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

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.

In this memorable year, the government, on a suspicion of his being concerned in a plot in favour of the Pretender, had him apprehended August 24, and committed prisoner to the Tower. Two officers, the under-secretary, and a messenger, went about two o'clock in the afternoon to the bishop’s house at Westminster, with orders to bring him and his papers before the council. He happened to be in his night-gown when they came in, and being made acquainted with their business, he desired time to dress himself. In the mean time his secretary came in, and the officers went to search for his papers in the sealing of which the messenger brought a paper, which he pretended to have found in his close-siool, and desired it might be sealed up with the rest. His lordship observing it, and believing it to be a forged one, desired the officers not to do it, and to bear witness that the paper was not found with him. Nevertheless they did it and, though they behaved themselves with some respect to him, they suffered the. messengers to treat him in a very rough manner, threatening him, if he did not make haste to dress himself, they would carry him away undrest as he was. Upon which he ordered his secretary to see his papers all sealed up, and went himself directly to the Cockpit, where the council waited for him. The behaviour of the messengers upon this occasion seems to have been very unwarrantable, if what the author of “A letter to the Clergy of the Church of England,” &c. tells us, be true, that the persons directed by order of the king and council to seize his lordship and his papers, received a strict command to treat him with great respect and reverence. However this was, when he came before the council, he behaved with a great deal of calmness, and they with much civility towards him. He had liberty to speak for himself as much as he pleased, and they listened to his defence with a great deal of attention; and, what is more unusual, after he was withdrawn, he had twice liberty to re-enter the council-chamber, to make for himself such representations and requests as he thought proper. It is said, that while he was under examination, he made use of our Saviour’s answer to the Jewish council, while he stood before them “If I tell you, ye will not believe me and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.” After three quarters of an hour’s stay at the Cockpit, he was sent to the Tower, privately, in his own coach, without any noise or observation.

This commitment of a bishop upon the suspicion of hightreason, as it was a thing rarely practised since the Reformation, occasioned various speculations among the people. March 23, 1723, a bill was brought into the House of Commons, for “inflicting certain pains and penalties on Francis lord bishop of Rochester” a copy of which was sent to him, with notice that he had liberty of counsel and solicitors for making his defence. Under these circumstances, the bishop applied, by petition, to the House of Lords, for their direction and advice, as to his conduct in this conjuncture and April 4, he acquainted the Speaker of the House of Commons, by a letter, that he was determined to give that house no trouble, in relation to the bill depending therein but should be ready to make his defence against it, when it should be argued in another house, of which he had the honour to be a member. On the 9th, the bill passed the House of Commons, and was the same day sent up to the House of Lords for their concurrence. May 6, being the day appointed by the lords for the first reading of the bill, bishop Atterbury was brought to Westminster, to make his defence. The counsel for the bishop were, sir Constantine Phipps and William Wynne, esq. for the king, Mr. Reeve and Mr. Wearg. The proceedings continued above a week; and on Saturday, May 11, the bishop was permitted to plead for himself, which he did in a very eloquent speech. On Monday the 13th he was carried, for the last time, from the Tower, to hear the reply of the king’s counsel to his defence. On the 15th, the bill was read the third time, and, after a long and warm detiate, passed on the 16th, by a majority of 83 to 43. On the 27th, the king came to the house, and confirmed it by his royal assent. June 18, 1723, this eminent prelate, having the day before taken leave of his friends, who, from the time of passing the bill against him, to the day of his departure, had free access to him in the Tower, embarked on board the Aldborough man of war, and landed the Friday following at Calais. When he went on shore, having been informed that lord Bolingbroke, who had, after the rising of the parliament, received the king’s pardon, was arrived at the same place on his return to England, he said, with an air of pleasantry, “Then I am exchanged” and it was, in the opinion of Mr. Pope on the same occasion, “a sign of the nation’s being afraid of being over-run with too much politeness, when it could not regain one great man, but at the expence of another.” But the severity of his treatment did not cease even with his banishment. The same vindictive spirit pursued him in foreign climes. NoBritish subject was even permitted to visit him without the king’s sign manual, which Mr. Morice was always obligee! to solicit, not only for himself, but for every one of his family whom he carried abroad with him, for which the fees of office were very high.

When bishop Atterbury first entered upon his banishment, Brussels was the place destined for his residence 5 but, by the arts and instigations of the British ministers, he was compelled to leave that place, and retire to Paris. There, being solicited by the friends of the Pretender to enter into their negociations, he too readily complied, as appears by his correspondence published at Edinburgh in 1768, 4to; but, that he might appear to avoid them, he changed his abode for Montpelier in 1728, and after residing there about two years, returned to Paris, where he died February 15, 1731-2. The affliction which he sustained by the death of his daughter, in 1729, was thought to have hastened his own dissolution.

How far the bishop was attached in his inclinations to the Stuart family, to which he might be led by early prejudices of education, and the divided opinions of the times, is now too obvious to admit of controversy. But that he should have been weak enough to engage in a plot so inconsistent with his station, and so clumsily devised (to say the least of it, and without entering into his solemn asseverations of innocence), is utterly inconsistent with that cunning which his enemies allowed him. The duke of Wharton, it is well known, was violent against him, till convinced by his unanswerable reasoning.

It has been said that Atterbury’s wishes reached to the bishopric of London, or even to York or Canterbury. But those who were better acquainted with his views, knew that Winchester would have been much more desirable to him than either of the others. And it has been asserted, from respectable authority, that that bishopric was offered to him whenever it should become vacant (and till that event should happen, a pension of 5000l. a-year, besides an ample provision for Mr. Morice) if he would cease to give the opposition he did to sir Robert Wai pole’s administration, by his speeches and protests in the House of Lords. When that offer was rejected by the bishop, then the contrivance for his ruin was determined on but surely no contrivance could have been successful, had he been innocent of the treason laid to his charge.

In his speech in the House of Lords, the bishop mentions his being “engaged in a correspondence with two learned men (Bp. Potter and Dr. Wall) on settling the times of writing the four Gospels.” Part of this correspondence is now published. The same subject the bishop pursued during his exile, having consulted the learned of all nations, and had nearlybrought the whole to a conclusion when he died. These laudable labours are an ample confutation of bishop Newton’s assertion, that Atterbury “wrote little whilst in exile, but a few criticisms on French authors.”

His body was brought over to England, accompanied by his manuscripts, which underwent a strict examination but as nothing of his is now to be found in the State-paper office, it is probable that the whole was lost by neglect, or wilfully destroyed. He was interred on the 12th of May following, in Westminster abbey, in a vault which, in 1722, had been prepared by his directions. There is no memorial over his grave nor could there well be any, unless his friends would have consented (which it is most probable they refused to do) that the words implying him to have died bishop of Rochester should have been omitted on his tomb. The funeral was performed in a very private manner, attended only by his son-in-law Mr. Morice, and his two chaplains, Dr. Savage and Mr. Moore. Upon the urn which contained his bowels was inscribed,

Some time before his death, he published a Vindication of himself, bishop Smalridge, and Dr. Aldrich, from a charge brought against them by Mr. Oldmixon, of having altered and interpolated the copy of lord Clarendons “History of the Rebellion.” Bishop Atterbury’s Sermons are extant in four volumes in 8vo those contained in the two first were published by himself, and dedicated to his great patron sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester those in the two last were published after his death, by Dr. Thomas Moore, his lordship’s chaplain. Four admirable Visitation charges accompany his Epistolary Correspondence, which was completed in 1798, by Mr. Nichols, in 5 vols. 8vo containing also all his tracts, and a vast mass of curious and interesting ecclesiastical history. To the last volume is prefixed a life, written with great care and accuracy, and correcting the many mistakes of preceding biographers. It is needless to add how much the present article stands indebted to Mr. Nichols’s labours.

As to bishop Atterbury’s character, however the moral and political part of it may have been differently represented by the opposite parties, it is universally agreed, that he was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, a fine writer, and a most excellent preacher. His learned friend Smalridge, in the speech he made, when he presented him to the upper house of convocation, as prolocutor, styles him “Vir in nullo literarum genere hospes, in plerisque artibus et studiis diu et feliciter exercitatus, in maxime perfectis literarum disciplinis perfectissimus.” In his controversial writings, he was sometimes too severe upon his adversary, and dealt rather too much in satire and invective but this his panegyrist imputes more to the natural fervour of his wit, than to any bitterness of temper, or prepense malice. In his sermons, however, he is not only every way unexceptionable, but highly to be commended. The truth is, his talent as a preacher was so excellent and remarkable, that it may not improperly he said, that he owed his preferment to the pulpit, nor any hard matter to trace him, through his writings, to his several promotions in the church. We shall conclude bishop Atterbury’s character, as a preacher, with the encomium bestowed on him by the author of “The Tatler” who, having observed that the English clergy too much neglect the art of speaking, makes a particular exception with regard to our prelate; who, says he, “has so particular a regard to his congregation, that he commits to his memory what he has to say to them, and has so soft and graceful a behaviour, that it must attract your attention. His person,” contnues this author, “it is to be confessed, is no small recommendation but he is to be highly commended for not losing that advantage, and adding to a propriety of speech (which might pass the criticism of Longinus) an action which would have been approved by Demosthenes. He has a peculiar force in his way, and has many of his audience, who could not be intelligent hearers of his discourse, were there no explanation as well as grace in his action. This art of his is used with the most exact and honest skill. He never attempts your passions till he has convinced your: reason. All the objections which you can form are laid open and dispersed, before he uses the least vehemence in his sermon; but when he thinks he has your head, he very soon wins your heart, and never pretends to shew the beauty of holiness, till he has convinced you of the truth of it.” In his letters to Pope, &c. bishop Atterbury appears in a pleasing light, both as a writer and as a man. In ease and elegance they are superior to those of Pope, which are more studied. There are in them several beautiful references to the classics. The bishop excelled in his allusions to sacred as well as profane authors.

The following anecdote was first communicated to the public by the late Dr. Maty, on the credit of lord Chesterfield: “I went,” said lord Chesterfield, “to Mr. Pope, one morning, at Twickenham, and found a large folio Bible, with gilt clasps, lying before him upon his table and, as I knew his way of thinking upon that book, I asked him jocosely, if he was going to write an answer to it It is a present, said he, or rather a legacy, from my old friend the bishop of Rochester. I went to take my leave of him yesterday in the Tower, where I saw this Bible upon his table. After the first compliments, the bishop said to me,” My friend Pope, considering your infirmities, and my age and exile, it is not likely that we should ever meet again and therefore I give you this legacy to remember me by it. Take it home with you, and let me advise you to abide by it.“” Does your lordship abide by it yourself“” I do.“If you do, my lord, it is but lately. May I beg to know what new light or arguments have prevailed with you now, to entertain an opinion so contrary to that which you entertained of that book all the former part of your life r” The bishop replied, “We have not time to talk of these things, but take home the book; I will abide by it, and I recommend you to do so too, and so God bless you.” It has been justly remarked^ that whatever were the bishop’s faults, we do not recollect any thing that indicates a disbelief or a doubt of the truth of Christianity. His actions and writings rather display him in the light of a zealous supporter of religion than in that of an infidel. His sermons on the miraculous propagation of the Gospel, and on a standing revelation’s being the best means of conviction, not to mention others of his discourses, are important evidences of his attachment to the Christian religion. It is observable, that he generally treats unbelievers with contempt, as an ignorant, superficial, and conceited set of men, which he vyould scarcely have done had he been of the same sentiments for, though a man may conceal, or deny, or even persecute the opinions which he himself holds, it is not very likely that he should appear to despise the retainers of them. With respect to the above anecdote related by Dr. Maty, the late Mr. Badcock, from a zeal to vindicate the bishop’s character, as if it were insinuated that he had once been an unbeliever, wrote a letter in which he endeavoured to deny the authenticity of the anecdote but, in our opinion, without arriving at that conclusion.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the beginning of the fifth century, was born at Sebastia, now Soustia, a city of Armenia. He was first educated by the Macedonian monks in the principles of their sect, but when arrived at riper years, he embraced the faith of the Catholic church. In the year 406, being then a priest, he was chosen to succeed St. Chrysostom, who had been deprived of the see of Constantinople, but met with much obstruction from the friends of Chrysostom, and from all the bishops of the East, who considered Chrysostom as unjustly deprived, and refused to communicate with the new patriarch. Atticus, upon this, procured an edict from the emperor to compel them, but finding this produced no other effect than schism and confusion, after the death of Chrysostom he ordered his name to be put in the Diptychs, or ecclesiastical tables, in which were inserted the names of persons who had died in the peace and communion of the church, and those names were read at the altar during divine service. He also wrote to St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, earnestly intreating him to do the same, but Cyril answered that he should by that step appear to condemn those who had deposed Chrysostom. Both these letters are extant in Nicephorus Calixtus’s Ecclesiastical History. There is another letter of his extant to Calliopius, by which he appears to have been a man of moderate principles towards those who differed from him in opinion. There are likewise some fragments of a homily on the birth of Christ, in the general collection of the Councils, and a fragment of a letter of his to Eupsychius, quoted by Theodoret. Writers differ much in their estimate of his general character and learning.

, the son of William Aubespine, who was ambassador from the French court in England, became bishop of Orleans in 1604. He was remarkable for his zeal as a divine, and his great application as a student, and was employed, as his father had been, in many public transactions. He died at Grenoble, Aug. 15, 1630, in the 52d year of his age. His writings are, “De veteribus ecclesiae ritibus,” 1622, 4to, a work which discovers much knowledge of ecclesiastical antiquities; “Un traite de Tancienne police de l'Eglise,” respecting the administration of the eucharist. He published also notes on the Councils, and on Tertullian. His brother Charles became marquis de Chateau-Neuf, and an eminent statesman in the seventeenth century.

, daughter of Claude d'Aubespine, baron of Chateauneuf, and wife of Nicolas de Neufville de Villeroi, secretary of state, was a French lady whose beauty and talents rendered her one of the ornaments of the courts of Charles IX. Henry III. and Henry IV. Ronsard has celebrated her in a sonnet, in which he quaintly advises her to substitute the laurels she had merited for the hawthorn (aubespine) which composed her name. She died at Villeroi in 1506, and Bertaud, bishop of Seez, wrote an epitaph on her. She is said to have translated Ovid’s epistles, and to have written several original works in verse and prose, none of which, however, we find specified in our authorities. Her statue, in white marble, is in the present French museum.

, an English prelate, was the son of James, lord Audley, by Eleanor his wife, but in what year he was born does not appear. He was educated in Lincoln college in Oxford, and in the year 1463 took the degree of bachelor of arts in that university, and it is presumed, that of master of arts also, but the register at that period is imperfect. In 1471, he became prebendary of Farendon in the church of Lincoln, and in October, 1475, attained the like preferment in the church of Wells. On Christmas day the same year, he became archdeacon of the East riding of Yorkshire, and had other considerable preferments, which he quitted, on his being promoted to the bishopric of Rochester, in 1480, In 1492, he was translated to Hereford, and thence in 1502, to Salisbury, and about that time was made chancellor of the most noble order of the Garter. He was a man of learning, and of a generous spirit. In 1518, he gave four hundred pounds to Lincoln college to purchase lands, and bestowed upon the same house the patronage of a chantry, which he had founded in the cathedral church of Salisbury. He was a benefactor likewise to St. Mary’s church in Oxford, and contributed towards erecting the curious stone pulpit therein. Bishop Godwin likewise tells us, that he gave the organs but Anthony Wood says, that does not appear. He gave, however, 200l. to Chichele’s chest, which had been robbed a very considerable benefaction at that time. He died Aug. 23, 1524, at Ramsbury in the county of Wilts, and was buried in a chapel which he erected to the honour of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, in the cathedral of Salisbury, being then, doubtless, a very old jnan, as he had sat forty-four years a bishop.

, 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.

, in Latin Augentius, a native of Villeneuve, in the diocese of Sens in Champagne, lived in the sixteenth century, and was esteemed on account of his learning and writings. The office of the king’s professor in the Greek tongue in the university of Paris was designed for him in 1574, and he took possession of it in 1578. He was also preceptor to the son of that Francis Olivier who was chancellor of France, as appears from the preliminary epistle of a book, which he dedicated to Anthony Olivier bishop of Lombes, and uncle to his pupil, dated from Paris the 1st of March 1555. The time of his death is not certainly known but Francis Parent, his successor in the professorship of the Greek tongue, entered upon it in 1595, and Moreri gives that as the date of Auge’s death. He wrote, 1. “A consolatory oration upon the death of Messire Francis Olivier, chancellor of France,” Paris, 1560. 2. “Two dialogues concerning Poetical Invention, the true knowledge of the Art of Oratory, and of the Fiction of Fable,” Paris, 1560. 3. “A discourse upon the Decree made by the parliament of Dole in Burgundy with relation to a man accused and convicted of being a Werewolf.” 4. “The institution of a Christian Prince, translated from the Greek of Synesius, bishop of Syrene, with an oration concerning the True Nobility, translated from the Greek of Phiio Judseus,” Paris, 1555. 5. “Four homilies of St. Macarius the Egyptian,” Paris, and Lyons 1559. 6. “A letter to the noble and virtuous youth Anthony Thelin, son of the noble Thelin, author of the book entitled `Divine Tracts,' in which is represented the true Patrimony and Inheritance which fathers ought to leave to their children.” This letter is printed in the beginning of the above-mentioned “Divine Tracts,” Paris, 1565. He revised and corrected them, Paris, 1556. 6. “A French translation of the most beautiful Sentences and Forms of Speaking in the familiar Epistles of Cicero.” The “Discourse upon the Decree,” &c. relates to a man convicted of having murdered and eat one or two persons, for which he was burnt alive.

, a distinguished French critic, was born at Paris, Dec. 12, 1724, embraced the clerical profession, and obtained the chair of the professor of belles lettres in the college of Rouen. The bishop of Lescar No6 made him his grand vicar, and usually called him his grand vicar in partibus Atheniensium, in allusion to his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, from which he had made translations of the greater part of the orators, with much purity. He was received into the academy of Inscriptions, where he was much esteemed for his learning and personal virtues. He lived, it is said, among the great, and told them truth, and to his opponents was remarkable for canckmr and urbanity. In his private character he appears to have been distinguished for a love of letters, and an independent and philosophic spirit which kept him from soliciting patronage or preferment. He died Feb. 7, 1791. His principal works were, “The Orations of Demosthenes and Eschines on the crown,” Rouen,. 1768, 12mo; “The whole works of Demosthenes and Eschines,” 6 vols. 8vo, 1777 and 1788. This is accompanied with remarks upon the genius and productions of these two great orators, with critical notes on the Greek text, a preliminary discourse concerning eloquence; a treatise on the jurisdiction and laws of Athens and other pieces, relative to Grecian laws and literature, which have great merit. His countrymen, however, do not speak highly of his translations, as conveying the fire and spirit of the original. They say he is exact and faithful, but cold. In 1781 he published, in 3 vols. 8vo, “The Works of Isocrates.” This is thought preferable to the former, yet still the French critics considered the translator as better acquainted with Greek than French the truth perhaps is, that the French language is less capable of receiving the fire and sublimity of the great orators than those critics are willing to suspect. In 1783 he published the “Works of Lysias,” 8vo; in 1785 “The homilies, discourses, and letters ef S. John Chrysostom,” 4 vols. 8vo; in 1787, “Select orations of Cicero,” in 3 vols. 8vo; in 1788, “Orations from Herodotus, Thucydides, and the works of Xenophon,” 2 vols. 8vo. In 1789, he published “Projet d' Education Publique” at least such is the title of the work, but we suspect it to be a re-publication of some “Discourses on Education, delivered in the Royal college at Rouen, to which are subjoined, Reflections upon Friendship,” which appeared first in 1775, and were commended for their spirit, taste, and judgment. Some political works were published in his name after his death, and a piece entitled De la Tragedie Grecque,“1792, 8vo. To his works also may be added an edition of” Isocrates, in Gr. and Lat." 3 vols. 8vo, and 4to, a very beautiful book. As an editor and critic, he discovers, in all his editions, much taste and judgment; but perhaps his countrymen do him no injury in supposing that the latter in general predomU nated.

, an eminent father of the church, was born at'Tagasta, Nov. 13, in the year 354, of his father Patricius, a citizen of that place, and his mother Monica, a lady of distinguished piety. He first applied to his studies in his native place, and afterwards at Madora and Carthage. In this latter city his morals became corrupted, and he had a son born to him, named Adeodat, the fruit of a criminal connexion. He then became a proselyte to the sect of the Manichaeans, and an able defender of their opinions. The perusal of some part of Cicero’s philosophy is said first to have detached him from his immoral conduct; but one thing, Baillet says, gave him uneasiness in this work, and that was his not finding the name of Jesus, which had been familiar to him from his infancy in the writings of the celebrated Roman. He resolved, therefore, to read the holy scriptures, but the pride of his heart, and his incapacity to taste the simple beauties of these, made him still give the preference to Cicero. In the mean time he acquired considerable fame in the schools of eloquence, and was a professor of it successively at Tagasta, at Carthage, at Rome, and at Milan, whither he had been sent by the prefect Symmachus. St. Ambrose was at this time bishop of Milan, and Augustin, affected by his sermons, and by the tears of his mother Monica, began to think seriously of forsaking his irregularities and his Manichasism. He was accordingly baptised at Milan in the year 387, in the thirty-second year of his age, and renouncing his rhetorical pursuits, studied only the gospel. On his return to Tagasta, he betook himself to fasting and prayer, gave his property to the poor, and formed a society ainorrg some of his friends. Some time after, being at Hippo, Valerius, then bishop of that diocese, ordained him a priest abaut the commencement of the year 391. Next year we find him disputing with great success against the Manichees, and in the year 392 he gave so learned an exposition of the symbol of faith, in the council of Hippo, that the bishops were unanimously of opinion he ought to be chosen one of their number. In the year 395, another council appointed him coadjutor to Valerius, in the see of Hippo, and it was in this situation that the spirit and virtues of Augustin began to display themselves. He established in the espiscopal mansion a society of clerks, with whom he lived, and became more active in his opposition to heresies, particularly the Manichuean, converting one Felix, a very celebrated character among them. Nor did he less prove his judgment and eloquence in a conference between the Catholic 1 bishops and the Donatists at Carthage in the year 411, where he bent his endeavours to procure unity in the church. His great work “On the city of God,” now made its appearance.

, 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.

Before proceeding to their success here, it is necessary to advert to some circumstances highly in their favour. Christianity, although not extended over the kingdom, was not at this period unknown in Britain, notwithstanding it had been much persecuted by the Saxons. They were at this time, however, disposed to look upon their Christian brethren with a more favourable eye, and the marriage of Ethelbert, king of Kent, in the year 570, with Birtha, or Bertha, daughter of Cherebert, king of France, a Christian princess of great virtue and merit, contributed not a little to abate the prejudices of that prince and his subjects against her religion, for the free exercise of which she had stipulated in her marriage contract. She was also allowed the use of a small church without the walls of Canterbury, where Luidhart, a French bishop, who came over in her retinue, with other clergymen, publicly performed all the rites of Christian worship, and by these means Christianity had some, although probably a very confined influence.

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.

, son to the senator Isychius, and brother to Apollinaris, bishop of Valentia, was promoted in the beginning of the sixth century to the archbishopric of Vienna, which his father had also held for some years. His principal object was the refutation and conversion of the Arians, and during his conferences, for this purpose with the Arian bishops before Goudeband king of Burgundy, who was an Arian, he converted his son Sigismorid. Cave thinks he converted the king himself, and when he found him concealing his principles, urged him to a public profession of them. He wrote also in defence of pope Symmachus, and died in the year 523. His principal works were Letters, Sermons, and Poems his Letters, 87 in number, contain many curious particulars of the civil and ecclesiastical history of the times. Of his Homilies, one only is extant on Rogation day, in which he gives the origin of the days so called. In all his works, his style is harsh, obscure, and intricate. His poems were printed at Francfort in 1507, and at Paris and Lyons in 1508, 1509, and 1536 but his whole works were published at Paris by father Sirmond, in 1643, fol. and since that Luc d'Achery published in his Spicilegium, the conference with the Arian bishops.

, commonly known by the name of Richard de Bury, was born at St. Edmundsbury, in Suffolk, in 1281. His father, sir Richard Aungervyle, knt. dying when he was young, his uncle John de Willowby, a priest, took particular care of his education and when he was fit sent him to Oxford, where he studied philosophy and divinity, and distinguished himself by his learning, and regular and exemplary life. When he had finished his studies there, he became a Benedictine monk at Durham. Soon after he was made tutor to prince Edward, afterwards king Edward III. Being treasurer of Guienne in 1325, he supplied queen Isobel, when she was plotting against her husband king Edward II. with a large sum of money out of that exchequer, for which being questioned by the king’s party, be narrowly escaped to Paris, where he was forced to hide himself seven days in the tower of a church. When king Edward III. came to the crown, he loaded his tutor Aungervyle with honours and preferments, making him, first, his cofferer, then treasurer of the wardrobe, archdeacon of Northampton, prebendary of Lincoln, Sarum, and Lichfield, and afterwards keeper of the privy seal. This last place he enjoyed five years, and was in that time sent twice ambassador to the pope. In 1333 he was promoted to the deanery of Wells, and before the end of the same year, being chosen bishop of Durham, he was consecrated about the end of December, in the abbey of the black canons of Chertsey in Surrey. He was soon afterwards enthroned at Durham, on which occasion he made a grand festival, and entertained in the hall of his palace at Durham, the king and queen of England, the queen-dowager of England, the king of Scotland, the two archbishops, and five bishops, seven earls with their ladies, all the nobility north of Trent, with a Tast concourse of knights, esquires, and other persons of distinction. The next year he was appointed high-chancellor, and in 1336, treasurer of England. In 1338 he was twice sent with other commissioners to treat -of a peace with the king of France, though to no purpose.

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.

, a Piedmontese author, accompanied the bishop of Maurienne into France in quality of chaplain. He afterwards retired to Holland, where he embraced the Calvinistic persuasion, but some years after he feigned a desire to re-enter the Romish communion. Clement, keeper of the king’s library, procured him a passport for returning to France. The cardinal de Noailles obtained a pension for him, and placed him in the seminary of foreign missions. In the mean time Clement gave him full liberty in the king’s library; but, so ungrateful was he for all the advantages he derived from it, that he purloined several of the books, and among others, the original of the synod of Jerusalem, held in 1672. He got this manuscript printed in Holland, with the letters of Cyril Lucar, and some other pieces, under the title of “Monumens authentiques de la religion des Grecs, et de la faussete de plusieurs confessions de foi,” 1715, in 4to. This work was answered in a spirited manner by the abbe Renaudot. We have likewise, byAymon, 1. “Les Synodes nationaux des Eglises reformees de France,” printed in 1710, 2 vols. 4to. 2. “Tableau de la Cour de Rome,” 1707, 12mo, a satirical work. 3. A bad translation of the “Letters and memoirs of the nuncio Visconti,” 1719, 2 vols. 12mo.

, a learned English prelate in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in Nottinghamshire, according to Fuller, but in Devonshire, according to Izacke and Prince. After having received the first rudiments of learning, he was sent to Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he became fellow. On the 15th of July, 1578, he was incorporated M.A. at Oxford, as he stood in his own university. After studying other branches of learning, he applied to divinity, and became a favourite preacher in Cambridge, the place of his residence. When he was D. D. he was made domestic chaplain to Henry earl of Pembroke, president of the council in the marches of Wales, and is supposed to have assisted lady Mary Sidney, countess of Pembroke, in her version of the psalms into English metre. By his lordship’s interest, however, he was constituted treasurer of the church of Landaff, and in 1588 was installed into the prebend of Wellington, in the cathedral of Hereford. Through his patron’s further interest, he was advanced to the bishopric of Landaff, and was consecrated Aug. 29, 1591. In Feb. 1594, he was translated to the see of Exeter, to which he did an irreparable injury by alienating from it the rich manor of Crediton in Devonshire. In 1597 he was translated to Worcester, and was likewise made one of the queen’s council for the marches of Wales. To the library of Worcester cathedral he was a very great benefactor, for he not only fitted and repaired the edifice, but also bequeathed to it all his books. After having continued bishop of Worcester near thirteen years, he died of the jaundice, May 17, 1610, and was buried in the cathedral of Worcester, without any monument.

As to his character, it is agreed, that in the midst of all his preferments he was neither tainted with idleness, pride, nor covetousness, and was not only diligent in preaching but in writing books, for the understanding of the holy scriptures. He was an excellent and animating preacher. His works were printed first in 4to then, with additions, in folio, in 1615; and again in 1637, under this title: “The works of Gervase Babington, &c. containing comfortable notes upon the five books of Moses. As also an exposition upon the Creed, the Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer. With a conference betwixt Man’s frailty and faith and three Sermons.” His style is good, although not without the quaintnesses peculiar to the times. Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, wrote a preface to this volume.

, a Christian bishop and martyr, of the third century, became bishop of Antioch in the year 238, and governed that see thirteen years. It is said he died for maintaining the Christian faith, but authors are not agreed about the time or manner of his martyrdom. Eusebius and St. Jerom say, that upon his professing himself a Christian, in the reign of Decius, he was put in prison and died there. St. Chrysostom, who wrote a panegyric upon Baby las, relates that he was brought out of prison and publicly executed. This is supposed to have taken place in the year 250. His relics were highly respected at Antioch, where two churches were built in honour of his memory, and it is said, that when his relics were brought thither, the oracle of Apollo was struck dumb.

, 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.

In the mean time he gave evidence of the steady prosecution of his studies by publishing, in 1605, the first specimen of his great work, in his book “Of the Advancement of Learning,” a performance of much value even in its detached state. He continued, however, his diligence in parliament, and among other topics, endeavoured to second the views the king had entertained of an union between England and Scotland but his efforts for the crown were more successful in Westminster-hall than in that assembly. About this time he married Alice, daughter of Benedict Barnham, esq. alderman of London, a lady who brought him an ample fortune, but by whom he never had any children. In 1607, he succeeded in his application for the solicitorship, on a vacancy, and with that his practice encreased most extensively, there being few causes of importance in which he was not concerned. He assured the king, before he obtained this employment, that it would give him such an increase of capacity, though not of zeal, to serve his majesty, that what he had done in times past should seem as nothing, in comparison with the services he should render for the future and in this respect he is said to have kept his word, for in the session of parliament hold in the year in which he was made solicitor, he ran through a great variety of business, and that of a nature which required a man not only of great abilities but of great policy, and of equal reputation. He was, in the first place, employed by the house of commons to represent to the king the grievances under which the nation laboured and though the paper relating to them was couched in terms not very agreeable to the king’s temper, sir Francis, by his accompanying address, so abated their harshness as to perform this difficult commission with universal applause. He was likewise employed by the house at a conference with the lords, to persuade them to join in an application to the crown, for the taking away the ancient tenures, and allowing a certain and competent revenue in lieu of them and in his speech on this occasion, sir Francis Bacon set the affair in so clear a light, as excited that spirit, which at length procured the dissolution of the court of Wards, a point of the highest consequence to the Jiberties of this kingdom. He likewise satisfied the house at a time when they were much out of temper at the manner in which the king’s messages were conveyed to them and procured their acquiescence in the supplies by a well-timed speech, which must have convinced the king of what importance his services were likely to prove. Amidst all these political and professional engagements, he found leisure to digest the plan of the second part of his great work, which he transmitted to some judicious friends for their opinion. This piece was entitled “Cogitata et Visa,” and contained the ground-work or plan of his “Novum Organum,” so essential a part of his “Instauration,” that it sometimes bears that title. Bishop Andrews and sir Thomas Bodley w r ere two of the persons whose advice he solicited on this occasion, and their answers are printed in his works, where we have likewise a small discourse in English, under the Latin title of “Filum Labyrinthi,” which was the original draught of the “Cogitata et Visa.” While availing himself of the opinions of his learned contemporaries, he published in 1610, his celebrated treatise “Of the Wisdom of the Ancients,” a work which received and has ever retained the justest applause. It is not easy to say which is most conspicuous in this, his diligence in procuring the materials, or his judgment in disposing of them.

In consequence of this pardon, his lordship was summoned to the second parliament in the succeeding reign of Charles I. but his infirmities did not allow him to take his seat. He foresaw that his end was drawing near, although he escaped the great plague, in the spring of 1625. Having sufficiently established the fame of his learning and abilities, by his writings published by himself, he committed, by his will, several of his Latin and philosophical compositions, to the care of sir William Bos well, his majesty’s agent in Holland, where they were afterwards published by Gruter. His orations and letters he commended to sir Humphrey May, chancellor of the Duchy, and the bishop of Lincoln (Williams), who succeeded him as lord keeper, and acknowledged the honour of that trust, which letters he enjoined to be preserved, but not to be divulged, as touching too much on persons and matters of state. By this judicious care of his, most of his papers were preserved, and the greatest part of them at different times have been printed and published. The severe winter which followed the infectious summer of 1625, brought him very low; but the spring reviving his spirits, he made a little excursion into the country, in order to try some experiments in natural philosophy; in which journey he was taken so ill, that he was obliged to stop at the earl of Arundel’s house at Highgate, about a week, and there he expired, April y, 1626, and was privately buried in the chapel of St. Michael’s church, within the precincts of Old Verulam where a monument was erected to his memory by sir Thomas Meautys, his faithful friend and indefatigable servant in all his troubles.

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.

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.

As to the vulgar imputation on his character, of his leaning to magic, it was utterly unfounded and the ridiculous story of his making a brazen head, which spoke and answered questions, is a calumny indirectly fathered upon him, having been originally imputed to Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln. That he had too high an opinion of judicial astrology, and some other arts of that nature, was not so properly an error of his as of the age in which he lived and considering how few errors, among the many which infected that age, appear in his writings, it may be easily forgiven. As his whole life was spent in labour and study, and he was continually employed, either in writing for the information of the world, or in reading and making experiments, that might enable him to write with greater accuracy; so we need not wonder his works were extremely numerous, especially when it is considered, that on the one hand his studies took in the whole circle of the sciences, and that on the other, the numerous treatises ascribed to him, are, often in fact, but so many chapters, sections, or divisions and sometimes we have the same pieces under two or three different names so that it is not at all strange before these points were well examined, that the accounts we have of his writings appeared very perplexed and confused. But notwithstanding this seeming perplexity and confusion, it is not a very difficult thing, to give a distinct account of his writings, the greater part of which are extant, and catalogued in the Biographia Britannica, and it were to be wished, that they were also made public. He was very far from being a hasty, incorrect, or desultory writer; on the contrary, all his works have a just reference to one great and general system, which he has executed in all its parts to a much greater degree of perfection, than has been hitherto supposed.

, the only Protestant who went back to popery that was made bishop in the reign of Louis XIV. was born at Castelgeloux, in Gascony. After having quitted his religion, he entered himself of the Franciscan order, was then made bishop of Glandeve, and afterwards of Pamiers, where he died in 1694, at the age of ninety-four. His Latin poem on the Education of a Prince, 1671, 4to, procured him the episcopal dignity, by the interest of the duke of Montausier. This poem was reprinted in 8vo, in 1685, with notes, and the addition of some odes by the same author. He published also " Carmen pancgyricum/' Toulouse, 1667, 4to, dedicated to pope Clement IX.

We find Mr. Badcock afterwards frequently corresponding with the Gentleman’s Magazine the London Magazine, where for some time he had a regular engagement the General Evening Post and St. James’s Chronicle. But the gjreat scene of his literary warfare, was in the Monthly Review, in which he appears to have criticized many works of considerable note, and in a manner which attracted the attention of the public to a journal, (already the highest in general estimation) in no common degree, lu 1780, when a controversy arose respecting materialism, Mr. Badcock published “A slight sketch of the controversy between Dr. Priestley and his opponents,” and from this time he became the decided antagonist of the doctor in all those opinions upon which they formerly corresponded, and appeared to agree. The influence of Mr. Badcock’s education seems to have returned with increased force, and although he did not revert to some of the principles of his early days, and in no respect resumed the garb or the behaviour of a Puritan, he certainly became a zealous contender for the Trinitarian system, in opposition to Socinianism in all its modifications. This was particularly displayed in his review of Dr. Priestley’s “History of the Corruption of Christianity,” in 1783, and 1784, and the controversy to which that work gave rise between Dr. Priestley, and Dr. Horsley, then archdeacon of St. Alban’s, and successively bishop of Rochester and St. Asaph. He, had before this, however, interested the public attention by the review of Mr. Madan’s “Thejyphthora,” and displayed a force of genius, skill of argument, and depth of learning, which that author found irresistible. No work apparently of eminence, and calculated for popularity, perhaps ever was so completely driven into oblivion by the efforts of a periodical reviewer. Nor was Mr. Badcock’s triumph less complete over the believers in Chatterton’s imposture, although it must be owned that in this last controversy he had able coadjutors.

It has been supposed that his acquaintance with the bishop of Exeter, Dr. Ross, and the most respectable clergymen of his diocese, might have led him to examme the foundation of dissent audit might have appeared to him, as it has to very many of sound judgment and acknowledged abilities, that this foundation was groundless. He was led to conform by no promise, and, at best, by very distant views of advancement. It is, indeed, impossible to read the heart of man but, if it can be read by an intimate acquaintance, his conformity was sincere. But whatever were his views, or the views of those who wished to see him among the defenders of the established church, they were disappointed by a premature death, In the spring of 1787, he was ordained deacon by bishop Ross, and, by a very distinguished compliment, received priest’s orders the following week. The title upon which he was ordained was the curacy of Broad Clyst, near Exeter, and he afterwards preached, as assistant to Dr. Gabriel, in the Octagon chapel, Bath. He was much afflicted with head-aches, which frequently interrupted his public services. In May, 1788, he was attacked by an illness which proved fatal on the 19th of that month, while on a visit to his friend sir John Chichester, bart. in Queen- street, May-Fair.

and inscriptions alluding to the history of printing. His curious letter to Hearne, in the first volume of the second edition of " LelancTs Collectanea^' p. 58, relative to London, and the antiquities in its vicinity^ is very creditable to his talents as an antiquary. He was much employed and respected by lord Oxford, Dr. John Moore bishop of Ely^ sir Hans Sloane, sir James Austins-, Mr. Clavel, &c; and it is said, that for having enriched bishop Moore’s library with many curiosities (which were purchased by George I. and given to the university of Cambridge), his lordship procured him an admission into the charter-house, as a pensioner on that foundation, in the cemetery of which he was buried. He died at Islington, May 15, 1716, aged sixty-five. In Mr. Dibdin’s Bibliomania, are many curious particulars respecting Bagford, and an estimate of his talents and usefulness founded on Mr. Dibdin’s very laborious inspection of his Mss.

, bishop of Copenhagen, was born at Lunden in 1646. His father Olaus Bagger taught theology in the school of Lunden, but sent his son to Copenhagen for education. He afterwards travelled to Germany, the Netherlands, and England, studying under the most able masters in divinity and the oriental languages, and then returned to Copenhagen. When Lunden became a part of the Swedish dominions, the king established an academy there, and Bagger was appointed to teach the oriental languages. He had scarcely begun to give lessons, however, when by the advice of his friends of Copenhagen, he solicited and obtained, in 1674, the office of first pastor of the church of the Holy Virgin in that metropolis. In 1675, after the usual disputation, he got the degree of doctor, and on the death of John Wandalin, bishop of Zealand or Copenhagen, he was appointed to succeed him, at the very early age of twenty-nine. His promotion is said to have been in part owing to his wife Margaret Schumacher, the widow of Jacob Fabri, his predecessor, in the church of the Holy Virgin at Copenhagen, and to the brother of this lady, the count de Griffenfeld, who had great interest at court. Bagger, however, filled this high office with reputation, as well as that of dean of theology, which is attached to the bishopric of Copenhagen. He revised the ecclesiastical rites which Christian V. had passed into a law, as well as the liturgy, epistles, and gospels, collects, &c. to which he prefixed a preface. He also composed and published several discourses, very learned and eloquent, some in Latin, and others in the Danish tongue. He died in 1693, at the age of 47. By his second wife, he left a son Christian Bagger, who became an eminent lawyer, and in 1737 rose to be grand bailly of Bergen, and a counsellor of justice.

Dr. Bagot was a man of great learning, an accomplished scholar, and of the most gentle and amiable manners. As a patron, he deserves much praise for bestowing the ample patronage of his see, with great disinterestedness and impartiality, among the learned and meritorious clergy of his diocese, acquainted with the language and manners of the district. His publications were not very numerous. In the “Pietas et Gratulatio Univ.Oxon. 1761,” on the accession, of his present majesty, are some English blank verses, by him and he also contributed some verses on his majesty’s marriage, and on the birth of the prince of Wales, all which are inserted in vol. VIII. of Nichols’s poems. In ]772, when the question of subscription to the thirty-nine articles was agitated, he published “A defence of subscription to the XXXIX Articles, as it is required in the university of Oxford.” This was anonymous, and occasioned by a pamphlet, also anonymous, entitled “Reflections on the impropriety and expediency of Lay Subscription in the university of Oxford.” In 1779 he preached and published the Radcliffe Infirmary sermon, and in 1730 his principal work appeared, “Twelve discourses on the Prophecies,” preached at the Warburtonian lecture in Lincoln’s Inn chapel. The earnestness with which he contends in these discourses for the essential doctrines of the church, was again apparent in his next publication, “A letter to the Rev. W, Bell, D. D.” on the subject of his late publications upon the authority, nature, and design of the Lord’s Supper,“1781, 8vo. In this Dr. Bagot objects to the Socinian tendency of Dr. Bell’s arguments and about the same time he reprinted, with a short preface, Dr. Isaac Barrow’s” Discourse on the doctrines of the Sacrament," which is now one of the tracts dispersed by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. His other publications were, a sermon before the house of lords, Jan. 30, 1783 one for the Norwich hospital; and two others before the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, 17 88, and the Society for propagating the Gospel, 1790. A small pamphlet against the Anabaptists, and a charge delivered when bishop of Norwich, were printed by Dr. Bagot, but not generally published. In all his works he displays a fervent zeal for the principles of religion and of loyalty, joined with much knowledge of the true grounds of both nor will it be thought an objection of much consequence, that he did not stand high in the opinion of those who contended for such innovations as in his opinion endangered the whole fabric of church government and doctrine.

, son of the preceding, was born at Broughton in Northamptonshire, in 1629, educated at Westminster school, and elected student of Christ-church in 1646, where, according to Wood, his conduct for some time was turbulent and disorderly. Having finished his studies, however, he was in 1656 appointed to officiate as second master of Westminster school, and in 1657 was confirmed in the office. Behaving improperly to the celebrated Busby, he was, in 1658, turned out of this place; but soon after he became vicar of Ambrosden in Oxfordshire, having taken orders from Brownrig, bishop of Exeter. After the Restoration, Arthur earl of Anglesey appointed him his chaplain, on which Mr. Bagshaw left Ambrosden, in hopes of farther promotion, which, however, he never attained, having written and preached doctrines against the church and state, for which he was committed prisoner, first to the Gatehouse in Westminster, next to the Tower, and thence to South Sea castle, Hampshire, in 1664. After his release he returned to London, and fell tinder fresh suspicions, and having refused the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, was committed to Newgate, where he continued twenty-two weeks. He appears to have been again released, as he died at a house in Tothill-street, Westminster, Dec. 28, 1671, and was buried in Bunhillfields cemetery, with an altar monument, and an inscription written by the celebrated Dr. Owen, implying that he had been persecuted for his adherence to the gospel, and had now taken sanctuary “from the reproaches of pretended friends, and the persecutions of professed adversaries.” Baxter’s account is less favourable he records him as an anabaptist, fifth-monarchy man, and a separatist, a man of an extraordinary vehement spirit, but he allows that he had been exasperated by many years “hard and grievous imprisonment.” Wood has a long list of his writings, mostly controversial with Baxter, L'Estrange, and others, and probably forgotten. All his biographers, however, allow him to have been a man of abilities.

, a French Latin poet, was born at Chatillon in the Lower Maine, and became a priest of the Oratory at Paris, in 1659. He had considerable genius, and was much addicted to study, so that he soon became one of the best scholars and best poets of his order. When M. Fouquet, superintendant of finances, was arrested, he published a Latin poem, entitled “Fuquetius in vinculis,” which was much applauded. He published another poem at Troyes in 1668, the title of which was, “In tabellas excellentissiim pictoris du Wernier, ad nobilem et eximium virum Eustachium Quinot, apud quern illae visuntur Trecis, carmen.” Father Bahier translated this production afterwards into French verse, under the title of “Peinture poctique des tableaux de mignature de M. Quinot, faits par Joseph de Werner.” At the time he taught rhetoric at Marseilles, in 1670, he delivered and published an oration on Henrietta of England, duchess of Orleans, and the same year printed a Latin poem of six hundred verses in praise of Toussaint Fourbin de Janson, bishop of Marseilles. He wrote some other pieces, which were less known; such was Uis reputation, however, that he was chosen secretary of the Oratory, an office which he filled with great credit for thirty years his latter days were distinguished by many acts of ciiarity, and it was during his attendance on a dying friend that he caught a disorder, which proved fatal in the month of April 1707.

, an eminent French critic, was born at Neuville near Beauvais in Picardy, June 13, 1649. His father, who was poor, and unable to give him a learned education, sent him to a small school in the neighbourhood, where he soon learned all that was taught there, and desirous of more, went frequently to a neighbouring convent, where, by his assiduities in performing little menial offices, he ingratiated himself with them, and by their interest was presented to the bishop of Beauvais. The bishop placed him in the college or seminary of that name, where he studied the classics with unwearied assiduity, borrowing books from his friends, and it is even said he took money privately from his father, in order to buy books. In the course of his reading, which was accurate and even- critical, he formed, about the age of seventeen, a commonplace book of extracts, which he called his “Juvenilia,” in two large volumes, very conducive to his own improvement, and afterwards to that of M. de Lamoignon, his patron’s son. He then studied philosophy, but with less relish, his predilection being in favour of history, chronology, and geography; yet in defending Ins philosophical theses, he always proved his capacity to be fully equal to his subject. In 1670 he went to one of those higher seminaries, formerly established by the French bishops for the study of divinity, which he pursued with his usual ardour and success, although here his early taste discovered itself, in his applying with most eagerness to the fathers and councils, as more nearly connected with ecclesiastical history. So intent was he on researches of this kind, that he fancied himself solely qualified for a life of studious retirement, and had a design of going, along with his brother Stephen, to the abbey La Trappe, but this was prevented by the bishop of Beauvai? bestowing upon him, in 1672, the appointment of teacher of the fifth form in the college, from which, in 1674, he was promoted to the fourth. This produced him about sixty pounds a-year, with part of which he assisted his poor relations, and laid out the rest in books, and had made a very good collection when he left the college. Among other employments at his leisure hours he compiled two volumes of notices of authors who had disguised their names, of which the preface only has been published.

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

, 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.

, an English Benedictine monk, and ecclesiastical historian and antiquary, the son of William Baker, gent, and nephew to Dr. David Lewes, judge of the admiralty, was born at Abergavenny, Dec. 9, 1575, and first educated at Christ’s hospital, London, whence he went to Oxford, in 1590, and became a commoner of Broadgate’s hall (now Pembroke college), which he left without a degree, and joined his brother Richard, a barrister of the middle temple, where he studied law, and in addition to the loose courses he followed, when at Oxford, now became a professed infidel. After the death of his brother, his father sent for him, and he was made recorder of Abergavenny, and practised with considerable success. While here, a miraculous escape from drowning recalled him to his senses as to religion, but probably having no proper advice at hand, he fell upon a course of Roman catholic writings, and was so captivated with them that he joined a small congregation of Benedictines then in London, and went with one of them to Italy, where, in 1605, he took the habit, and changed his name to Augustin Baker. A fit of sickness rendering it necessary to try his native air he returned to England, and finding his father oa his death-bed, reconciled him to the Catholic faith. From this time he appears to have resided in London and different places in the country, professing his religion as openly as could be done with safety. Some years before his death he spent at Canjbray, as spiritual director ‘of the English Benedictine nuns there, and employed his time in making collections for an English ecclesiastical historj’, in which, when at home, we are told, he was assisted by Camden, Cotton, Spelman, Selden, and bishop Godwin, to all of whom, Wood says, “he was most familiarly known,” but not, we presume, so sufficiently as this biographer supposes. Wood, indeed, tells us, that when at the house of gentlemen, he passed for a lawyer, a character which he supported in conversation by the knowledge he had acquired in the Temple. He died in Gray’s Inn lane Aug. 9, 1641, and was buried in St. Andrew’s church. He wrote a great many religious treatises, but none were published. They amounted to nine large folios in manuscript, and were long preserved in the English nunnery at Cambray. His six volumes of ecclesiastical history were lost, but out of them were taken father Reyner’s “Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia,” and a good deal of Cressy’s “Church History.” Wood has given a prolix account of this man, which was probably one of those articles in his Athenee that brought upon him the suspicion of being himself attached to popery. It is certainly written with all the abject submission of credulity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a French historian, a native of Orleans, according to some writers, or of Mehun, a small town on the Loire, according to others, -flourished in the twelfth century. He was abbé of Bourgueil, in 1089, bishop of Dol, in Britanny, in 1114, and 1115 he received the pallium from pope Paschal II. at the council of Rheims. About the year 1095, he had assisted at the council of Clermont, held upon account of the holy war, of which he wrote a history in four books, from its commencement to the taking of Jerusalem by Godfrey of Boulogne in 1099. He wrote also various works of the historical kind in verse and prose, with the life of Robert D'Abrissel, founder of the order of Fontevraud. Michael Cosnier, curate of Poitiers, published an edition of this life, with very curious notes and Du Chesne has printed Balderic’s poems in the fourth volume of his collection of French writers. Balderic is said to have died Jan. 7, 1131, but this does not agree with his epitaph, which says that he was bishop of Dol twenty-two years, to which, as mentioned above, he was appointed in 1114.

, 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.

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

, 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.”

, D. D. son of the above, was born at his father’s residence at Cox-close, near Ravensworth castle, Sept. 27, 1716, and was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, about 1732. He proceeded B.A. 1737, M. A. 1741, and S.T.P. 1758, In 1746, he was presented by his father to the North mediety or rectory of North Stoke, near Grantham in Lincolnshire, which was probably the first preferment he had, and which he vacated in 1771, on being presented to the vicarage of Alton in Hampshire. By the interest of bishop Hoadly, he obtained a prebend at Winchester, 1757, became archdeacon of Salisbury in 1759, and afterwards archdeacon of Winchester. We have his own authority in his life of his father, as given in the Biog. Britannica, that he owed all his preferments to bishop Hoadly, from whose latitudinarian principles, however, he appears to have departed more widely than his father.

In 1769, he published “A Sermon preached in Lamv foeth chapel, Feb. 12, 1769, at the consecration of the right rev. Dr. Shute Barrington, bishop of Llandaff.” This was attempted to be answered by Dr. Priestley in a vague and unargumentative pamphlet, entitled “Observations on Church Authority.” In 1772, he published a very able defence of subscriptions to articles of religion, in “A charge delivered to the Clergy” of his archdeaconry, which produced a reply from the rev. John Palmer, a dissenting minister, dated Macclesfield. In 1775, Dr. Balguy published “A sermon on the respective Duties of Ministers and People, at the consecration of the right rev. Richard Hurd, D. D. bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and the right rev. John Moore, D.D. bishop of Bangor,” Feb. 12. 4to, which produced “Remarks on Dr. Balguy’s Sermon, in a letter to that gentleman, by one of the petitioning clergy.” In 1775, he edited the sermons of Dr. Powell, master of Jesus college, Cambridge, with a life of that divine prefixed. In 1781, the declining state of his health, and particularly the decay of his sight, which ended at last in total blindness, prevented his acceptance of the bishopric of Gloucester, to which his majesty, without any solicitation, had nominated him, on the cteath of bishop Warburton. This he gratefully acknowledges in the dedication of his discourses to the king. In 178^, he published “Divine Benevolence asserted, and vindicated from the reflections of ancient and modern sceptics,” 8vo, which is thought by far the ablest of his performances, but was only part of a larger dissertation on natural religion, which he did not live to complete. In 1785, he republished his father’s “Essay on Redempton,” with a preface seemingly intended to bring his father’s sentiments nearer to the orthodox belief. A collection of his sermons and charges appeared the same year under the title of “Discourses on various subjects,” 8vo. He died Jan. 19, 1795, in his seventy-ninth year, at his prebendal house at Winchester, and was buried in the cathedral, with an inscription giving him the character of a sincere and exemplary Christian, a sound and accurate scholar, a strenuous and able defender of the Christian religion, and of the church of England.

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

, brothers, born at Verona, the former in 1698, the latter in 1702, were both of them priests and scholars, especially in ecclesiastical history. United by a common predilection for the same studies, no less than by the ties of blood, they studied usually together, dividing their labour according to their particular talents. Subjects purely theological and canonical fell to the lot of Peter points of history and criticism became the task of Jerom. The former died in 1769. Besides several works of their own, the public is indebted to their care for the correct editions of 1. The Summa Theological is of St. Antoninus, as well as that of St. Raiinond de Pegnafort; 2. The works of St. Leo the Great; 3. Those of Gilbert bishop of Verona 4. A complete edition of all the works of cardinal Noris, with notes, dissertations, &c. printed at Verona 1732, 4 vols. fol. 5. A small tract, in Italian, on the method of study, Verona, 1724, Rome, 1757.

, a French antiquary, was born at Marnay, in 1700, and entered the order of the barefooted Carmelites. He was afterwards promoted to be bishop of Babylon, and French consul, and during his residence in the east, acquired the esteem and confidence of the native powers, as well as of the French merchants. He published “Relation faite a Rome, 1754, a le pape Benoit XIV. du commencement, du progres, et de l'etat present de la mission de Babylone,” Fr. and Lat. Rome, 1754, 12mo, which, although often reprinted, is nowscarce. He had also a taste for the fine, arts, and formed a noble collection of medals, amounting to six thousand three hundred pieces, of which one of his nephews printed a catalogue. Having travelled over the Christian establishments of Asia, he had an opportunity of examining the accounts of former travellers, and his observations, in the form of a journal, were deposited in the library of the duke of Orleans. From these D'Anville extracted the description of an ancient piece of sculpture, which he inserted in vol. XVII. of the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions. Ballyet died of the plague, at Bagdad, in 1773.

, 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.

Niceron has given a list of twenty-nine articles, of which Baluze was either author or editor. The principal are, 1. “Petri de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperil/' fol. Paris, 1663, 1669, and 1704. 2.” Salviani Massiliensis et Vincentii Lirinensis Opera, cum Notis,“Paris, 1669, and 1684, 8vo, the last the best edition. 3.” Servati Lupi opera/' Paris, 1664, 8vo, with judicious notes. 4. “Agobardi opera et Leidradi et Amulonis, epistolse et opuscula,” Paris, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Petri Castellani vita, auctore Petro Gallandio,” ib. 1674, 8vo. 6. “Marii Mercatoris Opera,” ib. 1684; these two collated with Mss. and enriched by notes illustrative of the history of the middle age. 7. “Miscellanea,” a collection of ancient pieces from manuscripts, 7 vols. 8vo, published in various years from 1678 1715, and reprinted by Mansius in 1761. 8. “Capitularia regum Francorum,” ib. 2 vols. folio. This collection contains several capitularies never published before. Mr. Baluze has corrected them with great accuracy, and has given an account in his preface of the original and authority of the several collections of the capitularies. The kings of France held anciently every year a large assembly, iw which all the public affairs were treated. Jt was composed of all the considerable persons among the clergy and laity, bishops, abbots, and counts. It was in the presence and by the advice of this assembly, that the kings made their constitutions, which were read aloud and after the assembly had given their consent, every person subscribed. These constitutions being abridged and reduced under proper heads were called capitula or chapters, and a collection of several articles was stiled a capitulary. They may be distinguished into three kinds, according to the subjects of them. Those which treat of ecclesiastical affairs were generally taken from the canons, and had the sanction of the bishop’s authority, and therefore might be considered of the same force as the canons. Those which contained general regulations in civil affairs, had properly the real force of laws. And those which related only to certain persons and certain occasions, were only to be considered as particular regulations. The authority of these capitularies was always very great. They were constantly observed in the most exact manner in all the empire of the Francs, that is, in almost all Europe during the reigns of Charlemagne, Lewis the Debonnaire, and his sons. The bishops transcribed them in their councils, and even the popes were ambitious to follow them, as appears by a letter of Leo IV. to the emperor Lotharius, mentioned by Yvo of Chartres and Gratian. They were for a long time in force in Germany as well as in France, and the use of them was not interrupted till the beginning of the third race of the kings of France. Mr. Baluze has added to these capitularies the ancient formularies of Marculfus those of an anonymous author those published by father Sirmond and Mr. Bignon a new Collection of Formularies extracted from divers old Manuscripts; and those of the promotion of bishops published by father Sirmond in the second volume of the Councils of France. 9. “L. C. F. Lactantii Liber, de mortibus persecutorum,” ib. 1680, and Utrecht,

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

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

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

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

, doctor and professor of divinity in the university of Copenhagen, was born in 1600, and was educated first in the college of Ottensee in the isle of Funen, and then at Copenhagen. Caspar Brochmand, professor of divinity and bishop of Selande, made him tutor to his son and he was preceptor at the same time to Christian Friis, eldest son to the chancellor of Denmark. After he had continued in that employment above five years, he obtained a pension from the king, and went to Rostoch, from whence he returned to Copenhagen, when the emperor’s troops drew near to the Baltic sea. He finished his course of divinity under professor Brochmand, and afterwards went to Franeker, where he learned rabbinical and Chaldee learning under Sixtinus Amama, by whom he was greatly esteemed. He studied afterwards at Wittemberg, and received there, in 1630, a letter from the rector and academical council of Copenhagen, with an offer of the professorship in Hebrew, which he accepted, on condition that he should be permitted to employ the revenue of that place in studying for some years the Arabic and Syriac tongues under Gabriel Sionita. He discharged the professorship with great advantage to students till 1652, when he was raised to the professorship of divinity, vacant by the death of Mr. Brochmand. He was promoted to the doctorship in the same faculty in 1653, in the presence of the king and queen. In 1656 he was* appointed librarian of the academy. He died Oct. 27, 1661, of an illness of only six days, leaving a widow atid fourteen children. He was the author of several learned works on the Hebrew language and criticism, among which are, “Observationes Philologicce,” Copenhagen, 1640, 8vo a treatise on the origin of diversity of Languages, and on the excellence of the Hebrew, 1634, 8vo; and a “Hebrew Lexicon,” 1641, 4to.

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

, bishop of Ugento, and son of the preceding, studied the civil and canon law under his father, and continued the same pursuit at Rome, passing his days in reading at the public libraries, and his nights in writing, and living, according to Erythraeus, on a very scanty income. The same biographer informs us that one day his servant brought him a piece of fish wrapped up in a sheet of manuscript, which he discovered to be part of a work on the canon law. He immediately went to the market, and was so fortunate as to purchase the whole with the loss of only four or five leaves; and it is added, that this was the book “De officio Episcopi,” which he published under his own name. He published also many other works, of which a very copious catalogue is given by Antonio, but certain critics were of opinion that he was very much indebted to his father’s manuscripts for some of these. In 1632, he returned to Spain, and at Madrid was employed partly in judging of ecclesiastical affairs, and partly in preparing his writings, until 1648, when king Philip IV. appointed him bishop of Ugento, the duties of which office he performed with care and piety for the short remainder of his life. He died about the latter end of 1649. Besides his writings on the civil and canon law, he compiled a “Dictionario Lusitanico- Latino,” 1611, fol. Others of this family distinguished themselves as able canonists, but there is little in their history very interesting.

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

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

During the course of three years residence in England, Barclay received no token of the royal liberality. Sunk in indigence, he only wished to be indemnified for his English journies, and to have his charges defrayed into France. At length, he was relieved from those urgent distresses by his patron Salisbury. Of these circumstances we are informed by some allegorical and obscure verses written by Barclay at that sad season. (Delit. Poet. Scot. I. 92 100.) Never did dependent offer incense to a patron more liberally than he did. Burleigh, he admits, was a wise man, but, he adds, “that the wisdom of Burleigh bore the like proportion to that of his son, as the waters of the Thames do to the ocean.” In 1610 he published his Apology for Euphormion, the severity of which satire had excited enemies against him in every quarter of Europe. In this year also he, published his father’s work, “De Potestate Papse,” and when it was attacked by cardinal Bellarmin, be published a treatise entitled “J. Barclaii Pietas, sive, publics pro regibus ac principibus, et privates pro Gulielmo Earclaio parente vindici*, adversus Roberti Bellarmini tractatum, de Potestate summi Pontificis ia rebus temporal!­bus,” Paris, 4to. In 1614 he published his “Icon animarum,” perhaps the best, although not the most renowned of his compositions. It is a delineation of the genius and manners of the European nations, with remarks, moral and philosophical, on the various tempers of men. Mr. Malone observes, as a curious circumstance, that in this work, Barclay has suggested an expedition against the Turkish empire, similar in the most material circumstances to that undertaken in 1798 by the French republic, (particularly in the number of the troops employed) though it was proposed to be directed against a different part of the Turkish dominions from that which was assailed by the French, In 1615, invited, as it is said, by pope Paul V. Barclay determined to fix his residence under the immediate power of a pontiff whose political conduct he had reprobated, and of a court whose maxims he had censured with extraordinary freedom. About the end of that year he quitted England, but not clandestinely, as his enemies reported, and having hastily passed through France, he settled at Rome with his family, in the beginning of the year 1616. In the “Paraenesis,” or “Exhortation to the Sectaries,” he mentions two reasons which induced him to quit England, and take up his abode in Italy. His first was, lest his children, by remaining in England, should have been perverted from the faith. But he could have obviated that danger, by removing into France, in which country he had for his friends Du Vair (president of the parliament of Provence, afterwards keeper of the great seals, and lastly, bishop of Lisieux), and M. Peiresc. His second reason was more singular he perceived that his “Pietas,” or vindication of his father, was pleasing to heretics, and that it disgusted many persons of the Romish communion. He repented of having written it: he then found that it contained erroneous propositions, and he wished to settle in Italy that he might have leisure and freedom to refute them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

In 1725 he published in 2 vols. 8vo, his “Miscellanea Sacra: or, anew method of considering so much of the history of the Apostles as is contained in scripture; in an abstract of their history, an abstract of that abstract, and four critical essays.” In this work the noble author has traced, with great care and judgment, the methods taken by the apostles, and first preachers of the gospel, for propagating Christianity; and explained with great distinctness the several gifts of the spirit, by which they were enabled to disciiarge that office. These he improved into an argument for the truth of the Christian religion; which is said to have staggered the infidelity of Mr. Anthony Collins. In 1725 he published, in 8vo, “An Essay on the several dispensations of God to mankind, in the order in which they lie in the Bible; or, a short system of the religion of nature and scriptwre,” &c. He was also author of several other tracts, of which the principal were, 1. “.A Dissuasive from Jacobitism; shewing in general what the nation is to expect from a popish king; and, in particular, from the Pretender.” The fourth edition of this was printed in 8vo, in 1713. 2. “A Letter from a Layman, in communion with the church of England, though dissenting from her in some points, to the right rev. the bishop of ———, with a postscript, shewing how far the bill to prevent the growth of schism is inconsistent with the act of toleration, and the other laws of this realm.” The second edition of this was printed in 1714, 4to. 3. “The Layman’s Letter to the bishop of Bangor.” The second edition of this was published in 1716, 4to. 4. “An account of the late proceedings of the Dissenting-ministers at Salters’-hall; occasioned by the differences amongst their brethren in the country: with some thoughts concerning imposition of human forms for articles of faith;” in a letter to the rev. Dr. Gale, 1719, 8vo. 5. “A Discourse of natural and revealed Religion, and the relation they bear to each other,” 1732, 8vo. 6. “Reflections on the 12th query, contained in a paper, entitled Reasons offered against pushing for the repeal of the corporation and test-acts, and on the animadversions on the answer to it,” 1733, 8vo. A new edition of his “Miscellanea Sacra” was published in 1770, 3 vols. 8vo, under the revision of his son, the present learned and munificent bishop of Durham. Lord Barrington sometimes spoke in parliament, but appears not to have been a frequent speaker. He died at his seat at Becket in Berkshire, after a short illness, Dec. 4, 1734, in the 6Gth year of his age. He generally attended divine worship among the dissenters, and for many years received the sacrament at Pinner’s-hall, when Dr. Jeremiah Hunt, an eminent and learned non-conformist divine, was pastor of the congregation. He had formerly been an attendant on Mr. Thomas Bradbury, but quitted that gentleman on account of his zeal for imposing unscriptural terms upon the article of the Trinity. His lordship was a disciple and friend of Mr. Locke, had a high value for the sacred writings, and was eminently skilled in them. As a writer in theology, he contributed much to the diffusing of that spirit of free scriptural criticism, which has since obtained among all denominations of Christians. As his attention was much turned to the study of divinity, he had a strong sense of the importance of what is called free inquiry in matters of religion. In his writings, whenever he thought what he advanced was doubtful, or that his arguments were not strictly conclusive, though they might have great weight, he expressed himself with a becoming diffidence. He was remarkable for the politeness of his manners, and the gracefulness of his address. The only virulent attack we have seen against his lordship, occurs in lord Orford’s works, vol. I. p. 543, which from its contemptuous and sneering notice of the Barrington family, and especially the present worthy prelate, may be safely left to" its influence on the mind of any unprejudiced reader.

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

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

Bishop Barrow died at Shrewsbury, June 24, 1680, and was interred in the cathedral church-yard of St. Asaph, on the south side of the west door, with two inscriptions, one of which seeming to favour the popish doctrine of praying for the dead, gave some offence, especially as it was said, we know not on what authority, that it was drawn up by the bishop himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, more commonly known by the name of Basingstochius, or de Basingstoke, was born at Basingstoke, a town in the north part of Hampshire, and thence took his surname. He was a person highly eminent for virtue and learning; a perfect master of the Latin and Greek languages; and also an eloquent orator, an able mathematician and philosopher, and a sound divine. The foundation of his great learning he laid in the university of Oxford, and, for his farther improvement, went to Paris, where he resided some years. He afterwards travelled to Athens, where he made many curious observations, and perfected himself in his studies, particularly in the knowledge of the Greek tongue. At his return to England, he brought over with him several curious Greek manuscripts, and introduced the use of the Greek numeral figures in to this kingdom. He became also a very great promoter and encourager of the study of that language, which was much neglected in these western parts of the world: and to facilitate it, he translated from Greek into Latin a grammar, which he entitled “The Donatus of the Greeks.” Our author’s merit and learning recommended him to the esteem of all lovers of literature: particularly to the favour of Robert Grosteste, bishop of Lincoln, by whom he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Leicester, as he had been some time before to that of London. He died in 1252. The rest of his works are, 1. A Latin translation of a Harmony of the Gospels. 2. A volume of sermons. 3. “Particulue sententiarum per distinctiones,” or a Commentary upon part of Lombard’s Sentences, &c. It was he also that informed Robert, bishop of Lincoln, that he had seen at Athens a book called “The Testament of the XII Patriarchs.” Upon which the bishop sent for it, and translated it into Latin, and it was printed among the “Orthodoxographa,” Basilero, 1555, fol. and afterwards translated into English, and often reprinted, 12mo.

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

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

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

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

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

, elder brother of the preceding, was born at Bocton Malherb in Kent in 1703, and after being educated at the king’s school at Canterbury, was admitted a pensioner of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Denne, July 4, 1720. He proceeded A. B. in 1723, and was pre-elected fellow soon after; but an offer being made him, in the mean time, of a fellowship in St. John’s college, by the bishop of Ely, he chose rather to accept of that than to wait for a vacancy in the other. He commenced A. M. in 1727. became moderator of the university in 1730, one of their taxors the year following, and after distinguishing himself fop his skill in the Hebrew language, was recommended to the right honourable Horatio Walpoie, whom he attended as chaplain in his embassy to Paris. After his return home he became possessed of the rectory of St. Paul’s, Deptford, June 23, 1731. He died in 1775. He published, 1. “An address to his parishioners on the Rebellion in 1745.” 2. “Infidelity scourged, or Christianity vindicated against Chubb, &c.” 1746, 8vo. 3. “An essay towards a rationale of the literal doctrine of Original Sin, &c.” occasioned by some of Dr. Middleton’s writings, 1752, 8vo. 4. “A second edition of the Rationale, &c.” 1766, in the preface to which, he laments that “it was his hard fate, in his younger years, to serve one of our ambassadors as his chaplain at a foreign court.” He published also a few occasional sermons

, bishop of Norwich in the fourteenth century, and founder of Trinity hall in Cambridge, was born at Norwich, the son of a citizen of good repute in that place. He was, from his tenderest years, of a docile and ingenuous disposition, and having made good proficiency in learning, he was sent to the university of Cambridge. There he particularly studied the civil law, in which he took the degree of doctor before he was thirty years of age, a thing then uncommon. On the 8th of December 1328, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Norwich. Soon after this, he went and studied at Rome, for his further improvement; and so distinguished himself by his knowledge and exemplary behaviour, that he was promoted by the pope to the place of auditor of his palace. He was likewise advanced by him to the deanery of Lincoln, and twice sent by him as his nuncio, to endeavour to procure a peace between Edward III. king-of England, and the king of France. Upon the death of Anthony de Beck, bishop of Norwich, the pope conferred that bishopric upon Bateman, on the 23d of January 1343, after which he returned into his native country, and lived in a generous and hospitable manner. Of pope Clement VI. he obtained for himself and successors, the first fruits of all vacant livings within his diocese; which occasioned frequent disputes between hhnsJ.f and his clergy. In 1347, he founded Trinity-hall in Cambridge, for the study of the civil and canon laws, by purchasing certain tenements from the monks of Ely, for which he gave some rectories in exchange, and converted the premises into a hall, dedicated to the holy Trinity. He endowed it with the rectories of Briston, Kymberley, Brimmingham, Woodalling, Cowling, and Stalling, in the diocese of Norwich: and designed that it should consist of a master, twenty fellows, and three scholars; to study the canon and civil law, with an allowance for one divine. But being prevented by death, he left provision only for a master, three fellows, and two scholars. However, by the munificence of subsequent benefactors, it now maintains a master, twelve fellows, and fourteen scholars. Bishop Bateman, from his abilities and address, was often employed by the king and parliament in affairs of the highest importance; and particularly was at the head of several embassies, on purpose to determine the differences between the crowns of England and France. In 1354, he was, by order of parliament, dispatched to the court of Rome, with Henry duke of Lancaster, and others, to treat (in the pope’s presence) of a peace, then in agitation between the two crowns above mentioned. This journey proved fatal to him; for he died at Avignon, where the pope then resided, on the 6th of January 1354-5, and was buried with great solemnity, in the cathedral church of that city. With regard to his person, we are told that he was of an agreeable countenance; and tall, handsome, and well made. He was, likewise, a man of strict justice and piety, punctual in the discharge of his duty, and of a friendly and compassionate disposition. But he was a stout defender of his rights, and would not suffer himself to be injured, or imposed upon, by any one, of which we have the following instance upon record, which perhaps does not more display his resolution than the abject state into which the king and his nobles were reduced by the usurped powers of the church of Rome Robert lord Morley having killed some deer in his parks, and misused his servants, he made him do public penance for the same, by walking uncovered and barefoot, with a wax taper of six pounds in his hands, through the city of Norwich to the cathedral, and then asking his pardon. And all this was done notwithstanding an express order of the king to the contrary, and though his majesty had seized the bishop’s revenues for his obstinacy. But the king was soon after reconciled to him. It remains to be mentioned that bishop Bateman was executor to Edmund Gonville, the founder of the college so called, which gave rise to the report by Godwin and others that he had founded that college or hall, which is evidently a mistake.

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

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

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

, 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.

was born at Rimini, March 25, 1645, of a noble family, and studied at Cesena, under the most celebrated professors, and such was his proficiency, that he was honoured with a doctor’s degree at the age of sixteen. He next went to Rome, where Caspar de Carpegna, then auditor of the Rota, wished him to accept an office in that tribunal, and employed him in some negotiations, but the air of Rome proving unfavourable to his health, he removed to Ancona, where for five years he filled the office of civil lieutenant of that city. He was afterwards governor of various towns, the last of which was Fabriano. In 1690, pope Alexander VIII. appointed him bishop of Nocera, and in 1703 Clement XL commissioned him to visit several dioceses. After being employed in this for two years, the pope made him assistant prelate, and gave him the abbey of St. Benedict of Gualdo. In 1716 he was translated to the see of Cesena, which he enjoyed but a short time, dying at St. Mauro, Sept. 19, 1717. He wrote in Italian, 1. “II Legista Filosofo,” Rome, 1680, 4to. 2. “Istoria universale di tutti i Concili Geiierali,” Venice, 1689, 2 vols. fol. This we suspect is the second, and much improved edition. 3. “Annali del Sacerdozio,” 4 vols. fol. Venice, 1701, 1704, 1709, 1711He wrote, also, some devotional tracts.

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

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

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

The learning and abilities of Mr. Baxter are sufficiently displayed in his writings, which, however, were of much more note in the literary world during his own time, than now. He was very studious, and sometimes sat up whole nights reading and writing. His temper was cheerful, and in his manners, he appeared the gentleman as well as the scholar, but in conversation he was modest, and not apt to make much shew of the extensive knowledge of which he was possessed. In the discharge of the several social and relative duties of life, his conduct was exemplary. He had the most reverential sentiments of the Deity, of whose presence and immediate support he had always a strong impression upon his mind; and the general tenour of his life appears to have been conformable. Mr. Baxter paid a strict attention to ceconomy, but was not parsimonious in his expences. It is known, also, that there were several occasions, on which he acted with remarkable disinterestedness; and so far was he from courting preferment, that he has repeatedly declined considerable offers of that kind which were made him, if he would have taken orders in the Church of England. His friends and correspondents were numerous and respectable; and among them are particularly mentioned Mr. Pointz, preceptor to the late duke of Cumberland, and-,Dr. Warburton, bishop of Gloucester. His wife, by whom he had one son and three daughters, all of whom were lately living, survived him ten years, and was buried in the church of Linlithgow, in 1760.

Bishop Warburton has characterised Mr. Baxter’s treatise on the Soul, as “containing the justest and most'precise notions of God and the soul, and as altogether one of the most finished of its kind,” an encomium too unqualified, although it certainly discovers great metaphysical acuteness. The great principle on which Baxter builds his reasoning, is the vis inertia of matter. The arguments he hath founded upon this principle, and the consequences he hath drawn from it, have, in the opinion of several persons, been carried too far. Mr. Hume made some objections to Mr. Baxter’s system, though without naming him, in his Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. It is probable that Mr. Baxter did not think Mr. Hume to be enough of a natural philosopher to merit particular notice; or he might not have seen Mr. Hume’s Philosophical Essays, which were first published only two years before our author’s death. He had a much more formidable antagonist in Mr. Colin Maclaurin. This ingenious gentleman, in his account of sir Isaac Newton’s philosophical discoveries, had started various difficulties with regard to what had been urged concerning the vis inertia of matter; and it was to remove these difficulties, and still farther to confirm his own principles, that Mr. Baxter wrote the Appendix.

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

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

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

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

In 1701 Mr. Baxter’s celebrated edition of Horace made its appearance, of which it is said that a second edition was finished by him a few days before his death, and published by his son John, but not until 1725. In it there were some corrections, alterations, and additions introduced. Dr. Harwood bestows the highest praise on it, as “by far the best edition of Horace ever published.” He adds, “I have read it many times through, and know its singular worth, England has not produced a more elegant or judicious crU tic than Baxter.” Gesner, entertaining the same sentiments, when he was requested to give an edition of made Baxter’s labours the foundation of his own, and published his edition, thus improved in 1752, and again in 1772, the latter still move improved by a collation of some Mss. and some very early editions which do not appear to have been consulted by Baxter. On the appearance of this last edition, Dr. Lowth, the late learned bishop of London, pronounced it the best edition of Horace ever yet delivered to the world. In 1788, Zeunius republished it, preserving all Baxter’s and Gesner’s observations, adding a few of his own, and availing himself of the labours of Jani and Wieland. Of this a very elegant edition was published in 1797, by Mr. Payne, of Pall Mall, printed by Mundell of Glasgow, in 8vo. But what can we say to the uncertainties of criticism? Harles and Mitscherlich. do not concur with Dr. Harwood in his opinion of Baxter’s edition of 1725, and they both under-rate his labours, Harles blaming him for his “ribaldry and abuse of Bentley.” Baxter was certainly irritated against Bentley, probably on account of some remarks introduced by Bentley into his edition of Horace, which had been published in the interval between 1701 and the time of his death. Gesner makes all the apology that can now be offered: he thinks that Baxter might feel Bentley' s contempt, than whom no man could deal out contempt more severely, or Baxter might himself be affected with somewhat of the irritability of age.

His father, affected and delighted with this answer, sent next day to the bishop of Grenoble, his brother-in-law, and requested him to present young Bayard to the duke of Savoy, in the quality of his page. His clothes and equipage being prepared in a lew hours, he mounted a horse, which having never before felt a spur, gave three or four springs, which greatly alarmed the company; but the young hero, without being at all disconcerted, fixed himself in the saddle, and repeated the discipline of his heel until his steed submitted to his direction. The parting of the father and the son was affecting, and, his biographer observes, is a lively picture of that noble simplicity of manners, from which his nation has so much degenerated, by the false refinements of an effeminate politeness. His mother recommended three things to him the first was, “to fear, and love, and to serve God” the second, “to be gentle and courteous to the nobility, without pride or haughtiness to any;” and the third was, “to be generous and charitable to the poor and necessitous;” adding, that “to give for the love of God never made any man poor.” Bayard promised to follow these good precepts, and although his deviations were not unfrequent, he preserved a sense of religion which led him to fulfil all its external duties at least with exemplary punctuality and zeal: neither his youth, nor the tumults and hurry of a military life, nor the dissolute company into which he naturally fell, nor even the failings, from which he was not himself exempt, could ever extinguish in his breast a certain veneration for the religion in which he had been brought up.

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

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

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

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

, 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.

, an English prelate, was a native of Yorkshire, and educated in St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he attained considerable reputation, as an expounder of the Scriptures, and as a Greek and Hebrew scholar. Having taken his degree of D. D. he went over to Paris, and was for some time royal professor of Hebrew. He remained abroad during the latter part of the reign of Henry VIII. and the whole of Edward VI. but upon the accession of queen Mary, with whose principles he coincided, he was consecrated bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. When queen Elizabeth succeeded, he was deprived, and for some time imprisoned, but lived afterwards in the bishop of London’s house. He died in 1559, of the stone. Fuller says, in allusion to the persecutions he occasioned in his diocese, that although he was as bad as Christopherson, he was better than Bonner. He wrote “Prima Rudimenta in linguam Hebraicam,” Paris, 1550, 4to, and “Comment, in proverbia Salomonis, lib. III.” ibid, and same year, fol.

, 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.

, 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."

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.

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

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

, a member of the national Institute of France, and an astronomer of considerable fame, was born at Vesoul, June 29, 1752. He was originally intended for the church, and in 1767, entered the order of the Bernardines, but his turn for astronomy induced him to become the pupil of Lalande, and one of the ablest of his scholars. His uncle Miroudat, bishop of Babylonia, having-appointed him his vicar-general, he left France in 1781, to exercise the functions of that office in the Levant, and at the same time to take astronomical observations. He went first to Aleppo, thence to Bagdad, Bassora, and Persia. On the eve of the revolution, he returned to France, after having contributed very essentially to the promotion of the sciences of astronomy and geography, as may appear by his communications in the “Journal deaf Savans” for 1782, 1784, 1785, 1787, 1788, and 1790. He remained with his family until 1795, when the then French government appointed him consul at Mascate, a Portuguese settlement in Arabia; but in 1797, we find him at Constantinople, whence he sailed along the Black Sea, making many observations, and rectifying many errors in the charts of that sea. When Bonaparte was appointed commander of the expedition to Egypt, he recalled Beauchamps from Mascate, and added him to the number of scientific men attached to the army. In 1799, Bonaparte sent him on a secret mission to Constantinople, but before he had proceeded far from the port of Alexandria, he was taken by the English, and delivered up to the grand Turk as a spy. By the intercession, however, of the ambassadors of Spain and Russia, his punishment was mitigated to imprisonment in a strong castle on the borders of the Black Sea, and in 1801 he was released. Bonaparte, then first consul, appointed him mercantile commissary at Lisbon, but before he could reach this place, he died at Nice, Nov. 19, 1801, to the great regret of his friends, and particularly of the learned world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, an eminent Jesuit, born in 156J, at Hilvarenbec, a small village of Brabant, entered the society of Jesuits in 1583. He taught philosophy four years, and divinity twenty-two years, at Mentz, Wirtzburgh, and Vienna, and was reckoned one of the ablest professors of his time. The emperor Matthias maintained him at Vienna, and he was made confessor to the emperor Ferdinand II. The popish historians say he was happy in a clear conception, and could express himself so intelligibly to his scholars, even upon the most intricate points, that several universities contended which shoiil.l receive him. He published a tract upon scholastic divinity, which Dupin says is short and clear, and has been much esteemed, and several treatises of controversy. He was the friend and follower of Bellarmin, and supported him in his controversy with king James I. and bishop Andrews (see Andrews). It may supply a small defect in bishop Andrews’s life, to note here that Becan wrote “Refutatio Apologias et Monitorix prefationis Jacobi regis Anglian,” Mentz, 1610, 8vo. 2. “Refutatio Torturae Torti (bishop Andrews’s book. See his life, p. 219.) ibid. 1610, 8vo. This was answered by Robert Burhill, in” Responsio pro Torlura Torti, contra M. Becanum,“Lond. 1611, 8vo. 3.” Controversia Anglicana de potestate regis et pontificis, contra Lancelotum Andream,“Mentz, 1612, 8vo. All Becan’s works were published at Mentz, 1630, 2 vols. fol.; and at Doway, 1641, but in this collection his” Analogy of the Old and New Testament," one of the most esteemed of his productions, is omitted. He died at Vienna, Jan. 24, according to Dnpin, but in May, according to others, 1624. The fate of his works has been somewhat singular. In his opposition to king James and the bishop of Ely, he carried the power of the pope so far, that Paul V. was obliged to have his book condemned at Rome, Jan. 3, 1613; and a century and a half after this, in 1762, the parliament of Paris ordered the whole of his works to be burnt.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, 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.

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

, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. bishop of London in the reign of Henry I. was advanced to that sea through the interest of Roger Montgomery, earl of Shropshire, and consecrated 26th July, 1108. Immediately after his consecration, he was appointed, by the king, warden of the marches between England and Wales, and lieutenant of the county of Salop which offices he held about three years, residing for the most part of the time at Shrewsbury. This prelate expended the whole revenues of his bishopric in the structure of St. Paul’s cathedral, for which purpose he purchased several adjoining houses of the owners, which he pulled down, and converted the ground they stood upon into a church-yard, and this he surrounded with a very high wall. Bishop Godwin thinks this wall remained entire in his time, though no part of it was to be seen by reason of the houses, with which it was on all sides covered. Despairing, however, of seeing it finished, he turned the stream of his liberality another way; and, exchanging the manor of Landsworth for a place in the diocese of London called St. Osith de Chich, near Colchester in Essex, he built there a convent of regular canons. Being seized with a dead palsy, and thereby disqualified for the exercise of his episcopal functions, he intended to have resigned his bishopric, and to have spent the remainder of his life in the monastery of his own foundation: but whilst he delayed his purpose from day to day, he died Jan. 16, 1127 and he was buried in the convent of St. Osith. Tanner informs us, that, in the monastery of Peterborough there was formerly a treatise, written in verse, by bishop Belmeis, and addressed to Henry I.

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

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

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

The following letter from this excellent bishop to the bishop of Soissons speaks so much in his favour, that we shall make n,o apology for inserting it.

"I wish, my lord, I were as eloquent as you are full of zeal and charity, to testify my grateful acknowledegment of your liberality, aqd the charities you have procured us; but in our present consternation, we are not in a condition to express any other sentiment than that of grief. Your alms came at a very seasonable time, for I was reduced almost to the last penny. I am labouring to get money for bills for 1000 livres, which the bishop of Frejus was pleased to send us, and six more of Mr. Fontanteu, though just upon the decay of the bills of 1000 livres, they are not very current, yet I hope I shall succeed. You, my lord, have prevented these difficulties, and we are doubly obliged to you for it. Might I presume to beg the favour of you to thank, in my name, cardinal de Rohan, M. and Madame Dangeau, and the curate of St Sulpice, for their charities.

“Henry, bishop of Marseilles.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was, according to bishop Burnet, a proud man; and his parts were solid, but not quick. He had the art of observing the king’s temper, and managing it beyond all the men of that time. He was believed a papist, for he had once professed it, and at his death again reconciletl himself to the church of Rome. Yet in the whole course of his ministry, he seemed to have made it a maxim, that the king ought to shew no favour to popery, since all his. affairs would be ruined, if ever he turned that way: which made the papists become his mortal enemies, and accuse him as an apostate, and the betrayer of their interests. His character is drawn by Mr. Macpherson, in his History of Great Britain, with conciseness, spirit, and justice. *' Arlington supplied the place of extensive talents by an artful management of such as he possessed. Accommodating in his principles, and easy in his address, he pleased when he was known to deceive; and his manner acquired to him a kind of influence where he commanded no respect. He was little calculated for bold measures, on account of his natural timidity; and that defect created an opinion of his moderation, that was ascribed to virtue. His facility to adopt new measures was forgotten in his readiness to acknowledge the errors of the old. The deficiency of his integrity was forgiven in the decency of his dishonesty. Too weak not to be superstitious, yet possessing too much sense to own his adherence to the church of Rome, he lived a Protestant, in his outward profession; but he died a Catholic. Timidity was the chief characteristie of his mind; and that being known, he was even commanded by cowards. He was the man of the least genius of the parry; but he had most experience in that slow and constant current of business, which perhaps, suits affairs of state better than the violent exertions of men of great parts."

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

It is much to the honour both of Dr. Bennet and bishop Hoadly, that the latter contributed to the preferment of the former. Few persons could be more different in their theological and other sentiments. Dr. Bennet’s character, therefore, must have been very excellent to excite such an instance of regard in Dr. Hoadly; and the bishop’s candour and liberality of mind must have been equally laudable, in overlooking the most striking disparity of opinions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Bentley married a daughter of sir John Bernard, of Branapton, in Huntingdonshire, by whom he had one son, Richard, of whom in the next article, and two daughters, Elizabeth and Joanna. Elizabeth first married Humphrey Ridge, esq. and after his decease the rev. Dr, Favell, rector of Witton, near Huntingdon. Joanna, the Phebe of Dr. Byron’s celebrated pastoral (first published in the Spectator), married the rev. Denison Cumberland, afterward bishop of Kilmore, in Ireland, and father, by this lady, of Richard Cumberland, esq. the late dramatic and miscellaneous writer.

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