol. It is rather singular, however, that his lordship should undervalue the “learning sufficient for that province.” He also notices, as extraordinary, that he was promoted to the bishoprick of Lichfield and Coventry “before he had been parson, vicar, or curate of any parish church in England, or dean or prebendary of any cathedral church in England; and was in truth totally ignorant of the true constitution of the church of England, and the state and interest of the clergy.” Here again his lordship seems to have forgot, that he was dean of Winchester before he was bishop of Lichfield, and that the chief cause of uis promotion was the service he rendered to his majesty by procuring the establishment of episcopacy in Scotland. Upon the whole of his character as drawn by lord Clarendon, the late right hon. Arthur Onslow, speaker of the House of Commons, offers the following remarks: “That worthy prelate did surely deserve a better representation to posterity. He was a very wise and prudent man, knew well the temper and disposition of the kingdom with respect to the ceremonies and power of the church, and did therefore use a moderation in the point of ecclesiastical discipline, which if it had been followed by his successor, the ruin that soon after fell on the church might very likely have been prevented. His being without any credit at court from the latter end of king James’s reign will bring no dishonour on his memory, if it be considered that his disgrace arose from his dislike of, and opposition to, the imprudent and corrupt measures of the court at that time, and from an honest zeal for the laws and liberties of his country, which seemed then to be in no small danger, and it was a part truly becoming the high station he then bore. His advice upon the affair of the Palatinate and the Spanish match shewed his knowledge of the true interest of England, and how much it was at his heart; and his behaviour and sufferings in the next reign, about the loan and Sibthorp’s sermon, as thoy were the reasons of his disgrace at that time, so ought they to render his memory valuable to all who wish not to see the fatal counsels and oppression of those times revived in this nation. The duke of Buckingham was his enemy, because the archbishop would not be his creature; and the church perhaps might have been thought to have been better governed, if he had stooped to the duke, and given in to the wantonnesses of his power: but he knew the dignity of his character, and loved his country too well to submit to such a meanness, though very few of his brethren had the courage or honesty to join with him in this, and, if the archbishop himseif is to be credited, his successor’s rise was by the practice of those arts this good man could not bend to. As to his learning, we need no better testimony of it than his promotion by king James, who had too much affectation that way to prefer any one to such a station who had not borne the reputation of a scholar; but there are other proofs of his sufficiency in this, even for the high place he held in the church. If he had some narrow notions in divinity, they were rather the faults of the age he had his education in, than his; and the same imputation may be laid on the best and most learned of the Reformers. His warmth against Popery became the office of a Protestant bishop; though even towards Papists there is a remarkable instance of his mildness and charity, which shewed that his zeal against their persons went no farther than the safety of the state required. His parts seem to have been strong and masterly, his preaching grave and eloquent, and his style equal to any of that time. He was eminent for piety and a care for the poor; and his hospitality fully answered the injunction king James laid on him, which was, to carry his house nobly, and live like an archbishop. He had no thoughts of heaping up riches; what he did save was laid out by him in the erecting and endowing of an handsome Hospital for decayed tradesmen and the widows of such, in the town of Guildford, in the county of Surrey, where he was born and had his first education; and here I cannot omit taking notice that the body of statutes drawn by himself for the government of that house, is one of the most judicious works of that kind I ever saw, and under which for near one hundred years that hospital has maintained the best credit of any that I know in England. He was void of all pomp and ostentation, and thought the nearer the church and churchmen came to the simplicity of the first Christians, the better would the true ends of religion be served; and that the purity of the heart was to be preferred to, and ought rather to be the care of a spiritual governor, than the devotion of the hands only. If under this notion some niceties in discipline were given up to goodness of life, and when the peace of the church as well as of the kingdom was preserved by it, 'twas surely no ill piece of prudence, nor is his memory therefore deserving of those slanders it has undergone upon that account. It is easy to see that much of this treatment has been owing to a belief in the admirers and followers of archbishop Laud, that the reputation of the latter was increased by depreciating that of the former. They were indeed men of very different frames, and the parts they took in the affairs both of church and state as disagreeing. In the church, moderation and the ways of peace guided the behaviour of the first, rigour and severity that of the last. In the state they severally carried the like principles and temper. The one made the liberty of the people and the laws of the land the measure of his actions; when the other, to speak softly of it, had the power of the prince and the exalting the prerogative only, for the foundation of his. They were indeed both of them men of courage and resolution; but it was sedate and temperate in Abbot, passionate and unruly in Laud. It is not however to be denied that many rare and excellent virtues were possessed by the latter; but it must be owned too, he seems rather made for the hierarchy of another church and to be the minister of an arbitrary prince, and the other to have had the qualifications of a Protestant bishop and the guardian of a free state .”

As Heylin has insinuated something to the prejudice of the archbishop’s liberality, it may be necessary to record, that, besides his noble foundation at Guildford, he gave to the schools at Oxford one hundred and fifty pounds. In 1619, he bestowed a large sum of money on the library of Balliol college; he built a conduit in the city of Canterbury; in 1624 he contributed to the founding of Pembroke college, Oxford, and discharged a debt of three hundred pounds owing from Balliol to Pembroke college. In 1632 he gave one hundred pounds to the library of University College, Oxford, and by will left large sums to charitable purposes.

His works are: 1. “Quæstiones Sex, totidem pralectionibus in Schola Theologica Oxoniae, pro forma habitis, discussae et disceptatae anno 1597, in quibus e Sacra Scriptura & Patribus, quid statuendum sit definitur.” Oxon. 1598, 4to, & Francfort, 1616, 4to, published by Abraham Scultetus. 2. “Exposition on the Prophet Jonah, contained in certaine Sermons, preached in S. Maries Church in Oxford,” 4to, 1600. It appears by a postscript to the reader, that these sermons or lectures were delivered on Thursdays early in the morning, “sometimes before daylight,” from 1594 to 1599. They were reprinted in and form the most popular of his works. 3. His “Answer to the questions of the Citizens of London in Jan. 1600, concerniug Cheapside Cross,” not printed until 1641. 4. “The reasons which Dr. Hill hath brought for the upholding of Papistry, unmasked and shewed to be very weak, &c.” Oxon. 4to. 1604. Hill was a clergyman of the church of England, which he exchanged for that of Rome, and wrote his “Quatron of Reasons” in vindication of his conduct, printed at Antwerp, 4to. 1600. 5. “A Preface to the examination of George Sprot,” &c. noticed before. 6. “Sermon preached at Westminster, May 26, 1608, at the funeral of Thomas earl of Dorset, late lord high treasurer of England, on Isaiah xl. 6.” 4to. 1608. 7. “Translation of a part of the New Testament,” with the rest of the Oxford divines, 1611. 8. “Some memorials, touching the Nullity between the earl-of Essex and his lady, pronounced Sept. 25, 1613, at Lambeth; and the difficulties endured in the same.” To this is added “some observable things since Sept. 25, 1613, when the sentence was given in the cause of the earl of Essex, continued unto the day of the marriage, Dec. 26, 1613,” which appears also to have been penned by his grace, or by his direction; and to it is annexed “the speech intended to be spoken at Lambeth, Sept. 25, 1613, by the archbishop of Canterbury, &c.” These were reprinted in one volume, 1719, 12mo, and the ms. in the archbishop’s hand was then said to be in the hands of an eminent lawyer. 9. “A brief description of the whole World, wherein is particularly described all the monarchies, empires, and kingdoms of the same, with their academies,” &c. 4to. 1617; a work, of which there have been several editions. 10. “A short apology for archbishop Abbot, touching the death of Peter Hawkins, dated Oct. 8, 1621.” 11. “Treatise of perpetual visibility and succession of the true Church in all ages,” Lond. 4to. 1624; published without his name; but his arms, impaled with those of Canterbury, are put before it. 12. “A narrative containing the true cause of his sequestration and disgrace at Court: in two parts, written at Ford in Kent,” 1627, printed in Rushworth’s Historical Collections, vol. I. p. 438—461, and In the Annals of king Charles, p. 213 224. Bp. Racket, in his life of Abp. Williams, p. 68, attests the authenticity of this curious memorial. 13. “History of the Massacre in the Valtoline,” printed in the third volume of Fox’s Acts and Monuments. 14. His “Judgment on bowing at the name of Jesus,” Hamburgh, 8vo. 1632. In 1618, he and sir Henry Savile defrayed the expence of an edition of Bradwardin’s “Cause of God,” a work written against the Pelagians.

, nephew of the preceding, and son of sir Maurice Abbot, the archbishop’s youngest brother, was elected probationer fellow of Merton College, Oxford, 1624, and admitted. LL. B. 1630. He wrote: 1. “The whole book of Job paraphrased,” Lond. 4to. 1640. 2. “Vindiciae Sabbati, or an answer to two treatises of Mr. Broad,” Lond. 1641, 4to. Broad was rector of Rendcombe in Gloucestershire; and wrote two treatises, one concerning the Sabbath or seventh day, and the other concerning the Lord’s day, or first day of the week; which falling into Mr. Abbot’s hands in manuscript, he wrote an answer to them, and published the whole under the above title. 3. “Brief notes upon the whole book of Psalms,” 4to, 1651. He married a daughter of col. Purefoy, of Caldecote-hall, Warwickshire, whose house he gallantly defended, by the help of the sen-ants only, against the attack of the princes Rupert and Maurice with eighteen troops of horse. He died Feb. 4, 1648, aged 44 years.

, father of the above, and youngest brother of archbishop Abbot, was bred up to trade, became an eminent merchant in London, and had a considerable share in the direction of the affairs of the East India Company. He was one of the commissioners employed in negociating a treaty with the Dutch East-India Company, by which the Molucca islands, and the commerce to them, were declared to be divided, two-thirds to the Dutch East India Company, and one-third to the English. This important treaty, which put an end to the long and violent disputes between the English and Dutch East India companies, was concluded at London, July 7, 1619, and ratified by the king on the sixteenth of the same month. In consequence of this treaty, and in order to recover the goods of some English merchants, sir Dudley Digges and Mr. Abbot were sent over into Holland in the succeeding year, 1620, but with what success does not appear. He was afterwards one of the farmers of the customs, as appears from a commission granted in 1623, to him and others, for administering the oaths to such persons, as should either desire to pass the seas from this kingdom, or to enter it from foreign countries. In 1624, he was appointed one of the council for settling and establishing the colony of Virginia, with full powers for the government of that colony. On the accession of king Charles I. he was the first person on whom the order of knighthood was conferred, and he was chosen to represent the city of London in the first parliament of that reign. In 1627 he served the office of Sheriff, and in 1738 that of Lord Mayor. There are no other particulars extant concerning him, unless the date of his death, Jan. 10, 1640 .

, eldest brother to the archbishop, was born also in the town of Guildford in 1560; educated by the same schoolmaster; and afterwards sent to Balliol college, Oxford, in 1575. In 1582 he took his degree of M. A. and soon became a celebrated preacher; to which talent he chiefly owed his preferment. Upon his first sermon at Worcester, he was chosen lecturer in that city, and soon after rector of All Saints in the same place. John Stanhope, esq. happening to hear him preach at Paul’s cross, was so pleased with him, that he immediately presented him to the rich living of Bingham in Nottinghamshire. In 1594 he became no less eminent for his writings than he had been for his excellence in preaching. In 1597 he took his degree of D. D. In the beginning of king James’s reign he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; who had such an opinion of him as a writer, that he ordered the doctor’s book “De Antichristo” to be reprinted with his own commentary upon part of the Apocalypse. He had also acquired much reputation for his writings against Dr. William Bishop, then a secular priest, but afterwards titular bishop of Chalcedon. In 1609 he was elected master of Balliol college; which trust he discharged with the utmost care and assiduity, by his frequent lectures to the scholars, by his continual presence at public exercises, and by promoting discipline in the society. In May 1610 the king nominated Dr. Abbot one of the fellows in the college of Chelsea, which had been, lately founded for the encouragement and promotion of polemical divinity. In November 1610 he was made prebendary of Normanton in the church of Southwell; and in 1612 his majesty appointed him regius professor of divinity at Oxford; in which station he acquired the character of a profound divine, though a more moderate Calvinist than either of his two predecessors in the divinity-chair, Holland and Humphrey: for he countenanced the sublapsarian tenets concerning predestination. He was not, however, less an enemy to Dr. Laud than his brother; and in one of his sermons pointed at him so directly, that Laud intended to have taken some public notice of it.

The fame of Dr. Abbot’s lectures became very great; and those which he delivered upon the supreme power of kings against Bellarmine and Suarez afforded the king so much satisfaction, that, when the see of Salisbury became vacant, he named him to that bishoprick; and he was consecrated by his own brother, the archbishop of Canterbury, Dec. 3, 1615. It would appear that he had enemies who would have deferred his promotion for various reasons. When he came to do homage, the king said, “Abbot, I have had very much to do to make thee a bishop; but I know no reason for it, unless it were because thou hast written against one,” alluding to Dr. Bishop before-mentioned. In his way to Salisbury, he took a solemn farewell of Oxford, and was accompanied for some miles by the heads of houses and other eminent scholars, who deeply regretted his departure. On his arrival at Salisbury he bestowed much attention on his cathedral, which had been neglected, and raised a considerable subscription for repairs. He afterwards visited the whole of his diocese, and preached every Sunday while his health permitted, which was not long, as the sedentary course he had pursued brought on the stone and gravel, which ended his pious and useful life, March 2, 1617. He had enjoyed his bishoprick only two years and three months, and was interred in the cathedral. He was twice married; the last time, which is said to have given offence to his brother the archbishop, about half a year after his promotion to the see. The lady, whose name seems to have escaped the researches of his biographers, was Bridget Cheynell, wU dow, and mother of the famous Francis Cheynell. By his first wife he left one son, or more, and a daughter who was married to sir Nathaniel Brent, warden of Merton college. All his biographers concur in the excellence of his character, his eminent piety, charity, and learning. One of them has attempted a parallel between the two brothers, viz. that “George was the more plausible preacher, Robert the greater scholar; George the abler statesman, Robert the deeper divine; gravity did frown in George, and smile in Robert.”

A few paritculars [sic] hitherto unnoticed by his biographers may be gleaned from Wood’s Annals, published by Mr. Gutch. It appears that in 1596 the corporation of London requested the two universities to send them a list of persons properly qualified for the professorships of Gresham college, just founded. On this occasion Mr. Abbot, then M. A. of Balliol college, was chosen with three others, but the election ultimately fell upon a gentleman of Cambridge. In 1612, Dr. John Howson, one of the canons of Christ church, preaching at St. Mary’s, reflected on the Annotations to the Geneva translation of the Bible, “as guilty of misrepresenting the divinity of Christ and his Messiahship.” For this he was afterwards suspended, or forced to recant, by Dr. Abbot, then pro-vicechancellor. Wood thinks this the more hard, because king James had been known to censure the partiality of these annotations. While king’s professor of Divinity, he had neither the canonry of Christ church, nor the rectory of Ewelme usually annexed; and his only profits were some fees from those who performed exercises in divinity, and a salary of forty pounds a-year paid by the dean and canons of Christ church. In dislike to Laud, as already noticed, he shared amply with his brother; but Wood’s account of the sermon he preached against him is more particular than that in the Biographia, and throws some light on the controversies as well as the manners of the times. “On Shrove Sunday towards the latter end of this year (1614), it happened that Dr. Laud preached at St. Mary’s, and in his sermon insisted on some points which might indifferently be imputed either to Popery or Arminianism (as about this time they began to call it), though in themselves they were by some thought to be no other than the true doctrine’s of the Church of England. And having occasion in th-it sermon to touch upon the Presbyterians and their proceedings, he used some words to this etfect, viz. `that the Presbyterians were as bad as the Papists.' Which being directly contrary to the judgment and opinion of Dr. Robert Abbot, the king’s professor of Divinity, and knowing how much Dr. Laud had been distasted by his brother when he lived in Oxford, conceived he could not better satisfy himself and oblige his brother, now archbishop of Canterbury, than by exposing him (on the next occasion) both to shame and censure, which he did accordingly. For preaching at St. Peter’s in the East upon Easter-day (1615) in the afternoon, in the turn of the vicechancellor, he pointed at him so direptly, that none of the auditors were so ignorant as not to know at whom he aimed. Dr. Laud, being not present at the first preaching of the sermon, was by hiss friends persuaded to shew himself at St. Mary’s the Sunday after, when it should come to be repeated (according to the ancient custom in this university); to whose persuasions giving an unwilling consent, he heard himself sufficiently abused for almost an hour together, and that so palpably and grossly, that he was pointed to as he sate.” It appears that Laud consulted his patron, Dr. Neal, bishop of Lincoln, who probably dissuaded him from taking any notice of the matter, as we do not find that he wrote any answer, or vindication.

Bishop Abbot’s works are: 1. “The mirror of Popish Subtleties,” Lond. 4to, 1594. 2. “The exaltation of the kingdom and priesthood of Christ,” sermons on the first seven verses of the 110th Psalm, 4to, Lond. 1601. 3. “Antichristi demonstratio, contra fabulas Pontificias, et ineptam Rob. Bellarmini de Antichristo disputationem,” Lond. 4to, 1603, 8vo, 1603, a work much commended by Scaliger. 4. “Defence of the reformed Catholic of Mr. W. Perkins, against the bastard counter-Catholic of Dr. William Bishop, seminary priest,” in three parts, 4to, 1606, 1607, 1609. 5. “The Old Way; a sermon at St. Mary’s, Oxon.” 4to, Lond. 1610. This was translated into Latin by Thomas Drax. 6. “The true ancient Roman Catholic; being an apology against Dr. Bishop’s reproof of the defence of the reformed Catholic,” 4to, 1611. This work was dedicated to prince Henry, who returned the author thanks in a letter written with his own hand; a circumstance which seems to have escaped Dr. Birch in his life of that prince. 7. “Antilogia; adversus apologiam Andreae Eudaemon-Johannis, Jesuitse, pro Henrico Garnetto Jesuita proditore;” Lond. 4to. 1613. The true name of the apologist was Isaac Casaubon. 8. “De gratia et perseverantia Sanctorum, Exercitationes habitse in Academiae Oxon.” Lond. 4to, 1618; Francfort, 8vo, 1619. 9. “In Ricardi Thomsoni Angli-Belgici diatribam, da amissione et intercessione justificationis et gratiae, animadversio brevis.” Lond. 4to, 1618. Thomson was a Dutchman, born of English parents, and educated at Clarehall, Cambridge. Our author finished this book on the last day of his life, and it was published by his brother the archbishop and Dr. Featley his chaplain. 10. “De Suprema Potestate Regia, exercitationes habitse in Academia Oxoniensi, contra Rob. BellarminunV et Franciscum Suarez,” Lond. 4 to, 1619, also a posthumous publication. He left behind him various sermons in manuscript, lectures on St. Matthew, and commentaries on some parts of the Old and New Testament, particularly a commentary in Latin upon the whole epistle to the Romans, in four folio volumes, which was given to the Bodleian library by Dr. Edward Corbet, rector of Haseley in Oxfordshire, his grandson by his only daughter the wife of sir Nathaniel Brent .

, a clergyman of the Church of England, but whether belonging to the archbishop’s family is uncertain, was originally of the university of Cambridge, and was incorporated master of arts of Oxford, July 14, 1607. He was afterwards vicar of Cranbrooke in Kent, and minister of South wick in Hampshire. When Ephraim Udall, the lawful rector of St. Augustine’s, Watling-street, was sequestered by authority of the House of Commons in 1643, the living was given to Mr. Abbot, which he enjoyed until his death, at a very advanced age, in 1653. He published “Four Sermons,” 8vo, Lond. 1639, dedicated to Curie, bishop of Winchester, who had been his patron; and some other single sermons, a small catechism, &c.

Abelard, unable to support his mortifying reflections, and probably those of his enemies, resolved to retire to a convent; but first, with a selfishness which seems to have been characteristic in him, insisted upon Heloise’s promising to devote herself to religion. She accordingly submitted, and professed herself in the abbey of Argenteuil. Her romantic ardour of affection supported her through this sacrifice, and seems never to have forsaken her to the latest moment of her life. A few days after she had taken her vows, Abelard assumed a monastic habit in the abbey of St. Denys; but, upon the earnest solicitations of his admirers and scholars, he resumed his lectures at a small village in the country, and with his usual popularity. His rival professors, however, soon discovered an opportunity of bringing him under ecclesiastical censures. A treatise which he published about this time, entitled, “The Theology of Abelard,” was said to contain some heretical tenets respecting the Trinity. The work was accordingly presented to the archbishop of Rheims as heretical; and, in a synod called at Soissons in the year 1121, it was condemned to be burnt by the author’s own hand: he was further enjoined to read, as his confession of faith, the Athanasian creed, and was ordered to be confined in the convent of St. Medard; but this arbitrary proceeding excited such general dissatisfaction, that, after a short imprisonment, he was permitted to return to St. Denys. But here, too, his enemies endeavoured to bring him into new disgrace. Having read in Bede’s Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles that Denys (Dionysius) the Areopagite was not Bishop of Athens, but of Corinth, he ventured this passage as a proof, that the patron of the convent, and of the French nation, was not, as commonly believed, the Areopagite, but another St. Dionysius, bishop of Athens. A violent ferment was immediately raised in the convent; and Abelard, being accused to the bishop and the king, as a calumniator of the order, and an enemy to his country, found it necessary to escape with a few friends to the convent of St. Ayoul, at Provins, in Champagne, the prior of which was his intimate friend. But even here persecution, followed him, until at length, with difficulty, he obtained permission to retire to some solitary retreat, on condition that he should never again become a member of a convent.

It was during Abelard’s residence at St. Gildas, that the interesting correspondence passed between him and Heloise, which is still extant, and that he wrote the memoirs of his life which came down to the year 1134. The letters of Heloise, in this correspondence, abound with proofs of genius, learning, and taste, which might have graced a Better age. It is upon these letters that Mr. Pope formed his “Epistle from Eloisa to Abelard,” which, however, deviates in some particulars from the genuine character and story of Heloise, and is yet more seriously censurable on account of its immoral tendency. Here, too, Abelard probably wrote his “Theology,” or revised it, which again subjected him to prosecution. William, abbot of St. Thievry, the friend f Bernard, now abbot of Clairvaux, brought a formal charge against him for heresy in thirteen articles, copied from the “Theology.” Bernard, after an unsuccessful private remonstrance, accused Abelard to pope Innocent II. of noxious errors and mischievous designs. Abelard, with the concurrence of the archbishop of Sens, challenged his accuser to appear in a public assembly, shortly to be held in that city, and make good his accusation. The abbot at first declined accepting the challenge; but afterwards made his appearance, and delivered to the assembly the heads of his accusation. Abelard, instead of replying, appealed to Rome, which did not prevent the council from examining the charges, and pronouncing his opinions heretical. It was, however, judged necessary to inform the bishop of Rome of the proceedings, and to request his confirmation of the sentence. In the mean time, Bernard, by letters written to the Roman prelates, strongly urged them to silence, without delay, this dangerous innovator. His importunity succeeded; for the pope, without waiting for the arrival of Abelard, pronounced his opinions heretical, and sentenced him to perpetual silence and confinement. Immediately upon being informed of the decision, Abelard set out for Rome, in hopes of being permitted to plead his cause before his holiness. In his way he called at Cluni, a monastery on the confines of Burgundy, where he found a 2ealous friend in Peter Maurice, the abbot, and also in Reinardus, the abbot of Citeaux, who negociated a reconciliation between him and Bernard, while Peter, by his earnest remonstrances, procured his pardon at Rome, and he was permitted to end his days in the monastery of Cluni.

The most celebrated of his writings were his two volumes of “Discourses on the Divine Attributes,” the first of which only was published during his life. These excited a very general attention and admiration, were much applauded and recommended by archbishop Herring, and are still held in high esteem. Four volumes of “Posthumous Sermons” were likewise published, the two first in 1748, and the others in 1757: to which is prefixed the life of the author, written, as is generally understood, by Dr. Duchal. In 1751, a volume of his controversial “Tracts” was published in London. He published in his life-time three occasional Sermons, and a pamphlet or two on the dissenting controversy. He left behind him a diary of his life, which begins in February 1712-13, a little after his wife’s death. It consists of six large volumes in quarto, ia a very small hand, and very closely written. It is, indeed, say his biographers, an amazing work, in which the temper of his soul is throughout expressed with much exactness; and the various events he met with are described; together with his reflections upon them, and his improvements of them. The whole bears such characters of a reverence and awe of the Divine presence upon his mind, of a simplicity and sincerity of spirit, and of the most careful discipline of the heart, that how great soever his reputation in the world was, it shews his real worth to have been superior to the esteem in which he was held.

, a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born at St. Quintin, in Picardy, in 1609. He became celebrated as the editor of valuable manuscripts which lay buried in libraries. The first piece he published was the epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas. Father Hugh Menard, a monk of the same congregation, intended to publish this epistle, and for that purpose had illustrated it with notes, but having been prevented by death, D'Acheri gave an edition of it under the title of “Epistola Catholica S. Barnabas Appstoli, Gr. & Lat. cum notis Nic. Hug. Menardi, et eiogio ejusdem auctoris,” Paris, 1645, 4to. In 1648 he collected into one volume the “Life and Works of Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury,” Paris, fol. The Life is taken from an ancient manuscript in the abbey of Bee; and. the works are, Commentaries on the epistles of St. Paul, taken from a manuscript in the abbey of St. Melaine de Rennes, and a treatise on the Sacrament, against Berenger. The appendix contains the Chronicle of the Abbey of Bee from its foundation in 1304 to 1437; the life of St. Herluinus, founder and first abbot, of some of his successors, and of St. Austin the apostle of England, and some treatises on the eucharist. His catalogue of ascetic works appeared the same year, entitled “Asceticorum, vulgo spiritual] nm opusculorum, quae inter Patrum opera reperiuntur, Indiculus,” Paris, 1648, 4to. This curious work was reprinted by father Remi, at Paris, in 1671. In 16.51, D'Aclieri published the “Life and Works of Guibert, abbot of Nogent-sous-Couci,” and the lives of some saints, and other pieces, Paris, fol. There is much antiquarian knowledge in this work, respecting the foundation, Sac. of abbeys, but the dates are not always correct. In 1653 he republished father Grimlaic’s “Regie des Solitaires,” 12mo, Paris, with notes and observations. His most considerable work is “Veterum aliquot scriptorum, qui in Gallice bibliothecis, rnaxime Benedictinorum, latuerunt, Spieilegium, &c.” 1653 1677, 13 vols. 4to. Under the modest title of Spicilegium, it contains a very curious collection of documents pertaining to ecclesiastical afiairs; as acts, canons, councils, chronicles, lives of the saints, letters, poetry, diplomas, charters, &c. taken from the libraries of the different monasteries. This work becoming scarce and much sought after, a new edition was published in 1725, in 3 vols. fol. by Louis-FrancisJoseph de la Barre, with some improvements in point of arrangement, but at the same time some improper liberties taken with the text of D‘Acheri, and particularly with his learned prefaces. D’Acheri contributed also to Mabillon’s “Acta Sanctorum ordinis S. Benedicti,” &c. He lived a life of much retirement, seldom going out, or admitting trifling visits, and thus found leisure for those vast labours already noticed, and which procured him the esteem of the popes Alexander VII. and Clement X. who honoured him with medals. Although of an infirm habit, he attained the age of seventy-six, and died in the abbey of St, Germain-des-Pres, April 29, 1685. He was interred under the library of which he had had the care for so many years, and where his literary correspondence is preserved. There is a short eloge on him in the Journal de Trevoux for Nov. 26, 1685; but that of Maugendre, printed at Amiens in'1775, is more complete. Dupin says he was one of the first learned men that the congregation of St. Maur produced.

, 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:

2. The preface to Book II. of Bucer’s works, fol. Basil, 1577. 3. “Devisibili Romanarchia, contra Nic. Sanderi Monarchiam,” Lond. 1622, 4to. This was written while he lived with archbishop Parker, and probably at his instigation. At one time he enjoyed the confidence of this great and good prelate, and assisted him in his Antiquitates Britannicse.

was consecrated bishop of Leon in the year 977. He was an ambitious prelate and a servile courtier; he had the baseness to deliver up to Hugh Capet, Arnoul, archbishop of Rheims, and Charles duke of Lorrain, competitor of Hugh, to whom he had given an asylum in his episcopal city. He died in 1030. He is the author of a satirical poem in 430 hexameter verses, dedicated to king Robert. Adrian Valois gave an edition of it in 1663, in 8vo, at the end of the Panegyric on the emperor Berenger. But it is more correctly given in the I Oth vol. of “the Historians of France.” Although the style is obscure and in a bad taste, it contains many curious facts and anecdotes of the manners of the age. In the library of the abbey of Laubes is a ms poem by Adalberon, on the Holy Trinity, which is likewise dedicated to king Robert.

, archbishop of Rheims, and chancellor of France, under the reigns of Lothaire and Louis V. was one of the most learned French prelates of the tenth century. Having attained the archbishoprick in the year 969, he called several councils for the establishment of ecclesiastical discipline, which he enforced by his example with much firmness of mind. He also induced men of learning to resort to Rheims, and gave a high renown to the schools of that city. In the year 987, he consecrated Hugh Capet, who continued him in his office of grand chancellor. He died Jan. 5, 988. Several of his letters are among those of Gerbert, afterwards pope Sylvester II.; and two of his discourses are in Moissac’s Chronicle. The cathedral of Rheims was indebted to him for the greater part of its sumptuous furniture.

, a German divine, of the tenth century, archbishop of Magdeburg, was educated in the monastery of St. Maximum of Treves, and promoted to the above see in the year 968. Previous to that, in the year 961, he was employed by the emperor Otho I. to preach the gospel to the people along the Baltic sea, and the Sclavonians with the latter he had considerable success.

, archbishop of Prague, in the tenth century, was one of the first founders of the Christian religion in Hungary. He also preached the gospel in Prussia and Lithuania, where he was murdered by Sego, a pagan priest. His death was amply revenged by Boleslaus, king of Poland.

, so called because he was a canon of that church. He was born, according to some writers, at Misnia in the eleventh century; he devoted himself early to the church, and in 1067, was made a canon by Adelbert, archbishop of Bremen, and at the same time placed at the head of the school of that city, a situation equally important and honourable at a time when schools were the only establishments for public instruction. Adam employed his whole life in the functions of his office, in propagating religion, and in compiling his history, “Historia ecclesiastica ecclesiarum Hamburgensis et Bremensis vicinorurnque locorum septentrionalium, ab anno 788 ad annum 1072,” Copenhagen, 1579, 4to; Leyden, 159.5, 4to; Helmstadt, 1670, 4to the latter, edited by John Mader, is the best edition. This work contains the most accurate account we have of the establishment of Christianity in the north of Europe. As Bremen was the centre of the missions for this purpose, in which Adam was himself engaged, and had travelled over the countries visited by Anscharius about 200 years before, he had the farther advantage of making valuable collections from the archives of the archbishoprick, the library of his convent, and the conversations he held with the missionaries. He lived in an age when the dignified clergy were not inattentive to temporal affairs, and yet acquitted himself with much impartiality in writing the history of his patron Adelbert, a man of intrigue and ambition. He made a tour in Denmark, where he was favourably received by the reigning sovereign; and on his return wrote a geographical treatise, which was published at Stockholm, under the title of “Chronographia Scandinavise,” 1615, 8vo, and afterwards at Leyden, with the title “De situ Daniae et reliquarum trans Daniam regionum natura,” 1629. This short work is added to Mader’s edition of his history, and although not without a portion of the fabulous, is curious as the first attempt to describe the North of Europe, particularly Jutland, and some of the islands in the Baltic. We also owe to Adam of Bremen the first accounts of the interior of Sweden, and of Russia, the name of which only was then known in Christian Europe. He even speaks of the island of Great Britain, but chiefly from the accounts of Solinus and Martian us Capella, as his visits did not extend so far. This description of the North has been preserved by Lindenbrog in his “Scriptores rerum Gerrn. septentrional.” Hamburgh, 1706; and Muray, one of the most distinguished professors of Gottingen, has enriched it with a learned commentary. The time of our author’s death is not known.

, a Scottish prelate, archbishop of St. Andrew’s. He was born 1543, in the town of Perth, where he received the rudiments of his education, and afterwards studied philosophy, and took his degree of M. A. at the university of St. Andrew’s. In the year 1566 he set out for Paris, as tutor to a young gentleman. In the month of June in the same year, Mary queen of Scots being delivered of a son, afterwards James VI. of Scotland, and first of England, Mr. Adamson wrote a Latin poem on the occasion, in which he styled him king of England and France. This proof of his loyalty involved him in some difficulties, causing him to be arrested in France, and confined for six months; but he escaped by the intercession, of queen Mary, and some of the principal nobility. As soon as he recovered his liberty, he retired with his pupil to Bourges. He was in this city during the massacre at Paris; and, the same bloody persecuting spirit prevailing amongst the Catholics at Bourges as at the metropolis, he lived concealed for seven months at a public-house, the master of which, upwards of 70 years of age, was thrown from the top of the building, and had his brains dashed out, for his charity to heretics. Whilst Mr. Adamson lay thus in his sepulchre, as he called it, he wrote his Latin poetical version of the book of Job, and his tragedy of Herod, in the same language. In 1573, he returned to Scotland; and, having entered into holy orders, became minister of Paisley. In 1575, he was appointed one of the commissioners, by the general assembly, to settle the jurisdiction and policy of the church; and the following year he was named, with Mr. David Lindsay, to report their proceedings to the earl of Moreton, then regent. About this time, the earl made him one of his chaplains, and, on the death of bishop Douglas, promoted him to the archiepiscopal see of St. Andrew’s, a dignity which brought upon him great trouble and uneasiness; for he was extremely obnoxious to the Presbyterian party, and many inconsistent absurd stories were propagated about him. Soon after his promotion, he published his Catechism in Latin verse, a work highly approved, even by his enemies; who, nevertheless, continued to persecute him with great violence. In 1578, he submitted himself to the general assembly, which procured him peace but for a very little time; for, the year following, they brought fresh accusations against him. In the year 1582, being attacked with a grievous disease, in which the physicians could give him no relief, he happened to take a simple medicine from an old woman, which did him service. The woman, whose name was Alison Pearsone, was immediately charged with witchcraft, and committed to prison, but escaped out of her confinement: however, about four years afterwards, she was again found, and burnt for a witch. In 1583, king James came to St. Andrew’s; and the archbishop, being much recovered, preached before him, and disputed with Mr. Andrew Melvil, in presence of his Majesty, with great reputation, which drew upon him fresh calumny and persecution. The king, however, was so well pleased with him, that he sent him ambassador to queen Elizabeth, at whose court he resided for some years. His conduct, during his embassy, has been variously reported by different authofsV Two things he principally laboured, viz. the recommending the king, his master, to the nobility and gentry of England, and the procuring some support for the episcopal party in Scotland. By his eloquent preaching he drew after him such crowds of people, and raised in their minds Such a high idea of the young king, his master, that queen Elizabeth forbade him to enter the pulpit during his stay in her dominions. In 1584 he was recalled, and sat in the parliament held in August at Edinburgh. The Presbyterian party were still very violent against the archbishop. A provincial synod was held at St. Andrew’s in April 1586; where the archbishop was accused and excommunicated: he appealed to the king and the states, but this availed him but little; for the mob being excited against him, it became dangerous to appear in public in the city of St. Andrew’s. At the next general assembly, a paper being produced, containing the archbishop’s submission, he was absolved from the excommunication. In 1588, fresh accusations were brought against him. The year following, he published the Lamentations of the prophet Jeremiah, in Latin verse, which he dedicated to the king, complaining of his hard usage. In the latter end of the same year, he published a translation of the Apocalypse in Latin verse, and a copy of Latin verses, addressed also to his Majesty, when he was in great distress. The king, however, was so far from giving him assistance, that he granted the revenue of his see to the duke of Lenox so that the remaining part of this prelate’s life was very wretched — he having hardly subsistence for his family, notwithstanding his necessities compelled him to deliver to the assembly a formal recantation of all his opinions concerning church government. He died in 1591. His works were printed in a 4to volume in London in 1619, with his Life by Thomas Volusenus, or Wilson. Besides the contents of this volume, our author wrote many things which were never published: such as, six books on the Hebrew republick, various translations of the prophets into Latin verse, Praelections on St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy, various apologetical and funeral orations; and, what deserves most to be regretted, a very candid history of his own times. His character has. been variously represented, as may be seen in Calderwood and Spotiswood’s Histories, Mackenzie’s Lives of Scottish Authors, and the last edition of the Biographia Britannica. He appears to have been one of those men of whom no just estimate can be formed, without taking into the account the distraction of the times in which he lived.

, an eminent French naturalist, was born at Aix in Provence, April 7, 1727. His father, of Scotch origin, appears to have been in the service of Vintimille, then archbishop of that city. When the latter was translated to the see of Paris, Adanson was brought thither at three years of age, educated with great care, and soon gave proofs of uncommon application. As he was small of stature, he appeared much younger than he was; and, when he carried off the university prizes, many jokes were passed upon him. Needham, however, the celebrated naturalist, known by his microscopical disc-jveries, happening to be a witness of his success, presented him with a microscope; adding, that one who knew the works of men so well ought to study those of nature. This circumstance first induced him to study natural history, but without neglecting the usual course pursued in the university of Paris. In natural history, Reaumur and Bernard de Jussieu, were his guides, and he divided his time between the royal gardens and the museums of these learned men; and, when the system of Linnæus began to be published, it afforded him new matter for speculation. His parents had intended him for the church, and had procured him a prebend; but such was his thirst for general science, that he resigned it, and determined to travel into some country not usually visited or described. Senegal was the first object of his choice, thinking that its unhealthy climate had prevented its being visited by any other naturalist. Accordingly, he set out in 1748, in the 21st year of his age; and, after visiting the Azores and the Canaries, landed on the island of Goree, on the coast of Senegal; where he made a vast collection of specimens, animal, vegetable, and mineral, which he classified and described in a manner which he thought an improvement on the systems of Tournefort and Linnæus. He extended his researches also to the climate, geography, and manners of the people. He was engaged in this employment for five years, entirely at his own expence; and, in 1757, published the result in his “Histoire naturelle de Senegal,” 4to; an abridged translation of which, very ill executed, was published in London, 1759, 8vo. His classification of the Testacea, in this work, is universally allowed to be and ingenious. In 1756, soon after his return, having been elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences, he read a paper on the Baobab, or calabash tree, an enormous vegetable, that had almost been accounted fabulous; and afterwards, a history of the tree which produces Gum Arabic. He would not, however, perhaps, have proceeded in these studies, had it not been for the generous encouragement afforded him by M. de Bombarde, a zealous patron of science. This induced him to publish his “Families des Plantes,” 2 vols. 8vo, 1763, a work of vast information, and which would have created a new revolution in the botanical world, had not the genius of Linnæus been predominant. But, although this work was neglected at the time, discoveries have since been advanced as new, which are to be found in it. About five years after, he determined to give a new edition, and had made the necessary corrections, and many additions; but, while employed on this, he coneived the more extensive plan of a complete Encyclopaedia, and he was persuaded that Lewis XV. would encourage such an undertaking. Flattered by this hope, he devoted his whole time to the collection of materials. In 1775, having got together an immense quantity, he submitted them to the Academy, under the title of an account of his manuscripts and plates, from 1771 to 1775, arranged according to the method he discovered when at Senegal, in 1749. These consisted of, 1. The universal order of Nature, in 27 vols. 8vo. 2. The natural history of Senegal, 8 vols. 8vo. 3. A course of natural history. 4. An universal vocabulary of natural history, one vol. fol. of 1000 pages. 5. A dictionary of natural history. 6. Forty thousand figures, and as many specimens of objects already known. 7. A collection of thirty-four thousand specimens of his own collection. It may easily be conceived that the academicians were astonished at this proposal; but the committee, appointed to examine his labours, did not find the collection equally valuable in all its branches, and, therefore, he did not meet with the encouragement he expected. His intention was to have published the entire work at once; but it was thought that, if he had published it in parts, he might probably have been successful. He published, however, a second edition of his “Families of the Plants,” which is, in fact, an encyclopaedia of botany. After this, he published no considerable work, but furnished some papers for the Academy, which have not been printed, and wrote the articles on exotics in the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia. In 1753, he laid before the French East India Company the plan of forming on the coast of Africa a colony, where all sorts of colonial produce might be cultivated, without enslaving the Negroes. This first effort, however, to procure the abolition of the slave-trade was not then attended to. In 1760, indeed, when the English were in possession of Senegal, they made him very liberal offers to communicate his plan, which he refused, from a love for his own country. He was equally disinterested in. refusing the princely offers made, in 1760, by the emperor of Germany, and, in 1766, by Catherine of Russia, and, lastly, by the king of Spain, if he would reside in their dominions. In France, however, he frequently travelled into various parts, in pursuit of his favourite science.

, St. archbishop of Vienne, in Dauphiny, was born in Gastinois, about the year 800, of an ancient family. He was educated in the abbey of Ferrieres, where he embraced a monastic life, and afterwards passed some time in the monastery of Pruni, but meeting with some unpleasant circumstances there, he went to Rome, where he spent five years in amassing materials for the works which he afterwards wrote. On his return he was employed by Remi, archbishop of Lyons, in his diocese, and was elected archbishop of Vienne in the year 860. His vigilance over his clergy, his care in the instruction of his flock, his frequent visitations throughout his province, and the humility and purity of his private life, distinguished him in an age not remarkable for these virtues. He appears to have been consulted also in affairs of state, when, he gave his opinion, and urged his remonstrances with firmness and independence. He died Dec. 16, 875. He is the author of, 1. “An Universal Chronicle,” from the creation of the world, which has been often cited as authority for the early history of France. It was printed at Paris, 1512, 1522, fol. 156], 8vo; and at Rome, 1745, fol. 2. “A Martyrology,” better arranged than any preceding, and enriched by the lives of the saints. It was printed by Rosweide, Antwerp, 1613; and Paris, 1645, fol.; and is inserted in the Bibliotheque des Peres. He also wrote the life of St. Didier, which is in Canisius; and that of St. Theudier, which is in the “Acta Sanctorum.”

, bishop of Bath and Wells in the reigns of Henry VII. and VIII. was descended of an obscure family at Cornetto, a small town in Tuscany; but soon distinguished himself by his learning and abilities, and procured several employments at the court of Rome. In 1448 he was appointed nuncio extraordinary to Scotland, by pope Innocent VIII. to quiet the troubles in that kingdom; but, upon his arrival in England, being informed that his presence was not necessary in Scotland, the contests there having been ended by a battle, he applied himself to execute some other commissions with which he was charged, particularly to collect the pope’s tribute, or Peter-pence, his holiness having appointed him his treasurer for that purpose. He continued some months in England, during which time he got so far into the good graces of Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, that he recommended him to the king; who appointed him his agent for English affairs at Rome; and, as a recompense for his faithful services, promoted him first to the bishoprick of Hereford, and afterwards to that of Bath and Wells. He was enthroned at Wells by his proxy Polydore Vergil, at that time the pope’s sub-collector in England, and afterwards appointed by Adrian archdeacon of Wells. Adrian let out his bishoprick to farmers, and afterwards to cardinal Wolsey, himself residing at Rome, where he built a magnificent palace, on the front of which he had the name of his benefactor Henry VII. inscribed: he left it after his decease to that prince and his successors. Alexander VI, who succeeded Innocent VIII, appointed Adrian his principal secretary, and vicar-general in spirituals and temporals; and the same pope created him a cardinal-priest, with the title of St. Chrysogonus, the 31st of May, 1503. Soon after his creation, he narrowly escaped being poisoned at a feast, to which he was invited with some other cardinals, by the pope and his son Caesar Borgia.

, successively bishop of Wilton and archbishop of Canterbury, and one of the greatest luminaries of his dark era, was the son of an earl of Kent, and after receiving a few scanty instructions from an ignorant secular priest, assumed the habit of the Benedictine order of monks in the monastery at Abingdon, over which Athelwold then presided, having been appointed abbot in the year 955. Athelwold, being created bishop of Winchester in the year 693, settled several of the Abingdon monks in his cathedral. Among these was Ælfric; who, in return for the benefit which he had formerly derived from the instructions of Alhelwold, was now eager to show his gratitude, by forwarding the wishes of his benefactor to instruct the youth of his diocese. With this view he drew tip his “Latin-Saxon Vocabulary,” and some “Latin Colloquies.” The former of these works was published by Somner, under the title of a Glossary, Oxon. 1659 (See Somner). During his residence in this city, Ælfric translated, from the Latin into the Saxon language, most of the historical books of the Old Testament: the greatest part of which translations has reached our time, having been printed at Oxford in 1698. Here, likewise, at the request of Wulfsine, bishop of Sherborn, he drew up what has been called his “Canons,” but might more properly be styled, a charge to be delivered by the bishops to their clergy. They are preserved in the first volume of Spelman’s Councils, and were composed, between the years 980 and 987. Some time about this last year, Ælfric was removed to Cerne Abbey, to instruct the monks, and regulate the affairs of that monastery. Here it was that he translated, from the Latin fathers, the first volume of his “Homilies.” After remaining in this place about a year, he was made abbot of St. Alban’s in the year 988, and composed a liturgy for the service of his abbey, which continued to be used there till Leland’s time. In the year 989 he was created Lishop of Wilton, and during his continuance in that see, translated, about the latter end of the year 991, a second volume of “Homilies.” These are the volumes of which Mrs. Elstob issued proposals for a translation, in 1713, accompanied with the original, but did not live to publish the work. Here also Ælfric wrote his “Grammar,” a supplement to his Homilies, and, probably, a tract dedicated to Sigeward or Sigeferth, containing two epistles oil the Old and New Testament, which his biographer concludes to have been written between the years 987 and 991. In 994, he was translated to Canterbury, where, after exerting himself for some years, with equal spirit and prudence, in defending his diocese against the incursions of the Danes, he died Nov. 16, 1005. He was buried at Abingdon, the place where he first embraced the profession of a monk, whence his remains were afterwards transferred to Canterbury, in the reign of Canute.

, a learned and industrious English antiquary, and one of the members of the first society of antiquaries, was the son of Clement Agard, of Foston (not Toston, as in the Biog. Brit.) in Derbyshire, by Eleanor, the daughter of Thomas Middleborough, of Egbaston in Warwickshire. He was born 1540, and originally studied law; but it does not appear that he was at either university. He afterwards became a clerk in the Exchequer office; and in 1570 was made deputy chamberlain of the Exchequer, which he held forty-five years. During this time, he had leisure and industry to accumulate large collections of matters pertaining to the antiquities of his country; and his rseal in these researches procured him the acquaintance of that eminent benefactor to English literature and antiquities, sir Robert Cotton, with whom he enjoyed the strictest friendship as long as he lived. Wood, in his Athenae, has made a strange mistake here in ascribing Agard’s proficiency in antiquary knowledge to Sir Robert, who was but just born the year Agard came into office. There can be no doubt, however, that they improved and assisted each other in their pursuits. Agard also could number the most eminent and learned men of the age among his friends and coadjutors. It was in his days, about 1572, that the society of antiquaries was formed by archbishop Parker; and among the names of its original members, we find Agard, Andrews, Bouchier, Camden, Carew, Cotton, Dodderidge, Ley, Spelman, Stow, Dethicke, Lambart, and others. In this society, Agard read these essays, which have since been published by Hearne, in his “Collection of Curious Discourses,” 1720 and 1775, 2. vols. Agard’s discourses are: 1. Opinion touching the antiquity, power, order, state, manner, persons, and proceedings of the high court of parliament in England. 2. On this question, Of what antiquity shires were in England In this essay various ancient manuscripts are cited; and Mr. Agard seems to think king Alfred was the author of this division: it was delivered before the society in Easter term, 33 Eliz. 1591. 3. On the dimensions of the lands in England. In this he settles the meaning of these words, solin, hida, carucata, jngum, virgata, ferlingata, ferlinges, from ancient manuscripts and authentic records in the exchequer. 4. The authority, office, and privileges of heraults [heralds] in England. He is of opinion, that this office is of the same antiquity with the institution of the garter. 5. Of the antiquity or privileges of the houses or inns of court, and of chancery. In this he observes, that in more ancient times, before the making of Magna Charta, our lawyers were of the clergy: that in the time of J^dward I. the law came to receive its proper form; and that in an old record, the exchequer was styled the mothercourt of all courts of record. He supposes that at this time lawyers began to have settled places of abode, but affirms he knew of no privileges. 6. Of the diversity of names of this island. In this we find that the first Saxons, residing in this island, came here under the command of ne Aelle and his three sons, in 43.5; and that the reason, why it was called England rather than Saxon land, was because the Angles, after this part of the island was totally suhdued, were more numerous than the Saxons. He likewise observes, that after this conquest, the name of Briton grew into distaste, and all valued themselves on being Englishmen. This was read, June 29, 1604, and is the last discourse of Agard in the collection. The society was dissolved soon after, and did not revive until the last century.

, or Egelnoth, or Æthelnoth, in Latin Achelnotus, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Canute the Great, succeeded to that see in the year 1020. This prelate, surnamed the Good, was son of earl Agilmer, and, at the time of his election, dean of Canterbury. After his promotion he went to Rome, and received his pall from pope Benedict VIII. In his way thither, as he passed through Pavia, he purchased, for an hundred talents of silver and one of gold, St. Augustine’s arm, which was kept there as a relic; and sent it over to England, as a present to Leofric, earl of Coventry. Upon his return, he is said to have raised the see of Coventry to its former lustre. He was much in favour with king Canute, and employed his interest with that monarch to good purposes. It was by his advice the king sent over large sums of money for the support of the foreign churches: and Malmsbury observes, that this prince was prompted to acts of piety, and restrained from excesses, by the regard he had for the archbishop. King Canute being dead, Agelnoth refused to crown his son Harold, alleging that the late king had enjoined him to set the crown upon none but the issue of queen Emma; that he had given the king a promise upon this head, and that he was resolved to be true to his engagement. Having declared himself with this freedom, he iaid the crown upon the altar, with an imprecation against those bishops who should venture to perform the ceremony. Harold, who was greatly chagrined at this disappointment, endeavoured, both by menaces and large offers, to prevail upon the archbishop, but in vain: and whether he was afterwards crowned by any other person is uncertain. Agelnoth, after he had held the see of Canterbury seventeen years, died Oct. 29, 1038. Three works have been attributed to him “A panegyric on the blessed Virgin Mary;” “A letter to Earl Leofric, concerning St, Augustine;” and “Letters to several persons.”

, archbishop of Ravenna in the ninth century, wrote the history of his predecessors in that see, in a bold style, and with little respect for the interests or character of the court of Rome, by which his grandfather or great-grandfather had been put to death. There are many curious facts in this collection of lives, but also several mistakes in dates. It was published by father Bacchini, in 1708, with notes, under the title “Agnelli qui et Andreas, abbatis S. Marias ad Blachernas, liber pontificalis, sive vituc Pontificum Ravennatum, &c.” 2-vols. 4to. Muratori reprinted it in his collection of Italian historians. Spreti, who wrote on the history of Ravenna, Vossius, and Moreri, have confounded Agnelli with, one of the same name who lived in the sixth century, and is supposed to have written a letter in the Bibliothec. Patrum, “De ratione Fidei ad Armenium.”

, archbishop of Lyons, was one of the most celebrated and learned prelates of the ninth century. Dr. Cave and Olearius tell us he was a Frenchman, but Du Pin says there is no absolute proof of this. He was born in the year 779, as father Mabillon deduced from a short martyrology, upon which Agobard seems to have written some notes with his own hand. In the year 782 he came from Spain to France. Leidrade, archbishop of Lyons, ordained him priest in the year 804, and nine years after he was appointed coadjutor, or corepiscopus to that prelate, and when, in the year 816, Leidrade returned to a monastery at Soissons, Agobard was substituted in his room with the consent of the emperor, and the whole synod of the French bishops, who highly approved of the choice which Leidrade had made of a successor. This ordination, however, was objected to, as it is contrary to the canons, that a bishop should choose his successor himself. Agobard notwithstanding enjoyed the see quietly till he was expelled from it by the emperor Louis le Debormaire, because he had espoused the party of his sou Lothaire, and been one of the chief authors of deposing him in the assembly of bishops at Compiegne in the year 833. For Lewis, having secured himself against the injustice and violence which had been offered by Lothaire and the bishops of his party, prosecuted the latter in the council of Thionville in the year 835. Agobard, who had retired to Italy, with the other bishops of his party, was summoned three times before the council, and refusing to appear, was deposed, but no person was substituted in his room. His cause was again examined in the year 836, at an assembly held at Stramiac near Lyons: but it continued still undetermined, on account of the absence of the bishops, whose sole right it was to depose their brother. At length, the sons of the emperor having made their peace with him, they found means to restore Agobard, who was present in the year 838, at an assembly held at Paris; and he died in the service of his sovereign, in Xaintonge, June 5, in the year 840. This church honoured him with the title of saint. He had no less share in the affairs of the church, than those of the empire; and he shewed by his writings that he was a much abler divine than a politician. He was a strenuous defender of ecclesiastical discipline, very tenacious of the opinions he had once espoused, and very vigorous in asserting and defending them. Dupin, however, acknowledges that he was unfriendly to the worship of images, and it appears that he held notions on that subject which would have done honour to more enlightened times. He wrote a treatise entitled “Adversus dogma Faslicis ad Ludovicum Imp.” against Felix Orgelitanus, to shew that Christ is the true son of God, and not merely by adoption and grace. He wrote likewise several tracts against the Jews, a list of which may be seen in the General Dictionary, 10 vols. fol. from whence our account of him is principally taken. His style is simple, intelligible, and natural, but without elevation or ornament. He reasons with much acuteness, confirming his arguments, as was the custom then, by the authority of the fathers, whom he has largely quoted. His works were buried in obscurity for several ages, Until Papirius Masso found a manuscript of them by chance at a bookseller’s shop at Lyons, who was just going to cut it to pieces to bind his books with. Masso published this manuscript at Paris in 1603 in 8vo, and the original was after his death deposited in the king of France’s library. But Masso having suffered many errors to escape him in his edition, M. Baluze published a more correct edition at Paris, 1666, 2 vols. 8vo, from the same manuscript, and illustrated it with notes. He likewise added to it a treatise of Agobard entitled “Contra quatuor libros Amalarii liber,” which he copied from an old manuscript of Peter Marnæsius, and collated with another manuscript of Chifflet. This edition has been likewise reprinted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.”

, a native of Finland, and a Lutheran divine of considerable eminence in the sixteenth century, studied divinity and medicine in the university of Wittemberg. Having become acquainted with Luther, that reformer recommended him to Gustavus I.; and on his return to Sweden, he was made rector of Abo, in 1539. Gustavus afterwards sent him to Lapland to preach Christianity to the benighted Laplanders. In 1554, he was appointed bishop of Abo, and then went into Russia, with the archbishop of Upsal, Laurentius Petri, in order to have a conference with the clergy of that country. He died in 1557. He translated the New Testament into the Finland language, which was printed at Stockholm, 1548; and is said also to have translated into the same language a work entitled “Rituale Ecclesise ab erroribus pontificiorum rep.urgatus.”

He now resolved to remove to the Low Countries; this he could not do without a passport, which he at length obtained, after many tedious delays, and arrived at Antwerp in July 1528. The duke de Vendome was the principal cause of these delays; for he, instead of signing the passport, tore it in pieces in a passion, protesting he would never sign a passport for a conjuror. In 1529, Agrippa had invitations from Henry VIII. king of England, from the chancellor of the emperor, from an Italian marquis, and from Margaret of Austria, governess of the Low Countries: he preferred the last, and accepted of being historiographer to the emperor, which was offered him by that princess. He published, by way of introduction, the “History of the Coronation of Charles V.” Soon after, Margaret of Austria died, and he spoke her funeral oration. Her death is said in some measure to have been the life of Agrippa, for great prejudices had been infused into that princess against him: “I have nothing to write you (says he in one of his letters) but that I am likely to starve here, bein entirely forsaken by the deities of the court; what the great Jupiter himself (meaning Charles V.) intends, I know not. I now understand what great danger I was in here: the monks so far influenced the princess, who was of a superstitious turn, as women generally are, that, had not her sudden death prevented it, I should undoubtedly have been tried for offences against the majesty of the cowl and the sacred honour of the monks; crimes for which I should have been accounted no less guilty, and no less punished; than if I had blasphemed the Christian religion.” His treatise, “Of the Vanity of the Sciences,” which he published in 1530, greatly enraged his enemies; and that which he soon after printed at Antwerp, “Of the Occult Philosophy,” afforded them fresh pretexts for defaming his reputation. Cardinal Campej us, the pope’s legate, however, and the cardinal de la Mark, bishop of Liege, spoke in his favour; but could not procure him his pension as historiographer, nor prevent him from being thrown into prison at Brussels, in the year 1531. When he regained his liberty, he paid a visit to the archbishop of Cologn, to whom he had dedicated his Occult Philosophy, and from whom he had received a very obliging letter in return. The inquisitors endeavoured to hinder the impression of his Occult Philosophy, when he was about to print a second edition with emendations and additions; however, notwithstanding all their opposition, he finished it in 1533. He staid at Bonne till 1535; and when he returned to Lyons, he was imprisoned for what he had written against the mother of Francis I.; but he was soon released from his confinement, at the desire of several persons, and went to Grenoble, where he died the same year. Some authors say, that he died in the hospital; but Gabriel Naude affirms, it was at the house of the receiver-general of the province of Dauphiny.

, archbishop of Amasia m Natolia, was born at Bologna, Nov. 20, 1570. He had the advantage of being educated under tfee care of Philip Sega, his uncle, who was raised on account of his distinguished merits to the rank of cardinal, by pope Innocent IX; and of Jerom Agucchio, his brother, who was made cardinal by pope Clement VIII. in 1604. His application to study mis early, rapid, and assiduous, but particularly in. the study of polite literature. This recommended him so much to cardinal Sega, that he carried him with him te France, when he went thither as legate from the pope. After the death of Sega, Agucchio was appointed secretary to cardinal Aldobrandini, nephew to pope Clement VIII. and attended him when he went legate to Henry IV. of France, of which journey he wrote a very elegant account. The cardinal, after his return, committed the management of his house to Agucchio, which province he executed till the death of pope Clement VIII. and of his brother the cardinal Agucchio, when want of health obliged him to retire from the court. But after he had recovered, and had passed some time at Rome in learned retirement, cardinal Aldobrandini brought him again into his former employment, in which he continued till the cardinal’s death. He then became secretary to Gregory XV. which place he held until the death of that pontiff. In 1624, Urban VIII. sent him as nuncio to Venice, where he became generally esteemed, although he maintained the rights of the see of Rome with the utmost rigour. The contagious distemper which ravaged Italy in 1630, obliged him to retire to Friuli, where he died in 1632. He was a man of very extensive learning, but appears in his private character to have been somewhat austere and narrow. His works are: “A treatise upon Comets and Meteors,” “The Life of Cardinal Sega, and that of Jerom Agucchio his brother,” and a letter to the canon Barthelemi Dolcini on the origin of the city of Bologna, “L'Antica fondazione e dominio della citta di Bologna,” Bologna, 1638, 4to. He left also various letters and moral treatises, not published.

Aguesseau himself considered it as an honour to be recalled in a time of danger, and immediately began to repair the mischief done in his absence, by ordering the payment of the notes issued by the bank, as far as was possible; and although the loss to individuals was great, this measure was less odious than a total bankruptcy, which had been proposed. But a new storm burst forth in this corrupt court, which he was unable to oppose with his usual firmness. The regent, who had cajoled the parliament to nullify the will of Louis XIV. now solicited him to register the declaration of the king in favour of the bull Unigenitus. This was done in compliance with Dubois, now become archbishop of Cambray, and wfro, expecting a cardinal’s hat, had flattered the court of Rome with hopes of hayiug the bull registered. D‘Aguesseau had refused this, as we have seen, in the reign of Louis XIV. without being influenced by any spirit of party, but purely from his attachment to the rights of the crown. But now, when chancellor, he seemed to view the matter in another light; he thought it his duty to negociate with the parliament; and the parliament rejected his propositions, and was banished to Pontoise. The regent then imagiued he might register the declaration in the grand council. In this solemn assembly D’Aguesseau met with a repartee which he no doubt felt. Perelle, one of the members, having opposed the registration with much spirit, D'Aguesseau asked him where he had found all his arguments against it “In the pleadings of the deceased M. chancellor D'Aguesseau,” answered Perelle, very coolly; nor was this the only instance in which he was treated with ridicule on this change in his sentiments and conduct. In the mean time the court having threatened to send the parliament to Blois, the chancellor offered to resign the seals; but the regent requested him to retain them: and at length the parliament consented to register the disputed declaration with certain modifications. D‘Aguesseau, however, did not enjoy his honours long. In 1722, he refused to yield precedence to cardinal Dubois, the first minister; and this statesman, who wished to keep at a distance from court every man of virtue and dignity of character, procured the chancellor to be again banished, and he was not recalled until 1727, but without having the seals restored to him. In the mean time the court and parliament were still at variance on ecclesiastical affairs, and the cardinal Fleuri wished to engage D’Aguesseau’s influence in favour of the court; but the latter had unfortunately lost his credit in a great measure, and was considered as a deserter from the cause which he Jiad once defended with so much spirit.

, provost of Queen’s college, Oxford, was born in Westmoreland in 1559, educated in grammatical learning under the care of Bernard Gilpin, usually called the Northern Apostle, and by him sent to St. Edmund’s hall, Oxford, in 1579. He was then 19 years of age, and was maintained at the university by Gilpin, who afterwards left him a handsome legacy by his last will. Mr. Airay soon removed from St. Edmund’s hall to Queen’s college, and in 1583, took his bachelor’s degree, was made tabarder, and in 1586 he commenced master of arts and was chosen fellow. About this time he went into orders, and became a constant preacher in the university, particularly in the church of St. Peter in the east. In 1594, he took the degree of B. D. and March 9, 1598-9, was elected provost of his college; and in 1606 he was appointed vice-chancellor. He wrote the following pieces: 1. “Lectures upon the whole Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians,” London, 1618, 4to. 2. “The just and necessary Apology touching his Suit in Law, for the Rector of Charlton on Otmore, in Oxfordshire,” London, 1621, 8vo. 3. “A Treatise against bowing at the Name of Jesus.” The lectures were preached in the church of St. Peter in the east, and were published by Christopher Potter, fellow, and afterwards provost of Queen’s college, with an epistle of his own composition prefixed to them. Airay ranks among the zealous Puritans, who were mostly Calvinists, and was a great supporter of his party in the university, where he was considered as a man of sincere piety, integrity, and learning. In 1602 when Dr. Howson, then vice-chancellor, wished to repress the practice of some Puritan divines of Oxford who preached against the ceremonies and discipline of the church, Dr. Airay and one or two otherlj were ordered to make submission by the queen’s commissioners who had investigated the matter; and this the others did, but Dr. Airay, according to Ant. Wood, appears to have been excused. In 1604, when king James, in commemoration of his escape from the Gowrie conspiracy, not only appointed an anniversary, but that there should always be a sermon and service on Tuesdays throughout the year, Dr. Airay introduced this last custom into Oxford, first at All Saints church, and then at St. Mary’s, with a rule that the sermons should be preached by the divines of the colleges in their respective turns. In 1606, when vice-chancellor, he was one of the first to call Mr. Laud, afterwards the celebrated archbishop, to task for preaching sentiments which were supposed to favour popery. He died in Queen’s college, Oct. 10, 1616, aged fiftyseven, and was buried in the chapel. He bequeathed to the college some lands lying in Garsington, near Oxford.

, of Tewkesbury, another English writer, who flourished about the year 1177, and died in 1201. He wrote “De vita et exilio Thomas Cantuarensis,” of the life and banishment of Thomas a Becket, archbishop of Canterbury.

A Lasco, or Lasco, or Laski (John), usually styled the Polish reformer, a man of high rank, talents, and pious zeal, is said by Fox, the martyrologist, who was his contemporary, to have been uncle to Sigismond, king of Poland. He certainly was of a noble family in Poland, which took its name from Lasco, Latzki, or Latzeo, and subsisted under one of those titles long after his time. He was born, according to Saxius, in 1499, but we have no particulars respecting his family, unless that his brother Jerome was an able politician, and employed by the emperor Ferdinand, as his ambassador to the Turkish government. He had also an uncle, of the same name, who was archbishop of Gnesua, to whom Erasmus dedicated his edition of the works of St. Ambrose, and whom Le Clerc mistakes for our John Alasco. Erasmus in one of his epistles (ep. 862) mentions two others of the same illustrious family, Hieroslaus, and Stanislaus Alasco (usually written à Lasco); and in ep. 1167, he speaks of a John à Lasco (Joannes Lascanus), a young man, who died in Germany.

When Germany became an unsafe residence for the friends of the reformatiou, and the contest respecting the interim was eagerly pursued, Alasco, whose fame had reached England, was invited thither by archbishop Cranmer. This illustrious founder of the English church had for some time afforded a quiet asylum to such learned foreigners as bad been expatriated on account of their religion; and had at one time residing at Lambeth palace, those celebrated reformers Bucer, Martyr, Fagius, Ochin, and others of inferior note. Alasco arrived accordingly about the year 1548, and was introduced not only to the archbishop, but by his means to sir John Cheke, sir William Cecil, and to the duke of Somerset, the protector. In a conference with the latter, he was encouraged to request that be and his congregation might have leave to come over to London, and be protected in the exercise of their religion; and he urged that such a favour would be a matter of policy as well as charity, as by this step many useful manufactures might be introduced into England. He requested also that they might be incorporated by the king’s jetters patent; and some old dissolved church, or monastery, given them as a place of worship. Having proposed these measures, and obtained the assistance of the archbishop and other friends of rank and power, to assist in forwarding them, he returned again to Embden, where be corresponded with the archbishop and Cecil, As soon as they informed him that his request would be complied with, he again came to England, and brought with him a considerable number of German Protestants, who found an asylum for their persons, and toleration for their principles, under the mild reign of Edward VI. Three hundred and eighty of these refugees were naturalized, and erected into a species of ecclesiastical corporation, which was governed by its own laws, and enjoyed its own form of worship, although not exactly agreeing with that of the church of England. A place of worship in London, part of the once splendid priory of the Augustine friars, in the ward of Broad-street, which is still standing, was granted to them July 24, 1549, with the revenues belonging to it, for the subsistence of their ministers, who were either expressly nominated, or at least approved of by the king. His majesty also fixed the precise number of them, namely, four minisiers and a superintendant. This last office was conferred on Alasco, who, in the letters patent, is called a person of singular probity, and great learning; and it was an office which comprehended many important duties. It appears that as among the refugees from the Continent there were sometimes concealed papists, or dangerous enthusiasts, a power was given to Alasco to examine into their characters, and none were tolerated in the exercise of their religion but such as were protected by him. His office likewise extended not only over this particular congregation of Germans, but over all the other foreign churches in London, of which we find there was a French, a Spanish, and an Italian church or congregation; and over their schools and seminaries, all which were subject to his inspection, and declared to be within his jurisdiction. In 1552, we find him using his influence to procure for a member of the French church the king’s licence to set up a printing-house for printing the liturgy, &c. in French, for the use of the French islands (Jersey and Guernsey) under the English government.

, a lawyer and antiquary, was born at Nismes, and not at Vivarais, as Castel asserts in his history of Languedoc. His family was noble, but more famous for the talents of Poldo, and his father James. He originally studied with a view to practice at the bar, but Nismes becoming, in 1552, the seat of the presidial court, he was appointed to the office of counsellor, which he held during life with much reputation, and employed his leisure hours in the cultivation of jurisprudence and polite literature. His first work was a French translation, of St. Julian, archbishop of Toledo, on death, and a future state. This was followed by a translation, from the Latin of Æneas Sylvius (Pius II.) of a history of the Taborites of Bohemia; but his most curious work is his “History of Nismes,” fol. 1557, illustrated with many curious views and monuments engraven in wood, and very singular specimens of the art at that time. D'Albenas was among the first who embraced the reformed religion, and. contributed not a little to the extension of it. Before his death, in 1563, the greater part of the inhabitants of Nismes, and its neighbourhood, professed Calvinism.

Alberoni was now prime minister of Spain, a cardipal, and archbishop of Valentia; and exercised his ministry with the most complete despotism. One of his projects was, to dispossess the duke of Orleans of the regency of France, and to bestow it upon his own sovereign, as the oldest representative of the house of Bourbon: to place the pretender on the throne of England, and to add tq Spain the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily. This project, however, was discovered by the regent; and one of the conditions he made with the king of Spain was, the banishjnent of Alberoni from his councils and his kingdom. With this he was obliged to comply, and the cardinal received orders to leave Madrid in twenty-four hours, and the kingdom of Spain in fifteen days. Alberoni, who took with him great wealth, had not proceeded far, when it was discovered that he was carrying out of the kingdom the celebrated will of Charles II. of Spain, which gave that kingdom to its then sovereign. Persons were immediately detached from Madrid, to wrest this serious and important document from him, which it was supposed he intended ta take to the emperor of Germany, to ingratiate himself with him. With some violence they effected their purpose, and the cardinal proceeded on his journey to the frontiers of France, where he had the additional mortification of being received by an officer, sent by the regent to conduct him through that kingdom, as a state prisoner. Unembarrassed, however, by this circumstance, Alberoni wrote to the regent, to offer him his services against Spain, but his highr ness disdained to return any answer.

, archbishop of Prague, slightly mentioned in our former edition, deserves some farther notice on account of his character having been much misrepresented by Popish writers, from design, and by one or two late Protestant writers, from ignorance of his real history. He was born at Mahrisch-Netistadt in Moravia, and probably there first educated. When a young man, he entered the university of Prague, and studied medicine, in which faculty he took his degree in 1387. To the study of medicine he joined that of the civil and canon law, and in order to prosecute these sciences with more success, went to Italy, where at that time the ablest lawyers were; and at Padua, in 1404, received his doctor’s degree. On his return, he taught medicine in the university of Prague for nearly thirty years, and attained such reputation, that Wenceslaus IV. king of Bohemia, appointed him his first physician. In 1409, on the death of the archbishop of Prague, Wenceslaus recommended him to be his successor, and the canons elected him, although not very willingly. For some time they had no reason to complain of his neglecting to suppress the doctrines of Wicklifte and Huss, which were then spreading in Bohemia; but afterwards, when Huss came to Prague, and had formed a strong party in favour of the reformation, he relaxed in his efforts, either from timidity or principle, and determined to resign his archbishopric, which he accordingly did in 1413, when Conrade was chosen in his room, a man more zealous against the reformers, and more likely to gratify his clergy by the persecution of the Hussites. Albicus lived afterwards in privacy, and died in Hungary, 1427, and so little was his character understood, that the Hussites demolished a tomb which he bad caused to be built in his life-time, while the Popish writers were equally hostile to him for the encouragement he had given to that party. They reproached him in particular for his extreme parsimony and meanness while archbishop. Balbinus, however, the historian of Prague, asserts, that in his household establishment he was magnificent and bountiful. His last biographer allows, that in his old age he was more desirous of accumulating than became his character. During the time he held the archbishopric, he had the care of the schools and students, and bestowed every attention on the progress of literature. The only works he left are on medical subjects; “Practica medendi,” “Regimen Pestilentiae,” “Regimen Sanitatis,” all which were published at Leipsic in 1484, 4to.

, an eminent Spanish statesman and cardinal, of the fourteenth century, descended from the royal families of Leon and Arragon, was born at Cuen^a, and educated at Toulouse. Alphon­$us XI. appointed him, in succession, almoner of his court, and archdeacon of Calatrava; and lastly, although he was then very young, promoted him to the archbishopric of Toledo. He accompanied the king of Castille in his expedition against the Moors of Andalusia, in which his rank of archbishop did not prevent him from carrying arms; and he first displayed his bravery in saving the king’s life m the hottest onset of the battle of Tarifa. Alphonsus, in return, knighted him, and in 1343 gave him the command at the siege of Algesiras; but on the death of this prince, he lost his influence with his successor, Peter the cruel, whom he reproved for his irregularities, and who would have sacrificed him to the resentment of his mistress Maria de Padilla, if he had not made his escape to Avignon. Here the pope Clement VI. admitted him of his council, and made him a cardinal; on which he resigned his archbishopric, saying, that he should be as much to blame in keeping a wife with whom he could not live, as Peter king of Castille, in forsaking his wife for a mistress. Innocent VI. the successor of Clement, sent him to Italy in 1353, both as pope’s legate and as general, to reconquer the ecclesiastical states which had revolted from the popes during the residence of the latter at Avignon. This commission Albornos executed in the most satisfactory manner, either by force or intrigue; but in the midst of his career, he was recalled in 1357, and another commander sent on the expedition. He, however, having been unfortunate, the pope saw his error, and again appointed Albornos, who completed the work by securing the temporal power of the popes over those parts of Italy which have been, down to the present times, known by the name of the Ecclesiastical States. Having thus achieved his conquest, Albornos, as a minister of state, rendered himself for many years very popular. To Bologna he gave a new constitution, and founded in that city the magnificent Spanish college; and for the other parts of the ecclesiastical dominions, he enacted laws which remained in force for four centuries after. At length he announced to pope Urban V. that he might now enter and reign at Rome without fear, and was receiving him in pomp at Viterbo, when the pope, forgetting for a moment the services Albornos had rendered to the holy see, demanded an account of his expenditure during his legation. Albornos immediately desired him to look into the court-yard of the palace, where was a carriage full of keys, telling him that with the money intrusted to him, he had made the pope master of all the cities and castles of which he now saw the keys. The pope on this embraced and thanked him. He then accompanied Urban to Rome, but returned afterwards to Viterbo, where he died August 24, 1367, regretted by the people, and by the pope; who, finding himself embarrassed with new cares, more than ever wanted his advice. Albornos’s body was removed to Toledo, at his own request, and interred with great pomp. He wrote a book on the constitutions of the Roman church, which was printed at Jesi, in 1475, and is very rare. His will also was printed, with this injunction, characteristic of the man and the age he lived in, that the monks should say 60,000 masses for his soul. His political life was written by Sepulveda, under the title “Historia de hello administrate in Italia per annos 15, et confecto abÆg. Albornotio,” Bologna, 1623, fol.

, one of the fevr learned Englishmen of the eighth century, was born in the north of England, and educated at York, under the direction of archbishop Egbert, as we learn from his own letters, in which he frequently calls that great prelate his beloved master, and the clergy of York the companions of his youthful studies. As he survived the venerable Bede about seventy years, it is hardly possible that he could have received any part of his education under him, as some writers have asserted; nor does he ever call that great man his master, though he speaks of him with the highest veneration. It is not well known to what preferments he had attained in the church before he left England, although some say he was deacon of the church of York, and abhot of Canterbury. The occasion of his leaving his native country was, his being sent on an embassy by Offa, king of Mercia, to the emperor Charlemagne, who contracted so great an esteem and friendship for him, that he earnestly solicited, and at length prevailed upon him, to settle in his court, and become his preceptor in the sciences. Alcuinus accordingly instructed that great prince in rhetoric, logic, mathematics, and divinity; which rendered him one of his greatest favourites. He was treated with so much kindness and familiarity by the emperor, that the courtiers called him, by way of eminence, “the emperor’s delight.”

, two brothers, natives of Malaga, whose history has not been separated by their biographers. They studied the belles lettres, antiquities, and civil law, with equal ardour and equal reputation. They both became ecclesiastics, and even in their persons there was a very close resemblance. Joseph obtained a prebend of Cordova, which he resigned in favour of Bernard, that he might enter among the Jesuits. He afterwards became rector of the college of Granada. While among the Jesuits, he published a work on the “Exemption of the regular Orders,” Seville, 1605, 4to; and another entitled “De religiosa disciplina tuenda,” ibid. 4to, 1615. Bernard, his brother, was appointed grand vicar by the archbishop of Seville, don Pedro de Castro, but obtained permission to reside at Cordova. He was one of the most learned and high esteemed of the Spanish literati of his time, and eminent for his knowledge of the Greek, Hebrew, and Oriental languages and antiquities. He has left two works, in Spanish: 1. “Origen de la lengua Castellana,” Rome, 1606, 4to; 1682, fol.; to which he acknowledges his brother Joseph contributed liberally. 2. “Varias antiguedades de Espana Africa y otras provincias,” Antwerp, 1614, 4to. He also wrote a letter to pope Urban VIII. on the relics of certain martyrs, Cordova, 1630, fol., and a collection of letters on the sacrament. He had composed a “Boe'tia illustrata,” the loss of which is regretted by the Spanish antiquaries. Joseph was born in 1560, and died in 1616; but the dates of the birth and death of Bernard are not known.

Such is the account that has been commonly given of this extraordinary man. We shall now advert to some circumstances upon which modern research has thrown a new light. All the accounts represent Aldhelm as having been a very considerable man for the time in which he lived. It is evident, says Dr, Henry, from his works, which are still extant, that he had read the most celebrated authors of Greece and Rome, and that he was no contemptible critic in the languages in which these authors wrote. In the different seminaries in which he was educated, he acquired such a stock of knowledge, and became so eminent for his literature, not only in England but in foreign countries, that he was resorted to by many persons from Scotland, Ireland, and France. Artville, a prince of Scotland, sent his works to Aldhelm to be examined by him, and entreated him to give them their last polish, by rubbing off their Scotch rust. Besides the instructions which Aldhelm received from Maildulphus, in France and Italy, he had part of his education, and as it would seem the most considerable part, at Canterbury, under Theodore, archbishop of that city, and Adrian, the most learned professor of the sciences, who had ever been in England. The ardour with which he prosecuted his studies at that place, is well represented in a letter written by him to Hedda, bishop of Winchester; which letter also gives a good account of the different branches of knowledge in the cultivation of which he was then engaged. These were, the Roman jurisprudence, the rules of verses ard the musical modulation of words and syllables, the doctrine of the seven divisions of poetry, arithmetic, astronomomy, and astrology. It is observable, that Aldhelm speaks in very pompous terms of arithmetic, as a high and difficult attainment: though it is now so generally taught, as not to be reckoned a part of a learned education. In opposition to what has been commonly understood, that Aldhelm was the first of the Saxons who taught his countrymen the art of Latin versification, Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, informs us, that Conringius, a very intelligent antiquary in this sort of literature, mentions an anonymous Latin poet, who wrote the life of Charlemagne in verse, and adds that he was the first of the Saxons that attempted to write Latin verse. But it ought to have been recollected, that Aldhelm died above thirty years before Charlemagne was born. Aldhelm’s Latin compositions, whether in prose or verse, as novelties, were deemed extraordinary performances, and excited the attention and adruiration of scholars in other countries. His skill in music has obtained for hhn a considerable place in sir John Hawkins’s History of Music.

, abbot of Tavistock, was promoted to the bishopric of Worcester in 1046. He was so much in favour with king Edward the Confessor, and had so much power over his mind, that he obliged him to be reconciled with the worst of his enemies, particularly with Swane, son of the earl Godwin, who had revolted against him, and came with an army to invade the kingdom. Aldred also restored the union and friendship between king Edward and Griffith king of Wales. He took afterwards a journey to Rome; and being returned into England in the year 1054, he was sent ambassador to the emperor Henry It staid a whole year in Germany, and was very honourably entertained by Herman archbishop of Cologn, from whom he learned many things relative to ecclesiastical discipline, which on his return he established in his own diocese. In 10.58, he went to Jerusalem, which no archbishop or bishop of England had ever done before him. Two years after, he returned to England; and Kinsius, archbishop York, dying the 22d of December, 1060, Aldred was elected in his stead on Christmas day following, and thought fit to keep his bishopric of Worcester with the archbishopric of Canterbury, as some of his predecessors had done. Aldred went soon after to Rome, in order to receive the pallium from the pope; he was attenc.ed by Toston, earl of Northumberland, Giso, bishop of Wells and Walter, bishop of Hereford. The pope received Joston very honourably, and made him sit by him in the synod which he held against the Simonists. He wanted to Giso and Walter their request, because they were tolerably well learned, and not accused of simony. But Aldred being by his answers found ignorant, and guilty of simony, the pope deprived him very indignantly of all his honours; so that he was obliged to return without the pallium. On his way home, he and his fellow-travellers were attacked by some robbers, who took from them all that they had. This obliged them to return to Rome; and the pope, either out of compassion, or by the threatenings of the earl of Northumberland, gave Aldred the pallium; but he was obliged to resign his bishopric of Worcester. However, as the archbishop of York had been almost entirely ruined by the many invasions of foreigners, king Edward gave the new archbishop leave to keep twelve villages or manors which belonged to the bishopric of Worcester. Edward the Confessor dying in 1066, Aldred crowned Harold his successor. He also crowned William the Conqueror, after he had made him take the following oath, viz That he would protect the holy church of God and its eaders: that he would establish and observe righteous that he would entirely prohibit and suppress all rapines and unjust judgments. He was so much in favour with the conqueror, that this prince looked upon him as a father; and, though imperious in regard to everybody else, he yet submitted to obey this archbishop; John Brompton gives us an instance of the king’s submission, which at the same time shews the prelate’s haughtiness. It happened one day, as the archbishop was at York, that the deputy-governor or lord-lieutenant going out of the city with a great number of people, met the archbishop’s servants, who came to town with several carts and horses loaded with provisions. The governor asked to whom they belonged; and they having answered they were Aldred’s servants, the governor ordered that all these provisions should be carried to the king’s store-house. The archbishop sent immediately some of his clergy to the governor, commanding him to deliver the provisions, and to make satisfaction to St. Peter, and to him the saint’s vicar, for the injury he had done them; adding, that if he refused to comply, the archbishop would make use of his apostolic authority against him (intimating that he would excommunicate him.) The governor, offended at this proud message, insulted the persons whom the archbishop had sent, and returned an answer as haughty as the message. Aldred fhen went to London to make his complaint to the king; but even here he acted with his wonted insolence; for meeting the king in the church of St. Peter at Westminster, he spoke to him in these words “Hearken, Q William when thou wast but a foreigner, and God, tQ punish the sins of this nation, permitted thee to become master of it, after having shed a great deal of blood, I consecrated thee, and put the crown upon thy head with blessings; but now, because thou hast deserved it, I pronounce a curse over thee, instead of a blessing, since thou art become the persecutor of God’s church, and of his ministers, and hast broken the promises and oaths which thou madestto me before St. Peter’s altar.” The king, terrified at this discourse, fell upon his knees, and humbly begged the prelate to tell him, by what crime he had deserved so severe a sentence. The noblemen, who were present, were enraged against the archbishop, and loudly cried out, he deserved death, or at least banishment, for having offered such an insult to his sovereign; and they pressed him with threatenings to raise the king from the ground. But the prelate, unmoved at all 'this, answered calmly, “Good men, let him lie there, for he is not at Aldred’s but at St. Peter’s feet; let him feel St. Peter’s power, since he dared to injure his vicegerent.” Having thus reproved the nobles by his episcopal authority, he vouchsafed to take the king by the hand, and to tell him the ground of his complaint. The king humbly excused himself, by saying he had been ignorant of the whole matter; and oegged of the noblemen to entreat the prelate, that he might take off the curse he had pronounced, and change it into a blessing. Aldred was at last prevailed upon to favour the king thus far; but not without the promise of several presents and favours, and only after the king had granted him to take such a revenge on the governor as he thought fit. Since that time (adds the historian) none of the noblemen ever dared to offer the least injury. The Danes having made an invasion in the north of England in 1068, under the command of Harold and Canute the sons of king Swane, Aldred was so much afflicted at it, that he died of grief on the llth of September in that same year, having besought God that he might not see the desolation of his church and country.

, a celebrated divine of the confession of Augsbourg, was born at Edinburgh, April 23, 1500. He soon made a considerable progress in schooldivinity, and entered the lists very early against Luther; this being then the great controversy in fashion, and the grand field in which all authors, young and old, were accustomed to display their abilities. Soon after he had a share in the dispute which Patrick Hamilton maintained against the ecclesiastics, in favour of the new faith he had imbibed at Marpurgh: he endeavoured to bring him back to the catholic religion; but this he could not effect, and even began himself to doubt about his own religion, being much affected by the discourse of this gentleman, and more still by the constancy he shewed at the stake, where David Beaton, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, caused him to be burnt. The doubts of Ales would perhaps have been carried no further, if he had been left unmolested to enjoy his canonry in the metropolitan church of St. Andrew’s; but he was persecuted with so much violence by the provost of St. Andrew’s, whose intrigues he preached against that he was obliged to retire into Germany, where he became at length a perfect convert to the Protestant religion, and persevered therein till his death. In the different parties which were formed, he sometimes joined with those that were least orthodox; for, in 1560, he maintained the doctrine of George Major, concerning the necessity of good works. The change of religion, which happened in England after the marriage of Henry VI IL with Anna Boleyn, induced Ales to go to London, in U35, where he was highly esteemed by Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, Latimer, and Thomas Cromwel, who were at that time in favour with the king. Upon the fall of these favourites, he was obliged to return to Germany, where the elector of Brandenburg appointed him professor of divinity at Francfort upon the Oder, in 1540. Two years afterwards he had a dispute there, upon the question “Whether the magistrate can and ought to punish fornication” and he maintained the affirmative with Melancthon. He was greatly offended at their not deciding this dispute, and perhaps his discontent was the reason of his quitting Francfort precipitately; and it is certain that the court of Brandenburgh complained of him, and wrote to the university of Wittemberg to have him punished. He retired, however, to Leipsic; and while he was there, he refused a professor’s chair, which Albert duke of Prussia intended to erect at Koningsberg, and which was erected the year following. Soon after, he was chosen professor of divinity at Leipsic, and enjoyed it till his death, which happened on the 17th of March 1565. The following are the titles of his principal works: 1. “De necessitate et merito Bonorum Operum, disputatio proposita, in celebri academia Lipsica ad 29 Nov. 1560.” 2. “Commentarii in evangelium Joannis, et in utramque epistolam ad Timotheum.” 3. “Expositio in Psalmos Davidis.” 4. “De Justificatione, contra Osiandrum.” 5. “De Sancta Trinitate, cum confutatione erroris Valentini.” 6. “Responsio ad triginta et duos articulos theologorum Lovaniensium.”

, grand duke of Russia, and a saint of the Russian church, is so often mentioned on account of the order of knighthood instituted to his honour by Peter the Great, and yet is so little known out of Russia, that an article may well be allowed him here. He was born in 1218, and seems to have been a man of strong character, of personal courage, and bodily strength. The almost incessant wars in which his father Yaroslauf was engaged with Tshingis khan and the neighbouring horcles of Mongoies, inspired him early in life with a passion for conquest. Probably too an unhappy conceit entertained by the princes of those times and those countries, might have contributed somewhat to prepare Alexander for the part of the hero he. afterwards performed. This was the custom of conferring on young princes particular provinces as apanages or viceroyalties. Yaroslauf had in 1227 changed his residence at Novgorod for that of Pereyaslaf, leaving in the former place his two eldest sons, Feodor and Alexander, as his representative, under the guidance of two experienced boyars. However small the share that a boy of ten years old, as Alexander then was, could take in the government; yet it must have been of advantage to him to be thus initiated in a situation preparatory to the exercise of that power he was one day to enjoy in his own right. Five years afterwards Feodor died; and now Alexander was alone viceroy of Novgorod he was not an apanaged prince till 1239, when his father took possession of Vladimir. He now married a princess of the province of Polotzk, and the first care of his government was to secure the country against the attacks of the Tshudes (among whom are particularly to be understood the Esthonians), who were partly turbulent subjects, and partly piratical neighbours of the principality of Novgorod. To this end he built a line of forts along the river Shelonia, which falls into the Ilmenlake. But a more imminent danger soon furnished him with an opportunity of performing far greater service to his nation. Incited by the oppressions exercised by the Tartars on southern Russia, the northern borderers formed a league to subdue Novgorod; and thought it necessary to begin their enterprise the sooner, as, from the accounts they had received by one of their chiefs, who had gained a personal knowledge of Alexander at Novgorod, the young prince would shortly be too powerful for them. The warlike king of Denmark, Valdemar II. at that time possessed a considerable portion of Esthonia, together with Reval, which he had lately built . He had long been in alliance with the Teutonic knights of Livonia, which he renewed in 1233; ift which treaty they agreed upon a combined expedition against the Russians. This was accordingly undertaken in 1239. A very considerable fleet came to land on the banks of the Neva, while the Swedes were coming down from Ladoga to attack them by land. An embassy was sent to Alexander, commanding him immediately to submit, or to stake his fortunes on a decisive battle. He made choice of the latter. Too near the enemy, and too distant from his father, he had no hope of any foreign succour, and his army was extremely weak. In the presence of his people he solemnly implored the assistance of heaven, was certified of it by the formal benediction of the archbishop; and thus raised the efficacy of the only support he had, the courage of his soldiers. Having their strength increased by the persuasion that the hosts of heaven were on theic­'side, they went to battle, and began the attack. This was at six in the morning. The two armies were closely engaged during the whole day, and the slaughter continued till night put an end to the contest. The field was covered with the bodies of the slain. Three ship-loads of them were sunk in the sea, and the rest were thrown together in pits. On the side of the Novgorodians only 20 men were killed, say the chronicles; perhaps by an error of the writers, perhaps in the meaning that only the principal citizens of Novgorod are reckoned. But most likely this statement is one of those poeac extravagancies which are not to be mistaken in perusing the Russian accounts of this battle. In the ancient history of all nations a certain lively colouring is used in describing the decisive transactions of early times; a natural consequence of the intimate concern the chronologer takes in the successes of his conntry, and the enthusiasm with which he wishes to represent it as a nation of heroes. Thus the old historians mention six mighty warriors, who, by some signal act in this battle, have handed down their names to the latest posterity. It is impossible not to imagine we are perusing a fragment of romance, when we read, that Gavriela Alexiri pursued a king’s son on horseback into a ship, fell into the sea, came back unhurt, and slew a general and two bishops. Sbislauf was armed only with an axe, Jacob Polotshanin with nothing but a sword, and both killed a multitude of the ene r my. Sava rushed into the enemy’s camp, destroyed the tent of the general, &c. Alexander, our heroic saint, is also indebted to this poetical colouring (perhaps to a vulgar ballad) for his canonization and his fame. He sprung like a lion upon the leader of the hostile troops, and cleft his face in two with a stroke of his sword. This personage, according to the Russian annalists, was no less a man than the king of the northern regions himself. And this act it was that procured our Alexander the surname of Nevskoi, i.e. the conqueror on the banks of the Neva. Peter the Great took a politic advantage of the enthusiasm of the nation, for this Alexander, in order to procure a religious interest for his new city of Petersburg. On the spat where, according to the common opinion, the holy hero had earned the glorious name of Nevskoi, he caused the foundations of a monastery to be laid in 1712, to which he afterwards, in 1723, caused the bones of the great duke to be brought. Peter gave orders that the relics of the saints of Volodimer should be brought to Petersburg (a distance of 700 miles) attended by great solemnities. Between 300 and 400 priests accompanied the procession. On their arrival, the emperor himself, with all his court, went out to meet them; and the coffin, inclosed in a case of copper strongly gilt, was deposited in the monastery with great ceremony. This monastery of St. Alexander Nevskoi is about five versts from the castle at Petersburg, in an agreeable situation on the bank of the Neva. It has gradually been enlarged by the several sovereigns since the emperor Peter; and the present empress has built a magnificent church within its walls, and a sumptuous mausoleum for herself and her descendants. The shrine of the saint is of massy silver, of great value, but both the workmanship and the inscription in a bad taste. The order of knighthood of St. Alexander Nevskoi was properly instituted by Peter the Great in 1722; but he died before he had appointed the knights. This was done by Catherine I. in June 1725. The number of the knights are at present about 135, among whom are one or more crowned heads.

, a learned ecclesiastical writer of the 17th century, born at Roan in Normandy, Jan. 19, 1639. After finishing his studies at Roan, he entered into the order of Dominican friars, and was professed there in 1655. Soon after he went to Paris, to go through a course of philosophy and divinity in the great convent, where he so distinguished himself, that he was appointed to teach philosophy there, which he did for twelve years. This however did not so much engage his attention as to make him neglect preaching, which is the chief business of the order he professed. His sermons were elegant and solid: but as he had not that ease and fluency of speech requisite in a preacher, he soon forsook the pulpit; and his superiors being of opinion that he should apply himself wholly to the study of the scriptures and ecclesiastical history, he followed their advice, and was created a doctor of the Sorbonne in 1675. Mr. Colbert shewed him many marks of his esteem; and being determined to omit nothing to complete the education of his son, afterwards archbishop of Roan, he formed an assembly of the most learned persons, whose conferences upon, ecclesiastical history might be of advantage to him. Father Alexander was invited to this assembly, where he exerted himself with so much genius and ability, that he gained the particular friendship of young Colbert, who shewed him the utmost regard as long as he lived. These conferences gave rise to Alexander’s design of writing an ecclesiastical history; for, being desired to reduce what was material in these conferences to writing, he did it with so much accuracy, that the learned men who composed this assembly advised him to undertake a complete body of church-history. This he executed with great assiduity, collecting and digesting the materials himself, and writing even the tables with his own hand. His first work is that wherein he endeavours to prove, against Ai. de Launoi, that St. Thomas Aquinas is the real author of the Sum, ascribed to him: it was printed in Paris 1675, in 8vo. The year following he published the first volume of a large work in Latin, upon the principal points of ecclesiastical history: this contains 26 volumes in 8vo. The first volume treats of the history of the first ages of the church, and relates the persecutions which it suffered, the succession of popes, the heresies which arose, the councils which condemned them, the writers in favour of Christianity, and the kings and emperors who reigned during the first century: to this are subjoined dissertations upon such points as have been the occasion of dispute in history, chronology, criticism, or doctrine. The history of the second century, with some dissertations, was published in two volumes in the year 1677. The third century came out in 1678; in this he treats largely of public penance, and examines into the origin and progress of the famous dispute between pope Stephen and St. Cyprian, concerning the rebaptizing of those who had been baptized by heretics; and he has added three dissertations, wherein he has collected what relates to the life, manners, errors, and Defenders of St. Cyprian. The history of the fourth century is so very extensive, that Alexander has found matter for three volumes and forty-five dissertations; they were printed at Paris in 1679. In the three following years he published his history of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries; and that of the eleventh and twelfth centuries in 1683; in these volumes are several Dissertations against Mr. Daille; and in some of them he treats of the disputes between the princes and popes in. such a manner, that a decree from Rome was issued out Against his writings in 1684. However, he published the same year the history of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in which he continued to defend the rights of kings against the pretensions of that court. He at last completed his work in 1686, by publishing four volumes, which contained the history of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Jn 1689 he published a work, in the same method, upon the Old Testament, in six volumes 8vo. In 1678 he published three dissertations: the first concerning the superiority of bishops over presbyters, against Blondel; the second concerning the celibacy of the clergy, and reconciling the history of Paphnutius with the canon of the council of Nice; and the third concerning the Vulgate. The same year he printed a dissertation concerning sacramental confession, against Mr. Daille“, in 8vo. In 1682 he wrote an apology for his dissertation upon the Vulgate, against Claudius Frassen. He published likewise about this time, or some time before, three dissertations in defence of St. Thomas Aquinas; the first against Henschenius and Papebroch, to shew that the office of the holy sacrament was written by him; the second was in form of a dialogue between a Dominican and a Franciscan, to con fute the common opinion that Alexander of Hales was St. Thomas Aquinas’s master: and that the latter borrowed his” Secunda Secundse“from the former: the third is a panegyric upon Aquinas. In 1693 he published his” Theologia dogmatica,“in five books, or” Positive and Moral Divinity, according to the order of the catechism of the council of Trent.“This Latin work, consisting of ten octavo volumes, was printed at Paris and at Venice in 1698; in 1701 he added another volume; and they were all printed together at Paris, in two volumes folio, in 1703, with a collection of Latin letters, which had been printed separately. In 1703 he published tf A commentary upon the four Gospels,” in folio; and in 1710, he published another at Roan, upon St. Paul’s and the seven canonical epistles. He wrote also a commentary upon the prophets Jsaiah, Jeremiah, and Baruch, which was never printed. The following works are also enumerated by his biographers. 1. “Statuta facultatis artium Thomistiæe collegio Parisiensi fratrum prsedicatorum instituta,” Paris, 1683, 12mo. 2. “Institutio concionatorum tripartita, seu praecepta et regula ad praedicatores informandos, cum ideis seu rudimentis concionum per totum annum.” 3. “Abre‘ge’ de la foy et de la morale de l‘eglise, tiree de l’ecriture sainte,” Paris, 1676, 12rno. 4. “Eclaircissement des prétendues difficultés proposeés a mons. l'archevêque de Rouen, sur plusieurs points importans de la morale de Jesus Christ,” 1697, 12mo. 5. “A Letter to a Doctor of Sorbonne, upon the dispute concerning Probability, and the Errors of a Thesis in Divinity maintained by the Jesuits in their college at Lyons, the 26th of August,” printed at Mons, 1697, 12mo. 6. “A second letter upon the same subject,” 1697, 12mo. 7. “An apology for the Dominican Missionaries in China, or an Answer to a book of father Tellier the Jesuit, entitled a Defence of the new Christians; and to an Explanation published by father Gobien, of the same society, concerning the honours which the Chinese pay to Confucius and to the dead,” printed at Cologn, 1699, 12mo. 8. “Documenta controversiarum missionariorum apostolicorum imperii Sinici de cultu praejiertim Confueii philosophi et progenitoruin defunctorum spectantia, ac apologiam Dominica norum missiones Sinicae ministrorum adversus Hr. Pp. le Tellier et le Gobien societatis Jesu confirmantia.” 9. “A Treatise on the conformity between the Chinese ceremonies and the Greek and Roman idolatry, in order to confirm the apology of the Dominican Missionaries in China,” 1700, 12 mo. Translated into Italian, and printed at Cologn, 8vo. He wrote likewise seven letters to the Jesuits Le Comte and Dez, upon the same subject. In 1706 he was made a provincial for the province ofParis. Towards the latter part of his life, he was afflicted with the loss of his sight, a most inexpressible misfortune to one whose whole pleasure was in study; yet he bore it with great patience and resignation. He died at Paris, merely of a decay of nature, August 21, 1724, in the 86th year of his age. His piety, humility, and disinterestedness rendered him the object of general esteem; and he was honoured with thfe friendship of the most learned prelates of France. His opinion was always considered as of great weight upon the most important subjects which were debated in the Sorbonne. He was likewise highly valued at Rome: the learned cardinals N orris and Aguirre distinguished him upon several occasions.

, archbishop of Dublin in the reign of Henry VIII. was first educated at Oxford, whence he removed to Cambridge, and took the degree of master of arts; or, as Wood rather thinks, that of bachelor of laws. He was afterwards sent to Rome to the pope, by Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, to manage some affairs relating to the church. He continued there about nine years, and was created doctor of laws in some Italian university. On his return he was made chaplain to cardinal Wolsey, and commissary or judge of his court, when he was legate a latere, but he was accused of great dishonesty in the execution of that office. He assisted the cardinal in first visiting and afterwards dissolving forty small monasteries, for the erection of his colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. His church-preferment was considerable. Archbishop Warham gave him Aldyngton, with the chapel annexed, March 6, 1510, in which he was succeeded by Erasmus; and in the following year his grace presented him to Riseburgh, in the deanery of Riseburgh. In 1524 he was presented to the perpetual vicarage of Alborne, and he had, by the favour of Wolsey, the church of Dalby on the Would sin Leicestershire, though it belonged to the master and brethren of the hospital of Burton Lazars. In the latter end of the year 1525, he was incorporated doctor of laws of the university of Oxford; and March 13, 1528, upon the death of Dr. Hugh Inge, he was consecrated archbishop of Dublin, and about the same time was made chancellor of Ireland. In 1534 he was barbarously murdered in an insurrection, by Thomas Fitz-gerald, eldest son of the earl of Kildare, in the fiftieth year of his age. He wrote some treatises on ecclesiastical affairs, which remain in manuscript.

, was abbot of the monastery of St. Austin in Canterbury, at the time that Alphage, the archbishop, was barbarously murdered by the Danes, in 1011, when the city was betrayed to them. Almarus, however, was suffered by those plunderers to go at liberty; and in the year 1022, was made bishop of Sherborne in Dorsetshire, which bishopric was afterwards translated to Salisbury. Godwin mentions him as a bishop, but adds that he knows nothing of him but his name. Almarus was not inclined either to leave his abbey, or to become a bishop; but was at last prevailed on to take upon him that dignity, which he discharged with great constancy and vigour, until he had the misfortune to lose his sight. On this he resigned his bishopric with more alacrity than he had accepted it, returning back to his abbey, where he lived in a cell in the infirmary, in great innocence and devotion to his last hour. When he was near his death, he directed that he should be buried not as a bishop, but as a monk, which was complied with. He was interred in the church of the monastery, before the altar of St. John, and his memory held in great veneration. The chronicles relate some superstitious stories of him, to which little credit will now be given.

, an eminent German divine, was born at Embden, Feb. 17, 1583, of a family of considerable note in Friesland. His father, Menso Alting, was one of the first who preached the doctrines of the reformation in the territory of Groningen, about the year 1566, and under the tyrannical government of the duke of Alva. He faithfully served the church of Embden during the space of thirty-eight years, and died Oct. 7th, 1612. His sjn was from a child designed for the ministry, and sent very early to school, and afterwards into Germany in 1602. At Herborn he made such uncommon progress under the celebrated Piscator, Matthias, Martinius, &c. that he was allowed to teach philosophy and divinity. While preparing for his travels into Switzerland and France, he was chosen preceptor to three young counts, who studied at Sedan with the electoral prince Palatine, and took possession of that employment about September 1605; but the storm which the duke of Bomllon was threatened with by Henry IV. obliging the electoral prince to retire from Sedan with the three young noblemen, Alting accompanied them to Heidelberg. Here he continued to instruct his noble pupils, and was admitted to read lectures in geography and history to the electoral prince till 1608, when he was declared his preceptor. In this character he accompanied him to Sedan, and was afterwards one of those who were appointed to attend the young elector on his journey into England in 1612, where he became acquainted with Dr. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. King, bishop of London, Dr. Hackwell, preceptor to the prince of Wales; and also had the honour of an audience of king James. The marriage between the elector and the princess of England being solemnized at London in Feb. 1613, Alting left England, and arrived at Heidelberg. In the ensuing August he was appointed professor of the common places of divinity, and to qualify himself for presiding in theological contests, he took the degree of D. D. In 1616 he had a troublesome office conferred upyn him, that of director of the collegium supientite of Heidelberg. In 1618 he was offered the second professorship of divinity, vacant by the death of Coppeniiis, which he refused, but procured it for Scultetus.

, a Spanish dominican, was born at Rio Seco in Old Castille. He was professor of theology in Spain and at Rome, and afterwards archbishop of Trani in the kingdom of Naples. In concert with Lemos, his brother in profession, he supported the cause of the Thomists against the Molinists, in the congregation De Auxiliis, held in 1596. He died in 1635, after publishing several treatises on the doctrines which he defended; among these are, “De auxiliis divinae gratioe,” Lyons, 1611, folio; “Concorclia liberi arbitrii cum predestinatione,” Lyons, 1622, 8vo; “A commentary on Isaiah,” 1615, fol. &c.

, from being a monk of Madeloc, rose to be archbishop of Treves, in the year 8 10, and the following year re-established the Christian religion in that part of Saxony which is beyond the Ebro, consecrated the first church in Hamburgh, and in the year 813 went as ambassador to Constantinople to ratify the peace which Charlemagne had concluded with Michael, the emperor of the east. He died the year following in his diocese. His only work is a “Treatise on Baptism,” which is printed among the works and under the name of Alcuinus. It is the answer to a circular letter in which Charlemagne had consulted the bishops of his empire respecting that sacrament. From a similarity of names this writer has sometimes, particularly by Trithemius, Possevin, and Bellarmine, been confounded with the subject of the next article.

, was successively deacon and priest of the church of Metz, director. of the school in the palace of Louis de Debdnnaire, abbot of Hornbac, coadjutor to the bishop of Ia-Ous, and then to that of Treves, and according to some was made bishop; but this seems doubtful. Some authors likewise attribute to him a work which appeared in the year 847, in favour of the opinions of Hincmar, archbishop of Rheirns, on predestination; but it is probable that Amalarius was dead ten years before that. He was, however, esteemed a man of great learning in liturgical matters; and his acknowledged works procured him touch reputation in the Romish church. The first mentioned is a “Treatise on the Offices,” written in the year 820, but re-written with many improvements in the year 827, in consequence of a visit to Rome for the purpose of becoming better acquainted with the rites of that church. The most correct edition of this work is in the Bibl. Patrum of Lyons. His object is to give the rationale of the prayers and ceremonies which compose the service, mixed, however, with what is less reconcileable to reason, the mystical use of them, and some scruples about trifles which now will hardly bear repetition. 2. “The order of the Antiphonal,” in which he endeavours to reconcile the rites of the Roman with the Gallican church. This is usually printed with the preceding. 3. “The Office of the Mass.” 4. “Letters,” which are in the Spicilegium of d'Achery, and Martenne’s Anecdotes. His works met with considerable opposition, and Agobard, archbishop of Lyons, wrote against the two first-mentioned works. Florus, deacon of Lyons, accused him of heresy before the council of Thionville, where he was acquitted, and the council at Quierci, where some expressions of his respecting the sacrament were adjudged to be dangerous, but his reputation did not suffer much by the decision.

, the youngest of the Amalthei, has left a few Latin poems, which serve to manifest the conformity of his taste and talents with those of his learned brothers. He probably died in the prime of life, and some accounts fix the decease of all the three brothers in the same year. But these, according to the editor of the General Dictionary, must not be confounded with Amaltheus Attilius, archbishop of Athens, who was born of a family in Italy eminent for producing men of the greatest merit and learning. He lived in the sixteenth century, and made a considerable progress in the study of the civil and canon law, and in that of divinity, he was a man of a noble, generous, and disinterested spirit, was raised to the see of Athens by pope V. and sent to Cologne in the character of nuncio, which office he discharged with much applause; and died about 1600.

, a celebrated French writer, was born at Saintonge in 1606. He maintained a close correspondence with the Fathers of the Oratory, a congregation of priests founded by Philip of Neri. He wrote the “Life of Charles de Gondren,” second superior of this congregation, and published it at Paris in 1643. In this piece he introduced a passage respecting the famous abbé de St. Cyran, which greatly displeased the gentlemen of Port Royal; who, out of revenge, published a pamphlet against him, entitled “Idee generate de l'esprit et du livre de pere Arnelot,” and he was so much provoked by this satire, that he did all in his power to injure them. They had finished a translation of the New Testament, known by the name of the Mons New Testament, and were desirous to have it published, for which purpose they endeavoured to procure an approbation from the doctors of the Sorbonne, and a privilege from the king. They had some friends m the Sorbonne, but at the same time very powerful enemies, and as to the privilege, it was impossible to prevail with, the chancellor Seguier to grant them one, as he hated them; so that father Amelotte, whose advice the chancellor generally followed in matters of religion, easily thwarted all their measures, not only out of zeal for what he thought the true doctrine, or out of aversion to the Port Royalists, but also from a view to his own interest; for he was about to publish a translation of his own of the New Testament, which, accordingly, with annotations, in four volumes 8vo, was printed in the years 1666, 1667, and 1668, but, according to F. Simon, it contains some very gross blunders. It was dedicated to M. de Perefixe, archbishop of Paris, whom he addresses in these words: “You will be confirmed in that zeal which obliged you to take up the holy arms to defend the true grace of God, and the decrees of the holy see, against the new heresy: you will daily strengthen yourself against these blind rebels, whose fury, impostures, and calumnies, add new splendour to your glory, which they endeavour to blemish. They place you in the same rank with the Athanasiuses and Hilaries, when they abuse you in the same manner as the Arians did those great and holy bishops.” In this translation he endeavoured to find expressions more proper and elegant than those of the former versions for which reason he committed his work into Mr. Conrart’s hands, to polish and correct whatever he should judge inelegant or improper. Amelotte wrote also an “Abridgment of Divinity,” a “Catechism for the Jubilee,” and a kind of “Christian Manual for every day, (Journee Chretienne.)” Though he had always been a very zealous Anti-Port-Royalist, yet he was but poorly rewarded for all his labour and trouble, since towards the end of his life he sued for a very small bishopric, that of Sarlat, and met with a refusal, though he had all the qualities requisite to a bishop. He could not forbear complaining of this usage to his friends; telling them that those, whom he had often served effectually, had been very cold to him on this occasion. He entered into the congregation of the Oratory in 1650, and continued amongst them till his death, which happened at Paris, Oct. 7, 1673. His dedication to M. Perefixe was suppressed after his death and the death of Perefixe, and one of a different cast substituted by M. de Harlay, in the edition of 1688, 2 vols. 4to, and the work has been often reprinted with and without notes. The chief objection made to him, on the score of veracity, is that he boasted of having consulted all the manuscripts of Europe, which he afterwards confessed he had not seen; but it is answered, that although he had not seen these manuscripts, he took great pains in procuring transcripts of their various readings.

, a divine in the reigns of king James and Charles I. and famous for his casuistical and controversial writings, but much more so abroad than in his own country, was descended from an ancient family, which is said to remain in Norfolk and Somersetshire, and was born in 1576. He was educated at Christ-church college, in Cambridge, under the celebrated champion of Calvinism, Mr. William Perkins, and this gave a rigid strictness to his opinions, which was not agreeable to some of his associates in the university. One instance of this is given by Fuller, which we shall transcribe as recording a feature in the manners of the times. He says, that “about the year 1610-11, this Mr. Ames, preaching at St. Mary’s, took occasion to inveigh against the liberty taken at that time; especially in those colleges which had lords of misrule, a Pagan relique; which, he said, as Polydore Vergil has observed, remains only in England. Hence he proceeded to condemn all playing at cards and dice anirming that the latter, in all ages, was accounted the device of the devil and that as God invented the one-and-twenty letters whereof he made the bible, the devil, saith an author, found out the one-and-twenty spots on the die that canon law forbad the use of the same saying Inventio Diaboli nulla consuetudine. potest validari. His sermon,” continues our author, “gave much offence to many of his auditors the rather because in him there was a concurrence of much nonconformity insomuch that, to prevent an expulsion from Dr. Val. Gary, the master, he fairly forsook the col lege, which proved unto him neither loss nor disgrace being, not long after, by the States of Friesland, chosen Professor of their university.” There seems, however, some mistake in this, and Dr. Maclaine has increased it by asserting in his notes on Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical history, that Ames fled to Franeker to avoid the persecution of archbishop Bancroft. This prelate certainly pressed conformity on the Puritans as much as he could, but a man who only preached against cards and dice could have nothing to fear from him. The fact was, that the archbishop died some months before this sermon at St. Mary’s.

, of Messina, canon of the cathedral of Palermo, and historiographer to Philip IV. king of Spain, acquired much reputation for his knowledge in, the history and antiquities of Sicily. Of his numerous works on this subject, some have been printed, and the manuscripts of the rest were after his death deposited in. the libraries of the duke of Madonia and of Palafox, archbishop of Palermo. Those published are, 1. “Trium orientalium Latinorum ordinum, post captam a duce Gothofredo Hierusalem, &c. notitiae et tabularia,” Palermo, 1636, fol. 2. “Dissertatio historica et chronologica de antique urbis Syracusarum archiepiscopatu,” Naples, 1640, 4to. This relates to the serious disputes between the three churches of Syracuse, Palermo, and Messina, respecting the metropolitan title and rights, and was inserted, with the answers, in the 7th vol. of the “Thesaurus antiquitatutn Sicilian,” Leyden, 1723. 3. “Series ammiratorum insulse Sicilian, ab ann. 842 ad 1640,” Palermo, 1640, 4to. 4. “De Messanensis prioratus sacræ hospilitatis domus militum sancti Joan. Hierosolymitani origine,” Palermo, 1640, 4to. 5. “Chronologia de los Virreyes, &c. de Sicilia,” Palermo, 1640, 4to. Amico died Oct. 22 in the year following the publication of the four last-mentioned works.

, one of our early confessors in the third century, of whom all the accounts we have seen appear doubtful, is said to have converted our British proto-martyr St. Alban to the Christian faith, and both suffered in the tenth persecution under the emperor Dioclesian, some think about the latter end of his reign, but Cressy, on better authority, fixes it in the third year of that emperor’s reign, or 286. Boethius, with other Scotch historians, make Amphibalus to be bishop of the Isle of Man; but Gyraldus Cambrensis, with many of the writers of our church history, say he was by birth a Welchman, and bishop of the Isle of Anglesea; and that, after converting Alban he fled from Verulam into Wales to escape the execution of the severe edict made by Dioclesian against the Christians, and was there seized and brought back to Redburn in Hertfordshire, where he was put to death in the most cruel manner. Archbishop Usher, however, explodes this story as a piece of monkish fiction, and says his name no where occurs till Jeffery of Monmouth’s time, who is the first author that mentions it. Fuller, in his usual quaint manner, wonders how this compounded Greek word came to wander into Wales, and thinks it might take its rise from the cloak in which he was wrapped, or from changing vestments with his disciple Alban, the better to disguise his escape. It is certain that the venerable Bede, who was a Saxon, and to whom most of our monkish historians are indebted for the history of St. Alban,' makes no mention of his name, only calling him presbyter^ a. priest, or clerk. He is said to have written several homilies, and a work “ad instituendam vitam Christianam,” afld to have been indefatigable in promoting Christianity, but authentic particulars of his life are now beyond our reach.

, Amolon, or Amolo, was archbishop of Lyons, and illustrious for his learning and piety; he wrote against Godeschalkus, and against the Jews, and some pieces on free-will and predestination, which were printed by P. Sirmond, 1645, 8vo, and are also in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” He died in the year 854.

His library was very curious and very extensive, and he enlarged it every day with all that appeared new and important in the republic of letters; so that at last it was one of the noblest collections in the hands of any private person in the kingdom. Learned foreigners used to visit it, as they passed through the city of Metz, as the most valuable curiosity there. When he saw the catalogue of pretended heretical books, published by the archbishop of Paris, he laid aside all those books which were ordered to be suppressed, and they composed his library in the foreign countries which he retired to, for his own was plundered after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, nor would he have had a book remaining, if those which he had hid, had not been concealed from the persons who seized the rest of his library. The monks and ecclesiastics of Metz and the neighbouring towns had long coveted the library of Mr. Ancillon, and his being obliged to depart on a sudden gave them a fair pretence to take possession of it. Some of them proposed to buy the whole together, and others required, that it should be sold by retail; but the issue was that it was completely plundered.

He had a particular aversion to all public vices, but especially to usury, simony, and sacrilege. He was so far from the first, that when his friends had occasion for such a sum of money as he could assist them with, he lent it to them freely, without expecting any thing in return but the principal. Simony was so detestable to him, that by refusing to admit several persons, whom he suspected to be simoniacally preferred, he suffered much by law-suits, choosing rather to be compelled to admit them by law, than voluntarily to do that which his conscience made a scruple of. With regard to the livings and other preferments which fell in his own gifts, he always bestowed them freely, as we observed above, upon men of merit, without any solicitation. It was no small compliment that king James had so great an awe and veneration for him, as in his presence to refrain from that mirth and levity in which he indulged himself at other times. What opinion lord Clarendon had of him appears from hence, that, in mentioning the death of Dr. Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, he remarks, that “if he hatl been succeeded by bishop Andrews, or any man who understood and loved the church, that infection would easily have been kept out which could not afterwards be so easily expelled.” Our great poet Milton thought him worthy of his pen, and wrote a Latin elegy, on his death.

, commonly called Massaniello, one of the names introduced in biographical collections, although more properly belonging to history, was a fisherInan of Naples, and the author of a temporary revolution, which ended as such tumultuous measures generally end, without meliorating the state of the people who have been induced to take an active part in them. In 1623, when this man was born, the kingdom of Naples was subject to the house of Austria, and governed by a viceroy. The Neapolitans had supported the government in this house with great loyalty and liberality, and submitted themselves to many voluntary impositions and burthensome taxes in support of it. But in 1646, the necessities of the king requiring it, a new donative was projected, and a design was formed to lay a fresh tax upon fruits, comprehending 9,11 sorts, dry or green, as far as mulberries, grapes, figs, apples, pears, &c, The people, being thus deprived of their ordinary subsistence, took a resolution to disburden themselves, not only of this, but of all other insupportable exactions formerly imposed. They made their grievances known to the viceroy by the public cries and lamentations of women and children, as he passed through the market place, and petitioned him, by means of the cardinal Filomarino, the archbishop, and others, to take off the said tax. He promised to redress the grievance, and convened proper persons to find out some method to take off the tax on ifruits. But the farmers, because it was prejudicial to their interest, found some secret means to frustrate his endeavours, and dissuaded him from performing his promise to the people; representing to him, that all the clamour was made by a wretched rabble only, not worth regarding.

While these horrid tragedies were acting, the viceroy thought of every method to appease the people, and bring them to an accommodation. He applied to the archbishop, of whose attachment to the government he was well assured, and of whose paternal care and affection for them the people had no doubt. He gave him the original charter of Charles V. (which exempted them from all taxes, and upon which they had all along insisted) confirmed by lawful authority, and likewise an indulgence or pardon for all offences whatsoever committed. The bishop found means to induce Massaniello to convoke all the captains and chief commanders of the people together, and great hopes were conceived that an happy accommodation would ensue. In the mean time 500 banditti, all armed on horseback, entered the city, under pretence that they came for the service of the people, but in reality to destroy Massaniello, as it appeared afterwards; for they discharged several shot at him, some of which very narrowly missed him. This put a stop to the whole business, and it was suspected that the viceroy had some hand in the conspiracy. The streets were immediately barricaded, and orders were given that the aqueduct leading to the castle, in which were the viceroy and family, and all the principal officers ofr state, should be cut off, and that no provisions, except some few roots and herbs, should be carried thither. The riceroy applied again to the archbishop, to assure the people of his sincere good intentions towards them, his, abhorrence of the designs of the banditti, and his resolution to use all his authority to bring them to due punishment. Thus the treaty' was again renewed, and soon completed; which being done, it was thought proper that Massaniello should go to the palace to visit the viceroy. He gave orders that all the streets leading to it should be clean swept, and that all masters of families should hang their windows and balconies with their richest silks and tapestries. He threw off his mariner’s habit, and dressed himself in cloth of silver, with a fine plume of feathers in his hat and mounted upon a prancing steed, with a drawn sword in his hand, he went attended by 50,000 of the people.

, was an Italian poet of the sixteenth century, of whose history we have no particulars. His poems, which are in Latin, were printed for the first time at Naples, 1520, 8vo, under the title of “De obitu Lydæ; de vero poeta; de Parthenope.” His EfuloKouyviov, which is a collection of love verses, dedicated notwithstanding to the archbishop of Bari, was reprinted at Paris in 1542, 12mo, with the poetry of Marullus and Johannes Secundus, to both of whom, however, he is inferior. There was another edition in 1582, 12mo. Many of his works are also inserted in the “Carm. illust. Poet. Italorum.”

, an Italian scholar, was born in 1455, at Arona, on the Lake Major. His family, one of the most illustrious in Milan, took the name of Anghiera, from the same lake, which is partly in the county of Anghiera. In 1477, he went to Rome, and entered into the service of the cardinal Ascanio Sforza Visconti, and afterwards into that of the archbishop of Milan. During a residence there of ten years, he formed an acquaintance with the most eminent literary men of his time, and among others, with Pomponio Leto. In 1487, he went into Spain in the suite of the ambassador of that court, who was returning home. By him he was presented to Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen, and served in two campaigns, but quitted the army for the church, and was appointed by the queen to teach the belles lettres to the young men of the court, in which employment he continued for some time. Having on various occasions shown a capacity for political business, Ferdinand, in 1501, employed him on an errand of considerable delicacy, to the sultan of Egypt, in which he acquitted himself greatly to his majesty’s satisfaction. While engaged in this business, he took the opportunity of visiting some part of Egypt, particularly the pyramids, and returned to Spain in the month of August 1502. From this time he became attached to the court, and was appointed a member of the council for the affairs of India. The pope, at the king’s request, made him apostolical prothonotary, and in 1505, prior of the church of Grenada, with a valuable benefice. After the death of Ferdinand, Anghiera remained as much in favour with the new king, and he also was presented by Charles V. to a rich abbey. He died at Grenada in 1526, leaving several historical works, which are often quoted by the name of Peter Martyr, as if that were his family name; and in the Diet. Hist, he is recorded under Martyr. His principal works are, 1. “Opus Epistolarum Petri Martyris Anglerii, Mediolanensis,” 1530, fol. reprinted more correctly in Holland by Elzevir, 1670, fol. with the letters and other works, Latin and Spanish, of Ferdinand de Pulgar. This work, which is much esteemed, is divided into thirty-eight books, comprehending the whole of his political life from 1488 to 1525, and contains many curious historical particulars not to be found elsewhere. 2. “De rebus Oceanicis etorbe novo Decades,” a history of the discovery of the New World, compiled from the manuscripts of Columbus, and the accounts he sent to Spain to the India council, of which our author was a member. These Decades were at first printed separately; the first edition of the whole is that of Paris, 1536, fol. which has been often reprinted. 3. “De insulis nuper in vends et incolarum moribus,” Basil, 1521, 4to, 1533, fol. 4. “De legation e Baby lonica, libri tres,” printed with the Decades, which contains an account of his embassy to the sultan of Egypt. Some other works, but rather on doubtful authority, have been attributed to him.

, or, as Bale, Pitts, and Tanner, call him, Gilbertus Legleus, was physician to Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, in the time of king John, or towards the year 1210. Leland makes him flourish later; and from some passages in his works, he must have lived towards the end of the thirteenth century. The memoirs of this medical writer are very scanty: Dr. Freind has commented with much impartiality upon his Compendium of Physic, which is still extant, and appears to be the earliest remaining writing on the practice of medicine among our countrymen. That elegant writer allows him a share of the superstitious and empirical, although this will not make him inferior to the medical writers of the age in which he lived. His “Compendium” was published at Lyons, 1510, 4to, and at Geneva, 1608.

, earl of Anglesey, and lord privy seal in the reign of Charles II. was born July 10, 1614, at Dublin, and continued in Ireland till he was ten years old, when he was sent to England. At sixteen he was entered fellow commoner at Magdalen college, Oxford, where he pursued his studies about three or four years. In 1634 he removed to Lincoln’s Inn, where he studied the law with great assiduity till his father sent him to travel. He made the tour of Europe, and continued some time at Rome, whence he returned to England in 1640, and was elected knight of the shire for the county of Radnor, in the parliament which sat at Westminster in November of the same year but the election being contested, he lost his seat by a vote of the house, that Charles Price, esq. was duly elected. In the beginning of the civil war, Mr. Annesley inclined to the royal cause, and sat in the parliament held at Oxford in 1643; but afterwards reconciled himself so effectually to the parliament, that he was taken into their confidence, and appointed to go as a commissioner to Ulster in 1645. There he managed affairs with so much dexterity and judgment, that the famous Owen Roe O'Neil was disappointed in his designs; and the popish archbishop of Tuam, who was the great support of his party, and whose counsels had been hitherto very successful, was not only taken prisoner, but his papers were seized, and his foreign correspondence discovered, wheieby vast advantages accrued to the protestant interest. The parliament had sent commissioners to the duke of Ormcnd, for the delivery of Dublin, but without success; and the state of affairs making it necessary to renew their correspondence with him, they made choice of a second committee, nd Mr. Annesley was placed at the head of this commission. The commissioners landed at Dublin the 7th of June 1647; and they proved so successful in their negotiations, that in a few days a treaty was concluded with the lord lieutenant, which was signed on the 19th of that inonth, and Dublin was put into the hands of the parliament. When the commissioners had got supreme power, they were guilty of many irregularities: Mr. Annesley disapproved of their conduct, but could not hinder them from doing many things contrary to his judgment: being therefore displeased with his situation, he returned speeuily to England, where he found all things in confusion. After the death of Cromwell, Mr. Annesley, though he doubted whether the parliament was not dissolved by the death of the king, resolved to get into the house if possible; and he behaved in many respects in such a manner as shewed what his real sentiments were, and how much he had the resettling of the constitution at heart. In the confusion which followed he had little or no share, being trusted neither by the parliament nor army. But when things began to take a different turn, by restoring the secluded members to their seats, Feb. 21, 1660, Mr. Annesley was chosen president of the council of state, having at that time opened a correspondence with Charles II. then in exile.

, one of the early propagators. of Christianity, and the first who introduced it into Denmark and Sweden, and hence called the apostle of the north, was born at Picardy, Sept. 8, in the year 801. He was educated in a Benedictine convent at Corbie, from whence he went to Corvey, in Westphalia, where he made such progress in his studies, that, in the year 821, he was appointed rector of the school belonging to the convent. Harold, king of Denmark, who had been expelled from his dominions, and had found an asylum with Lewis, the son and successor of Charlemagne, who had induced him to receive Christian baptism, was about to return to his country, and Lewis enquired for some pious person, who might accompany him, and confirm both him and his attendants in the Christian religion. Vala, the abbot of Corbie, pointed out Anscarius, who readily undertook the perilous task, although against the remonstrances of his friends. Aubert, a monk of noble birth, offered to be his companion, and Harold accordingly set out with them, but neither he nor his attendants, who were rude and barbarous in their manners, were at all solicitous for the accommodation of the missionaries, who therefore suffered much in the beginning of their journey. When the company arrived at Cologne, Hadebald, the archbishop, commiserating the two strangers, gave them a bark, in which they might convey their effects; but, when they came to the frontiers of Denmark, Harold, finding access to his dominions impossible, because of the power of those who had usurped the sovereignty, remained in Friesland, where Anscarius and Aubert laboured with zeal and success, both among Christians and Pagans, for about two years, when Aubert died. In the year 829, many Swedes having expressed a desire to be instructed in Christianity, Anscarius received a commission from the emperor Lewis to visit Sweden. Another monk of Corbie, Vitmar, was assigned as his companion, and a pastor was left to attend on king Harold, in the room of Anscarius. In the passage, they fell in with pirates, who took the ship, and all its effects, On this occasion, Anscarius lost the emperor’s presents, and forty volumes, which he had collected for the use of the ministry. But his mind was determined, and he and his partner having reached land, they walked on foot a long way; now and then crossing some arms of the sea in boats. At length they arrived at Birca, from the ruins of which Stockholm took its rise, though built at some distance from it. The king of Sweden received them favourably, and his council unanimously agreed that they should remain in the country, and preach the gospel, which they did with very considerable success.

After six months, the two missionaries returned with letters written by the king’s hand, into France, and informed Lewis of their success. The consequence was, that Anscarius was appointed first archbishop of Hamburgh; and this city, being in the neighbourhood of Denmark, was henceforth considered as the metropolis -of all the countries north of the Elbe which should embrace Christianity. The mission into Denmark was at the same time attended to; and Gausbert, a relation of Ebbo, arch-? bishop of Rheims, who, as well as Anscarius, was concerned in these missions, was sent to reside as a bishop in Sweden; where the number of Christians increased. Anscarius, now, by order of the emperor Lewis, went to Rome, that he might receive confirmation in the new archbishopric of Hamburgh. On his return, he applied himself to the business of conversion, and was succeeding in his efforts, when, in the year 845, Hamburgh was taken and pillaged by the Normans, and he escaped with difficulty, and lost all his effects. About the same time, Gausbert, whom he had sent into Sweden, was banished through a popular insurrection, a circumstance which retarded the progress of religion for some years in that country.

, abbot of Lobies, an old Benedictine motiastery upon the Sambre, in the diocese of Cambray, lived in the ninth century. Pithseus, Antonius, Augustinus, Valerius, Andreas, and others, being too implicit in following Trithemius, have made this Ansegisus and another of that name, archbishop of Sens, the same persons. Our Ansegisus of Lobies was in great esteem with the bishops and princes of his time, and his learning and conduct deserved it. In the year 827, he made a collection of the capitularies of Charlemagne, and Lewis his son, entitled “Capitula seu Edita Caroli Magni & Ludovici pii Imperatorum.” We have several editions of this work one printed in 1588, by Pithaeus, with additions, and notes of his own upon it: it was afterwards printed at Mentz in 1602, and by Sirmundus at Paris in 164-0, to which he added a collection of the capitularies of Charles the Bald. Lastly, in 1676, Baluzius furnished a new edition of all these ancient capitularies, with remarks upon them, two volumes in folio. But Baluzius’s impression differs considerably from those before him; for, besides a great many different readings, there are the 39th, 52d, 67th, 68th, 74th, and 79th chapters of the first book wanting: there are likewise added, the 89th and 90th chapters of the third book; and also the 76th and 77th chapters of the fourth book, which yet, as Le Cointe observes, are the same with the 29th and 24th chapters. There are three appendixes annexed to the four books in the Capitularies, the first of which, in the old editions, consists of 33 chapters, but in the Baluzian there are 35. The second, in the old editions, has 36 chapters, but the Baluzian impression reaches to 38. The third appendix contains 10 chapters; with these appendixes, several constitutions of the emperors Lotharius and Charles the Bald are mixed. He died in the year 834.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of William Rufus and Henry I was an Italian by birth, and born in 1033 at Aost, or Augusta, a town at the foot of the Alps, belonging to the duke of Savoy. He was descended of a considerable family: his father’s name was Gundulphus, and his mother’s Hemeberga. From early life his religious cast of mind was so prevalent, that, at the age of fifteen, he offered himself to a monastery, but was refused, lest his father should have been displeased. After, however, he had gone through a course of study, and travelled for some time in France and Burgundy, he took the monastic habit in the abbey of Bee in Normandy, of which Lanfranc, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was then prior. This was in 1060, when he was twenty-seven years old. Three years after, when Lanfranc was made abbot of Caen, Anselm succeeded him in the priory of Bee, and on the death of the abbot, was raised to that office. About the year 1092, Anselm came over into England, by the inritation of Hugh, earl of Chester, who requested his assistance in his sickness. Soon after his arrival, William Rufus, falling sick at Gloucester, was much pressed to fill up the see of Canterbury. The king, it seems, at that time, was much influenced by one Kanulph, a clergyman, who, though a Norman and of mean extraction, had a great share in the king’s favour, and at last rose to the post of prime minister. This man, having gained the king’s ear by flattering his vices, misled him in the administration, and put him upon several arbitrary and oppressive expedients. Among others, one was, to seize the revenues of a church, upon the death of a bishop or abbot; allowing the dean and chapter, or convent, but a slender pension for maintenance. But the king now falling sick, began to be touched with remorse of conscience, and among other oppressions, was particularly afflicted for the injury he had done the church and kingdom in keeping the see of Canterbury, and some others, vacant. The bishops and other great men therefore took this opportunity to entreat the king to fill up the vacant sees; and Anselm, who then lived in the neighbourhood of Gloucester, being sent for to court, to assist the king in his illness, was considered by the king as a proper person, and accordingly nominated to the see of Canterbury, which had been four years vacant, and was formerly filled by his old friend and preceptor Lanfranc. Anselm was with much difficulty prevailed upon to accept this dignity, and evidently foresaw the difficulties of executing his duties conscientiously under such a sovereign as William Rufus. Before his consecration, however, he gained a promise from the king for the restitution of all the lands which were in the possession of that see in Lanfranc’s time. And thus having secured the temporalities of the archbishopric, and done homage to the king, he was consecrated with great solemnity on the 4th of December, 1093. Soon after his consecration, the king intending to wrest the duchy of Normandy from his brother Robert, and endeavouring to raise what money he could for that purpose, Anselm made him an offer of five hundred pounds; which the king thinking too little, refused to accept, and the archbishop thereby fell under the king’s displeasure. About that time, he had a dispute with the bishop of London, touching the right of consecrating churches in a foreign diocese. The next year, the king being ready to embark for Normandy, Anseim waited upon him, and desired his leave to convene a national synod, in which the disorders of the church and state, and the general dissolution of manners, might be remedied: but the king refused his request, and even treated him so roughly, that the archbishop and his retinue withdrew from the court, the licentious manners of which, Anselm, who was a man of inflexible piety, had censured with great freedom. Another cause of discontent between him and the archbishop, was Anselm’s desiring leave to go to Rome, to receive the pall from pope Urban II. whom the king of England did not acknowledge as pope, being more inclined to favour the party of his competitor Guibert. To put an end to this misunderstanding, a council, or convention, was held at Rockingham castle, March 11, 1095. In this assembly, Anselm, opening his cause, told them with what reluctancy he had accepted the archbishopric; that he had made an express reserve of his obedience to pope Urban; and that he was now brought under difficulties upon that score. He therefore desired their advice how to act in such a manner, as neither to fail in his allegiance to the king, nor in his duty to the holy see. The bishops were of opinion, that he ought to resign himself wholly to the king’s pleasure. They told him, there was a general complaint against him, for intrenching upon the king’s prerogative; and that it would be prudence in him to wave his regard for Urban; that bishop (for they would not call him pope) being in no condition to do him either good or harm. To this Anselm returned, that he was engaged to be no farther the king’s subject than the laws of Christianity would give him leave; that as he was willing “to render unto Cassar the things that were Caesar’s,” so he must likewise take in the other part of the precept, and “give unto God that which was God’s.” Upon this William, bishop of Durham, a court prelate, who had inflamed the difference, and managed the argument for the king, insisted, that the nomination of the pope to the subject was the principal jewel of the crown, and that by this privilege the kings of England were distinguished from the rest of the princes of Christendom. This is sound doctrine, if that had really been the question; but, whatever may be now thought of it, Anselm held an opinion in which succeeding kings and prelates acquiesced, and in the present instance, there is reason to think that William Rufus’s objection was not to the pope, but to a pope. Be this as it may, the result of this council was that the majority of the bishops, under the influence of the court, withdrew their canonical obedience, and renounced Anselm for their archbishop, and the king would have even had them to try and depose him, but this they refused. In consequence of this proceeding, Anselm desired a passport to go to the continent, which the king refused, and would permit only of a suspension of the affair from March to Whitsuntide; but long before the expiration of the term, he broke through the agreement, banished several clergymen who were Anselm’s favourites, and miserably harrassed the tenants of his see. Whitsuntide being at length come, and the bishops having in vain endeavoured to soften Anselm into a compliance, the king consented to receive him into favour upon his own terms; and, because Anselm persisted in refusing to receive the pall from the king’s hands, it was at last agreed that the pope’s nuncio, who had brought the pall into England, should carry it clown to Canterbury, and lay it upon the altar of the cathedral, from whence Anselm was to receive it, as if it had been put into his hands by St. Peter himself.

This may appear trifling; but as we have already said that the king’s objection was to a pope, and not to Me pope, jt is necessary to prove this by a circumstance which occurred during the interval above-mentioned, especially as this part of Anselm’s conduct has been objected to by some late biographers more acquainted with the opinions of their own time, than with the opinions and state of society in that of Anselm. During the above interval, Walter, bishop of Alba, was sent by Urban into England, attended by two clergymen, who officiated in the king’s chapel. These ecclesiastics had been privately dispatched to Rome, to inquire into the late election, and examine which of the two pretenders, Guibert or Urban, was canonically chosen, and finding the right lay in Urban, applied to him, and endeavoured to persuade him to send the king the archbishop of Canterbury’s pall. This was the king’s point; who thought, by getting the pall into his possession, he should be able to manage the archbishop. The pope complied so far, as to send the bishop of Alba to the king with the pall, but with secret orders concerning the disposal of it. This prelate arriving at the English court, discoursed very plausibly to the king, making him believe the pope was entirely in his interest; in consequence of which William ordered Urban to be acknowledged as pope in all his dominions. After he had thus far gratified the see of Rome, he began to treat with the legate about the deprivation of Anselm; but was greatly disappointed, when that prelate assured him the design was impracticable. As therefore it was now too late to go back, he resolved, since he could not have his revenge upon Anselm, to drop the dispute, and pretend himself reconciled. Matters being thus adjusted, the archbishop went to Canterbury, and received the pall with great solemnity the June following. And now it was generally hoped, that all occasion of difference between the king and the archbishop was removed; but it appeared soon after, that the reconciliation on the king’s part was not sincere. For William, having marched his forces into Wales, and brought that country to submission, took that opportunity to quarrel with Anselm, pretending he was not satisfied with the quota the archbishop had furnished for that expedition. Finding therefore his authority too weak to oppose the corruptions of the times, Anselm resolved to go in person to Rome, and consult the pope. But the king, to whom he applied for leave to go out of the kingdom, seemed surprised at the request, and gave him a flat denial. His request being repeated, the king gave his compliance in the form of a sentence of banishment, and at the meeting of the great council, Oct. 1097, commanded him to leave the kingdom within eleven days, without carrying any of his effects with him, and declared at the same time thut he should never be permitted to return. Anselm, nowise affected by this harsh conduct, went to Canterbury, divested himself of his archiepiscopal robes, and set out on his journey, embarking at Dover, after his baggage had been strictly searched by the king’s officers. As soon as the king heard that he had crossed the channel, he seized upon the estates and revenues of the archbishopric, and made every thing void which Anselm had done. The archbishop, however, got safe to Rome, and was honourably received by the pope, and after a short stay in that city, he accompanied the pope to a country seat near Capua, whither his holiness retired on account of the unhealthiness of the town. Here Anselm wrote a book, in which he gave an account of the reason of our Saviour’s incarnation. The pope wrote to the king of England in a strain of authority, enjoining him to reinstate Anselm in all the profits-und privileges of his see, and Anselm wrote into England upon the same subject. The king, on the other hand, endeavoured to get Anselm discountenanced abroad, and wrote to Roger, duke of Apulia, and others, to that purpose. But, notwithstanding his endeavours, Anselm was treated with all imaginable respect wherever he came, and was very serviceable to the pope in the council of Bari, which was held to oppose the errors of the Greek church, with respect to the procession of the Holy Ghost. In this synod Anselm answered the objections of the Greeks, and managed the argument with so much judgment, learning, and penetration, that he silenced his adversaries, and gave general satisfaction to the Western church. This argument was afterwards digested by him into a tract, and is extant among his other works. In the same council Anselm generously interposed, and prevented the pope from pronouncing sentence of excommunication against the king of England, for his frequent outrages on religion. After the synod of Bari was ended, the pope and Anselm returned to Rome, where an ambassador from the king of England was arrived, in order to disprove Anselm’s allegations and complaints against his master. At first the pope was peremptory in rejecting this ambassador; but the latter in a private conference, and through the secret influence of a large sum of money, induced the court of Rome to desert Auselm. Still the pope could not be resolute; for when the archbishop would have returned to Lyons, he could not part with him, but lodged him in a noble palace, and paid him frequent visits. About this time the pope having summoned a council to sit at Rome, Anselm had a very honourable seat assigned to him and his successors, this being the first appearance of an archbishop of Canterbury in a Roman synod. Nor was this all. for the bishop of Lucca, one of the members, alluded to Anselm’s case in a manner so pointed, that the pope was obliged to promise that matters should be rectified. When the council broke up, Anselm returned to Lyons, where he was entertained for some time by Hugo the archbishop, and remained there until the death of king William and pope Urban in 1100. Henry I. who succeeded William, having restored the sees of Canterbury, Winchester, and Salisbury, which had been sei'/ed by his predecessor, Anselm was solicited to return to England, and on his arrival at Clugny, an agent from the king presented him with a letter of invitation to his bishopric, and an excuse for his majesty’s not waiting until Anselm’s return, and receiving the crown from the hands of another prelate.

The agents, sent by the king and the archbishop to Rome, being returned, brought with them a letter Irom pope Paschal to the king, in which his holiness absolutely refused to dispense with the canons concerning investitures. The king, on his part, resolved not to give up what for some reigns had passed for part of the royal prerogative, and thus the difference was continued between the king and Anselm. In this dispute the majority of the bishops and temporal nobility were on the court side; and some of them were very earnest with the king, to break entirely with the see of Rome; but it was not thought adTiseable to proceed to an open rupture without trying a farther expedient; and therefore fresh agents were dispatched by the king to Rome, with instructions to offer the pope this alternative; either to depart from his former declaration, and relax in the point of investitures, or to be content with the banishment of Anselm, and to lose the obedience of the English, and the yearly profits accruing from that kingdom. At the same time, Anselm dispatched two monks, to inform the pope of the menaces of the English court. But the king’s ambassadors could not prevail with the pope to recede from his declaration; his holiness protesting he would sooner lose his life than cancel the decrees of the holy fathers, which resolution he signified by letters to the king and Anselm. Soon after, the king, having convened the great men of the kingdom at London, sent Anselm word, that he must either comply with the usages of his father’s reign, or quit England; but the agents disagreeing in their report of the pope’s answer, Anselm thought proper not to return a positive answer till farther information. And thus the controversy slept for the present. The next year a national synod was held under Anselm at St. Peter’s, Westminster; at which the king and the principal nobility were present, and in which several abbots were deposed for simony, and many canons were made. By one of these the married clergy were commanded to put away their wives, and by another it was decreed that the sons of priests should not be heirs to their fathers’ churches.

The king had an interview with the archbishop about mid-lent, 1103, in which he laboured both by threats and promises, to bring him to do homage for the temporalities of his see, but when he found him inflexible, he joined with the bishops and nobility in desiring Anselm to take a journey to Rome, to tiy if he could pe; suade the pope to relax, and Anselm accordingly set out, April 29. At the same time, the king dispatched one William Warelwast to Home, who, arriving there before Anselm, solicited-for the king his master, but to no purpose, as the pope persisted in refusing to grant the king the right of investiture. But, at the same time, his Holiness wrote a very ceremonious letter to the king of England, entreating him to wave‘ the contest, and promising all imaginable, compliance in other matters. Anselm, having taken leave of the court of Rome, returned to Lyons, where he received a sharp and reprimanding letter from a monk, acquainting him with the lamentable condition of the province of Canterbury, and blaming him for absenting himself at such a critical time. During the archbishop’s stay at Lyons, the king sent another embassy to Rome, to try if he could prevail with the pope to bring Anselm to a submission. But the pope, instead of being gained, excommunicated some of the English court, who had dissuaded the king from parting with the investitures, yet he declined pronouncing any censure against the king. Anselm, perceiving the court of Rome dilatory in its proceedings, removed from Lyons, and made a visit to the countess Adela, the conqueror’s daughter, at her castle in Blois. This lady inquiring into the business of Anselm’s journey, he told her that, after a great deal of patience and expectation, he must now be forced to excommunicate the king of England. The countess was extremely concerned for her brother, and wrote to the pope to procure an accommodation. The king, who was come into Normandy, hearing that Anselm designed to excommunicate him, desired his sister to bring him with her into Normandy, with a promise of condescension in several articles. To this Anselm agreed, and waited upon the king at a castle called L’Aigle, July 1105, where the king restored to him the revenues of the archbishopric, but would not permit him to come into England, unless he would comply in the affair of the investitures, which Anselm refusing, continued in France, till the matter was once more laid before the pope. But now the English bishops, who had taken part with the court against Anselm, began to change their minds, as appears by their letter directed to him in Normaiuly, in which, after having set forth the deplorable state of the church, they press him to come over with all speed, promising to stand by him, and pay him the regard due to his character. This was subscribed by Gerrard archbishop of York, Robert bishop of Chester, Herbert bishop of Norwich, Ralph bishop of Chichester, Samson bishop of Worcester, and William elect of Winchester. Anselm expressed his satisfaction at this conduct of the bishops, but acquainted them that it was not in his power to return, till he was farther informed of the proceedings of the court of Rome. In the mean time, being told, that the king had fined some of the clergy for a late breach of the canons respecting marriage, he wrote to his highness to complain of that stretch of his prerogative. At length the ambassadors returned from Rome, and brought with them a decision more agreeable than the former, for now th pope thought fit to make some advances towards gratifying the king, and though he would not give up the point of investitures, yet he dispensed so far as to give the bishops and abbots leave to do homage for their temporalities. The king, who was highly pleased with this condescension in the pope, sent immediately to invite Anselm to England; but the messenger finding him sick, the king himself went over into Normandy, and visited him at the abbey of Bee, where all differences between them were completely adjusted. As soon as Anselm. recovered, he embarked for England, and landing at Dover, was received with extraordinary marks of welcome, the queen herself travelling before him upon the road, to provide for his better entertainment. From this time very little happened in the life of this celebrated prelate, excepting only his contest with Thomas, archbishop elect of York, who endeavoured to disengage himself from a dependency on the see of Canterbury; but although Anselm died before the point was settled, Thomas was obliged to comply, and make his submission as usual to the archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm died at Canterbury, in the seventy-sixth year of his age, and the seventeenth of his prelacy, April 21, 1109.

It yet remains to be noticed that Anselm was canonized in the reign of Henry VII. at the instance of cardinal Morton, then archbishop of Canterbury, a singular mark of veneration for one who had been dead so long. His life was written by Eadmer, the historian, his secretary, and by John of Salisbury, but the account given by the latter is deformed by many supposed miracles.

, St. archbishop of Florence, was born in that city in 1389, and became a dominican, and afterwards superior of a numerous society, who devoted themselves to a life of austerity. He appeared to advantage at the council of Florence, where he was appointed to dispute with the Greeks. In 1446, he was, with much reluctance on his side, promoted to be archbishop of Florence, and from the moment of his installation is said to have shewn a bright example of all the virtues ascribed to the bishops of the primitive ages. He practised great temperance, preserved a simplicity of garb and manner, shunned honours, and distinguished himself by zeal and charity, particularly during the plague and famine with which Florence was visited in 1448; and died, much lamented, in 1459. Cosmo de Medicis bestowed his confidence on him; pope Eugene IV. wished he might die in his arms; Pius II. assisted at his funeral, and Adrian VI. enrolled him in the number of the saints, in 1523. His studies had been chiefly directed to ecclesiastical history and theology, and his principal works are, 1. “Historiarum opus seu Chronica libri viginti quatuor,” Venice, 1480; Nuremberg, 1484; Basil, 1491, Z vols. fol. 2. “Summa theologise moralis,” Venice, 4 vols. 4to, often reprinted, and in the edition of Venice, 1582, entitled “Juris Pontificii et Caesarsei summa.” Mamachi published an edition, in 1751, at Venice, 4 vols. 4to, with prolix notes. This work is still consulted. 3. “Summula confessionis,” Venice, 1473, one of the earliest printed books.

In the year 170 Antoninus made vast preparations against the Gennans, and carried on the war with great vigour. During this war, in the year 174, a very extraordinary event is said to have happened, which, according to Dion Cassius, was as follows: Antoninus’s army being blocked up by the Quadi in a very disadvantageous place, where there was no possibility of procuring water; and in this situation, being worn out with, fatigue and wounds, oppressed With heat and thirst, and incapable of retiring or engaging the enemy, instantly the sky was covered with clouds, and there fell a vast quantity of rain. The Roman army were about to quench their thirst, when the enemy came upon them with such fury, that they must certainly have been defeated, had it not been for a shower of hail, accompanied with a storm of thunder and lightning, which fell upon the enemy, without the least annoyance to the Romans, who by this means gained the victory. In the year 175 Antoninus made a treaty with several nations of Germany. Soon after, Aviclius Cassius, governor of Syria, revolted from the emperor: this insurrection, however, was suppressed by the death of Cassius, who was killed by a centurion named Anthony. Antoninus behaved with great lenity towards those who had been engaged for Cassius; he would not put to death, nor imprison, nor even sit in judgment himself upon any of the senators engaged in this revolt; but he referred them to the senate, fixing a day for their appearance, as if it had been only a civil affair. He wrote also to the senate, desiring them to act with indulgence rather than severity; not to shed the blood of any senator or noble, or of any other person whatsoever, but to allow this honour to his reign, that even under the misfortune of a rebellion, none had lost their lives, except in the first heat of the tumult: “And I wish,” said he, “that I could even recal to life many of those who have been killed; for revenge in a prince hardly ever pleases, since, even when just, it is considered too severe.” In the year 176 Antoninus visited Syria and Egypt; the kings of those countries, and ambassadors also from Parthia, came to visit him. He staid several days at Smyrna, and after he had settled the affairs of the east, went to Athens, on which city he conferred several honours, and appointed public professors there. From thence he returned to Rome with his son Commodus, whom he chose consul for the year following, though he was then but sixteen years of age, having obtained a dispensation for that purpose. On the 27th of Sept. the same year, he gave him the title of imperator; and on the 23d of Dec. he entered Rome in triumph, with Commodus, on account of the victories gained over the Germans. Dion Cassius tells us that he remitted all the debts which were due to himself and the public treasury during forty-six years, from the time that Adrian had granted the same favour, and burnt all the writings relating to those debts. He applied himself likewise to correct many enormities, and introduced several excellent regulations. He moderated the expences laid out on gladiators; nor would he suffer them to fight but with swords which were blunted like foils, so that their skill might be shewn without any danger of their lives. He endeavoured to clear up many obscurities in the laws, and mitigated, by new decrees, the severity of the old laws. He was the first, according to Capitolinus (Vit. Anton, cap. xxvii.) who appointed the names of all the children, born of Roman, citizens, to be registered within thirty days after their birth; and this gave him occasion to establish public registers in the provinces. He renewed the law made by Nerva, that no suit should be carried on against the dead, but within five years after their decease. He made a decree, that all the senators should have at least a fourth part of their estate in Italy. Capitolinus gives an account of several other regulations which he established. In the year 171 he left Rome with his son Commodus, in order to go against the Marcomanni, and other barbarous nations; and the year following gained a considerable victory over them: he would, in all probability, have entirely subdued them in a very short time, had he not been taken with an. illness, which carried him off on the 17th of March 180, in the fifty-ninth year of his age, and nineteenth of his reign. The whole empire regretted the loss of so valuable a prince, and paid the greatest regard to his memory; he was ranked amongst the gods, and every person almost had a statue of him in their houses. His book of “Meditations” has been much admired. It is written in Greek, and consists of twelve books; there have been several editions of it in Greek and Latin, two of which were printed before the year 1635, when the learned Meric Casaubon, prebendary of Canterbury, published a second edition of his translation of this work into English, dedicated to Laud, archbishop of Canterbury. It was also translated, in a very inelegant style, by Jeremy Collier. There was an edition afterwards printed at Glasgow, which is more correct; but the best is that published by the rev. R. Graves, 1792, 8vo. Of the learned Gataker’s two editions, Cambridge, 1652, 4to, Gr. and Lat. and London, 1697, the former is preferred. It is perhaps unnecessary to remark, that the valuable “Itinerary,” called Antoninus’s, does not belong to this, or any emperor of the name.

, a celebrated poetess of Italy, in the sixteenth century, was the natural daughter of Peter Tagliava d'Aragon, archbishop of Palermo, and a cardinal, himself an illegitimate descendant of the royal house of Aragon. Her father made a settlement on this daughter sufficient to enable her to live genteelly. She was beautiful in her person, and highly accomplished by taste and education. She spoke and wrote in Latin and Italian with the ability of the most eminent scholars, and enjoyed during life great reputation for the elegance of her manners and writings. The most distinguished scholars of the time celebrated her praises, and were proud to be ranked among her admirers. She resided mostly at Ferrara and Rome, and when advanced in age, went to Florence under the protection of the duchess Leonora of Toledo, an.d at that place she died very old, but the time is not mentioned. Her works, which have not preserved the high character bestowed by her admirers, are, 1. “Rime,” Venice, 1547, 8vo, and often reprinted. 2. “Dialogo deli‘ infinita d’Amore,” Venice, 1547. 3. “II Meschino, o il Guerino, poema,” in the ottava rima, Venice, 1560, 4to.

, the secretary and intendant of finances to Athaiaric, and afterwards subdeacon of the Romish church, flourished in the sixth century, and, according to some accounts, was born in the year 490, but the place of his birth has been contested. He certainly was of Liguria, but in his time Liguria comprehended a great part of Lombardy, and Milan was the chief city. He was educated under Laurentius, archbishop of Milan, who died in the year 504. Arator is said to have died in the year 356. At first he employed his poetical talents on profane subjects, but afterwards on those which were of a more serious kind. In the year 544, he presented Pope Vigilius with the Acts of the Apostles in Latin verse, with which the pontiff was so much pleased that he ordered the work to be read in the church of St. Peter ad Vincula, and it met with universal approbation. We find in it many of the allegories which the venerable Bede introduced in his commentary on the Acts. It was printed with other poetry of the same description, at Venice, 1502, 4to, Strasburgh, 1507, 8vo, Leipsic, 1515, 4to, and in the Bibliotheca Patrum, Paris, 1575, 1589, &c. Father Sirmond published at the end of his edition of Ennodius, a letter in elegiac verse, which Arator wrote to Parthenius.

A little after, he was appointed minister of Arbuthnot and Logy-Buchan. The year following, viz. 1569, on a visitation of the King’s College at Aberdeen, Mr. Alexander Anderson, principal, Mr. Andrew Galloway, sub-principal, and three regents, were deprived. Their sentence was published on the third of July, and immediately Mr. Arbuthnot was made principal of that college. He was a member also of the general assembly which sat at St. Andrew’s in 1572, when a certain scheme of church-government was proposed and called the Book of Policy, an invention of some statesmen, to restore the old titles in the church, but with a purpose to retain all the temporalities formerly annexed to them, amongst themselves. The assemhly, being apprized of this, appointed the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, and nineteen other commissioners, of whom Mr. Arbuthnot was one, to confer with the regent in his council; but these conferences either came to nothing, or, which is more probable, were never held. In the general assembly which met at Edinburgh the sixth of August 1573, Mr. Alexander Arbuthnot was chosen moderator. In the next assembly, which met at Edinburgh the sixth of March 1574, he was named one of the commissioners for settling the jurisdiction of the church, which seems to be no more than had been before done about the book of policy. This business required much time and pains, but at last some progress was made therein, and a plan of jurisdiction proposed. In the general assembly, which met at Edinburgh the first of April 1577, he was again chosen moderator. At this time the assembly were persuaded, upon some specious pretences, to appoint a certain number of their members to confer in the morning with their moderator, in order to prepare business. This committee had the name of the Congregation, and in a short time all matters of importance came to be treancd there, and the assembly had little to do but to approve their resolutions. At the close of this assembly, Mr. Arbuthnot, with other commissioners, was appointed to confer with the regent, on the plan of church policy before mentioned. In the general assembly held at Edinburgh the twenty-fifth of October 1578, he was again appointed of the committee for the same purpose, and in the latter end of the year, actually conferred with several noblemen, and other laycommissioners, on that important business. In 1582, Mr. Arbuthnot published Buchanan’s History of Scotland, in which, though he acted only as an editor, yet it procured him a great deal of ill-will, and in all probability gave his majesty king James VI. a bad impression of him. The practice of managing things in congregation still subsisting, the king forbad Mr. Arbuthnot to leave his college at Aberdeen, that he might not be present in the assembly, or direct, as he was used to do, those congregations which directed that great body. This offended the ministers very much, and they did not fail to remonstrate upon it to the king, who, however, remained firm. What impression this might make upon Mr. Arbuthnot’s mind, a very meek and humble man, assisting others at their request, and not through any ambition of his own, is uncertain; but a little after he began to decline in his health, and on the 20th of October 1583, departed this life in the forty -fifth year of his age, and was buried in the college church of Aberdeen. His private character was very amiable: he was learned without pedantry, and a great encourager of learning in youth, easy and pleasant in conversation, had a good taste in poetry, was well versed in philosophy and the mathematics, eminent as a lawyer, no less eminent as a divine; neither wanted he considerable skill in physic. In his public character he was equally remarkable for his moderation and abilities, which gained him such a reputation, as drew upon him many calls for advice, which made kim at last very uneasy. As principal of the college of Aberdeen, he did great service to the church in particular, and to his country in general, by bringing over many to the former, and reviving that spirit of literature which was much decayed in the latter. These employments took up so much of his time, that we have nothing of his writing, except a single book printed at Edinburgh, in 4to, 1572, under this title, “Orationes de origine et dignitate Juris;” “Orations on the origin and dignity of the Law.” It was esteemed a very learned and elegant performance, as appears by a fine copy of Latin yerses on its publication, by Mr. Thomas Maitland, who was equally admired as a poet and a critic. Arbuthnot’s countryman and contemporary, Andrew Melvil, wrote an elegant epitaph on him, (Delit. Poet. Scot. vol. II. p. 120.) which alone would have been sufficient to preserve his memory, and gives a very just idea of his character.

, or Earnulph, or Ernulph, bishop of Rochester in the reign of king Henry I, was a Frenchman by birth, and for some time a monk of St. Lucian de Beauvais. Observing some irregularities among his brethren, which he could neither remedy nor endure, he resolved to quit the monastery but first he took the advice of Lanfranc archbishop of Canterbury, under whom he had studied in the abbey of Bee. That prelate, who was well acquainted with his merit, invited him over into England, and placed him in the monastery of Canterbury, where he lived till Lanfranc’s death. Afterwards, when Anselm came into that see, Arnulph was made prior of the monastery of Canterbury, and afterwards abbot of Peterborough, and to both places he was a considerable benefactor, having rebuilt part of the church of Canterbury, which had fallen down, and also that of Peterborough, but this latter was destroyed by an accidental fire, and our prelate removed to Rochester before he could repair the loss. In 1115, he was consecrated bishop of that see, in the room of Radulphus or Ralph, removed to the see of Canterbury. He sat nine years and a few days, and died in March 1124, aged eighty-four. He is best known by his work concerning the foundation, endowment, charters, laws, and other things relating to the church of Rochester. It generally passes by the name of Textus Roffensis, and is preserved in. the archives of the cathedral church of Rochester. Mr. Wharton, in his Anglia Sacra, has published an extract of this history, under the title of “Ernulphi Episcopi Roffensis Collectanea de rebus Ecclesise Roffensis, a prima sedis fundatione ad sua tempora. Ex Textu Roffensi, quern composuit Ernulphus.” This extract consists of the names of the bishops of Rochester, from Justus, who was translated to Canterbury in the year 624, to Ernulfus inclusive benefactions to the church of Rochester; of the agreement made between archbishop Lanfranc, and Odo bishop of Bayeux how Lanfranc restored to the monks the lands of the church of St. Andrew, and others, which had been alienated from them how king William the son of king William did, at the request of archbishop Lanfranc, grant unto the church of St. Andrew the apostle, at Rochester, the manor called Hedenham, for the maintenance of the monks and why bishop Gundulfus built for the king the stone castle of Rochester at his own expence a grant of the great king William Of the dispute between Gundulfus and Pichot benefactions to the church of Rochester. Oudm is of opinion, our Arnulph had no hand in this collection; but the whole was printed, in 1769, bj the late Mr. Thorpe, in his “Registrum Roffense.”

, archbishop of Monembasia, or Malvasia in the Morea, was a learned philologist of the fifteenth century. He was the particular friend of pope Paul III. and wrote to him some very elegant letters. He submitted also to the Romish church, which gave so much offence to the heads of the Greek church, that they excommunicated him. There are of his extant, a “Collection of Apophthegms,” printed at Rome, in Greek and another “Collection of Scholia on seven of the tragedies of Euripides,” printed at Venice in 1518, 8vo Basil, 1544; and again at Venice in 1533. His collection of Apophthegms, or “Praeclara dicta Philosophorum,” has no date of year. The time of his death is uncertain, but he was alive in 1535.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. was the second son of Robert Fitz-Alan, earl of Arundel and Warren, and brother of Richard earl of Arundel, who was afterwards beheaded. He was but twenty-two years of age when, from being archdeacon of Taunton, he was promoted to the bishopric of Ely, by the pope’s provision, and consecrated April 9, 1374, at Otteford. He was a considerable benefactor to the church and palace of that see. He almost rebuilt the episcopal palace in Holborn, and, among other donations, he presented the cathedral with a very curious table of massy gold, enriched with precious stones which had been given to prince Edward by the king of Spain, and sold by the latter to bishop Arundel for three hundred marks. In the year 1386, the tenth of Richard II. he was made lord high chancellor of England but resigned it in 1389 was again appointed in 1391, and resigned it finally, upon his advancement to the see of Canterbury. After he had sat about fourteen years in the see of Ely, he was translated to the archbishopric of York, April 3, 1388, where he expended a very large sum of money in building a palace for the archbishops, and, besides other rich ornaments, gave to the church several pieces of silver-gilt plate. In 1393, being then chancellor, he removed the courts of justice from London to York and, as a precedent for this unpopular step, he alledged the example of archbishop Corbridge, eighty years before. The see of Canterbury being vacant by the death of Dr. William Courtney, archbishop Arundel was translated thither, January 1396. The crosier was delivered into his hands by Henry Chellenden, prior of Canterbury, in the presence of the king, and a great number of the nobility, and on the 19th of February 1397, he was enthroned with great pomp at Canterbury, the first instance of the translation of an archbishop of York to the see of Canterbury. Soon after he had a contest with the university of Oxford about the right of visitation, which was determined by King Richard, to whom the decision was referred, in favour of the archbishop. At his visitation in London, he revived an old constitution, first set on foot by Simon Niger, bishop of London, by which the inhabitants of the respective parishes were obliged to pay to their rector one halfpenny in the pound out of the rent of their houses. In the second year of his translation, a parliament was held at London, in which the commons, with the king’s leave, impeached the archbishop, together with his brother the earl of Arundel, and the duke of Gloucester, of high-treason, for compelling the king, in the tenth year of his reign, to grant them a commission to govern the kingdom. The archbishop was sentenced to be banished, and had forty days allowed him to prepare for his exile, within which time he was to depart the kingdom on pain of death. Upon this he retired first into France, and then to Rome, where pope Boniface IX. gave him a very friendly reception, and wrote a letter to king Richard, desiring him to receive the archbishop again into favour. But not meeting with success, his holiness resolved to interpose his authority in favour of Arundel. Accordingly he nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrews, and declared his intention of giving him several other preferments in England, by way of provision. The king, upon this, wrote an expostulatory letter to the pope, which induced him not only to withhold the intended favours from Arundel, but likewise, at the king’s request^ to promote Roger Walden dean of York and lord treasurer of England, to the see of Canterbury. That prelate, however, was soon obliged to quit his new dignity for, next year, Arundel returned into England with the duke of Lancaster, afterwards king Henry IV. upon whose accession to the throne, the pope revoked the bull granted to Walden, and restored Arundel and among the articles of mis government brought against king Richard, one was his usage and banishment of this prelate. The throne being vacant by Richard’s resignation, and the duke of Lancaster’s title being allowed in parliament, Arundel had the honour to crown the new king and, at the coronationdinner, sat at his right hand; the archbishop of York being placed at his left. In the first year of king Henry’s reign, Arundel summoned a synod, which sat at St. Paul’s. Harpsfield, and the councils from him, have mistaken this synod for one held during the vacancy of the see. He also by his courage and resolution, preserved several of the bishops, who were in king Henry’s army, from being plundered of their equipages and money. The next year, the commons having moved, that the revenues of the church might be applied to the service of the public, Arundel opposed the motion so vigorously, that the king and lords promised him, the church should never be plundered in their time. After this, he visited the university of Cambridge, where he made several statutes, suppressed several bad customs, and punished the students for their misbehaviour. And, when the visitation was ended, at the request of the university, he reserved all those matters and causes, which had been laid before him, to his own cognizance and jurisdiction. In the year 1408, Arundel began to exert himself with vigour against the Lollards or Wickliffites. To this end, he summoned the bishops and clergy at Oxford, to check the progress of this new sect, and prevent that university’s being farther tinctured with their opinions. But the doctrines of Wickliff still gaining ground, the archbishop resolved to visit the university, attended by the earl of Arundel, his nephew, and a splendid retinue. When he came near the town, he was met by the principal members of the university, who told him, that, if he came only to see the town, he was very welcome, but if he came in the character of a visitor, they refused to acknowledge his jurisdiction. The archbishop, resenting this treatment, left Oxford in a day or two, and wrote to the king on accpunt of his disappointment. After a warm contest between the university and the archbishop, both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the king’s decision who, governing himself by the example of his predecessors, gave sentence in favour of the archbishop. Soon after this controversy was ended, a convocation being held at St. Paul’s in London, the bishops and clergy complained of the growth of Wicklevitism at Oxford, and pressed the archbishop to visit that university. He accordingly wrote to the chancellor and others, giving them notice, that he intended to hold a visitation in St. Mary’s church. His delegates for this purpose were sent down soon after, and admitted by the university, who, to make some satisfaction for their backwardness in censuring Wickliff’s opinions, “wrote to the archbishop, and asked his pardon: after which they appointed a committee of twelve persons, to examine heretical books, particularly those of Wicklitf. These inquisitors into heretical pravity, having censured some conclusions extracted out o'f WicklitPs books, sent an account of their proceedings to the archbishop, who confirmed their censures, and sent an authority in writing to some eminent members of the university, empowering them to inquire into persons suspected of heterodoxy, and oblige them to declare their opinions. These rigorous proceedings made Arundel extremely hated by the Wickliffites, and certainly form the deepest stain on his character. However he went on with the prosecution, and not only solicited the pope to condemn the abovementioned conclusions, but desired likewise a bull for the digging up Wickliff’s bones. The pope granted the first of these requests, but refused the other, not thinking it any useful part of discipline to disturb the ashes of the dead. Arundel’s warm zeal for suppressing the Lollards, or Wickliffites, carried him to several unjustifiable severities against the heads of that sect, particularly against sir John Oldcastle, lord Cobham and induced him to procure a synodical constitution, which forbad the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue. This prelate died at Canterbury, after having sat seventeen years, the 20th of February, 1413. The Lollardsofthose times asserted the immediate hand of heaven in the manner of his death. He died of an inflammation in his throat, and it is said that he was struck with this disease, as he was pronouncing sentence of excommunication and condemnation on the lord Cobham; and from that time, notwithstanding all the assistance of medicine, he could swallow neither meat nor drink, and was starved to death. The Lollards imputed this lamentable end to the just judgment of God upon him, both for his severity towards that sect, and forbidding the scriptures to be translated into English; and bishop Godwin seems to lean to the same opinion. He was buried in the cathedral of Canterbury, near the west end, under a monument erected by himself in his life-time. He was a considerable benefactor to that church, having built the Lanthorn Tower, and great part of the Nave and he gave a ring of five bells, called from him” Arundel’s Ring," several rich vestments, a mitre enchased with jewels, a silver gilt crosier, a golden chalice for the high altar, and another to be used only on St. Thomas Becket’s day. He bestowed also the church of Godmersham, out of the income of which, he ordered six shillings and eight pence to be given annually to every monk of the convent, on the aforesaid festival. Lastly, he gave several valuable books, particularly two Missals, and a collection in one volume of St. Gregory’s works, with anathema to any person who should remove it out of the church. He appears to have possessed a great natural capacity, and was a splendid benefactor to many of our ecclesiastical structures. As a politician, he took a very active share in the principal measures of very turbulent times, and it is perhaps now difficult to appreciate his character in any other particulars than what are most prominent, his zeal for the catholic religion, and his munificence in the various offices he held.

The master of St. John’s college at this time, Nicholas Medcalf, was a great encourager of learning, and his tutor, Mr. Hugh Fitzherbert, had not only much knowledge, but also a graceful and insinuating method of imparting it to his pupils. To a genius naturally prone to learning, Mr. Ascham added a spirit of emulation, which induced him to study so hard, that, while a mere boy, he made a great progress in polite learning, and became exceedingly distinguished amongst the most eminent wits in the university. He took his degree of B. A. on the twenty-eighth of February, 1534, when eighteen years* of age; and on the twenty-third of March following, was elected fellow of his college by the interest of the master, though Mr. Ascham’s propensity to the reformed religion had made it difficult for Dr. Medcalf, who, according to Ascham' s account, was a man of uncommon liberality, to carry his good intention into act. These honours served only to excite him to still greater vigilance in his studies, particularly in that of the Greek tongue, wherein he attained an excellency peculiar to himself, and read therein, both publicly for the university, and privately in his college, with universal applause. At the commencement held after the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, in 1536, he was inaugurated M. A. being then twenty-one years old. By this time many of his pupils came to be taken notice of for their extraordinary proficiency, and William Grindall, one of them, at the recommendation of Mr. Ascham, was chosen by sir John Cheke, to be tutor to the lady Elizabeth. As he did not accept this honour himself, he probably was delighted with an academical life, and was not very desirous of changing it for one at court. His affection for his friends, though it filled him with a deep concern for their interests, and a tender regard for their persons, yet could not induce him to give up his understanding, especially in points of learning. For this reason he did not assent to the new pronunciation of the Greek, which his intimate friend, sir John Cheke, laboured, by his authority, to introduce throughout the university; yet when he had thoroughly examined, he came over to his opinion, and defended the new pronunciation with that zeal and vivacity which gave a peculiar liveliness to all his writings. In July 1542, he supplicated the university of Oxford to be incorporated M. A. but it & doubtful whether this was granted. To divert him after the fatigue of severer studies, he addicted himself to archcry, which innocent amusement drew upon him the censure of some persons, against whose opinion he wrote a small treatise, entitled “Toxophilus,” published in 1544, and dedicated to king Henry VIII. then about to undertake his expedition against Boulogne. This work was very kindly received and the king, at the recommendation of sir William Paget, was pleased to settle a pension of ten pounds (now probably in value one hundred) upon him, which, after that prince’s death, was for some time discontinued, but at length restored to him, during pleasure, by Edward VI. and confirmed by queen Mary, with an additional ten pounds per annum. Among other accomplishments he was remarkable for writing a very fine hand, and taught that art to prince Edward, the lady Elizabeth, the two brothers Henry and Charles, dukes of Suffolk, and several other persons of distinction, and for many years wrote all the letters of the university to the king, and to the great men at court. The same year that he published his book he was chosen university- orator, in the room of Mr. John Cheke, an office which gratified his passion for an academical life, and afforded him frequent opportunities of displaying his superior eloquence in the Latin and Greek tongues. In 1548, on the death of his pupil, Mr. Grindal, he was sent for to court, in order to instruct the lady Elizabeth in the knowledge of the learned languages, which duty he discharged for two years, with great reputation to himself, and with much satisfaction to his illustrious pupil. For some time he enjoyed as great comfort at court as he had done at college but at length, on account of some illjudged and ill-founded whispers, Mr.Ascham took such a distaste at some in the lady Elizabeth’s family, that he left her a little abruptly, which he afterwards heartily repented, and took great and not unsuccessful pains, to be restored to her good graces. On his returning to the university, he resumed his studies, and the discharge of his office of public orator, his circumstances being at this time tolerably easy, by considerable assistance from lovers of learning, and a small pension allowed him by king Edward, and another by archbishop Lee. In the summer of 1550, he went, into Yorkshire to visit his family and relations, but was recalled to court in order to attend sir Richard Morysine, then going ambassador to the emperor Charles V. Imia journey to London he visited the lady Jane Gray, at er father’s house at Broad gate in Leicestershire, with whm he had been well acquainted at court, and for whomie had already a very high esteem. In September followig, he embarked with sir R. Morysine for Germany, wherehe remained three years, during which he left nothing omitsd which might serve to perfect his knowledge of men as veil as books. As he travelled with an ambassador, he thought it became him to make politics some part of his study, ad how well he succeeded appears from a short but very cirious tract which he wrote, concerning Germany, and of he affairs of Charles V. He was also of great use to the anbassador, not only in the management of his public concerns, but as the companion of his private studies, vihich were for the most part in the Greek language. He read Herodotus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Demosthenes, three days in a week the other three he copied the letters which the ambassador sent to England. While thus employed, his friends in England, particularly sir William Cecil, procured for him the post of Latin secretary to king Edward. But this he did not enjoy long, being recalled on account of the king’s death, on which occasion he lost all his places, together with his pension, and all expectation of obtaining any farther favours at court. In this situation he was at first hopeless, and retired to the university to indulge his melancholy. But the prospect quickly became more promising. His friend the lord Paget mentioned him to Stephen Gardiner bishop of Winchester, lord high chancellor, who very frankly received him into his favour, notwithstanding Mr. Ascham remained firm to his religion, which was so far from being a secret to the bishop, that he had many malicious informations given him on that head, which he treated with contempt, and abated nothing in his friendship to our author. He first procured him the re-establishment of his pension, which consisted of but ten pounds a year, with the addition of ten pounds a year more he then fixed him in the post of Latin secretary to the king and queen, and, by her majesty’s interest and his own, kept him in the fellowship of St. John’s, and in his place of orator to the university, to Midsummer 1554. Soon after his admission to his new employment, he gave art extraordinary specimen of his abilities and diligence, by composing and transcribing, with his usual elegance, in three days, forty-seven letters to princes and personaes, of whom cardinals were the lowest. He was likewe patronised by cardinal Pole, who, though he wrote e;gant Latin, yet sometimes made use of Mr. Ascharn’s pn, particularly in translating his speech to the parliaBsnt, which he made as the pope’s legate, and of which Unslation he sent a copy to the pope. On the first of June 1554, Ascham married Mrs. Margaret Howe, a lady of a rood family, with whom he had a very, considerable fortme, and of whom he gives an excellent character, in one oi his letters to his friend Sturmius. His favour with qteen Mary’s ministers was not less than what he enjoyed frtm the queen herself, who conversed with him often, and was much pleased with his company. On her death, having been previously reconciled to the lady Elizabeth, he was immediately distinguished by her, now queen, and from his time until his death he was constantly at court, very fully employed in the discharge of his two great offices, the cne of secretary for the Latin tongue, and the other of tutor to her majesty in the learned languages, reading some hours with her every day. This interest at court would have procured a man of a more active temper many considerable advantages; but such was either Ascham’s indolence, or disinterestedness, that he never asked any thing, either for himself or his family, though he received several favours unsolicited, particularly the prebend of Westwang in the church of York, in 1559, which he held to his death. Yet however indifferent to his own affairs, he was very far from being negligent in those of his friends, for whom he was ready to do any good office in his power, and in nothing readier than in parting with his money, though he never had much to spare. He always associated with the greatest men of the court, and having once in conversation heard the best method of educating youth debated with some heat, he from thence took occasion, at the request of sir Richard Sackville, to write his “Schoolmaster,” which he lived to finish, but not to publish. His application to study rendered him infirm throughout his whole life, and at last he became so weak, that he was unable to read in the evenings or at night; to make amends for which, he rose very early in the morning. The year before his death he was seized with a hectic, which brought him very low and then, contrary to his former custom, relapsing into night-studies, in order to complete a Latin poem with which he designed to present the queen on the new year, he, on the 23d of December 1568, was attacked by an aguish ‘distemper, which threatened him with immediate death. He was visited in his last sickness by Dr. Alexander Nowell, dean of St. ’Paul’s, and Graves, vicar of St. Sepulchre’s, who found him perfectly calm and chearful, in which disposition he continued to the 30th of the same month, when he expired. On the 4th of January following, he was interred according to his own directions, in the most private manner, in St. Sepulchre’s church, his funeral sermon being preached by the before-mentioned Dr. Nowell. He was universally lamented, and even the queen herself not only shewed great concern, but was also pleased to say, that phg had rather have lost ten thousand pounds than her tutor Ascham. His only failing was too great a propensity to dice and cock-fighting, which the learned bishop Nicolson would persuade us to be an unfounded calumny; but as it is mentioned by Camden, as well as some other contemporary writers, it seems impossible to deny it. It is certain that he died in very indifferent circumstances, as may appear from the address of his widow to sir William Cecil, in her dedication of his “Schoolmaster,” wherein she says expressly, that Mr. Ascham left her a poor widow with many orphans; and Dr. Grant, in his dedication of Ascham’s letters to queen Elizabeth, pathetically recommends to her his pupil, Giles Ascham, the son of our author, representing, that be had lost his father, who should have taken care of his education, and that he was left poor and without friends. Besides this son he had two others, Dudley and Sturmur, of whom we know little. Lord Burleigh took Giles Ascham under his protection, by whose interest he was recommended to a scholarship of St. John’s, and afterwards by the queen’s mandate, to a fellowship of Trinity college in Cambridge, and was celebrated, as well as his father, for his admirable Latin style in epistolary writings.

, an eminent philosopher, chemist, and antiquary, of the seventeenth century, and founder of the noble museum at Oxford, which still bears his name, was the only son of Mr. Simon Ashmole, of the city of Litchfield, in Staffordshire, sadler, by Anne, the daughter of Mr. Anthony Boyer, of Coventry, in Warwickshire, woollen-draper. He was born May 23, 1617, and during his early r education in grammar, was taught music, in which he made such proficiency as to become a chorister in the cathedral at Litchfield. When he had attained the age of sixteen he was taken into the family of James Paget, esq. a baron of the exchequer, who had married his mother’s sister, and as his father died in 1634, leaving little provision for him, he continued for some years in the Paget family, during which time he made considerable progress in the law, and spent his leisure hours in perfecting himself in music and other polite accomplishments. In March 1638, he married Eleanor, daughter of Mr. Peter Manwaring, of Smallwood, in the county Palatine of Chester, and in Michaelmas term the same year, became a solicitor in Chancery. On February 11, 1641, he was sworn an attorney of the court of common pleas, and on December 5th, in the same year, his wife died suddenly, of whom he has left us a very natural and affectionate memorial. The rebellion coming on, he retired from London, being always a zealous and steady loyalist, and on May 9, 1645, became one of the gentlemen of the ordnance in the garrison at Oxford, whence he removed to Worcester, where he was commissioner, receiver, and register of the excise, and soon after captain in the lord Ashley’s regiment, and comptroller of the ordnance. In the midst of all this business he entered himself of Brazen-Nose college, in Oxford, and applied himself vigorously to the sciences, but especially natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; and his intimate acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards sir George) Wharton, seduced him into the absurd mysteries of astrology, which was in those days in great credit. In the month of July, 1646, he lost his mother, who had always been a kind parent to him, and for whom he had a very pious regard. On October 16th, the same year, be was elected a brother of the ancient and honourable society of Free and Accepted Masons, which he looked upon as a high honour, and has therefore given us a particular account of the lodge established at Warrington in Lancashire and in some of his manuscripts, there are very valuable collections relating to the history of the free masons. The king’s affairs being now grown desperate, Mr. Ashmole withdrew himself, after the surrender of the garrison of Worcester, into Cheshire, where he continued till the end of October, and then came up to London, where he became acquainted with Mr. (afterwards sir Jonas) Moore, William Lilly, and John Booker, esteemed the greatest astrologers in 'the world, by whom he was caressed, instructed, and received into their fraternity, which then made a very considerable figure, as appeared by the great resort of persons of distinction to their annual feast, of which Mr. Ashmole was afterwards elected steward. Jn 1647 he retired to Englefield, in Berkshire, where he pursued his studies very closely, and having so fair an opportunity, and the advantage of some very able masters, he cultivated the science of botany. Here, as appears from his own remarks, he enjoyed in privacy the sweetest moments of his life, the sensation of which perhaps was quickened, by his just idea of the melancholy state of the times. It was in this retreat that he became acquainted with Mary, sole daughter of sir William Forster, of Aldermarston, in the county of Berks, bart. who was first married to sir Edward Stafford, then to one Mr. Hamlyn, and lastly to sir Thomas Mainwaring, knt recorder of Reading, and one of the masters in chancery and an attachment took place but Mr. Humphrey Stafford, her second son, had such a dislike to the measure, that when Mr. Ashmole happened to be very ill, he broke into his chamber, and if not prevented, would have murdered him. In the latter end of 1648, lady Mainwaring conveyed to him her estate at Bradfield, which was soon after sequestered on account of Mr. Ashmole’s loyalty but the interest he had with William Lilly, and some others of that party, enabled him to get that sequestration taken off. On the sixteenth of November, 1649, he married lady Mainwaring, and settled in London, where his house became the receptacle of the most learned and ingenious persons that flourished at that time. It was by their conversation, that Mr. Ashmole, who hud been more fortunate in worldly affairs than most scholars are, and who had been always a curious collector of manuscripts, was induced to publish a treatise written by Dr. Arthur Dee, relating to the Philosopher’s stone, together with another tract on the same subject, by an unknown author. These accordingly appeared in the year following but Mr. Ashmole was so cautious, or rather modest, as to publish them by a fictitious name. He at the same time addressed himself to a work of greater consequence, a complete collection of the works of such English chemists, as had till then remained in ms. which cost him a great deal of labour, and for the embellishment of which he spared no expence, causing the cuts that were necessary, to be engraved at his own house in Black-Friars, by Mr. Vaughan, who was then the most eminent artist in that department in England. He imbibed this affection for chemistry from his intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Backhouse, of Swallowfield in the county of Berks, who was reputed an adept, and whom, from his free communication of chemical secrets, Mr. Ashmole was wont to call father, agreeably to the custom which had long prevailed among the lovers of that art, improperly, however, called chemistry for it really was the old superstition of alchemy. He likewise employed a part of his time in acquiring the art of engraving seuls, casting in sand, and the mystery of a working goldsmith. But all this time, his great work of publishing the ancient English writers in chemistry went on and finding that a competent knowlege of the Hebrew was absolutely necessary for understanding and explaining such authors as had written on the Hermetic science, he had recourse to rabbi Solomon Frank, by whom he was taught the rudiments of Hebrew, which he found very useful to him in his studies. At length, towards the close of the year 1652, his “Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum” appeared, which gained him great reputation in the learned world, as it shewed him to be a man of a most studious disposition, indefatigable application, and of wonderful accuracy in his compositions. It served also to extend his acquaintance considerably, and among others the celebrated Mr. Seiden took notice of him in the year 1653, encouraged his studies, and lived in great friendship with him to the day of his death. He was likewise very intimate with Mr. Oughtred, the mathematician, and with Dr. Wharton, a physician of great racter and experience. His marriage with lady -Main-waring, however, involved him in abundance of law-suits with other people, and at last produced a dispute between themselves, which came to a hearing on October 8, 1657, in the court of chancery, where serjeant Maynard having observed, that in eight hundred sheets of depositions taken on the part of the lady, there was not so much as a bad word proved against Mr. Ashrnole, her bill was dismissed, and she delivered back to her husband. He had now for some time addicted himself to the study of antiquity and records, which recommended him to the intimate acquaintance of Mr. (afterwards sir William) Dugdale, whom about this time he attended in his survey of the Fens, and was very useful to him in 'that excellent undertaking. Mr. Ashmole himself soon after took the pains to trace the Roman road, which in Antoninus’s Itinerary is called Bennevanna, from Weeden to Litchfield, of which he gave Mr. Dugdale an account, in a letter addressed to him upon that subject. It is very probable, that after his studies had thus taken a new turn, he lost somewhat of his relish for chemistry, since he discontinued the Theatrum Chemicum, which, according to his first design, was to have consisted of several volumes yet he still retained such a remembrance of it, as induced him to part civilly with the sons of art, by publishing a treatise in prose on the philosopher’s stone, to which he prefixed an admirable preface, in which he wishes to apologize for taking leave of these fooleries. In the spring of the year 1658, our author began to collect materials for his history of the order of the garter, which he afterwards lived to finish, and thereby rendered both the order and himself immortal, the just reward of the prodigious pains he took in searching records in the Tower, and elsewhere, comparing them with each other, and obtaining such lights as were requisite to render so perplexed a subject clear, and to reduce all the circumstances of such a vast body of history into their proper order. In September following he made a journey to Oxford, where he was extremely well received, and where he undertook to make a full and distinct description of the coins given to the public library by archbishop Laud, which was of great use to him in the works which he afterwards composed. He had lodged and boarded sometimes at a house in South Lambeth, kept by Mr. John Tradescant, whose father and himself hud been physic-gardeners there for many years, and had collected avast number of curiosities, which, after mature deliberation, Mr. Tradescant and his wife determined to bestow on Mr. Ashmole, and accordingly sealed and delivered a deed of gift for that purpose, on December 16, 1659. On the restoration of king Charles II. Mr. Ashmole was Dearly introduced into the presence and favour of his majesty, and on June 18, 1660, which was the second time he had the honour of discoursing with the king, he graciously bestowed upon him the place of Windsor herald. A few days after, he was appointed by the king to make a description of his medals, and had them delivered into his hands, and king Henry VHIth’s closet assigned for his use, being also allowed his diet at court. On August 21st, in the same year, he presented the three books which he had published, to his majesty, who, as he both loved and understood chemistry, received them very graciously. On September 3, he had a warrant signed for the office of commissioner of the excise, in consequence of a letter written by his majesty’s express command, to the earl of Southampton, then lord high-treasurer, by Mr. Se^ cretary Morris. About this time, a commission was granted to him as incidental to the care of the king’s medals, to examine the famous, or rather infamous, Hugh Peters, about the contents of the royal library which had fallen into his hands, and which was very carefully and punctually executed, but to very little purpose. On November 2d, he was called to the bar in Middle-Temple hall, and January 15, 1661, he was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. On February 9th following, the king signed a warrant for constituting him secretary of Surinam in the West Indies. In the beginning of the year 1662, he was appointed one of the commissioners for recovering the king’s goods, and about the same time he sent a set of services and anthems to the cathedral church of Litchfield, in memory of his having been once a chorister there, and he gave afterwards twenty pounds towards repairing the cathedral. On June 27, 1664, the White Office was opened, of which he was appointed a commissioner. On Feb. 17, 1665, sir Edward By she sealed his deputation for visiting Berkshire, which visitation he began on the llth of March following, and on June 9, 1668, he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the treasury, accomptant-general, and country accomptant in the excise. His second wife, lady Main waring, dying, April 1, in the same year, he soon after married Mrs. Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to his good friend sir William Dugdale, kht. garter king at arms, in Lincoln’s-inn chapel, on Novembers. The university of Oxford, in consideration of the many favours they had received from Mr. Ashmole, created him doctor of physic by diploma, July 19, 1669, which was presented to him on the 3d of November following, by Dr. Yates, principal of Brazen-Nose college, in the name of the university. He was now courted and esteemed by the greatest people in the kingdom, both in point of title and merit, who frequently did him the honour to visit him at his chambers in the Temple, and whenever he went his summer progress, he had the same respect paid him in the country, especially at his 'native town of Litchfield, to which when he came, he was splendidly entertained by the corporation. On May 8, 1672, he presented his laborious work on the most noble order of the garter, to his most gracious master king Charles II. who not only received it with great civility and kindness, but soon after granted to our author, as a mark of his approbation of the work, and of his personal esteem for him, a privy seal for 400 pounds out of the custom of paper. This was his greatest undertaking, and had he published nothing else, would have preserved his memory, as it certainly is in its kind one of the most valuable books in our language. On January 29, 1675, he resigned his office of Windsor herald, which by his procurement, was bestowed on his brother Dugdale, It was with great reluctancy that the earl marshal parted with him, and it was not long after, that he bestowed on him the character of being the best officer in his office. On the death of sir Edward Walker, garter king at arms, Feb_ 20, 1677, the king and the duke of Norfolk, as earl marshal, contested the right of disposing of his place, on which Mr. Ashmole was consulted, who declared in favour of the king, but with so much prudence and discretion as not to give any umbrage to the earl marshal. He afterwards himself refused this high office, which was conferred on his father-in-law sir -William Dugdale, for whom he employed his utmost interest. About the close of 1677, a proposal was made to Mr. Ashmole to become a candidate for the city of Litchfield, but finding himself poorly supported by the very persons who would have encouraged him to stand, he withdrew his pretensions. On the 26th of January, 1679, about ten in the morning, a fire began in the Middle Temple, in the next chambers to Mr. Aslimole’s,- by which he lost a library he had been collecting thirty-three years; but his Mss. escaped, by their being at his house in South Lambeth. He likewise lost a collection of 9000 coins, ancient and modern but his more valuable collection of gold medals were likewise preserved by being at Lambeth his vast repository of seals, charters, and other antiquities and curiosities, perished also in the flames. In 1683, the university of Oxford having finished a noble repository near the theatre, Mr. Ashmole sent thither that great collection of rarities which he had received from the Tradescants before-mentioned, together with such additions as he had made to them; and to this valuable benefaction he afterwards added that of his Mss. and library, which still remain a monument of his generous love to learning in general, and to the university of Oxford in particular. In the beginning of the year 1685, he was invited by the magistrates, and by the dean of Litchfield, to represent that corporation in parliament but upon king James’s intimating to him, by the lord Dartmouth, that he would take it kindly if he would resign his interest to Mr. Levvson, he instantly complied.

2. “Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, containing several poetical pieces of our famous English philosophers, who have written the Hermetique mysteries, in their own ancient language. Faithfully collected into one volume, with annotations thereon, by Elias Ashmole, esq. qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1652, 4to. The authors published in this collection are, Thomas Norton’s ordinal of Alchemic~ George Rrpley’s compound of Alchemic; Pater Sapientice, i.e. the father of wisdom, by an anonymous writer; Hermes’ s Bird, written originally in Latin, by Raymund Lully, and done into English verse by Abbot Cremer, of Westminster; Sir Geoffrey Chaucer’s Chanons Yeoman’s tale Dastin’s Dream, which seems to be a version of the Latin poem of John Dastm, entitled his Vision Pearce, the black monk, on the Elixir Richard Carpenter’s work, which some think, and not without reason, ought rather to be ascribed to John Carpenter, bishop of Worcester, who was one of the best chemists of his time Hunting of the Green Lion, by Abraham Andrews but there is also a spurious piece with the same title Breviary of Natural Philosophy, by Thomas* Charnock Ænigmas, by the same person Bloomfield' s Blossoms, which is likewise entitled the Camp of Philosophy, by William Bloomfield Sir Edward Kelle’s work his letter to G. S. Gent. (It is somewhat strange that this gentleman’s name, even by Mr. Ashmole, is written Keiley, though sir Edward himself wrote it Kelle.) Dr. John Dee’s Testament, which appears to be an epistle to one John Gwin, written A. D. 1568, and a third letter, the first two being wanting; Thomas Robinson, of the Philosopher’s Stone Experience and Philosophy, by an anonymous author the Magistery, by W. B. i. e. William Bloomfield John Gower, on the Philosopher’s Stone George Ripley’s Vision verses belonging to Ripley’s Scrowle Mystery of Alchymists preface to the Medulla of George Ripley; Secreta Secretorum, by John Lydgate Hermit’s Tale, anonymous description of the Stone the Standing of the Glass, for the time of the putrefaction and congelation of the medicine Ænigma Philosophicum, by William Bedman Fragments by various authors. 3. “The Way to Bliss, in three books, made public by Elias Ashmole, esq; qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1658, 4to. This was the work in which he took his leave of the astrologers and aichymists, and bestowed his attention on the studies which produced, 4. “The Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the most noble Order of the Garter. Collected and digested into one body by Elias Ashmole, of the Middle Temple, esq. Windesore herald at arms. A work furnished with variety of matter relating to honour and noblesse” London, 1672, folio. He was not only so happy as to receive those extraordinary marks of the sovereign’s favour, mentioned above, but was complimented in an obliging manner by his royal highness the duke of York; who, though then at sea against the Dutch, sent for his book by the earl of Peterborough, and afterwards told our author he was extremely pleased with it. The rest of the knights-companions of the most noble order received him and his book with much respect and civility, and the regard shown him abroad was more singular. It was reposited, by the then pope, in the library of the Vatican. King Christie of Denmark, sent him, in 1674, a gold chain and- medal, which, with the king’s leave, he wore on certain high festivals. FredericWilliam, elector of Brandenburg!), sent him the like present, and ordered his boot to be translated into High Dutch. He was afterwards visited by the elector Palatine’s, the grand duke of Tuscany’s, and other foreign princes’ ministers, to return him thanks for this book, which he took care should be presented them, and thereby spread the fame of the garter, the nation, and himself, all over Europe. Yet it does not appear that this laborious and exquisite performance advanced at all the design he had formed some years before, of being appointed historiographer to the order, to which proposal some objections were made, and by our author fully answered, although we find no mention of this circumstance in any memoirs of Mr. Ashmole hitherto extant. 5, “The Arms, Epitaphs,. Feuestral Inscriptions, with the draughts of the Tombs, &c. in all the churches in Berkshire.” It was penned in 1666, and the original visitation taken in the two preceding years, in virtue of his deputatien from sir Edward Byshe, elariencieux king at arms, and published under the title of “The Antiquities of Berkshire,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1717, 1723, and at Reading in 1736, fol. 6. “Familiarum iilustrium Imperatorumque Romanorum Numismata Oxonire in Bodleianae Bibliotbecoe Archivis descripta et explanata.” This work was finished by the author in 1659, and given by him to the public library in Oxford, in 1666, in 3 vols, folio, as it was fitted for the press. 7. “A description and explanation of the Coins and Medals belonging to king Charles II.” a folio ms. in the king’s cabinet. 8. “A brief ceremonial of the Feast of St. George, held at Whitehall 1661, with other papers relating to the Order.” 9. “Remarkable Passages in the year 1660, set down by Mr. Elias Ashmole.” 10. “An account of the Coronation of our Kings, transcribed from a ms. in the king’s private closet.” 11 “The proceedings on the day of the Coronation of king Charles II.” mentioned by Anthony Wood, as printed in 1672, but he owns he never saw it. 12. “The Arms, Epitaphs, &c. in some churches and houses in Staffordshire,” taken when he accompanied sir William Dugdale in his visitation. 13. “The Arms, Epitaphs, Inscriptions, &c. in Cheshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, &c.” taken at the same time. Bishop Nicolson mentions his intention to write the history and antiquities of his native town of Litchfield. 14. “Answers to the objections urged.against Mr. Ashmole’s being made historiographer to the order of the Garter,” A. D. 1662. 15. “A Translation of John Francis Spina’s book of th Catastrophe of the World; to which was subjoined, Ambrose Merlin’s Prophecy.” It is doubtful whether this was ever published. What, indeed, he printed, was but a very small part of what he wrote, there being scarcely any branch of our English history and antiquities, on which he has not left us something valuable, of his own composing, in that vast repository of papers, which make several folios in his collection of Mss. under the title of, 16. CoU lections, Remarks, Notes on Books, and Mss. a wonderful proof of industry and application. 17. “The Diary of his Life,” written by himself, which was published at London, 1717, in 12mo, with the following title “Memoirs of the life of that learned antiquary, Elias Ashmole, esq. drawn up by himself by way of diary, with an appendix of original letters. Published by Charles Burman, esquire.” The copy from whence these papers were published, was in the hand-writing of Dr. Robert Plott, chief keeper of the Ashmolean museum at Oxford, and secretary of the Royal Society, and was transcribed by him for the use of a near relation of Mr. Ashmole’s, a private gentleman in Staffordshire. They had been collated a few years before, by David Perry, M. A. of Jesus’ college in Oxford. The appendix* contains a letter of thanks, dated January 26, 1666, from the corporation at Litchfield, upon the receipt of a silver bowl presented to them by Mr. Ashmole a preface to the catalogue of archbishop Laud’s medals, drawn up by Mr. Ashmole, and preserved in the public library at Oxford a letter from Dr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, to Mr. Ashmole, dated December 23, 1668, on the present of his books, describing archbishop Laud’s cabinet of medals a letter from John Evelyn, esq. to recommend Dr. Plott to him for reader in natural philosophy, and another from Mr. Joshua Barnes, dated from Emanuel college, Cambridge, October 15, 1688, wherein he desires Mr. Ashmole’s pardon, for having reflected upon his Order of the Garter, in his own history of king Edward III. with Mr. Ashmole’s answer to that letter, dated October 23 following. It is from this diary, which abounds in whimsical and absurd memoranda, that the dates and facts in his life have been principally taken.

, an English divine, the son of Dr, Ashton, usher of the grammar school at Lancaster (a place of only thirty-two pounds per annum, which he held for near fifty years), was born in 1716, educated at Eton, and elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, 1733. He was the person to whom Mr. Horace Walpole addressed his epistle from Florence, in 1740, under the title of “Thomas Ashton, esq. tutor to the earl of Plymouth.” About that time, or soon after, he was presented to the rectory of Aldingham in Lancashire, which he resigned in March 1749; and on the 3d of May following was presented by the provost and fellows of Eton to the rectory of Sturminster Marshall in Dorsetshire. He was then M. A. and had been chosen a fellow of Eton in December 1745. In 1752 he was collated to the rectory of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate; in 1759 took the degree of D. D. and in May 1762, was elected preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, which he resigned in 1764. In 1770 he published, in 8vo, a volume of sermons on several occasions to which was prefixed an excellent metzotinto by Spilgbury, from an original by sir Joshua Reynolds, and this motto, “Insto pnepositis, oblitus praeteritorum.” Dr. Ashton died March 1, 1775, at the age of fifty-nine, after having for some years survived a severe attack of the palsy. His discourses, in a style of greater elegance than purity, were rendered still more striking by the excellence of his delivery. Hence he was frequently prevailed on to preach on public and popular occasions. He printed a sermon on the rebellion in 1745, 4to, and a thanksgiving sermon on the close of it in 1746, 4to. la 1756, he preached before the governors of the Middlesex hospital, at St. Anne’s, Westminster a commencement sermon at Cambridge in 1759; a sermon at the annual meeting of the chanty schools in 1760; one before the House of Commons on the 30th of January 1762; and a spital sermon at St. Bride’s on the Easter Wednesday in that year. All these, with several others preached at Eton, Lincoln’s inn, Bishopsgate, &c. were collected by himself in the volume above mentioned, which is closed by a “Clerum habita Cantabrigige in templo beatae Mariae, 1759, pro gradu Doctoratus in sacra theologii.” His other publications were, 1. “A dissertation on 2 Peter i. 19,” 1750, 8vo. 2. In 1754, the Rev. Mr. Jones of St. Saviour’s, delivered a sermon at Bishopsgate-churcb, which being offensive to Dr. Ashton, he preached against it; and an altercation happening between the two divines, some pamphlets were published on the occasion, one of which, entitled “A letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Jones, intended as a rational and candid answer to his sermon preached at St. Botolph, Bishopsgate,” 4to, was probably by Dr. Ashton. 3. “An extract from the case of the obligation of the electors of Eton college to supply all vacancies in that society with those who are or have been fellows of King’s college, Cambridge, so long as persons properly qualified are to be had within that description,” London, 1771, 4to, proving that aliens have no right at all to Eton fellowships, either by the foundation, statutes, or archbishop Laud’s determination in 1636. This is further proved in, 4. “A letter to the Rev. Dr. M. (Morell) on the question of electing aliens into the vacant places in Eton college. By the author of the Extract,” 1771, 4to. 5. “A second letter to Dr. M.” The three last were soon after re-published under the title of “The election of aliens into the vacancies in Eton college an unwarrantable practice. To which are now added, two letters to the Rev. Dr. Morell, in which the cavils of a writer in the General Evening Post, and others, are considered and refuted. Part I. By a late fellow of King’s college, Cambridge.” London, 1771, 4to. Part II. was never published. He lived long in habits of intimacy with Horace Walpole, afterwards earl of Orford, who, Mr. Cole informs us, procured him the Eton fellowship but a rupture separated them. Mr. Cole adds, what we have some difficulty in believing, that the “Sermon on Painting,” in lord Orford’s works, was preached by Dr. Ashton at Houghton, before the earl of Orford (sir Robert Walpole) in 1742.

, keeper of the Vatican, and archbishop of Tyre, who died at Rome in his eightieth year, Jan. 14, 1768, was a very able scholar in the languages of the East. During the years from 1719 to 1728, he published a work of great importance to the collectors of Oriental manuscripts, in the manner of Herbelot, entitled “Bibliotheca Orientalis, Clementino-Vaticana, recensens, manuscriptos codices, Syriacos, Arabicos, &c. jussu et munificentia Clem. XI.” Rome, 1719—1728, 4 vols. fol. He published also, 2. An edition of the works of EphremSyrus, Rome, 1732—1734, 6 vols. fol. 3. “De Sanctis Ferentinis in Tuscia Bonifacio ac Redempto episcopis, &c. dissertatio,” Rome, 1745. 4. “Italicae historiae scrip tores ex Bibl. Vatic. &c. collegit et prgefat. notisque illustravit J. S. Assemanus,” Rome, 1751—1753, 4 vols. 4to. 5. “Kalendaria ecclesise universas,” Rome, 1755— 1757, 6 vols. 4to. His edition of Ephrem is by far the best.

, nephew of the preceding, and archbishop of Apamea, succeeded his uncle in the charge of the Vatican library, and became equally celebrated as an eastern scholar and a man of general learning. His works are, 1. “Bibliothecae Mediceo-Laurentianse et Palatinoe codicum manuscr. Orientalium catalogus,” Florence, 1742, 2 vols. fol. with notes by Gori. 2. “Acta sanctorum martyrum Orientalium et Occidentalium &c. Rome, 1748, 2 vols. fol. In conjunction with his uncle, he published” Bibl. Apost. Vatic, codic. Mss. Catal." Rome, 1756 1769. This was to have consisted of 4 vols. and he had printed some sheets of the fourth, when an accidental fire destroyed the manuscript. The time of his death is not mentioned.

, or Asser, or Asker (called, by Pitts, John,) a learned monk of St. David’s, and historian, was of British extraction, probably of that part of South Wales called Pembrokeshire, and was bred up in the learning of those times, in the monastery of St. David’s (in Latin Menevia), whence he derived his surname of Menevensis. There he is said to have had for his tutor Johannes Patricius, one of the most celebrated scholars of his age, and had also the countenance of Nobis, or Novis, archbishop of that see, who was his relation but it does not appear that he was either his secretary or his chancellor, as some writers would have us believe. From St. David’s he was invited to the court of Alfred the Great, merely from the reputation of his learning, probably about the year 880, or somewhat earlier. Those who had the charge of bringing him to court, conducted him from St. David’s to the town of Dene (Dean) in Wiltshire, where the king received him with great civility, and shewed him in a little time the strongest marks of favour and affection, insomuch that he condescended to persuade him not to think any more of returning to St. David’s, but rather to continue with him as his domestic chaplain and assistant in his studies. Asserius, however, modestly declined this proposal, alledging, that it did not become him to desert that holy place where he had been educated, and received the order of priesthood, for the sake of any other preferment. King Alfred then desired that he would divide his time between the court and the monastery, spending six months at court, and six at St. David’s. Asserius would not lightly comply even with this request, but desired leave to return to St. David’s, to ask the advice of his brethren, which he obtained, but in his journey falling ill at Winchester of a fever, he lay there sick about a year and as soon as he recovered he went to St. David’s, where, consulting with his brethren on the king’s proposal, they unanimously agreed that he should accept it, promising themselves great advantages from his favour with the king, of which, at that time, they appear to have had need, to relieve them from the oppressions of one Hemeid, a petty prince of South Wales. But they requested of Asserius, that he would prevail on the king to allow him to reside quarterly at court and at St. David’s, rather than that he should remain absent six months together. When he came back he found the king at Leoneforde, who received him with every mark of distinction. He remained with him then eight months at once, reading and explaining to him whatever books were in his library, and grew into so great credit with that generous prince, that on Christmas-eve following, he gave him the monasteries of Anigresbyri, and Banuwille, that is, Ambrosbury in Wiltshire, and Banwell in Somersetshire, with a silk pall of great value, and as much incense as a strong man could carry, sending together with them this compliment, “That these were but small things, and by way of earnest of better which should follow them.” Soon after, he had Exeter bestowed upon him, and not long after that, the bishopric of Sherburn, which, however, he seems to have quitted in the year 883, though he always retained the title, as Wilfred archbishop of York was constantly so styled, though he accepted of another bishopric. Thenceforward he constantly attended the court, in the manner before stipulated, and is named as a person, in whom he had particular confidence, by king Alfred, in his testament, which must have been written some time before the year 885; since mention is made there of Esna bishop of Hereford, who died that year. He is also mentioned by the king, in his prefatory epistle placed before his translation of Gregory’s Pastoral, addressed to Wulfsig bishop of London and there the king does not call him bishop of Sherburn, but “my bishop,” acknowledging the help received from him and others in that translation. It appears to have been the near resemblance, which the genius of Asserius bore to that of the king, that gained him so great a share in his confidence and very probably, it was on this account, that Asserius drew up those memoirs of the life of Alfred which we still have, and which he dedicated and presented to the king in the year 893. la this work we have a curious account of the manner in which that prince and our author spent their time together. Asserius tells us, that having one day, being the feast of St. Martin, cited in conversation a passage of some famous author, the king was mightily pleased with it, and would have him write it down in the margin of a book he carried in his breast; but Asserius finding no room to write it there, and yet being desirous to gratify his master, he asked king Alfred whether he should not provide a few leaves, in which to set dawn such remarkable things as occurred either in reading or conversation the king was delighted with this hint, and directed Asserius to put it immediately in execution. Pursuing this method constantly, their collection began to swell, till at length it became of the size of an ordinary Psalter and this was what the king called his “Hand-book, or Manual.” Asserius, however, calls it Enchiridion. In all probability, Asserius continued at court during the whole reign of Alfred, and, probably, several years after but where, or when he died is doubtful, though the Saxon Chronicle positively fixes it to the year 910. The editor of his life in the Biog. Brit, takes Asser the monk, and Asser bishop of Sherburnj for one and the same person, which some however have denied, and asserts him to have been also archbishop of Sk David’s, upon very plausible authority. He admits, however, i that if there was such a reader in the public schools at Oxford as Asser the monk, he must have been some other person of the same name, and not our author but this point rests almost wholly on the authority of Harpsfiekl nor is the account consistent with itself in several other respects,as sir John S'pelman has justly observed. There is no less controversy about the works of Asserius, than about his preferments for some alledge that he never wrote any thing but the Annals of king Alfred whereas, Pitts gives us the titles of no less than five other books of his writing, and adds, that he wrote many more. The first of these is a “Commentary on Boetius,” which is mentioned by Leland, on the authority of the Chronicle of St. Neot’s but he probably only explained this author to king Alfred when he made his Saxon translation. The second piece mentioned by Pitts, is the Anjials of Alfred’s life and reign. The third he styles “Annales Britannia;,” or the Annals of Britain, in one book, mentioned also by Leland and Bale, and which has been since published by the learned Dr. Gale. The fourth piece, he calls “Aurearum Sententiarum Enchiridion, lib. 1” which is without question the Manual or common-placebook made for king Alfred, and reckoned among his works by Pitts himself. Leland has also spoken of this Enchiridion, as an instance of the learning and diligence of Asser, which it certainly was and though the collections he made concerning this author, are much better and larger than those of Bale and Pitts, yet he modestly, upon this subject, apologizes for speaking so little and so obscurely of so great a man. The next in Pitts’ s catalogue, is a “Book of Homilies,” and the last, “A Book of Epistles” but the existence of these seems unsupported by any authority; nor is it known where he was interred. He appears to have been one of the most pious and learned prelates of the age in which he lived.

His “Life of Alfred” was first published by archbishop Parker at the end of “Walsinghami Hist.” London^lS?^ fol. and it was reprinted by Camden ia his “Anglia, Normanica, &c.” Francfort, 1603. It was again reprinted; in a, very elegant octavo volume, by Mr. Wise, at Oxford, 1722.

A few years before his death, he was invited to accept the headship of the college, then vacant, but modestly declined it. He died at Beckenham, Sept. 1711, in the seventieth year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of that church. The writer of his life gives him the highest character for piety, probity, and inflexible adherence to the doctrines and interests of the church of England. His general sentiments and turn of mind may be discovered in the titles of his various works 1. “Toleration disapproved and condemned by the authority and convincing reasons of, I. That wise and learned king James, and his privycouncil, Anno Reg. II do II. The honourable Commons assembled in this present parliament, in their Votes, &c. Feb. 25, 1662. III. The Presbyterian ministers in the city of London, met at Sion College, December 18, 1645. IV. Twenty eminent divines, most (if not all) of them members of the late assembly; in their Sermons before the two houses of parliament on solemn occasions. Faithfully collected by a very moderate hand, and humbly presented to the serious consideration of all dissenting parties,” Oxford,! 670. He published a second edition of this book, the same year, with his name, and the pro-vice-chancellor of Oxford’s imprimatur, prefixed to it. 2. “The Cases of Scandal and Persecution being a seasonable inquiry into these two things I. Whether the Nonconformists, who otherwise think subscription lawful, are therefore obliged to forbear it, because the weak brethren do judge it unlawful II. Whether the execution of penal laws upon Dissenters, for non-communion with the Church of England, be persecution Wherein they are pathetically exhorted to return into the bosom of the church, the likeliest expedient to stop the growth of Popery,” London, 1674. 3. “The Royal Apology or, An Answer to the Rebel’s Plea wherein are the most noted anti-monarchical tenets, first published by Doleman the Jesuit, to promote a bill of exclusion against king James I. secondly, practised by Bradshaw, and the regicides, in the actual murder of king Charles I. thirdly, republished by Sidney, and the associates to depose and murder his present majesty,” London, 1685, the second edition. 4. “A seasonable Vindication of their present Majesties,” London. 5. “The Country Parson’s Admonition to his Parishioners against Popery with directions how to behave themselves, when any one designs to seduce them from the Church of England,” London, 1686. 6. “A full Defence of the former Discourse against the Missionaries Answer being a farther examination of the pretended Infallibility of the Chuvch of Rome” or, as it is intitled in the first impression, “A Defence of the Plain Man’s Reply to the Catholic Missionaries,” &c. 1688. 7. “A short Discourse against Blasphemy,” 1691. 8. “A Discourse against Drunkenness,” 1692. 9. “A Discourse against Swearing and Cursing,” 1692. 10. “Directions in order to the suppressing of Debauchery and Proprmneness,” 1693. 11. “A Conference with an Anabaptist; Part I. Concerning the subject of Baptism: being a Defence of Infant-Baptism,” 1694. It was occasioned by a separate congregation of Anabaptists being set up in Dr. Assheton’s parish but the meeting soon breaking up, the author never published a second part. 12. “A Discourse concerning a Death-bed Repentance.” 13. “A Theological Discourse of last Wills and Testaments,” London, 1696, 14. “A seasonable Vindication of the blessed Trinity being an answer to this question, Why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity Collected from the works of the most reverend doctor John Tillotson, late lord archbishop of Canterbury, and the right reverend doctor Edward Stillingfleet, now lord bishop of Worcester,” London, 1679. 15. “A brief state of the Socinian Controversy, concerning a Trinity in Unity” collected from the Works of Dr, Isaac Barrow, London, 1698. 16. “The Plain Man’s Devotion, Part I. In a method of daily Devotion and, a method of Devotion for the Lord’s Day. Both fitted to the meanest capacities,” 1698. 17. “A full Account of the rise, progress, and advantages of Dr. Assheton’s Proposal (as now improved and managed by the worshipful company of Mercers, London,) for che benefit of Widows of Clergymen, and others, by settled Jointures and Annuities, at the rate of thirty per cent. With directions for the widow how to receive her annuity, without any delay, charges, or deductions. ‘ Plead for the widow,’ Isa. i. 17. 1713. 18.” A Vindication of the Immortality of the Soul, and a Future State,“London, 1703. 19.” A brief exhortation to the Holy Communion, with the nature and measures of Preparation concerning it fitted to the meanest capacities,“1705. 20.” A Method of Devotion for sick and dying persons with particular directions from the beginning of Sickness to the hour of Death,“London, 1706. 21.” The Possibility of Apparitions being an answer to this question ‘ Whether can departed souls (souls separated from their bodies) so appear, as to be visibly seen, and converse here on earth’ This book was occasioned by the remarkable story of one dying at Dover, and appearing to her friend at Canterbury. 22. “Occasional Prayers from bishop Taylor, bishop Cosins, bishop Kenn,” &c. and “A devout collection of Divine Hymns and Poems, on several occasions,” London, 1708. 23. “A seasonable Vindication of the Clergy being an answer to some reflections in a late book, entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, &c. Humbly submitted to the serious consideration of the nobility and gentry of Great Britain. By a Divine of the Church of London,” 1709. 24. “Directions for the Conversation of the Clergy collected from the Visitation Charges of the. right reverend father in God, Edward Stillingfleet, D. D. late lord bishop of Worcester,” London, 1710. 25. "Two Sermons one preached before the Sons of the Clergy, at St. Paul’s, December 6, 1699 the other before the Honourable Society of the Natives of the County of KenVat St. Mary le Bow, Nov. 21, 1700. Mr. Wood mentions another Sermon on the Danger of Hypocrisy, preached at Guildhall chapel, Aug. 3, 1673.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at Caldecot, in the parish of Newport Pagnel, in Bucks, on May 2, 1656. He was educated at Westminsterschool under Dr. Busby, and sent to Christ-church, Oxford, at the age of eighteen. He was ordained deacon in Sept. 1679, being then B. A. and priest the year following, when also he commenced M. A. In 1683, he served the office of chaplain to sir William Pritchard, lord mayor of London. In Feb. 1684 he was instituted rector of Symel in Northamptonshire, which living he afterwards resigned upon his accepting of other preferments. July 8, 1687, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor aud doctor of civil law. In 1691 we find him lecturer of St. Mary Hill in London. Soon after his marriage he settled at Highgate, where he supplied the pulpit of the reverend Mr. Daniel Lathom, who was very old and infirm, and had lost his sight and, upon the death of this gentleman, was in June 1695 elected by the trustees of Highgate chapel to be their preacher. He had a little before been appointed one of the six preaching chaplains to the princess Anne of Denmark at Whitehall and St. James’s, which place he continued to supply after she came to the crown, and likewise during part of the reign of George I. When he first resided at Highgate, observing what difficulties the poor in the neighbourhood underwent for want of a good physician or apothecary, he studied physic and acquiring considerable skill, practised it gratis among his poor neighbours. In 1707, the queen presented him to the rectory of Shepperton in Middlesex and in March 1719, the bishop of London collated him to the rectory of Hornsey, which was the more agreeable to him, because the chapel of Highgate being situate in that parish, many of his constant hearers became now his parishioners. In 1720, on a report of the death of Dr. Sprat, archdeacon of Rochester, he applied to his brother, the celebrated bishop, in whose gift this preferment was, to be appointed to succeed him. The bishop giving his brother some reasons why he thought it improper to make him his archdeacon the doctor replied, “Your lordship very well knows that Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, had a brother for his archdeacon and that sir Thomas More’s father was a puisne judge when he was lord chancellor. And thus, in the sacred history, did God himself appoint that the safety and advancement of the patriarchs should be procured by their younger brother, and that they with their father should live under the protection and government of Joseph.” In answer to this, which was not very conclusive reasoning, the bishop informs his brother, that the archdeacon was not dead, but well, and likely to continue so. He died, however, soon after; and, on the 20tli of May 1720, the bishop collated Dr. Brydges, the duke of Chandos’s brother, to the archdeaconry, after writing thus in the morning to the doctor “I hope you are convinced by what I have said and written, that nothing could have been more improper than the placing you in that post immediately under myself. Could I have been easy under that thought, you may be sure no man living should have had the preference to you.” To this the doctor answered: “There is some shew of reason, I think, for the non-acceptance, but none for the not giving it. And since your lordship was pleased to signify to me that I should overrule you in this matter, I confess it was some disappointment to me. I hope I shall be content with that meaner post in which I am my time at longest being but short in this world, and my health not suffering me to make those necessary applications others do nor do I understand the language of the present times for, I find, I begin to grow an old-fashioned gentleman, and am ignorant of the weight and value of words, which in our times rise and fall like stock.” In this affecting correspondence there is evidently a portion of irritation on the part of Dr. Lewis, which is not softened by his brother’s letters but there must have been some reasons not stated by the latter for his refusal, and it is certain that they lived afterwards in the strictest bonds of affection.

His works are, 1. Two volumes of “Sermons,” 1699, 8vo, and 1703. 2. “The Penitent Lady translated from the French of the famous madam la Valliere,” 1684, 12mo. 3. Some Letters relating to the history of the Council of Trent. 4. “An Answer to a popish book, entitled, A true and modest account of the chief points in controversy between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, By N. Colson,” whose real name was Cornelius Nary, an Irish priest, and author of a Church History from the creation to the birth of Christ some controversial Tracts against Archbishop Synge and an English version of the New Testament. In his “True and modest account” Synge had reflected upon Dr. Tillotson, which induced Atterbury to answer him. 5. “The Re-union of Christians translated from the French,” 1708, and one or two occasional Sermons.

The time of his entering into the church is not exactly known but may be very nearly ascertained by his “Epistolary Correspondence;” where a letter to his father in 1690 is highly expressive of a superior genius, impatient of the shackles of an humble college life whilst the father’s answer displays the anxiety, together with a mixture of the severity, of the paternal character, offended by the quemlousness of the son, and his dissatisfaction. He had taken the degree of B. A. June 13, 1684 (when he was little more than twenty-two years old) ayd that of M.A. April 20, 1687; and it has been ingeniously conjectured, that he had applied to the college for permission to take pupils whilst he xv.is B. A. only (winch is unusual), and that he was refused. After passing two or three years more in the college, he then seems to have thought too highly of himself (when now become M. A.) to take any at all, and to be “pinned down, as,” he says, “it is his hard luck to be, to this scene.” This restlessness appears to have broken out in October 1690, when he was moderator of the college, and had had Mr. Boyle four months under his tuition, who a took up half his time,“and whom he never had a thought of parting with till he should leave Oxford; but wished he” could part with him to-morrow on that score.“The father tells him in November,” You used to say, when you had your degrees, you should be able to swim without bladders. You used to rejoice at your being moderator, and of the quantum and sub-lecturer but neither of these pleased you; nor was you willing to take those pupils the house afforded you when master nor doth your lecturer’s place, or nobleman satisfy you.“In the same letter the father advises his marrying into some family of interest,” either bishop’s or archbishop’s, or some courtier’s, which may be done, with accomplishments, and a portion too.“And to part of this counsel young Atterbury attended for he soon after married Miss Osborn, a relation (some say a niece) of the duke of Leeds, a great beauty, who lived at or in the neighbourhood of Oxford, and by whom he had a fortune ofTOOO/. In February 1690-1, we find him resolved” to bestir himself in his office in the house,“that of censor probably, an officer (peculiar to Christ Church) who presides over the classical exercises he then also held the catechetical lecture founded by Dr. Busby. About this period he probably took orders, and entered into” another scene, and another sort of conversation;“for in 1691 he was elected lecturer of St. Bride’s church in London, and in October 1693, minister and preacher at Bridewell chapel. An academic life, indeed, must have been irksome and insipid to a person of his active and aspiring temper. It was hardly possible that a clergyman of his fine genius, improved by study, with a spirit to exert his talents, should remain long unnoticed and we find that he was soon appointed chaplain to king William and queen Mary. The earliest of his sermons in print was preached before the queen at Whitehall, May 29, 1692. In August 1694 he preached his celebrated sermon before the governors of Bridewell and Bethlem,” On the power of charity to cover sins“to which Mr. Hoadly (afterwards bishop) published sorne^” Exceptions“in the postscript to his” Second Letter to Dr. Atterbury,“mentioned hereafter. In this he accuses Atterbury, and not without reason, of endeavouring to maintain the proposition that” God will accept one duty (charity) in lieu of many others.“In” October that year he preached before the queen p “The scorncr incapable of true wisdom” which was also warmly attacked by a friend of sir Robert Howard, author of “The History of Religion,” supposed to be alluded to in this sermon. The pamphlet was entitled “A two-fold Vindication of the late archbishop of Canterbury, and the Author of the History of Religion, &c.” 1696, 8vo.

In 1700, a still larger field of activity opened, in which Atterbury was engaged four years with Dr. Wake (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) and others, concerning the rights, powers, and privileges of convocations in which he displayed so much learning and ingenuity, as well as zeal for the interests of his order, that the lower house of convocation returned him their thanks; and in consequence of this vote a letter was sent to the university of Oxford, expressing, that, “whereas Mr. Francis Atterbury, late of Christ Church, had so happily asserted the rights and privileges of an English convocation, as to merit the solemn thanks of the lower house for his learned pains upon that subject; it might be hoped, that the university would be no less forward in taking some public notice of so great a piece of service to the church and that the most proper and seasonable mark of respect to him, would be to confer on him the degree of doctor in divinity by diploma, without doing exercise, or paying fees.” The university approved the contents of this letter, and accordingly created Mr. AtterburyD.D. Out author’s work was entitled, “The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vindicated, in answer to a late book of Dr. Wake’s, entitled ‘ The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted,’ &c. and several other pieces,” 8vo. The fame of this work was very great; but it was censured by Burnet, and in November the judges had a serious consultation on it, as being supposed to affect the royal prerogative. Holt, then chief justice, was strongly of that opinion, and the same idea was encouraged by archbishop Tenison, Dr. Wake, and others. Endeavours were made to prejudice king William against him, but his majesty remained indifferent; and on the other hand, Atterbury gained the steady patronage of sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Exeter, of Lawrence earl of Rochester, and of bishop Sprat. In December 1700, he published a second edition of “The Rights,” considerably enlarged, and with his name, and a dedication to the two archbishops. This was immediately answered by Drs. Kennet, Hody, and Wake. Another controversy of some importance was at this time also ably agitated by Atterbury, the execution of the prtemunienles, a privilege enjoyed by the several bishops of issuing writs to summon the inferior clergy to convocation. Bishops Compton, Sprat, and Trelawny, were his strenuous supporters on this occasion, and by the latter he was presented to the archdeaconry of Totness, in which he was installed Jan. 29, 1700-1. His attendance in convocation was regular, and his exertions great. In placing Dr. Hooper in the prolocutor’s chair, as the successor of Dr. Jane in the examination of obnoxious books in the controversy between the lower and upper houses in considering the methods of promoting the propagation of religion in foreign parts and in preparing an address to the king, his zeal distinguished itself. About this time he was engaged, with some other learned divines, in revising an intended edition of the Greek Testament, with Greek Scholia, collected chiefly from the fathers, by Mr. archdeacon Gregory. On the 29th of May he preached before the House of Commons; and on Aug. 16, published “The power of the Lower House of Convocation to adjourn itself,” which was a sort of analysis of the whole controversy. He also published “A letter to a clergyman in the country, concerning the Choice of Members, &c.” Nov. 17, 1701; a second, with a similar title, Dec. 10, 1701; and a third, in defence of the two former, Jan. 8, 1701-2. In October he published “The parliamentary origin and rights of the Lower House of Convocation, cleared, &c.” At this period he was popular as preacher at the Rolls Chapel, an office which had been conferred on him by sir John Trevor, a great discerner of abilities, in 1698, when he resigned JBridewell, which he had obtained in 1693. Upon the accession of queen Anne, in 1702, Dr. Atterbury was appointed one of her majesty’s chaplains in ordinary and, in July 1704, was advanced to the deanery of Carlisle but, owing to the obstacles thrown in his way by bishop Nicolson, he was not instituted tintil Oct. 12, and the same year Sir Jonathan Trelawny bestowed on him a canonry of Exeter. About two years after this, he was engaged in a dispute with Mr. Hoadly, concerning the advantages of virtue with regard to the present life, occasioned by his sermon, preached August 30, 1706, at the funeral of Mr. Thomas Bennet, a bookseller. The doctrine of this sermon Mr. Hoadly examined, in “A letter to Dr. Francis Atterbury, concerning Virtue and Vice,” published in 1706.; in which he undertakes to shew, that Dr. Atterbury has extremely mistaken the sense of his text. Dr. Atterbury, in a volume of Sermons published by himself, prefixed a long preface to the sermon at Mr. Bennet’s funeral in which he replies to Mr. Hoadly’s arguments, and produces the concurrent testimonies of expositors, and the authorities of the best writers, especially our English divines, in confirmation of the doctrine he had advanced. In answer to this “Preface,” Mr. Hoadly published in 170&, “Asecond letter,” &c. and in the Preface to his “Tracts,” tells us, these two letters against Dr. Atterbury were designed to vindicate and establish the tendency of virtue and morality to the present happiness of such a creature as man is which he esteems a point of the utmost importance to the Gospel itself. In Jan. 1707-8 he published a volume of Sermons, 8vo, and in the same year “Reflections on a late scandalous report about the repeal of the Test Act.” In 1709, he was engaged in a fresh dispute with Mr, Hoadly, concerning Passive Obedience, occasioned by his Latin sermon, entitled “Concio ad Clerum Londinensem, habita in Ecclesia S. Elphegi.” Atterbury, in his pamphlet entitled “Some proceedings in Convocation, A. D. 1705, faithfully represented,” had charged Mr. Hoadly (whom he sneeringly calls “the modest and moderate Mr. Hoadly”) with treating the body of the established clergy with language more disdainful and reviling than it would have become him to have used towards his Presbyterian antagonist, upon any provocation, charging them with rebellion in the church, whilst he himself was preaching it up in the state.“This induced Mr. Hoadly to set about a particular examination of Dr. Atterbury' s Latin Sermon; which he did in a piece, entitled” A large Answer to Dr. Atterbury’s Charge of Rebellion, &c. London a 1710,“wherein he endeavours to lay open the doctor’s artful management of the controversy, and to let the reader into his true meaning and design which, in an” Appendix“to the” Answer,“he represents to be” The carrying on two different causes, upon two sets of contradictory principles“in order to” gain himself applause amongst the same persons at the same time, by standing up for and against liberty; by depressing the prerogative, and exalting it by lessening the executive power, and magnifying it by loading some with all infamy, for pleading for submission to it in one particular which he supposeth an mcroachment, and by loading others with the same infamy for pleading against submission to it, in cases that touch the happiness of the whole community.“” This,“he tells us,” is a method of controversy so peculiar to one person (Dr. Atterbury) as that he knows not that it hath ever been practised, or attempted by any other writer.“Mr. Hoadly has likewise transcribed, in this Appendix, some remarkable passages out of our author’s” Rights, Powers, and Privileges, &c." which he confronts with others, from his Latin Sermon.

In 1710 came on the celebrated trial of Dr. Sacheverell, whose remarkable speech on that occasion was generally supposed to have been drawn up by our author, to whom Sacheverell, in his last will, bequeathed 500l. in conjunction with Smalridge and Freind. The same year Dr. Atterbury was unanimously chosen prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, and had the chief management of affairs in that house. This we learn from bishop Burnet.In his account of this convocation, having observed, that the queen, in appointing a committee of bishops to be present, and consenting to their resolutions, not only passed over all the bishops made in king William’s reign, but a great many of those named by herself, and set the bishops of Bristol and St. David’s, then newly consecrated, in a distinction above all their brethren, by adding them to the committee, upon the indisposition of the archbishop and others, he adds “All this was directed by Dr. Atterbury, who had the confidence of the chief minister and because the other bishops had maintained a good correspondence with the former ministry, it was thought fit to put the marks of the queen’s distrust upon them, that it might appear with whom her royal favour and trust wa^ lodged.” May 11, 1711, he was appointed, by the convocation, one of the committee for comparing Mr. Whiston’s doctrines with those of the church of England and, in June following, he had the chief hand in drawing up “A Representation of the present State of Religion.” In 1712, Dr. Atterbury was made dean of Christ Church, notwithstanding the strong interest and warm applications of several great men in behalf of his competitor Dr. Smalridge but, “no sooner was he settled there,” says Stackhouse, “than all ran into disorder and confusion. The canons had been long accustomed to the mild and gentle government of a dean, who had every thing in him that was endearing to mankind, and could not therefore brook the wide difference that they perceived in Dr. Atterbury. That imperious and despotic manner, in which he seemed resolved to carry every thing, made them more tenacious of their rights, and inclinable to make fewer concessions, the more he endeavoured to grasp at power, and tyrannize. This opposition raised the ferment, and, in a short time, there ensued such strife and contention, such bitter words and scandalous quarrels among them, that it was thought adviseable to remove him, on purpose to restore peace and tranquillity to that learned body, and that tether colleges might not take the infection a new method of obtaining preferment, by indulging such a temper, and pursuing such practices, as least of all deserve it In a word,” adds this writer, “wherever he came, under one pretence or other, but chiefly under the notion of asserting his rights and privileges, he had a rare talent of fomenting discord, and blowing the coals of contention which made a learned successor (Dr. Smalridge) in two of his preferments complain of his hard fate, in being forced to carry water after him, to extinguish the flames, which his litigiousness had every where occasioned.” The next year saw him at the top of his preferment, as well as of his reputation for, in the beginning of June 1713, the queen, at the recommendation of lord chancellor Harcourt, advanced him to the bishopric of Rochester, with the deanery of Westminster in commendam he was confirmed July 4, and consecrated at Lambeth next day.

At the beginning of the succeeding reign, his tide of prosperity began to turn and he received a sensible mortification presently after the coronation of king George I. Oct. 20, 1714, when, upon his offering to present his majesty (with a view, no doubt, of standing better in his favour) with the chair of state and royal canopy, his own perquisites as dean of Westminster, the offer was rejected, not without some evident marks of dislike to his person. At the close of this year he is supposed to have written a pamphlet, deemed a libel by government, “English Advice to the Freeholders of England.” Bolingbroke and Swift were also supposed to have had a hand in it. During the rebellion in Scotland, which broke out in the first year of this reign, Atterbury gave an instance of his growing disaffection to the established government, in refusing to sign the “Declaration” of the bishops. In that juncture of affairs, when the Pretender’s declaration was posted up in most market towns, and, in some places, his title proclaimed, it^was thought proper, by most bodies of men, to give the government all possible assurance of their fidelity iand allegiance and accordingly there was published “A Declaration of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops in and near London, testifying their abhorrence of the present rebellion and an exhortation to the clergy, and people under their care, to be zealous in the discharge of their duties to his majesty king George.” This paper both Atterbury and Smalridge refused to sign, on pretence of a just offence taken at some unbecoming reflections cast on a party, not inferior to any, they said, in point of loyalty. But Atterbury' s refusal of signing the declaration of his episcopal brethren, during the rebellion in Scotland, was not the only testimony he at that time afforded of his disaffection to government. Another remarkable proof of it was his conduct to an ingenious and learned clergyman, Mr. Gibbin, curate of Gravesend. When the Dutch troops, which came over to assist in subduing the rebellion, were quartered at that place, the officers requested of Mr. Gibbin the use of his church one Sunday morning for their chaplain to preach to their soldiers, alleging that the like favour had been granted them in other parishes, and promising that the service should begin at six in the morning, that it might not interfere with that of the town. The request was granted, the chaplain preached, and his congregation was dismissed by nine o'clock. But Dr. Atterbury was so in^ censed at this transaction, that he suspended Mr. Gibbiu for three years. The suspension, however, was deemed so injurious by the inhabitants of Gravesend, that they subscribed a sum to Mr. Gibbin more than double the income of his church and the affair being represented to the king, his majesty* gave him the rectory of NorthFleet in Kent, which living he afterwards exchanged for Birch, near Colchester in Essex, where he died July 29, 1752. He was a very ingenious, learned, and worthy clergyman, who had greatly improved and enlarged his mind, by his travels into France, Italy, and other countries, with Mr. Addison. A farther striking instance (if true) of bishop Atterbury’s attachment to the Pretender, is related, by the author of the “Memoirs of lord Chesterfield,” from Dr. Birch’s manuscript papers, and was often mentioned by the late bishop Pearce (who appears to have been always severe on the memory of Atterbury) “Lord Harcourt leaving the old ministry, provoked Atterbury’s abusive tongue. He, in return, declared, that on the queen’s death, the bishop came to him and to lord Bolingbroke, and said, nothing remained but immediately to proclaim king James. He further offered, if they would give him a guard, to put on his lawn sleeves, and head the procession.” Whatever may be in this, it is certain that from the time he perceived himself slighted by tile king he constantly opposed the measures of the court in the House of Lords, and drew up some of the most violent protests with his own hand. In 1716, we find him advising dean Swift in the management of a refractory chapter.

, 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.

, descended of an ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex, was born in 1488. He was by nature endowed with great abilities, from his ancestors inherited an ample fortune, and was happy in a regular education, but whether at Oxford or Cambridge is not certain. At what time he was entered of the Inner-Temple, does not appear, but in 1526 he was autumn reader of that house, and is thought to have read on the statute of privileges, which he handled with so much learniag and eloquence, as to acquire great reputation. This, with the duke of Suffolk’s recommendation, to whom he was chancellor, brought him to the' knowledge of his sovereign, who at that time wanted men of learning and some pliability he was, accordingly, by the king’s influence, chosen speaker of that parliament, which sat first on the third of November, 1529, and is by some styled the Black Parliament, and by others, on account of its duration, the Long Parliament. Great complaints were made in the house of commons against the clergy, and the proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, and several bills were ordered to be brought in, which alarmed some of the prelates. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, inveighed boldly against these transactions, in the house of lords, with which the house of commons were so much offended, that they thought proper to complain of it, by their speaker, to the king, and Fisher had some difficulty in excusing himself. The best historians agree, that great care was taken by the king, or at least by his ministry, to have such persons chosen into this house of commons as would proceed therein readily and effectually, and with this view Audley was chosen to supply the place of sir Thomas More, now speaker of the lords’ house, and chancellor of England. The new house and its speaker justified his majesty’s expectations, by the whole tenor of their behaviour, but especially by the passing of a law, not nowfound among our statutes. The king, having borrowed very large sums of money of particular subjects, and entered into obligations for the repayment of the said sums, the house brought in, and passed a bill, in the preamble of which they declared, that inasmuch as those sums had been applied by his majesty to public uses, therefore they cancelled and discharged the said obligations, &c. and the king, finding the convenience of such a parliament, it sat again in the month of January, 1530-1. In this session also many extraordinary things were done amongst the rest, there was a law introduced in the house of lords, by which the clergy were exempted from the penalties they had incurred, by submitting to the legatine power of Wolsey. On this occasion the commons moved a clause in favour of the laity, many of themselves having also incurred the penalties of the statute. But the king insisted that acts of grace ought to flow spontaneously, and that this was not the method of obtaining what they wanted; and the house, notwithstanding the intercession of its speaker, and several of its members, who were the king’s servants, was obliged to pass the bill without the clause, and immediately the king granted them likewise a pardon, which reconciled all parties. In the recess, the king thought it necessary to have a letter written to the pope by the lords and commons, or rather by the three estates in parliament, which letter was drawn up and signed by cardinal Wolsey, the archbishop of Canterbury, four bishops, two dukes, two marquisses, thirteen earls, two viscounts, twenty-three barons, twenty-two abbots, and eleven members of the house of commons. Thepurport of this letter, dated July 13, above three weeks after the parliament rose, was to iMigage the pope to grant the king’s desire in the divorce business, for the sake of preventing a civil war, on account of the succession, and to threaten him if he did not, to take some other way. To gratify the speaker for the great pains he had already taken, and to encourage him to proceed in the same way, the king made him this year attorney for the duchy of Lancaster, advanced him in Michaelmas term to the state and degree of a serjeant at law, and on the 14th of November following, to that of his own serjeant. In January, 1531-2, the parliament had its third session, wherein the grievances occasioned by the excessive power of the ecclesiastics and their courts, were regularly digested into a book, which was presented by the speaker, Audley, to the king. The king’s answer was, He would take advice, hear the parties accused speak, and then proceed to reformation. Jn this session, a bill was brought into the house of lords, for the better securing the rights of his majesty, and other persons interested in the eare of wards, which rights, it was alleged, were injured by fraudulent wills and contracts. This bill, when it came into the house of commons, was violently opposed, and the members expressed a desire of being dissolved, which the king would not permit but after they had done some business, they had a recess to the month of April. When they next met, the king sent for the speaker, and delivered to him the answer which had been made to the roll of grievances, presented at their last sitting, which afforded very little satisfaction, and they seemed now less subset viciit. Towards the close of the month, one Mr. Themse moved, That the house would intercede with the king, to take back his queen again. The king, extremely alarmed at this, on the 30th of April, 1532, sent for the speaker, to whom he repeated the plea of conscience, which had induced him to repudiate the queen, and urged that the opinion of the learned doctors, &c. was on his side. On the 11th of May the king sent for the speaker again, and told him, that he had found that the clergy of his realm were but half his subjects, or scarcely so much, every bishop and abbot at the entering into his dignity, taking an oath to the pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity to the king, which contradiction he desired his parliament to take away. Upon this motion of the king’s, the two oaths he mentioned were read in the house of commons and they would probably have complied, if the plague bad not put an end to the session abruptly, on the 14th of May; and two days after, sir Thomas More, knt. then lord chancellor of England, went suddenly, without acquainting any body with his intention, to court, his majesty being then at York Place, and surrendered up the seals to the king. The king going out of town to EastGreenwich, carried the seals with him, and on Monday, May 20, delivered them to Thomas Audley, esq, with the title of lord keeper, and at the same time conferred on him the honour of knighthood. September 6, sir Thomas delivered the old seal, which was much worn, and received a new one in its stead, yet with no -higher title: but on January 26, 1533, he again delivered the seal to the king, who kept it a quarter of an hour, and then returned it with the title of lord chancellor. A little after, the king granted to him the site of the priory of Christ Church, Aldgate, together with all the church plate, and lands belonging to that house. When chancellor he complied with the king’s pleasure as effectually as when speaker of the house of commons. For in July 1535, he sat in judgment on sir Thomas More, his predecessor, (as he had before on bishop Fisher,) who was now indicted of high-treason upon which indictment the jury found him gnilty, and the lord chancellor, Audley, pronounced judgment of death upon him. This done, we are told, that sir Thomas More said, that he had for seven years bent his mind and study upon this cause, but as yet he found it no where writ by any approved doctor of the church, that a layman could be head of the ecclesiastical state. To this Audley returned, “Sir, will you be reckoned wiser, or of a better conscience, than all the bishops, the nobility, and the whole kingdom” Sir Thomas rejoined, “My lord chancellor, for one bishop that you have of your opinion, I have a hundred of mine, and that among those that have been saints and for your one council, which, what it is, God knows, I have on my side all the general councils for a thousand years past; and for one kingdom, I have France and all the ether kingdoms of the Christian world.” As our chancellor was very active in the business of the divorce, he was no less so in the business of abbies, and had particularly a large hand in the dissolution of such religions houses as had not two hundred pounds by the year. This was in the twenty-seventh of Henry VIII, and the bill being delayed long in the house of commons, his majesty sent for the members of that house to attend him in his gallery, where he passed through them with a stern countenance, without speaking a word the members not having received the king’s command to depart to their house, durst not return till they knew the king’s pleasure so they stood waiting in the gallery. In the mean time the king went a hunting, and his ministers, who seem to have had better manners than their master, went to confer with the members to some they spoke of the king’s steadiness and severity to others, of his magnificence and generosity. At last the king came back, and passing through them again, said, with an air of fierceness peculiar to himself, That if his bill did not pass, it should cost many of them their heads. Between the ministers’ persuasions and the king’s threats, the matter was brought to an issue the king’s bill, as he called it, passed and by it, he had not only the lands of the small monasteries given him, but also their jewels, plate, and rich moveables. This being accomplished, methods were used to prevail with the abbots of larger foundations to surrender. To this end, the chancellor sent a special agent to treat with the abbot of Athelny, to offer him an hundred marks per annum pension which he refused, insisting on a greater sum. The chancellor was more successful with the abbot of St. Osithes in Essex, with whom he dealt personally and, as he expresses it in a letter to Cromwell, the visitor-general, by great solicitation prevailed with him but then he insinuates, that his place of lord chancellor being very chargeable, he desired the king might be moved for addition of some more profitable offices unto him. In suing for the great abbey of Walden, in the same county, which he obtained, besides extenuating its worth, he alleged under his hand, that he had in this world sustained great damage and infamy in serving the king, which the grant of that should recompense. But if the year 1536 was agreeable to him in one respect, it was far from being so in another; since, notwithstanding the obligations he was under to queen Anne Bullen, he was obliged, by the king’s command, to be present at her apprehension and commitment to the Tower. He sat afterwards with Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, when he gave sentence of divorce on the pre-contract between the queen and the lordPiercy and on the 15th of May, in the same year, he sat in judgment on the said queen, notwithstanding we are told by Lloyd, that with great address he avoided it. The lengths he had gone in serving the king, and his known dislike to popery, induced the northern, rebels in the same year, to name him as one of the evil counsellors, whom they desired to see removed from about the king’s person which charge, however, his majesty, as far as in him lay, wiped off, by his well- penned answer to the complaints of those rebels, wherein an excellent character is given of the chancellor. When the authors of this rebellion came to be tried, the chancellor declined sitting as lord high steward, which high office was executed by the marquis of Exeter, on whom shortly after, viz. in 1538, Audley sat as high-steward, and condemned him, his brother, and several t other persons, to suffer death as traitors. In the latter end of the same year, viz. on the 29th of November, 30 Hen. VIII. the chancellor was created a baron, by the style of lord Audley of Walden in the county of Essex, and was likewise installed knight of the garter. In the session of parliament in 1539, there were many severe acts made, and the prerogative carried to an excessive height, particularly by the six bloody articles, and the giving the king’s proclamation the force of a law. It does not very clearly appear who were the king’s principal counsellors in these matters but it is admitted by the best historians, that the rigorous execution of these laws, which the king first designed, was prevented by the interposition of the lord Audley, in conjunction with Cromwell, who was then prime minister, and the duke of Suffolk, the king’s favourite throughout his whole reign. In the beginning of 1540, the court was excessively embarrassed. What share Audley had in the fall of Cromwell afterwards is not clear, but immediately after a new question was stirred in parliament, viz. How far the king’s marriage with Anne of Cleves, was lawful This was referred to the judgment of a spiritual court and there are yet extant the depositions of Thomas lord Audley, lord chancellor, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, Charles, duke of Suffolk, and Cuthbert, lord bishop of Durham, wherein they jointly swear, that the papers produced to prove the retraction of the lady Anne’s contract with the duke of Lorrain, were inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Other lords and ladies deposed to other points, and the issue of the business was, that the marriage was declared void by this court, which sentence was supported by an act of parliament, affirming the same thing, and enacting, That it should be high-treason to judge or believe otherwise. This obstacle removed, the king married the lady Catherine Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, and cousin -german to Anne Bullen. Nothing is clearer from history, than that the chancellor was closely attached to the house of Norfolk and yet in the latter end of the year 1541, he was constrained to be an instrument in the ruin of the unfortunate queen information of her bad life before her marriage, being laid first before the archbishop of Canterbury, and by him communicated to the chancellor. The king then appointed lord Audley one of the commissioners to examine her, which they did, and there is yet extant a letter subscribed by him and the other lords, containing an exact detail of this affair, and of the evidence on which, in the next session of parliament, the queen and others were attainted. The whole of this business was managed in parliament by the chancellor, and there is reason to believe, that he had some hand in another business transacted in that session which was the opening a door for the dissolution of hospitals, the king having now wasted all that had accrued to him by the suppression of abbies. Some other things of the like nature were the last testimonies of the chancellor’s concern for his master’s interest but next year a more remarkable case occurred. Jn the 34th of Henry VIII. George Ferrers, esq. burgess for Plymouth, was arrested, and carried to the compter, by virtue of a writ from the court of king’s bench. The house, on notice thereof, sent their serjeant to demand their member in doing which, a fray ensued at the compter, his mace was broke, his servant knocked down, and himself obliged to make his escape as well as he could. The house, upon notice of this, resolved they would sit no longer without their member, and desired a conference with the lords where, after hearing the mutter, the lord chancellor Audley declared the contempt was most flagrant, and referred “the punishment thereof to the house of commons whereupon Thomas Moyle, esq. who was then speaker, issued his warrant, and the sheriff of London, and several other persons, were brought to the bar of the house, and committed, some to the Tower, and some to Newgate. This precedent was gained by the king’s want of an aid, who at that time expected the commons would offer him a subsidy the ministry, and the house of lords, knowing the king’s will gave the commons the complimerit of punishing those who had imprisoned one of their members. Dyer, mentioning this case, sap,” The sages of the law held the commitment of Ferrers legal, and though the privilege was allowed him, yet was it held unjust.“As the chancellor had led a very active life, he grew now infirm, though he was not much above fifty years old, and therefore began to think of settling his family and affairs. But, previous to this, he obtained from the king a licence to change the name of Buckingham college in Cambridge, into that of Magdalen, or Maudlin some will have it, because in the latter word his own name is included. To this college he was a great benefactor, bestowed on it his own arms, and is generally 'reputed its founder, or restorer. His capital seat was at Christ-Christ in town, and at Walden in Essex and to preserve some remembrance of himself and fortunes, he caused a magnificent tomb to be erected in his new chapel at Walden. About the beginning of April, 1544, he was attacked by his last illness, which induced him to resign the seals but he was too weak to do it in person, and therefore sent them to the king, who delivered them to sir Thomas Wriothesley, with the title of keeper, during the indisposition of the chancellor a circumstance not remarked by any of our historians. On the 19th of April, lord Audi ey made hU will, and, amongst other things, directed that his executors should, upon the next New-year’s day after his decease, deliver to the king a legacy of one hundred pounds, from whom, as he expresses it,” he had received all his reputations and benefits." He died on the last of April, 1544, when he had held the seals upwards of twelve years, and in the fifty-sixth of his life, as appears by the inscription on his tomb. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas iGrey, marquis of Dorset, by whom he had two daughters, Margaret and Mary; Mary died unmarried, and Margaret became his sole heir. She married first lord Henry Dudley, a younger son of John duke of Northumberland, and he being slain at the battle of St. Quintin’s, in Picardy, in 1557, she married a second time, Thomas duke of Norfolk, to whom she was also a second wife, and had by him a son Thomas, who, by act of parliament, in the 27th of Elizabeth, was restored in blood; and in the 39th of the same reign, summoned to parliament by his grandfather’s title, as baron of Walden, In the 1st of James I. he was created earl of Suffolk, and being afterwards lord hightreasurer of England, he built on the ruins of the abbey of Walden, that nee noble palace, which, in honour of our chancellor, he called Audley-End.

, a French philosopher, was born at Lyons in 1714, was brought up to the church, and became a professor of philosophy in his native country. In conjunction with the intendant Michaudiere, he drew up a state of the population of the district of Lyons, which was published under the name of Mezence, who was secretary to the intendant. In 1769, the abbe Audra was appointed professor of history in the college of Toulouse, and, we are told, filled that chair with distinction. It was here he wrote the first volume of his “General History,” which proved thecause of his death. The archbishop of Toulouse issued a mandate in which he condemned the work as being replete with dangerous principles; and the author’s mortification on hearing of this affected his brain to such a degree, as to carry hinj off in twenty- four hours, Sept. 17, 1770. Voltaire and D'Alembert praise this history, as likely to give offence only to bigots and fanatics, from which we may safely infer that the archbishop’s opinion of it was not ill founded.

, a very ancient English historian, of whose personal history, however, we know little. In the title of his history he calls himself register of the archbishop of Canterbury’s court, His design seems to have been to compose a history of the reign of Edward III. from such authentic materials as came to his hands but when he had laboured about thirty years, he was surprised by death, in the latter end of 1356, or in the beginning of the year following. In this work we have a plain narrative of facts, with an apparent candour and impartiality but his chief excellence lies in his accuracy in point of dates, and his stating all public actions from records, rather than from his own notions. This work, however, remained long in manuscript, and undiscovered by some of our most industrious antiquaries. It was unknown to Leland and to Bale, and the first who mentioned it and had seen it was Fox the martyrologist. ^Archbishop Parker had also perused it, and so had Stowe, who mentions Avesbury in his Chronicle, and from him Pits ventures to tell us, that he flourished about 1340, but does not add that he had any acquaintance with his works. Du Fresne, in his Index of Writers, places Avesbury in the same year. Mr. Jocelyn, however, who was chaplain to archbishop Parker, never saw this ms. though in his patron’s possession, nor did it fall under the inspection of Anthony Wood.

At length, after being so long buried in obscurity, the indefatigable Mr. Hearne printed it at Oxford, from a ms. belonging to sir Thomas Seabright, along with some other curious tracts, under the title of “Roberti de Avesbury Historia de mirabilibus gestis Edvardi III. hactenus inedita,” e Th. Sheld. 1720, 8vo. This ms. was the same that had formerly been in the hands of archbishop Parker, from whom it passed to Mr. William Lambard, the celebrated antiquary; from him to Thomas Lambard; and at length it came to sir Roger Twysden, and with the rest of his valuable library, was purchased by sir Thomas Seabright. Besides these there are two other Mss. in being, one in the Harleian collection in the British Museum, and the other in the university library at Cambridge, with both which the accurate printed edition was compared. All these Mss. are thought to be as old as the time in which our author flourished. There is joined to this history, and in the same hand-writing, a French chronicle, from the first planting of Britain to the reign of king Edward III.; but this Mr. Hearne conceived to be the work of some other author, and therefore did not print it. There were likewise added to the ms copies, certain notes of a miscellaneous nature, under the title of “Minutiae,” which Mr, Hearne has preserved, although of opinion they were not written by Avesbury.

, archbishop of Tarragona, one of the most learned men of his age, was born at Saragossa, in 1516. His parents were, Anthony Augustin, vicechancellor of Arragon, and Elizabeth, duchess of Cardonna. He was well skilled in civil and canon law, the belles lettres, ecclesiastical history, languages, and antiquities. His first promotion was to be auditor of Rota then he was made bishop of Alisa, afterwards of Lerida,and distinguished himself greatly in the council of Trent. The archbishopric of Tarragona was conferred upon him in 1574, and here he died in 1586, aged seventy. His character appears to have been excellent, and such was his charity that he left not enough to defray the expences of his funeral. His works are much valued. The principal are, 1. “De emendatione Gratiani Dialogorum,” Tarrac. 1587, 4to, a curious and much esteemed work. Baluze has given an excellent edition of this, with notes, 1672, 8vo. 2. “Constitutionum Provincial! um Ecclesiae Tarraconensis, lib. V.” Tarracon, 1580, 4to; and again in 1593. 3. “Canones Penitentiales,” Tar. 1582, 4to. 4. “De Nominibus Propriis Pandectse Florentini, cum notis A. Augustini,” 1579, folio. 5. “Antique Collectiones Decretalium,” Paris, 1621, fol. 6. “Epitome Juris Pontificis,” 3 torn. Tar. and Rome, 1587, 1611, folio. 7. “Dialog. XI. de las Medallas,” Tarrag. 1587, 4to and folio, and in Latin, 1617, fol. The 4to edition of these dialogues on medals, in Italian, is preferable, as the medals of the dialogues, from the third to the eight, are not in the edition of 1587, a remark which the editor of the Bibliographical Dictionary has by mistake made upon the “Emendatio Gratiani.”

, or by contraction Austin (St.), usually styled the Apostle of the English, and the first archbishop of Canterbury, was originally a monk in the convent of St. Andrew at Rome, and was educated under St. Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory I. who undertook the conversion of the island of Britain. His inducement to this, in the life of St. Gregory, written by John Diaconus, introduces us to a string of puns, which we must refer to the manners and taste of the times, without surely impeaching the seriousness of Gregory, who in his present situation, as well as when pope, had no other visible motive for his zea], than the propagation of Christianity. Walking in the forum at Rome, he haprfened to see some very handsome youths exposed to sale, and being informed that they were of the island of Britain, and that the inhabitants of that island were Pagans, he regretted that such handsome youths should be destitute of true knowledge, and again asked the name of the nation. “Angli” was the answer on which he observed, “In truth they have angelic countenances, and it is a pity they should not be coheirs with angels in heaven.” When informed that they came from the province of Deira (Northumberland), he observed, “It is well, de mz, snatched from the wrath of God, and called to the mercy of Christ and when, in answer to another interrogatory, he was told that the name of their king was Ella, he said,” Alleluia, should be sung to God in those regions." More seriously impressed with a sense of his duty on this occasion, he requested pope Benedict to send some persons to our island on a mission, and offered to be one of the number. He was himself, however, too much a favourite with the Roman citizens to be suffered to depart, and it was not until he became pope, that he was enabled effectually to pursue his purpose. After his consecration in the year 595, he directed a presbyter, whom he had sent into France, to instruct some young Saxons, of seventeen or eighteen years of age, in Christianity, to act as missionaries and in the year 597, he sent about forty monks, including perhaps some of these new converts, with Augustine at their head. Having proceeded a little way on their journey, they began to dread the attempt of committing themselves to a savage and infidel nation, whose language they did not understand. In this dilemma, doubtful whether to return or proceed, they agreed to send back Augustine to Gregory, to represent their fears, and intreat that he would release them from their engagement. Gregory, however/ in answer, advised them to proceed, in confidence of divine aid, undaunted by the fatigue of the journey, or any other temporary obstructions, adding, that it would have been better not to have begun so good a work, than to recede from it afterwards. He also took every means for their accommodation, recommending them to the attention of Etherius, bishop of Aries, and providing for them such assistance in France, that at length they arrived safely in Britain.

It is easy to suppose that a queen, thus sincere in her principles, would be very earnest in persuading her husband to give Augustine and his followers a hospitable reception, and Ethelbert accordingly assigned Augustine an habitation in the isle of Thanet. By means of French interpreters, whom the missionaries brought with them, they informed the king that they were come from Rome, and brought with them the best tidings in the world eternal life to those who received them, and the endless enjoyment of life hereafter. After some days, Ethelbert paid them a visit but being afraid of enchantments, things which, true or false, were then objects of terror, chose to receive them in the open air. The missionaries met him, singing litanies for their own salvation, and that of those for vvhojse sake they came thither; and then, by the king’s direction, unfolded the nature of their mission, and of the religion they wished to preach. The substance of the king’s answer was, that he could not, without further consideration, abandon the religion of his forefathers, but as they had come so far on a friendly errand, he assigned them a place of residence in Canterbury, and allowed them to use their best endeavours to convert his subjects. The place assigned them was in the parish of St. Alphage, on the north side of the High or King’s street, where, in Thorn’s time, the archbishop’s palace stood, now called Stable-gate. Accordingly they entered the city, singing in concert a short litany, recorded by Becle, in these words “We pray thee, O Lord, in all thy merc^, that thine anger and thy fury may be removed from this city, and from thy holy house, for we have sinned. Alleluia.”

During this success, Augustine went to France, and was there, by the archhishop of Aries, consecrated archbishop of the English nation, thinking that this new dignity would give additional influence to his exhortations. When he returned into Britain, he sent Laurentius the presbyter, and Peter the monk, to acquaint Gregory with what had been done, and to consult him upon several points of doctrine and discipline. Some of these points savour, undoubtedly, of the superstitious scruples of the monastic, austerity, but others lead to some information respecting the early constitution of the church. To his inquiries concerning the maintenance of the clergy, Gregory answered, that the donations made to the church were, by the custom of the Roman see, divided into four portions one for the bishop and his family to support hospitality, a second to the clergy, a third to the poor, and a fourth to the reparation of churches. As the pastors were all monks, they were to live in common, but such as chose to marry were to be maintained by the monastery. With respect to diversities of customs and liturgies, Gregory’s answer was truly liberal, implying that Augustine was not bound to follow the precedent of Rome, but might select whatever parts or rules appeared the most eligible and best adapted to promote the piety of the infant church of England, and compose them into a system for its use. Gregory also, at Augustine’s request, sent over more missionaries, and directed him to constitute a bishop at York, who might have other subordinate bishops yet in such a manner, that Augustine of Canterbury should be metropolitan of all England. He sent over also a valuable present of books, vestments, sacred utensils, and holy relics. He advised Augustine not to destroy the heathen temples, but only to remove the images of their gods, to wash the walls with holy water, to erect altars, deposit relics in them, and so gradually convert them into Christian churches not only to save the expence of building new ones, but that the people might be more easily prevailed upon to frequent those places of worship to which they had been accustomed. He directs him further, to accommodate the ceremonies of the Christian worship, as much as possible, to those of the heathen, that the people might not be too much startled at the change and in particular, he advises him to allow the Christian converts, on certain festivals, to kill and eat a great number of oxen, to the glory of God, as they had formerly done to the honour of the devil. It is quite unnecessary, in our times, to offer any remark on this mixture of pious zeal with worldly policy.

The first preferment bestowed upon Aylmer, was the archdeaconry of Stow, in the diocese of Lincoln, which giving him a seat in the convocation, held in the first year of queen Mary, he boldly opposed that return to Popery, which he saw approaching. He was one of six$ who, in the midst of all the violence of that assembly, offered to dispute all the controverted points in religion, against the most learned champions, of the Papists. But when the supreme power began to employ force, archdeacon Aylmer withdrew^ and escaped abroad in almost a miraculous manner*. He resided first at Strasbourg, afterwards at Zurick in Switzerland, and there in peace followed his studies, employing all his time in acquiring knowledge, or in assist^ ing other men of study. His thoughts, though in a distant country, were continually employed in the service of England, and of Englishmen. He published (as Strype supposes) lady Jane Grey’s letter to Harding, who had been her father’s chaplain, and who apostatized. He assisted Fox in translating the History of English Martyrs into Latin, and also in the version of archbishop Cranmer’s Vindication of the book on the Sacrament, against Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, which, however, was never printed. During these employments he found leisure to visit most of the universities of Italy and Germany, and had an offer from the duke of Saxony, of the Hebrew professorship of Jena, which he refused, on the prospect of speedily returning home* It was during his exile likewise that he wrote the only work of consequence which he ever published, in answer to the famous Scotch reformer, John Knox. In 1556, John Knox printed, at Geneva, a treatise under this title “The first Blast against the monstrous regiment and empire of Women,” to shew that, by the laws of God, women could not exercise sovereign authority. The objects of this attack were the two queens, Mary of Lorrain, then regent of Scotland, and Mary queen of England. It was violent, but not unargumentative, and he could appeal with effect to the laws of France, and to the recent proposal of Edward VI. to adopt the same laWi He intended a second, and a third part; but finding it gave offence to many of his brethren, and being desirous to strengthen rather than invalidate the authority of Elizabeth, he relinquished his design. Still as this first tended to injure the Protestant religion in the minds of Princes, and those in authority, Mr. Aylmer resolved to employ his

After the accession of queen Elizabeth, Aylmer returned home, and was one of the eight divines appointed to dispute with as many popish bishops at Westminster, in the presence of a great assembly. In 1562, he obtained the archdeaconry of Lincoln, by the favour of Mr. secretary Cecil and in right of this dignity, sat in the famous synod held the same year, wherein the doctrine and discipline of the church, and its reformation from the abuses of popery, were carefully examined and settled. In this situation he continued for many years, and discharged the duty of a good subject to the government under which he lived, in church and state being one of the -queen’s justices of the peace, as also an ecclesiastical commissioner. In October, 1573, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor in divinity, in the university of Oxford. The next year the archbishop of Canterbury made choice of him, to answer a book written in Latin against the government of the church of England but after thoroughly considering it, Dr. Aylmer declined the task, which some in those days (perhaps unjustly) attributed to discontent, because he was not made a bishop. To this dignity he had been often named by Parker, then archbishop of Canterbury, but always prevented either by the interest of the archbishop’s enemies, or his own, the latter never failing to suggest, that in the same book where Aylmer had made his court to the queen, he had also shewn his spleen against episcopacy. At last, in the year 1576, on Dr. Edwin Sandys being promoted to the archbishopric of York/ Dr. Ayltner was made bishop of London, not without the furtherance of his predecessor, who was his intimate friend, and had beeii his fellow-exile. Yet, immediately after his promotion, bishop Aylmer found, or thought he found, cause to complain of the archbishop and although his grace assisted at his consecration, on the 24th of March, 3576, bishop Aylmer sued him for dilapidations, which after some years prosecution he recovered. In 1577, our bishop began his first visitation, wherein he urged subscriptions, which some ministers refused, and reviled such as complied, calling them dissemblers, and comparing them to Arians and Anabaptists, he was also extremely assiduous in public preaching, took much pains in examining such as came to him for ordination, and kept a strict eye over the Papists and Puritans in which he acted not only to the extent of episcopal authority, but wrote freely to the treasurer Burleigh, as to what he thought farther necessary. When the plague rageed in London, in the year 1578, our bishop shewed a paternal care of his clergy and people, and without exposing the former to needless perils, took care that these last should not be without spiritual comforts. In 1581 came out Campion’s book, shewing the reasons why he had deserted the reformed, and returned to the popish communion. It was written in very elegant Latin, and dedicated to the scholars of both universities and the treasurer Burleigh thought that it should be answered, and referred the care thereof to our bishop, who though he gave his opinion freely upon the subject, as to the mode in which it should be done, yet declined the task himself on account of the great business he had upon his hands, and it was undertaken and ably executed by Dr. Whitaker. Aylmer was indeed no great friend to controversy, which he thought turned the minds of the people too much from the essence of religion, made them quarrelsome and captious, indifferent subjects, and not very good Christians. On this account, he was more severe with the Puritans than the Papists, imprison ing one Woodcock, a stationer or bookseller, for vending a treatise, entitled “An Admonition to Parliament,” which tended to subvert the church as it was then constituted. He had likewise some disputes with one Mr. Welden, a person of a good estate and interest, in Berkshire, whom he procured to be committed by the ecclesiastical imssioners. These proceedings roused the Puritans, who treated him as a persecutor, and an enemy to true religion but this did not discourage the bishop, who thought the peace of the church was to be secured by the authority of its fathers, and therefore he executed his episcopal power, as far and as often as he thought necessary. Thus he suddenly summoned the clergy of London to his palace on Sunday, September 27, 1579, at one o'clock. On this summons forty appeared and the dean being likewise present, the bishop cautioned them of two things, one was, not to meddle with the Ubiquitarian controversy the other, to avoid meddling with the points treated in Stubb’s book, entitled “The Dfscovery of a gaping Gulph,” &c. written against the queen’s marriage with Monsieur, the French king’s brother, and in which it was suggested, that the queen wavered in her religion. This method being found very effectual, he summoned his clergy often, and made strict inquiries into their conduct, a practice as much approved by some, as censured by others and his unpopularity, perhaps, might occasion, in some measure, that violence with which he was prosecuted before the council, in May 1579, for cutting down his woods, when he was severely checked by the lord treasurer but notwithstanding his angry letters to that great nobleman, and his long and laboured defence of himself, he was, at length, by the queen’s command, forbidden to fell any more.

On the 6th of April, in the same year, there was a dreadful earthquake and in the dead of the night of the 1 st of May, it was felt again, which, as it exceedingly terrified the people, so the bishop, that he might turn their concern to a proper object, and at the same time exhibit to them reasonable grounds of comfort, composed certain prayers to be made use of in the public service. In 1581, the bishop had an angry contest with the lord Rich, who kept one Wright a puritan minister in his house, and would have compelled the bishop to license him to preach in his diocese but on a hearing before the ecclesiastical commissioners, Wright was committed to the Fleet, and others who had interfered in this affair, to other prisons. This increased the number of his enemies, of whom he had not a few before, who daily suggested that he was a violent man, and sought to vest too great a power in churchmen and these representations had such effect, that sometimes messages were sent to him, to abate somewhat of the rigour of his proceedings. His lordship, however, still supported the ecclesiastical commission, by his presence and authority; and though a milder course might have made him more popular, yet he thought it better to suffer himself, than that the church should. He began, however, to have many doubts concerning the treasurer, from whose hands his reproofs usually came but upqn the winding up of his cause before the council about felling of woods, he saw clearly, that he had no friend equal to the treasurer, who, though he endeavoured by his admonitions to prevent his falling into difficulties, yet generously exerted his utmost power to help him out of them, so far as was consistent with equity, and the good of the common weal. From this time forward, therefore, thebishop applied chiefly to the treasurer, for any favours he expected from court, particularly with regard to the business of his translation. He became exceedingly solicitous to be removed from London, either to Winchester or Ely; but, though he had many fair promises, his interest was insufficient, and in the mean time new informations, some with little, many with no cause at all, were exhibited against him, and gave him not a little uneasiness, although, on a thorough examination, his conduct escaped the censure of his superiors. In 1583 he performed his triennial visitation, and having discovered many scandalous corruptions in the ecclesiastical courts, especially in the business of commuting penances, he honestly represented what came to his knowledge to the privy council. About this time also he suspended certain ministers, accused of nonconformity and it appears, that upon a thorough examination of the matter, his lordship did impartial justice, in restoring one Mr. Giffard, whom he had twice suspended, when those who had charged him were able to make nothing out. In this year also he committed Mr. Thomas Cartwright, the celebrated Puritan minister, who had written against the hierarchy. Yet for this his lordship incurred the queen’s displeasure and a little after was informed that he stood accused to her majesty, for impairing the revenues of his bishopric, of which he purged himself, by exhibiting a state of the bishopric as it then stood, compared with the condition it was in when he became bishop. Other difficulties. he met with, on account of the share he had in executing her majesty’s ecclesiastical commission, from which there were Continual appeals to the privy council, where the lords who favoured the Puritans, did not fail to object to the bishop’s conduct, which contributed not a little to irritate his warm temper. In 1585 he composed a prayer to be used on account of the rainy unseasonable weather, which he recommended to private families, as well as directed to be read with the public prayers. He also used his interest to quiet the murmurs of the common people in London, against the crowds of strangers who fled hither, to avoid the persecutions raised against them, for embracing the Protestant religion. In the summer of the year 1586, the, bishop went his next triennial visitation, and at Maiden in Essex, narrowly escaped an outrageous insult, intended against him by some disaffected persons. In 1587, the bishop entered into a new scene of trouble, on account of one Mr. Robert Cawdry, schoolmaster, whom the lord Burleigh had presented to the living of South LufFenhara in Rutlandshire, where, after preaching sixteen years, he was convened before the ecclesiastical commission, and at length, the bishop sitting as judge, deprived. Cawdry would not submit to the sentence upon which the matter was re-examined by the ecclesiastical commission, at Lambeth, where to deprivation, degradation was added. Cawdry, however, still refusing to submit, made new and warm representations to the lord Burleigh, who favoured him as much as with justice he could but after near five years contest, the bishop’s and archbishop’s sentences were supported, both by the civil and common lawyers. In 1588, his lordship restored one Mr. Henry Smith, a very eloquent and much admired preacher, whom he had suspended for contemptuous expressions against the book of Common Prayer, which Smith denied. In 1589, he expressed his dislike of certain libels against the king of Spain, giving it as his reason, that on so glorious a victory, it was better to thank God, than insult men, especially princes. That year also he visited his diocese, though he was grown old and very infirm, and suspended one Dyke at St. Alban’s, though he had been recommended by the lord treasurer. In 1591 he caused the above-mentioned Mr. Cartwright to be brought before him out of the Fleet, and expostulated with him roundly, on the disturbance he had given the church. In 1592, he strongly solicited in favour of Dr. Bullingham, and Dr. Cole, that they might be preferred to bishoprics, but without success, which his lordship foresaw. For he observed when he applied for them, that he was not so happy as to do rmieh good for his friends yet he added, he would never be wanting in shewing his good will, both to them and to the church. About this time, casting his eye on Dr. Bancroft, a rising and very active man, he endeavoured to obtain leave to resign his bishopric to him, as a man every way fit for such a charge but in this also he was disappointed, which it seems lay heavy at his heart for even on his death-bed, he expressed his earnest desire that Bancroft might succeed him. In 1592, the bishop assisted at his son’s visitation, as archdeacon of London, and exerted himself with as much zeal and spirit as he had ever shewn in his life. His great age, and great labours, however, weighed him down by degrees, and he died June 3, 1594, and his body being brought from his palace at Fulham, was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral before St. George’s chapel, under a fair stone of grey marble, with an inscription which was demolished by the republicans in Cromwell’s time. Bishop Aylmer married Judith Bure&, or Buers, of a very good family in Suffolk, by whom he had a very numerous offspring, viz. seven sons, and two or three daughters. As to the personal qualities of the bishop, they were, as those of most men are, good and bad, the former, perhaps, too much magnified by his friends, as the latter were by his enemies. He was solidly and extensively learned in all things that became either a great churchman, or a polite man, to know. He was very well versed in the three learned languages, had read much history, was a good logician, and very well skilled in the civil law. As a divine, he had studied, and understood the scripture thoroughly could preach, not only rhetorically but pathetically and in the course of his life-time, never buried his talent . He was in his heart, from the conviction of his head, a Protestant, and opposed Popery warmly, from a just sense of its errors, which he had the courage to combat openly in the days of queen Mary, and the honesty to suppress in the reign of queen Elizabeth. With all this, and indeed with a temper occasionally soured and irritable, he was a good-natured, facetious man, one extremely diligent and painful in the several employments he went through of too generous a temper to be corrupted, and of much too stout a one to be brow-beaten. He was a magnificent man in his house, as appears by his household, which consisted of fourscore persons, to whom he was a liberal and kind master. After his fatigues he was wot to refresh himself, either with conversation or at bowls. As to his failings, his temper was without doubt warm, his expressions sometimes too blunt, and his zeal not guided by wisdom. His enemies charged him with an exorbitant love of power, which displayed itself in various extraordinary acts of severity, with covetousness, which prompted him to spoil his see, and injure a private man; with intemperate heat against Puritans, with a slight regard of the Lord’s day, and with indecencies in ordinary speech some of which charges must be allowed a foundation, while on the other hand they appear to have been greatly exaggerated. But upon the whole there must have been many errors in a conduct which his superiors so often reproved. At the time of his decease he left seven sons, and either two or three daughters. His sons were, first, Samuel, who was bred to the law. He was stiled, of Claydon-hall in the county of Suffolk, and was high-sheriff of that county in the reign of king Charles I. and by two wives left a numerous posterity. His second, Theophilus, a most worthy divine, archdeacon of London, rector of Much-Hadham in Hertfordshire, and doctor of divinity. He was chaplain to king James, an able and zealous preacher, and, like his father, zealous against the Puritans, but so charitable, that he left his own family in indifferent circumstances. He lived a true pattern of Christian piety, and died heroically, closing his own eyelids, and with these words in his mouth, “Let my people know that their pastor died undaunted, and not afraid of death I bless my God, I have no fear, no doubt, no reluctancy, but a sure confidence in the sin-overcoming itierits of Jesus Christ.” This happened January 1625. He was buried in his own parish church, and the excellent primate Usher preached his funeral sermon, no inconsiderable proof of his merit. His third, John, who for some eminent service was knighted, and styled sir John Aylmer, of Rigby in the county of Lincoln, knt. Fourth, fifth, and sixth, Zachary, Nathaniel, and Edmund, of whom we know nothing particularly, except that Zachary and Edmund were the warmest friends that age produced. When Edmund lay sick, Zachary continued with him night and day till his death, and when a person came to measure the body, in order to make a coffin, Zachary would be measured also, and in a very short space took possession of the coffin made for him at the same time with that of his deceased brother. These gentlemen seem to have been divines. His seventh, Tobel, i.e. God is good. Archbishop Whitgift was his godfather, and the reason he was thus named, was his mother’s being overturned in a coach, without receiving any hurt, when she was big with child. He wrote himself Tobel Aylmer, of Writtle, in the county of Essex, gentleman. He married a gentleman’s daughter in that county, and had by her several children. As to the bishop’s daughters, Judith, the eldest, married William Lynch, of the county of Kent, esq. the second, Elizabeth, married sir John Foliot of Perton, in the county of Worcester, knt. Either a third daughter, or else lady Foliot, took for her second husband Mr. Squire, a clergyman, a man of wit, but very debauched, and a great spendthrift, though he had large preferments. He made a very unkind husband to his wife, which her father, the bishop, so much resented, that, as Martin MarPrelate phrasss it, “He went to buffets with his son-inlaw, for a bloody-nose .” This Squire died poor, lerving a son named John, who was well educated, and provided for as a clergyman, at the ex pence, and by the procurement of his uncle, Dr. Theophilus Aylmer, which he repaid with the utmost gratitude. To all his children our bishop, by his will, bearing date the 22d of April, 1594, bequeathed large legacies, as also some to his grand-children, appointing his two sons, Samuel and Theophilus, his executors, with Dr. Richard Vaughan, who was also his relation.

, commonly called Navarre (doctor Navarrus), was born of a noble family, Dec. 13, 1491, at Varasayn, near Pampeluna in Navarre. He was first educated, and took the habit, in the monastery of regular canons at Roncevaux, and afterwards studied at Alcala and at Ferrara, where he made such progress in law, as to be employed in teaching that science at Toulouse and Cahors. Some time after, he returned to Spain, and was appointed first professor of canon law at Salamanca, an office he filled with high reputation for fourteen years, at the end of which John III. king of Portugal, chose him law-professor of his new-founded university at Coimbra, and gave him a larger salary than had ever been enjoyed by any French or Spanish professor. After filling this chair also, with increasing reputation, for sixteen years, he was permitted to resign, and went first into Castile, and afterwards to Rome, on purpose, although in his eightieth year, to plead the cause of Bartholomew de Caranza, archbishop of Toledo, who was accused of heresy before the inquisition, and whose cause, first argued in Spain, was by the pope’s order removed to Rome. Azpilcueta exerted himself to the utmost, but without success, which we cannot be surprised at when we consider that the inquisitors were his opponents and although they could prove nothing against Caranza, they contrived that he should die in prison. Azpilcueta, however, was honourably received at Rome pope Pius V. appointed him assistant to cardinal Francis Alciat, his vice-penitentiary, and Gregory XIII. never passed his door without a visit, or met him in the street, without enjoying some conversation with him. He was much consulted, and universally esteemed for learning, probity, piety, and chanty. Antonio informs us that he used to ride on a mule through the city, and relieve every poor person he met, and that the creature of itself would stop at the sight of a poor person until its master relieved him. He died June 21, 1586, then in his ninetyfourth year. His works, which are either on morals or common law, were published, Rome, 1590, 3 vols. Lyons, 1591, Venice, 1602.

, the second daughter of sir Anthony Cooke, was born about the year 1528. She was liberally educated by her father, and having added much acquired knowledge to her natural endowments, she became highly distinguished among the learned personages of the time, and, it is even said, was constituted governess to king Edward VI. She was, however, eminent for piety, virtue, and learning, and well versed in the Greek, Latin, and Italian tongues. She gave an early specimen of her industry, piety, and learning, by translating out of Italian into English twenty-five sermons, written by Barnardine Ochine, concerning “The Predestination and Election of God;” this was published about the year 1550 in 8vo. When the learned bishop Jewel wrote his “Apology for the Church of England,” which had a considerable effect in quieting the clamours of the Roman Catholic writers against the reformed religion, this lady undertook to translate it from the Latin into English, that it might be accessible to the common people, and considering the style of the age, her translation is both faithful and elegant. Mr. Strype informs us that after she had finished the translation she sent the copy to the author, accompanied with an epistle to him in Greek, which he answered in the same language, and was so satisfied with her transjation that he did not alter a single word. The archbishop Parker, to whom she had likewise submitted her work, bestowed the highest praise on it, which he confirmed by a compliment of much elegance. Pie returned it to her printed, Ci knowing,“as he said in his letter to her,” that he had thereby done for the best, and in this point used a reasonable policy that is, to prevent such excuses as her modesty would have made in stay of publishing it.“It was printed in 1564, 4 to, and in 1600, 12mo. That her literary reputation extended beyond her own country is evident from Beza’s dedication to her of his Meditations. In Birch’s” Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth," her name frequently occurs, and he has given some of her letters at full length, and extracts from others, which confirm her character for learning. Her temper in her latter years Appears to have been affected by ill health. At what time she was married to sir Nicholas Bacon cannot be ascertained. It is a more important record, however, that sbe was mother of the illustrious sir Francis Bacon, lord-Verulam. The time of her death, too, has escaped the researches of her biographers. She appears to have been living in 1596, and Ballard conjectures that she died about the beginning of the reign of James I. at Gorhambury, near St. Alban’s, and, according to Dr. Rawley, was buried at St. Michael’s church in that town, but neither monument nor inscription have been discovered.

, Viscount St. Alban'S, and highchancellor of England in the reign of James I. justly styled the glory and ornament of his age and nation, was the son of sir Nicholas Bacon, and Anne, the subject of the preceding article, and was born at York House, in the Strand, on the 22d of January 1560-1. He gave early proofs of a surprizing strength and pregnancy of genius, and when a mere boy, was distinguished by persons of worth and dignity for something far beyond his years. Queen Elizabeth, a very acute discerner of merit, was so charmed with the solidity of his sense and the gravity of fais behaviour, that she would often call him “her young lord keeper,” an office which he eventually reached, although not in her reign. When qualified for academicalstudies, he was sent to the university of Cambridge, where,. June 10, 1573, he was entered of Trinity college, under Dr. John Whitgift, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, Such was his progress under this able tutor, and such the vigour of his intellect, that before he had completed his sixteenth year, he had not only run through the whole circle of the liberal arts, as they were then taught, but began, to perceive the imperfections of the reigning philosophy, and meditated that change of system which has since immortalized his name, and has placed knowledge upon its most firm foundation. Extraordinary as this may -appear, he was heard even at that early age, to object to the Aristotelian system, the only one then in repute, and to say, that his “exceptions against that great philosopher were not founded upon the worthlessness of the author, to whom he would ever ascribe all high attributes, but for the unfruitfulness of the way being a philosophy only for disputations and contentions, but barren in the production of works for the benefit of the life of man.”

About the year 1763, he first attempted working in marble, and having never seen that operation performed, he was led to invent an instrument for transferring the form of the model to the marble (technically called, getting out the points), which instrument, from its superior effect, has since been adopted by many other sculptors in England and France. His first regular instructions, however, in his favourite pursuit, were received at the lloyal Academy in 1768, the year of its institution, and such were their effect on a mind already so well prepared by nature, that the first gold medal for sculpture given by the academy, was decreed to him and two years after, he was elected an associate. His fame was at this time well known by his statue of Mars, which induced the late archbishop of York, Dr. Markham, to employ him to execute a bust of his Majesty for the hall of Christ Church college, Oxford. His majesty not only condescended to sit to him upon this occasion, but honoured him with his patronage, and ordered another bust, intended as a present to the university of Got tin gen. He was -soon after employed by the dean and scholars of Christ Church to form several busts for them, particularly those of general Guise, the bishop of Durham, and the primate of Ireland.

, lord keeper of the great seal in the reign of queen Elizabeth, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Suffolk. His rather was Robert Bacon of Drinkstxm in that county, esq. and his mother was Isabel, the daughter of John Gage of Pakenhain in the said county, esq. Nicholas, their second son, was born in 1510, at Chislehurst in Kent. After having received the first rudiments of learning, probably at home, or in the neighbourhood, he was sent when very young to Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, where having improved in all branches of useful knowledge, he went to France, in order to give the last polish to his education. On his return he settled in Gray VInn, and applied himself with such assiduity to the study of the law, that on the dissolution of the monastery of St. Edmund’s-Bury in Suffolk, he had a grant from king Henry VIII. in the thirty-­sixth year of his reign, of the manors of Redgrave, Botesdale, and Gillingham, with the park of Redgrave, and six acres of land in Worthanf, as also the tithes of Redgrave to hold in capite by knight’s service, a proof of the estimation in which he was held by his majesty. In the thirtyeighth of the same king, he was promoted to the office of attorney in the court of wards, a place both of honour and profit, and his patent was renewed in the first year of Edward VI. and in 1552, which was the last year of his reign, Mr. Bacon was elected treasurer of Gray’s-Inn. His great moderation and consummate prudence, preserved him through the dangerous reign of queen Mary. In the very dawn of that of Elizabeth he was knighted, and the great seal of England being taken from Nicholas Heath, archbishop of York, was delivered to sir Nicholas Bacon, on the 22d of December 1558, with the title of lord keeper. He was also of the privy council to her majesty, who had much regard to his advice. The parliament met Jan. 23, but was prorogued on account of the queen’s indisposition to the 25th, when the lord keeper opened the session with a most eloquent and solid speech. Some of the queen’s counsellors thought it necessary that the attainder of the queen’s mother should be taken off; but the lord keeper thought the crown purged all defects, and in compliance with his advice, two laws were made, one for recognizing the queen’s title, the other for restoring her in blood as heir to her mother. The principal business of this session was the settlement of religion, in which no man had a greater share than the keeper, and he acted with such prudence as never to incur the hatred of any party. On this account he was, together with the archbishop of York, appointed moderator in a dispute between eight Protestant divines, and eight Popish bishops and the latter behaving very unfairly in the opinion of both the moderators, and desiring, to avoid a fair disputation, to go away, the lord keeper put that question to each of them, and when all except one insisted on going, his lordship dismissed them with this memorandum, “For that ye would not that we should hear you, perhaps you may shortly hear of us” and accordingly for this contempt, the bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were committed to the tower, and the rest were bound to appear before the council, and not to quit the cities of London and Westminster without leave. The whole business of the session, than which there was none of greater importance during that reign, was chiefly managed by his lordship, according to his wise maxim, “Let us stay a little, that we may have done the sooner.” From this time he stood as high in the favour of the queen as any of her ministers, and maintained a cordial interest with other great men, particularly with those eminent persons, who had married into the same family with himself, viz. Cecil, Hobby, Rowlet, and Killigrew. By their assistance he preserved his credit at court, though he sometimes differed in opinion from the mighty favourite Leicester, who yet once bad fair his ruin, when certain intrigues were carried on respecting the succession. Some statesmen, and particularly the earl of Leicester, pretended to favour the title of the queen of Scots, but others were more inclined to the house of Suffolk. The queen sometimes affected a neutrality, and sometimes shewed a tenderness for the title of the Scottish queen. In 1564, when these disputes were at the height, Mr. John Hales, clerk of the Hanaper, published a treatise which seems to have been written a considerable time before, in favour of the Suffolk line, and against the title of the queen of Scots. This book was complained of by the bishop of Ross, ambassador from the queen of Scots, and Ross being warmly supported by the earl of Leicester, Hales was committed to prison, and so strict an inquiry made after all who had expressed any favour for this piece, that at last the lord-keeper came to be suspected, which drew upon him the queen’s displeasure, and he was forbidden the court, removed from his seat at council, and prohibited from meddling with any affairs but those of the chancery nay, Camden says he was confined . At last, however, Cecil, who is suspected to have had some share in the above treatise, with much difficulty restored him to the queen’s good opinion, as appears by her setting him at the head of that commission, granted in the year 1568, for hearing the difference between the queen of Scots, and her rebellious subjects; and in 1571, we find him again acting in the like capacity, though very little was done before the commissioners at either time, which was what queen Elizabeth chiefly desired, and the covering her inclination with a decent appearance of justice, was perhaps not a little owing to the address of the lord-keeper. Afterwards he continued at the head of her majesty’s councils, and had a great hand in preventing, by his moderation, some violent measures afterwards proposed. The share, however, that he had in the business of the duke of Norfolk, and his great care for promoting the Protestant religion, created him many bitter enemies among the Papists both at home and abroad, who though they were able to do him no great hurt, yet published some libels, particularly “A Detection of certain practices, &c.” printed in Scotland, about 1570, and “A treatise of Treason,” both which gave him considerable uneasiness, although the queen expressed her opinion, by a proclamation, ordering them to be burnt. As a statesman, he was remarkable for a clear head, and acute understanding; and while it was thought of some other great men that they seemed wiser than they were, yet the common voice of the nation pronounced, that sir Nicholas Bacon was wiser than he seemed. His great skill lay in balancing factions, and it is thought he taught the queen that secret, the more necessary to her because the last of her family, and consequently without many of the usual supports of princes. In the chancery he distinguished himself by a very moderate use of power, and the respect he shewed to the common law. At his own request, an act of parliament was made, to settle and establish the power of a lord -keeper, though he might probably have taken away all need of this, by procuring the title of lord chancellor: but according to his motto, which was Mediocra firma, he he was content to be safe, and did not desire to be great*. In that court, and in the star-chamber, he made use, on proper occasions, of set speeches, in which he was peculiarly happy, and gained the reputation of a witty and a weighty speaker. His great parts and great preferment were far from raising him in his own opinion, as appears from the modest answer he gave* queen Elizabeth, when she told him his house at Redgrave was too little for him, “Not so, madam,” returned he, “but your majesty has made me too great for my house.” Yet to shew his respect for her majesty’s judgment, he afterwards added wings to this house. His modesty in this respect was so much the greater, since he had a great passion for building, and a very fine taste, as appeared by his house and gardens at Gorhambury near St. Alban’s, now the seat of lord viscount Grimston. Towards the latter end of his life, he became very corpulent, which made queen Elizabeth say merrily, that “sir Nicholas’s soul lodged well. To himself, however, his bulk was very inconvenient after walking from Westminster-hall to the star-chamber, which was but a very little way, he was usually so much out of breath, that the lawyers forbore speaking at the bar till he recocovered himself, and gave them notice by knocking” with his staff. After having held the great seal more than twenty years, this able statesman and faithful counsellor was suddenly removed from this life, as Mallett informs us, by the following accident “He was under the hands of his barber, and the weather being sultry, had ordered a window before him to be thrown open. As he was become very corpulent, he presently fell asleep, in the cur­* After he had been some monthsact of parliament, which declares, in office, as keeper of the great seal,” That the common law always was, he began to doubt to what degree his that the keeper of the great seal always authority extended, which seems to had, as of right belonging to his office, have been owing to the general terms the same authority, jurisdiction, excused upon the delivery of the great cution of laws, and all other customs, Heal, of which we have various in- as the lord chancellor of England lawstances in Rymer’s Foedera. Upon fully used.“What the true reason this, he first applied himself to the was that made his lordship so uneasy, queen, from whom he procured a pa- is not perhaps known to posterity. tent, bearing date at Westminster, the But sir Henry Spelman has observed, 14th of April, in the first year of her that for the benefit of that wise counreign, whereby she declares him te seller sir Nicholas Bacon, the authobare as full powers as if he were rity of the keeper of the great seal hancellor of England, and ratifies all was by this law declared to be in all that he had already done. This, how- respects the same with that of th ever, did not fully satisfy him but chancellor, four years afterwards he procured an rent of fresh air that was blowing in upon him, and awaked after some time distempered all over. c Why,‘ said he to the servant, < did you suffer me to sleep thus exposed’ The fellow replied, ‘ That he durst not presume to disturb him.’ * Then,‘ said the lord keeper, * by your civility I lose my life,’ and so removed into his bed-chamber, where he died a few days after.” But this story seems doubtful, for all writers agree, that sir Nicholas Bacon died Feb. 20, 1579, when the weather could not be very sultry. On the 9th of March following he was buried with great solemnity, under a sumptuous monument erected by himself in St. Paul’s church, with an inscription written by the celebrated Buchanan. Camden’s character of him is just and plain “Vir praepinguis, ingenio acerrimo, singulari prudentia, summa eloquentia, tenaci memoria, et sacris conciliis alterum columen” i. e. A man of a gross body, but most quick wit, singular prudence, supreme eloquence, happy memory, and for judgment the other pillar of the state. His son’s pharacter of him is more striking. He was “a plain man, direct and constant, without all finesse and doubleness and one that was of a mind that a man, in his private proceedings and estate, and in the proceedings of state, should rest upon the soundness and strength of his own courses, and not upon practice to circumvent others, according to the sentence of Solomon, * Vir prudens advertit ad gressus suos stultus autem divertit ad dolos’ insomuch that the bishop of Ross, a subtle and observing man, said of him, that he could fasten no words upon him, and that it was impossible to come within him, because he offered no play; and the queen mother of France, a very politic princess, said of him, that he should have been of the council of Spain, because he despised the occurrents, and rested upon the first plot.” Nor is Puttenham’s short account to be overlooked “I have come to the lord keeper, and found him sitting in his gallery alone, with the works of Quintilian before him. Indeed he was a most eloquent man, of rare wisdom and learning, as ever I knew England to breed, and one that joyed as much in learned men and 0'.;d wits, from whose lippes Ihave seen to proceed more i;rave and natural eloquence than from all the orators of Oxford and Cambridge.”

Bishop Tanner has enrolled sir Nicholas Bacon among the writers of this country, on account of the following pieces, preserved in different manuscript collections. “An oration to the queen, exhorting her to Marriage;” “a speech to the lord mayor of London” “a speech to the serjeant called to a judge” “an oration touching the queen’s Marriage and Succession to the Crown” “his speech to the queen, when she made him lord keeper” “his speech in the star-chamber, 1568” “his speech to sir Thomas Gargrave, elected speaker for the commons house of parliament;” “his speech at the council table, concerning aid required by the Scots to expel the French out of Scotland” “his speech concerning an Interview between queen Elizabeth and the Scottish queen, 1572;” “his speech to the lords and commons in parliament, in the beginning” “his speech to Mr. Bell when he was called to be judge.” All these are in the Norwich manuscripts of More, 228 and are, we suppose, at present, in the public library of Cambridge. “Several speeches of lord keeper sir Nicholas Bacon, from 1558 to 1571 inclusive,” in Mr. Ralph Thoresby’s collection “a discourse upon certain points touching the Inheritance of the Crown, conceived by sir Anthony Brown, and answered by sir Nicholas Bacon,” published in 1723. “Three letters to Dr. Parker,” in Corpus Christi college, Cambridge mentioned by Strype, in his life of the archbishop. One of these, entitled “a letter of Mr. Nicholas Bacon, counsellor at law, to Parker, dean of Stoke college, in answer to certain cases put to him relating to the said college,” Mr. Strype has published at length. Holinshed, at the end of his second volume, p. 1589, ranks sir Nicholas Bacon in the catalogue of those who have written something concerning the history of England. Mr. Masters refers to a comment of sir Nicholas’s on the twelve minor prophets, dedicated to his son Anthony. And Mr. Strype has printed an excellent letter of advice, which was written by the lord keeper, a little before his death, to the queen, on the situation of her affairs. Many of his apophthegms are among those of lord Verulam, and many of his speeches are in the Parliamentary History.

, an eminent English divine of the thirteenth century, was born, according to the most probable conjectures, about 1168, but where is not known. He studied, however, at Oxford, where he distinguished himself by the quickness of his parts and his assiduous application. Thence according to the custom of that age, tie removed to Paris, and acquired such learning as the age afforded. After his return, of which we have no date, he settled at Oxford, and read divinity lectures. His colleague in this office was Dr. Edmund Rich, in our histories commonly styled Edmund Abingdon a man famous for literature, and yet, in the opinion of Leland, inferior to our Bacon. This Dr. Rich had been chosen by the canons of Salisbury, treasurer of their church, and in 1233, becoming archbishop of Canterbury, his friend Robert Bacon succeeded him as treasurer of the cathedral church of Salisbury. The same year he gained great reputation by a sermon preached before his royal master, king Henry III. at Oxford, whither his majesty came, in order to hold a general council of his lords. In this discourse, Bacon plainly told the king the mischiefs to which himself and his subjects were exposed, by his reposing too great a confidence in Peter de Rupibus, bishop of Winchester, and other foreigners and this honest sermon had a great effect on the mind of his master, and inclined him to give satisfaction to his nobility, who were then, generally speaking, disaffected. This seasonable service rendered to the nation, did more to secure his memory from oblivion, than his many years laborious reading, or even his learned writings.

After the promotion of Dr. Rich to the see of Canterbury, the famous Richard Fishakel, whom Lelaitd calls Fizacrius, read, in conjunction with our Bacon, in St. Edward’s schools, for many years together, to their own great honour, and to the benefit of all their hearers, nor were they less assiduous in preaching. In 1240, Bacon lost his great patron and intimate friend, Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, and perhaps this accident, joined to his fervent piety and love of retirement, might induce Bacon, though he was very old, to enter into the order of friars preachers, of which order also was his associate Fishakel. In gratitude to the memory of the archbishop, Bacon wrote his life, which was highly esteemed. He wrote also many pieces, which were esteemed in his day to be learned and useful. These were a book of “Glosses on the Holy Scriptures,” another <f On the Psalter,“and two collections of” Discourses“and” Lectures." At length worn Out with so long a course of studious application, he died in 1248, and is supposed to have been interred in the Dofninican convent at Oxford, Pitts, Leland, Hearne, Cave, and other authors, have confounded this Robert Bacon with Roger, the subject of the following article, as has been properly explained in the Biographia Britannica, from which this article is taken. Wood, in his history and antiquities of Oxford, has in general avoided this mistake.

Dr. Pegge, whose excellent life of bishop Grosseteste we have seen since the above article was written, thinks that Robert Bacon was either elder brother, or more probably, as Leland imagines, uncle of Roger Bacon. Robert was the person who initiated Edmund archbishop of Canterbury in the study of divinity, but Bulaeus, in his history of the university of Paris, says he was himself the scholar of that saint, which Dr. Pegge doubts. However, he wrote “Edmund’s life,” and is noticed by Leland, as the particular acquaintance and intimate of bishop Grosseteste. Matthew of Westminster gives him and Fishakel the character of being two such as were not exceeded by any in Christendom, or even equalled, especially as preachers. Dr. Pegge observes, that this character is the more extraordinary as coming from a monk, and that from the latter part of it, as well as from the list of Robert’s productions, it appears that his excellence lay in theology, a particular which constitutes an essential difference in the character of him and Roger Bacon, who was eminently skilled in the mathematics and philosophy, as well as divinity, and perhaps more so.

, an English prelate, son of sir Walter Bagot, bart. and brother to the first lord Bagot, was born Jan. 1, 1740. He was educated at Westminster school, and chosen thence student of Christ-church, took the degree of M.A. May 23, 1764, and LL.D. Feb. 29, 1772. In In 1771 he was made canon of Christ-church in the room of Dr. Moore, the late archbishop of Canterbury, and the same year he married Miss M. Hay, niece to the earl of Kinnoul. He was installed dean of Christ- church, Jan. 25, 1777, on the translation of Dr. Markham to the see of York, about which time he resigned the livings of Jevington and Eastbourne in Sussex, in favour of his nephew, the Rev. Ralph Sneyd. In 1782 he was promoted to the see of Bristol, translated to Norwich the year following, and thence to St. Asaph in 1790, where he rebuilt the palace on an uncommon plan, but necessary for the situation, where, among the mountains, and in the vicinity of the sea, storms are often violent. The palace, therefore, is low; and being on the assent of a hill, the vestibule, dining-room, and drawing-room, which occupy the whole front of the building, are on a level with the first floor in the other apartments, two of which, on the ground-floor, are a neat domestic chapel and a library.

, a gentleman of a Derbyshire family, was born in London, and in 1604 became a commoner of Brazen-nose college, Oxford, under the tuition of the pious Mr. Robert Bolton four years after, he took a degree in arts, and then removed to the Middle Temple, where he studied law, became a bencher, and of considerable reputation in his profession. In 1639 he was elected Lent reader, and chose for his first reading an argument very suitable to the growing turbulence of the times, endeavouring to prove that a parliament may be held without bishops, and that bishops ought not to meddle in civil affairs, but the lord keeper Finch, at archbishop Laud’s request, ordered him to desist. This, however, giving bim a character unhappily too popular, he was elected M. P. for the borough of Southwark, in the parliament of 1640; but perceiving the outrages the members were about to commit, beyond all bounds of temperate reformation, he went to Oxford, and sat in the parliament called there by the king. After continuing at Oxford for some time, he was taken prisoner by the rebels in Oxfordshire, and sent to London, where the house of commons committed him to the king’s bench, and he suffered afterwards in his estate in Northamptonshire. On the Restoration we find him treasurer of the Middle Temple. He died in 1662, and was interred in Morton-Pinkney in Northamptonshire, leaving two sons, Henry and Edward, of whom some notice will be taken. He published, 1. “The life and death of Mr. Robert Bolton,” London, 1633, 4to, 2. “Several speeches in parliament,” 1640, 1641, 4to. 3. “Two arguments in parliament, on the Canons and Praemunire,” London, 1641, 4to. 4. “Treatise defending the revenues of the church in Tithes and Glebe,” ib. 1646, 4to. 5. “Treatise maintaining the doctrine, liturgy, and discipline of the Church of England.” The two last written during his imprisonment. 6. “Short censure of the book of Will. Prynne, entitled ‘The university of Oxford’s plea refuted’,” 1648, 4to. 7. “Just vindication of the questioned part of his reading had in the Middle Temple hall, Feb. 24, 1639,” London, 1660, 4to. 8. “True narrative of the cause of silencing him, by the archbishop of Canterbury,” printed with the preceding. See Rushworth’s Collections, p. 990. 9. “The rights of the Crown of England, as it is established by law,” London, 1660, 8vo, written, as most of the others were, during his confinement.

, D.D. brother of the above, was also born at Broughton in 1632, and educated at Westminster school, and elected student of Christ-church in 1651, of which he was M. A. 1657. He was chaplain to sir Richard Fanshaw, ambassador in Spain and Portugal, and on his return was made chaplain to archbishop Stern, who gave him the prebend of Southwell and rectory of Castleton in Synderick. In 1667 he held the prebend of Barnaby in York cathedral, and in 1668, that of Friday Thorp. He took the degree of B.D. 1668, and D.D. 1671. In 1672 he was made chaplain to the lord treasurer Danby, and rector of St. Botolph’s church, Bishopsgate, London, which he exchanged for Houghton-le-Spring. In 1680 he was installed a prebendary of Durham, and died at Houghton, Dec. 30, 1709. He was of a totally different character from his brother. He published “Diatribae, or discourses upon select texts, against Papists and Socinians,” London, 1680, 8vo, and several single sermons.

, a French divine,and subpemtentiary of the metropolitan church of Paris, was born at Abbeville, it is supposed of English parents. He arrived at his doctor’s degree in 1628. In 1651 he published his most celebrated work, dedicated to the archbishop of Paris; “De triplici examine ordinand. confess, etpcenitent.” 8vo, which passed through many editions in his life- time. He assisted also in the publication of some editions of the Councils. In 1666 he published a work upon the most celebrated preachers from the earliest times to the beginning of the seventeenth century, a 4to volume, under the title of “Sapientia foris prgedicans,” in which he not only gives a succinct account of the lives of the most celebrated preachers, but also points out in what they excelled, and the most remarkable passages in their discourses. Before this he published a tivatise, “De Beneficio Crncis,” Paris, 1653. 8vo, in opposition to the sentiments of Jansenius on the subjects of grace and predestination. His “Philosophic affective” appeared at Paris in 1657, 12mo. It contains many small devotional pieces, and a curious collection of “Pieuses reparties,” or pious repartees, selected from various authors, and some from his own experience. The time of his death is not specified in Moreri, or any of the authorities from which this article is taken.

, an eminent Presbyterian divine of the seventeenth century, was born at Glasgow in the year 1599. His father, Mr. Thomas Baillie, was a citizen of that place, and son to Baillie of Jerviston. Our Robert Baillie was educated in the university of his native city where, having taken his degrees in arts, he turned his thoughts to the study of divinity and, receiving orders from archbishop Law, he was chosen regent of philosophy at Glasgow. While he was in this station, he had, for some years, the care of the education of Lord Montgomery, who, at length, carried him with him to Kilwinning; to which church he was presented by the earl of Eglintoun. Here he lived in the strictest friendship with that noble family, and the people connected with it; as he did also with his ordinary the archbishop of Glasgow, with whom he kept up an epistolary correspondence. In 1633, he declined, from modesty, the offer of a church in Edinburgh. Being requested in 1637, by his friend the archbishop, to preach a sermon before the assembly at Edinburgh, in recommendation of the canon and service book, he refused to do it; and wrote a handsome letter to the archbishop, assigning the reasons of his refusal. In 1638 he was chosen by the presbytery of Irvine, a member of the famous assembly at Glasgow, which was a prelude to the civil war. Though Mr. Baillie is said to have behaved in this assembly with great moderation, it is evident that he was by no means deficient in his zeal against prelacy and Arminianism. In 1640 he was sent by the covenanting lords to London, to draw up an accusation against archbishop Laud, for his obtrusions on the church of Scotland. While he was in England, he wrote the presbytery a regular account of public affairs, with a journal of the trial of the earl of Strafford. Not long after, on his return, he was appointed joint professor of divinity with Mr. David Dickson, in the university of Glasgow, and his reputation was become so great, that he had before this received invitations from the other three universities, all of which he refused. He continued in his professorship till the Restoration but his discharge of the duties of it was interrupted for a considerable time, by his residence in England for, in 1643, he was chosen one of the commissioners of the church of Scotland to the assembly of divines at Westminster. Though he never spoke in the debates of the assembly, he appears to have been an useful member, and entirely concurred in the principles and views of its leaders. Mr. Baillie returned again to his own country in the latter end of 1646. When, after the execution of Charles I. Charles II. was proclaimed in Scotland, our professor was one of the divines appointed by the general assembly to wait on the king at the Hague; upon which occasion, March 27, 1649, he made a speech in the royal presence, expressing in the strongest terms his abhorrence of the murder of the late king and, in his sentiments upon this event, it appears that the Presbyterian divines of that period, both at home and abroad, almost universally agreed. After the restoration of Charles II. Mr. Baillie, Jan. 23, 1661, by the interest of the earl of Lauderdale, with whom he was a great favourite, was made principal of the university of Glasgow, upon the removal of Mr. Patrick Gillespie, who had been patronised by Cromwell. It is said by several writers, that Mr. Baillie had the offer of a bishopric, which he absolutely refused. Though he was very loyal, and most sincerely rejoiced in his majesty’s restoration, he began, a little before his death, to be extremely anxious for the fate of Presbytery. His health failed him in the spring of 1662. During his illness he was visited by the new-made archbishop of Glasgow, to whom he is said to have addressed himself in the following words “Mr, Andrews (I will not call you my lord), king Charles would have made me one of these lords but I do not find in the New Testament, that Christ has any lords in his house.” Notwithstanding this common-place objection to the hierarchy, he treated the archbishop very courteously. Mr. Baillie died in July 1662, being 63 years f age. By his first wife, who was Lilias Fleming, of the family of Cardarroch, in the parish of Cadder, near Glasgow, he had many children, five of whom survived him, viz. one son, and four daughters. The posterity of his son, Mr. Henry Baillie, who was a preacher, but never accepted of any charge, still inherit the estate of Carnbrae, in the county of Lanerk, an ancient seat of the Baillies. Mr. Baillie’s character ha% been drawn to great advantage, not only by Mr. Woodrow, but by an historian of the opposite party. His works, which were very learned, and acquired him reputation in his own time, are 1. “Opus Historicum et Chronologicum,” Amsterdam, 1668, fol. 2. “A Defence of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, against Mr. Maxwell, bishop of Ross.” 3. “A Parallel betwixt the Scottish Service-Book and the Romish Missal, Breviary,” &c. 4. “The Canterburian Self-Conviction.” 5. “Queries anent the Service-Book.” 6. “Antidote against Arminianism.” 7. “A treatise on Scottish Episcopacy.” 8. “Laudensium.” 9. “Dissuasive against the Errors of the Times, with a Supplement.” 10. “A Reply to the Modest Enquirer,” with some other tracts, and several sermons upon public occasions but his “Opus Historicum et Chronologicum,” was his capital production. The rest of his writings, being chiefly on controversial and temporary subjects, can, at present, be of little or no value. But his memory is perhaps yet more preserved by a very recent publication, “Letters and Journals, carefully transcribed by Robert Aiken containing an impartial account of public transactions, civil, ecclesiastical, and military, both in England and Scotland, from 1637 to 1662 a period, perhaps, the most remarkable that is to be met with in the British History. With an Account of the Author’s life, prefixed and a Glossary annexed,” Edinburgh, 1775, 2 vols. 8vo. The chief correspondents of Mr. Baillie were, Mr. William Spang, minister first to the Scotch Staple at Campvere, and afterwards to the English Congregation in- Middleburgh in Zealand, who was his cousin -german Mr. David Dickson, professor of Divinity, first at Glasgow, then at Edinburgh and Messrs, Robert Ramsay and George Young, who were ministers in Glasgow. There are, in this collection, letters to several other persons but Mr. Spang was the gentleman with whom Mr. Baillie principally corresponded. The journals contain a history of the general assembly at Glasgow, in 1638; an account of the earl of Stafford’s trial the transactions of the general assembly and parliament, in 1641 and the proceedings of thegeneral assembly, in 1643.

, an eminent physician and astronomer, born in 1582, at Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, was educated at the public school of that town; and from thence went to Emanuel college in Cambridge, under the tuition of Dr. Joseph Hall, afterwards bishop of Norwich. When he had taken his degrees of bachelor and master of arts, he went, back to Leicestershire, where he taught a grammar-school for some years, and at the same time practised physic. He employed his leisure hours in the mathematics, especially astronomy, which had been his favourite study from his earliest years. By the advice of his friends, who thought his abilities too great for the obscurity of a country life, he removed to London, where he was admitted a fellow of the college of physicians. His description of the comet, which appeared in 1618, greatly raised his character. It was by this means he got acquainted with sir Henry Savile, who, in 1619, appointed him his first professor of astronomy at Oxford. Upon this he removed to that university, and was entered a master commoner of Merton college; the master and fellows whereof appointed him junior reader of Linacer’s lecture in 1631, and superior reader in 1635. As he resolved to publish correct editions of the ancient astronomers, agreeably to the statutes of the founder of his professorship; in order to make himself acquainted with the discoveries of the Arabian astronomers, he began the study of the Arabic language when he was above 40 years of age. Some time before his death, he removed to a house opposite Merton college, where he died in 1643. His body was conveyed to the public schools, where an oration was pronounced in his praise by the university orator; and was carried from thence to Merton college church, where it was deposited near the altar. His published works are, 1. “An astronomical description of the late Comet, from the 18th of November 1618, to the 16th of December following,” London, 1619, 4to. This piece was only a specimen of a large work, which the author intended to publish in Latin, under the title of “Cometographia.” 2. “Procli sphæra. Ptolomæi de hypothesibus Planetarum liber singularis.” To which he added Ptolemy’s “Canon regnorum.” He collated these pieces with ancient manuscripts, and has given a Latin version of them, illustrated with figures, 1620, 4to. 3. “Canicularia; a treatise concerning the dog-star and the canicular days.” Published at Oxford in 1648, by Mr. Greaves, together with a demonstration of the heliacal rising of Sirius, or the dog-star, for the parallel of Lower Egypt. Dr. Bainbridge undertook this work at the request of archbishop Usher, but left it imperfect; being prevented by the breaking out of the civil war, or by death.

Besides what we have mentioned, there are several other tracts which were never published, but left by his will to archbishop Usher; among whose manuscripts they are preserved in the library of the college of Dublin. Amongst others are the following, 1. A theory of the Sun. 2. A theory of the Moon. 3. A discourse concerning the Quantity of the Year. 4. Two volumes of Astronomical observations. 5. Nine or ten volumes of miscellaneous papers relating to the Mathematics. He undertook likewise a description of the British monarchy, in order to shew the advantages of the union of England and Scotland under one monarch; but this treatise was either lost or suppressed by him.

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

, bishop of London in the reigns of Edward I. and II. was educated at Merton college in Oxford, became archdeacon of Middlesex, and, in 1294, dean of St. Paul’s. The see of London being vacant by the death of Richard de Gravesend, Baldock was unanimously chosen, Sept. 20, 1304. But, his election being controverted, he was obliged to repair to Rome and, having obtained the pope’s confirmation, was consecrated at Lyons by Peter Hispanus, cardinal of Alba, Jan. 30, 1306. Being returned into England, he made profession of canonical obedience to the archbishop in the church of Canterbury, March 22, 1306. The same year he was appointed by the pope one of the commissioners for the examination of the articles alleged against the knights templars, and in that year also he was made lord high chancellor of England but Edward I. dying soon after, he held that post little more than a year. Dec. 2, 1308, this prelate, with the approbation of the chapter, settled a stipend on the chancellor of St. Paul’s for reading lectures in divinity in that church, according to a constitution of his predecessor, Richard de Gravesend. He contributed 200 marks towards building the chapel of St. Mary, on the east side of St. Paul’s. He founded also a chantry of two priests in the said church, near the altar of St. Erkenwald. He was a person of a very amiable character, both for morals and learning, and deserved well of his country by his writings, which were, 1. “Historia Anglica, or a history of the British affairs down to his own time.” It is not now extant, though Leland says he saw it at London. 2. “A collection of the statutes and constitutions of the church of St. Paul’s,” extant in the library of that cathedral in 1559. Bishop Balclock died at Stepney, July 24, 1313, having sat from his consecration a little more than seven years, and was buried under a marble monument in the chapel of St. Mary.

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

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

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

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

, a learned French Jesuit, was born at Metz, June 3, 1667, and received into the society of Jesuits, at Nancy, in Nov. 1682. In 1700, when he took the four vows, he was professor of Hebrew in the college of Strasburgh, and before that, when much younger, he taught the lower classes at Dijon, and gave essons on rhetoric at Pont-a-Mousson. In his youth he studied Greek and Latin with ardour, and afterwards applied with equal zeal to Hebrew and Christian antiquities, until his continued study had injured his health. With a view of restoring it by travelling, he was sent from Strasburgh to Dijon, where he had the care of the public library. In 1717 he was called to Rome, and for some time was censor of the press but the air of Rome disagreeing with him, he returned to France, where he was successively rector of the Jesuits colleges at Dijon, at Pont-a-Mousson, and other places. His last employment was that of librarian, at Rheims, where he died, March 9, 1743. He was in very high esteem among his brethren, and acquired considerable reputation by his works, which are, 1. “Oraison funebre de M. Pierre Creagh,” archbishop of Dublin, Strasburgh, 1705, 4to. 2. “Reponse a l'histoire des Onicles de M. de Fontenelle,” Strasburgh, 1707, and 1709, 8vo. It was the general sentiment of the church that the pagan oracles were the work of demons, and that they were silenced by the power of Jesus Christ, until Van Dale, an Anabaptist physician at Haerlem, endeavoured to prove, that these oracles were merely the quackish contrivances of the heathen priests, and that instead of attributing their silence to the power of Christ, we ought to refer it to the destruction of their temples by the Christian emperors. Fontenelle, when writing on this subject, adopted the opinion of Van Dale, and gave it to the public in his own polished and popular style, which induced Baltus to answer him as the chief propagator of this new doctrine, and to address his book to him. Fontenelle made no reply but Le Clerc, in his Bibiiotheque Choisie, for 1707, criticised Baltus’ work in such a manner as to draw from him, 3. “Suite de la Reponse, &c.” Strasburgh, 1708, 8vo, and both the answer and continuation were translated into English by Hickes, and printed 'at London, the first in 1708, and the other in 1709. At the conclusion of the preface to the continuation, he announced another work, in which he promised to examine more closely the platonism attributed to the fathers of the church, and the custom of referring the greatest mysteries of our religion to certain ideas and opinions invented by a pagan philosopher. This he published accordingly under the title 4. “Defense ties Ss. Peres accuses de Platonisme,” Paris, 1711, 4to. Dupin has given a good analysis of this learned work in the second volume of his ecclesiastical authors of the eighteenth century. 5. “Jugement des Ss. Peres sur la morale de la philosophic paienne,” Strasburgh, 1719, 4to. 6. “Reflexions spirituelles et sentimens de piete ciu II. P. Charles de Lorraine,” a trans^ hition from the Italian, Dijon, 1720, 12 mo. 7. “La Vie de Sainte Fabronie,” from the Greek, ib. 1721, 12mo. 8. “Les actes de S. Barlaam,” from the Greek, ib. 1720, 12mo. 9. < Sentimens du R. P. Baltus, sur le traite de la foiblesse de l'esprit humain.“These remarks on M. Huet’s work were addressed to the abbe Olivet, and were printed in the literary and historical memoirs of father Molets. 10. ct La religion Chretienne, prouvee par l‘accomplisserncnt des propheties de l’ancien et du nonveau Testament, suivant la methode des Ss. Peres,” Paris, 1728, 4to. 11. “Defense des propheties de la religion Chretienne,” Paris, 1737, 3 vols. 12mo. In this he examines and refutes the opinions of Grotius at great length, and shews that the most ancient fathers of the church, as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, &c. never thought of interpreting the prophecies of the old Testament in a double sense but applied them in their literal meaning to the Messiah. The same sentiments he defended in a letter inserted in the Memoires deTrevoux, for March, 1738.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, ranked among the old English poets of the sixteenth century, was a native of Somersetshire, and born at Bruton, in that county, where he was educated. He afterwards went to Cambridge, and studied philosophy and divinity, and when in orders acquired the character of a learned and pious preacher. It is in his favour that he was long domestic chaplain to archbishop Parker, whom he assisted in the collecting of books and Mss. and informs us himself that within the space of four years, he had added six thousand seven hundred books to the archbishop’s library. This information we have in his “Doom.” Speaking of the archbishop, under the year 1575, the year he died, he adds, “with whom books remained (although the most part, according to the time, superstitious and fabulous, yet) some worthy the view and safe-keeping, gathered within four years, of divinity, astronomy, history, physic, and others of sundry arts and sciences (as I can truly avouch, having his grace’s commission, whereunto his hand is yet to be seen) six thousand seven hundred books, by my own travel, whereof choice being taken, he most graciously bestowed many on Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, &c.” In 1574, he was rector of Merstham in Surrey, and afterwards, being then D. D. chaplain to Henry lord Hunsdon, to whom he dedicated his translation of “BartholomaBus de proprietatibus rerum,” Lund. 1582, fol. The other work above-mentioned is entitled “The Doom, warning all men to judgment: wherein are contained for the most part all the strange prodigies happened in the world, with divers secret figures of revelation, gathered in the manner of a general chronicle out of approved authors, by Stephen Batman, professor in divinity,” London, 1581, 4to. It appears to he a translation of Lycosthenes “De prodigiis et ostentis,” with additions from the English chronicles. He published also “A christall glass of Christian reformation, wherein the godly may behold the coloured abuses used in this our present time,” London, 1569, 4to, with some pieces of poetry interspersed. Mr. Ritson mentions another of his publications in the same year, but without place or printer’s name, called “The travayled Pilgrime, bringing newes from all partes of the worlde, such like scarce harde of before,” 4to. This Mr. Ritson describes as an allegorico-theological romance of the life of man, imitated from the French or Spanish, in verse of fourteen syllables. His other works, enumerated by Tanner, are, “Joyfull news out of Helvetia from Theophrastus Paracelsus, declaring the ruinate fall of the Papal Dignitie; also a treatise against Usury,” Lond. 1575, 8vo. “A preface before John Rogers, displaying of the family of Love,” 1579, 8vo. “Of the arrival of the three Graces into England, lamenting the abuses of this present age,” 'London, 4to, no date. “Golden book of the leaden gods,” Lond. 1577, 4to, mentioned by Mr. Warton as one of the first of those descriptions of the heathen gods, called a Pantheon. “Notes to Leland’s Assertio Arthuri, translated by Rich. Robinson,” Lond. no date. Batman died in 1587. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to add that his works are now rarely to be met with, particularly the “Doom,” which had a great many wooden cuts of monsters, prodigies, &c. His “Christall glass” and the "Golden book are in the British Museum.

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

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

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

, an English divine of considerable eminence at Cambridge, was a native of London. He received his school-education at Withersfield, in Essex, and was afterwards admitted of Christ college, Cambridge, where his behaviour was so loose and irregular that his father left what he meant to bestow on him, in the hands of Mr. Wilson, a tradesman of London, with an injunction not to let him have it, unless he forsook his evil courses. This happy change took place not long after his father’s death, and Mr. Wilson delivered up his, trust. In the interim, although his moral conduct was censurable, such was his proficiency in learning, that he was elected a fellow of his college; and after his reformation, having been admitted into holy orders, he was so highly esteemed for his piety, eloquence, and success, as a preacher, that he was chosen to succeed the celebrated Perkins, as lecturer of St. Andrew’s church. In this office he continued until silenced for certain opinions, not favourable to the discipline of the church, by Abp. Bancroft’s visitor, Mr. (afterwards archbishop) Harsnet; and Mr. Baynes appealed, but in vain, to the archbishop. On another occasion he was summoned by Dr. Harsnet, then bishop of Chichester, to the privy-council, but acquitted himself so much to the satisfaction of all present, that he met with no farther trouble. During his suspension from the regular exercise of his ministry, he employed himself on his writings, none of which, if we may judge from the dates of those we have seen, were published in his life-time. He died at Cambridge, in 1617. His works are: 1. “A commentary on the first chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians, handling the controversy of Predestination,” London, 1618, 4to. 2. “The Diocesan’s Trial, wherein all the sinews of Dr. Downham’s defence are brought into three heads, and dissolved,” 1621. 3. “Help to true happiness, explaining the fundamentals of Christian religion,” London, 12m'o. 3d edit. 1635. 4. “Letters of consolation, exhortation, direction, with a sermon of the trial of a Christian’s estate, 1637, 12mo. 5.” A Commentary on the epistle to the Ephesians," Lond. fol. 1643.

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

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

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

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

The sons of the archbishop were James, Alexander, and John. They were all legitimated in his own life-time, and are termed the natural sons of the right reverend, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Henry was much disturbed at the news of Becket’s death, and immediately dispatched an embassy to Rome-to clear himself from the imputation of being the cause of it. Immediately all divine offices ceased in the church of Canterbury; and this for a year, excepting nine days, at the end of which, by order of the pope, it was re-consecrated. Two years after, Becket was canonized; an'd the following year, Henry, returning to England, went to Canterbury, where he did penance as a testimony of his regret for the murder of Becket. When he came within sight of the church, where the archbishop was buried, he alighted off his horse, and walked barefoot, in the habit of a pilgrim, till he came to Becket’s tomb; where, after he had prostrated himself, and prayed for a considerable time, he submitted to be scourged by the monks, and passed all that day and night without any refreshment, and kneeling upon the bare stone. In 1221, Becket’s body was taken up, in the presence of king Henry III. and several nobility, &nd deposited in a rich shrine on the east side of the church. The miracles said to be wrought at his tomb were so numerous, that we are told two large volumes of them were kept in that church. His shrine was visited from all parts, and enriched with the most costly gifts and offerings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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