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

, eldest son of the preceding, was professor of law at Bologna, where he attained great reputation. When Edward I. king of England passed through Bologna, in 1275, after his return from the Holy Land, he wished to engage Accursius to teach law in the French provinces under his dominion; but the government of Bologna, unwilling to part with so able a professor, threatened to confiscate his goods if he dared to leave the city. Accursius, however, took his leave, and after having taught law at Toulouse for three years, was invited to Oxford by king Edward, and lodged ill his palace at Beaumont. The king gave him also the manor of Martlegh, and in the grant styles him “dilectus et fidelis Secretarius noster;” and in another charter, “illustris regis Anglian consiliarius.” In 1275, he read lawr lectures at Oxford, or more probably in 1276, if he remained three years at Toulouse, In 1280, he returned to Bologna, and was restored to his chair and his property. His death took place in 1321. None of his writings remain.

, bishop of Avranches in Normandy, usually surnamed St. Victor, flourished in the twelfth century. His birth-place is much contested; but it appears most probable that he was a Norman, of a noble family; and as Normandy was at that time subject to the King of England, it was supposed he was an Englishman. He was, however, a Canon-regular of the order of St. Augustine, and second abbot of St. Victor at Paris. He was preferred to the bishoprick of Avranches in 1162 by the interest of King Henry II. of England, with whom he appears to have been a favourite, as he stood god-father to Eleanor, daughter to that prince, and afterwards wife of Alphonso Jx. king of Castile. He died March 29, 1172, and was interred in the church of the Holy Trinity, belonging to the abbey of Luzerne, in the diocese of Avranches. His epitaph, which, the authors of the General Dictionary say, is still remaining, speaks his character: “Here lies bishop Achard, by whose charity our poverty was enriched.” He was a person of great eminence for piety and learning. His younger years he spent in the study of polite literature and philosophy, and the latter part of his life in intense application. His works were: “De Tentatione Christi,” a ms. in the library of St. Victor at Paris. “De divisione Animae & Spiritus,” in the same library; copies of which are in the public library at Cambridge, and in that of Bene't. His “Sermons” are in the library of Clairvaux. He likewise wrote “The Life of St. Geselin,” which was published at Douay, 12mo, 1626.

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

In 1148 Eugenius sent him legate to Denmark and Norway; where, by his fervent preaching and diligent instructions, he converted those barbarous nations to the Christian faith; and we are told, that he erected the church of Upsal into an archiepiscopal see. On his return to Rome, he was received by the pope and cardinals with great marks of honour: and pope Anastatius, who succeeded Eugenius, happening to die at this time, Nicholas was unanimously chosen to the holy see, in November, 1154, and took the name of Adrian. When the news of his promotion reached England, Henry II. sent Robert, abbot of St. Alban’s, and three bishops, to Rome, to congratulate him on his election; upon which occasion Adrian granted to the monastery of St. Alban’s, the privilege of being exempt front all episcopal jurisdiction except that of Rome. Next year, king Henry having solicited the pope’s consent that he might undertake the conquest of Ireland, Adrian very readily complied, and sent him a bull for that purpose, of which the following is a translation: “Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his most dear son in Christ, the illustrious king of England, sendeth greeting and apostolical benediction. Your magnificence is very careful to spread your glorious name in the world, and to merit an immortal crown in heaven, whilst, as a good catholic prince, you form a design of extending the bounds of the church, of instructing ignorant and barbarous people in the Christian faith, and of reforming the licentious and immoral; and the more effectually to put this design in execution, you desire the advice and assistance of the holy see. We are confident, that, by the blessing of God, the success will answer the wisdom and discretion of the undertaking. You have advertised us, dear son, of your intended expedition into Ireland, to reduce that people to the obedience of the Christian faith; and that you are willing to pay for every house a yearly acknowledgment of one penny to St. Peter, promising to maintain the rights of those churches in the fullest manner. We therefore, being willing to assist you in this pious and laudable design, and consenting to your petition, do grant you full liberty to make a descent upon that island, in order to enlarge the borders of the church, to check the progress of immorality, and to promote the spiritual happiness of the natives: and we command the people of that country to receire and acknowledge you as their sovereign lord; provided the rights of the churches be inviolably preserved, and the Peter pence duly paid: for indeed it is certain (and your highness acknowledges it) that all the islands, which are enlightened by Christ, the sun of righteousness, and have embraced the doctrines of Christianity, are unquestionably St. Peter’s right, and belong to the holy Roman church. If, therefore, you resolve to put your designs in execution, be careful to reform the manners of that people; and commit the government of the churches to able and virtuous persons, that the Christian religion may grow and flourish, and the honour of God and the preservation of souls be effectually promoted; so shall you deserve an everlasting reward in heaven, and leave a glorious name to all posterity.” His indulgence to this prince was so great, that he even consented to absolve him from the oath he had taken not to set aside any part of his father’s will. The reason of this was, that Geoffry Plantagenet, earl of Anjou, had by the empress Maud, three sons, Henry, Geoffry, and William. This prince, being sensible that his ovrn dominions would of course descend to his eldest son Henry, and that the kingdom of England and duchy of Normandy would likewise fall to him in right of his mother, thought fit to devise the earldom of Anjou to his second son Geoffry; and to render this the more valid, he exacted an oath of the bishops and nobility, not to suffer his corpse to be buried till his son Henry had sworn to fulfil every part of his will. When Henry came to attend his father’s funeral, the oath was tendered to him; but for some time he refused to swear to a writing, with the contents of which he was unacquainted. Howerer, being reproached with the scandal of letting his father lie unburied, he at last took the oath with great reluctance. But after his accession to the throne, upon a complaint to pope Adrian that the oath was forced upon him, he procured a dispensation from his holiness, absolving him from the obligation he had laid himself under: and in consequence thereof, he dispossessed his brother Geoffry of the dominions of Anjou, allowing him only a yearly pension for his maintenance.

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

, marquis de Fronsac, seigneur de St. Andre, marechal of France, and one of the greatest captains of the sixteenth century, better known by the name of marechal de St. Andre, descended from an industrious and ancient family in Lyonnois. He gained the esteem of the dauphin, who, when he came to the crown by the name of Henry II. loaded him with riches and honours, made him marechal of France^ 1547, and afterwards first gentleman of his bed-chamber. He had already displayed his courage at the siege of Boulogne, and the battle of Cerisolles. He was then, it is said, chosen to carry the collar of his order to Henry VIII. king of England, who decorated him with that of the garter; but we do not find his name among the knights of that order, and it is more likely that he was the bearer of the insignia of the garter to Henry II. of France, from our Edward VI. In 1552, he had the command of the army of Champagne, and contributed much to the taking of Marienberg in 1554. He destroyed Chateau-Cambresis, and acquired great reputation at the retreat of Quesnoy; was at the battle of Renti; was taken prisoner at that of St. Quintin 1557, and bore an active part in the peace of Cambresis. He afterwards joined the friends of the duke ofGuise, and was killed by Babigny de Mezieres, with a pistol, at the battle of Dreux, 1562. He was handsome, noble, brave, active, insinuating, and much engaged in the important transactions of his time. Brantome asserts, that he had a presentiment of his death, before the battle of Dreux, He had only one daughter by his marriage with Margaret de Lustrac, who died very young in the monastery of LongChamp, at the time when her marriage was agreed upon with Henry of Guise.

, an English poet, once of some fame, who lived in the reign of Charles I. He received his education at Sidney college in Cambridge; and going to London, became assistant to Thomas Farnaby the famous grammarian, athis great school in Goldsmith’s rents, in the parish of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate. In 1631, he published two poems on the famous victories of Cressi and Poictiers, obtained by the English in France, under king Edward III. and his martial son the Black Prince; they are written in stanzas of six lines. Leaving Mr. Farnaby, he went into the family of Edward Sherburne, esq. to be tutor to his son, who succeeded his father as clerk of the ordnance, and was also commissary-general of the artillery to king Charles I. at the battle of Edgehill. His next production was a poem in honour of king Henry VII. and that important battle which gained him the crown of England: it was published in IbliS, under the title of “The Historic of that wise and fortunate prince Henrie, of that name the seventh, king of England; with that famed battle fought between the said king Henry and Richard III. named Crook-back, upon Red more near Bosworth.” There are several poetical eulogiums prefixed to this piece, amongst which is one by Edward Sherburne, his pupil. Besides these three poems, there are in print some little copies of commendatory verses ascribed to him, and prefixed to the works of other writers, particularly before the earliest editions of Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays. la 1639 he published the History of Eurialus and Lucretia, which was a translation; the story is to be found among the Latin epistles of Æneas Sylvius. The year after he is said to have died, and to have been buried in the parish of St. Andrew’s, Holborn.

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

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

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

, bishop of Lisieux, in the twelfth century, was treasurer of the church of Bayeux, archdeacon of Seez, and in 1141, succeeded John, his uncle, io the bishopric of Lisieux. In 1147 he travelled beyond seas with Louis the Young, king of France, and returned in 1149. In 1,154, he was present at the coronation of Henry II. king of England, whom he endeavoured to keep steadfast to the orthodox faith, as appears by the letters of pope Alexander III. He espoused the cause of Thomasa Becket, and travelled to England, on purpose to effect a reconciliation between Becket and the king, but finding that his interference was useless, and likely to involve himself with Henry, he resolved to retire to a monastery. Many years after he was made canon regular of the abbey of St. Victor at Paris, where he died August 31, 1182. He wrote several works, and among others, a volume of letters, two speeches, one delivered in the council held at Tours, 1163, and the other on occasion of ordaining a bishop, and some pieces of poetry, all printed by Odo Turnebus, the son of Adrian, Paris, 1585, under the title “Epistolae, conciones, et epigrammata,” and afterwards inserted in theBibliotheca Patrum. D'Acheri, in the second volume of his Spicilegium, has a treatise by Arnoul, “De Schismate orco post Honoriill. discessum, contra Girardum episcopum Engolismensem,” the legate of Peter of Leon, the antipope: and in the thirteenth volume, a sermon and five letters. ArnoiFs letters are chiefly valuable for the particulars they contain of the history and discipline of his times, and his poetry is favourably spoken of, as to correctness of verse.

, a learned Italian physician, was born at Assisi, about the year 1586. His father, who was also a physician of character, spared nothing to give him an education suitable to the profession which he wished him to follow. He began his studies at Perugia, and meant to have completed them at Montpellier, but he was sent to Padua, where he attended the logical, philosophical, and medical classes. Having obtained his doctor’s degree in his eighteenth year, he went to Venice and practised physic there for fifty years, during which he refused very advantageous offers from the duke of Mantua, the king of England, and pope Urban VIII. and died there July 16, 1660. He had collected a copious library, particularly rich in manuscripts, and cultivated general literature as well as the sciences connected with his profession, in which last he published only one tract, to be noticed hereafter. His first publication was “Riposte alle considerazion di Alessandro Tassoni, sopra le rime del Petrarca,” Padua, 1611, 8vo, to which Tassoni replied under the assumed name of Crescenzio Pepe; “Avvertimenti di Cres. Pepe a Guiseppe degli Aromatari, &c.” 1611, 8vo. Aromatari answered this by “Dialoghi di Falcidio Melampodio in riposta agli avvertimenti date sotto nome di Cres. Pepe, &c.” Venice, 1613, 8vo. But the work which has procured him most reputation was a letter on the generation of plants, addressed to Bartholomew Nanti, and printed for the first time, prefixed to his (Aromatari’s) “Disputatio de rabie contagiosa,” Venice, 1625, 4to, Francfort, 1626, 4to, and the Letter was afterwards printed among the “Epistolæ selectæ” of G. Richt, Nuremberg, 1662, 4to. It was also translated into English, and published in the Philosophical Transactions, No. CCXI, and again reprinted with Jungius’s works, in 1747, at Cobourg. His opinions on the generation of plants were admired for their ingenuity, and if his health and leisure had permitted, he intended to have prosecuted the subject more minutely.

, 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.

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

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

, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

, one of the most, if not the most distinguished character of the twelfth century, was born at Fountaine, a village of Burgundy, in 1091, and was the son of Tecelinus, a military nobleman, renowned for what was then deemed piety. His mother, Aleth, who has the same character, had seven children by her husband, of whom Bernard was the third. From his infancy he was devoted to religion and study, and made a rapid progress in the learning of the times. He took an early resolution, to retire from the world, and engaged all his brothers, and several of his friends in the same monastic views with himsell. The most rigid rules were most agreeable to his inclination, and hence he became a Cistertian, the strictest of the orders in France. The Cistertians were at that time but few in number, men being discouraged from uniting with them on account of their excessive austerities. Bernard, however, by his superior genius, his eminent piety, and his ardent zeal, gave to this order a lustre and a celebrity, which their institution by no means deserved. At the age of twenty-three, with more than thirty companions, he entered into the monastery. Other houses of the order arose soon after, and he himself was appointed abbot of Clairval. To those noviciates who desired admission, he used to say, “If ye hasten to those things which are within, dismiss your bodies, which ye brought from the world let the spirits alone enter the flesh profiteth nothing.” Yet Bernard gradually learned to correct the harshness and asperity of his sentiments, and while he preached mortification to his disciples, led them on with more mildness and clemency than he exercised towards himself. For some time he injured his own health exceedingly by austerities, and, as he afterwards confessed, threw a stumbling block in the way of the weak, by exacting of them a degree of perfection, which he himself had not attained. After he had recovered from these excesses, he began to exert himself by travelling and preaching from place to place, and such were his powers of eloquence, or the character in which he was viewed, that he soon acquired an astonishing prevalence, and his word became a law to princes and nobles. His eloquence, great as it was, was aided in the opinion of his hearers by his sincerity and humility, and there can be no doubt that his reputation for those qualities was justly founded. He constantly refused the highest ecclesiastical dignities, among which the bishoprics of Genoa, Milan, andRheims, may be instanced, although his qualifications were indisputable. Such was his influence, that during a schism which happened in the church of Rome, his authority determined both Louis VI. king of France and Henry I. king of England, to support the claims of Innocent II., one instance, among many, to prove the ascendancy he had acquired. Yet although no potentate, civil or ecclesiastical, possessed such real power as he did, in the Christian world, and though he stood the highest in the judgment of all men, he remained in his own estimation the lowest, and referred all he did to divine grace.

, known, from his favourite dress, by the name of Velvet Brueghel, or Feuweeler, was the son of Peter Brueghel the old, and consequently brother to the preceding. He was born at Brussels, in 1560, and was instructed, probably by his father, and by other artists; but, whoever were his instructors, he acquired an eminence in every art of painting; in colouring, in design, and in pencilling, far superior to that of his father, and of all his contemporaries in his style. He began with painting flowers and fruit, which he executed with admirable skill; and then proceeded to landscapes, sea-ports, and markets, in which he introduced a number of small figures, surprisingly exact and correctly drawn. At Cologne, where he resided for some time, he gained an extraordinary reputation; and his pictures were well known and admired in Italy, in which country he spent some time. He died, according to the most probable accounts, in 1625. That the industry of this artist must have been singular, sufficiently appears from the number and variety of his pictures, and the exquisite neatness and delicacy of their execution. It has been lamented, however, by connoisseurs, that his distances are overcharged with a bluish tinge. Brueghel often decorated the pictures of his friends with small figures, thus greatly enhancing their value; he was employed in painting flowers, fruits, animals, and landscape scenery, in the pieces of history-paintings; and in this way Rubens made occasional use of his pencil. He sometimes joined this master in larger works, which have been much admired; and particularly in a “Vertumnus and Pomona,” a picture three feet high and four broad, highly commended by Houbraken, and sold at Amsterdam for above 2SOl. sterling; and “a Terrestrial Paradise,” painted for Charles I. king of England. In the gallery of the archiepiscopal palace at Milan, there is an admirable landscape of Brueghel, representing a desert, in which Giovanna Battista Crespi painted the figure of St. Jerom; and among a great number preserved in the Ambrosian library in that city, there is an oval picture of the Virgin, painted by Rubens, which is encompassed by a garland of flowers admirably executed by Brueghel. Most considerable cabinets possess specimens of the art of this master. Some small engravings of landscapes, &c. are also ascribed to Brueghel.

, or Bude’ (William), an eminent scholar and critic, the descendant of an ancient and illustrious family in France, lord of Marli-la-ville, king’s counsellor, and master of requests, was born at Paris in 1467. He was the second son of John Budé, lord of Yere and Villiers, secretary to the king, and one of the grand officers of the French chancery. In his infancy he was provided with masters; but such was the low state of Parisian education at that time, that when sent to the university of Orleans to study law, he remained there for three years, without making any progress, for want of a proper knowledge of the Latin language. Accordingly, on his return home, his parents had the mortification to discover that he was as ignorant as when he went, disgusted with study of any kind, and obstinately bent to pass his time amidst the gaieties and pleasures of youth, a coarse which his fortune enabled him to pursue. But after he had indulged this humour for some time, an ardent passion for study seized him, and became irresistible. He immediately disposed of his horses, dogs, &c. with which he followed the chace, applied himself to study, and in a short time made very considerable progress, although he had no masters, nor either instruction or example in his new pursuit. He became, in particular, an excellent Latin scholar, and although his style is not so pure or polished as that of those who formed themselves in early life on the best models, it is far from being deficient in fluency or elegance. His knowledge of the Greek was so great that John de Lascaris, the most learned Grecian of his time, declared that Budé might be compared with the first orators of ancient Athens. This language is perhaps complimentary, but it cannot be denied that his knowledge of Greek was very extraordinary, considering how little help he derived from instructions. He, indeed, employed at a large salary, one Hermonymus, but soon found that he was very superficial, and had acquired the reputation of a Greek scholar merely from knowing a little more than the French literati, who at that time knew nothing. Hence Budé used to call himself ανἶομαθης & οψιμαϑης i. e. self-taught and late taught. The work by which he gained most reputation, and published under the title “De Asse,” was one of the tirst efforts to clear up the difficulties relating to the coins and measures of the ancients; and although an Italian, Leonardus Portius, pretended to claim some of his discoveries, Budé vindicated his right to them with spirit and success. Previously to this he had printed a translation of some pieces of Plutarch, and “Notes upon the Pandects.” His fame having reached the court, he was invited to it, but was at first rather reluctant. He appears to have been one of those who foresaw the advantages of a diffusion of learning, and at the same time perceived an unwillingness in the court to entertain it, lest it should administer to the introduction of what was called heresy. Charles VIII. was the first who invited him to court, but died soon after: his successor Louis XII. employed him twice on embassies to Italy, and made him his secretary. This favour continued in the reign of Francis I. who sent for Budé to court when it was held at Arches at the interview of that monarch with Henry VIII. the king of England. From this time Francis paid him much attention, appointed him his librarian, and master of the requests, while the Parisians elected him provost of the merchants. This political influence he employed in promoting the interests of literature, and suggested to Francis I. the design of establishing professorships for languages and the sciences at Paris. The excessive heats of the year 1540 obliging the king to take a journey to the coast of Normandy, Budé accompanied his majesty, but unfortunately was seized with a fever, which carried him off Aug. 23/1540, at Paris. His funeral was private, and at night, by his own desire. This circumstance created a suspicion that he died in the reformed religion; but of this there is ho direct proof, and although he occasionally made free with the court of Rome and the corruptions of the clergy in his works, yet in them likewise he wrote with equal asperity of the reformers. Erasmus called him porttntum Gallic, the prodigy of France. There was a close connection between these two great men. “Their letters/' says the late Dr. Jortin,” though full of compliments and civilities, are also full of little bickerings and contests: which shew that their friendship was not entirely free from some small degree of jealousy and envy; especially on the side of Budé, who yet in other respects was an excellent person." It is not easy to determine on which side the jealousy lay; perhaps it was on both. Budé might envy Erasmus for his superior taste and wit, as well as his more extensive learning; and perhaps Erasmus might envy Budé for a superior knowledge of the Greek tongue, which was generally ascribed to him.

When sir George Carew returned in 1G09 from his French embassy, he drew up, and addressed to king James the First, “A Relation of the state of France, with the characters of Henry the Fourth, and the principal persons of that court;” which reflects great credit upon his sagacity and attention as an ambassador, and his abilities as a writer. In this piece are considered, 1. The name of France. 2. Its ancient and modern limits. 3. Its quality, strength, and situation. 4. Its riches. 5. Its political ordeis. 6. Its disorders and dangers. 7. The persons governing, with those who are likely to succeed. 8. In what terms the French live with their bordering neighbours. And lastly, the state of matters between the king of England’s dominions and theirs. These heads are divided, as occasion requires, into other subordinate ones. The characters are drawn from personal knowledge and close observation, and might be of service to a general historian of that period. The composition is perspicuous and manly, and entirely free from the pedantry which prevailed in the reign of king James I. his taste having been formed in a better aera, that of Queen Elizabeth. The valuable tract we are speaking of lay for a long time in manuscript, till happily falling into the hands of the late earl of Hardwicke, it was communicated by him to Dr. Birch, who published it in 1749, at the end of his “Historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617.” That intelligent and industrious writer justly observes, that it is a model, upon which ambassadors may form and digest their notions and representations and the late celebrated poet, Gray, spoke of it as an excellent performance.

, a very learned critic, was born at Geneva, February 18, 1559, being the son of Arnold Casaubon, a minister of the reformed church, who had taken refuge in Geneva, by his wife Jane Rosseau. He was educated at first by his father, and made so quick a progress in his studies, that at the age of nine he could speak and write Latin with great ease and correctness. But his father being obliged, for three years together, to be absent from home, on account of business, his education was neglected, and at twelve years of age he was forced to begin his studies again by himself, but as he could not by this method make any considerable progress, he was sent in 1578 to Geneva, to complete his studies under the professors there, and by indefatigable application, quickly recovered the time he had lost. He learned the Greek tongue of Francis Portus, the Cretan, and soon became so great a master of that language, that this famous man thought him worthy to be his successor in the professor’s chair in 1582, when he was but three and twenty years of age. In 1586, Feb. 1, he had the misfortune to lose his father, who died at Dil, aged sixty- three. The 28th of April following he married Florence, daughter of Henry Stephens the celebrated printer, by whom he had twenty children. For fourteen years he continued professor of the Greek tongue at Geneva; and in that time studied philosophy and the civil law under Julius Pacius. He also learned Hebrew, and some other of the Oriental languages, but not enough to be able to make use of them afterwards. In the mean time he began to be weary of Geneva; either because he could not agree with his father-in-law, Henry Stephens, who is said to have been morose and peevish; or that his salary was not sufficient for his maintenance; or because he was of a rambling and unsettled disposition. He resolved therefore, after a great deal of uncertainty, to accept the place of professor of the Greek tongue and polite literature, which was offered him at Montpelier, with a more considerable salary than he had at Geneva. To Montpelier he removed about the end of 1596, and began, his lectures in the February following. About the same time, the city of Nismes invited him to come and restore their university, but he excused himself, and some say he had an invitation from the university of Franeker. At his first coming to Montpelier, he was much esteemed and followed, and seemed to be pleased with his station. But this pleasure did not last long; for what had been promised him was not performed; abatements were made in his salary, which also was not regularly paid, and upon the whole, he met there with so much uneasiness that he was upon the point of returning to Geneva, when a journey he took to Lyons in 1598, gave him an opportunity of taking another, that proved extremely advantageous to him. Having been recommended by some gentlemen of Montpelier to M. de Vicq, a considerable man at Lyons, this gentleman took him into his house, and carried him along with him to Paris, where he caused him to be introduced to the first- president de Harlay, the president de Thou, Mr. Gillot, and Nicolas le Fevre, by whom he was very civilly received . He was also presented to king Henry IV. who being informed of his merit, requested him to leave Montpelier for a professor’s place at Paris. Casaubon having remained for some time in suspense which course to take, went back to Montpelier, and resumed his lectures. Not long after, he received a letter from the king, dated January 3, 1599, by which he was invited to Paris in order to be professor of polite literature, and he set out the 26th of February following. When he came to Lyons, M. de Vicq advised him to stay there till the king’s coming, who was expected in that place. In the mean while, some domestic affairs obliged him to go to Geneva, where he complains that justice was not done him with regard to the estate of his father-in-law. Upon his return to Lyons, having waited a long while in vain for the king’s arrival, he took a second journey to Geneva, and then went to Paris; though he foresaw, as M. de Vicq and Scaliger had told him, he should not meet there with all the satisfaction he at first imagined. The king gave him, indeed, a gracious reception; but the jealousy of some of the other professors, and his being a protestant, procured him a great deal of trouble and vexation, and were the cause of his losing the professorship, of which he had the promise. Some time after, he was appointed one of the judges on the protestants’ side, at the conference between James Davy du Perron, bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and Philip du Plessis-Mornay f. As Casaubon was not favourable to the latter, who, some think, did not acquit himself well in that conference, it was reported that he would soon change his religion; but the event showed that this report was groundless. When Casaubon came back to Paris, he found it very difficult to get his pension paid, and the charges of removing from Lyons to Paris, because M. de Rosny was not his friend; and it was only by an express order from the king that he obtained the payment even of three hundred crowns. The 30th of May 1600, he returned to Lyons, to hasten the impression of his “Athenseus,” which was printing there; but he had the misfortune of incurring the displeasure of his great friend M. de Vicq, who had all along entertained him and his whole family in his own house when they were in that city, because he refused to accompany him into Switzerland. The reason of this refusal was, his being afraid of losing in the mean time the place of library-keeper to the king, of which he had a promise, and that was likely soon to become vacant, on account of the librarian’s illness. He returned to Paris with his wife and family the September following, and was well received by the king, and by many persons of distinction. There he read private lectures, published several works of the ancients, and learned Arabic; in which he made so great a progress, that he undertook to compile a dictionary, and translated some books of that language into Latin. In 1601 he was obliged, as he tells us himself, to write against his will to James VI. king of Scotland, afterwards king of England, but does not mention the occasion of it. That prince answered him with great civility, which obliged our author to write to him a second time. In the mean time, the many affronts and uneasinesses he received from time to time at Paris, made him think of leaving that city, and retiring to some quieter place, but king Henry IV. in order to fix him, made an augmentation of two hundred crowns to his pension: and granted him the reversion of the place of his library-keeper. He took a journey to Dauphine in May 1603, and from thence to Geneva about his private affairs; returning to Paris on the 12th of July. Towards the end of the same year he came into possession of the place of king’s library-keeper, vacant by the death of Gosselin. His friends of the Roman catholic persuasion made now frequent attempts to induce him to forsake the protestant religion. Cardinal du Perron, in particular, had several disputes with him, after one of which a report was spread that he had then promised the cardinal he would turn Roman catholic: so that, in order to stifle that rumour, the ministers of Charenton, who were alarmed at it, obliged him to write a letter to the cardinal to contradict what was so confidently reported, and took care to have it printed. About this time the magistrates of Nismes gave him a second invitation to their city, offering him a house, and a salary of six hundred crowns of gold a year, but he durst not accept of it for fear of offending the king. In 1609 he had, by that prince’s order, who was desirous of gaining him over to the catholic religion, a conference with cardinal du Perron, but it had no effect upon him.

He published in 1546, a translation of the Sibylline verses into Latin heroic verse, and of the books of Moses into Latin prose, with notes. This was followed, in 1547, by his Latin version of the psalms of David, and of all the other songs found in scripture. In 1548, he printed a Greek poem on the life of John the baptist, and a paraphrase on the prophecy of Jonah, in Latin verse. He translated some passages of Homer, and some books of Xenophon and St. Cyril. He also turned into Latin several treatises of the famous Ochinus, particularly the thirty dialogues, some of which seem to favour polygamy. He advanced some singular notions in his notes on the books of Moses; as for instance, that the bodies of malefactors ought not to be left on the gibbets; and that they ought not to be punished with death, but with slavery. His reason for these opinions was, that the political laws of Moses bind all nations. His notes on the Epistle to the Romans were condemned by the church of Basil, because they opposed the doctrine of predestination and efficacious grace. He began his Latin translation of the Bible at Geneva in 1542, and finished it at Basil in 1550. It was printed at Basil in 1551, and dedicated by the author to Edward VI. king of England. He published a second edition of it in 1554, and another in 1556. The edition of 157& is most esteemed. The French version was dedicated to Henry II. of France, and printed at Basil in 1555, and in this he is accused of having made use of low and vulgar terms. Those who have indulged their invectives against- Calvin and Beza for their dislike of Castalio’s translations, do not seem to advert to the serious consequences of exhibiting bad translations to the people, who had but just been admitted to the privilege of reading the scriptures in any shape.

was descended from an ancient family, and born at Odington in Gloucestershire, 1616. He was educated at Gloucester; became a commoner of St. Edmund-hall in Oxford in 1634; took both his degrees in arts; and was afterwards appointed rhetoric reader. During the civil war in England, he made the tour of Europe. In 1658 he married the only daughter of Richard Clifford, esq. by whom he had nine children. In 1668 he was chosen F. R. S. and in 1669 attended Charles earl of Carlisle, sent to Stockholm with the order of the garter to the king of Sweden, as his secretary. In 1670 the degree of LL. D. was conferred on him at Cambridge, and two years after he was incorporated in the same at Oxford. He was appointed to be tutor to Henry duke of Grafton, one of the natural sons of Charles II. about 1679; and was afterwards appointed to instruct prince George of Denmark in the English tongue. He died at Chelsea in 1703, and was buried in a vault in the church-yard of that parish; where a monument was soon after erected to his memory, by Walter Harris, M. D. with a Latin inscription, which informs us, among other things, that Dr. Chamberlayne was so desirous of doing service to all, and even to posterity, that he ordered some of the books he had written to be covered with wax, and buried with him; which have been since destroyed by the damp. The six books vanity or dotage thus consigned to the grave, are, 1. “The present war paralleled; or a brief relation of the five years’ civil wars of Henry III. king of England, with the event and issue of that unnatural war, and by what course the kingdom was then settled again; extracted out of the most authentic historians and records,” 1647. It was reprinted in 1660, under this title, “The late war paralleled, or a brief relation,” &c. 2. “England’s wants; or several proposals probably beneficial for England, offered to the consideration of both houses of parliament,” 1667. 3. “The Converted Presbyterian; or the church of England justified in some practices,” &c. 1668. 4. “Anglix Notitia or the Present State of England with divers reflections upon the ancient state thereof,” 1668. The second part was published in 1671, &c. This work has gone through many editions; the first twenty of wkich were published by Dr. Edward Chamberlain, and the rest by his son. 5. “An academy or college, wherein young ladies or gentlewomen may, at a very moderate expence, be educated in the true protestant religion, and in all virtuous qualities that may adorn that sex, &c.” 1671. 6. “A Dialogue between an Englishman and a Dutchman, concerning the last Dutch war,‘ ’ 1672. He translated out of Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, into English, 1.” The rise and fall of count Olivarez the favourite of Spain.“2.” The unparalleled imposture of Mich, de Molina, executed at Madrid,“1641. 3.” The right and title of the present king of Portugal, don John the IVth." These three translations were printed at London, 1653.

, a protestant writer, born at Geneva, whose family were originally of Poitiers, was preceptor to William III. king of England; afterwards governor of the pages to George duke of Brunswick Lunen burg, which post he held till his death, August 31, 1701, at Zell. Three days before his death he wrote a sonnet, in which he complains of being old, blind, and poor. He collected and printed “Tavernier’s Voyages,” 1675, 4to. Jurieu having written against what is there said of the Dutch, in his book entitled “L'Esprit de M. Arnauld,” Chapuzeau answered him in 1691, by a work called “Defense du Sieur Samuel Chapuzeau contre l'Esprit de M. Arnauld.” He wrote, besides, “Eloge de la Ville de Lyons,” 4to. Une Relation de Savoye; l‘Europe vivante, ou relation nouveile, historique, politique, et de tous les Etats, tels qu’ils etoient en 1666,“Paris, 1667, 4to. He also published” Traite de la maniere de Pre'cher, suivi de quatre Sermons prononcées a Cassel.“Chapuzeau tried every kind of writing, even comedies, the greatest part of which have been collected under the title of” La Muse enjouee, ou le Theatre Comique.“In 1694 he published the plan of an” Historical, Geographical, and Philological Dictionary," on which he employed many years, but it was not finished at his death. He complains, however, of Moreri having availed himself of his manuscripts, but does not inform us where he found them.

, brother of Christopher, acquired a reputation by the sea-charts and the spheres, which he made in a superior manner, considering the time in which he lived. He had passed from Italy to Portugal before his brother, whose tutor he had been in cosmography. Don Ferdinand Columbus, his nephew, says, that his uncle having embarked for London, was taken by a corsair, who carried him into an unknown country, where he was reduced to the extremity of distress, from which he delivered himself by making charts for navigation; and, having amassed a considerable sum of money, he went to England, presented to the king a map of the world in his own method, explained to him the plan his brother had formed of striking much farther forward on the ocean than had ever yet been done: the prince intreated him to invite over Christopher, promising to defray the whole expence of the expedition; but the latter had already entered into an engagement with the crown of Castile. Part of this story, and especially the proposal made by the king of England, seems totally without foundation: but it appears that Bartholomew had a share in the bounty bestowed on Christopher by the king of Castile; and in 1493 these two brothers, and Diego Columbus, who was the third, were ennobled. Don Bartholomew underwent with Christopher the fatigues and dangers inseparable from such long voyages as those in which they both engaged, and built the town of St. Domingo. He died in 1514, possessed of riches and honours.

The other works of.sir Robert Cotton, not already mentioned, are, 1. “A relation of the proceedings against Ambassadors, who have miscarried themselves, and exceeded their commission.” “2. That the sovereign’s person is required in the great councils or~ assemblies of the states, as well at the consultations as at the conclusions.” 3. “The argument made by the command of the house of commons, out of the acts of parliament and authority of law expounding the same, at a conference of the lords, concerning the liberty of the person of every freeman.” 4. “A brief discourse concerning the power of the peers and commons of parliament in point of judicature.” These lour are printed in “Cottoni Posthuma.” 5. “A short view of the long life and reign of Henry III. king of England,” written in 1614, and presented to king James I. printed in 1627, 4to, and reprinted in “Cottoni Posthuma.” 6. “Money raised by the king without parliament, from the conquest until this day, either by imposition or free gift, taken out of records or ancient registers,” printed in the “Royal treasury of England, or general history of taxes, by captain J. Stevens,” 8vo. 7. “A narrative of count Gondomar’s transactions during his embassy in England,” London, 1659, 4to. 8. “Of antiquity, etymology, and privileges of castles.” 9. “Of towns.” 10. “Of the measures of Land.” 11. “Of the antiquity of Coats of Arms.” All printed in Hearne’s Discourses, p. 166, 174, 178, 182. He wrote books upon several other subjects, that remain still in ms. namely, Of scutage; of enclosures, and converting arable land into pasture; of the antiquity, authority, and office of the high steward and marshal of England; of curious collections; of military affairs; of trade; collections out of the rolls of parliament, different from those that were printed under his name, in 1657, by William Pry nne, esq. He likewise made collections for the history and antiquities of Huntingdonshire; and had formed a design of writing an account of the state of Christianity in these islands, from the first reception of it here to the reformation. The first part of this design was executed by abp. Usher, in his book “De Britannic-arum ecclesiarum primordiis,” composed probably at the request of sir Robert Cotton, who left eight volumes of collections for the continuation of that work. Two of sir Robert’s speeches are printed in the Parliamentary History. A “Treatise of the Court of Chancery,” in ms. by sir Robert Cotton, is often cited in disputes concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and the authority of the Master of the Rolls, as a ms. in lord Sorners’s library. A copy of it, however, is in Mr. Hargrave’s Collection of Law Mss. The “Cottoni Posthuma,” so often mentioned above, was published by James Howell, fol. 1651, 1672, and 1679. The first of these editions contains a life of Henry III. omitted in the subsequent editions. Mr. Petyt, however, terms this a fictitious work (Petyt’s ms. vol. II. p. 281.), yet it contains several valuable and curious particulars.

, bishop of Dunkeld, eminent for his poetical talents, was descended from a noble family, being the third son of Archibald, earl of Angus, and was born in Scotland at the close of the year 1474, or the Beginning of 1475. His father was very careful of his education, and caused him to be early instructed in literature and the sciences. He was intended by him for the church; and after having passed through a course of liberal education in Scotland, is supposed to have travelled into foreign countries, for his farther improvement in literature, particularly to Paris, where he finished his education. Alter his return to Scotland, he obtained the office of provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles in Edinburgh, a post of considerable dignity and revenue; and was also made rector of Heriot church. He was likewise appointed abbot of the opulent convent of Aberbrothick; and the queenmother, who was then regent of Scotland, and about this time married his nephew the earl of Angus, nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. But he was prevented from obtaining this dignity by a violent opposition made to him at home, and by the refusal of the pope to confirm his appointment. The queen-mother afterwards promoted him to the bishopric of Dunkeld; and for this preferment obtained a bull in his favour from pope Leo X. by the interest of her brother, Henry VIII. king of England. But so strong an opposition was again made to him, that he could not, for a considerable time, obtain peaceable possession of this new preferment; and was even imprisoned for more than a year, under pretence of having acted illegally, in procuring a bull from the pope. He was afterwards set at liberty, and consecrated bishop of Dunkeld, by James Beaton, chancellor of Scotland, and archbishop of Glasgow. After his consecration he went to St. Andrew’s, and thence to his own church at Dunkeld; where the first day, we are told, “he was most kindly received by his clergy and people, all of them blessing God for so worthy and learned a bishop.” He still, however, met with many obstructions; and, for some time, was forcibly kept out of the palace belonging to his diocese; but he at length obtained peaceable possession. He soon after accompanied the duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, to Paris, when that nobleman was sent to renew the ancient league between Scotland and France. After his return to Scotland, he made a short stay at Edinburgh, and then repaired to his diocese, where he applied himself diligently to the duties of his episcopal office. He was also a promoter of public-spirited works, and particularly finished the stone bridge over the river Tay, opposite to his own palace, which had been begun by his predecessor. We meet with no farther particulars concerning him till some years after, when he was at Edinburgh, during the disputes between the earls of Arran and Angus. On that occasion bishop Douglas reproved archbishop Beaton for wearing armour, as inconsistent with the clerical character, but was afterwards instrumental in saving his life. During all these disorders in Scotland, it is said, that bishop Douglas behaved “with that moderation and peaceableness, which became a wise man and a religious prelate;” but the violence and animosity which then prevailed among the different parties in Scotland, induced him to retire to England. After his departure, a prosecution was commenced against him in Scotland; but he was well received in England, where he was treated with particular respect, on account of the excellency of his character, and his great abilities and learning. King Henry VII I. allowed him a liberal pension; and he became particularly intimate with Polydore Vergil. He died of the plague, at London, in 1521, or 1522, and was interred in the Savoy church, on the left side of the tomb-stone of Thomas Halsay, bishop of Laghlin, in Ireland; on whose tomb-stone a short epitaph for bishop Douglas is inscribed. Hume, of Godscroft, in his “History of the Douglases,” says, “Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, left behind him great approbation of his virtues and love of his person in the hearts of all good men; for besides the nobility of his birth, the dignity and comeliness of his personage, he was learned, temperate, and of singular moderation of mind; and in these turbulent times had always carried himself among the factions of the nobility equally, and with a mind to make peace, and not to stir up parties; which qualities were very rare in a clergyman of those days.”

, philosopher and alchymist, who was born in 1572, at Aicmaer, in Holland, and died at London, in 1634 at the age of sixty-two, possessed a singular aptitude in the invention of machines; although we cannot give credit to all that is related of the sagacity of this philosopher. We are told that he made certain machines which produced rain, hail, and lightning, as naturally as if these effects proceeded from the sky. By other machines he produced a degree of cold equal to that of winter; of which he made an experiment, as it is pretended, in Westminster-hall, at the instance of the king of England; and that the cold was so great as to be insupportable. He constructed a glass, which attracted the light of a candle placed at the other end of the hall, and which gave light sufficient for reading by it with great ease. Drebel has left some philosophical works; the principal of which is entitled: “De natura elementorum,” Hamburgh, 1621, 8vo. It is also pretended that he was the first who invented the art of dying scarlet; the secret of which he imparted to his daughter; and Cuffler, who married her, practised the art at Leyden. Some authors give to Drebel the honour of the invention of the telescope. It is generally thought that he invented the two useful instruments, the microscope and the thermometer, the former of which was for some time only known in Germany. It appeared for the first time in 1621, and Fontana unjustly ascribed to himself the invention about thirty years afterwards.

, an eminent Scotch poet, was born about the year 1465, and, as it is generally supposed, although without much foundation, at Salton, a village on the delightful coast of the Forth in East Lothian. This is collected from what Kennedy, a contemporary poet, says in one of his satires; who mentions likewise his own wealth, and Dunbar’s poverty. If we are to credit the same author, Dunbar was related to the earls of March; but of this there is no satisfactory evidence. In his youth he seems to have been a travelling noviciate of the Franciscan order; but this mode of life not being agreeable to his inclination, he resigned it, and returned to Scotland, as is supposed, about 1490, when he might be 25 years of age. In his “Thistle and Rose,” which was certainly written in 1503, he speaks of himself as a poet that had already made many songs: and that poem is the composition rather of an experienced writer, than of a novice in the art. It is indeed probable that his tales, “The twa marrit wemen and the wedo;” and, “The freirs of Bervvik,” (if the last be his) were written before his “Thistle and Rose.” However tin’s may have been, Dunbar, after being the author of “The gold in Terge,” a poem rich in description, and of many small pieces of the highest merit, died in old age about 1530. In his younger years, our poet seems to have had great expectations that his abilities would have recommended him to an ecclesiastical benetice; and in his smaller poems he frequently addresses the king lor that purpose: but there is no reason to believe that he was successful, although it may be thought that the “Thistle and Rose,” which was occasioned by the marriage of James IV. king of Scotland, with Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII. king of England, deserved better treatment at the hands of the young royal pair. Mr. Pinkerton, in his list of Scottish poets, tells us, he has looked in vain over many calendars of the characters, &c. of this period, to find Dunbar’s name; but suspects that it was never written by a lawyer. Mr. Warton, in characterising the Scottish poets of this time, observes that the writers of that nation have adorned the period with a degree of sentiment and spirit, a command of phraseology, and a fertility of imagination, not to be found in any English poet since Chaucer and Lydgate. “He might safely have added,” says Mr. Pinkerton, “not even in Chaucer or Lydgate.” Concerning Dunbar, Mr. Warton says, that the natural complexion of his genius is of the moral and didactic cast. This remark, however, Mr. Pinkerton thinks, must not be taken too strictly. “The goldin Terge,” he adds, “is moral; and so are many of his small pieces: but humour, description, allegory, great poetical genius, and a vast wealth of words, all unite to form the complexion of Dunbar’s poetry. He unites, in himself, and generally surpasses the qualities of the chief old English poets; the morals and satire of Langland; Chaucer’s humour, poetry, and knowledge of life; the allegory of Gower; the description of Lydgate.” This is a very high character, but surely the morality of his poems may be questioned. Several of his compositions contain expressions which appear to us grossly profane and indecent; and one of his addresses to the queen would not now be addressed to a modern courtezan. Even the most sacred observances of the church are converted into topics of ridicule; and its litanies are burlesqued in a parody, the profaneness of which is almost unparalleled. The notes added to the collection published by sir David Daly rm pie in 1770 are peculiarly valuable; for they not only explain and illustrate the particular expressions and phrases of the pieces in question, but contain several curious anecdotes, and throw considerable light on the manners of the times.

, a celebrated French cardinal, sprung of a noble family of Issoire, in Auvergne, appeared first at the bar of Paris. he was afterwards made lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of JMontferrant, then attoiv ney-general at the parliament of Toulouse. Rising from one post to another, he came to be first president of the parliament of Paris in 1507, and chancellor of France in 1515. He set out, it is said, by being solicitor at Cognac for the countess of Angouleme, mother of Francis I. This princess entrusted to him the education of her son, whose confidence he happily gained. Some historians pretend that Duprat owed his fortune and his fame to a bold and singular stroke. Perceiving that the count d'Angouleme, his pupil, was smitten with the charms of Mary, sister of Henry VIII. king of England, the young and beautiful wife of Louis XII. an infirm husband, who was childless; and finding that the queen had made an appointment with the young prince, who stole to her apartment during the night, by a back staircase; just as he was entering the chamber of Mary, he was seized all at once by a stout man, who carried him off confounded and dumb. The man immediately made himself known it was Duprat. “What!” said he sharply to the count, “you want to give yourself a master! and you are going to sacrifice a throne to the pleasure of a moment!” The count d'Angouleme, far from taking this lesson amiss, presently recollected himself; and, on coming to the crown, gave him marks of his gratitude. To settle himself in the good graces of this prince, who was continually in quest of money, and did not always find it, he suggested to him many illegal and tyrannical expedients, such as selling the offices of the judicature, and of creating a new chamber to the parliament of Paris, which, composed of twenty counsellors, formed what was called la Tournelle. By his influence also the taxes were augmented, and new imposts established, contrary to the ancient constitution of the kingdom, all which measures he pursued without fear or restraint Having attended Francis I. into Italy, he persuaded that prince to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction, and to make the Concordat, by which the pope bestowed on the king the right of nominating to the benefices of France, and the king granted to the pope the annates of the grand benefices on the footing of current revenue. While this concordat, which was signed Dec. 16, 1515, rendered him odious to the magistrates and ecclesiastics, he soon reaped the fruits of his devotion to the court of Rome; for, having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he was successively raised to the bishoprics of Meaux, of Albi, of Valence, of Die, of Gap, to the archbishopric of Sens, and at last to the purple, in 1527. Being appointed legate a latere in France, he performed the coronation of queen Eleonora of Austria. He is said to have aspired to the papacy in 1534, upon the death of Clement VII.; but his biographers are inclined to doubt this fact, as he was now in years and very infirm. He retired, as the end of his days approached, to the chateau de Nantouillet, where he died July 9, 1535, corroded by remorse, and consumed by diseases. His own interests were almost always his only law. He sacrificed every thing to them; he separated the interests of the king from the good of the public, and sowed discord between the council and the parliament; while he did nothing for the dioceses committed to his charge. He was a long time archbishop of Sens, without ever appearing there once. Accordingly his death excited no regret, not even among his servile dependents. However, he built, at the HotelDieu of Paris, the hall still called the legate’s-hall. “It would have been much larger,” said the king, “if it could contain all the poor he has made.”

, knt. memorable for his embassies at several courts, was born at Plymouth, in Devonshire, about 1563. He was the fifth and youngest son of Thomas Edmondes, head customer of that port, and of Fowey, in Cornwall, by Joan his wife, daughter of Antony Delabare, of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, csq. who was third son of Henry Edmondes, of New Sarum, gent by Juliana his wife, daughter of William Brandon, of the same place. Where he had his education is nut known. But we are informed that he was introduced to court by his name-sake, sir Thomas Edmonds, comptroller of the queen’s household; and, being initiated into public business under that most accomplished statesman, sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state, he was, undoubtedly through his recommendation, employed by queen Klizabcth in several embassies. In 1592, she appointed him her resident at the court of France, or rather agent for her affairs in relation to king Henry IV. with a salary of twenty shillings a day, a sum so ill paid, and so insufficient, that we find him complaining to the lord treasurer, in a letter dated 1593, of the greatest pecuniary distress. The queen, however, in May 1596, made him a grant of the office of secretary to her majesty for the French tongne, “in consideration of his faithful and acceptable service heretofore done.” Towards the end of that year he returned to England, when sir Anthony Mild may was sent ambassador to king Henry; but he went back again to France in the beginning of May following, and in less than a month returned to London. In October, 1597, he was dispatched again M agent for her majesty to the king of France and returned to EngJand about the beginning of May 1598, where his stay Was extremely short, for he was at Paris in the July following. But, upon sir Henry Neville being appointed ambassador to the French court, he was recalled, to his great satisfaction, and arrived at London in June 1597. Sir Henry Neville gave him a very great character, and recommended him to the queen in the strongest terms. About December the 26th of that year, he was sent to archduke Albert, governor of the Netherlands, with a letter of credence, and instructions to treat of a peace. The archduke received him with great respect; but not being willing to send commissioners to England, as the queen desired, Mr. Edmondes went to Paris, and, having obtained of king Henry IV. Boulogne for the place of treaty, he returned to England, and arrived at court on Sunday morning, February 17. The llth of March following, he embarked again for Brussels and, on the 22d, had an audience of the archduke, whom having prevailed upon to treat with the queen, he returned home, April 9, 1600, and was received by her majesty with great favour, and highly commended for his sufficiency in his negotiation. Soon after he was appointed one of the commissioners for the treaty of Boulogne, together with sir Henry Neville, the queen’s ambassador in France, John Herbert, esq. her majesty’s second secretary, and Robert Beale, esq. secretary to the council in the North; their commission being dated the 10th of May, 1600. The two last, with Mr. Edmondes, left London the 12th of that month, and arrived at Boulogne the 16th, as sir Henry Neville did the same day from Paris. But, after the commissioners had been above three months upon the place, they parted, July 28th, without ever assembling, owing to a dispute about precedency between England and Spain. Mr. Edmondes, not long after his return, was appointed one of the clerks of the privy-council; and, in the end of June 1601, was sent to the French king to complain of the many acts of injustice committed by his subjects against the English merchants. He soon after returned to England but, towards the end of August, went again, and waited upon king Henry IV. then at Calais to whom he proposed some measures, both for the relief of Ostend, then besieged by the Spaniards, and for an offensive alliance against Spain. After his return to England he was appointed one of the commissioners for settling, with the two French ambassadors, the depredations between England and France, and preventing them for the future. The 20th of May, 1603, he was knighted by king James I; and, upon the conclusion of the peace with Spain, on the 18th of August, 1604, was appointed ambassador to the archduke at Brussels. He set out for that place the 19th of April, 1605; having first obtained a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the crown and, though absent, was chosen one of the representatives for the Burgh of Wilton, in the parliament which was to have met at Westminster, Nov. 5, 1605, but was prevented by the discovery of the gunpowder-plot. During his embassy he promoted, to the utmost of his power, an accommodation between the king of Spain and the States-General of the United Provinces . He was recalled in 1609, and came back to England about the end of August, or the beginning of September. In April 1610, he was employed as one of the assistant-commissioners, to conclude a defensive league with the crown of France; and, having been designed, ever since 1608, to be sent ambassador into that kingdom , he was dispatctyed thither in all haste, in May 1610, upon the new of the execrable murder of king Henry IV. in order to learn the state of affairs there. He arrived at Paris, May 24th, where he was very civilly received; and on the 27th of June, had his audience of Mary de Medicis, queen regent; the young king (Lewis XIII.) being present. In November following he caused an Italian to be apprehended at Paris for harbouring a treasonable design against his master, king James I. There being, in 1613, a competition between him and the Spanish ambassador about precedency, we are told that he went to Home privately, and brought a certificate out of the pope’s ceremonial, shewing that the king of England is to precede the king of Castile. He was employed the same year in treating of a marriage between Henrv prince of Wales and the princess Christine, sister of Lewis XIII. king of France; but the death of that prince, on the 6th of November 1612, put an end to this negotiation. And yet, on the 9th of the same month, orders were sent him to propose a marriage between the said princess and our prince Charles, but he very wisely declined opening such an affair so soon after the brother’s death. About the end of December 1613, sir Thomas desired leave to return to England, but was denied till he should have received the final resolution of the court of France about the treaty of marriage; which being accomplished, he came tp England towards the end or' January 1613-14. Though- the privy-council strenuously opposed this match because they had not sooner been made acquainted with so important an affair, yet, so zealous was the king for it, that he sent sir Thomas again to Paris with instructions, dated July 20, 1614, for bringing it ta a conclusion. But, after all, it appeared that the court of France were not sincere in this affair, and only proposed it to amuse the protestants in general. In 1616 sir Thomasassisted at the conference at Loudun, between the protestants and the opposite party; and, by his journey to liochelle, disposed the protestants to accept of the terms offered them, and was of great use in settling the pacification. About the end of October, in the same year, he was ordered to England; not to quit his charge, but, after he should have kissed the king’s hand, and received such honour as his majesty was resolved to confer upon him, in acknowledgment of his long, painful, and faithful services, then to go and resume his charge; and continue in France, till the affairs of that kingdom, which then were in an uncertain state, should be better established. Accordingly he came over to England in December; and, on the 21st of that month, was made comptroller of the king’s household; and, the next day, sworn a privy-counsellor. He returned to the court of France in April 1617; but took his leave of it towards the latter end of the same year. And, on the 19th of January, 1617-18, was advanced to the place of treasurer of the household; and in 1620 was appointed clerk of the crown in the court of king’s bench, and might have well deserved the post of secretary of state that he had been recommended for, which none was better qualified to discharge. He was elected one of the burgesses for the university of Oxford, in the first parliament of king Charles I. which met June 18, 1623, and was also returned for the same in the next parliament, which assembled at Westminster the 26th of February following; but his election being declared void, he was chosen for another place. Some of the speeches which he made in parliament are primed. On the 11th of June 1629, he was commissioned to go ambassador to the French court, on purpose to carry king Charles’s ratification, and to receive Lewis the XIIIth’s oath, for the performance of the treaty of peace, then newly concluded between England and France: which he did in September following, and with this honourable commission concluded all his foreign employments. Having, after this, enjoyed a creditable and peaceful retreat for about ten years, he departed this life, September 20, 1639. His lady was Magdalen, one of the daughters and co-heirs of sir John Wood, knight, clerk of the signet, by whom he had one son, and three daughters. She died at Paris, December 31, 1614, with a character amiable and exemplary in all respects. Sir Thomas had with her the manor of Albins, in the parishes of Stapleford-Abbot, and Navestoke in Essex, where Inigo Jones built for him a mansion ­house, delightfully situated in a park, now the seat of the Abdy family. Sir Thomas was small of stature, but great in understanding. He was a man of uncommon sagacity, and indefatigable industry in his employments abroad; always attentive to the motions of the courts where he resided, and punctual and exact in reporting them to his own; of a firm and unshaken resolution in the discharge of his duty, and beyond the influence of terror, flattery, or corruption. The French court, in particular, dreaded his experience and abilities; and the popish and Spanish party there could scarcely disguise their hatred of so zealous a supporter of the protestant interest in that kingdom. His letters and papers, in twelve volumes in folio, were once in the possession of secretary Thurloe, and afterwards of the lord chancellor Somers. The style of them is clear, strong, and masculine, and entirely free from the pedantry and puerilities which infected the most applauded writers of that age. Several of them, together with abstracts from the rest, were published by Dr. Birch in a work entitled “An historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France, and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617. Extracted chiefly from the ms State-papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, kt. ambassador in France, &c. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon,” London, 1749, 8vo. Several extracts of letters, written by him in the early part of his political life, occur in Birch’s “Memoirs of queen Elizabeth,” and other letters are in Lodge’s “Illustrations of British History.”

king of England, deserves notice here as a young prince of great promise and high accomplishments, rather than as a sovereign, although in the latter character he afforded every presage of excellence, had his life been spared. He was the only son of Henry VIII. by queen Jane Seymour, and was born in 1538. From his maternal uncle, the duke of Somerset, he imbibed a zeal for the progress of the reformation. The ambitious policy of his courtiers, however, rendered his reign upon the whole turbulent, although his own disposition was peculiarly mild and benevolent, and amidst all these confusions, the reformation of religion made very great progress. He was at last, when in his sixteenth year, seized with the measles, and afterwards. with the small-pox, the effects of which he probably never quite recovered; and as he was making a progress through some parts of the kingdom, he was afflicted with a cough, which proved obstinate, and which gave way neither to regimen nor mexlicines. Several fatal symptoms of a consumption appeared, and though it was hoped, that as the season advanced, his youth and temperance might get the better of the malady, his subjects saw, with great concern, his bloom and vigour sensibly decay. After the settlement of the crown, which had been effected with the greatest difficulty, his health rapidly declined, and scarcely a hope was entertained of his recovery. His physicians were dismissed by the earl of Northumberland’s advice, and the young king was entrusted to the hands of an ignorant woman, who undertook to restore him to health in a very short time but the medicines prescribed were found useless violent symptoms were greatly aggravated and on the 6th of July, 1553, he expired at Greenwich, in the sixteenth year of his age, and the seventh of his reign. The excellent disposition of this young prince, and his piety and zeal in the prolestant cause, have rendered his memory dear to the nation. He possessed mildness of disposition, application to study and business, a capacity to learn and judge, and an attachment to equity and justice. He is to this day commemorated as the founder of some of the most splendid charities in the metropolis.

Many authors have preserved accounts of this prince’s writings. Cardan talks much of his parts and learning. Holland affirms that he not only wrote notes from the lectures or sermons he heard, but composed a comedy, entitled “The Whore of Babylon,” in Latin. It is more certain, howevar, that he wrote “The Sum of a conference with the Lord Admiral,” which, in his own hand, is extant among the Ashmolean Mss.; “A method for the proceedings in the council,” in the Cottonian library; and “King Edward VIth’s own arguments against the pope’s supremacy, &c.” translated out of the original, written with the king’s own hand in French, and still preserved. To which are added some remarks upon his life and reign, in vindication of his memory from Dr. Heylin’s severe and unjust censure, Lond. 1682. He drew himself the rough draught of a sumptuary law, which is preserved by Strype; and an account of a progress he made, which he sent to one of his particular favourites, called Barnahy Fiupatrick, then in France. The same author has given some specimens of his Latin epistles and orations, and an account of two books written by him; the first before he was twelve years of age, called “L'Encontre les Abus du Monde,” a tract of thirty-seven leaves in French, against the abuses of popery; it is dedicated to the protector, his uncle; is corrected by his French tutor, and attested by him to be of the king’s own composition. An original copy of this tract is noiv in the British Museum. The other, preserved in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, is, “A Translation into French of several passages of Scripture, which forbid idolatry, or worshipping of false gods.” Tanner giresa list of Edward’s letters that are extant; and there is a large folio ms. in the British Museum, containing his exercises in Greek, Latin, and English, with his signature to each of them, as king of England. Cardan says that at die age of fifteen, our prince had learned seven languages, and was perfect in English, French, and Latin. Cardan adds, " he spoke Latin with as much readiness and elegance as myself. He was a pretty good logician; he understood natural philosophy and music, and played upon the lute. The good and the learned had formed the highest expectations of him, from the sweetness of his disposition, and the excellence of his talents. He had begun to favour learning before he was a great scholar himself, and to be acquainted with it before he could make use of it. Alas! how prophetically did he once repeat to me,

The first important political measure was the negotiation for peace between France, Spain, and England, which terminated in the final abandoning of Calais, which on the queen’s part was rather prudent than pleasing; but, although peace seemed thus restored, a ground of quarrel soon appeared of a most serious nature. As Elizabeth had been declared illegitimate by Henry VIII., Francis, king of France, who had espoused Mary queen of Scots, began to assume the title of king of England, in right of his wife; and the latter seemed so far from declining this empty appellation, that she assumed the arms of that kingdom. It was natural, therefore, that Elizabeth should conclude that the king of France intended, on the first opportunity, to dispute her legitimacy, and her title to the crown. She therefore conceived a violent jealousy against the queen of Scots, which ended at length in the death of the latter by Elizabeth’s orders, a measure which has been generally accounted a great stain on her government, while some have excused it as a painful act of necessity. It is not, however, our object in this sketch to invade the province of history; and as no event has been assigned a larger portion of history, any abridgment of the actions of, and proceedings against the unfortunate queen of Scots, would be more apt to raise curiosity than to gratify it. Besides, the history of Mary will hereafter form a separate article.

In the midst of all this danger the queen appeared undismayed, issued her orders with tranquillity, animated her people to a steady resistance; and the more to excite the martial spirit of the nation, appeared on horseback at Tilbury, exhorting the soldiersto their duty, and promising to share with them the same dangers and the same fate. On this occasion the words of her address are said to have been these: “My loving people, we have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear I have always so behaved myself, that, under God, I have placed my chief strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects. And therefore I am coma amongst you at this time; not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust. I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart of a king, and of a king: of England too and think foul scorn that Parma, or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms. To which, rather than any dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant-general shall be in my stead, than whom, never prince commanded a more, noble and worthy subject; not doubting by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over these enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.” On hearing this, an attachment to her person became a kind of enthusiasm among the soldiery; and they asked one another, whether it were possible that Englishmen could abandon the glorious cause, could display less fortitude than appeared in the female sex, or could ever by any dangers be induced to relinquish the defence of their heroic princess.

Not enjoying a very good state of health at Padua, he went to Sienna, where he drew up some pieces of eloquence for the use of his royal pupil; and soon after to Rome, leaving Alexander at Sienna. He was received at Rome, as Rhenanus tells us, with the greatest joy and welcome by all the learned, and presently sought by persons of the first rank and quality. Thus we find that the cardinal John de Medicis, afterwards Leo X. the cardinal Raphael of St. George, the cardinal Gritnani, and Giles of Viterbo, general of the Augustines, and afterwards a cardinal, had a generous contention among themselves who should be foremost in civility to Erasmus, and have the most of his company. There is something interesting in the manner he was introduced to cardinal Gritnani, as related by himself in one of his letters, dated March 17, 1531: “When I was at Rome,” says he, “Peter Bembus often brought me invitations from Grimani, that I would come and see him. I never was fond of such company; but at last, that I might not seem to slight what is usually deemed a very great honour, 1 went. On arriving at his palace, not a soul could I perceive, either in or about it. It was after dinner; so, leaving the horse with my servant, I boldly ventured by myself into the house. I found all the doors open; but nobody was to be seen, though I had passed through three or four rooms. At last I happened upon a Greek, as I supposed, and asked him whether the cardinal was engaged He replied, that he bad company but asking what was my business Nothing, said I, but to pay iny compliments, which I can do as well at any other time. I was going; but halting a moment at one of the windows to observe the situation and prospect, the Greek ran up to me, and asked my name; and without my knowledge carried it to the cardinal, who ordered me to be introduced immediately. He received me with the utmost courtesy, as if I had been a cardinal conversed with me for two hours upon literary subjects and would not suffer me all the time to uncover my head ^ and upon my offering to rise, when his nephew, an archbishop, came in to us, he ordered me to keep my seat, saying, it was but decent that the scholar should stand before the master. In the course of our conversation, he earnestly entreated me not to think of leaving Rome, and offered to make me partaker of his house and fortunes. At length he shewed me his library, which was full of books in all languages, and was esteemed the best iti Italy, except the Vatican. If I had known Grimani sooner, I certainly should never have left Rome; but I was then under such engagements to return to England, as it was not in my power to break. The cardinal said no more upon this point, when I told him that I had been invited by the king of England himself; but begged me to believe him very sincere, and not like the common tribe of courtiers, who have no meaning in what they say. It was not without some difficulty that I got away from him; nor before I promised him, that I would certainly wait on him again before I left Rome. I did not perform my promise; for I was afraid the cardinal by his eloquence would tempt me to break my engagements with my English friends. I never was more wrong in my life but what can a man do, >vhen fate drives him on”

, an eminent protestant divine of the seventeenth century, was born at Schafhousen, July 29, 1639. He began his studies under the inspection of his father, who was rector of thq college; but in 1647 went to Cologne, where his brother Sebaldus lived, and there for about a year studied Greek and Latin. In 1643 he returned to Schafhousen, but left it for Heidelberg in the following year, where his brother had been appointed professor of history and Greek. In 1650 he went to Utrecht, and for about two years was employed in teaching. At the end of that time he visited Paris as tutor of the son of M. de la Lane, governor of Reez, and remained in tnis station for three years. Having returned to Heidelberg in 1656, he took his degree of master of arts, and the following year was admitted into holy orders, and appointed professor extraordinary of Greek, but was, not long after, requested by the elector to go again to Paris as tutor to the baron Rothenschild, and in 1659 he accompanied his pupil to the Hague, and afterwards into England. On their return to France they parted, and Fabricius went to Leyden, where he took his degree of doctor in divinity. Soon after he was appointed professor of divinity at Heidelr berg, superintendant of the studies of the electoral prince, inspector of the college of wisdom, and philosophy professor. In 1664 he was appointed ecclesiastical counsellor to the elector, who, in 1666, sent him to Schafhousen to explain to that canton the reasons for the war of Lorraine, which office Dr. Boeckelman had discharged in the other cantons. In 1674, when the French army advanced towards Heidelberg, Fabricius retired to Fredericksburgh, and to Cologne, but returned the same year. In 168O, although a Calvinist, he was commissioned with a Roman catholic to open the temple of concord at Manheim. In 1688, the French, who had taken possession of Heidelberg, showed so much respect for his character as to give him a passport, which carried him safely to Schafhousen; but the continuance of the war occasioned him again to shift his place of residence, and when at Francfort, he was employed by the king of England (William III.) and the States General to join the English envoy in Swisserland, and watch the interests of the States General. In the execution of this commission he acquitted himself with great ability, and was particularly successful in adjusting tjbe differences between the Vaudois and the duke of Savoy, and afterwards in accomplishing an alliance between the duke and the States General. We find him afterwards at Heidelberg, and Francfort, at which last he died in 1697. From these various employments it appears that he was a man of great abilities and political weight, and he derived likewise considerable reputation from his writings as a divine. Such was his abhorence of Socinianism that he opposed the settlement of the Socinian Poles when driven out of their own country in the Palatinate; in which, however, at that time he was not singular, as, according to Mosheim, none of the European nations could be persuaded to grant a public settlement to a sect whose members denied the divinity of Christ. The same historian informs us that he “was so mild and indulgent” as to maintain, that the difference between the Lutherans and Roman catholics was of so little consequence, that a Lutheran might safely embrace popery; an opinion, which, mild and indulgent as Mosheim thinks it, appears to us more in favour of popery than of Lutheranism. His works, on controversial topics, were collected and published in a quarto volume, by Heidegger with a life of the author, printed at Zurich in 1698.

He was elected one of the representatives of the university of Cambridge in the parliament which met the 8th of May 1661, and was soon after sworn a privy counsellor of Ireland. Having by his residence in foreign courts qualified himself for public employments abroad, he was sent envoy extraordinary to Portugal, with a dormant commission to the ambassador, which he was to make use of as occasion should require. Shortly after, he was appointed ambassador to that court, where he negotiated the marriage between his master king Charles II. and the infanta donna Catharina, daughter of king John VI. and returned to England towards the end of the same year. It appears that he was again sent ambassador to that crown in 1661, and was, upon his return to England the following year, sworn of his majesty’s privy-council. His integrity, abilities, and industry, became so well known in Portugal, that he was recommended and desired by that crown to be sent to Spain as the fittest person to bring about an accommodation between Spain and Portugal. In the beginning of 1664 he was sent ambassador to Philip IV. king of Spain^ and arrived, February the 29th, at Cadiz, where he was saluted in a manner unexampled to others, and received with several circumstances of particular esteem. It appears from one of sir Richard’s letters, that this extraordinary respect was paid him not only upon his own, but also upon his master the king of England’s account. He says, “I had not been three hours on shore (at Cadiz) when an extraordinary messenger arrived from Madrid with more particular orders than formerly, from his catholic majesty, importing that our master’s fleet, when arrived, and his ambassador, should be pre-saluted from the city in a manner unexampled toothers, and which should not be drawn into example hereafter. Moreover (and this so likewise), that I and all my company must be totally defrayed, both here and all the way up to Madrid, upon his catholic majesty’s account; with several other circumstances of particular esteem for our royal master, above all the world beside.” From a passage in another letter of his it is evident, that the hope the Spaniards entertained, of having Tangier and Jamaica restored to them by England, was, “that which made his arrival impatiently longed for, and so magnificently celebrated.” During his residence at this court, however, after all that apparent good will, he experienced such frequent mortifications as ministers use to meet with in courts irresolute and perplexed in their own affairs, and had made a journey to Lisbon upon the earnest desire of Spain, and returned without effect. ^On a sudden, when the recovery of Philip IV. grew desperate, a project for a treaty was sent to the ambassador, containing more advantages of trade to the nation, and insisting upon fewer inconvenient conditions than had ever been in any* of the former, and urging the immediate acceptation or rejection of it, on account of the king’s illness, “which,” they declared, “might make such an alteration in counsels, that, if it were not done in his life-time, they knew not what might happen ' after.” The ambassador, surprised with this overture, compared what was offered with what he was to demand by his instructions; and what was defective in those particulars he added to the articles presented to him, with such farther additions, as, upon his own observation and conference with the merchants, occurred to him; which being agreed to, he signed the treaty, with a secret article respecting Portugal, and sent it to England. The treaty was no sooner brought to the king, and perused in council, but many faults were found with it, and in the end the king concluded that he would not sign it; and the ambassador was recalled.

, an eminent lawyer, called sometimes the Cato of France, was born at Toulouse in 1506. He was admitted a doctor of law at Padua; and from a professor in the university of Toulouse, was raised to be a counsellor in the parliament of the same city. It is remarkable of him, that though he was a protestant in his heart for a good part of his life, he did not profess himself to be so till a little before his death. He had indeed often discovered that he was no bigotted papist; and was so strongly suspected of heresy in 1559, that he would have been imprisoned if he had not made his escape. He harangued, in 1562, in the council of Trent, whither he was sent ambassador by the French king; and he expressed himself in so bold a manner in favour of the interests of France, that the Italian priests were highly offended at him. He went afterwards ambassador to Venice, where he continued several years; and took occasion to assist father Paul in collecting materials for his “History of the Council of Trent.” On his return from Venice, Du Plessis Mornay, who knew his thoughts, pressed him so earnestly to declare the truth, that Ferrier openly professed himself a protestant, and the king of Navarre made him his chancellor. He was about seventy-six years old at the time of his renouncing popery; and he only lived to seventy-nine. He died in 1585. It has been said that he conspired with the chancellor de l'Hospital to break the knot which united the French king with the holy see; to assemble a national council, in which the king of France, after the example of the king of England, should be declared head of the Gallican church; and to usurp all the estates of the church of France. He was reckoned among the greatest men in Europe, and was the author of some literary works.

On the decease of his father in 1682, he succeeded him in his titles and estate; and on the death of Charles II. was one of the privy-council who signed the order, dated at Whitehall, Feb. 6, 1684-5, for proclaiming the duke of York king of England. In that reign he was one of the chief opposers of the abrogation of the test act, which he considered as the strongest fence of the protestant religion. Upon the trial of the seven bishops, he was present in court with several other noblemen; and his brother Heneage, afterwards earl of Aylesford, was of the counsel for those prelates. He was likewise one of the patriots, who, from a true zeal for their religion and their country, often met to concert such advices and advertisements as might be fit for the prince of Orange to know, that he might govern himself by them. When, however, it was secretly proposed to him to invite that prince into England, he felt a conscientious hesitation on the subject, and informed the friends of that measure that he could not personally adopt it, yet would preserve the secret with which they had intrusted him. Upon the prince’s landing in the West, he was one of those lords who made a last attempt on the obstinacy of the king, by presenting a petition to his majesty, advising him to call a parliament regular and free in all respects, to which he was even for adding, “that the peers who had joined the prince might sit in that free parliament;” but this by the other lords was thought unnecessary. He was afterwards one of the commissioners sent by^ his majesty to treat with the prince. When afterwards the convention was opened, he was the principal manager of the debates in favour of a regent, against those who were for setting up another king; supporting his opinion by many arguments drawn from the English history, and adding a recent instance in Portugal, "where Don Pedro had only the title of regent conferred upon him, while his deposed brother lived. However, he owned it to be a principle grounded on the law and history of England, that obedience and allegiance were due to the king for the time being, even in opposition to one, with whom the right was thought still to remain. He likewise told bishop Burnet, that though he could not argue nor vote, but according to the notions which he had formed concerning our laws and constitution, he should not be sorry to see his own side out-voted; and that though he could not agree to the making of a king, as things stood, yet if he found one made, he would be more faithful to him than those who made him could be, according to their principles.

When the question of giving Henry the title of the supreme head of the church of England was debated in convocation in 1531, the bishop opposed it with all his might; which only served the more to incense the court against him, and to make them watch all opportunities to get rid of so troublesome a person. He soon gave them the opportunity they sought, by his remarkable weakness in tampering with, and hearkening too much to the visions and impostures of Elizabeth Barton, the holy maid of Kent; who, among other things, pretended a revelation from God, that “if the king went forwards with 'the purpose he intended, he should not be king of England seven months after.” The court having against him the advantage they wanted, soon made use of it; they adjudged him guilty of misprision of treason, for concealing the maid’s speeches that related to the king; and condemned him, with five others, in loss of goods and imprisonment during the king’s pleasure; but he was released upon paying 300l. for his majesty’s use. Afterwards an act was made, which absolutely annulled Henry’s marriage with Catherine; confirmed his marriage with Anne Boleyn entailed the crown upon her issue, and upon the lady Elizabeth by name making it high treason to slander or do any thing to the derogation of this last marriage. In pursuance of this, an oath was taken by both houses, March 30, 1534, “to bear faith, truth, and obedience to the king’s majesty, and to the heirs of his body by his most dear and entirely beloved lawful wife queen Anne, begotten and to be begotten,” &c. Instead of taking this oath, Fisher withdrew to his house at Rochester: but had not been there above four days, when he received orders from the archbishop of Canterbury and other commissioners, authorised under the great seal to tender the oath, to appear before them at Lambeth. He appeared accordingly, and the oath being presented to him, he perused it awhile, and then desired time to consider of it; so that five days were allowed him. Upon the whole, he refused to take it, and was committed to the Tower April 26.

He was in France, at Melun sur Seine, about April 20, 1366; perhaps private reasons might have induced him to take that road to Bourdeaux, where he was on All Saints’ day of that year, when the princess of Wales was brought to bed of a son, who was afterwards Richard II. The prince of Wales setting out a few days afterwards for the war in Spain, Froissart accompanied him to Dax, where the prince resided some time. He had expected to have attended him during the continuance of this grand expedition; but the prince would not permit him to go farther; and shortly after his arrival, sent him back to the queen his mother. Froissart could not have made any long stay in England, since in the following year, 1368," he was at different Italian courts. It was this same year, that Lionel duke of Clarence, son of the king of England, espoused Joland, daughter of Galeas II. duke of Milan. Froissart, who probably was in his suite, was present at the magnificent reeeption which Amadeus count of Savoy, surnamed the count Verd, gave him on his return: he describes the feasts on this occasion, which lasted three days; and does not forget to tell us that they danced a virelay of his composition. From the court of Savoy he returned to Milan, where the same count Amadeus gave him a good cotardie, a sort of coat, with twenty florins of gold; and from thence to Bologna and Ferrara, where he Feceived f forty ducats from the king of Cyprus, and then to Rome. Instead of the modest equipage he travelled with into Scotland, he was now like a man of importance, travelling on a handsome horse attended by a hackney.

It was about this time that Froissart experienced a loss which nothing could recompense, the death of Philippa, which took place in 1369. He composed a lay on this melancholy event, of which, however, he was not a witness; for he says, in another place, that in 1395 it was twenty-seven years since he had seen England. According to Vossius and Bullart he wrote the life of queen Philippa; but this assertion is not founded on any proofs. Independently of the employment of clerk of the chamber to the queen of England, which Froissart had held, he had been also of the household of Edward III. and even of that of John, king of France. Having, however, lost his patroness, he did not return to England, but went into his own country, where he obtained the living of Lestines. Of all that he performed during the time he exercised this ministry, he tells us nothing moiv than that the tavernkeepers of Lestines had live hundred francs of his money in ike short space of liuwj he was their rector. It is mentioned in a ms journal of the bishop of Chartres, chunceHor to the duke of Anjou, that according to letters sealed Dec. 12, 138 >, this prince caused to be seized fifty-six quires of the Chronicle of Froissart, rector of the parish church of Lestines, which the historian had sent to be illuminated, and then to be forwarded to the king of England., the enemy of France. Froissart attached himself afterwards to Winceslaus of Luxembourg, duke of Brabant, perhaps in quality of secretary. This prince had a taste for poetry; he had made by Froissart a collection of his songs, rondeaus, and virrlays, and Froissart adding s-nne of his own pieces to those of the prince, formed a soft of romance, under the title of “Meliador, or the Kujght of the Sun;” hut the duke did not live to see the completion of the work, for he died in 1334.

, bishop of Chartres, who flourished towards the end of the tenth t and beginning of the eleventh century, is celebrated, in the Tlomish church history, for his learning and piety. Some authors rank him among the chancellors of France, under the reign or‘ king Robert, but he was only chancellor of the church of Chartres, at the same time that he was rector of the school. He had been himself a disciple of the learned Gerbert, who was afterwards pope Sylvester II. in the year 999. Fulbert came from Rome to France, and taught in the schools belonging to the church of Chartres, which were then not only attended by a great concourse of scholars, but by his means contributed greatly to the revival of learning and religioii in France and Germany; and most of the eminent men of his time thought it an honour to be able to say that they had been his scholars. In 1007 he succeeded to the bishopric of Chartres, and the duke William gave him the office of treasurer of St. Hilary of Poitiers, the profits of which Fulbert employed in rebuilding his cathedral church. He was distinguished in his time for attachment to ecclesiasrtical discipline, and apostolic courage; and such was his character and fame, that he was highly esteemed by the princes and sovereigns of his age, by Robert, king of France, Canute, king of England; Richard II. duke of Normandy; William, duke of Aquitaine; and the greater part of the contemporary noblemen and prelates. He continued bishop of Chartres for twenty-one years and six months, and died, according to the abbé Fleuri, in 1029; but others, with more probability, fix that event on April 10, 1028. His works, which were printed, not very correctly, by Charles de Villiers in 1608, consist of letters, sermons, and some lesser pieces in prose and verse. His sermons, Dupin thinks, contain little worthy of notice; but his letters, which amount to 134-, have ever been considered as curious memorials of the history and sentiments of the times. They prove, however, that although Fulbert might contribute much to the propagation of learning, he had not advanced in liberality of sentiment before his contemporaries. There are also two other letters of our prelate in existence, the one in D’Acheri’s “Spicilegium,” and the other in Martenne’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum,” both illustrative of his sentiments, and the sentiments of his age.

The pope, on receiving this flat denial, which he little expected, written, as our readers may perceive, in a sarcastic styje implying much more than is expressed, fell into a furious passion, exclaiming, with a stern countenanc, and with all the pride of Lucifer, “Who is this old dotard, deaf, and absurd, that thus rashly presumes to judge of my actions? By Peter and Paul, if the goodness of my own heart did not restrain me, I should so chastise him, as to make him an example and a spectacle to all the world. Is not the king of England my vassal, my slave, and for a word speaking, would throw him into prison, and load him with infamy and disgrace?” And, when the cardinals interposed, they had much ado to mollify him, by telling him, “it was little for his interest to think of animadverting on the bishop; since, as they must all own, what he said was true, and they could not condemn or blame him, &c.” giving the bishop, at the same time, a most noble testimony, in respect of his piety, learning, and general character, as acknowledged by all the world: in all which, they confessed frankly, they were none of them to be compared to him. The pope, however, excommunicated the bishop, and even named a successor to his see; but the bishop, on his part, contented himself with appealing from the sentence to the tribunal of Christ, after which he troubled himself no more about it, and remained quietly in possession of his dignity.

At this time a dispute arose between the English and the Dutch, concerning the right of fishing in the Northern seas. Two Amsterdam vessels, having caught some whales in the Greenland ocean, were met by some English ships bound to Russia; who, finding that the Dutch had no passports from the king of England, demanded the whales, which the Dutchmen, unable to resist, were obliged to deliver. On their arrival in Holland, they made their complaint; and the affair being laid before the States, it was resolved that Grotius, who had written on the subject, and was more master of it than any one, should be sent to England, where his demands were refused. On this the Dutch determined not to send to Greenland for the future without a force sufficient to revenge themselves on the English, or at least to have nothing to fear from them. The dispute growing serious, to prevent any acts of hostility, a conference was held, in 1615, between the commissioners of England and Holland, in which the debate turned chiefly on the whale-fishery; but, the English still insisting on the right to Greenland, which the Dutch refused, the conference broke up without any success. Grotius, who was one of the commissioners from Holland, gives the history of this conference, in a letter to Du Maurier, dated at Rotterdam, June 5, 1615. On this occasion, however, he had reason to be well satisfied with the politeness of king James, who gave him a gracious reception, and was charmed with his conversation. But the greatest pleasure he received at this visit, was the intimate friendship he contracted with Casaubon. Their esteem for each other was increased by a similarity of studies and sentiments, and they both entertained hopes of a scheme, which human agency at least will never render practicable, that of uniting all Christians in one faith. In the midst of these occupations, Du Maurier, the French ambassador in Holland, and his particular

In 1611 we find Edmund Hakluyt, the son of our author, entered a student of Trinity college, Cambridge. In the same year, the northern discoverers, in a voyage to Peckora in Russia, called a full and active current they arrived at, by the name of Hakluyt’s River; and, in 1614, it appears that the banner and arms of the king of England were erected at Hakluyt’s Headland above-mentioned. Our historian died November 23, 1616, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. His ms remains, which might have made another volume, falling into the hands of Mr. Purchas, were dispersed by him throughout his “Pilgrimage,” printed 1613 1625, in 5 vols. fol. His own work, having become uncommonly scarce, was lately reprinted in five handsome quarto volumes, with some valuable additions.

, bishop of Durham. Of this great prelate we meet with few accounts previous to his promotion to the see of Durham, except his being a prebendary of Lincoln and York, and secretary to Edward III. by whom he appears to have been much esteemed. Before this time the popes had for many years taken upon them the authority of bestowing all the bishoprics in England, without even consulting the king: this greatly offended the nobility and parliament, who enacted several statutes against it, and restored to the churches and convents their ancient privilege of election. Richard de Bury, bishop of Durham, dying April 24, 1345, king Edward was very desirous of obtaining this see for his secretary Hatfield; but, fearing the convent should not elect, and the pope disapprove him, he applied to his holiness to bestow the bishopric upon him, and thereby gave him an opportunity of resuming his former usurpations. Glad of this, and of obliging the king, and showing his power at the same time, the pope immediately accepted him; objections, however, were made against him by some of the cardinals, as a man of light behaviour, and no way fit for the place; to this the pope answered, that if the king of England had requested him for an ass, he would not at that time have denied him: he was therefore elected the 8th of May, and consecrated bishop of Durham, 10th of July, 1345.

Upon the conclusion of the peace between the English and French by the treaty of Bretigni 1360, sir John, finding his estate too small to support his title and dignity, associated himself with certain companies called, by Froissart, “Les Tard Venus;” by Walsingham, “Magna Comitiva.” These were formed by persons of various nations, who, having hitherto found employment in the wars between England and France, and having held governments, or built and fortified ho.uses in the latter kingdom which, they were now obliged to give up, found themselves reduced to this desperate method of supporting themselves and their soldiers by marauding and pillaging, or by en-, gaging in the service of less states, which happened to be at war with each other. Villani, indeed, charges Edward III. with secretly authorizing these ravages in France, while outwardly he affected a strict observance of the peace. At this time, in the summer, continues this historian, ah English tailor, named John della Guglea, that is, John of the needle, who had distinguished himself iri the war, began to form a company of marauders, and collected a number of English, who delighted in mischief, and hoped to live by plunder, surprizing and pillaging first one town, and then another. This company increased so much that they became the terror of the whole country. All who had not fortified places to defend them were forced to treat with him, and furnish him with provision and money, for which he promised them his protection. The effect of this was, that in a few months he acquired great wealth. Having also received an accession of followers and power, he roved from one country to another, till at length he came to the Po. There he made all who came in his way prisoners. The clergy he pillaged, but let the laity go without injury. The court of Rome was greatly alarmed at these proceedings, and made preparations to oppose these banditti. Upon the arrival of certain Englishmen on the banks of the Po, Hawkwood resigned his command to them, and professed submission to the king of England, to whose servants he presented a large share of his ill-gotten wealth.

, French, Didier Herault, a counsellor of the parliament of Paris, has given good proofs of uncommon learning by very different works. His “Adversaria” appeared in 1599; which little book, if the “Scaligerana” may be credited, he repented having published. His notes on Tertullian’s “Apology,” on “Minutius Fe&­lix,” and on “Arnobius,” have been esteemed. He also wrote notes on Martial’s “Epigrams.” He disguised himself under the name of David Leidhresserus, to write a political dissertation on the independence of kings, some time after the death of Henry IV. He had a controversy with Salmasius “de jure Attico ac Romano;” but did not live to finish what he had written on that subject. What he he had done, however, was printed in 1650. He died in June 1649. Guy Patin says, that “he was looked upon as a very learned man, both in the civil law and in polite literature, and wrote with great facility on any subject he pitched on.” Daille, speaking of such protestant writers as condemned the execution of Charles I. king of England, quotes the “Pacifique Royal en deuil,” by Heranlt. This author, son to our Desiderius Heraldus, was a minister in Normandy, when he was called to the service of the Walloon-church of London under Charles I. but was so zealous a royalist, that he was forced to fly to France, to escape the fury of the commonwealth’s-men. He returned to England after the restoration, and resumed his ancient employment in the Walloon-church at London: some time after which he obtained a canonry in the cathedral of Canterbury, and enjoyed it till his death.

Another writer relates this more particularly. Sir Edward, while he was in France, had private instructions from England to mediate a peace for the protestants in France; and, in case of a refusal, to use certain menaces. Accordingly, being referred to de Luines, he delivered to him the message, reserving his threatenings till he saw how the matter was relished. De Luines had concealed a gentleman of the reformed religion behind the curtain; who, heing an ear-witness of what passed, might relate to his friends what little expectations they ought to entertain of the king of England’s intercession. De Luines was very haughty, and asked what our king had to do in this affair. Sir Edward replied, “It is not to you, to whom the king my master owcth an account of his actions; and for me it is enough that I obey him. In the mean time I must maintain, that my master hath more reason to do what he doth, than you to ask why he doth it. Nevertheless, if you desire me in a gentle fashion, I shall acquaint you farther.” Upon this, de Luines bowing a little, said, “Very well.” The ambassador then gave him some reasons; to which de Luines said, “We will have none of your advices.” The ambassador replied, “that he took that for an answer, and was sorry only, that the affection and good-will of the king his master was not sufficiently understood and that, since it was rejected ii> that manner, he could do no less than say, that the king his master knew well enough what to do.” De Luines answered, “We are not afraid of you.” The ambassador smiling a little, replied, “If you had said you had not loved us, I should have believed you, and given you another answer. In the mean time, all that I will tell you more is, that we know very well what we have to do.” De Luines upon this, rising from his chair with a fashion and countenance a little discomposed, said, “By G, if you were not monsieur the ambassador, I know very well how I would use yon.” Sir Edward Herbert rising also from his chair, said, that “as he was the king of Great Britain’s ambassador, so he was also a gentleman; and that his sword, whereon he laid his hand, should give him satisfaction if he had taken any offence.” After which, de Luines making no reply, the ambassador went on towards the door, and de Luines seeming to accompany him, sir Edward told him, that “there was no occasion to use such ceremony after such language,” and so departed, expecting to hear farther from him. But no message being brought from de Luines, he had, in pursuance of his instructions, a more civil audience from the king at Coignac; where the marshal of St. Geran told him that tf he had offended the constable, and was not in a place of security there:“to which he answered, that” he thought himself to be in a place of security wheresoever he had his sword by him." De Luines, resenting the affront, procured Cadinet his brother, duke of Chaun, with a train of officers, of whom there was not one, as he told king James, but had killed his man, to go as an ambassador extraordinary; who misrepresented the affair so much to the disadvantage of sir Edward, that the earl of Carlisle, who was sent to accommodate the misunderstanding which might arise between the two crowns, got him recalled; until the gentleman who stood behind the curtain, out of a regard to truth and honour, related all the circumstances so as to make it appear, that though de Luines gave the first affront, yet sir Edward had kept himself within the bounds of his instructions and honour. He afterwards fell on his knees to king James, before the duke of Buckingham, requesting that a trumpeter, if not an herald, might be sent to de Luines, to tell him that he had made a false relation of the whole affair; and that sir Edward Herbert would demand satisfaction of him sword in hand. The king answered, that he would take it into consideration; but de Luines died soon after, and sir Edward was sent again ambassador to France.

, or de St. Marie, a celebrated monk of the abbey of Fleury towards the end of the 11th century, was called Hugh de St. Marie from the name of a village which belonged to his father. He is little known but by his works, which are two books: “De la Puissance Royale, et de la Dignite” Sacerdotale,“dedicated to Henry king of England, in which he establishes with great solidity the rights and bounds of the priestly and royal powers, in opposition to the prejudices which prevailed at that time. This work may be found in torn. IV. of the” Miscellanea“of Beluze. % He wrote also” A Chronicle," or History, from the beginning of the world to 840, and a small Chronicle from 996 to 1109, Minister, 163S, 4to, valuable and scarce. It may also be found in Troher’s collection.

Being now about to quit the kingdom in exile, before he departed he drew up an apology, in a petition to the house of lords, in which he vindicated himself from any way contributing to the late miscarriages, in such a manner as laid the blame at the same time upon others. The lords received it Dec. 3, and sent two of the judges to acquaint the commons with it, desiring a conference. The duke of Buckingham, who was plainly aimed at in the petition, delivered it to the commons; and said, “The lords have commanded me to deliver to you this scandalous and seditious paper sent from the earl of Clarendon. They bid me present it to you, and desire you in a convenient time to send it to them again; for it has a style which they are in love with, and therefore desire to keep it.” Upon the reading of it in that house, it was voted to be “scandalous, malicious, and a reproach to the justice of the nation;” and they moved the lords, that it might be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, which was ordered and executed accordingly. The chancellor retired to Rouen in Normandy; and, the year following, his life was attempted at Evreux near that city by a body of seamen, in such an outrageous manner, that he with great difficulty escaped. In the Bodleian library at Oxford, there is an original letter from Mr. Oliver Long, dated from Evreux, April 26, 1668, to sir William Cromwell, secretary of state, in which the following account is given of this assault. “As I was travelling from Rouen towards Orleans, it was my fortune, April 23, to overtake the earl of Clarendon, then in his unhappy and unmerited exile, who was going towards Bourbon, but took up his lodgings at a private hotel in a small walled town called Evreux, some leagues from Rouen. I, as most English gentlemen did to so valuable a patriot, went to pay him a visit near supper-time; when he was, as usual, very civil to me. Before supper was done, twenty or thirty English seamen and more came and demanded entrance at the great gate; which, being strongly barred, kept them out for some time. But in a short space they broke it, and presently drove all they found, by their advantage of numbers, into the earl’s chamber; whence, by the assistance of only three swords and pistols, we kept them out for half an hour, in which dispute many of us were wounded by their swords and pistols, whereof they had many. To conclude, they broke the windows and the doors, and under the conduct of one Howard, an Irishman, who has three brothers, as I am told, in the king of England’s service, and an ensign in the company of cannoneers, they quickly found the earl in his bed, not able to stand by the violence of the gout; whence, after they had given him many blows with the;r swords and staves, mixed with horrible curses and oaths, they dragged him on the ground in the middle of the yard, where they encompassed him around with their swords, and after they had told him in their own language, how he had sold the kingdom, and robbed them of their pay, Howard commanded them all, as one man, to run their swords through his body. But what difference arose among themselves before they could agree, God above, who alone sent this spirit of dissention, only knows. In this interval their lieutenant, one Svvaine, came and disarmed them. Sixteen of the ringleaders were put into prison; and many of those things they had rifled from him, found again, which were restored, and of great value. Mons. la Fonde, a great man belonging to the king of France’s bed-chamber, sent to conduct the earl on his way thither, was so desperately wounded in the head, that there were little hopes of his life. Many of these assassins were grievously wounded; and this action is so much resented by all here, that many of these criminals will meet with an usage equal to their merit. Had we been sufficiently provided with fire-arms, we had infallibly done ourselves justice on them; however, we fear not but the law will supply our defect.”

king of England, and VI. of Scotland, was the son of the unfortunate Mary queen of Scotland, by her cousin Henry, lord Darnley, and was born at Edinburgh-castle in June 1566, at the time when his mother had fixed her affections on the earl of Bothwell; the young prince, however, was committed to the charge of the earl of Mar, and in the following year, his mother being forced to resign the crown, he was solemnly crowned at Stirling, and all public acts from that time ran in his name. He was educated by the celebrated Buchanan while he was at Stirling castle; his progress in school-learning was rapid, and he manifested talents which presaged the future great man: but he became the prey of flatterers, who urged him to unpopular measures, which in 1582 produced a conspiracy of the nobles against him, who took possession of his person at Ruthven castle. From thence he was conveyed to the palace of Holyrood-house, and treated with much external respect, while in reality he was held in the utmost restraint. A new confederacy of other nobles produced his liberation, and he put himself under the sway of his favourite the earl of Arran, who was violent and unprincipled, and who carried on measures of severity againsf the nobles of the former conspiracy, and against the clergy who favoured them. He contrived to engage the mind of the young king with a constant round of amusement, and he himself exercised with unlimited sway all the regal authority, and by his insolence and rapacity rendered himself universally odious. Queen Elizabeth of England had long employed her arts to maintain a party in the country, which policy was become more necessary on account of her conduct to its queen. Though James had hitherto been induced to treat his mother very irreverently, yet when her life appeared to be in imminent danger, from the sentence pronounced against her by an English court of judicature, he felt himself bound to interfere, and wrote a menacing letter to Elizabeth on the occasion. He also applied to other courts for their assistance, and assembled his own nobles, who promised to stand by him in preventing or avenging such an injustice. When he learned the fatal catastrophe, he rejected with a proper spirit of indignation the hypocritical excuses of Elizabeth, and set about preparations for hostilities; but reflecting on his own resources, which were inadequate to the purposes of carrying on a serious war, he resolved to resume a friendly correspondence with the English court. It is to the honour of James that one of the' first acts of his full iriajority, in 1587, was an attempt to put an end to all family feuds among the nobility, and personally to reconcile them with each other at a solemn festival in Holyrood-house. When the invasion of England was resolved upon by Philip, king of Spain, he put his kingdom into a state of defence, resolving to support the queen against her enemies. His people also were zealous for the preservation of Protestantism, and entered into a national bond for the maintenance of true religion, which was the origin and pattern of all future engagements of the kind, under the name of solemn leagues and covenants. In 1589 he married Anne, daughter of Frederic king of Denmark, and as contrary winds prevented her coming to Scotland, he went to fetch her, and passed the winter in a series of feasting and amusements at Copenhagen. On his return he was frequently in danger from conspiracies against his life, particularly from those excited by the earl of Bothwell. In 1600, while the country was in a state of unusual tranquillity, a very extraordinary event took place, the nature and causes of which were never discovered. While the king was upon a hunting excursion, he was accosted by the brother of Ruthven earl of Gowrie, who, by a feigned tale, induced him and a small train to ride to the earl’s house at Perth. Here he was led to a remote chamber on pretence of having a secret communicated td him, where he found a man in complete armour, and a dagger was put to his breast by lluthven, with threats of immediate death. His attendants were alarmed, and came to his relief; in the end Gowrie and his brother were slain, and the king escaped unhurt. In 1603, on the death of queen Elizabeth, James was proclaimed her successor, and proceeded, amidst the acclamations of his new subjects, to London. One of his first acts was to bestow a profusion of honours and titles upon the great men, as well of his own country as those of England. A conference held at Hampton-court in 1604, between the divines of the established church and the Puritans, afforded James a good opportunity of exhibiting his skill in theological controversy, and the ill-will he bore to popular schemes of church-government. Although the king had distinguished himself in his own country by lenity to the Roman Catholics, yet those of that religion in England were so much disappointed in their expectations of his favour, that a most atrocious plot was formed by the zealots of that party to bloxv up the House of Lords at the first meeting of parliament, and with it the king, queen, and prince of Wales, and all the principal nobility and gentry of the kingdom, and then to set upon the throne the young princess Elizabeth, and establish the Catholic religion. This plot was fortunately discovered on the eve of the designed execution, and the principal persons in it suffered the punishment dae to their crimes. His next object was to reduce Ireland to a settled form of law and government. fc

Lilly was author of many works. His “Observations on the Life and Death of Charles late King of England,” if we overlook the astrological nonsense, may be read with as much satisfaction as more celebrated histories, Lilly being not only very well informed, but strictly impartial. This work, with the Lives of Lilly and Ashmole, written by themselves, were published in one volume, 8vo, in 1774. His other works were principally as follow: 1. “Merlinus Anglicus Junior.” 2. “Supernatural Sight.” 3. “The white King’s Prophecy.” 4. “England’s prophetical Merlin;” all printed in 1644. 5. “The starry Messenger,” 1645. 6. “Collection of Prophecies,” 1646. 7. “A Comment on the white King’s Prophecy,” ib. 8. “The Nativities of archbishop Laud, and Thomas earl Strafford,” ib. 9. “Christian Astrology,” 1647; upon this piece he read his lectures in 1648, before- mentioned. 10. “The third Book of Nativities,” ib. 11.“The World’s Catastrophe,” ib. 12. “The Prophecies of Ambrose Merlin, with a Key,” ib. 13. “Trithemius, or the Government of the World by presiding Angels.” See Cornelius Agrippa’s book with the same title. These three last were printed together in one volume; the two first being translated into English by Elias Ashmole, esq. 14. “A Treatise of the three Suns seen in the Winter of 1647,” printed in 1648. 15. “Monarchy or no Monarchy,” 1651. 16. “Observations on the Life and Death of Charles, late King of England,” ib. and again in 1615, with the title of Mr. William Lilly’s “True History of King James and King Charles I.” &c. 17. “-Annus Tenebrosus or, the black Year.” This drew him into the dispute with Gataker, which our author carried on in his almanack in 16.54.

In 1685, when the duke of Monmouth was making preparations in Holland for his unfortunate enterprize, the English envoy at the Hague had orders to demand Mr. Locke and eighty-three other persons to be delivered up by the States- General. M. Le Clerc observes, that Mr. Locke had no correspondence with the duke of Monmouth, having no great opinion of his undertaking. Besides, iiis natural temper was timorous, not resolute, and he was far from being fond of commotions. It was proper, however, now to conceal himself, which his friends at Amsterdam enabled him to do, at the house of a Mr. Veen. In the mean time Limborch took care that his letters should be delivered to him, and was entrusted with his will, to be sent to certain relations whom he named, in case of his death. So highly was be respected, that one of the magistrates declared that although they could not protect him, if the king of England should demand him, yet he should not be betrayed, and his landlord should have timely notice. In 1686 he began to appear again in public, when it was sufficiently known that he had no share in the duke of Monmouth’s invasion.

, a French historian of some credit, was born at Paris in 16*7. He took the habit of a canon regular of St. Gdnevieve, and was sent to regulate the chapter of Usez, where he was made provost. This office he resigned in favour of the abbe Poncet, who was afterwards bishop of Angers. Some time after, he was made archdeacon of Usez, and died in that city Aug. 30, 1724, at the age of 78. Marsollier published several histories, which are still read by his countrymen with some pleasure: the style, though occasionally debased by low and familiar expressions, being in general rather lively and flowing. There are extant by him, 1. “A History of Cardinal Ximenes,” in 1693, 2 vols. 12mo, and since frequently reprinted. The only fault found with this work is, that the author gives up his attention to the public man so much, as almost to forget his private character. 2. “A History of Henry VII. King of England,” reprinted in 1727, in 2 vols. 12mo. Some consider this as the master-piece of the author. 3. “The History of the Inquisition and its origin,” 1693, 12mo. A curious work, and in some respects a bold one. 4. “Life of St. Francis de Sales,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “The Life of Madame de Chantal,” 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “The Life of Dom Ranqe, abbe and reformer of La Trappe,” 1703, 2 vols. 12mo. Some objections have been made to the veracity of this history, but the journalists de Trevoux seem disposed to prefer it upon the whole to Maupeou’s life of Ranee. 7. “Dialogues on many Duties of Life,” 1715, 12mo. This is rather verbose than instructive, and is copied in a great degree from Erasmus. 8. “The History of Henry de la Tour d'Auvergne, duke of Bouillon,” 3 vols. 12mo. Not much esteemed. 9. “An Apology for Erasmus,” 12mo; whose catholic orthodoxy the author undertakes to prove from passages in his works. 10. “A History of Tenths, and other temporal Goods of the Church,” Paris, 1689, 12mo. This is the most scarce, and at the same time the most curious, of all the works of Marsollier.

, queen of England, and wife of William III. with whom she reigned jointly, was born at the royal palace of St. James’s, Westminster, the 30th of April, 1662. She was the daughter of James the Second, by a daughter of lord Clarendon, whom that prince married secretly, during the exile of the royal family. She proved a lady of most uncommon qualities: she had beauty, wit, good-nature, virtue, and piety, all in an eminent degree; and she shone superior to all about her, as well at the ball and the masque, as in the presence and the drawing-room. When she was fifteen, William prince of Orange, and afterwards king of England, made his addresses to her in person, and married her. Many suppose that the prince was so sagacious as to foresee all which afterwards came to pass; as that Charles II. would leave no children; that the duke of York, when he came to the throne, would, through his bigoted attachment to popery, be unable to keep possession of it; and that himself, having married the eldest daughter of England, would naturally be recurred to, as its preserver and deliverer in such a time of danger. If he had really any motives of policy, he had art enough to conceal them; for, having communicated his intentions to sir William Temple, then ambassador at the Hague, he frankly expressed his whole sentiments of marriage in the following terms; namely, that “the greatest things he considered were the person and disposition of the young lady; for, though it would not pass in the world for a prince to seem concerned in those particulars, yet for himself without affectation he declared that he was so, and in such a degree, tljat no circumstances of fortune or interest could engage him, without those of the person, especially those of humour or disposition: that he might, perhaps, be not very easy for a wife to live with; he was sure he should not be so to such wives as were generallj 7 in the courts of this age; that if he should meet with one to give him trouble at home, it was what he should not be able to bear, who was likely to have enough abroad in the course of his life; and that, after the manner he was resolved to live with a wife, which should be the best he could, he would have one that he thought likely to live well with him, which he thought chiefly depended upon their disposition and education.”

, baron of Albone, first physician to their Britannic majesties James I. and Charles I. was the son of Louis de Mayerne, author of a “General History of Spain,” and of the “Monarchic aristo-democratique,” dedicated to the States-general. His mother was Louisa, the daughter of Antoine le Masson, treasurer of the army to Francis I. and Henry II. in Piedmont. Louis de Mayerne retired to Geneva about the end of 1572, after having had two houses at Lyons pulled down on account of his religion. On Sept. 28, 1573, his son Theodore was born, and had for his godfather Theodore Beza. He learnt polite literature in his own country, and he was thence sent to Heidelberg, where he stayed some years; after which, as he had made choice of physic for his profession, he went to Montpellier, and there he took the degree of bachelor in 1596, and of doctor in 1597. Thence he went to Paris, where, by way of introducing himself into practice, he gave lectures in anatomy to the young surgeons, and in pharmacy to the apothecaries. He acquired reputation by his prescriptions, and became known to Riverius, first physician to Henry IV. who recommended him so effectually to the king, that he made him one of his physicians in ordinary; and, in 1600, appointed him to attend Henry duke of Rohan, in his embassies from France to the princes of Germany and Italy. Upon his return, he acquitted himself in the exercise of his office very much to his credit, and was in high favour with the king, who promised to do great things for him, provided he would change his religion; and, it is said, notwithstanding that obstacle, would have appointed him his first physician, if the Jesuits, who were aware of it, had not prevented him by the means of queen Mary de Medicis. Of this circumstance and intended favour, Mayerne knew nothing till he learnt it, in 1642, in England, from Caesar duke of Vendosme, a natural son of France. In 1607, he had under his care an Englishman of quality, who after his recovery carried him into England, where he had a private conference with king James. He then returned to Paris, and remained there till after the assassination of Henry IV. in May 1610. In the following year, the king of England caused him to be invited by his ambassador, to serve in quality of first physician to himself and his queen, and gave him a patent, sealed with the great seal of England; in which office he served the whole royal family with great honour and approbation, till the day of his death. He was admitted to the degree of doctor in both universities, and into the college of physicians, and treated with the greatest respect by these learned bodies. He incurred some obloquy on account of the fatal sickness of Henry prince of Wales, in October 1612; in the treatment of which he differed in opinion from the other physicians, with respect to the use of blood-letting. But his conduct obtained the approbation of the king and council, of which certificates, couched in the most satisfactory terms, were given him. He received the honour of knighthood from James, in 1624; and on the accession of Charles I. he was appointed first physician to him and his queen, and rose to high favour, particularly with the latter. During the civil commotions he still adhered to the royal party, for he was appointed first physician to Charles II. after the death of his father, although the office was not merely nominal. Thus he enjoyed the extraordinary honour of serving four kings successively in his medical capacity; and during all this period he -was most extensively employed by persons of the first rank in this kingdom, by which he accumulated a large fortune. He made an exact collection of his prescriptions. He composed a very curious dispensatory of medicines, galenical and chemical but never published any of his works, except an “Apology” for himself, against the faculty of physic at Paris, who had attacked him for his application to the practice of chemistry, which was greatly cried down by the physicians of that place. Guy Patin has given an account of this dispute; in which he has shewn himself greatly prejudiced against Mayerne, and calls him a quack, on account of his pretensions to chemistry. He died March 15, 1655, at Chelsea, of the effects of bad wine, a slow, which, says Granger, the weakness of old age rendered a quick poison. He foretold the time of his death to his friends, with whom he had been moderately drinking at a tavern in the Strand; and it happened according to his prediction. He was buried at St. Martin’s-in-the-tields. He left behind him one only daughter, who brought her great fortune in marriage to the marquis de Montpouvillan, grandson of the marshal duke de la Force; but she died in childbed at the Hague, in 1661.

, an English poet and divine, was born at Hatherlagh in Devonshire, in 1604. He received his education at Westminster-school; and was afterwards removed to Christ-church in Oxford, when he was about twenty. He took his bachelor and master of arts degrees in the regular way; and then, entering into holy orders, was presented by his college to the vicarages of Cassington, near Woodstock, and of Pyrton, near Watlington in Oxfordshire. He became, says W T ood, “a quaint preacher, and a noted poet;” and, in the latter capacity, distinguished himself by the production of two plays, entitled “The City Match,” a comedy; and “The Amorous War,” a tragi-comedy. When the rebellion broke out, and Charles I. was obliged to keep his court at Oxford, to avoid being exposed to the resentment of the populace in London, where tumults then prevailed, Dr. Mayne was one of those divines who were appointed to preach before his majesty. In 1646, he was created a doctor of divinity; and the year after, printed a sermon at Oxford, “Against false prophets,” upon Ezek. xxii. 26. which occasioned a dispute between him and the memorable antagonist of Chillingworth, Mr. Cheynell. Cheynell had attacked his sermon from the pulpit at St. Mary’s in Oxford; and several letters passed between them, which were published by Dr. Mayne the same year, in a piece entitled “A late printed sermon against false prophets vindicated by letter from the causeless aspersions of Mr. Francis Cheynell; by Jasper Mayne, D. D. the misunderstood author of it.” Mayne having said, in one of his letters to Cheynell, that “God, upon a true repentance, is not so fatally tied to the spindle of absolute reprobation, as not to keep his promise, and seal merciful pardons;” Cheynell animadverted upon him in the following terms: “Sir, Reprobatio est tremendum mysterium. How dare you jet upon such a subject, at the thought of which each Christian trembles? Can any man repent, that is given up to a reprobate mind and impenitent heart? And is not every man finally impenitent, save those few to whom God gives repentance freely, powerfully, effectually? See what it is for a man to come from Ben Jonson or Lucian, to treat immediately of the high and stupendous mysteries of religion. The Lord God pardon this wicked thought of your heart, that you may not perish in the bond of iniquity and gall of bitterness. Be pleased to study the ixth chapter to the Romans.” The same year Mayne published also another piece, entitled, “OXAOMAXIAj or, the people’s war examined according to the principles of scripture and reason, in two of the most plausible pretences of it. ID answer to a letter sent by a person of quality, who desired satisfaction.” In this piece he examines, first, how far the power of a king, who is truly a king, not one only in name, extends itself over subjects; secondly, whether any such power belongs to the king of England; and, thirdly, if there does, how far it is to be obeyed, and not resisted. The conclusion he draws is, that the parliamentary resistance to the king was rebellion. We cannot be surprized if a man of such principles was deprived of his studentship at Christ-church, in 1648, and soon after of both his livings. During the time of the usurpation, he was chaplain to the earl of Devonshire, and consequently became the companion of the celebrated Hobbes, who then attended his lordship; but, as Wood informs us, Mayne and he did not agree well together. At the restoration he not only recovered both his livings, but, for his services and attachment to the royal cause, was promoted to a canonry of Christ-church, and made archdeacon of Chichester, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, which preferments he held to the time of his death, Dec. 6, 1672. He was interred in the choir at Christ-church, where a monument was erected for him, at the charge of his executors, Dr. Robert South, and Dr. John Lamphire. By his will he left 500l. towards the re-building of St. Paul’s cathedral, and lOOl each to both of his livings. Though very orthodox in his opinions, and severe in his manners, he is said to have been a most facetious and pleasant companion, and a great joker. Of this last, Langbaine gives an instance which affords no very pleasing specimen of Mayne, either as a serious or a jocular man. Langbaine says that he had a servant, who had long lived with him; to whom he bequeathed a trunk, “with something in it,” as he said, “which would make him drink after his death.” The doctor dying, the servant immediately paid a visit to the trunk; but instead of a treasure, or at least a valuable legacy, which he expected, he found Only a red herring.

Melancthon made a very distinguished figure in the many conferences which followed this diet. It was in these that the spirit and character of Melancthon appeared in their true colours; and it was here that the votaries of Rome exhausted their efforts to gain over to their party this pillar of the reformation, whose abilities and virtues added a lustre to the cause in which he had embarked. His gentle spirit was apt to sink into a kind of yielding softness, under the influence of mild and generous treatment. Accordingly, while his adversaries soothed him with fair words and flattering promises, he seemed ready 1 to comply with their wishes; but, when they so far forgot themselves as to make use of threats, Melancthon appeared in a very different point of light, and showed a spirit of intrepidity, ardour, and independence. It was generally thought that he was not so averse to an accommodation with the church of Rome as Luther, which is grounded upon his saying that they “ought not to contend scrupulously about things indifferent, provided those rites and ceremonies had nothing of idolatry in them; and even to bear some hardships, if it could be done without impiety.” But there is no reason to think that there was any important difference between him and Luther, but what arose from the different tempers of the two men, which consisted in a greater degree of mildness on the part of Melancthon. It was, therefore, this moderation and pacific disposition which made him thought a proper person to settle the disputes about religion, which were then very violent in France; and for that purpose he was invited thither by Francis I. Francis had assisted at a famous procession, in Jan. 1535, and had caused some heretics to be burnt. Melancthon was exhorted to attempt a mitigation of the king’s anger; he wrote a letter therefore to John Sturmius, who was then in France, and another to Du Bellai, bishop of Paris. A gentleman, whom Francis had sent into Germany, spoke to Melancthon of the journey to France; and assured him, that the king would write to him about it himself, and would furnish him with all the means of conducting him necessary for his safety. To this Melancthon consented, and the gentleman upon his return was immediately dispatched to him with a letter. It is dated from Guise, June 28, 1535, and declares the pleasure the king had, when he understood that Melancthon was disposed to conie into France, to put an end to their controversies. Melancthon wrote to the king, Sept. 28, and assured him of his good intentions; but was sorry, he could not as yet surmount the obstacles to his journey. The truth was, the duke of Saxony had reasons of state for not suffering this journey to the court of Francis I. and Melancthon could never obtain leave of him to go, although Luther had earnestly exhorted that elector to consent to it, by representing to him, that the hopes of seeing Melancthon had put a stop to the persecution of the protestants in France; and that there was reason to fear, they would renew the same cruelty, when they should know that he would not come. Henry VIII. king of England, had also a desire to see Melancthon, but neither he nor Francis I. ever saw him.

, an eminent chemist, the son of an apothecary, was born at Zullichau, in the duchy of Crossen, July 11, 1682. Caspar was educated under his father, and commenced practice at Unruhstadt, in Poland; but after a short residence there, he went to Berlin in 1705, and was employed several years as traveller for the pharmaceutic establishment of the king of Prussia. In consequence of the ability which he manifested in the performance of this duty, the king sent him to prosecute his studies at the university of Halle, and subsequently defrayed the expences of a journey, for the purpose of acquiring chemical information. He commenced this chemical tour in 1711 by visiting the mines of Germany and thence went to Holland, where he profited by the instructions of the celebrated Boerhaave. He then visited England, and while here had the misfortune to lose his royal patron, Frederick I., by death. His talents and character, however, soon afforded him relief from this temporary embarrassment for, on his return to the continent he was detained at Franeker by Cyprianus, who employed him in the execution of many chemical experiments; and he was at the same time invited to Berlin. At that time, however, he preferred accompanying George I., king of England, to Hanover, whither he went in 1716. He subsequently visited Berlin, for the purpose of settling some private affairs, where he obtained the friendship of Stahl, through whose influence at court he was again sent on a tour of chemical investigation, through England, France, and Italy, where he was introduced to all the celebrated chemists of the day. On his return to Berlin, he was appointed apothecary to the court and in 1723, when the king instituted the Royal College of Medicine and Surgery, he was nominated professor of practical chemistry, and was elected a member of that body in the following year. In 1725, he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society of London; and in 1727, was honoured with the degree of M. D. by the university of Halle. In the course of the same year, he travelled through Silesia and Moravia to Vienna; and on his return through Bohemia he visited the baths of Tb'plitz, and examined the mines, in passing by the way of Dresden and Freyberg, with all the attention of a chemical philosopher.

In 1743 he was presented to the vicarage of Codicote, and in 1744 was appointed chaplain to lord Cathcart. In the same year he took his degree of M. A. and drew up a catalogue of Mr. West’s series of coins, intending a prefatory account of them, and a catalogue of Dr. Ducarel’s English coins. With this last gentleman he continued his correspondence in 1748 and 1749, copious extracts from which are given in our authority. In the spring of 1750 he made a tour into the West; and on his return communicated very freely to Dr. Ducarel his ideas of the proceedings respecting a charter, then in agitation at the Society of Antiquaries, and of which he appears to have entertained very groundless fears. By one of his letters, in August 1750, it appears that he had not enjoyed three days of good health for more than a year; and was then labouring under several bodily complaints, and apprehensive of an epilepsy. He continued, however, as often as he was able, to indulge in literary pursuits, and extend his researches into every matter of antiquity that engaged the attention of his contemporaries and correspondents. In 1751, the rev. Charles Clarke, of Baiiol college, Oxford, published “Some Conjectures relative to a very antient Piece of Money lately found at Eltham in Kent, endeavouring to restore it to the place it merits in the Cimeliarch of English Coins, and to prove it a coin of Richard the first king of England of that name. To which are added, some Remarks on a dissertation (lately published) on Oriuna the supposed wife of Carausius, and on the Roman coins there mentioned,” 1751, 4to. To this Mr. North published an answer, entitled “Remarks on some Conjectures, &c. shewing the improbability of the notion therein advanced, that the arguments produced in support of it are inconclusive or irrelative to the pointin question,” 1752, 4to. In this answer, which was the first piece published by any of the society after their incorporation, Mr. North considered at large the standard and purity of our most ancient English coins, the state of the mints, and the beginning of sterling, from the public records; and added to it, “An Epistolary Dissertation (addressed to Mr. Vertue) on some supposed Saxon gold coins; read before the Society of Antiquaries, Dec. 19, 1751.” No man could be better qualified for this task than Mr. North, who, by his intimacy with Mr. Holmes and Mr. Folkes (the latter of whom he mentions in the highest terms), became perfectly acquainted with the records and whole state and history of the English coinage. Mr. Charles Clarke, however, a member of the Society, announced a design of proving Mr. North wrong in his “Epistolary Dissertation” but luckily for himself, discovered that his own premises would not support any such conclusion, and therefore his publication never appeared.

, was a puritan divine of considerable learning and reading, but his early history is very variously represented. Mr. Brook, in his late “Lives of the Puritans,” places him as rector of North- Benflete, in Essex, in 1571, on the authority of Newcourt, but Newcourt is evidently speaking of a Robert Parker, who held Bardfield-parva in 1559, and must have been a different person. On the other hand, Mr. Masters, in his History of C. C. C. C informs us that he was in 1581 a pensioner of Bene't college, Cambridge, and was made scholar of the house in 1583, at which time he published a copy of Latin verses on the death of sir William Buttes, and succeeded to a fellowship in the latter end of the year following. He was then A. B. but commenced A. M. in 1585, and left the university in 1589. Both his biographers agree that the person they speak of was beneficed afterwards at Wilton, in Wiltshire, and the author of “A scholastical Discourse against symbolizing with Anti-christ in ceremonies, especially in the sign of the Cross,” printed in 1607, without a printer’s name, consisting of near 400 pages closely printed in folio. In this he appears to have employed very extensive reading to very little purpose, according to Dr. Grey; and even Mr. Pierce, in his “Vindication of the Dissenters,” owns that “his fancy was somewhat odd as to his manner of handling his argument.” It contained at the same time matter so very offensive, that a proclamation was issued for apprehending the author, who, after many narrow escapes, was enabled to take refuge in Holland. Here some of his biographers inform us that he was chosen minister of the English church at Amsterdam; but the magistrates of the city, being unwilling to disoblige the king of England by continuing him their pastor, he removed to Doesburgh, where he became chaplain to the garrison. Others tell us that he would have been chosen pastor to the English church at Amsterdam, had not the magistrates been afraid of disobliging king James. According to Mr. Brook, it would appear that he had published his work “De Descensu” before he left England, but we can more safely rely on Mr. Masters, who had seen the book, and who informs us that it was while he was at Amsterdam that he published a treatise, “De Descensu domini nostri Jesu Christi ad Inferos,” 4to, which had been begun by his learned friend Hugh Sandforcl, who finding death approaching, committed the perfecting of it to him. This he was about to do when compelled to leave England. His preface is dated Amsterdam, Dec. 30, 1611. He was also the author of a treatise “De Politia Ecclesiastica Christi et Hierarchicaopposita,” published in 1616, at which time he had been dead two years. He is indeed here represented “as an Eminent servant of Christ, called home to rest from his labours in the midst of his course.” The Bodleian catalogue assigns to him two other posthumous works, “A Discourse concerning Puritans,” 1641, 4to, and “The Mystery of the Vials opened in the 16th chapter of the Revelations.” He left a son, Thomas, author of a work called “Methodus gratioe divinse in traductione hominis peccatoris ad vitam,” Lond. 1657, 8vo, which the editor considered as a work of importance by the care he took to collate four ms copies. Brook says he wrote also “Meditations on the Prophecy of Daniel,” and died in 1677, in New England, to which he went in 1634, to avoid the consequences of nonconformity at home.

After the defeat of the armada in 1588, he used every means in his power to persuade the Spanish monarch to a second invasion; and when he failed in this, he endeavoured to raise a rebellion in England, urging the earl of Derby to appear at the head of it, who is said to have been poisoned, at his instigation, for refusing to acquiesce. Nor did he stop here. We find sir Ralph Winwood informing secretary Cecil from Paris, in 1602, of an attempt to assassinate the queen that year by another English Jesuit, at the instigation of father Parsons; and when all these plans proved abortive, he endeavoured to prevent the succession of king James by several means; one of which was, exciting the people to set up a democratic form of government, for which he had furnished them with principles in several of his books. Another was, to persuade the pope to make his kinsman the duke of Parma king of England, by joining with the lady Arabella, and marrying her to the duke’s brother, cardinal Farnese. Cardinal d'Ossat gives the king of France a large account of both these projects in one of his letters; and in another mentions a third contrivance which Parsons had communicated to him, and whose object was, that the pope, the king of France, and the king of Spain, should first appoint by common consent a successor for England, who should be a catholic; and then should form an armed confederacy to establish him on the throne.

The works of Du Perron, the greatest part of which had been printed separately in his life-time, were collected after his death, and published at Paris, 1620 and 1622, in 3 vols. folio. The first contains his great “Treatise upon the Eucharist,” against that of Du Plessis Mornay. The second, his “Reply to the Answer of the King of Great Britain.” The following was the occasion of that work: James I. of England sent to Henry IV. of France a book, which he had written himself, concerning differences in religion. Henry put it into the hands of Du Perron’s brother, who informed his majesty, from what the cardinal had observed to him, that there were many passages in that book, in which the king of England seemed to come near the catholics; and that it might be proper to send some able person, in hopes of converting him entirely. Henry accordingly, after taking the advice of his prelates in this affair, desired to know of the king of England, whether he would approve of a visit from the cardinal Du Perron? King James answered that he should be well pleased to confer with him, but for reasons of state could not do it. After this, Isaac Casaubon, who had been engaged in several conferences with Du Perron about religion, and seemed much inclined to that egregious absurdity, a reunion between the popish and reformed church, was prevailed on to take a voyage into England; where he spoke advantageously of Du Perron to the king, and presented some pieces of poetry to him, which the cardinal had put into his hands. The king received them kindly, and expressed much esteem for the author; which Casaubon noticing to Du Perron, he returned a letter of civility and thanks to his Britannic majesty; in which he told him, that, “except the sole title of Catholic, he could find nothing wanting in his majesty, that was necessary to make a most perfect and accomplished prince.” The king replied, that, “believing all things which the ancients had unanimously thought necessary to salvation, the title of Catholic could not be denied him.” Casaubon having sent this answer to Du Perron, he replied to it in a letter, dated the 15th of July, 1611, in which he assigns the reasons that obliged him to refuse the name of Catholic to his Britannic majesty. Casaubon sent him a writing by way of answer, in the name of the king, to all the articles of his letter; to which the cardinal made a large reply, which constitutes the bulk of the second volume of his works. The third contains his miscellaneous pieces; among which are, “Acts of the Conference held at Fontainbleau against Du Plessis Mornay;” moral and religious pieces in prose and verse, orations, dissertations, translations, and letters.

His conduct at the Hague was so pleasing to king William, that he made him one of his gentlemen of the bedchamber; and he is supposed to have passed some of the next years in the quiet cultivation of literature and poetry. In 1695 he wrote a long ode on the death of queen Mary, which was presented to the king; and, in 1697, was again employed on public business, being appointed secretary to another embassy at the treaty of Ryswick, and received a present of 200 guineas for bringing that treaty over. In the following year he held the same office at the court of France, where he was considered with great distinction. We are told, that as he was one day surveying the apartments at Versailles, being shewn the victories of Louis, painted by Le Brun, and asked whether the king of England’s palace had any such decorations “The monuments of my master’s actions,” said he, “are to be seen every where but in his own house.” The pictures of Le Brun are not only in themselves sufficiently ostentatious, but were explained by inscriptions so arrogant, that Boileau and Racine thought it necessary to make them more simple.

His works, as enumerated by Wood, are, 1. “Regale Lectum Miseriue or, a kingly bed of misery in which is contained a dreame with an Elegie upon the Martyrdome of Charles, late king of England, of blessed memory and another upon the right hon. the lord Capel, with a curse against the enemies of peace; and the author’s farewell to England. Whereunto is added, England’s Sonnets,” Lond. 1649, 8vo, 2d edit. 2. “Fons Lachrymarum; or, a Fountain of Tears: from when doth flow England’s complaint. Jeremiah’s Lamentations paraphrased, with divine meditations, and an elegy upon that son of valour, sir Charles Lucas,”! 648, 8vo.“3.” The Tyranny of the Dutch against the English,“ibid. 1653, 8vo, a prose narrative. 4.” Continuation of the History of Argalus and Parthenia,*' ibid. 1659, 12mo. 5. “Tarquin banished, or the Reward of Lust,” a sequel to Shakspeare’s “Rape of” Lucrece,“ibid. 1655, 8vo. 6.” Divine Meditations upon several subjects,“&c. ibid. 1679, 8vo. 7.” Triumphant Chastity, or Joseph’s self-conflict," &c. ibid. 1684, 8vo.

In 1619 the king recalled Richelieu, and sent him into Angouleme, where he persuaded the queen to a reconciliation, which was concluded in 1620; and in consequence of this treaty, the duke de Luynes obtained a cardinal’s hat for him from pope Gregory XV. Richelieu, continuing his services after the duke’s decease, was admitted, in 1624, into the council, through the interest of the queen, and almost against the will of the king, who, devout and scrupulous, considered him as a knave, because he had been informed of his gallantries. It is even said that he was insolent enough to aspire to queen Anne of Austria, and that the railleries to which this subjected him were the cause of his subsequent aversion to her. Cardinal Richelieu was afterwards appointed prime minister, head of the councils, high steward, chief, and superintendant-generai of the French trade and navigation. He preserved the Isle of Rhe in 1627, and undertook the siege of Rochelle against the protestants the same year. He completed the conquest of Rochelle in October 1628, in spite of the king of Spain, who had withdrawn his forces, of the king of England, who could not relieve it, and of the French king, who grew daily more weary of the undertaking, by means of that famous mole, executed by his orders, but planned by Lewis Metezeau and John Tiriot. The capture of Rochelle proved a mortal blow to the protestants, but in France was reckoned the most glorious and beneficial circumstance of cardinal Richelieu’s administration. He also attended his majesty to the relief of the duke of Mantua in 1629, raised the siege of Casal, and, at his return, compelled the protestants to accept the treaty of peace which had been concluded at Alais, and completed the ruin of their party. Six months after this, cardinal Richelieu, having procured himself to be appointed lieutenant-general of the army beyond the mountains, took Pignerol, relieved Casal a second time, which was besieged by the marquis Spinola, defeated general Doria, by means of the duke de Monttnorenci at Vegliana, July 10, 1630, and made himself master of all Savoy. Louis XIII. having returned to Lyons, in consequence of sickness, the queenmother, and most of the nobility, took advantage of this circumstance to form plots against Richelieu, and speak ill of his conduct to the king, which they did with so much success, that Louis promised the queen to discard him. The cardinal’s ruin now seemed inevitable, and he was actually preparing to set out for Havre-de Grace, which he had chosen for his retreat, when cardinal de la Valette, knowing that the queen had not followed her son to Versailles, advised him first to see his majesty. In this interview, he immediately cleared himself from all the accusations of his enemies, justified his conduct, displayed the advantages and necessity of his administration, and wrought so forcibly upon the king’s mind by his reasoning, that, instead of being discarded, he became from that moment more powerful than ever. He inflicted the same punishments upon his enemies which they had advised for him; and this day, so fortunate for Richelieu, was called “The Day of Dupes.” Those who had the misfortune to incur his displeasure, certainly did not all deserve the penalties to which he doomed them; but he knew how to make himself master of their fate, by appointing such judges to try them as were at his disposal. That abominable method of taking the accused from their lawful judges, had, in the preceding century, served as a means for the families of condemned persons to get their characters restored; after which the French had no reason to fear its revival; but Richelieu hesitated not to adopt it, though at the risque of general odium, as being favourable to his designs. By thus making himself master of the lives and fortunes of the mal-contents, he imposed silence even on their murmurs. This artful minister, being now secure of his lasting ascendancy over the king, and having already accomplished one of the two great objects which he had proposed to himself from the beginning of his administration, which were, the destruction of the protestants, and the humbling the too great power of the house of Austria, began now to contrive means for executing this second undertaking. The principal and most efficacious method employed by the cardinal with that view, was a treaty he concluded, January 23, 1631, with Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, for currying the war into the heart of Germany. He also formed a league with the duke of Bavaria, secured to himself Lorrain, raised part of the German princes against the emperor, treated with Holland to continue the war wirh Spain, favoured the Catalonians and Portuguese when they shook off the Spanish yoke, and, in short, made use of so many measures and stratagems, that he completely accomplished his design. Cardinal Richelieu was carrying on the war with success, and meditating on that glorious peace, which was not concluded till 1648, when h died in his palace at Paris, worn out by his long toils, December 4,“1642, aged fifty-eight. He was buried at the Sorbonne, where his mausoleum (the celebrated Girardon’s master-piece) may be seen. He is considered as one of the most complete statesmen, and ablest politicians, that France ever had. Amidst all the anxieties which the fear of his enemies must necessarily occasion, he formed the most extensive and complicated plans, and executed them with great superiority of genius. It was cardinal Richelieu who established the throne, while yet shaken by the protestant factions, and the power of the House of Austria, and made the royal authority completely absolute, and independent, by the extinction of the petty tyrants who wasted the kingdom. In the mean time he omitted nothing which could contribute to the glory of France. He promoted arts and sciences; founded the botanical garden at Paris called the king’s garden; also the French academy, and the royal printing-office; built the palace since called the Palais Royal, and gave it to his majesty; rebuilt the Sorbonne (of which he was provisor) in a style of kingly magnificence; and prepared for all the splendour of Louis the Fourteenth’s reign. His enemies, says the abbe L'Atocat, unable to deny his great talents, have reproached him with great faults; irregularity of conduct, unbounded ambition, universal despotism, from which even the king, his master, did not escape; for he left him, as they express it, only the power of curing the evil; a vanity and ostentation which exceeded the dignity of the throne itself, where all was simplicity and negligence, while the cardinal’s court exhibited nothing but pomp and splendour; unexampled ingratitude to his benefactress, queen Mary de Medicis, whom he inhumanly compelled to end her da*ys in Germany, in obscurity and indigence; and, finally, his revengeful temper, which occasioned so many cruel executions; as those of Chalais, Grandier, the marechal de Marillac, M. de Montmorenci, Cinqmars, M. de Thou, &c. Even the queen, for having written to the duchess de Chevreuse, Richelieu’s enemy, and a fugitive, saw all her papers seized, and was examined before the chancellor Sequier. Mad. de la Fayette, mad. de Hautefort, and father Caussin, the king’s confessors, were all disgraced in consequence of having offended this despotic minister. But, says his apologist, there are many points to be considered with respect to these accusations: it appears certain, from a thousand passages in the life of this celebrated cardinal, that he was naturally very grateful, and never proceeded to punishment but when he thought state affairs required it; for which reason, when in his last sickness, his confessor asked” if he forgave his enemies?“he replied,” I never had any but those of the state.“At the head of his” Political Testament“may be seen his justification of himself on the subject of these bloody executions, with which he has been so much reproached. It is equally certain, that he never oppressed the people by taxes or exorbitant subsidies, notwithstanding the long wars he had to carry on; and that, if he was severe in punishing crimes, he knew how to distinguish merit, and reward it generously. He bestowed the highest ecclesiastical dignities on such bishops and doctors as he knew to be men of virtue and learning; placed able and experienced generals at the head of the armies, and entrusted public business with wise, punctual, and intelligent men. It was this minister who established a navy. His vigilance extended through every part of the government; and, notwithstanding the cabals, plots, and factions, which were incessantly forming against him during the whole course of his administration (and which must have employed great part of his time) he left sufficient sums behind him to carry on the war with glory; and France was in a more powerful and flourishing state at the time of his decease than when Louis XIV. died. After stating these facts, Richelieu’s enemies areinvited to determine whether France would have derived more advantage from being governed by Mary de Medicis, Gaston of Orleans, &c. than by this cardinal The estate of Richelieu was made a dukedom in his favour, in 1631, and he received other honours and preferments. Besides the” Method of Controversy“he wrote, 2.” The principal points of the Catholic Faith defended, against the writing addressed to the king by the ministers of Charenton.“3.” The most easy and certain Method of converting those who are separated from the Church.“These pieces are written with force and vivacity. He wrote also,” A Catechism,“in which he lays down the doctrine of the church, in a clear and concise manner and a treatise of piety, called,” The Perfection of a Christian.“These are his theological works; and they have been often printed: but that which is most read, and most worthy of being read, is his” Political Testament," the authenticity of which has been doubted by some French writers, particularly Voltaire. The cardinal also had the ambition to be thought a dramatic poet; and, says lord Chesterfield, while he absolutely governed both his king and country, and was, in a great degree, the arbiter of the fate of all Europe, he was more jealous of the great reputation of Corneille, than of the power of Spain; and more flattered with being thought (what he was not) the best poet, than with being thought (what he certainly was) the greatest statesman in Europe; and affairs stood still, while he was concerting the criticism upon the Cid.

, a very celebrated Dutch poet, was born Oct. 1645, of a distinguished family at Amsterdam. He went into the army during the Dutch war in 1673; but having served two years, retired to a beautiful country house he had on the Vecht, and devoted himself wholly tq study and poetry. He afterwards took a journey to Paris, and on his return home married Ann Adrianna de Salingre, who left him a widower with two daughters in 1689. He died of the small-pox Nov. 3, 17 10, aged sixty-six. His works are, “The Life of William III.” king of England; an epic poem in eight books, much admired by his countrymen; and several other poems in Dutch, Lewarden, 1715, 4to. Rotgans, Vondel, and Antonides, are the three most celebrated Dutch poets.

In April 1607, the division between Rome and the republic was healed by the interposition of France; and Fulgentio relates, that the affair was transacted at Rome by cardinal Perron, according to the order of the king his master. But some English writers are of opinion, that this accommodation between the Venetians and the pope was owing to the misconduct of king James I., who, if he had heartily supported the Venetians, would certainly have disunited them from the see of Rome. Isaac Walton observes, that during the dispute it was reported abroad, “that the Venetians were all turned Protestants, which was believed by many: for it was observed, that the English ambassador (Wotton) was often in conference with the senate and his chaplain, Mr. Bedel, more often with father Paul, whom the people did not take to be his friend and also, for that the republic of Venice was known to give commission to Gregory Justiniano, then their ambassador in England, to make all these proceedings known to the king of England, and to crave a promise of his assistance, if need should require,” c. Burnet tells us, “That the breach between the pope and the republic was brought very wear a crisis, so that it was expected a total separation not only from the court, but the church of Rome, was like td follow upon it. It was set on by father Paul and the seven divines with much zeal, and was very prudently conducted by them. In order to the advancing of it, king James ordered his ambassador to offer all possible assistance to them, and to accuse the pope and the papacy as the chief authors of all the mischiefs of Christendom. Father Paul and the seven divines pressed Mr. Bedel to move the ambassador to present king James’s premonition to all Christian princes and states, then put in Latin, to the senate; and they were confident it would produce a great effect. But the ambassador could not be prevailed on to do it at that time; and pretended, that since St. James’s day was not far off, it would be more proper to do it on that day. Before St. James’s day came, the difference was made up, and that happy opportunity was lost; so that when he had his audience on that day in which he presented the book, all the answer he got was, that they thanked the king of England for his good will, but they were now reconciled to the pope; and that therefore they were resolved not to admit any change in their religion, according to their agreement with the court of Rome.” Welwood relates the same story, and imputes the miscarriage of that important affair to “the conceit of presenting king James’s book on St. James’s day.” But JDr. Hickes attempts to confute this account, by observing, that the pope and the Venetians were reconciled in 1607, and that the king’s premonition came not out till 1609, which indeed appears to be true; so that, if the premonition was really presented, it must have been only in manu* Script.

, a learned German writer, and one of the most arrogant and contentious critics of his time, was born about 1576; and studied first at Amberg, then at Heidelberg, afterwards at Altdorf, at the charges of the elector palatine. Having made a considerable stay at Ingolstadt, he returned to Altdorff, where he began to publish some of his works. Ottavia Ferrari, a celebrated professor at Padua, says, that he “published books when he was but sixteen, which deserved to be admired by old men;” some, however, of his early productions do not deserve this encomium. He took a journey into Italy; and, after he had been some time at Verona, returned into Germany, whence he went again into Italy, and published at Ferrara a panegyric upon the king of Spain and pope Clement VIII. Iti 1599, he embraced the Roman catholic religion, but had an extraordinary antipathy to the Jesuits; against whom, Baillet tells us, he wrote about thirty treatises under fictitious names. Nor was he more lenient to the Protestants, and solicited the princes to extirpate them by the most bloody means, in a book which he published at Pavia in 1619, under the title of “Gasp. Scioppii Consiliarii Regii Classieum belli sa'cri, sive, Heldus Redivivus.” The following is the title of another, printed at Mentz in 1612, against Philip Mornay du Plessis; and which, as he tells us in the title-page, he sent to James I. of England, by way of new-year’s gift: “Alexipharmacum Regium felli clraconum et veneno aspidum sub Philippi Mornaei de Piessis nuper Papatus historia abdito appositum, et sereniss. Jacobo Magnae Britanniae Regi strenae Januariae loco muneri missum.” He had before attacked the king of England, by publishing in 1611, two books with these titles; “Ec­clesiasticus auctoritati Sereniss. D. Jacob), &c. oppositus,” and “Collyrium Regium Britanniae Regi graviter ex oculis laboranti muneri missum;” that is, “An Eye-salve for the use of his Britannic majesty.” In the first of these pieces he ventured to attack Henry IV. of France in a most violent manner which occasioned his book to be burnt at Paris. He gloried, however, in this disgrace and, according to his own account, had the farther honour of being hanged in effigy in a farce, which was acted before the king of England. He did not, however, always escape with impunity; for, in 1614, the servants of the English ambassador are said to have beaten him with great severity at Madrid. Of the wounds he received in this conflict, he, as usual, made his boasts, as he also did of having been the principal contriver of the Catholic league, which proved so ruinous to the Protestants in Germany. In his way through Venice in 1607, he had a conference with father Paul, whom he endeavoured by promises and threats to bring over to the pope’s party; which, perhaps, with other circumstances, occasioned his being imprisoned there three or four days. After he had spent many years in literary contests, he applied himself to the prophecies of holy scripture, and flattered himself that he had discovered the true key to them. He sent some of these prophetical discoveries to cardinal Mazarine, who paid no attention to them. It has been said that he had thoughts at last of going back to the communion of Protestants; but this, resting upon the single testimony of Hornius, has not been generally believed. He died in 1649.

From Hamburgh he returned to Antwerp, and was there betrayed into the hands of his enemies. Henry VIII. and his council employed one Henry Philips on this disgraceful commission, who first insinuated himself into Tyndale’s acquaintance, and then got the procurator-general of the emperor’s court at Brussels, and other officers, to seize him, although the procurator declared that he was a learned, pious, and good man, and convey him to the castle of Villefort, where he remained a prisoner about a year and a half. The body of the English merchants procured letters from secretary Cromwell to the court at Brussels, for his release; but, by the farther treachery of Philips, this was rendered ineffectual, and Tyndaie was brought to trial, where he pleaded his own cause. None of his arguments, however, being admitted, he was condemned, by virtue of the emperor’s decree made in the assembly at Augsburg; and being brought to execution in 1536, he was first strangled and then burnt. His last words were, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.”

, usually called the Younger, to distinguish him from the preceding, was born at Justinopolis, and of the same family. Where he was educated we are not told, but he soon became celebrated for his acquirements in canon-law and scholastic divinity; and these recommended him to the attention of the pope, Clement VII. who employed him as his nuncio at the memorable diet of Augsburgh in 1530, and entrusted him with a very ample commission. He was instructed to use every endeavour to prevent the holding of a national council in Germany, and to induce king Ferdinand, the emperor’s brother, to oppose any proposition of that kind. Vergerius executed this commission with great 2eal, and gave every opposition to the Lutherans, by shewing his partiality to Eckius, Faber, Cochlaeus, and other enemies to the reformation; he also made Eckius a canon of Ratisbonne, a piece of preferment which, as the pope’s legate, he could confer. Vergerius executed this commission with such ability, that he was thought the most proper person to succeed the superannuated bishop of Rhegio, as the pope’s ambassador to Germany. He accordingly was sent, with instructions, openly to represent his holiness’s ardent desire to convene a general council, but secretly to take every step to prevent that measure. On the death of Clement VII. and the accession of Paul III. the latter recalled Vergerius from Germany, in order to be exactly informed of the state of religion in that country; and, says Sleidan, he also consulted with the cardinals, as to the prevention of a national council, until they should, by private and unsuspected contrivances, be able to embroil the emperor afhd other princes in a war. As a part of this plan, Paul III. resolved at length to send Vergerius back to Germany to profer a general council, and in the mean time to learn what form the Protestants would insist upon as to the qualifications, votings, and disputations, of such a council; and his object in this was, to be able to impose such rules and terms as he was sure they would never accept; by which contrivance the odium of not holding a general council would fall upon them. Vergerius was also instructed to exasperate the princes of the empire against the king of England, Henry V1IL whose dominions the pope had in contemplation to bestow upon those who would conquer them: and he had also a secret article of instruction to tamper with Luther and Melancthon, in order to bring them over to the cause of Rome.

In 1556 Vergerius returned to the pope, and reported, as the issue of his inquiries, that the protestants demanded a free council, in a convenient place, within the territories of the empire, which the emperor had promised them: that as to the Lutheran party, there was no remedy but absolute force and entire suppression: that the protestants would hear nothing of hostility to the king of England, and that the rest of the princes had equal repugnance. The only comfortable hint Vergerius communicated was, that George duke of Saxony (Luther’s greatest enemy) had declared, that the pope and the emperor ought to make war against the protestants as soon as possible,. Catching at this, the pope immediately sent Vergerius to Naples, where the emperor then was, in order to propose such a war, as the quickest method of settling the controversy. The emperor so far listened to this as to take a journey to Rome to debate the matter; and the issue was, that a council was proposed to be held at Mantua: but to this, from motives of self-preservation, the protestants could not consent. As a reward, however, for his services, Vergerius was made bishop of Justinopolis.