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

, a learned Protestant divine, was born at Nay in Berne, in 1658, according to Niceron, or in 1654, as in the Gen. Dictionary. He studied at Puy Laurent, at Saumur, at Paris, and at Sedan; at which last place he received the degree of doctor in divinity. He intended to have dedicated himself very early to the ministry; but the circumstances of the Protestants of France rendering it impracticable there, he accepted the offer of the count d'Espense, an officer in the service of the elector of Brandenburgh, by whom he was settled at Berlin, as a French minister. Here he resided many years, and his congregation, at first very thin, was greatly increased by the revocation of the edict of Nantes. In 1688, the elector, Frederic William, died, and our author accepted of an invitation from marshal Schomberg, to go with him first into Holland, and then into England, with the prince of Orange. In 1689 he went to Ireland, and was there in the following year, when his patron was killed at the battle of the Boyne. On his return to England, he became minister of the French church at the Savoy, but the air disagreeing with him, he went again to Ireland, and would have been promoted to the deanery of St. Patrick’s had he been acquainted with the English language. He obtained, however, that of Killaloo, the value of which was far inferior, and never had any other promotion. He occasionally visited England and Holland, for the purpose of printing his works, which were all in French. In one of these visits to London, he died at Marybone, Sept. 25, 1727. He was strongly attached to the cause of king William, as appears by his elaborate defence of the Revolution, and his history of the Assassination-plot. He had great natural abilities, which he cultivated with true and useful learning. He was a most zealous defender of the primitive doctrine of the Protestants, as appears by his writings; and that strong nervous eloquence, for which he was so remarkable, enabled him to enforce the doctrines of his profession from the pulpit with great spirit and energy.

In 1608, on the death of his patron, lord Buckhurst, earl of Dorset, he became chaplain to George Hume, earl of Dunbar, and treasurer of Scotland; and went home with him,in order to establish an union between the Churches of England and Scotland. King James’s object was to restore the antient form of government by bishops; notwithstanding the aversion of the people of Scotland to this measure, Dr. Abbot’s skill, prudence, and Moderation succeeded so far as to procure an act of the General Assembly, which was afterwards ratified and confirmed by the Parliament of Scotland. By this it was enacted, that the king should have the calling of all General Assemblies; that the bishops or their deputies should be perpetual moderators of the diocesan synods; that no excommunication or absolution should be pronounced without their approbation; that all presentations of benefices should be made by them, and that the deprivation or suspension of ministers should belong to them; that every minister, at his admission to a benefice, should take the oath of supremacy, and canonical obedience; that the visitation of the diocese should be performed by the bishop or his deputy only; and finally, that the bishop should be moderator of all conventions for exercisings or prophesyings, which should be held within their bounds.

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

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

, an eminent dissenting minister in Ireland, was born Oct. 19, 1680: his father was a dissenting minister in Colraine, his mother a Walkiushaw of Renfrewshire, in Scotland. In 1689 he was separated from his parents; his father having been employed by the Presbyterian clergy to solicit some public affairs in London, at a time when his mother, to avoid the tumult of the insurrections in Ireland, withdrew to Derry. He was at this time with a relation, who in that general confusion determined to remove to Scotland; and having no opportunity of conveying the child to his mother, carried him along with him. Thus he happily escaped the hardships of the siege of Derry, in which Mrs. Abernethy lost all her other children. Having spent some years at a grammar-school, he was removed to Glasgow college, where he continued till he took the degree of M. A. His own inclination led him to the study of physic, but he was dissuaded from it by his friends, and turned to that of divinity; in pursuance of which he went to Edinburgh, and was some time under the care of the celebrated professor Campbell. At his return home, he proceeded in his studies with such success, that he. was licensed to preach by the presbytery before he was 21 years of age. In 1708, having a call by the dissenting congregation at Antrim, he was ordained. His congregation was large, and he applied himself to the pastoral work with great diligence. His preaching was much admired; and, as his heart was set upon the acquisition of knowledge, he was very industrious in reading. In 1716, he attempted to remove the prejudices of the native Irish in the neighbourhood of Antrim, who were of the Popish persuasion, and bring them over to the Protestant faith. His labours were not without success, for several were induced to renounce their errors. About the time the Bangorian controversy was on foot in England, encouraged by the freedom of discussion which it had occasioned, a considerable number of ministers and others, in the North of Ireland, formed themselves into a society for their improvement in useful knowledge. Their plan was to bring things to the test of reason and scripture, without having a servile regard to any human authority. Abernethy pursued this design with much zeal, and constantly attended their meetings at Belfast, whence it was called the Belfast society. Debates, however, soon grew warm, and dissensions high among them, on the subject of requiring subscription to the Westminster confession. This controversy, on the negative side of which Abernethy was one of the principal leaders, was brought into the general synod, and ended in a rupture in 1726. The synod determined, that those ministers, who at the time of this rupture, and for some years before, were known by the name of non-subscribers, should be no longer of their body: the consequence of which was, that the ministers of this denomination found everywhere great difficulties arising from jealousies spread among their people. The reputation which Abernethy had acquired began now to decay, and some of his people forsook his ministry, and went to other congregations: and in a short time the number of the scrupulous and dissatisfied so increased, that they were by the synod erected into a distinct congregation, and provided with a minister. There happened about this time a vacancy in the congregation of Wood-street, in Dublin: to this Abernethy had an invitation, which he accepted. When he came to Dublin, he applied himself to study and to the composing of sermons with as great industry as ever. He wrote all his sermons at full length, and constantly made use of his notes in the pulpit. Here he continued his labours for ten years with much reputation: and while his friends, from the strength of his constitution and his perfect temperance, promised themselves a longer enjoyment of him, he was attacked by the gout, to which he had been subject, in a vital part, and died, Dec. 1740, in the 60th year of his age.

, 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 1759, he was appointed royal censor; and the emoluments of this place, that of academician, and the pensions successively conferred upon him, might have rendered him easy in his circumstances, had he not expended the whole in collecting materials for the vast plan abovementioned. At length, the Revolution stripped him of all; and, what Imrt him more, his garden, on which he had bestowed so much pains, was pillaged. When the Institute was formed, he was invited to become a member; but he answered that he could not accept the invitation, “as he had no shoes.” The minister of the interior, however, procured him a pension, on which he subsisted until his death, August 3, 1806, after an illness of six months, which confined him to his bed. He left behind him an immense number of manuscripts, and a new edition of his Families of the Plants is now preparing for the press by M. Du-Petit Thouars, whose account of his life is here abridged. According to M. Thouars, Adanson was a man of many excellent qualities, an indefatigable student and collector, but careless of dress and manners, and not a little conceited. Although in his seventy-ninth year, when on his death bed, he amused himself with the hopes of recovery, and of publishing his grand encyclopaedia. In his opinions, and particularly where he differed with Linnæus, he was most obstinately tenacious; and gave a curious proof in his own case. Bernard de Jussieu, pleased with his account of the Baobab, would have named that genus the Adansona; but Adanson would not allow it, because Linnæus honoured botanists with such names; whereas his plan was to give to new plants the name of the country which produced them in preference to every other. Stoever informs us that Linnæus said of Adanson, “he is either mad or intoxicated;” but Haller thought him a “rival worthy of Linnæus.”

, D. D. a dissenting clergyman, of considerable learning, was born at Northampton, June 9, 1729, and was educated under Dr. Doddridge, whose manner in the pulpit he closely followed for many years. After being admitted to preach, he removed in 1750, to Spaldwick in Huntingdonshire; where, in 1752, he married miss Reymes of Norwich, a lady who died in 1811, at a very advanced age. A few weeks after his marriage, he was called to be minister of a congregation of dissenters at Market Harborough, Leicestershire. His receiving this appointment was owing to a singular occurrence in the history of popular elections. Two candidates had appeared who divided the congregation so equally that a compromise was impossible, unless by each party giving up their favourite, and electing a third candidate, if one could be found agreeable to all. At this crisis Mr. Addington was recommended, and unanimously chosen. In this place he remained about thirty years, and became highly popular to his increasing congregation by the pious discharge of his pastoral duties, and by his conciliatory manners. In, 1758 he opened his house for the reception of pupils to fill up a vacancy in the neighbourhood of Harborough, occasioned by the rev. Mr. Aikin’s removal to Warrington. This scheme succeeded; and for many years he devoted nine hours each day to the instruction of his pupils, and compiled several books for their improvement; as, 1. “A system of Arithmetic,” 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “The Rudiments of the Greek tongue,” 1761, 12mo. 3. “Eusebes to Philetus; or Letters from a Father to his Son, on a devout temper and life,” 1761, 12mo. 4. “Maxims religious and prudential, with a Sermon to young People,” 12mo. 5. “The Youth’s Geographical Grammar,” 1770, 8vo. 6. “Dissertation on the religious knowledge of the ancient Jews and Patriarchs; to which is annexed a specimen of a Greek and English Concordance,” 1757, 4to; which he had a design of completing, if his health and time had perrnitted. He published also, partly in the country, and partly in London, some occasional funeral and other sermons; two tracts on infant baptism; a collection of psalm tunes, and another of anthems; and his most popular work, “The Life of St. Paul the Apostle,” 1784, 8vo. At length, in 1781 he received an invitation to become pastor of the congregation in Miles’s-lane, Cannon-street; and soon after his removal thither was chosen tutor of a new dissenting academy at Mile-end, where he resided until his growing infirmities, occasioned by several paralytic strokes, obliged him to relinquish the charge. He continued, however, in the care of his congregation till within a few months of his decease, when, from the same cause, he was compelled to discontinue his public services. He died Feb. 6, 1796, at his house in the Minories. In London he was neither so successful or popular as in the country; and his quitting Harborough after so long a residence appears to have displeased his friends, without adding to his usefulness among his new connections.

Dean Addison published, 1. “West Barbary, or a short narrative of the revolutions of Fez and Morocco,” 1671, 8vo. 2. “The present State of the Jews (more particularly relating to those in Barbary), wherein is contained an exact account of their customs secular and religious, &c.” 1675, 8vo. 3. “The primitive Institution, or a seasonable discourse of Catechizing.” 4. “A modest plea for the Clergy,” 1677, 8vo. 5. “The first state of Mahometism, or an account of the Author and doctrine of that imposture,” 1678, 8vo-, reprinted afterwards under the title of “The Life and Death of Mahomet.” 6. “An introduction to the Sacrament,” 1681; reprinted in 1686 with the addition of “The Communicant’s Assistant.” 7. “A discourse of Tangier, under the government of the earl of Tiviot,” 4to, 1685, second edition. 8. “Χριστοσ Αυτοθεοσ, or an historical account of the heresy denying the Godhead of Christ;” one of the best books that had then appeared on the subject. 9. “The Christian’s daily Sacrifice, on Prayer,” 1698, 12mo. 10. “An account of the Millenium, the genuine use of the two Sacraments, &c.” And some have attributed to him “The Catechumen; or an account given by a young Person to a Minister of his knowledge in Religion, &c.” 1690, 12mo; but this appears to have been only recommended by him and Dr. Scot.

, a Spanish Jesuit, and voluminous writer, was born 1566, at Torrejon, a village near Madrid, and entered the society of Jesuits at Alcale, in 1588, being then M.A. He was governor of several houses of the order in Spain, twice presided over the province of Toledo, and was twice sent as deputy to the congregations at Rome. The king, Philip IV. chose him for his preacher, and the count Olivarez, Philip’s prime minister, appointed him his confessor. He died at Madrid, Jan. 15, 1654. His works consist of six folios, in Spanish, printed at Madrid in 1629, 1638, 1640, 1641, 1643, 1646, 1653, on various religious topics; and a life of father Goudin, the Jesuit, 8vo, 1643. He left also many treatises which have not been published.

The issue of Law’s project is well known. For two years, it amused the French public, and then the bubble burst. Government was now so embarrassed, and the people so dissatisfied, that in 1720, the regent thought proper to recall the discarded chancellor, and restore the seals to him. Mr. Law himself, and the chevalier de Conflans, first gentleman of the chamber to the regent, were dispatched to D‘Aguesseau at Fresnes, while Dubois was ordered to demand the seals from D’Argenson. D'Aguesseau’s return was blamed by a party composed of members of the parliament, and of some men of letters. They did not relish his accepting a favour conveyed through the hands of Mr. Law; but, says his biographer, he would have been more to blame, had he refused what had less tke appearance of a favour, than of amends for injury tendered by the chief minister of state.

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

In 1737, the seals were again restored to him, but sick jof court affairs and intrigues, he determined to confine himself to his duties as a minister of justice, and in this capacity he performed essential service to his country by restoring the true spirit of the laws, and rendering the execution of them uniform throughout France. In 1730, having attained his eighty-second year, he felt for the first time that his infirmities interrupted his labours, and did not wish to retain a situation of which he could no longer perform the duties. The king, in accepting his resignation, continued to him the honours of the office of chancellor, and bestowed on him a pension of 100,000 franks, which he did not long enjoy, as he died Feb. 9, 1751.

, an eminent English nonconformist divine, who flourished in the latter end of the sixteenth, and beginning of the seventeenth centary, but it is not known when or where he was born. In 1590 he joined the Brownists, and by his adherence to that sect shared in their persecutions. He was well versed in the Hebrew language, and wrote many excellent commentaries on the holy scriptures which gained him great reputation. The Brownists having fallen into great discredit in England, they were involved in many fresh troubles and difficulties; so that Ainsworth at length quitted his country, and fled to Holland, whither most of the nonconformists, who had incurred the displeasure of queen Elizabeth’s government, had taken refuge. At Amsterdam Mr. Johnson and he erected a church, of which Ainsworth was the minister. In conjunction with Johnson he published, in 1602, “A confession of faith of the people called Brownists;” but being men of violent spirits, they split into parties about certain points of discipline, and Johnson excommunicated his own father and brother: the presbytery of Amsterdam offered their mediation, but he refused it. This divided the congregation, half of which joining Ainsworth, they excommunicated Johnson, who made the like return to that party. The contest grew at length so violent, that Johnson and his followers removed to Embden, where he died soon after, and his congregation dissolved. Nor did Mr. Ainsworth and his adherents live long in harmony, for in a short time he left them, and retired to Ireland; but when the heat and violence of his party subsided, he returned to Amsterdam, and continued with them until his death. Dr. Heylyn’s account of their contentions at Amsterdam, sufficiently shows what implicit obedience some men expect who are not much inclined to pay it, either to the church or the state.

, an English poet and physician, was born at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nov. 9, 1721. His father was a reputable butcher of that place. Of this circumstance, which he is said to have concealed from his friends, he had a perpetual remembrance in a halt in his gait, occasioned by the falling of a cleaver from his father’s stall. He received the first rudiments of his education at the grammar-school of Newcastle, and was afterwards placed under the tuition of Mr. Wilson, who kept a private academy. At the age of eighteen be went to Edinburgh to qualify himself for the office of a dissenting minister, and obtained some assistance from the fund of the dissenters, which is established for such purposes. Having, however, relinquished his original intention, he resolved to study physic, and honourably repaid that contribution, which, being intended for the promotion of the ministry, he could not conscientiously retain.

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

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

Our own history shews, that his spirit was always very high, and his temper very violent. During the time that he was prime minister of Spain, colonel Stanhope, afterwards lord Harrington, the English envoy, carried him a list of the ships of his country that were then before Barcelona, and would act against it, if he persisted in his endeavours to enioroil the peace of Europe, by arming the Porte against the Emperor, and by making the Czar and the king of Sweden go to war with England, in order to establish the Pretender upon the English throne. Alberoni snatched the paper which contained the numbers out of the envoy’s hands, and, according to the continuator of Rapin’s history, threw it on the ground with much passion. Mr. Seward, from whose “Anecdotes of distinguished Persons” we have taken the principal part of this article, says, that he tore it in a thousand pieces. Col. Stanhope, nothing abashed, went on coolly with the thread of his conversation, which may be seen in the continuation of Rapin. That Alberoni wrote with the same spirit he acted, is evinced by three letters of his to lord Melcombe, which Mr. Seward has published.

, grandson of the constable de Luynes, was the ninth child of Louis-Charles, duke de Luynes, grand almoner of France. He was born in 1672, and had in his youth the title of the chevalier d‘Albert. In 1688, he served as a volunteer at the siege of Philipshurgh; in 1690 he was twice wounded in the battle of Fleurus; and in 1693, commanded the Dauphin regiment of dragoons at Steinkirk, where he was again wounded. In 1703, he accompanied marshal Villars into Bavaria, where the elector promoted him to the rank of lieutenant-general. He was then known by the title of count d’ Albert, and was successively chamberlain, master of the horse, minister, and colonel of the Bavarian guards. The elector having arrived at the throne in 1742, by the royal title of Charles VII. appointed count d' Albert field marshal, and sent him to France as ambassador extraordinary. The same year the emperor created him a prince of the holy Roman empire, by the title of prince of Grimberghen, taken from the rich domains he acquired by marrying a princess of Berghes. He died Nov. 10, 1758, aged eighty-seven. Amidst all his campaigns and political engagements, he cultivated a taste for literature. His works are “Le Songe d'AlcU biade,” a supposed translation from the Greek, Paris, 1735, 12mo, reprinted with “Timandre instruit par son genie,” and other pieces, published at Amsterdam, 1759, 12 mo, under the title “Recueil de differentes pieces de litterature.”

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

, a native of Norfolk, was elected fellow of C. C. C. Cambridge in 1536, proceeded M. A. the year following, became their steward in 1539, and not long after obtained leave of the society to go and study abroad for a limited time; which he afterwards procured to be extended for two years more. By assiduous application he became, as Strype informs us, not only a great proficient in the Greek and Latin tongues, but an “eminent Protestant divine, and a learned minister of the gospel.” His works, indeed, which are written with much plainness and simplicity, but at the same time with great strength of reasoning and argument, sufficiently shew that he ought to be ranked in the list of the most considerable reformers. This extraordinary merit, while it obliged him to continue an exile during the reign of queen Mary, recommended him powerfully to the favour of her sister Elizabeth; who no sooner came to the crown than she appointed him one of her chaplains, gave him a commission to act under her as an ambassador, and nominated him to the vacant see of Rochester; but after a long absence, he either died on his return, or soon after, and never became possessed of the bishopric. It is said he was buried in the church of St. Thomas Apostle, in London, Aug. 30, 1559.

, the youngest son of Æthelwolf king of the West Saxons, was born in the year 849, at Wannating, or Wanading, which is supposed to be Wantage in Berkshire. Æthelwolf, having a great regard for religion, and being extremely devoted to the see of Rome, sent Alfred to that city at five years of age; where pope Leo IV. adopted and anointed him, as some think, with a regal unction, though others are of opinion he was only confirmed. Soon after his return, his father, being in the decline of life, and going to visit the holy see, took his favourite son with him; where he had an opportunity of seeing and hearing many things, which made snch strong impressions on him, as remained during his whole life, Æthelwolf had five sons, and a daughter; of whom Æthelstan, the eldest, was king of Kent in his father’s life-time, and died before him. Æthelbald, the second son, raised a rebellion against his father, when he returned from Rome; who, to avoid any effusion of blood, consented to divide his dominions with him. Æthelwolf did not long survive this; but, before his death, he, by a full and distinct testamerit, endeavoured to settle all the claims of his children. By this will Æthelbalcl and Æthelbert had his kingdoms divided betwixt them; and he left his private estate, with all the money in his coffers, to his younger sons Æthelred and Alfred. Æthelwolf died in the year 858, and was succeeded by Æthelbald, who reigned but two years and a half. On his demise JLthelbert seized the crown, which he held for five years, and died in the year 866. He was succeeded by his brother Æthelred; who, while he was a private man, had solemnly promised Alfred to do him that justice which had been denied by the two former kings, by giving him what his father had bequeathed him. On his accession Alfred demanded a performance of his promise; but the king excused himself on account of the troublesome times, and assured him that at his death he would leave him all. Alfred having given proofs of his courage in the former king’s reign, Æthelred would never part with him, but employed him as his first minister and general of his armies.

, an English non-conformist divine, was the son of Mr. Tobias Allein, and born at the Devizes, in Wiltshire, 1633. He discovered an extraordinary tincture of religion, even in his childhood; at eleven years of age he was much addicted to private prayer; and on the death of his brother Edward, who was a worthy minister of the gospel, he entreated his father that he might be educated for that profession. In four years he acquired a competent knowledge of Greek and Latin, and was declared by his master n't for the university. He was, however, kept some time longer at home, where he was instructed in logic, and at sixteen was sent to Lincoln college, Oxford. In 1651 he was removed to Corpus Christi college, a Wiltshire scholarship being there vacant. While at college he vras remarkably assiduous in his studies, grave in his temper, but cheerfully ready to assist others. He might in a short time have obtained a fellowship, but he declined that for the sake of the office of chaplain, being pleased with the opportunity this gave him of exerting his gift in prayer, the liturgy being then disused. In July 1653, he was admitted bachelor of arts, and became a tutor. In this arduous employment he behaved himself with equal skill and diligence; several of his pupils became very eminent non-conforming ministers, and not a few attained to considerable preferment in the established church. In 1655 he became assistant in the ministry to Mr. G. Newton, of Taunton, in Somersetshire, where he married the same year. His income was small, but was somewhat increased by the profits of a. boarding-school, which Mrs. Allein kept. During seven years that he lived in this manner, he discharged his pastoral duty with incredible diligence; for, besides preaching and catechising in the church, he spent several afternoons in a week in visiting the people of the town, and exhorting them to a religious life. These applications were at first far from being welcome to many families; but his meekness, moderation, and unaffected piety, reconciled them to his advice, and made him by degrees the delight of his parishioners. He was deprived in 1662, for nonconformity. He preached, however, privately, until his zeal and industry in this course brought him into trouble. On the 26th day of May, 1663, he was committed to Ivelchester gaol, and was with seven ministers and fifty quakers confined in one room, where they suffered great hardships; tut they still continued to preach till the assizes. These were held before Mr. justice Foster, and at them Mr. Allein was indicted for preaching on the 17th of May preceding; of which indictment he was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a hundred marks, and to remain in prison till his fine was paid. At the time of his receiving sentence, he said, that he was glad that it had appeared before his country; that whatever he was charged with, he was guikv of nothing but doing his duty; and all that did appear by the evidence was, that he had sung a psalm, and instructed his family, others being there, and both in his own house. He continued in prison a year, which broke his constitution; but, when he was at liberty, he applied himself to his ministry as earnestly as ever, which, brought on him a painful disorder. The five miles act taking place, he retired from Taunton to Wellington, where he continued but a short time, Mr. Mallack, a merchant, inviting him to lodge at a house of his some distance from Taunton. In the summer of 1665, he was advised to drink the waters near the Devizes, for his health. But before he left Mr. Mallack’s house, viz. on the I Oth of July in that year, some friends came to take their leave of him; they were surprised praying together, and for this were sentenced to sixty days imprisonment, which himself, seven ministers, and forty private persons, suffered in the county gaol. This hindered his going to the waters; and his disease returning, he lost another summer. At length, in 1667, he went, but was far from receiving the benefit he expected. After some time he went to Dorchester, where he grew better; but applying himself again to preaching, catechising, and other duties, his distemper returned with such violence, that he lost the use of his limbs. His death was then daily expected; but by degrees he grew somewhat better, and at length went to Bath, where his health altered so much, that his friends were in hopes he would have lived several years; but growing suddenly worse again, he died there, in the month of November, 1668, being somewhat above thirty-five years old. He was a man of great learning, and greater charity; zealous in his own way of worshipping God, but not in thft least bitter towards any Christians who worshipped in another manner. He preserved a great respect for the church, notwithstanding all his sufferings; and was eminently loyal to his prince, notwithstanding the severities of the times. His writings breathe a true spirit of piety, for which they have been always and deservedly esteemed. His body lies in the chancel of the church of St. Magdalen, of Taunton, and on his grave-stone are the following lines

, a non-conformist clergyman of Norwich, was born in that city in 1608, and educated at Caius college, Cambridge. He appears to have been minister of St. Edmund’s, Norwich, where he was silenced by bishop Wren, in L636, for refusing to read the book of Sports, and other non-compliances peculiar to the times. Two years afterwards he went to New England, and was a preacher at Charlestown until 1651, when he returned to Norwich, and had the rectory of St. George’s, from which he was ejected for nonconformity in 1662, and during the same period he preached in a meeting called the congregational church. He afterwards preached in the latter place, as he had opportunity, and without molestation, till the time of his death, Sept. 21, 1673. He published several pious practical treatises; but the work which obtained him most reputation, was his “Chain of Scripture Chronology, from the creation to the death of Christ, in seven periods,” 1639, 4to. One of his biographers compares him to Bucholtzer, who, being weary of controversy, betook himself to chronology, saying that he would rather compute than dispute.

, a very learned and eminent divine of the church of England, although a native of France, and well known by his numerous and excellent writings, was born in 1641 at Alençon; and having received a liberal education, which highly improved his great natural parts, he became minister of the reformed church at Rouen. At this place, before he was thirty-five years of age, he distinguished himself by publishing some very able pieces, which excited much notice, and he was invited to Charenton, then the principal church the reformed had in France, and whither the most considerable persons of the Protestant religion constantly resorted. As he now saw himself in a condition to promote the interest of the church, he applied himself to the task with all imaginable zeal, and preached several valuable sermons in defence of the faith, against the artful attempts of the bishop of Meaux, who was then labouring to overturn the reformed religion, by seeming concessions to its professors. Upon the revocation of the edict of Nants, Mr. Allix found himself obliged to quit France, and had prepared a pathetic discourse, which he intended to have delivered as his farewell to his congregation, but was obliged to omit it, although it was afterwards printed.

was born in Russia, of the imperial line. When that country was disturbed by intestine quarrels, in the latter end of the 16th century, and the royal house particularly was severely persecuted by impostors, this gentleman and his two brothers were sent over to England, and recommended to the care of Mr. Joseph Bidell, a Kussia merchant. Mr. Bidell, when they were of age fit for the university, sent them all three to Oxford, where the small-pox unhappily prevailing, two of them died of it. We know not whether this surviving brother took any degree, but it is very probable he did, since he entered into holy orders; and, in the year 1618, had the rectory of Wot) ley in Huntingdonshire, a living of no very considerable value, being rated at under 10l. in the king’s books. Here he did his duty with great cheerfulness and alacrity; and notwithstanding he was twice invited back to his native country, by some who would have ventured their utmost to have set him on the throne of his ancestors, he chose rather to remain with his flock, and to serve God in the humble station of a parish priest. Yet in 1643 he underwent the severest trials from the rage of the fanatic soldiery, who, not satisfied with depriving him of his living, insulted him in the most barbarous manner; for, having procured a file of musqueteers to pull him out of his pulpit, as he was preaching on a, Sunday, they turned his wife and young children out into the street, into which also they threw his goods. The poor man in this distress raised a tent under some trees in the church-yard, over against his house, where he and his family lived for a week. One day having gotten a few eggs, he picked up some rotten wood and dry sticks, and with these made a fire in the church porch, in order to boil them; but some of his adversaries, to show how far they could carry their rage against the church (for this poor man was so harmless, they could have none against him), came and kicked about his fire, threw down his skillet, and broke his eggs. After this, having still a little money, he made a small purchase in that neighbourhood, built a house, and lived there some years. He was encouraged to this by a presbyterian minister who came in his room, and honestly paid him a fifth part of the annual income of the living, which was the allowance made by parliament to ejected ministers, treated him with great humanity, and did him all the services in his power. It is a great misfortune that this gentleman’s name is not preserved, his conduct in this respect being the more laudable, because it was not a little singular. Walker calls him Mr. B, and the living is not mentioned by Calamy. Afterwards, probably on the death or removal of this gentleman, Mr. Alphery left Huntingdonshire, and came and resided at Hammersmith, till the Restoration pu,thim in possession of his living again. He returned on this occasion to Huntingdonshire, where he did not stay long; for, being upwards of 80, and very infirm, he could not perform the duties of his function. Having therefore settled a curate, he retired to his eldest son’s house at Hammersmith, where shortly after he died, full of years and of honour. It must be owned that this article is very imperfect; but the singularity of a Russian prince’s being a country minister in England is a matter of too much curiosity to be wholly omitted.

, an English nonconformist of considerable note, was a native of Northamptonshire, and educated at St. John’s 'college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of master of arts. He afterwards received deacon’s orders from a bishop, and settled at Oakham in Rutlandshire, as assistant to the master of the free school. Being a man who possessed a lively pleasant wit, he fell into gay company, but was reclaimed by the admonition of the rev. Mr. King, a Puritan minister at or near Oakham, whose daughter he afterwards married; and becoming a convert to his principles, he received ordination in the presbyterian way, not being satisfied with that of the bishop, which extended only to deacon’s orders, and he was no longer willing to conform to the church by applying for those of a priest. He settled at Wilby, in the county of Northampton, whence he was ejected in 1662, for nonconformity. After which he ventured to preach sometimes at Oakham and at Wellingborough, where he lived; and was once committed to prison for six months, for praying with a sick person. The book he wrote against Dr. Sherlock, in a humorous style, made him first known to the world, and induced Mr. Cawton, an eminent nonconformist in Westminster, to recommend him to his congregation, as his successor. On receiving this invitation, he quitted Northampton, and came to London, where he preached constantly, and wrote several pieces, which were extremely well received by the public. His living in the neighbourhood of the court exposed him to many inconveniences, but he had the good fortune to escape imprisonment and fines, by the ignorance of the informers, who did not know his Christian name, which he studiously concealed; and even Anthony Wood, who calls him Benjamin, did not know it. His sufferings, however, ended with the reign of Charles II. at least in the beginning of the next reign, when his son, engaging in treasonable practices, was frequently pardoned by king James. After this, Mr. Alsop went frequently to court, and is generally supposed to have been the person who drew up the Preshy terians’ very fulsome address to that prince, for his general indulgence; a measure, however, which was condemned by the majority of nonconformists. After the revolution, Mr. Alsop gave very public testimonies of his affection for the government, but on all occasions spoke in the highest terms of respect and gratitude of king James, and retained a VI.Tv high sense of his clemency, in sparing his only son. The remainder of his life he spent in the exercise of the ministry, preaching once every Lord’s clay; besides which he had a Thursday lecture, and was one of the lecturers at Pinner’s hall. He lived to he a very old man, preserved his spirits to the last, and died May 8, 1703. On grave subjects he wrote with a becoming; seriousness but where wit might be shewn, he displayed it to considerable advantage. His funeral sermon was preached by Mr. Slater, and his memory will always be remembered by his own learned and elegant writings; the most remarkable of which are: 1. “Antisozzo,” in vindication of some great truths opposed by Dr. Sherlock, in whose treatise “Concerning the knowledge of Jesus Christ,” he thought he discovered a tendency towards Socinianism, and therefore entitled this work, which was published in 1675, “Antisozzo,” from the Italian name of Socinus. Sherlock and he had been pupils under the same tutor in the university. Dr. South allowed Alsop’s merit in this contest of wit, but Wood undervalues his talent. 2. “Melius Inquirendum,” in answer to Dr. Goodman’s Compassionate Inquiry, 1679, 8vo. 3. “The Mischief of Impositions;” in answer to Dr. Stillingfleet’s Mischief of Separation, 1680. 4. “Duty and interest united in praise and prayer for Kings.” 5. “Practical godliness the ornament of Religion,” 1696; and several sermons.

, a celebrated Lutheran minister at Nuremberg, published in the sixteenth century several works in Divinity, as “Conciliationes locorum scripturæ,” 1528, 8vo, Latin and German; “Annotationes in Jacobi Epistolam;” “De Peccato Originali” and “De Sacramento altaris.” He likewise published “Sylva Biblicorum nominum,” Basil, 1535; and “Notes upon Tacitus de situ, moribus, et populis Germanise,” Nuremberg, 1529, 1536, and at Amberg, 1609, 8vo. He was at the conferences at Berne in 1528, which paved the way to the reformation of that canton. His principles appear to have inclined to Antinomianism, and he attacked the authority of the Epistle of St. James with great indecency: this afterwards was introduced in the dispute between Grotius and Rivet, of which an account may be seen in Bayle. Althamerus, who died about 1540, was sometimes called Andrew Brentius from the place of his nativity, Brentz, near Gundelfingcn, in Swabia; and sometimes he assumed the fictitious name of Palaeo Sphyra, 1. Arnold Ballenstad published a life of him in 1740.

a Prussian statesman, knight of the orders of the red and black eagle, lord of Hundisburgh, &c. was born Dec. 12, 1745, at Hanover, where his father was counsellor of war. During the seven years war he was brought up at Magdebourg with the prince, afterwards Frederic-William II. He then studied law at the university of Halle, and was appointed referendary in the court of accounts at Berlin, and in 1775, was sent as envoy extraordinary to the elector of Saxony, with the title of king’s chamberlain. This proved the commencement of a diplomatic career, for which he was thought qualified by his extensive knowledge and accomplishments, and the address with which he retained the good opinion of Frederic II. During the war for the succession of Bavaria, he acted as intermediate agent between the king of Prussia and the old electorate court, and between the army of Frederic and that of Prince Henry. After having been engaged in this office for twelve years, he was sent as ambassador, in 1787, to the court of France. In 1788 he was sent, in the same capacity, to Holland and in 1789 to England. In 1790 he was recalled from the latter, and appointed minister for foreign affairs, and his zeal and activity rendered him highly acceptable in the court of Berlin. During his administration he founded several benevolent establishments. He died at Berlin in 1802. As a writer he is known by a historical work entitled “Essai d‘un tableau chronologique des evenements cle la guerre, depuis la pair de Munster, jusqu’a celle de. Hubertsbourg,” Berlin, 1792, 8vo.

a French cardinal and statesman of the illustrious house of Amboise in France, so called from their possessing the seignory of that name, was born in 1460. Being destined at a very early age for the church, he was elected bishop of Montauban when only fourteen. He was afterwards made one of the almoners to Lewis XI. to whom he behaved with great prudence. After the death of this prince in 1480, he entered into some of the intrigues of the court with a design to favour the duke of Orleans, with whom he was closely connected; but those intrigues being discovered, d‘Aniboise and his protector were both imprisoned. The duke of Orleans was at last restored to his liberty; and this prince having negotiated the marriage of the king with the princess Anne of Britanny, acquired great reputation and credit at court. Of this his favourite d’Amboise felt the happy effect as, soon after, the archbishopric of Narbonne was bestowed on him; but being at too great a distance from the court, he changed it for that of Rouen, to which the chapter elected him in 1493. As soon as he had taken possession of his new see, the duke of Orleans, who was governor of Normandy, made him lieutenant-general, with the same power as if he had been governor in cbief. This province was at that time in great disorder: the noblesse oppressed the people, the judges were all corrupted or intimidated; the soldiers, who had been licentious since the late wars, infested the high-ways, plundering and assassinating all travellers they met; but in less-than a year, d‘Amboise by his care and prudence established public tranquillity. The king dying in 1498, the duke of Orleans ascended the throne, by the name of Lewis XII. and d’Amboise became his prime minister. By his first operation in that office, he conciliated the affection of the whole nation. It had been a custom when a new monarch ascended the throne, to lay an extraordinary tax on the people, to defray the expences of the coronation, but by the counsel of d‘Amboise this tax was not levied, and the imposts were soon reduced one tenth. His virtues coinciding with his knowledge, he made the French nation happy, and endeavoured to preserve the glory they had acquired. By his advice Lewis XII. undertook the conquest of the Milanese in 1499. Lewis the Moor, uncle and vassal of Maximilian, was then in possession of that province. It revolted soon after the conquest, but d’Amboise brought it back to its duty. Some time after he was received at Paris with great magnificence, in quality of legate from the pope. During his legation, he laboured to reform many of the religious orders, as the jacobins, the cordeliers, and those of St. Germain des Pres. His disinterestedness was equal to his zeal. He never possessed more than one benefice, two thirds of which he employed for the relief of the poor and the support of the churches. Contenting himself with his archbishopric of Rouen and his cardinal’s hat, he was not, like his contemporaries, desirous to add abbeys to it. A gentleman of Normandy having offered to sell him an estate at a very low price, in order to portion his daughter, he made him a present of a sum sufficient for that purpose, and left him the estate. He obtained the purple after the dissolution of the marriage between Lewis XII. and Joan of France, to which he greatly contributed: and, on having procured for Caesar Borgia, son of pope Alexander VI. the duchy of Valentinois, with a considerable pension, his ambition was to be pope, with a view to the reform of abuses, and the correction of manners. After the death of Pius III. he might have succeeded in his wishes, and took measures to procure the tiara, but cardinal Julian de Rovera (afterwards Julius II.) found means to circumvent him; and the Venetians having contributed to his exclusion, he took the first opportunity to excite Lewis XII. to make war on them, a circumstance which seems not a little to detract from his character. This celebrated cardinal died in 15 10, in the convent of the Celestines at Lyons, of the gout in his stomach, aged 50 years. It is reported that he often repeated to the friar who attended him in his illness, “Brother John, why have I not during my whole life been brother John?” This minister has been greatly praised for having laboured for the happiness of France; but he has been equally censured for having advised his master to sign the treaty of Blois in 1504, by which France ran the risk of being dismembered. He governed both the king and the state; laborious, kind, honest, he possessed good sense, firmness, and experience, but he was not a great genius, nor were his views extensive. The desire he had to ease the people in their taxes, procured him during his life, but much more after his death, the title of father of the people. He merited this title still more, by the care he took to reform the administration of justice. Most of the judges were venal, and the poor, and those who had no support, could never obtain justice, when their opposers were either powerful or rich. Another evil not less enormous troubled the kingdom; law-suits were spun out to such a length, were so expensive, and accompanied by so much trick and chicanery, that most people rather chose to abandon their rights than engage in the recovery of them by suits which had no prospect of coming to an end. D‘Amboise resolved to remedy this abuse. He called to his assistance many lawyers and civilians, the most learned and of the greatest integrity; and charged them to form a plan, by which justice might be administered without partiality, the duration of lawsuits abridged and rendered less ruinous, and the corruption of the judges prevented. When these commissioners had made their report, d’Amboise undertook the laborious task of examining into the changes they had proposed in the old laws, and the new regulations they designed to establish; and after having made some changes, these new regulations were published throughout the kingdom. As he was governor of Normandy, he made a progress through that province for the express purpose of seeing his new code properly established.

Mr. Ames very early discovered a taste for English history and antiquities, in which he was encouraged by his two friends Mr. Russel, preacher at St. John’s Wappino-, and Mr. John Lewis, minister of Margate, an eminent divine and antiquary. Some time before 1720, in attending Dr. Desaguliers’ lectures, he formed an acquaintance with Mr. Peter Thompson, an eminent Hamburgh merchant, and member for St. Alban’s, a gentleman of great humanity, and strong natural parts, who supplied the want of a liberal education by a conversation with men and books. He was also a lover of our national antiquities, and many years fellow of the royal and antiquary societies. This friendship continued uninterrupted till the death of Mr. Ames. Some time before 1730, Mr. Lewis, who had himself collected materials for such a subject, suggested to Mr. Ames the idea of writing the history of printing in England. Mr. Ames declined it at first, because Mr. Palmer, a printer, was engaged in a similar work, and because he thought himself by no means equal to an undertaking of so much extent, But when Mr. Palmer’s book came out, it was far from answering the expectations of Mr. Lewis, or' Mr. Ames, or those of the public in general. Mr. Ames, therefore, at length consented to apply himself to the task, and after twenty-five years spent in collecting and arranging his materials, in which he was largely assisted by Mr. Lewis and other learned friends, and by the libraries of lord Oxford, sir Hans Sloane, Mr. Anstis, and many others, published, in one vol. 4to, 1749, “Typographical Antiquities, being an historical account of Printing in England, with some memoirs of our ancient Printers, and a register of the books printed by them, from the year 1471 to 1600; with an appendix concerning printing in Scotland and Ireland to the same time.” In his preface he speaks with great humility of his work, and of its imperfections; but it certainly has no faults but what may well be excused in the first attempt to accomplish an undertaking of such vast extent. He inscribed this work to Philip lord Hardwicke, lord high chancellor of Great Britain. Mr. Ames was at this time fellow of the royal and antiquary societies, and secretary to the latter of these learned bodies. He was elected F. A. S. March 3, 1736, and on the resignation of Alexander Gordon, previous to his going to settle in Carolina, 174], v.as appointed secretary. In 1754, the rev. W. Norris was associated with him, and on his decease became sole secretary till 1784. This office gave Mr. Ames further opportunities of gratifying his native curiosity, by the communication as well as the conversation of the literati; and these opportunities were further enlarged by his election into the royal society, and the particular friendship shewn to him by sir Hans Sloane, then president, who nominated him one of the trustees of his will.

It might not, however, be long after, that he went to Holland, the common refuge of many of the divines of this period who were strong opponents to church discipline, for in 1613, his dispute with Grevinchovius, minister at Rotterdam, appeared in print. From thence, we are told, he was invited by the states of Friesland, to the divinity chair in the university of Franeker, which he filled with universal reputation for many years. He was at the synod of Dort, in 1618, and informed king James’s ambassador, from time to time, of the debates of that assembly. After he. had been at least twelve years in the doctor’s chair at Franeker, he resigned his professorship, and accepted of an invitation to the English congregation at Rotterdam, the air of Franeker being too sharp for him, who tvas troubled with such a difficulty of breathing, that he concluded every winter would be his last. Besides, he was desirous of preaching to his own countrymen, which he had disused for many years. He held many public discourses, published many learned books, and acquired a great degree of popularity among all classes. Upon his removal to Rotterdam, he wrote his “Fresh suit against Ceremonies” but did not live to publish it himself, for his constitution was so shattered, that the air of Holland was of no service, upon which, he determined to remove to New England; but his asthma returning at the beginning of winter, put an end to his life at Rotterdam, where he was buried, Nov. 14, (N. S.) 1633, aged fifty-seven. In the spring following, his wife and children embarked for New England, and carried with them his valuable library of books, which was a rich treasure to that country at tliat time Of his private character we know little, but it is generally agreed that he was a man of very great learning, a strict Calvinist in doctrine, and of the persuasion of the Independents, with regard to the subordination and power of classes and synods. As a teacher he was so much approved, that students came to him from many parts of Europe, particularly Hungary, Poland, Prussia, and Flanders. Mosheim, who, upon what authority we know not, calls him a Scotch divine, says, that he was one of the first among the reformed who attempted to treat morality as a separate science, to consider it abstractedly from its connection with any particular system of doctrine, and to introduce new light and a new degree of accuracy and precision into this master-science of life and manners. The attempt, he adds, was laudable, had it been well executed; but the system of this learned writer was dry, theoretical, and subtle, and was thus much more adapted to the instruction of the studious, than to the practical direction of the Christian.

His next communication was, 4. “On the music of the Chinese, ancient and modern,” which fills the greater part of vol. VI. of the “Memoires sur les Chinois.” 5. “The Life of Confucius,” the most accurate history of that philosopher, and taken from the most authentic sources, with a long account both of his ancestors and descendants, who yet exist in China, a genealogy which embraces four centuries. This life, which is illustrated with plates from Chinese designs, occupies the greater part of vol. XII. of the “Memoires, &c.” 6. “Dictionnaire Tatarmantcheou-Français,” Paris, 1789, 3 vols. 4to, a work of great value, as this language was before unknown in Europe. The publication of it was owing to the spirit and liberality of the deceased minister of state, M. Bertin, who bore the expence of the types necessary, and employed M. Langles, a learned orientalist, to superintend the press. Amiot also sent over a grammar of that language, which is printed in the XIIIth volume of the “Memoires.” He published in the same work, a great many letters, observations, and papers, on the history, arts, und sciences of the Chinese, some of which are noticed in the Monthly Review (see Index), and in the index to the “Memoires,” in which his contributions fill many columns. He died at Pekin, in 1794, aged seventy-seven.

, a dissenting minister of considerable note, was the son of a grocer at Taunton in Somersetshire, where he was born Jan. 28, 1701; and at that place acquired his classical learning, under the care of Mr. Chadwick. From Taunton he was removed to Exeter, that he might be instructed in the French language by Mr. Majendie, a refugee minister in that city. After this, he returned to Mr. Chadwick, where he had for his schoolfellow Mr. Micaiah Towgood; and at Lady-day 1717, they were both put under the academical instruction of Mr. Stephen James and Mr. Henry Grove, the joint tutors at Taunton for bringing up young persons to the dissenting ministry. Under these preceptors, Mr. Amory went through the usual preparatory learning; and in the summer of 1722 was approved of as a candidate for the ministry . Being desirous of improvement, he removed, in the November following, to London, and attended a course of experimental philosophy, under Mr. John Eatnes. Upon his return to Taunton, he preached alternately at several places in the neighbourhood; till, upon Mr. James’s death in 1724. or 1725, Mr. Amory was fixed as a stated assistant preacher to Mr. Datch of Hull Bishops; besides which, he had one monthly turn at Lambrook near South Petherton, and another at West Hatch, four miles from Taunton. At the same time, he was requested by his uncle, Mr. Grove, to take a part in the instruction of the pupils, in the room of Mr. James, with which request he complied. The business assigned him he discharged with great ability and diligence; being well qualified for it by his profound acquaintance with the Greek and Roman languages, his correct taste in the classics, and by his thorough knowledge of the best and latest improvements in sound philosophy. In 1730, he was ordained at Paul’s meeting in Tuutiton, and from this time was united, in the congregation at Taunton, with Mr. Batsen; but that gentleman ‘keeping the whole salary to himself, several of the ’principal persons in the society were so displeased with him, that, early in the spring of 1732, they agreed to build another meetinghouse, and to choose Mr. Amory for their pastor. In the beginning of 1738, on the deatli of Mr. Grove, he became chief tutor in the academy at Taunton, and conducted the business of it with the same abilities, and upon the same principles. He had the advantage of the lectures and experience of his excellent uncle, added to his own: and many pupils were formed under him, of great worth and distinguished improvements in literature. In 1741, he married a daughter of Mr. Baker, a dissenting minister in Southwark; an excellent lady, who survived him, and with whom he lived in the greatest affection and harmony. By this lady he had several children, four of whom survived him. During his residence in Taunton he was held in the greatest esteem, not only by his own society, but by all the neighbouring congregations and ministers; and even those who differed the most from him in religious opinions, could not avoid paying a tribtfte of respect to the integrity and excellence of his character. He was much respected, likewise, by the gentlemen and clergy of the established church, and was particularly honoured, when, very young, with the friendship of Mrs. Howe, with whom he kept up a correspondence by letters. One instance of the respect entertained for mm, and of his own liberal and honourable conduct, cannot be omitted. When some of the principal persons of the Baptist society in Taunton, owing to the disgust they had received at their then pastor, would have deserted him, and communicated to Mr. Amory their intention of becoming his stated hearers, he generously dissuaded them from the execution of their design, as a step which would prove highly injurious to the reputation, members, and interest of the congregation they intended to leave. Mr. Amory was so happy with his people at Taunton, and so generally respected and beloved both in the town and the neighbourhood, that, perhaps, it may be deemed strange that he should be induced to quit his situation. This, however, he did, in October 1759, at which time he removed to London, to be afternoon preacher to the society in the Old Jewry, belonging to Dr. Samuel Chandler. But the grand motive, besides the hope of more extensive usefulness, seems to have been, that he might advantageously dispose of his children, in which respect he succeeded. It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that be did not, in the metropolis, meet with all that popularity, as a preacher, to which he was entitled by his reaj merit. His delivery was clear and distinct, and his discourses excellent; but his voice was not powerful enough to rouse the bulk of mankind, who are struck with noise and parade: and his sermons, though practical, serious, and affecting to the attentive hearer, were rather too philosophical for the common run of congregations. But Mr. Amory enjoyed a general respect; and he received every mark of distinction which is usually paid, in London, to the most eminent ministers of the presbyterian denomination. In 1767, he was chosen one of the trustees to the charities of Dr. Daniel Williams. In 1768, the university of Edinburgh conferred upon him the degree of D. D. and in the same year he was elected one of the six Tuesday lecturers at Sailer’s Hall. It ought to have been mentioned, that previous to these last events, he was chosen, at the death of Dr. Chandler, in 1766, a pastor of the society at the Old Jewry; in which situation he continued till his decease. In 1770, he became movning-preacher at Newington Green, an,d cqlleague with the rev. Dr. Richard Price. When the dissenting ministers, in 1772, formed a design of endeavouring to procure an enlargement of the toleration act, Dr. Amory was one of the committee appointed for that purpose; and none could be more zealous for the prosecution of the scheme, Dr. Amory had the felicity of being able to continue his public services nearly to the last. June 16th, 1774, he was seized with a sudden disorder which left him nearly in a state of insensibility till his death, which happened on the 24th of that month, and in the 74th year of his age. He was interred in Bunhill Fields, on the 5th of July; and his funeral was attended by a respectable number of ministers and gentlemen. The discourse, on the occasion of his death, was preached in the Old Jewry, on the 10th of the same month, by the rev. Dr. Roger Flexman of Rotherhithe, who had been connected with him in an intimate friendship for more than 40 years; which friendship, Dr. Flexman assures us, had never once been interrupted bjr distaste, or darkened with a frown.

, an eminent French divine, was born in September 1596, at Bourgueil, a small town of Touraine, of an ancient family originally from Orleans. Having gone through his course of philosophy, he was sent to Poictiers, to read law; to which he applied himself with great assiduity, and is said to have spent fourteen hours a day in that study. At the end of his first year, he took the degree of licentiate; but Mr. Bouchereau, minister of Saumur, advising him to study divinity, and the reading of Calvin’s Institutions having strongly inclined him to follow this advice, he acquainted his father that he earnestly desired to be a clergyman, and obtained his assent, though tiot without difficulty. He then went to study at Saumur, where he continued a considerable time as student of divinity. Upon his admission into orders, he was presented to the church of St. Agnau, in the country of Mayne, and eighteen months after, he was invited to Saumur, to succeed Mr. Daillé, appointed minister of Charenton. About the same time that the church of Saumur desired him for their minister, the academic council fixed upon him for professor of divinity; and his admission to the professorship, his previous examination, and his inaugural thesis “De sacerdotio Christi,” redounded much to his reputation.

, an eminent divine, of the reformed church at Metz, was born March 17, 1617. He studied from the ninth or tenth year of his age in the Jesuits’ college, then the only one at Metz where there was an opportunity of being instructed in polite literature. In this college he gave such proofs of genius, that the heads of the society left nothing unattempted in order to draw him over to their religion and party, but he continued firm against their attacks, and that he might be the more enabled to withstand them, took the resolution of studying divinity, in which he was so indefatigable, that his father was often obliged to interpose his authority to interrupt his continual application, lest it suould injure his health. He went to Geneva in the year 1633, and performed his course of philosophy there under Mr. du Pattr, and his divinity studies under Spanheim, Diodati, and Tronchin, who had a great esteem for him. He left Geneva in April 1641, and offered himself to the synod of Charenton, in order to take upon him the office of a minister. His abilities were greatly admired by the examiners, and his modesty by the ministers of Paris; and the whole assembly was so highly satisfied with him, that they gave him one of the most considerable churches, which was unprovided for, that of Meaux, where he exercised his ministry till the year 1653, and became extremely popular, raising an extensive reputation by his learning, eloquence, and virtue, and was even highly respected by those of the Roman catholic communion. He displayed his talents with still greater reputation and success in his own country, where he was minister from the year 1653, till the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685. He retired to Francfort after that fatal blow; and having preached in the French church at Hanau, the whole assembly was so edified by it, that they immediately called together the heads of the families, in order to propose that he might be desired to accept of the office of minister among them. The proposition was agreed to; and they sent deputies who prevailed on him, and he began the exercise of his ministry in that church about the end of the year 1685. It was now that several persons who had quitted the French church, for some disgust, returned to it again. The professors of divinity, and the German and Dutch ministers, attended frequently upon his sermons. The count of Hanau himself, who had never before been seen in that church, came thither to hear Mr. Ancillon. His auditors came from the neighbouring parts, and even from Francfort, and people, who understood nothing of French, flocked together with great eagerness, and said, that they loved to see him speak; a degree of popularity which excited the jealousy of two other ministers, who at length rendered his situation so uneasy that he was induced to abandon voluntarily a place from which they could not force him. If he had chosen to rely upon the voice of the people, he might have still retained his situation, but it was his opinion that a faithful pastor ought not to establish his own interests upon any division between a congregation and its ministers, and as through his whole life he had been averse to parties, and had remonstrated often against cabals and factions, he would not take advantage of the disposition which the people were in towards him, nor permit them to act. Having therefore attempted every method which charity suggested without success, he resolved to quit Hanau, where he had to wrangle without intermission, and where his patience, which had supported several great trials, might possibly he at last overcome; and for these reasons he left it privately. He would now have returned to Francfort to settle, but in consideration of his numerous family, he preferred Berlin, where he received a kind reception from the elector of Brandenbourg. He was also made minister of Berlin, and had the pleasure of seeing his eldest son made judge and director of the French who were in that city, and his other son rewarded with a pension, and entertained at the university of Francfort upon the Oder, and at last minister in ordinary of the capital. He had likewise the satisfaction of seeing his brother made judge of all the French in the states of Brandenbourg, and Mr. Cayart, his son-in-law, engineer to his electoral highness. He enjoyed these circumstances undisturbed, till his death at Berlin, September 3, 1692, aged seventy-five years. His marriage was contracted in a very singular way: The principal heads of families of the church of Meaux seeing how much their minister distinguished himself, and hearing him sometimes saying, that he would go to Metz to see his father and relations, whom he had not seen for several years, were apprehensive lest they should lose him. They thought of a thousand expedients in order to fix him with them for a long time; and the surest way in their opinion was to marry him to some rich lady of merit, who had an estate in that country or near it. One of them recollected he had heard, that Mr. Ancillon having preached one Sunday in the morning at Charenton, he was universally applauded; and that Mr. Macaire especially, a venerable old gentleman, of very exemplary virtue and piety, and possessed of a considerable estate at Paris and about Meaux, had given him a thousand blessings and commendations, and said aloud to those who sat near him in the church, that he had but one daughter, who was an only child, and very dear to him; but if that gentleman, speaking of Mr. Ancillon, should come and ask her in marriage, he would give her with all his heart. Upon this, they went to ask him, whether he still continued in that favourable opinion of him; he replied, that he did; and accompanied that answer with new expressions of his esteem and affection for Mr. Ancillon; so that the marriage was concluded in the year 1649, and proved a very happy one, although there was a great disparity of years, the young lady being only fourteen.

His writings are but few, 1. “Relation fidele de tout ce qui s’est passe dans la conference publique avec M. Bedacier, eveque d'Aost,” Sedan, 1657, 4to. This dispute which he carried on with M. Bedacier, is concerning traditions, and was managed on the part of our author with great success, but they had agreed not to print it, and it would have remained unknown, had not a spurious account appeared, in which it was stated that Anciilon had been defeated. 2. “Apologie de Luther, de Zuingle, de Calvin, et de Beze,” Hanau, 1666, which is part of an answer he had prepared against cardinal de Richelieu. 3. “Vie de Guil. Farel,” or the idea of a faithful minister of Christ, printed in 1691, Amst. 12mo, from a most erroneous copy. He published also one fast sermon, 1676, entitled “The Tears of St. Paul.” But the work which contains the most faithful picture of his learning, principles, and talents, in conversation, was published by his son, the subject of the next article, at Basil, 1698, 3 vols. 12mo, entitled “Melange critique de Litterature, recueilli des conversations de feu M. Ancillon.” There was likewise a new edition of it published at Amsterdam in 1702, in one volume 12mo, which was disowned by the editor, because there were several things inserted in ic, which were injurious to his father’s memory, and his own character. This collection of Ancillon was formed from what he heard his father speak of in conversation, and he has digested it under proper heads. It contains a great number of useful and curious remarks, although not wholly free from mistakes, some of the sentiments having been conveyed to the editor by persons who probably did not remember them exactly.

, a native of Scotland, was brother to the rev. James Anderson, D.D. editor of the “Royal Genealogies,” and of “The Constitutions of the Free Masons,” to whom he was chaplain. He was likewise many years minister of the Scotch Presbyterian church in Swallowstreet, Piccadilly, and well known among the people of that persuasion resident in London by the name of bishop Anderson, a learned but imprudent man, who lost a considerable part of his property in the fatal year 1720. His brother Adam, the subject of this article, was for 40 years a. clerk in the South Sea house, and at length was appointed chief clerk of the stock and new annuities, which office he retained till his death. He was appointed one of the trustees for establishing the colony of Georgia in America, by charter dated June 9, 5 Geo. II. He was also one of the court of assistants of the Scots’ corporation in London. He published his “Historical and Chronological deduction of Trade and Commerce,” a work replete with useful information, in 1762 3, 2 vols. fol. He was twice married; by the first wife he had issue a daughter, married to one Mr. Hardy, a druggist or apothecary in Southampton-street in the Strand, who both died without issue; he afterwards became the third husband of the widow of Mr. Coulter, formerly a wholesale linen-draper in Cornhill, by whom he had no issue; she was, like him, tall and graceful, and her face has been thought to have some resemblance to that of the ever-living countess of Desmond, given in Mr. Pennant’s first Tour in Scotland. Mr. Anderson died at his house in Red-lion-street, Clerkenwell, Jan. 10, 1765, aged 73. He had a good library of books, which were sold by his widow, who survived him several years, and died in 1781. His History of Commerce has been lately very much improved in a new edition, 4 vols. 4to, by Mr. M'Pherson.

In the proceedings against those who endeavoured to set up the Geneva discipline, Anderson shewed much zeal: but in the case of Udal, a puritan minister, who was confined in 1589, and tried and condemned the year following, we find him unjustly censured by Mr. Pierce in his “Indication of the Dissenters,” and yet more unjustly by Neal, in his History of the Puritans, who asserts that Anderson tried and condemned Udal, which is a direct falsehood. Still it cannot be denied that he was severe in suoh cases, although from his conduct in other matters, it is evident that he acted conscientiously. In 1596 we have an account of his going the northern circuit, where he behaved with the same rigour; declaring in his charges, that such persons as opposed the established church, opposed her majesty’s authority, and were in that light enemies to the state and disturbers of the public peace, and he directed the grand juries to inquire, that they might be punished. He was indeed a very strict lawyer, who governed himself entirely by statutes: this he shewed on many occasions, particularly at the trial of Henry Cuffe, secretary to the earl of Essex, where the attorney-general charging the prisoner syllogistically, and Cuffe answering him in the same style, lord chief justice Anderson said, “I sit here to judge of law, and not of logic:” and directed Mr. attorney to press the statute of Edward III. on which Mr. Cuffe was indicted. He was reputed severe, and strict in the observation of what was taught in courts, and laid down as law by reports; but this is another unfounded report to his discredit, for we have his express declaration to the contrary, and that he neither expected precedents in all cases, nor would be bound by them where he saw they were not founded upon justice, but would act as if there were no such precedents. Of this we have a proof from the reports in his time, published by Mr. Goldesborough: “The case of Resceit was moved again; and Shuttleworth said, that he cannot be received, because he is named in the writ; and added, that he had searched all the books, and there is not one case where he who is named in the writ may be received. What of that? said Anderson; shall we not give judgment, because it is not adjudged in the books before? we, will give judgment according to reason; and if there be no reason in the books, I will not regard them.” His steadiness was so great, that he would not be driven from what he thought right, by any authority whatever. This appeared in the case of davendish, a creature of the earl of Leicester; who had procured, by his interest, the queen’s letters patent for making out writs of supersedeas upon exigents in the court of common pleas, aiyd a message was sent to the judges to admit him to that office: with which, as they conceived the queen had no right to grant any such patent, they did not comply. Upon this, Mr. Cavendish, by the assistance of his patron, obtained a letter from the queen to quicken them, but which did not produce what was ex pected from it. The courtier again pursued his point, and obtained another letter under the queen’s signet and sign manual; which letter was delivered in presence of the lord chancellor and the earl of Leicester, in the beginning of Easter term. The judges desired time to consider it, and then answered, that they could not comply with the letter, because it was inconsistent with their duty and their oaths of office. The queen upon this appointed the chancellor, the lord chief justice of the queen’s bench, and the master of the rolls, to hear this matter; and the queen’s serjeant having set forth her prerogative, it was shewn by the judges, that they could not grant offices by virtue of the queen’s letters, where it did not appear to them that she had a power to grant; that as the judges were bound by their oaths of office, so her majesty was restrained by her coronation-oath from such arbitrary interpositions: and with this her majesty was satisfied. He concurred also with his brethren in remonstrating boldly against several acts of power practised in Elizabeth’s reign. On the accession of king James he was continued in his office, and held it to the time of his death, which happened August 1, 1605. He was interred at Eyworth in Bedfordshire. The printed works of this great lawyer, besides his “Readings,” which are still in manuscript, are, 1. “Reports of many principal Cases argued and adjudged in the time of queen Elizabeth, in the Common Bench,” London, 1664, folio. 2. “Resolutions a-nd Judgements on, the Cases and Matters agitated in all the courts of Westminster, in the latter end of the reign of queen Elizabeth,” published by John Goldesborough, esq. prothonotary of the common pleas, London, 1653, 4to.

, D. D. a native of Scotland, for fifty years minister of Chirnside, where he died at a very advanced age, July 1800, deserves some notice in this work as the author of the History of France, which was published in 1769, under the title of “The History of France during the reigns of Francis II. and Charles IX. To which is prefixed, a Review of the General History of the Monarchy, from its origin to that period,” 2 vols. 4to. The success of these volumes was very indifferent; yet in 1775, the author published “The History of France, from the commencement of the reign of Henry III. and the rise of the Catholic league to the peace of Vervins, and the establishment of the famous edict of Nantes, in the reign of Henry IV.” 1 vol. 4to. In 1783, he published two more volumes, containing his history “From the commencement of the reign of Lewis XIII. to the general peace of Munster.” The reception of this was equally discouraging with that of the former works. Dr. Anderson displays none of the essential qualities of historic writing, no research into the secret springs of action, no discrimination of character, and no industry in accumulating and examining authorities. Even as a compiler, he is guided only by one set of materials which he found in the French writers, and may therefore be consulted by the English reader, as a collector of their opinions, while he is highly censurable in not having recourse to original papers and documents respecting the affairs occasionally introduced pertaining to his own country. His style is uniformly tame and defaced by colloquial barbarisms.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine of the sixteenth century, was born at Waibling, a town in the duchy of Wmemberg, March 25, 1528. His father, whose name was James Endris, was a smith. He applied himself to letters with great success for three years; but his parents, being poor, had resolved to bring him up to some mechanical profession, and had agreed with a carpenter for that purpose, when several persons of distinction, who discovered marks of genius in him, contributed to support him in the prosecution of his studies, in which he made a considerable advance. In 1545, he took his master’s degree at Tubingen, and studied divinity and the Hebrew language at the same university. In 1546 he was appointed minister of the church of Stutgard, the metropolis of the duchy of Wirtemberg; and his sermons were so well approved of, that his fame reached the duke, who ordered him to preach before him, which he performed with great applause. The same year he married a wife at Tubingen, by whom he had nine sons and nine daughters, nine of which children survived him. During the war in which Germany was about the same time involved, he met with great civilities even from the emperor’s party, till he was obliged upon the publication of the Interim to retire to Tubingen, where he executed the function of minister. In the year 1553 he took his degree of doctor of divinity, and was appointed pastor of the church of topping, and superintendant of the neighbouring churches. He was afterwards sent for to several parts; and in 1557 he wot to the diet of Ratisbon with Christopher duke of Wirtemberg, and was appointed one of the secretaries at the conference at Worms between the papists and the divines of the Augustan confession. The same year he published his first work on the Lord’s Supper, in which he proposed a method of agreement upon that difficult point of controversy. In June the same year he went with the duke above-mentioned to Francfort upon the Maine, where he preached a sermon, though he was publicly opposed by a Romish priest. In 1558 he replied to Staphylus’s book against Luther, which was entitled “Epitome trimembris Theologise Lutheranse,” and in which he had collected the opinions of several sects, and ascribed them all to that reformer, as the original author of them. In 1559 he was sent to Augsburg, where the diet of the empire was held; and, during the same, preached two sermons before all the princes of the Augustan confession, one on justification, the other on the Lord’s supper; both printed at Tubingen, and very popular. In 1561 he was sent to Paris, in order to be present at the conference of Poissi, which was broken up before he came thither. Some time after his return he was made chancellor and rector of the university of Tubingen. In the beginning of the year 1563 he went to Strasburg, where Jerom Zanchius had propagated several opinions accounted new, and particularly this, that the regenerate and believers could not possibly fall again from grace, or lose the faith, though they had committed sins against the light of their conscience. Our author at last engaged him to sign a form of confession, which he had drawn up. In 1565 he was invited to establish a church at Hagenaw, an imperial city, where he preached a great many sermoni upon the principal points of the Christian religion, which were afterwards printed. In 1568 he assisted Julius, duke of Brunswick, in reforming his churches. In 1569 he took a journey to Heidelberg and Brunswick, and into Denmark. In 1570 he went to Misniaancl Prague, where the emperor Maximilian II. had a conversation with him upon the subject of an agreement in religion. In 1571 he went to visit the churches at Mompelgard; and upon his return had a conference with Flaccius Illyricus at Strasburg, in which he confuted his paradoxical assertion, that sin is a substance. He took several journies after this, and used his utmost efforts to effect an union of the churches of the Augustan confession. In 1583 he lost his first wife, with whom he had lived thirty-seven years; and about an year and half after he married a second wife, who had voluntarily attended her former husband, when he was obliged to leave his country on account of religion. About the same time he wrote a controversial piece, in which he maintained the ubiquity or presence of the whole Christ, in his divine and human nature, in all things. In 1586 he was engaged in a conference at Mompelgard with Theodore Beza concerning the Lord’s supper, the person of Christ, predestination, baptism, the reformation of the popish churches, and Adiaphora or indifferent things; but this had the usual event of all other conferences, which, though designed to put an end to disputes in divinity, are often the occasion of still greater. In 1537 he was sent for to Nordling upon church affairs; and upon his return fell sick, and published his confession of faith, in order to obviate the imputations of his adversaries; but he afterwards recovered, and was sent for again to Ratisbon, and then to Onolsbach by Frederick marquis of Brandenbourg. Upon the publication of the conference at Mompelgard abovementioned, he was accused of having falsely imputed some things to Beza, which the latter had never asserted; he therefore went to Bern to clear himself of the charge. His last public act was a conference at Baden in November 1589 with John Pistorius, who then inclined to Calvinism, and afterwards revolted entirely to the Papists. He had a very early presentiment of his death; and when he found it drawing near, he made a declaration to several of his friends of his constancy in the faith, which he had asserted, and shewed the most undoubted signs of cordial belief, till he expired on the seventh of January 1590, being sixtyone years and nine months old. His funeral sermon was preached by Luke Osiander, and afterwards published. Several false reports were propagated concern ing his death. The Popish priests in the parts adjacent publicly declared from the pulpit, that before his death he had recanted and condemned all the doctrines which he had maintained in word or writing. Besides, there was a letter dispersed, in which they affirmed, with their usual assurance, that he desired very anxiously before his death, that a Jesuit might be sent for immediately, to administer the sacraments to him; which request being denied him, he fell into despair, and expired under all the horrors of it. Of this not a syllable was true, his dying words and actions entirely coinciding with his life and doctrines. His works were extremely numerous, but his biographers have neglected to give a list, or to notice any but his “Treatise on Concord,” 1582, 4to. His life was written by the subject of the next article, 1630.

, was born a Mahometan, at Xativa, in the kingdom of Valencia, and succeeded his father in the dignity of alfaqui of that city. He embraced Christianity on being present at a sermon in the great church of Valencia the day of the assumption of the blessed Virgin, in 1487. Upon this he desired to be baptised, and in memory of the calling of St. John and St. Andrew, he took the name of John Andreas. “Having received holy orders,” says he, “and from an alfaqui and a slave of Lucifer become a priest and minister of Christ, I began, like St. Paul, to preach and publish the contrary of what I had erroneously believed and asserted; and, with the assistance of almighty God, I converted at first a great many souls of the Moors, who were in danger of hell, and under the dominion of Lucifer, and conducted them into the way of salvation. After this, I was sent for by the most catholic princes king Fex-dinand and queen Isabella, in order to preach in Grenada to the Moors of that kingdom, which their majesties had conquered; and by God’s blessing on my preaching, an infinite number of Moors were brought to abjure Mahommed, and to turn to Christ. A little after this, I was made a canon by their graces; and sent for again by the most Christian queen Isabella to Arragon, that I might be employed in the conversion of the Moors of those kingdoms, who still persisted in their errors, to the great contempt and dishonour of our crucified Saviour, and the prodigious loss and danger of all Christian princes. But this excellent and pious design of her majesty was rendered ineffectual by her death.” At the desire of Martin Garcia, bishop of Barcelona, he undertook to translate from the Arabic, into the language of Arragon, the whole law of the Moors; and after having finished this undertaking, he composed his famous work of “The Confusion of the Sect of Mahommed;” it contains twelve chapters, wherein he has collected the fabulous stories, impostures, forgeries, brutalities, follies, absurdities, and contradictions, which Mahommed, in order to deceive the simple people, has dispersed in the writings of that sect, and especially in the Koran. Andreas tells us, he wrote this work, that not only the learned among Christians, but even the common people, might know the different belief and doctrine of the Moors; and on the one hand might laugh at and ridicule such insolent and brutal notions, and on the other might lament their blindness and dangerous condition. This book, which was published at first in Spanish at Seville, 1537, 4to, has been translated into several languages, and is frequently quoted as authority in writings against the Mahometan religion.

, professor of history and Greek at Groningen, was born at Braunfels, in the county of Solras, August 10th, 1604. His father was minister to count de Solms-Braunfels, and Inspector of the churches which belong to that county, and his mother, daughter to John Piscator, a famous professor of divinity at Herborn, in the county of Nassau. He performed his humanity-studies at Herborn, and then studied philosophy at the same place, under Alstedius and Piscator, after which he went to Bremen, where he lived seven years. He was one of the most constant auditors of Gerard de Neuville, a physician and a philosopher; and, as he had a desire to attain a public professorship, he prepared himself for it by several lectures which he read in philosophy. He returned to his own country in 1628, where he did not continue long, but went to Groningen, on the invitation of his kind patron, Henry Alting. He read there, for some time, lectures upon all parts of philosophy, after which Alting made him tutor to his sons, and wheo they had no longer occasion for his instruction, he procured him the same employment with a prince Palatine, which lasted for three years; part of which he spent at Leyden, and part at the Hague, at the court of the prince of Orange. He was called to Groningen in 1634, to succeed Janus Gebhardus, who had been professor of history and Greek. He filled that chair with great assiduity and reputation till his death, which happened October 17, 1676. He was library -keeper to the university, and a great frierAi to Mr. Des Cartes, which he shewed both during the life and after the death of that illustrious philosopher. He married the daughter of a Swede, famous, among other things, for charity towards those who suffered for the sake of religion.

, an eminent divine, and bishop of Winchester in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. was born at London, in 1555, in the parish of Allhallows Barking, being descended from the ancient family of the Andrews in Suffolk. He had his education in grammarlearning, first in the Coopers’ free-school at Ratcliff under Mr. Ward, and afterwards in Merchant Taylors’ school at London, under Mr. Muleaster. Here he made such a proficiency in the learned languages, that Dr. Watts, residentiary of St. Paul’s, and archdeacon of Middlesex, who about that time had founded some scholarships at Pembroke hall in Cambridge, sent him to that college, and bestowed on him the first of those exhibitions. After he had been three years in the university, his custom was to come up to London once a year, about Easter, to visit his father and mother, with whom he usually stayed a month; during which time, with the assistance of a master, he applied himself to the attaining some language or art, to which he was before a stranger: and by this means, in a few years, he had laid the foundation of all the arts and sciences, and acquired a competent skill in most of the modern languages. Having taken the degree of bachelor of arts, he was, upon a vacancy, chosen fellow of his college, in preference upon trial to Mr. Dove, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. In the mean time Hugh Price, having founded Jesus college in Oxford, and hearing much of the fame of young Mr. Andrews, appointed him one of his, first, orhonorary fellows on that foundation. Having taken the degree of master of arts, he applied himself to the study of divinity, in the knowledge of which he so greatly excelled, that being chosen catechist in the college, and having undertaken to read a lecture on the Ten Commandments every Saturday and Sunday at three o'clock in the afternoon, great numbers out of the other colleges of the university, and even out of the country, duly resorted to Pembroke chapel, as to a divinity lecture. At the same time, he was esteemed so profound a casuist, that he was often consulted in the nicest and most difficult cases of conscience; and his reputation being established, Henry, earl of Huntington, prevailed upon him to accompany him into the North, of which he was president; where, by his diligent preaching, and private conferences, in which he used a due mixture of zeal and moderation, he converted several recusants, priests, as well as others, to the protestant religion. From that time he began to be taken notice of by sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state to queen Elizabeth. That minister, who was unwilling so fine a genius should be buried in the obscurity of a country benefice, his intent being to make him reader of controversies in the university of Cambridge, assigned him for his maintenance the lease of the parsonage of Alton in Hampshire, and afterwards procured for him the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, in London. Afterwards he was chosen a prebendary and residentiary of St. Paul’s, as also prebendary of the collegiate church of Southwell. Being thus preferred to his own contentment, he distinguished himself as a diligent and excellent preacher, and read divinity lectures three times a week at St. Paul’s, in term time. Upon the death of Dr. Fulke, he was chosen master of Pembrokehall, of which he had been scholar and fellow, a place of more honour than profit, as he spent more upon it than he received from it, and was a considerable benefactor to that college. He was appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to queen Elizabeth, who took such delight in his preaching, that she first made him a prebendary of Westminster, in the room of Dr. Richard Bancroft promoted to the see of London; and afterwards dean of that church, in the room of Dr. Gabriel Goodman deceased. But he refused to accept of any bishopric in this reign, because he would not basely submit to an alienation of the episcopal revenue . Dr. Andrews soon grew into far greater esteem with her successor king James I. who not only gave him the preference to all other divines as a preacher, but likewise made choice of him to vindicate his sovereignty against the virulent pens of his enemies. His majesty having, in his “Defence of the rights of Kings,” asserted the authority of Christian princes over causes and persons ecclesiastical, cardinal Bellarmin, under the name of Matthew Tortus, attacked him with great vehemence. The king requested bishop Andrews to answer the cardinal, which he did with great spirit and judgment, in a piece entitled “Tortura Torti: sive, ad Matthaei Torti librutn responsio, qui nuper editus contra Apologiam serenissimi potentissimique principis Jacobi, Dei gratia Magnae Britannias, Franciae, & Hiberniae Regis, pro juramento fidelitatis.” It was printed at London by Roger Barker, the king’s printer, in 1609, in quarto, containing 402 pages, and dedicated to the king. The substance of what the bishop advances in this treatise, with great strength of reason and evidence, is, that kings have power both to call synods and confirm them; and to do all other things, which the emperors heretofore diligently performed, and which the bishops of those times willingly acknowledged of rio-ht to belong to them. Casaubon gives this work the character of being written with great accuracy and research. That king next promoted him to the bishopric of Chichester, to which he was consecrated, November 3, 1605. At the same time he made him his lord almoner, in which place of great trust he behaved with singular fidelity, disposing of the royal benevolence in the most disinterested manner, and not availing himself even of those advantages that he might legally and fairly have taken. Upon the vacancy of the bishopric of Ely, he was advanced to that see, and consecrated September 22, 1609. He was also nominated one of his majesty’s privy counsellors of England; and afterwards of Scotland, when he attended the king in his journey to that kingdom. After he had sat nine years in that see, he wus advanced to the bishopric of Winchester, and deanery of the king’s chapel, February 18, 1618; which two last preferments he held till his death. This great prelate was in no less reputation and esteem with king Charles I. than he had been with his predecessors. At length he departed this life, at Winchester-house in Southwark, September 25, 1626, in the seventy-first year of his age; and was buried in the parish church of St. Saviour’s, Southwark; where his executors erected to him a very fair monument of marble and alabaster, on which is an elegant Latin inscription, written by one of his chaplains .

, abbot of Centula, or St. Riquier, in the ninth century, was descended from a noble family of Neustria. He was educated at the court of Charlemagne, where he studied the languages with that prince and the other courtiers, under the learned Alcuinus, who afterwards considered him as his son. Charlemagne, having caused his son Ppin to be crowned king of Itaiy, made Angilbert that prince’s first minister: he then went with him into Italy, and returned some years after to France, when Charlemagne gave him his daughter Bertha in marriage; but some historians say that this marriage was rendered necessary by the lady’s being delivered previously of twins. Whatever truth may be in this, Angilbert, being now sonin-law to Charlemagne, was made duke or governor of the coast of France from the Scheldt to the Seine, and the kin? also made him his secretary and prime minister; but Alcuinus, abbot of Corbie, prevailed on him to become a monk in the monastery of Centula, or St. Riquier, with the consent both of his wife and the king. Notwithstanding his love of solitude, he was frequently obliged to leave the monastery, and attend to the affairs of the church and state, and was three times sent to the court of Rome; he also accompanied Charlemagne thither, in the year 800, when that prince was crowned in that city emperor of the West. He died on the 18th of February 814. Angilbert had such a taste for poetry, that Charlemagne called him his Homer. There are but few of his works remaining, except a history of his monastery, which Mabillon has inserted in his “Annales de l'ordre de St. Benoit.” As to the “Histoire de premieres expeditions de Charlemagne pendant sa jeunesse et avant son regne,” 1741, 8vo, with the title of Homer, given him by Charlemagne, either because he delighted in that poet, or because he was himself a poet; it is in fact a romance written by Dufresne de Francheville.

, dean of Edinburgh in Scotland, the son of William Annand, minister of Air, in Airshire, was born in that town in 1633. Five years after, his father was obliged to quit Scotland with his family, on account of their loyalty to the king, and adherence to the episcopal government established by law in that country. In 1651, young Annand was admitted a scholar in University -college, Oxford; and though he was put under the care of a Presbyterian tutor, yet he took all occasions to be present at the sermons preached by the loyal divines in and near Oxford. In 1656, being then bachelor of arts, he received holy orders from the hands of Dr. Thomas Fulwar, bishop of Ardfert, or Kerry in Ireland; and was appointed preacher at Weston on the Green, near Bicester, in Oxfordshire; where he met with great encouragement from sir Francis Norris, lord of that manor. After he had taken his degree of M. A. he was presented to the vicarage of Leighton-Buzzard, in Bedfordshire; where he distinguished himself by his edifying manner of preaching, till 1662, when he went into Scotland, as chaplain to John earl of Middleton, the king’s high commissioner to the church of that kingdom. In the latter end of 1663, he was instituted to the Tolbooth church, at Edinburgh; and from thence was removed some years after to the Trone church of that city, which was likewise a prebend. In April 1676, he was nominated by the king to the deanery of Edinburgh; and in 1685 he commenced D. D. in the university of St. Andrews. He died June 13, 1689, and was honourably interred in the Grey-friars church at Edinburgh. As his life was pious and devout, so his sickness and death afforded great consolation to those who attended him in his last moments.

, a very eminent nonconformist minister, was the son of John Aneley, of Hareley, in Warwickshire, where his family were possessed of a good estate, and was born about the year 1620. In 1635 he was admitted a student in Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his bachelor’s and master’s degrees. At the university he was distinguished by extreme temperance and industry. His inclination leading him to the church, he received holy orders, but it is uncertain whether from the hands of a bishop, or according to the Presbyterian way; Wood inclines to the former, and Calamy to the latter. In 1644, however, he became chaplain to the earl of Warwick, then admiral of the parliament’s fleet, and afterwards succeeded to a church at Clift'e, in Kent, by the ejectment, for loyalty, of Dr. Griffith Higges, who was much beloved by his parishioners. On July 26, 1648, he preached the fast sermon before the house of commons, which, as usual, was ordered to be printed. About this time, also, he was honoured with the title of LL. D. by the university of Oxford, or rather by the peremptory command of Philip earl of Pembroke, chancellor of the university, who acted there with boundless authority. The same year, he went to sea with the earl of Warwick, who was employed in giving chase to that part of the English navy which went over to the then prince, afterwards king Charles II. Some time after this, he resigned his Kentish living, although he had now become popular there, in consequence of a promise he made to his parishioners to “resign it when he had fitted them for the reception of a better minister.” In 1657, he was nominated by Cromwell, lecturer at St. Paul’s; and in 1658 was presented by Richard, the protector, to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate. But this presentation becoming soon useless, he, in 1660, procured another from the trustees for the approbation and admission of ministers of the gospel, after the Presbyterian manner. His second presentation growing out of date as the first, he obtained, in the same year, a third, of a more legal stamp, from Charles II.; but in 1662, he was ejected for nonconformity. He was offered considerable preferment, if he would conform, but refused it, and continued to preach privately during that and the following reign. He died in 1696, with a high reputation for piety, charity, and popular talents. His works, which are enumerated by Calamy, consist of occasional sermons, and some funeral sermons, with biographical memoirs. He was the principal support, if not the institutor, of the morning lecture, or course of sermons preached at seven o'clock in the morning, at various churches, during the usurpation, and afterwards at meeting-houses, by the most learned and able nonconformists. Of these several volumes have been printed, and of late years have risen very much in price. Collectors inform us that a complete set should consist of six volumes.

, a French historian, and political writer, was born at Paris, Jan. 21, 1723. Having in his seventeenth year entered the congregation of St. Genevieve, he distinguished himself by the ability with which he afterwards discharged the office of teacher in theology and literature. His residence at Rheims, as director of the academy, seems to have suggested to him the first idea of writing the history of that city. In 1759, he was appointed prior of the abbey de la Roe, in Anjou, and soon after, director of the college of Senlis, where he composed his work entitled “L'Esprit de la Ligue.” In 1766 he obtained the curacy or priory of Chateau-Renard, near Montargis, which, about the beginning of the revolution, he exchanged for the curacy of La Villette, near Paris. During the revolutionary phrenzy, he was imprisoned at St. Lazare, and wrote there part of his “Histoire universelle.” When the Institute was formed, he was chosen a member of the second class, and was soon after taken into the office of the minister for foreign affairs, whom he thought to oblige by. his “Motifs des traites de Paix.” Enjoying a strong constitution, the fruit of a placid and equal temper, and aversion to the luxuries of the table, he was enabled to study ten hours a day; and undertook, without fear or scruple, literary undertakings of the most laborious kind. Even in his eightieth year, he was projecting some new works of considerable size, and was apparently without a complaint, when he died, Sept. 6, 1808, in the eightyfourth year of his age. On this occasion he said to one of his friends, “come and see a man die who is full of life.”

, brother to the preceding, was born at Paris, Dec. 7, 1731. After having studied at the university of Paris, where he acquired an extensive knowledge of the Hebrew, he was invited to Auxerre by M. de Caylus, then the bishop, who induced him to study divinity, first at the academy in, his diocese, and afterwards at Amersfort, near Utrecht; but Anquetil had no inclination for the church, and returned with avidity to the study of the Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian. Neither the solicitations of M. de Caylus, nor the hopes of preferment, could detain him at Amersfort longer than he thought he had learned all that was to be learned there. He returned therefore to Paris, where his constant attendance at the royal library, and diligence in study, recommended him to the abbé Sallier, keeper of the manuscripts, who made him known to his friends, and furnished him with a moderate maintenance, under the character of student of the Oriental languages. The accidentally meeting with some manuscripts in the Zend, the language in which the works attributed to Zoroaster are written, created in him an irresistible inclination to visit the East in search of them. At this time an expedition for India was fitting out at port l'Orient, and when he found that the applications of his friends were not sufficient to procure him a passage, he entered as a common soldier; and on Nov. 7, 1754, left Paris, with his knapsack on his back. His friends no sooner heard of this wild step, than they had recourse to the minister, who surprized at so uncommon an instance of literary zeal, ordered him to be provided with a free passage, a seat at the captain’s table, and other accommodations. Accordingly, after a nine months voyage, he arrived Aug. 10, 1755, at Pondicherry. Remaining there such time as was necessary to acquire a knowledge of the modern Persian, he went to Chandernagor, where he hoped to learn the Sanscrit; but sickness, which confined him for some months, and the war which broke out between France and England, and in which Chandernagor was taken, disappointed his plans. He now set out for Pondicherry by land, and after incredible fatigue and hardships, performed the journey of about four hundred leagues in about an hundred days. At Pondicherry he found one of his brothers arrived from France, and sailed with him for Surat, but, landing at Mahe, completed his journey on foot. At Surat, by perseverance and address, he succeeded in procuring and translating some manuscripts, particularly the “Vendidade-Sade,” a dictionary; and he was about to have gone to Benares, to study the language, antiquities, and sacred laws of the Hindoos, when the capture of Pondicherry obliged him to return to Europe. Accordingly, he came in an English vessel to London, where he spent some time, visited Oxford, and at length arrived at Paris May 4, 1762, without fortune, or the wish to acquire it; but rich in an hundred and eighty manuscripts and other curiosities. The abbé Barthelemi, however, and his other friends, procured him a pension, with the title and place of Oriental interpreter in the royal library. In 1763, the academy of belles-lettres elected him an associate, and from that time he devoted himself to the arrangement and publication of the valuable materials he had collected. In 1771, he published his “Zend-Avesta,” 3 vols. 4to a work of Zoroaster, from the original Zend, with a curious account of his travels, and a life of Zoroaster. In 1778 he published his “Legislation Orientale,” 4to, ii which, by a display of the fundamental principles of government in the Turkish, Persian, and Indian dominions, he proves, first, that the manner in which most writers have hitherto represented despotism, as if it were absolute in these three empires, is entirely groundless; secondly, that in Turkey, Persia, and Indostan, there are codes of written law, which affect the prince as well as the subject; and thirdly, that in these three empires, the inhabitants are possessed of property, both in movable and immovable goods, which they enjoy with entire liberty. In 1786 appeared his “Recherches historiques et geographiques sur ITnde,” followed in 1789, by his treatise on the dignity of Commerce and the commercial state. During the revolutionary period, he concealed himself among his books, but in 1798 appeared again as the author of “L‘Inde au rapport avec l’Europe,” 2 vols. 8vo. In 1804, he published a Latin translation from the Persian of the “Oupnek' hat, or Upanischada,” i. e. “secrets which must not be revealed,” 2 vols. 4to. Not long before his death he was elected a member of the institute, but soon after gave in his resignation, and died at Paris, Jan. 17, 1805. Besides the works already noticed, he contributed many papers to the academy on the subject of Oriental languages and antiquities, and left behind him the character of one of the ablest Oriental scholars in France, and a man of great personal worth and amiable manners. His biographer adds, that he refused the sum of 30,000 livres, which was offered by the English, for his manuscript of the Zend-­Avesta.

, 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.

, a learned Italian of the fifteenth century, was a native of Perugia, and of a family of some rank. He was the scholar of Joannes Antonius Campanus, and published the first and perhaps only entire edition of Campanus’ works, 1495. Michael Fernus, a Milanese scholar, at his request superintended the press, and enriched the publication with a copious life of Campanus, and a variety of elaborate prefaces addressed to various persons. That which is addressed to Antiquarius himself bears ample testimony to his literary reputation. On quitting his native city, Antiquarius obtained a political orKce of consequence and responsibility at Bologna. About 1460 he removed to Milan, where his erudition enabled him to secure the favour and patronage of Giovanni Galeozzo and Lud. Maria Visconti, dukes of Milan, to whom he was secretary and prime minister, and employed his influence in the patronage of literature. As he was in the church he obtained some rich benefices from pope Alexander VI. Many learned works, the publication of which he had encouraged, were dedicated to him, but we have nothing of his own, except an “Oratio,” Milan, 1509, 4to, and a volume of Latin letters, 1519, 4to. He died at Milan in 1512.

, an eminent Dutch poet, surnamed Vander Goes, from the place in Zealand where he was born, April 3, 1647, of parents who were anabaptists, people of good character, but of low circumstances. They went to live at Amsterdam, when An ton ides was about four years old; and in the ninth year of his age he began his studies, under the direction of Hadrian Junius and James Cocceius. Antonides took great pleasure in reading the Latin poets, carefully comparing them with Grotius, Heinsius, &c. and acquired a considerable taste for poetry. He first attempted to translate some pieces of Ovid, Horace, and other ancients; and having formed his taste on these excellent models, he at length undertook one of the most difficult tasks in poetry, to write a tragedy, entitled, “Trazil,” or the “Invasion of China,” but was so modest as not to permit it to be published. Vondel, who was then engaged in a dramatic piece, taken also from some event that happened in China, read Antonides’s tragedy, and was so well pleased with it, that he declared, if the author would not print it, he would take some passages out of it, and make use of them in his own tragedy, which he did accordingly; and it was reckoned much to the honour of Antonides, to have written what might be adopted by so great a poet as Vondel was acknowledged to be. Upon the conclusion of the peace betwixt Great Britain and Holland, in the year 1697, Antonides wrote a piece, entitled “Bellona aan band,” i. e. Bellona chained; a very elegant poem, consisting of several hundred verses. The applause with which this piece was received, excited him to try his genius in something more considerable; he accordingly wrote an epic poem, which he entitled The River Y. 'the description of this river, or rather lake, is the subject of the poem, which is divided into four books; in the first the poet gives a very pompous description of all that is remarkable on that bank of the Y on which Amsterdam is built. In the second he opens to himself a larger field, beginning with the praises of navigation, and describing the large fleets which cover the Y as an immense forest, and thence go to every part of the world, to bring home whatever may satisfy the necessity, luxury, or pride of men. The third book is au ingenious fiction, which supposes the poet suddenly carried to the bottom of the river Y, where he sees the deity of the river, with his demigods and nymphs, adorning and dressing themselves for a feast, which was to be celebrated at Neptune’s court, upon the anniversary of the marriage of Thetis with Peleus. In the fourth book he describes the other bank of the Y, adorned with several cities of North Holland; and in the close of the work addresses himself to the magistrates of Amsterdam, to whose wisdom he ascribes the riches and flourishing condition of that powerful city. This is a very short abridgment of the account of this poem given in the General Dictionary, according to which it appears to have contained many other fictions that savour of the burlesque. Antonides’s parents had bred him up an apothecary; but his genius for poetry soon gained him the esteem and friendship of several persons of distinction; and particularly of Mr. Buisero, one of the lords of the admiralty at Amsterdam, and a great lover of poetry, who sent him at iiis own expence to pursue his studies at Leyden, where he remained till he took his degree of doctor of physic, and then his patron gave him a place in the admiralty. In 1678 Antonides married Susanna Bermans, a minister’s daughter, who had also a talent for poetry. In the preface to his heroic poem, he promised the life of the apostle Paul, which, like Virgil’s Æneid, was to be divided into twelve books; but he never finished that design, only a few fragments having appeared. He declared himself afraid to hazard his reputation with the public on theological subjects, which were so commonly the subject of contest. After marriage he did not much indulge his poetic genius; and within a few years fell into a consumption, of which he died on the 18th of Sept. 1684, He is esteemed the most eminent Dutch poet after Vondel, whom he studied to imitate, and is thought to have excelled in sweetness of expression and smoothness of style, but in accuracy and loftiness he is greatly inferior to his original. His works have been printed several times, having been collected by his father Anthony Jansz. The last edition is that of Amsterdam, 1714, 4to, which, however, contains several miscellaneous pieces that add but little to the reputation he acquired. The editor, David Van Hoogstraten, prefixed his life to this edition.

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

was descended of a most ancient and honourable family, seated at Parkhall, in Warwickshire. He was born' in 1532, and his father dying when he was an infant of two years old, he became, before he inherited the estate of the family, the ward of sir George Throkmorton, of Coughton, whose daughter Mary he afterwards married. In all probability, it was his engagement with this family, and being bred in it, that made him so firm a papist as he was. However, succeeding his grandfather, Thomas Arden, esq. in 1562, in the familyestate, he married Mary (Throkmorton), and settled in the country, his religion impeding his preferment, and his temper inclining him to a retired life. His being a near neighbour to the great earl of Leicester, occasioned his having some altercations with him, who affected to rule all things in that county, and some persons, though of good families, and possessed of considerable estates, thought it no discredit to wear that nobleman’s livery, which Mr. Arden disdained. In the course of this fatal quarrel, excessive insolence on one side produced some warm expressions on the other; insomuch that Mr. Arden npenly taxed the earl with his conversing criminally with the countess of Essex in that earl’s lite-time; and also inveighed against his pride, as a thing more inexcusable in a nobleman newly created. These taunts having exasperated that minister, he projected, or at least forwarded, his destruction. Mr. Arden had married one of his daughters to John Somerville, esq. a young gentleman of an old family and good fortune, in the same county, but who was a man of a hot rash temper, and by many thought a little insane. He was drawn in a strange manner to plot (if it may be so called) against the queen’s life; and thus the treason is alleged to have been transacted. In the Whitsun-holidays, 1583, he with his wife was at Mr. Arden’s, where Hugh Hall, his father-in-law’s priest, persuaded him that queen Elizabeth being an incorrigible heretic, and growing daily from bad to worse, it would be doing God and his country good service to take her life away. When the holidays were over, he returned to his own house with his wife, where he grew melancholy and irresolute. Upon this his wife wrote to Hall, her father’s priest, to come and strengthen his purpose. Hall excused his coming, but wrote at large, to encourage Somerville to prosecute what he had undertaken. This letter induced Somerville to set out for London, but he proceeded no farther than Warwick, where, drawing his sword and wounding some protestaats, he was instantly seized. While he was going to Warwick, his wife went over to her father’s, and shewed him and her mother Hall’s treasonable letter, which her father threw into the fire; so that only the hearsay of this letter could be alleged against him and his wife, by Hall who wrote it, who was tried and condemned with them. On Somerville’s apprehension, he said somewhat of his father and mother-in-law, and immediately orders were sent into Warwickshire for their being seized and imprisoned. October 30, 1583, Mr. Somerville was committed to the Tower for high-treason. November 4, Hall, the priest, was committed also; and on the seventh of the same month, Mr. Arden. On the sixteenth, Mary the wife of Mr. Arden, Margaret their daughter, wife to Mr. Somerville, and Elizabeth, the sister of Mr. Somerville, were committed. On the twenty-third Mr. Arden was racked in the Tower, and the next day Hugh Hall the priest was tortured likewise. By these methods some kind of evidence being brought out, on the sixteenth of December Edward Arden, esq. and Mary his wife, John Somerville, esq. and Hugh Hall the priest, were tried and convicted of high-treason at Guildhall, London; chiefly on Hall’s confession, who yet received sentence with the rest. On the nineteenth of December, Mr. Arden and his son-in-law, Somerville, were removed from the Tower to Newgate, for a night’s time only. In this space Somerville was strangled by his own hands, as it was given out; but, as the world believed, by such as desired to remove him silently. The next day, being December 20, 1583, Edward Arden was executed at Smithfield with the general pity of all spectators. He died with the same high spirit he had shewn throughout his life. After professing his innocence, he owned himself a papist, and one who died for his religion, and want of flexibility, though under colour of conspiring against the state. He strenuously insisted, that Somerville was murdered, to prevent his shaming his prosecutors; and having thus extenuated things to such as heard him, he patiently submitted to an ignominious death. His execution was according to the rigour of the law, his head being set (as Somerville’s also was) upon London-bridge, and his quarters upon the city gates; but the body of his son-in-law was interred in Moornelds. Mrs. Arden was pardoned; but the queen gave the estate which fell to her, by her and her husband’s attainder, to Mr. Darcy. Hugh Hall, the priest, likewise was pardoned; but Leicester, doubting his secrecy, would have engaged chancellor Hatton to send him abroad; which he refusing, new rumours, little to that proud earl’s honour, flew about. Holinshed, Stowe, and other writers, treat Mr. Arden as a traitor fairly convicted; but Camden. was too honest to write thus, and it may be probable, that he died for being a firm Englishman, rather than a bad subject. His son and heir Robert Arden, esq. being bred in one of the inns of court, proved a very wise and fortunate person: insomuch that by various suits he wrung from Edward Darcy, esq. the grantee, most of his father’s estates, and by marrying Elizabeth, daughter of Reginald Corbet, esq. one of the justices of the king’s bench, he restored the credit and splendour of this ancient family, and was so happy as to see Henry Arden, esq. his eldest son, knighted by king James, and married to Dorothy the daughter of Basil Fielding of Kewnham, esq. whose son became earl of Denbigh. On this account, the last editor of the Biographia Britannica remarks, that the conduct of lord Burleigh in Mr. Arden’s fate is somewhat equivocal. If that great man. was convinced of Mr. Arden’s innocence, it was totally unworthy of his character to charge him with having been a traitor. It is more 'honourable, therefore, to lord Burleigh’s reputation, and more agreeable to probability, to suppose that he believed Mr. Arden to be guilty, at least in a certain degree, of evil designs against the queen. Indeed, Arden was so bigoted a papist, that it is not unlikely but that by some imprudent words, if not by actions, he might furnish a pretence for the accusations brought against him. We can scarcely otherwise imagine how it would have been possible for the government to have proceeded to such extremities. We do not mean, by these remarks, to vindicate the severity with which this unfortunate gentleman was treated; and are sensible that, during queen Elizabeth’s reign, there was solid foundation for the jealousy and dread which were entertained of the Roman catholics.

, founder of the sect of Arminians, or Remonstrants, was born at Oudewater in Holland, 1560. He lost his father in his infancy, and was indebted for the first part of his education to a clergyman, who had imbibed some opinions of the reformed, and who, to avoid being obliged to say mass, often changed his habitation. Arminius was a student at Utrecht, when death deprived him of his patron, which loss would have embarrassed him greatly, had he not had the good fortune to be assisted by iiodolphus Snellius, his countryman, who took him with him to Marpurg in 1575. Soon after his arrival here, he heard the news of his country having been sacked by the Spaniards: this plunged him into the most dreadful affliction, yet he visited Holland, to be himself an eye-witness of the state tc which things were reduced; but having found that his mother, his sister, his brothers, and almost all the inhabitants of Oude-water, had been murdered, he returned to Marpurg. His stay here was, however, but short; for, being informed of the foundation of the university of Leyden, he went again to Holland, and pursued his studies at this new academy with so much assiduity and success, that he acquired very great reputation. He was sent to Geneva in 1583, at the expeuce of the magistrates of Amsterdam, to perfect his studies; and here he applied himself chiefly to the lectures of Theodore Beza, who was at this time explaining the Epistle to the Romans. Armiuius had the misfortune to displease some of the leading men of the university, because he maintained the philosophy of Ramus in public with great warmth, and taught it in private: being obliged therefore to retire, he went to Basil, where he was received with great kindness. Here he acquired such reputation, that the faculty of divinity offered him the degree of doctor without any expence, but he modestly excused himself from receiving this honour, and returned to Geneva; where having found the adversaries of Ramism. less violent than formerly, he became also more moderate. Having a great desire to see Italy, and particularly to hear the philosophical lectures of the famous James Zabarella, at Padua, he spent six or seven months in the journey: and then returned to Geneva, and afterwards to Amsterdam; where he found many calumnies raised against him, on account of his journey to Italy, which had somewhat cooled the affections of the magistrates of Amsterdam, his friends and patrons. He easily justified himself to some, but others remained prejudiced against him. He was ordained minister at Amsterdam in 1588, and soon distinguished himself by his sermons, which were so esteemed for their solidity and learning, that he was much followed, and universally applauded. Martin Lyclius, professor of divinity at Franeker, thought him a fit person to refute a writing, wherein the doctrine of Theodore Beza upon Predestination had been attacked by some ministers of Delft: Beza, and his followers, represented man, not considered as fallen, or even as created, as the object of the divine decrees. The ministers of Delft, on the other hand, made this peremptory decree subordinate to the creation and fall of mankind. They submitted their opinion to the public, in a book entitled “An Answer to certain arguments of Beza and Calvin, in the treatise concerning Predestination, upon the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.” This piece, which contained several difficulties, with which the doctrine of the divines of Geneva seemed to be embarrassed, was transmitted by the ministers of Delft to Martin Lydius, who promised to write a reply; but he applied to Arminius to take this upon him. Arminius, accordingly, at his earnest entreaty, undertook to refute this piece: but, upon examining and weighing the arguments on both sides, he embraced the opinions he proposed to confute; and even went farther than the ministers of Delft. He was threatened with some trouble about this at Amsterdam, being accused of departing from the established doctrine; but the magistrates of Amsterdam interposing their authority, prevented any dissension. In 1603, he was called to the professorship of divinity at Leyden: he began his lectures with three elegant orations; the first, Of the Object of Theology; the second, Of the Author and End of it; and the third, Of the Certainty of it; and then proceeded to the exposition of the prophet Jonah. The disputes upon grace were soon after kindled in the university, and the states of the province were forced to appoint conferences betwixt him and his adversaries. Gomarus was the great antagonist of Arminius; but the reputation of the latter was so well established, that he was continually attended by a numerous audience, who admired the strength of argument and solid learning which he shewed in all his lectures: this exposed him to the envy of his brethren, who treated him with great outrage. In 1607, he wrote an excellent letter to the ambassador of the elector Palatine, to vindicate his conduct with regard to the contests about religion, in which he was engaged: and the same year gave a full account to the states of Holland, of his sentiments with regard to the controverted points. These contests, however, his continual labour, and his uneasiness at seeing his reputation attacked in all quarters, threw him into a fit of sickness, of which he died the 19th of October, 1609.

, doctor of the Sorbonne, and brother of the preceding, was born at Paris the 6th of February 1612. He studied philosophy in the college of Calvi, on the ruins of which the Sorbonne was built, and began to study the law; but, at the persuasion of his mother and the abbot of St. Cyran, he resolved to apply himself to divinity. He accordingly studied in the college of the Sorbonne, under Mr. l‘Escot. This professor gave lectures concerning grace; but Arnauld, not approving of his sentiments upon this subject, read St. Augustin, whose system of grace he greatly preferred to that of Mr. l’Escot: and publicly testified his opinion in his thesis, when he was examined in 1636, for his bachelor’s degree. After he had spent two years more in study, which, according to the laws of the faculty of Paris, must be between the first examination and the license, he began the acts of his license at Easter 1638, and continued them to Lent, 1640. He maintained the act of vespers the 18th of December 1641, and the following day put on the doctor’s cap. He had begun his license without being entered in form at the Sorbonne, and was thereby rendered incapable of being admitted, according to the ordinary rules. The society, however, on account of his extraordinary merit, requested of cardinal Richelieu, their provisor, that he might be admitted, though contrary to form; which was refused by that cardinal, but, the year after his death, he obtained this honour. In 1643, he published his treatise on Frequent Communion, which highly displeased the Jesuits. They refuted it both from the pulpit and the press, representing it as containing a most pernicious doctrine: and the disputes upon grace, which broke out at this time in the university of Paris, helped to increase the animosity between the Jesuits and Mr. Arnauld, who took part with the Jansenists, and supported their tenets with great zeal. But nothing raised so great a clamour against him, as the two letters which he wrote upon absolution having been refused by a priest to the duke of Liancour, a great friend of the Port Royal. This duke educated his grand-daughter at Port Royal, and kept in his house the abbé de Bourzays. It happened in 1655, that the duke offered himself for confession to a priest of St. Sulpice, who refused to give him absolution, unless he would take his daughter from Port Royal, and break off all commerce with that society, and discard the abbé. Mr. Arnauld therefore was prevailed upon to write a letter in defence of Liancour. A great number of pamphlets were written against this letter, and Mr. Arnauld thought himself obliged to confute the falsities and calumnies with which they were filled, by printing a second letter, which contains an answer to nine of those pieces. But in this second letter the faculty of divinity found two propositions which theycondemned, and Mr. Arnauld was excluded from that society. Upon this he retired, and it was during this retreat, which lasted near 25 years, that he composed that variety of works which are extant of his, on grammar, geometry, logic, metaphysics, and theology. He continued in this retired life till the controversy of the Jansenists was eaded; in 1668. Arnauld now came forth from, his retreat, and was presented to the king, kindly received by the pope’s nuncio, and by the public esteemed a father of the church. From this time he resolved to enter the lists only against the Calvinists, and he published his book entitled “La perpetuite de la Foi,” in which he was assisted by M. Nicole: and which gave rise to that grand controversy between them and Claude the minister.

, a celebrated Protestant divine of Germany, was born at Ballenstadt, in theduchyof Anhalt, 1555. At first he applied himself to physic; but falling into a dangerous sickness, he made a vow to change that for divinity, if he should be restored to health. He was minister first at Quedlinburg, and then at Brunswick. He met with great opposition in this last city, his success as a preacher having raised the enmity of his brethren, who, in order to ruin his character, ascribed a variety of errors to him, and persecuted him to such a degree that he was obliged to leave Brunswick, and retire to Isleb, where he was minister for three years. In 1611 George duke of Lunenburg gave him the church of Zell, and appointed him superintendant of all the churches in the duchy of Lunenburg, which office he discharged for eleven years, and died in 1621. On returning from preaching on Psal. cxxvi. 5, he said to his wife, “I have been preaching my funeral sermon;” and died a few hours after.

, professor of divinity at Franeker, was born at Lesna, a city of Poland, Dec. 17, 1618. He was educated in the college of Lesna, particularly under Comenius, and was afterwards created subdeacon to the synod of Ostrorog, at the age of fifteen, and in that quality accompanied Arminius for two years in his visitation of the churches of Poland, after which he was sent to Dantzick, in 1635, and applied himself to the study of eloquence and philosophy. He returned to Poland in 1638, and pursued his divinity studies for about a year, after which he was sent into Podolia to be rector of the school of Jablonow. Having exercised that employment three months, he performed the office of a minister the two following years at a nobleman’s house. As it was observed that his talents might be of great service to the church, it was thought proper that he should visit the most celebrated academies. With this view he set out, in 1641, and after visiting Franeker, Groningen, Leyden, and Utrecht, he came over to England; but unfortunately this purpose was frustrated by the rebellion, which then raged in its utmost violence, and had suspended the literary labours of Oxford and Cambridge. On his return to his own country, he preached with great success and approbation, and in 1651 was chosen to succeed Cocceius as professor of divinity at Franeker, which office he discharged until his death, Oct. 15, 1680, after a long illness, in which he gave many instances of his piety, and resignation to the Divine will. His works are very numerous, and were written principally against the Socinian tenets. Among these Bayle enumerates his “Refutation of the Catechism of the Socinians,” his “Anti-Bidellus,” “Anti-Echardus,” his book “against Brevingius,” his “Apology for Arnesius against Erbermann,” the defender of Bellarmin; “Theological disputes on select subjects,” “Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,” &c. He wrote with learning and spirit, and had a powerful host of enemies to contend with in Poland, where Socinian opinions were very extensively disseminated.

, an English divine and writer, was born at or near Newcastle- upon Tyne, March 29, 1602. He was admitted of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, in 1616, and took his first two degrees from thence in 1619 and 1623. In this last year he was chosen fellow of Katherine hall, where he is supposed to have resided some years, probably engaged in the tuition of youth; but in 1631 he married, and removed to Lynn in Norfolk. He continued in this town, very much esteemed, for about ten or twelve years, being first assistant or curate, and afterwards minister in his own right, of St. Nicholas chapel there. He was afterwards called up to assist in the assembly of divines had a parish in London, and is named with Tuckney, Hill, and others, in the list of Triers, as they were called i. e. persons appointed to examine and report the integrity and abilities of candidates for the eldership in London, and ministry at large. When Dr. Beale, master of St. John’s college, was turned out by the earl of Manchester, Mr. Arrowsmith, who had taken the degree of B. D. from Katherine hall eleven years before, was put into his place; and also into the royal divinity chair, from which the old professor Collins was removed and after about nine years possession of these honours, to which he added that of a doctor’s degree in divinity, in 1649, he was farther promoted, on Dr. Hill’s death, to the mastership of Trinity college, with which he kept his professor’s place only two years his health being considerably impaired. He died in Feb. 1658-9.

, LL.D. a dissenting minister at Pershore, in Worcestershire, of whom we have not been able to recover any particulars, was the author of some useful works. The first was “The easiest introduction to Dr. Lowth’s English Grammar,” 12mo, 1766. His next, “A new and complete Dictionary of the English Language,” 2 vols. 8vo, 1775, the plan bf which was extensive beyond any thing of the kind ever attempted, and perhaps embraced much more than was necessary or useful. It is valuable, however, as containing a very large proportion of obsolete words, and such provincial or cant words as have crept into general use. In 1777, he published “Sentiments on Education, collected from the best writers, properly methodized, and interspersed with occasional observations,” 2 vols. 12mo. In this there are few original remarks, but those few shew an acquaintance with the best principles of virtuous and useful education, in which, we have been informed, the author employed some part of his time. Dr. Ash died in the 55th year of his age at Pershore, March 1779.

, a Puritan minister, first settled in Staffordshire, where he became known to Hildersham, Dod, Ball, Langley, and other nonconformists of that time, was educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, under Dr. Stooker. He exercised his ministry in London twenty-three years. In the time of the civil wars, he was chaplain to the earl of Warwick. As he was a man of fortune and character, his influence was great among the presbyterians. He was some time chaplain to the earl of Manchester, and fell under the displeasure of Cromwell’s party, whom he had disobliged by his violent opposition to the engagement. He had a very considerable hand in restoring Charles II. and went to congratulate his majesty at Breda. Dr. Calamy speaks of him as a man of real sanctity, and a non- conformist of the old stamp. He died in 1662, and was buried the eve of Bartholomew day. Dr. Walker censures him for his zeal against the characters of the clergy in general, in which he shares with many of his brethren. He published several sermons preached before the parliament, or the magistrates, on public occasions, and funeral sermons for Jeremy Whitaker, Ralph Robinson, Robert Strange, Thomas Gataker, Richard Vines, and the countess of Manchester, a treatise on “the power of Godliness,” and prefaces to the works of John Ball, and others.

, a dissenting minister, was born in Northamptonshire 1709, and served an apprenticeship to a carpenter but having a taste for learning, he was entered a student in the academy kept by Dr. Doddridge, where he made great proficiency in all sorts of useful knowledge. He was afterwards ordained minister of a dissenting congregation at Daventry; and became master of the academy kept by the excellent Dr. Doddridge, by the doctor’s express desire in his will. He died much respected at Daventry, 1774, aged sixty-five. His principles are said to have been those of moderate Calvinism. He published three “Funeral Sermons,” on the deaths of Dr. Watts, Mr. Floyd, and Mr. Clark a “Collection of Tunes and Anthems;” a “Hebrew Grammar;” and an “Introduction to Plane Trigonometry.”

In 1684 he appears to have given a fresh proof of his deep learning, in the case between the king and sir William Williams. An information was exhibited against William Williams, esq. late speaker of the House of Commons, for endeavouring to stir up sedition, and procure ill-will between the king and his subjects, by appointing a certain seditious and infamous libel, entitled “The information of Thomas Dangerfield,” to be printed and published. The defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, setting forth that he was speaker of the House of Commons, and that, in obedience to their order, he had appointed that narrative to be printed; wherefore he demanded the judgment of the court of king’s bench, whether it ought to take farther cognizance of the matter. Sir Robert Atkyns undertakes, in his argument in support of this plea, to prove three propositions First, that what was. done in this case was done in a course of justice, and that in the highest court of the nation, and according to the law and custom of parliament. Secondly^ that., however, that which was done in this case was not to be imputed to the defendant, who acted in it but as a servant or minister of the parliament, though in a very honourable station. Thirdly, that these, being matters transacted in parliament, and by the parliament, the court of king’s bench ought not to take cognizance of them, nor had any jurisdiction to judge or determine them.

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

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

, a French Jesuit and painter, attached to the mission to Pekin, was born at Dole, in Tranche-Comté, July 31, 1702, and at first took lessons in painting, and made considerable proficiency under his father, who was an artist. He then went to Rome, under the patronage of the marquis de Brossa, and on his return, painted some pictures at Lyons, which procured him great reputation. In his thirtieth year he entered among the Jesuits, in the humble character of a lay- brother, and some, years afterwards, when the missionaries of Pekin demanded the services of a painter, he obtained the appointment, and went to China about the end of 1737. He had no sooner arrived at Pekin than he offered the emperor a painting of the Adoration of the Kings, with which the emperor was so much pleased that he ordered it to be placed in his interior apartment. Notwithstanding this promising outset, he underwent many mortifications, in being obliged to comply with the bad taste of the Chinese in what paintings he executed for them, and was so teazed by the emperor himself, that, in order to please him, he was obliged to take lessons from the Chinese artists but finding that a compliance with their instructions must spoil his performances, and injure his reputation, he declined painting for his majesty. Ddring the years, however, from 1753 to 1760, distinguished by many victories gained by the emperor Kien Long, he had frequent orders for battlepieces, &c. which he executed so much to the satisfaction of that monarch, that he created him a mandarin, and when Attiret refused to accept it, the minister of state told him he should have the revenues, although he declined the honour. The missionaries speak in the highest terms of his talents, modesty, and piety. He died at Pekin, Dec. 8, 1768, and the emperor defrayed the expences of his funeral the large pictures he painted for the emperor are in the palace, but never shown the missionaries can exhibit only one picture, “The Guardian Angel,” which is in the chapel of the Neophites, in the French missionary church at Pekin. There is nothing of Attiret' s in print, except a letter in the “Recueil des Lettres Edifiantes,” vol. XXVII. which was translated by the late Rev. Joseph Spence, under his assumed name of sir Harry Beaumont, entitled “A particular account of the emperor of China’s gardens near Pekin, in a letter from father Attiret, a French missionary, now employed by that emperor to paint the apartments in those gardens, to his friend at Paris,” London, 1752, 8vo.

, a minister of the reformed church of Paris in the seventeenth century, was born at Chalons sur Marne in 1595. He was admitted a minister at the synod of Charenton in 1618, and promoted to the church of Chartres, from whence he was removed to Paris in 1631. He wrote a very celebrated work, entitled “L‘Eucharistie de l’ancienne Eglise,” 1633, fol. proving from history and argument, the opinions of the Protestants on the subject of transubstantiation and the real presence. This excited much controversy, and was attempted to be confuted by Arnauld and other divines in the work entitled “La Perpetuite de la Foi.” M. Aubertin died at Paris, April 5, 1652. His last moments were disturbed by the harsh conduct of the rector of St. Sulpice, who endeavoured to obtain from him an acknowledgment of error, but M. Aubertin declared that he persevered in the reformed religion.

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

, a French statesman, was born at Paris in 1720. He was counsellor in the parliament of Paris, and so distinguished for talent and probity, that he was appointed minister of state, and comptroller of the finances, by Lewis XV. in 1763; but was unfortunate in his administration, having formed some injudicious plans respecting grain, which ended in increasing the wants they were intended to alleviate. He afterwards retired to Gambais, where he employed himself in rural improvements, until the fatal period of the revolution, when he was arrested, brought to Paris, and guillotined Oct. 1794, on an accusation of having monopolised corn. He had been a member of the academy, and published, 1. “Code penal,” 1752, 12mo. 2. “De la pleine souverainete du roi sur la province de Bretagne,” 1765, 8vo. 3. “Memoire sur le proces criminel de Robert d'Artois, pair de France,” inserted in the account of the Mss. of the national library. 4. “Experiences de Gambais sur les bles noirs ou caries,” 1788, 8vo.

, a French Jesuit, was born in 1530, at Allernan, a village in the diocese of Troyes, and became noted for his extraordinary skill in the conversion of heretics, that is, llugonots, or Protestants, of whom he is said to have recovered many thousands to the church. He was often in danger from his unsought services, and was once narrowly saved from the gallows by a minister of the reformed church, who hoped to gain him over to his party. This, however, only served to excite his ardour in the cause of proselytism, and he distinguished himself very remarkably at Lyons during the ravages of the plague. Henry III. appointed him to be his preacher and confessor, the first time in which this latter honour had been conferred. He was, however, either so conscientious or so unfortunate as neither to gain the affections of his prince, nor to preserve the good opinion and confidence of the Jesuits. After the death of Henry III. his superiors recalled him to Italy, and sent him from house to house, where he was considered as an excommunicated person, travelling on foot in the depth of winter; and of such fatigues he died in the sixty-first year of his age, in 1591. He wrote some controversial works in a very intemperate style. One of his pieces was published in 1568, under the title of “Pedagogue d‘armes a un Prince Chretien, pour entreprendre et achever heureusement une bonne guerre, victorieuse de tous les ennemis de son etat et de l’eglise.” Father Dorigny published the life of Auger in 1716, 12mo.

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

Such early judgment determined his father to send him to France, that he might improve himself under that able and honest statesman, sir Amias Powlet, then the queen’s ambassador at Paris, and his behaviour while tinder the roof of that minister, was so prudent as to induce sir Amias to intrust him with a commission of importance to the queen, which required both secrecy and dispatch and this he executed so as to gain much credit both to the ambassador and to himself. He afterwards returned to Paris, but made occasional excursions into the provinces, where his attention appears to have been principally directed towards men and manners. He applied also with great assiduity to such studies as he conceived came within his father’s intention, and when he was but nineteen, wrote a very ingenious work, entitled, “A succinct view of the state of Europe,” which, it is plain, he had surveyed not only with the eye of a politician, but also of a philosopher. This work, it is probable, he improved on his return, when he was settled in Gray’s Inn. While thus employed abroad, the death of his father obliged him to return, and apply to some profession for his maintenance, as the money he inherited formed a very narrow provision. Accordingly, on his return, he resolved on the study of the common law, and for that purpose entered himself of the honourable society of Gray’s Inn, where his superior talents rendered him the ornament of the house, and the gentleness and affability of his deportment procured him the affection of all its members. The place itself was so agreeable to him, that he erected there a very elegant structure, which many years after was known by the name of “Lord Bacon’s Lodgings,” which he inhabited occasionally through the greatest part of his life. During the first years of his residence here, he did not confine his studies entirely to law, but indulged his excursive genius in a survey of the whole circle of science. It was here, and at that early age, where he formed, at least, if he did not mature, the plan of that great philosophical work, which has distinguished his name with such superior honour. Whether this first plan, or outlines, have descended to us, is a point upon which his biographers are not agreed. It was probably, however, the “Temporis Partus Masculus,” some part of which is preserved by Gruter in the Latin works of Bacon, which he published. The curious reader may receive much satisfaction on this subject from note D. of the Life of Bacon in the “Biographia Britannica.”

, an English divine, and critical and polemical writer of considerable eminence, was the son of a butcher at South Moulton, in Devonshire, where he was born, Feb. 23, 1747. His relations and friends being dissenters, he was designed by them for the ministerial function and after receiving the first rudiments of his education under his maternal uncle, Mr. Blake, a dissenting minister at South Moulton, he was sent to the dissenting academy at St. Mary Ottery, in the same county. The doctrines taught in this academy were those of the old Nonconformists or Puritans, and for a considerable time, Mr. Badcock adhered to them with sincerity. His proficiency in other respects was such, in the opinion of his tutors, that at the age of nineteen, he received a call to be the pastor of a dissenting congregation at Winborne in Dorsetshire, from which he was invited to the same office, soon after, at Barnstaple in Devonshire where his’ income was more considerable, and which place was more agreeable to him as it was but a few miles from his native town. The date of his removal here is said to be in 1769, and he continued to be the pastor of this congregation for nine or ten years.

We are now come to an uera in Mr. Badcock’s life which may appear very remarkable, his quitting his dissenting connexions, and embracing the doctrines and discipline of the established church. This brought much undeserved obloquy on his character, for there appears no reason to doubt his sincerity in reverting to principles most of which had been inculcated in his youth, and of which he had already become the zealous champion when he could have no motive but the love of truth, and no expectations but the perishing fame of a polemic. In Sept. 1786, he thus writes to a friend “I have resigned my function as dis<­senting minister. It was long long a most grievous op^­pression. I have boldly shook it off, and I will run the risk of the displeasure of my relations, and defy the con^ tumacy of my enemies. I have not absolutely determined on my future plan. Whatever it may be, I hope to secure the protection of Providence, by preserving the integrity of my own mind.”

, a nonconformist minister, was born at Litton in the parish of Tidswell, Jan. 17, 1627-8, and educated in Corpus Christi college, Cambridge after which he entered into orders, and preached with great applause in different parts of Derbyshire. He obtained the living of Glessop, which he held till 1662, when he was obliged to resign it, because he would not comply with the act of uniformity and then he preached privately at different places till the Revolution, when a large meeting-house was built for him, and he continued pastor of a numerous congregation till his death, April 1, 1702. He was the author of several small practical treatises, much esteemed in that age. Among these is a work, partly of a biographical kind, entitled “De Spiritualibus Pecci, or notes concerning the work of God, and some that have been workers together with God, in the High Peak,” (of Derbyshire), 1702. Besides his printed works, he left behind him fifty volumes, on various subjects, some in folio and some in 4to, fairly written with his own hand.

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

The academy having nominated in 1786, commissioners to examine a plan by Poyet, architect, for a new Hotel Dieu, Bailly drew up their report in 250 pages octavo which is a valuable instance both of the professional knowledge and the humanity of the author. He proposed the erection of four different hospitals and Breteuil, who was then minister, and had great reliance on Bailly, had finally resolved on executing his plan, when the revolution of 1789 drove him from the ministry.

, according to Wood, was born in the west of England, and spent several years at Oxford in the study of logic and philosophy there he supposes him to have been the same William Baldwin, who supplicated the congregation of regents for a master’s degree in 1532, but it does not appear by the register that it was granted. He afterwards became a schoolmaster and a minister, and was one of those scholars who followed printing, in order to promote the reformation. In this character, we find him employed by Edward Whitchurch, probably as the corrector of the press, though he modestly styles himself “seruaunt with Edwarde Whitchurche.” This, however, seems to have been his employment at first, and chiefly: yet he afterwards appears to have qualified himself for a compositor. As an author, Bale and Pits ascribe some comedies to him, which were probably mysteries or moralities now unknown, but he compiled “A treatise of moral Philosophy,” which was printed by Edw. Whitchurch, in 1547, and in 1550, and without date. This was afterwards enlarged by Thomas Paifryman, and went through several editions. His next performance was “The Canticles or Balades of Solomon, phraselyke declared in English metres,” printed by himself, 1549, 4to. He wrote also “The Funeralles of king Edward VI.” in verse, printed in 1560, 4to. But he is perhaps best known now by the share he had in the publication of “The Mirror of Magistrates,” originally projected by Thomas Sackville, first lord Buckhurst, and afterwards earl, of Dorset, who wrote the poetical preface, and the legend of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, and recommended the completion of the whole to our William Baldwin and George Ferrers. The time of his death is not specified, but he appears to have lived some years after the accession of queen Elizabeth.

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

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

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

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

In 1604, his father carried him to France, and was himself chosen professor of civil law at Angers. It is said that John attended his father’s lectures, and indeed it appears from many passages in his works, that he was conversant in that science which his father taught. In 1605, allured by some proffers of countenance and advancement, the sou returned to England, and remained there about a year. On his father’s death in 1606, he went to Paris, married Louisa Debonnaire, and soon after settled with his family in London. There he published the second part of his “Euphormion,” dedicated to that able and unpopular minister, the earl of Salisbury, in a style of gross flattery. The same writer, adds lord Haiies, who could discover no faults in Salisbury, aimed the shafts of his ridicule at Sully. Perhaps it was to conciliate favour with king James, that in this second part of “Euphormion,” he satirized tobacco and the puritans. In this year he also published a brief narrative of the gunpowder-plot, which he had composed a few weeks after the dfscovery of that treason, entitled “Series patefacti divinitus parricidii contra Maximum Regem regnumque Britanniae cogitati et instructi.” It is hard to say what could have induced him to withhold this narrative from the public, while the events which it relates were peculiarly interesting from their strange nature: and then, after so long an interval, to send it abroad without the addition of a single circumstance that was not already known throughout Europe.

, counsellor of state, marquis of Marolles upon the Seine, was ambassador from France to Switzerland under the reign of Lewis XIV. He had been chief deputy of monsieur de Chavigni, secretary of state, and assisted at the conferences at Munster, as a minister of the second rank, when endeavours were made to procure him the title of excellency, which did not succeed. He had been already named for the embassy in Switzerland, and served France with great integrity and address, during the whole course of this embassy. He wrote in Latin the History of France from the death of Lewis XIII. to the year 1652. This work was printed in 1671, and well received by the public. The style is excellent; affairs are related without flattery, and with great skill in the intrigues of the cabinet. The author has latinised his name by that of Labardicus. He had made a French translation of this history, which in the opinion of good judges was much inferior to the original Latin. As he was very learned in points of divinity, he wrote a book of Controversy in Latin, against the opinion of protestants concerning the Eucharist, which was not published. It is thought he destroyed it himself. He died in 1692, ninety years of age.

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

, a dissenting minister, but most noted for his zeal as a political writer, was born at Leeds in Yorkshire, and educated at the university of Glasgow, which he quitted in 1740, with very honourable testimonies to his learning and personal character, from the celebrated Hutchinson, and the mathematical professor Simpson. Where he passed his time after this, we know not; but in 1753, he was ordained pastor of the dissenting meeting at Pinners’ hall, Broad-street, London, a congregation, if we are not mistaken, of the Baptist persuasion. What he was as a divine, is not very clear, but tho whole bent of his studies was to defend and advance civil and religious liberty. This zeal led the famous Thomas Hollis, csq. to engage his assistance in editing some of the authors in the cause of freedom, whose works he wished to reprint with accuracy, and in an elegant form. Toland’s Life of Milton, Milton’s Iconoclastes, and afterwards an Edition of Milton’s prose works, were prepared and corrected by Mr. Baron. For this task he was well qualified, being an industrious collector of books on the subject of constitutional liberty, several of which he communicated to Mr. Hollis, with ms notes, or memorandums of his own in the blank pages, in which, we are told, he was not always in the right. Still he was indefatigable in searching for what he reckoned scarce and valuable liberty-tracts, many of which Mr. Hollis bought of him while he lived, and others he bought at the sale of his books after his death. Mr. Baron, we are likewise told, “only breathed, he did not live, in his own estimation, but whilst he was in someway or other lending his assistance to the glorious cause of religious and civil liberty. He wrote, he published, and republished perpetually in its defence. His character was one of the most artless and undisguised in the world. He was a man of real and great learning of fixed and steady integrity and a tender and sympathizing heart.” Yet with such a heart, we are told, not very consistently, that had he been mindful of his domestic concerns, he might have left a competency behind for his wife and family, but his whole soul was engaged in the cause, and he neglected every other concern. For this absurd and unjust train of feeling, we are referred to the natural impetuosity of his temper, and his eccentricities, which indicated occasional derangements of mind. With many virtues, it is added, and a few faults, which must have been of a peculiar kind, since “they only wanted the elevation of a higher station and a better fate to have assumed the form of virtues,” Mr. Baron passed the greatest part of his life in penurious circumstances, which neither abated the generous ardour, or overcame the laudable independency of iiis spirit. These virtues, “with their blessed effects,” were all he left behind him, for the consolation and support of a widow and three children. He died at his house at Blackheath, Feb. 22, 1768. His principal publication was a collection of what he called liberty-tracts, first published in 2 vols. 1752, under the title of “The pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken.” In 1767, he prepared another edition, enlarged to four volumes, to be published by subscription. In his advertisement he describes himself as a man “who has been made a sacrifice to proud bigots, religious rogues, and psalm-singing hypocrites:” and flatters himself that his subscribers will “enable him to express his utter contempt, and everlasting abhorrence of them all.” To this meek wish, he adds an assurance that the *' names of the subscribers shall not be printed." This edition appeared after his death, and was published for the benefit of his family, along with a-new edition of Milton’s Eikonoclastes, and his manuscript sermons and papers.

“This matter was made an occasion for bringing this severe censure on lord Barrington who was suspected to have formerly taken some steps very disagreeable to the reigning minister, sir Robert Walpole. His lordship was firmly attached to the administration during the time of lord Sunderland’s ministry, and employed all his credit and influence with the dissenters, which was then very great, to keep that body in the same interest but upon the death of lord Sunderlandj sir Robert Walpole, who, for many years during lord Sunderland’s administration, had opposed every public measure, succeeded him, as pi-hue minister, and could not forget the part which lord B irrington had acted again-st him.”

, D. D. a clergyman of Scotland, was born, in 1748, in the county of Berwick. He was educated in the university of Edinburgh, and for a short time was employed as private tutor to the sons of some gentlemen in Orkney, by whose patronage he became second minister of the royal burgh and ancient cathedral of Kirkwall; from whence, about 1796, he was translated to the island and parish of Shapinshay. Here he discharged the duties of the pastoral office with zeal, and the approbation of his parishioners. He first attracted public notice by the statistical account of his two parishes, published by sir John Sinclair in that work (“Statistical Reports”), which has done so much credit to the talents of the clergy of Scotland. Dr. Barry had also great merit in the education of youth, which he superintended in his parish and its neighbourhood with the happiest effect. Sensible of his zeal in this respect, the society for propagating Christian knowledge in Scotland, about the year 1800, chose him one of their members, and gave him a superintendence over their schools at Orkney. Soon after the university of Edinburgh conferred on him the degree of doctor in divinity. For some years before his death, he was employed in drawing up a work of great value and authenticity, entitled “The History of the Orkney Islands; in which is comprehended an account of their present as well as their ancient state, c.” 4to. This was published a short time after his death, which took place May 14, 1805.

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

Through the means of this patron, then become duke of Choiseul, and principal of the king’s ministers, in the room of cardinal de Bernis, our author, in 1758, was amply provided for, first hy pensions on the archbishopric of the Abbey and the treasure of St. Martin of Tours, and afterwards by the place of secretary-general of the Swiss; besides which he enjoyed a pension of 5000 livres on the Mercure. His attachment to his patron was highly honourable to him. In 1771, on the dismission of the duke de Choiseul, and his banishment to Chanteloup, our author did not hesitate to follow him: and when that minister was compelled to resign the office of general of the Swiss, he would have given up his place of secretary immediately, if his patron had not interfered. He went, however, to Paris, and offered the surrender of his brevet to the count d‘Affry, who refused to accept it, being willing to protect our author if he would give up his friend. This he, positively refused to do: upon which M. d’Affry, much to his honour, accepted the resignation, granting him 10,000 livres out of the annual profits of the place, and Barthelemi set off next day for Chanteloup.

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

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

, the first of a family of French Calvinists, celebrated for learning and piety, was the son of N. Basnage, minister of Norwich in England, and afterwards of Carentan in Normandy, and was born in 1580. After studying divinity, he succeeded his father as minister of Carentan, and remained in that sacred charge the whole of his life, although invited to Roan, and some other more considerable churches, and even permitted by the national synod of Charenton to change his situation. He used to say that his first church was his spouse, from which he ought not to be separated unless by death. At the abovementioned synod, he satin 1623, as deputy from the province of Normandy, but when named again in 1631, by the same province, the king forbad his going to the synod, and deprived him of his church, until the remonstrances of the assembly induced his majesty to restore him. In 1637, he presided as moderator of the national synod of Alenc.on, and contributed very essentially to preserve moderation during a crisis peculiarly important to the reformed church of France. In 1644, being chosen assistant moderator to the national synod of Charenton, he was deputed by them to the queen-dowager, who received him with marks of favour. He entered into the usual controversies with Lescrivain, Draconis, and other adherents of the church of Rome. His principal work, “Treatise on the Church,” printed at Rochelle in 1612, was much esteemed, and he left behind him, but in an imperfect state, a work against worshipping the Virgin Mary. He died in 1652, after having been in the ministry fifty-one years. He is frequentlymentioned in Quick’s Synodicum, having been deputed to king James I. and having gone to Scotland, where he served the churches in matters pertaining to their temporal interest. King James’s letter of leave styles him, “deputy from all the churches of France.”

, eldest son of the above, was born in 1610, and became minister of Bayeux, and was called to suffer persecution in his old age, being thrown into the prison at Havre de Grace, when he was seventyfive years of age. On the revocation of the edict of Nantz he was set at liberty, and took refuge in Holland, where he probably passed the remainder of his clays in quiet. He died at Zutphen in 1691. His son, Samuel Basnage de Flotmanvllle, succeeded him in his congregation at Bayeux, but was forced to leave France in 1685, and retire to Zutphen, with the reputation of being one of the ablest of the French reformed clergy. He wrote “Exercitations on Baronius,” beginning where Casaubon left off; but changing his purpose, he turned his work into the shape of Ecclesiastical Annals, published in 1706, under the title of ' Annales politico-ecclesiastici," 3 vols. fol. and coming down to the reign of Phocas. This work is, undoubtedly, useful, but has been superseded by that of James Basnage, of whom we are soon to speak. Anthony died in 1721.

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

, colonel-general of the Swiss guards, and marshal de France in 1622, was born in Lorraine of a family of distinction, April 22, 1579. He served in the war of the Savoy in 1600, and in 1603 went into Hungary, where he was solicited to serve under the emperor, but he preferred the service of France. In 1617 he commanded the ordnance at the siege of ChateauPorcien, and a short time after was wounded at the siege of Rhetel. He served afterwards, as marshal of the camp, at the battle of Pont-de-Ce, the sieges of St. John d'Angeli, of Montpellier, &c. In 1622, when made a marshal of France, he was colonel of the Swiss, and at the same time sent as ambassador extraordinary to Spain. In 1625 he served in the same capacity in Swisserland, and in 1626 in England. He was also at the siege of Rochelle, and, as on all other occasions, was distinguished for skill and bravery, but the cardinal de Richelieu, who had to complain of his caustic tongue, and who dreaded all those by whom he thought he might one day be eclipsed, caused him to be imprisoned in the Bastille in 1631. Bassompierre had foreseen the ascendancy which the capture of Rochelle, the bulwark of the Protestants, would give to that minister; and therefore was heard to say on that occasion: “You will see that we shall be fools enough to take Rochelle.” He passed the time of his confinement in reading and writing. One day as he was busily turning over the leaves of the Bible, Malleville asked him what he was looking for “A passage that I cannot find,” returned the marechal, “a way to get out of prison.” Here also he composed his “Memoirs,” printed at Cologne in 1665, 3 vols. Like the generality of this sort of books, it contains some curious anecdotes, and a great many trifles. They begin at 1598, and terminate in 1631. His detention lasted twelve years, and it was not till after the death of Richelieu that he regained his liberty. There is also by him a “Relation of his embassies,” much esteemed, 1665 and 1668, 2 vols. 12mo; likewise “Remarks on the history of Louis XIII.” by Dupleix, in 12mo, a work somewhat too satirical, but curious. Bassompierre lived till the 12th of October 1646, when he was found dead in his bed. He was a great dealer in bons mots, which were not always delicate. On his coming out of the Bastille, as he was become extremely corpulent, for want of exercise, the queen asked him, “Quand il accoucheroit?” “Quand j'aurais trouve une sage femme,” answered he; which will not bear a translation, as the wit turns on the double meaning of sage femme, which signifies either a midwife, or a sensible woman, Louis XI II. asked him his age, almost at the same time: he made himself no more than fifty. The king seeming surprised: “Sir,” answered Bassompierre, I subtract ten years passed in the Bastille, because I did not employ them in your service.“Although he had been employed in embassies, negociation was not his principal talent; but he possessed other qualities’that qualified him for an ambassador. He was a very handsome man, had great presence of mind, was affable, lively, and agreeable, very polite and generous. After his liberation from the Bastille, the duchess of Aiguillon, niece of the cardinal de Richelieu, offered him five hundred thousand livres to dispose of as he should think proper:” Madam,“said Bassompierre, as be thanked her,” your uncle has done me too much harm, to allow me to receive so much good of you." he spoke all the languages of Europe with the same facility as his own. Play and women were his two predominant passions. Being secretly informed that he was to be arrested, he rose before day, and burnt upwards of six thousand letters, which he had received from ladies of the city and the court.

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

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

In 1640, he was invited to be minister at Kidderminster, which he accepted; and had been here two years when the civil war broke out. He was a favourer of the parliament, which exposed him to some inconveniences, and obliged him to retire to Gloucester; but being strongly solicited, he returned to Kidderminster. However, not finding himself safe in this place, he again quitted it, and took up his residence at Coventry, where he lived in perfect quiet, preaching once every Sunday to the garrison, and once to the town’s people, and contending warmly against the Anabaptists. After Naseby fight, he was appointed chaplain to colonel Whalley’s regiment, and was present at several sieges, but was never in any engagement, although a story was afterwards raised that he had killed a man in cool blood, and robbed him of a medal. This was first told by Dr. Boreman of Trinity college, Cambridge, and became very current until Mr. Baxter refuted it in his “Catholic Communion,” 1684. In 1647 he was obliged to leave the army, by a sudden illness, and retired to sir Thomas Rouse’s, where he continued a long time in a languishing state of health. He afterwards returned to Kidderminster, where he continued to preach with great success. He is said to have impeded, as far as was in his power, the taking of the covenant, and what was called the engagement, and hoth spoke and wrote against the army marching to Scotland to oppose Charles II. And when Cromwell gained the superiority, Mr. Baxter expressed his dissatisfaction to his measures, hut did not think proper to preach against him from the pulpit: once indeed he preached Before the protector, and made use of the following text: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions amongst you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” He levelled his discourse against the divisions and distractions of the church. A while after Cromwell sent to speak with him: when he began a long and serious speech to him of God’s providence in the change of the government, and how God had owned it, and what great things had been done at home and abroad in the peace with Spain and Holland. Mr. Baxter told him, “It was too great condescension to acquaint him so fully with all these matters, which were above him: but that the honest people of the land took their ancient monarchy to be a blessing, and not an evil; and humbly craved his patience, that he might ask him, how they had forfeited that blessing, and unto whom that forfeiture was made r” Upon this question Cromwell became angry, and told him, “There was no forfeiture, but God had changed it as pleased him;” and then he reviled the parliament, which thwarted him, and especially by name four or five members, Mr. Baxter’s particular acquaintances, whom he presumed to defend against the protec tor’s passion. A few days after he sent for him again, under pretence of asking him his opinion about liberty of conscience; at which time also he made a long tedious speech, which took up so much time, that Mr. Baxter desired to offer his sentiments in writing, which he did, but says, he questions whether Cromwell read them.

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

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

Some time after Mr. Bayle’s conversion, Mr. Naudis de Bruguiere, a young gentleman of great wit and penetration, and a relation of his, happened to come to Toulouse, where he lodged in the same house with him. They disputed warmly about religion, and after having pushed the arguments on both sides with great vigour, they used to examine them over again coolly. These familiar disputes often puzzled Mr. Bayle, and made him distrust several opinions of the church of Rome; and he began to suspect that he had embraced them too precipitately. Some time after Mr. de Pradals came to Toulouse, whom Mr. Bayle’s father had desired to visit him, hoping he would in a little time gain his confidence; and this gentleman so far succeeded, that Bayle one day owned to him his having been too hasty in entering into the church of Rome, since he now found several of her doctrines contrary to reason and scripture. August 1670, he departed secretly from Toulouse, where he had staid eighteen months, and retired to Mazeres in the Lauragais, to a country-house of Mr. du Vivie. His elder brother came thither the day after, with some ministers of the neighbourhood; and next day Mr. Rival, minister of Saverdun, received his abjuration in presence of his elder brother and two other ministers, after which they obliged him instantly to set out for Geneva. Soon after his arrival here, Mr. de Normandie, a syndic of the republic, having heard of his great character and abilities, employed him as tutor to his sons. Mr. Basnage at that time lodged with this gentleman, and it was here Mr. Bayle commenced his acquaintance with him. When he had been about two years at Geneva, at Mr. Basnage’s recommendation he entered into the family of the count de Dhona, lord of Copet, as tutor to his children; but not liking the solitary life he led in this family, he left it, and went to Roan in Normandy, where he was employed as tutor to a merchant’s son; but he soon grew tired of this place also. His great ambition was to be at Paris; he went accordingly thither in March 1675, and, at the recommendation of the marquis de Ruvigny, was chosen tutor to messieurs de Beringhen, brothers to M. de Beringhen, counsellor in the parliament of Paris.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, was the immediate successor of St. Patrick in that see, anno 455 though it must be confessed, that this is a point which lias afforded some controversy. Writers differ as to his name: some call him Stephen, some Beneneus, others Beona, and by an Irish termination of the word Benin, in Latin Benignus. It is probable that St. Patrick baptized him by the name of Stephen, and that he obtained the name of Benin from his sweet disposition, and his great affection to St. Patrick, the word bin, in the Irish language, signifying sweet; and that from thence the other names flowed. He was the son of Sesgnen, a man of wealth and power in Meath, who, in the war in 433, hospitably entertained St. Patrick in his journey from the port of Colp, where he landed, to the court of king Leogair at Tarah, and, with his whole family, embraced Christianity and received baptism. The youth grew so fond of his father’s guest, that he could not be separated from his company. St. Patrick took him away with him at his departure, and taught him his first rudiments of learning and religion: Benin profited greatly under such a master, and became afterwards a man eminent for piety and virtue, whom St. Patrick thought worthy to fill the see of Armagh, which he resigned to him in the year 455. Benin died in the year 468, on the ninth of November, having also resigned his see three years before his death. The writers of the dark ages, however different they are from one another in other particulars, yet in the main agree as to the succession of St. Benin in the government of the see of Armagh, but there is some discordance among them as to the place of his death and burial, which we shall not attempt to reconcile; some contending he died and was buried at Armagh, and others at Glastonbury. The following writings are ascribed to him 1 “A book partly in Latin, and partly in Irish, on the virtues and miracles of St. Patrick” to which Jocelin confesses he was indebted. 2. “An Irish Poem, written on the Conversion of the people of Dublin to the Christian Faith.” 3. “The Minister Book of reigns,” called by some Leabhar Bening, or Bening’s Book, and by others Leabhar na Geart, qu. d. the book of Genealogy, which is ascribed to him by Nicolson.

, a dissenting minister of considerable note in the beginning of the last century, was born at Temple-hall, in the hamlet of Whellesburgh in Leicestershire, in 1674; and educated, it is believed, at the neighbouring free-school of Market Bosworth. After going through a course of theological studies, he was first settled as a preacher at a meeting-house, erected in 1710, on Temple Farm, the place of his nativity, from which he was called to succeed Dr. Gilpin at Newcastle upon Tyne, where he continued until his death, Sept. 1, 1726, exercising his ministerial functions with success and popularity, and acquiring a high character among hi* brethren for his talents and piety. He wrote several books, 1. “A memorial of the Reformation,” 1721, 8vo, an historical sketch of that event, full of prejudice against the church of England. 2. “A Defence” of the same, 1723, 8vo. 3. “Discourses on Popery,” 1714, 8vo. 4. “Irenicum, or a review of some late controversies about the Trinity, &c.” 1722, 8vo. Of this work one of his biographers says, that, “like many other good men, he was not aware of the pernicious effects of Arianism, and entertained a more favourable idea of the sentiments of some of the dissenting ministers than they deserved. The general principles of the book are good, but not suitably applied.” 5. “Sermons on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.” But his most popular work, and which has gone through many editions, is his “Christian Oratory,” which the biographer just quoted calls the “Dissenters’ Whole Duty of Man.” Job Orton, a very emiitent divine among the dissenters, appears by one of his letters, to have read this book at least ten times.

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

, the son of a Calvinist, who was keeper of the hotel de laTremouille, was born in 1640. In his youth he appears not to have been exempt from dissipation, but the love of study predominated, and after the regular course he was chosen minister of Alenc.on. While there, he had a dispute with father Larue, a Jesuit, on the pretended falsifications in the Geneva translation of the Bible, and the celebrated Huet took his part so far as to blame the intemperance of this Jesuit. The letters which passed on this occasion may be seen in the first volume of a collection published by the abbe Tilladet. On the revocation of the edict of Nantes, Benoit went to Delft, and became minister of the Walloon church, in which situation he remained until his death in 1728. Much of this long life was embittered by his marrying a woman of a mean, sordid, and irritable temper, and some part of it was disturbed by controversy. Besides the dispute already mentioned, he had another with Jacquelot, respecting the union of the two churches; one likewise with Le Clerc, on the first chapter of the gospel of St. John, and one with Van der Honert, on the style of the New Testament. His principal works were, 1. “Histoire de Pedit de Nantes,” Delft, 1693 95, 5 vols. 4to. 2. “Histoire et Apologie de la retraite des pasteurs a cause de la persecution,” Francfort, 1687, 12mo. 3. “Defense” of this apology against d'Artis, ibid. 1688, 12mo. 4. “Melanges de remarques critiques, historiques, philosophiques, et theologiques,” against some of Toland’s writings, Delft, 1712, 8vo. 5. “Sermons et des Lettres.”

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

He arrived on the 8th of August 1772, in Champagne, where the duke d'Aiguillon, the minister of France, then was “and he- received me,” says the count, “with cordiality and distinction, and proposed to me to enter the service of his master, with the offer of a regiment of infantry which I accepted, on condition that his majesty would be phased to employ me in forming establishments beyond the Cape.” In consequence of this condition, the duke his patron proposed to him from his majesty to form an establishment on the island of Madagascar, upon the same footing as he had proposed upon the island of Formosa, the whole scheme of which is published in his memoirs of his own life, and discovers vast knowledge of the interests of commerce, and a deep insight into the characters of men.

To a romantic mind and adventurous spirit such as the count possessed, a proposal like the present was irresistible and after receiving the most positive assurances from the French ministry, that he should constantly receive from them the regular supplies necessary to promote the success of his undertaking, he set sail on the 22d of March, 1773, from Port L‘Orient for Madagascar, under the treacherous auspices of recommendatory letters to Mr. De Ternay, governor of the isle of France, where he landed with a company of between four and five hundred men on the 22d of September following. Instead, however, of receiving the promised assistance at this place, the governor endeavoured by every means in his power to thwart the success of his enterprise and no other step remained for him, to take, than that of hastening for Madagascar. He accordingly set sail in the Des Torges, a vessel badly provided with those stores that were most likely to be of use, and came to an anchor at Madagascar on the 14th of February 1774. The opposition which he met from the several nations placed him in a dangerous situation but he at length, with great difficulty, formed an establishment on Foul Point, entered into a commercial intercourse, and formed treaties of friendship and alliance with the greater part of the inhabitants of this extensive island. But whether the count, whose commission only extended to open a friendly intercourse with the natives, was abandoned by the minister from the cruelty of neglect, whilst he was in the regular execution of the ’commands of his sovereign, or because his exorbitant spirit and ambition began to soar to more than an ordinary pitch of power and greatness, the following curious and extraordinary narrative of his subsequent conduct will manifestly shew.

The island of Madagascar, as is well known, is of vast extent, and is inhabited by a great variety of different nations. Among these is the nation of Sambarines, formerly governed by a chief of the name and titles of Rohandrian Ampansacab6 Ramini Larizon whose only child, a lovely daughter, had, it seems, been taken prisoner, and sold as a captive and from this circumstance, upon the death of Ramini, his family was supposed to be extinct. “On the 2d of February,” says the count, “M. Corbi, one of my most confidential officers, with the interpreter, informed me, that the old negress Susanna, whom I had brought from the isle of France, and who in her early youth had been sold to the French, and had lived upwards of fifty years at the isle of France, had reported, that her companion, the daughter of Ramini, having likewise been made a prisoner, was sold to foreigners, and that she had certain marks that I was her son. This officer likewise represented to me, that in consequence of her report the Sambarine nation had held several cabars to declare me the heir of Ramini, and consequently proprietor of the province of Manahar, and successor to the title of Ampansacabe, or supreme chief of the nation. This information appeared to me of the greatest consequence, and I determined to take the advantage of it, to conduct that brave and generous nation to a civilized state. But as I had no person to whom I could entruLo the secret of my mind, I lamented how blind the minister of Versailles was to the true interests of France. On the same day I interrogated Susanna on the report she had spread concerning my birth. The good old woman threw herself at my knees, and excused herself by confessing that she had acted entirely upon a conviction of the truth. For she said that she had known my mother, whose physiognomy resembled mine, and that she had herself been inspired in a dream by the Zahanhar to publish the secret. Her manner of speaking convinced me that she really believed what she said. J therefore embraced her, and told her that I had reasons for keeping the secret respecting my birth; but that nevertheless if she had any confidential friends she might acquaint them with it. At these words she arose, kissed my hands, and declared that the Sambarine nation was informed of the circumstances, and that the Rohandrian Raffangour waited only for a favourable moment to acknowledge the blood of Ramini.”

The fallacy to which the old woman thus gave evidence, feeble as the texture of it may appear to penetrating minds, was managed by the count with such profound dexterity and address, that he was declared the heir of Ramini, invested with the sovereignty of the nation, received ambassadors and formed alliances in the capacity of a king with other tribes, made war and peace, led his armies in person into the field, and received submission from his vanquished enemies. In this situation it is not wonderful that he should forget the allegiance he was under to the king of France; and, representing to his subjects the difficulties he had experienced from the neglect of the minister, and the probable advantages that might result by forming a new and national compact either with that or some other powerful kingdom in Europe, he persuaded them to permit him to return to Europe for that purpose and “on the llth of October, 1776,” says the count, “I took my leave to go on board and at this single mofnent of my life I experienced what a heart is capable of suffering, when torn from a beloved and affectionate society to which it is devoted.”

, a learned divine, was born at Bremen, September 3, 1737, and died atDuisbourg, March 3, 1800. He was distinguished as a theologian and philosopher, and a man of very extensive learning. He was eminently skilled in the Oriental languages, particularly the Arabic, and for many years acquired much fame by his lectures on the holy scriptures, in the university of Duisbourg. He published, 1. “Specimen animadversionum philologkarum ad selecta Veteris Testamenti loca,” Leyden, 1761, 8vo. 2. “Symbolse litterariae Duisburgenses ad incrementum scientiarum a. variis amicis amice collatae, ex Haganis factre Duisburgenses,” vol. I. 1783; vol. II. 1784 6. If this be the same work with his “Museum Duisburgense,” it is a sequel to the “Musaeum Haganum,” by the learned professor Barkey, minister of the German church at the Hague.

In 1725 he published, and it has since been re-printed in his miscellaneous tracts, “A proposal for converting the savage Americans to Christianity, by a college to be erected in the Summer Islands, otherwise called the Isles of Bermuda” a scheme which had employed his thoughts for three or four years past; and for which he was disposed to make many personal sacrifices. As what he deemed necessary steps he offered to resign all his preferment, and to dedicate the remainder of his life to instructing the American youth, on a stipend of 100l. yearly; he prevailed with three junior fellows of Trinity college, Dublin, to give up all their prospects at home, and to exchange their fellowships for a settlement in the Atlantic ocean at 40l. a year he procured his plan to be laid before George I. who commanded sir Robert Walpole to lay it before the commons and further granted him a charter for erecting a college in Bermuda, to consist of a president and nine fellow?:, who were obliged to maintain and educate Indian scholars atlO/. a year each he obtained a grant from the commons of a sum, to be determined by the king and accordingly 20,000l. was promised by the minister, for the purchase of lands, and erecting the college. Trusting to these promising appearances, he married the daughter of John Forster, esq. speaker of the Irish house of commons, the 1st of August 3728; and actually set sail in September following for Rhode Island, which lay nearest to Bermuda, taking with him his wife, a single lady, and two gentlemen of fortune. Yet the scheme entirely failed, and Berkeley was obliged to return, after residing near two years at Newport. The reason given is, that the minister never heartily embraced the project, and the money was turned into another channel. During his residence in America, when he was not employed as an itinerant preacher, which business could not be discharged in the winter, he preached every Sunday at Newport, where was the nearest episcopal church, and to that church he gave an organ. When the season and his health permitted, he visited the continent, not only in its outward skirts, but penetrated far into its recesses. The same generous desire of advancing the best interests of mankind which induced him to cross the Atlantic, uniformly actuated him whilst America was the scene of his ministry. The missionaries from thfe English society, who resided within about a hundred miles of Rhode Island, agreed among themselves to hold a sort of synod at Dr. Berkeley’s house there, twice in a year, in order to enjor the advantages of his advice and exhortations. Four of these meetings were accordingly held. One of the principal points which the doctor then pressed upon his fellowlabourers, was the absolute necessity of conciliating, by all innocent means, the affection of their hearers, and also of their dissenting neighbours. His own example, indeed, very eminently enforced his precepts upon this head for it is scarcely possible to conceive a conduct more uniformly kind, tender, beneficent, and liberal than his xvas. He seemed to have only one wish in his heart, which was to alleviate misery, and to diffuse happiness. Finding, at length, that the fear of offending the dissenters at home, and of inclining the colonies to assert independency, had determined the minister to make any use, rather than the best use, of the money destined for, and promised to St. Paul’s college, the dean of Derry took a reluctant leave of a country, where the name of Berkeley was long and justly revered more than that of any European whatever. At his departure, he gave a farm of a hundred acres, which 1,-jy round his house, and his house itself, as a benefaction to Yale and Harvard colleges: and the value of that land, then not insignificant because cultivated, became afterwards very considerable. He gave, of his own property, to one of these colleges, and to several missionaries, books to the amount of five hundred pounds. To the other college he made a large donation of books purchased by others, and trusted to his disposal.

Having continued some years at Edinburgh, Mr. Berkenhout went to the university of Leyden, where he took the degree of doctor of physic, in 1765, as we learn from his “Dissertatio medica inauguralis de Podagra,” dedicated to his relation baron de Bielfeldt. Returning to England, Dr. Berkenhout settled at Isleworth in Middlesex, and in 1766, published his “Pharmacopoeia Medici,” 12mo, the third edition of which was printed in 1782. In 1769, he published “Outlines of the Natural History of Great Britain and Ireland,” vol. I.; vol. II. appeared in 1770, and vol. III. in 1771. The encouragement this work met with afforded at least a proof that something of the kind was wanted. The three volumes were reprinted together in. 1773, and in 1788 were again published in 2 vols. 8vo, under the title of “Synopsis of the Natural History of Great Britain, &c.” In 1771, he published “Dr. Cadogan’s dissertation on the Gout, examined and refuted” and in 1777, “Biographia Literaria, or a Biographical History of Literature; containing the lives of English, Scotch, and Irish authors, from the dawn of letters in these kingdoms to the present time, chronologically and classically arranged,” 4to, vol.1, the only volume which appeared. The lives are very short, and the author frequently introduces sentiments hostile to religious establishments and doctrines, which could not be very acceptable to English readers. The dates and facts, however, are given with great accuracy, and in many of the lives he profited by the assistance of George Steevens, esq. the celebrated commentator on Shakspeare. This was followed by “A treatise on Hysterical Diseases, translated from the French.” In 1778, he was sent by government with certain commissioners to treat with America, but neither the commissioners nor their secretary were suffered by the congress to proceed further than New- York. Dr. Berkenhout, however, found means to penetrate as far as Philadelphia, where the congress was then assembled. He appears to have remained in that city for some time without molestation but at last on suspicion that he was sent by lord North for the pui'pose of tampering with some of their leading members, he was seized and committed to prison. How long he remained a state prisoner, or by what means he obtained his liberty, we are not informed but we find from the public prints, that he rejoined the commissioners at New York, and returned with them to England. For this temporary sacrifice of the emoluments of his profession, and in consideration of political services, he obtained a pension. In 1780, he published his “Lucubrations on Ways and Means, inscribed to lord North,” proposing certain taxes, some of which were adopted by that minister, and some afterwards by Mr. Pitt. Dr. Berkenhout’s friends at that time appear to have taken some pains to point him out as an inventor of taxes. His next work was “An essay en the Bite of a -Mad Dog, in which the claim to infallibility of the principal preservative remedies against the Hydrophobia is examined.” In the year following Dr. Berkenhout published his “Symptomatology” a book which is too universally known to require any recommendation. In 1788, appeared “First lines of the theory and practice of Philosophical Chemistry,” dedicated to Mr. Eden, afterwards lord Auckland, whom the doctor accompanied to America. Of this book it is sufficient to say, that it exhibits a satisfactory display of the present state of chemistry. His last publication was “Letters on Education, to his son at Oxford,” 1791, 2 vols. 12mo but in 1779, he published a continuation of Dr. Campbell’s “Lives of the Admirals,” 4 vols. 8vo and once printed “Proposals for a history of Middlesex, including London,” 4 vols. fol. which, as the design dropt, were never circulated. There is also reason to suppose him the author of certain humorous publications, in prose and verse, to which he did not think fit to prefix his name, and of a translation from the Swedish language, of the celebrated count Tessin’s letters to the late king of Sweden. It is dedicated to the prince of Wales, his present majesty of Great Britain and was, we believe, Mr. Berkenhout’s first publication. He died the 3d of April 1791, aged 60.

, professor of philosophy and mathematics, and minister of the Walloon church at Leyden, was born Sept. 1, 1658, at Nions in Dauphine. He received the rudiments of his education in a protestant academy, at Die in Dauphine, and went afterwards to Geneva, where he studied philosophy, and acquired a critical knowledge of the Hebrew language under the professor Michael Turretin. He returned to France in 1679, and was chosen minister of Venterol, a village in Dauphine. Some time after he was removed to the church of Vinsobres in the same province but the persecutions raised agaiitst the protestants in France having obliged him to leave his native country, he retired to Geneva in 1683, and as he did not think himself sufficiently secure there, he went to Lausanne, where he remained until the revocation of the edict of Nantes. He then proceeded to Holland, where he was appointed one of the pensionary ministers of Ganda, and taught philosophy but having married after he came to Holland, and the city of Ganda not being very populous, he had not a sufficient number of scholars to maintain his family; and therefore obtained leave to reside at the Hague, but went to Ganda to preach in his turn, which was about four times a year. About the same time Le Clerc, who was his relation, procured him a small supply from the town of Tergow, as preacher; and at the Hague he farther improved his circumstances by teaching philosophy, belles-lettres, and mathematics. Before he went to live at the Hague, he had published a kind of political state of Europe, entitled “Histoire abregee de l'Europe,” &c, The work was begun in July 1686, and continued monthly till December 1688; making five volumes in 12mo. In 1692, he began his “Lettres Historiques,” containing an account of the most important transactions in Europe, with reflections, which was also published monthly, till 1698: it was afterwards continued by other hands, and contains a great many volumes. Mr. Le Clerc having left off his “Bibliotheque Universelle,” in 1691, Mr. Bernard wrote the greatest part of the 20th volume, and by himself carried on the five following, to the year 1693; but as the French critics think, not with equal ability and spirit. In 1699, he collected and published “Actes et negotiations de la Paix de Ryswic,” four vols. 12mo a new edition of this collection was published in 1707, five vols. 12mo. He did not put his name to any of these works, nor to the general collection of the treaties of peace, which he publ.shed in 1700; and which consists of the treaties, contracts, acts of guaranty, &c. betwixt the powers of F.urope, four vols. fol. The first contains the preface, and the treaties made since the year 536 to 1.500. The second consists of Mr. Amelot‘de la Houssay’s historical and political reflections, and the treaties from. 150’-) to 1600. The third includes the treaties from 1601 to 1661 and the fourth, those from 1661 to 1700, with a general alphabetical index to the whole. He prefixed his name, however, to his continuation of Bayle’s “Nouvelles de la llepublique des Lettres,” which was begun in 1698, and continued till December 1710. This undertaking engaged him in some disputes, particularly with one Mr. de Vallone, a monk, who having embraced the reformed religion, wrote some metaphysical books concerning predestination. Mr. Bernard having given an account of one of these books, the author was so displeased with it, that he printed a libel against Mr. Bernard, and gave it about privately amongst his friends. He was also engaged in a long dispute with Mr. Bayle upon the two following questions 1. Whether the general agreement of all nations in. favour of a deity, be a good proof of the existence of a deity? 2. Whether atheism be worse than idolatry?

, a learned Dutch physician, was born in 1718, at Berlin, where his father, Gabriel Bernard, was a minister of the reformed church. His son came to Holland to study physic and determined to remain there. Having an extraordinary fondness for the study of Greek, in which he had made great progress, he wished to render this knowledge subservient to his profession, and with that view projected a new edition of the lesser Greek physicians, whose works were become very scarce and dear. He began first at Leyden, in 1743, with Demetrius Pepagomenus on the gout; and next year published an introduction to anatomy by an anonymous author, and a nomenclature of the parts of the human body by Hypatius, both in one volume. In 1745, he published Palladius on fevers, and an inedited Chemical glossary, with some extracts, likewise inedited from the different poetical chemists. The same year appeared his edition of Psellus on the virtues of stones. In 1749, he published Synesius on fevers, hitherto inedited, and wrote, in the ninth volume of Dorville’s “Miscellaneae Observationes Novae,” an account of the variations of a manuscript copy of the lexicons or glossaries of Erotian, and Galen. In 1754, when Neaulme, the Dutch bookseller, designed a new edition of Longus’s romance, Bernard read the proofs, and introduced some important corrections of the text. As he did not put his name to this edition, Messrs. Boden, Dutens, and Villoison, who were also editors of Longus after him, knew no other way of referring to him than as the “Paris editor,” being deceived hy Neaulrne’s dating the work from Paris, instead of Amsterdam, where it was printed. In 1757, he superintended an edition of Thomas Magister, but his professional engagements not allowing him sufficient leisure, the preface was written by Oudendorp. From this time, Bernard having ceased to write, and having retired to Arnheim, was completely forgot until, says the editor of the Biog. Universelle, his death was announced by Saxius in 1790 but this seems a mistake. Saxius gives an account of him, as of some other living authoi’s, but leaves his death blank. Bernard, however, to contradict such a rumour, or, as his biographer expresses himself, in order to “show some signs of life,” published a Greek fragment on the dropsy. It was his purpose next to publish Theophilus Nonnus, “De curatione morborum.” This work, on which he had bestowed the labour of many years, and which is one of his best editions, was published at Gotha in 1794, a year after his death. A short time before this event, he sent to the society of arts and sciences at Utrecht, remarks on some Greek authors, which appeared in the first volume of the “Acta Litteraria” of that society. In 1795, Dr. Gruner published various letters and pieces of criticism, which Bernard, who was his intimate friend, had sent to him, under the title of “Bernardi Reliquiae medico-criticae.” Several very learned and curious letters from Bernard were also published in Reiske’s Memoirs, Leipsic, 1783.

Bernier was born at Angers, but in what year is not known. He first studied medicine, and took a doctor’s degree at Montpellier, and then began to indulge his taste for travelling. In 1654, he went to Syria, and thence to Egypt. After remaining more than a year at Grand Cairo, he was attacked by the plague, but embarked some time after at Suez, for India, where he resided twelve years, eight of them as physician to the emperor Aureng Zeb. The favourite minister of that prince, the emir Danichmend, a friend of science and literature, patronized him, and took him to Cachemire. On his return Bernier published his voyages and philosophical works. In 1685 he visited England, and died at Paris, Sept. 22, 1688. His works are, 1. “Histoire de la derniere revolution des etats du Grand-Mogul, c.” 4 vols. 1670, 1671, 12mo. This work procured him the name of the Mogul. It has been often reprinted under the title of “Voyages de Francois Bernier, &c.” and translated into English, 1671, 1675, 8vo. 2. “Abrege de la philosophic de Gassendi,” Lyons, 1678, 8 vols. 12mo, and 1684, 7 vols. His own philosophy inclines to the Epicurean. 3. “Memoire sur le quietisrne des Indes” “Extraits de diverses pieces envoyees pour etrcnnes par M. Bernier a Madame de la Sabliere,” and “Eloge de M. Chapelle,” inserted in the Journal de Savans, 1688. 4. “Traite du libre etdu volontaire,” Amst. 1685, 12mo, and some other papers in the literary Journals.

Although he had refused to come to France, Louis XIV. was still desirous to avail himself of his talents, as well as to pay him a compliment, by consulting him on the restoration of the Louvre. His minister, Colbert, accordingly sent him the plans of that palace, and requested him to put upon paper “some of those admirable thoughts which were so familiar to him.” Bernini immediately made a sketch for the new building, which afforded so much satisfaction to the king, that he wrote to inform him of the very great desire he had to see, and become acquainted, with so illustrious a character, provided this did not interfere with his engagements to the pope, or his personal convenience. Such condescension our artist could no longer resist; and although now in his sixty-eighth year, departed from Rome, in 1665, with one of his sons, two of his pupils, and a numerous suite. No artist ever travelled with so much pomp or pleasure. All the princes through whose dominions he passed loaded him with presents. In France he was received and complimented by the magistrates at the gates of each city, and that even at Lyons, where it was customary to restrict such a compliment to princes of the blood only. As he approached Paris, the king’s maitre d'hotel was sent to meet him, with instructions to do the honours of receiving him and conducting him every where. This gentleman, M. de Chautelon, was so sensible of the importance of his commission, that he wrote a joutnal of all his proceedings while in company with Bernini, a curious work still preserved in manuscript. On his arrival, our artist was conducted to a hotel prepared for him, and where Colbert visited him as representative of the king, to whom he was afterwards introduced at St. Germains, received with great honour, had a long conversation with the king, and, as well as his son, was admitted to the minister’s table.

, count of Lyons, and a cardinal and statesman of France, was born at MarceJ de l'Ardeche, May 22, 1715, of a noble and ancient family, but not very rich which circumstance induced his friends to bring him up to the church, as the most likely profession in which he might rise. In this they were not disappointed, as he gradually attained the highest ecclesiastical dignities. When young he was placed at the seminary of St. Sulpice in Paris, and after remaining there some years, he appeared in the world with every personal accomplishment that could introduce him into notice; but his morals appear to have been for some time an obstruction to promotion. The cardinal de Fleury, then prime-minister, who had the patronage of all favours, and who had promised him his countenance, thinking him of a spirit too worldly for the church, sent for him and gave him a lecture on his dissipated conduct, concluding with these words “You can have no expectations of promotion, while I live,” to which the young abbé“Bernis, making a profound bow, replied,” Sir, I can wait" Some think this bon mot, which became very current, was not original but it is certain that Bernis remained for a long while in a state not far removed from poverty, and yet contrived, by means of strict parsimony, to make a decent figure at the houses to which he was invited. Being a writer of verses, and consequently a dealer in compliments, he was always acceptable, and at length by madame Pompadour’s interest, was introduced to Louis XV. The good effects of this, at first, were only an apartment in the Tuileries, to which his patroness added the furniture, and a pension of fifteen hundred livres yet it soon led to greater matters. Having been appointed ambassador to Venice, he was remarked to have acquired the good opinion and confidence of a state rather difficult to please in appointments of this description, and of this they gave him a strong proof, in a contest they had with pope Benedict XIV. who appointed Bernis as his negociator. On this occasion the state of Venice approved the choice, the consequence of which was, that Bernis effected a reconciliation to the entire satisfaction of both parties. On his return, he became a great favourite at court, acquired considerable influence, and at length, being admitted into the council, was appointed foreign minister. But in this situation he was either unskilful or unfortunate the disasters of the seven years war, and the peace of 1763, were laid to his charge but according to Duclos, he was less to blame than his colleagues, and it is certain that in some instances he has been unjustly censured. It was said, in particular, that he argued for a declaration of war against Prussia, because Frederick the Great had ridiculed his poetry in the following line,

, minister of state in Denmark, was born at Hanover, May 13, 1712. Some relations he happened to have in Denmark invited him thither, where his talents were soon noticed, and employed by the government. After having been ambassador in several courts, he was placed by Frederick V. at the head of foreign affairs. During the seven years war (1755 62) he preserved a system of strict neutrality, which proved eminently serviceable to the commerce and internal prosperity of Denmark. In 1761, when the emperor of Russia, Peter III. threatened Denmark with war, and inarched his troops towards Holstein, Bernstorf exerted the utmost vigour in contriving means for the defence of the country, and the“sudden death of Peter having averted this storm, he employed his skill in bringing about an alliance between the courts of Copenhagen and St. Petersburgh. In 1767 he succeeded in concluding a provisional treaty, by which the dukedom of Holstein, which Paul, the grand duke of Russia, inherited by the death of Peter III. was exchanged for Oldenburgh, which belonged to the king of Denmark. This finally took place in 1773, and procured an important addition to the Danish territories. Soon after Bernstorf put a stop to the long contest that had been maintained respecting the house of Holstein having a right of sovereignty over Hamburgh, and that city vVas declared independent on condition of not claiming repayment of the money the city had advanced to the king of Denmark and the dukes of Holstein. These measures contributed highly to the reputation of count Bernstorf as a politician, but perhaps he derived as much credit from his conduct in other respects. He had acquired a large estate in the neighbourhood of Copenhagen, the peasants on which, as was the case in Denmark at that time, were slaves, and transferred like other property. Bernstorf, however, not only gave them their liberty, but granted them long leases, and encouraged them to cultivate the land, and feel that they had an interest in it. His tenants, soon sensible of the humanity and wisdom of his conduct, agreed to express their gratitude by erecting an obelisk in honour of him on the side of the great road leading to Copenhagen. Bernstorf was likewise a liberal patron of manufactures, commerce, and the fine arts. It was he who induced Frederick V. to give a pension for life to the poet Klopstock. On the death of that monarch, Bernstorf was continued in the ministry lor the first years of the new reign, until 1770, when Struenzee being placed at the head of the council, Bernstorf was allowed to resign with a pension. He then retired to Hamburgh, but, after the catastrophe of Struenzee, he was recalled, and was about to set out for Copenhagen when he died of an apoplexy, Feb. 19, 1772. The political measures of this statesman belong to history, but his private character has been the theme of universal applause. Learned, social, affable, generous, and high spirited, he preserved the affections of all who knew him, and throughout his whole administration had the singular good fortune to enjoy at the same time courtly favour and popular esteem. His nephew, count Andrew Peter Bernstorf, who was born in 1735, and eventually succeeded him as foreign minister for Denmark, displayed equal zeal and knowledge in promoting the true interests of his country, which yet repeats his name with fervour and enthusiasm. It was particularly his object to preserve the neutrality of Denmark, after the French revolution had provoked a combination of most of the powers of Europe; and as long as neutral rights were at all respected, he succeeded in this wise measure. His state papers on the” principles of the court of Denmark concerning neutrality,“in 1780, and his” Declaration to the courts of Vienna and Berlin," in 1792, were much admired. In private life he followed the steps of his uncle, by a liberal patronage of arts, commerce, and manufactures, and like him was as popular in the country as in the court. He died Jan. 21, 1797.

, was born at St. Denis near Paris, and was educated at the college of the cardinal Lemoine, where he made great proficiency in the learned languages, and became an able theologian, mathematician, philosopher, and historian. In 1550 he was at Agen as preceptor to Hector Fregosa, afterwards bishop of that city, and here he was converted to the Protestant religion along with Scaliger and other learned men. When he arrived at Paris in 1558, he was chosen preceptor to Theodore Agrippa d' Aubigne“but the persecution arising, he was arrested at Constance and condemned to be burnt, a fate from which he was preserved by the kindness of an officer who favoured his escape. He then went to Orleans, Rochelle, and Sancerre, and distinguished himself by his courage during the siege of this latter place by the marshal de Lachatre. In 1574 we find him at Geneva, officiating as minister and professor of philosophy. His death is supposed to have taken place in 1576. He wrote a curious book entitled” Chronicon, sacrse Scripture auctoritate constitutnm,“Geneva, 1575, fol. In this he maintains that all chronological authorities must be sought in the holy scriptures Vossius and Scaliger speak highly of his talents. Draudius, in his” Bibliotheca Classica,“mentions another work in which he was concerned,” G. Mercatoris et Matthei Beroaldi chronologia, ab initio mundi ex eclipsis et observationibus astronomicis demonstrata," Basil, 1577, Cologne, 1568, fol. We have some doubts whether this is not the same as the work mentioned above.

, a learned French protestant divine, long resident in London, was born in 1660 at Montpelier he studied philosophy and divinity, partly in France and partly in Holland, and was admitted a minister in the synod held at Vigan in 1681, and was next year chosen pastor to the church of Montpelier; but he did not make any long stay in that city, for he was soon after promoted to be one of the ministers of the church of Paris. On the revocation of the edict of Nantz, Mr. Bertheau found himself obliged to quit his native country. He accordingly came to England in 1685, and the following year was chosen one of the ministers of the Walloon church in Thread needle street, London, where he discharged the duties of the pastoral office for about forty-four years, in such a manner as procured him very general applause. He died 25th Dec. 1732, in the seventy- third year of his age. He possessed considerable abilities, was distinguished for his good sense and sound judgment, and for a retentive memory. He was a very eloquent preacher, and has left behind him two volumes of sermons printed in French, the first in 1712, the second in 1730, with a nev^ edition of the first. One of these sermons is on a singular subject, which, probably, would not have occurred to him so readily in any city as in London, “On inquiring after news in a Christian manner,” from Acts xvii. 21.

, cosmographer and historiographer to Louis XIII. of France, and regius professor, of mathematics, was born at Beveren in Flanders, on the confines of the dioceses of Bruges and Ypres, Nov. 14, 1565. He was brought into England when but three months old, by his parents, who dreaded the persecution of the protestants which then prevailed in the Netherlands. He received the rudiments of his education in the suburbs of London, under Christian Rychius, and his learned daughter-in-law, Petronia Lansberg. He afterwards completed his education at Leyden, whither his father, then become protestant minister at Rotterdam, removed him in his twelfth year. In 1582, when only seventeen years of age, he began the employment of teaching, which he carried on at Dunkirk, Ostend, Middleburgh, Goes, and Strasburgh but a desire for increasing his own stock of learning induced him to travel into Germany with Lipsius, and the same object led him afterwards into Bohemia, Silesia, Poland, Russia, and Prussia. On his return to Leyden he was appointed to a professor’s chair, and to the care of the library, of which, after arranging it properly, he published a' catalogue. In 1606, he was appointed regent of the college, but afterwards, having taken part with the disciples of Arminius, and published several works against those of Gomarus, he was dismissed from all his employments, and deprived of every means of subsistence, with a numerous family. In March 1620, he presented a petition to the states of Holland for a pension, which was refused. Two years before, Louis XIII. had honoured him with the title of his cosmographer, and now constrained by poverty and the distress of his family, he went to France and embraced the popish religion, a change which gave great uneasiness to the protestants. Some time after he was appointed professor of rhetoric in the college of Boncourt, then historiographer to the king, and lastly assistant to the regius professor of mathematics. He died Oct. 3, 1629. A veryline engraving of him occurs at the back of the dedication to Louis XIII. of his “Theatrum Geographise veteris,” but (the collectors will be glad to hear) only in some copies of that work, which are supposed to have been presents from the author.

, minister, and professor of Hebrew at Geneva, at Frankenthal, and at Lausanne, was born at Thouars in Poitou, in 1531, of a reputable family, allied to the house of la Trimouille, and escaped the massacre of St. Bartholomew by flying to Cahors and afterwards to Geneva. He died at Lausanne in 1594. He gave to the world, 1. “A dissertation on the Republic of the Hebrews,” Geneva, 1580 again at Leyden in 1641, 8vo, written with precision and method. 2. “A revision of the French Bible of Geneva, according to the Hebrew text,” Geneva, 1588. He corrected that version (by Calvin and Olivetan) in a great number of places; but in others he has too closely followed the authority of the Rabbins, and not sufficiently that of the old interpreters. It is the Bible still in use among the Calvinists. 3. A new edition of the “Thesaurus linguae sanctae” of Pagninus. 4. “A parallel of the Hebrew Tongue with the Arabic.” 5. “Lucubrationes Frankendalenses,” 1685, or expJanations on difficult passages of the New Testament, so called because written at Frankenthal.

, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, and bishop of St. Asaph, was born at Barrow in Leicestershire (where his grandfather, father, and brother, were vicars) in 1636-7. On the 24th of May, 1653, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and took his degrees of bachelor of arts in 1656, master of arts in 1660, and of doctor of divinity in 1679. At his coming to the university, he closely applied himself to the study of the learned languages and, by his great diligence and application, soon became so well skilled, particularly in all Oriental learning, that when he was not above eighteen years of age, he wrote a treatise of the excellency and use of the Oriental tongues, especially the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Samaritan, with a Syriac Grammar, in three books; which he published when he was about twenty years of age. He also distinguished himself, at the same time, by his early piety and seriousness of mind, and by his exemplary sobriety and integrity of life, all which procured him great esteem and veneration. January 3, 1660-1, he was ordained deacon in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, by Robert, bishop of Lincoln and priest, in the same place, the 31st of that month. About this time, Dr. Sheldon, bishop of London, collated him to the vicarage of Ealing in Middlesex. On the 22d of November, 1672, he was chosen, by the lord-mayor and aldermen of London, rector of St. Peter’s, Cornhill, London, and then he resigned the vicarage of Ealing. He now applied himself, with the utmost labour and zeal, to the discharge of his ministry, and so instructive was he in his discourses from the pulpit, so warm and affectionate in his private exhortations, so regular and uniform in the public worship of the church, and in every part of his pastoral function, and so remarkably were his labours crowned with success, that as he himself was justly styled “the great reviver and restorer of primitive piety,” so his parish was deservedly proposed, as the best model and pattern, for the rest of its neighbours to copy after. His singular merit having recommended him to the favour of his diocesan, bishop Henchman, he was collated by him, on the 22d of December, 1674, to the prebend of Chiswick, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, London and, by his successor bishop Compton, he was also, on the 3d of November, 1681, collated to the archdeaconry of Colchester. In this dignity he behaved, as he had done before in every station of life, In a most regular, watchful, and exemplary manner and not satisfied with the false, or at least imperfect, reports given in by church-wardens at visitations, he visited everjr parish within his archdeaconry in person. November the 5th, 1684, he was installed prebendary of Canterbury, and became also chaplain to king William and queen Mary. In 1691, he was offered, but refused the see of Bath and Wells, then vacant by the deprivation of Dr. Thomas Kenn, for not taking the oaths to king William and queen Mary. liut though he refused that see, because, probably, being a man of a tender conscience, he would not eat Dr. Kenn’s tread, adtording to the language of those times, he afterwards accepted of that of St. Asaph, vacant by the translation of Dr. George Hooper to Bath and Wells, and was consecrated July 16, 1704. Being placed in this eminent station, his care and diligence increased in proportion as his power in the church was enlarged and now when his authority was extended to larger districts, he still pursued the same pious and laborious methods of advancing the honour and interest of religion, by watching over both clergy and laity, and giving them all necessary direction and assistance, for the effectual performance of their respective duties. Accoruingly, he was no sooner advanced to the episcopal chair, but in a pathetic letter to the clergy of his diocese, he recommended to them the “duty of catechising and instructing the people committed to their charge, in the principles of the Christian religion to the end they might know what they were to believe and do in order to salvation” and told them, “he thought it necessary to begin with that, without which, whatever else he or they should do, would turn to little or no account, as to the main end of the ministry.” And to enable them to do this the more effectually, he sent them a plain and easy “Exposition upon the Church Catechism.” This good man did not enjoy his episcopal dignity above three years seven months and twenty days for he died at his lodgings in the cloisters in Westminster- abbey, March 5, 1707-8, in the seventy-first year of his age, and was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral. He left the greatest part of liis estate to the societies for propagating the gospel, and promoting Christian knowledge. To the curacy of MountSorrel in particular, and vicarage of Barrow in the county of Leicester, in a thankful remembrance of God’s mercies vouchsafed to him thereabouts, he bequeathed twenty pounds a year for ever, on condition that prayers be read morning and evening every day, according to the Liturgy of the church of England, in the chapel, and parish church aforesaid; with the sum of forty shillings yearly, to be divided equally upon Christmas-eve, among- eight poor housekeepers of Barrow, as the minister and churchwardens should agree, regard being had especially to those who had been most constantly at prayers, and at the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the foregoing year. And if it should so happen, that the Common- Prayer could not be read in the church or chapel aforesaid, his will then was, that what should have been given in either place for that, be in each place allowed to one chosen by the vk-ar of Barrow to teach school, and instruct the youth in the principles of the Christian religion, according to the doctrine of the church of England. His works were many, and full of great variety of learning. Those published by himself were a? follows: 1. “De Linguarum Orientalium, praesertim HeIpraicce, Chaldaica?, Syriacae, Arabicae, et Samaritans, praestantia et usu,” &c. mentioned above. Loud. 1658, 8vo. 2- “Institutionum Chronologicarum libri duo, una cum totidem Arithmetices Chronoiogicae libellis,” Loud. 1669, 4to. 3. “Swvo'&Kov, sive Pandectse Canonum Ss. Apostolorum, et Conciliorum ab Ecclesia Graeca receptoium necnon Canonicarum Ss. Patrum Epistolarum una cum Scholiis antiquorum singulis eorurn annexis, et scriptis aliis hue spectantibus quorum plurima e Bibliothecae Bodleianae aliarumque Mss. Codicibus nunc primum edita reliqua cum iisdem Mss. summa fide et diligentia collata,” Oxonii, 1672, 2 vols. fol. 4. “Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Primitivae vindicatus et illustratus,” Lond. 1679, 4to. 5. “The Church Catechism explained, for the use of the diocese of St. Asaph,” Lond. J 704, 4to, reprinted several times since. Next follow bishop Beveridge’s works, published after his decease by his executor Mr. Timothy Gregory 1. “Private Thoughts upon Religion, digested into twelve articles, with practical resolutions formed thereupon.” Written in his younger years (when he was about twenty-three years old), for the settling of his principles and conduct of life, Lond. 1709. 2. “Private Thoughts upon a Christian Life or, necessary directions for its beginning and progress upon earth, in order to its final perfection in the Beatific Vision,” part II. Lond. 1709. 3. “The great necessity and advantage of Public Prayer and frequent Communion. Designed to revive primitive piety with, meditations, ejaculations, and prayers, before, at, and after the sacrament,” Lond. 1710, These have been reprinted several times in 8vo and 12mo. 4. “One hundred and fifty Sermons and Discourses on several subjects,” Lond. 170S, &c. in 12 vols. 8vo, reprinted at London, 17iy, in 2 vols. fol. 5. “Thesaurus Theologians or, a complete system of Divinity, summed up in brief notes upon select places of the Old and New Testament; wherein the sacred text is reduced under proper heads; explained and illustrated with the opinions and authorities of the ancient fathers, councils, &c.” Lond. 1711, 4 vols. 8vo. 6. “A defence of the book of Psalms, collected into English metre by Thomas Sternhold, John Hopkins, and others with critical Observations on the New Version, compared with the Old,” Lond. 1710, 8vo. In this book he gives the old version the preference to the new. 7. “Exposition of the XXXIX Articles,” Lond. 1710, 1716, fol. Bishop Beveridge’s character is in general represented in a most advantageous light. He was a person of the strictest integrity, of true and sincere piety, of exemplary charity, and of great zeal for religion, and so highly esteemed, that when he was dying, one of the chief of his order deservedly said of him, “There goes one of the greatest and of the best men that ever England bred.” He is also celebrated as a man of extensive and almost universal learning; furnished, to a very eminent degree, with all useful knowledge; and much to be admired for his readiness in the scriptures, which he had thoroughly studied, so that he was able to produce suitable passages from them on all occasions, and happy in explaining them to others. Mr. Nelson says, that he cannot forbear acknowledging the favourable dispensation of Providence to the present age, in blessing it with so many of those pious discourses, which our truly primitive prelate delivered from the pulpit; and that he the rather takes the liberty to call it a favourable dispensation of Providence, because the bishop gave no orders himself that they should be printed, but humbly neglected them, as not being composed for the press. But that this circumstance is so far from abating the worth of the sermons, or diminishing the character of the author, that it raises the excellency of both, because it shews at once the true nature of a popular discourse which is to improve the generality of hearers, and for that purpose to speak to them in a plain and intelligible style. Dr. Henry Felton says, that our learned and venerable bishop delivered himself with those ornaments alone, which his subject suggested to him, and wrote in that plainness and solemnity of style, that gravity and simplicity, which gave authority to the sacred truths he taught, and unanswerable evidence to the doctrines he defended. That there is something so great, primitive, and apostolical, in his writings, that it creates an awe and veneration in our mind that the importance of his subjects is above the decoration of words and what is great and majestic in itself looketh most like itself, the less it is adorned. The author of one of the Guardians, having made an extract out of one of the bishop’s sermons, tells us, that it may for acuteness of judgment, ornament of speech, and true sublime, compare with any of the choicest writings of the ancients, who lived nearest to the apostles’ times. But the author of a pamphlet published in 1711, entitled “A short view of Dr. Bevericlge’s Writings,” passes a very different judgment upon bishop Beveridge’s works, in order to stop, as he says, the mischief they are doing, and that which the publication of his Articles may do. With regard to the bishop’s language, he observes, that he delights in jingle and quibbling; affects a tune and rhyme in all he says, and rests arguments upon nothing but words and sounds, &c. &c. But perhaps this animadverter will “by some be ranked among the persons, of whom Dr. Lupton gives the following character” Those who are censorious enough to reflect with severity upon the pious strains, which are to be found in bishop Beveridge, &c. may possibly be good judges of an ode or essay, but do not seem to criticise justly upon sermons, or express a just value for spiritual things.“After all, whatever faults may be found in bishop Beveridge’s posthumous works, must be charged to the injudiciousness of his executor. He must himself have been an extraordinary man who, with all the faults pointed out by the author of” The short view," could have conciliated the good opinion and favour of men of all principles, and the most eminent patrons of the church and the estimation in which his works continue to be held to this day, prove how little he was injured by the captious quibblings of a writer who was determined to find fault with' that, into the spirit of which he could not enter. The life of bishop Beveridge, prefixed to the folio edition of his works, was written by Mr. Kimber, a dissenting minister of the Baptist persuasion, in London.

, a learned minister of the reformed church, was born in 1555, at Volketswyl, a village in the canton of Zurich, and died of the plague at Zurich, in 1611. He studied at Geneva and Heidelberg, and after having exercised the ministerial functions in Germany for some years, returned to Zurich in 1594, where he was appointed professor of theology. He published many theological, philological, and philosophical works, which are now forgot, but some of them were highly esteemed in his day, particularly his “Grammar,” Zurich, 1593, and his “Rhetoric,” ibid. 1629, which were often reprinted. He also translated and wrote notes on some of Cicero’s, Demosthenes, and Plutarch’s works, and was the author of a “Catechism” which was long the only one used at Zurich. He was accounted one of the ablest defenders of Zuinglius and Calvin. The style of his polemical works partook of that quaintness which prevailed in controversial writing for more than a century after his time. The title of one of his pamphlets will exemplify this, and amuse our Latin readers “Falco emissus ad capiendum, deplumandum et dilacerandum audaciorem ilium cuculum ubjquitarium, qui nuper ex Jac. Andreae, mali corvi, male ovo, ab Holdero simplicissima curruca exclusus, eta demoniaco Bavio Fescenio varii coloris plumis instructus, impetum in philomelas innocentes facere ceperat,” Neustadt, 1585, 4to.

, a German Protestant minister, was born May 21, 1707, and died in 1741. He is principally known by the following bibliographical publications 1. “Epistola de Bibliothecis Dresdensibus, turn, publicis turn privatis,” Dresden, 1731, 4to. 2. “Bernardi Monetae (La Monnoye) epistola hactenus ineditae ad Michaelem Maittarium,” Dresden and Leipsic, 1732, 8vo. This he discovered in the Schoemberg museum. 3. “Memoriae historico-criticae librorum rariorum,” ibid. 1734, 8vo. 4. “Arcana sacra bibliothecaram Dresdensium,” Dresden, 1738, 8vo, to which he published two appendices in 1738 and 1740, 8vo.

, a celebrated Italian philosopher and physician, was born at Bologna, Sept. 30, 1717. After having studied physic with great diligence and success, he was in his nineteenth year appointed medical assistant in one of the hospitals, and after four years, was, in 1742, admitted to the degree of doctor. In 1743 and 1744 he published a valuable translation into Italian of Winslow’s Anatomy, 6 vols. 8vo. In the last mentioned year, his reputation induced the landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, prince and bishop of Augsburgh, to give him an invitation to reside with him, which Bianconi accepted, and remained there for six years. During this time he published “Due lettere di Fisica,” &c. Venice, 1746, 4to, addressed to the celebrated marquis MafFei, and wrote in French an “Essay on Electricity,” addressed to another learned friend, count Algarotti. He also began, in French, “Journal des nouveautes litteraires d' Italic,” printed at Leipsie, but with Amsterdam on the title, 1748, 1749, 8vo, which he continued to the end of a third volume. In 1730, he went to the court of Dresden, with a strong recommendation from pope Benedict XIV. to Augustus III. king of Poland, who received him into his confidence, and appointed him his aulic counsellor, and in 1760 sent him to France on a political affair of considerable delicacy, which he transacted with skill and satisfaction to his employer. In 1764, his majesty appointed him his resident minister at the court of Rome, where he felt his literary taste revive with its usual keenness, and was a contributor to various literary Journals. That of the “Effemeridi letterarie di Roma” owed its rise principally to him, and for sometime, its fame to his contributions. It was in this he wrote his eloges on Lupacchini, Piranesi, and Mengs, which last was published separately, with additions, in 1780. In his twelve Italian letters on the history of Cornelius Celsus, printed at Rome in 1779, he restores that celebrated physician to the age of Augustus, contrary to the common opinion, and to that of Tirasboschi (to whom they were addressed), who places him in what is called the silver age. He was projecting a magnificent edition of Celsus, a life of Petrarch, and some other literary undertakings, when he died suddenly at Perugia, Jan. 1, 1781, universally regretted. He left ready for the press, a work in Italian and French, on the circus of Caracalla, which was magnificently printed at Rome in 1790, with nineteen beautiful engravings.

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

, an eminent German philosopher and statesman, was born at Camstadt in Wirtemberg, Jan. 23, 1693; his father was a Lutheran minister. By a singular hereditary constitution in this family, Biliinger was born with twelve fingers and eleven toes, which, in his case, is said to have been remedied by amputation when he was an infant. From his earliest years, he showed an uncommon capacity for study, joined to a retired and thinking turn of mind. Happening, when studying at Tubingen, to learn mathematics in the works of Wolf, he imbibed likewise a taste for the sceptical philosophy of that writer, and for the system of Leibnitz, which for a time took off his attention from his other studies. When entered on his theological course, he found himself disposed to connect it with his new ideas on philosophy, and with that view wrote a treatise, “De Deo, anima, et mundo,” which procured him considerable fame, and was the cause of his being chosen preacher at the castle of Tubingen, and repeater in the school of divinity. But fancying Tubingen a theatre too contracted, he obtained of one of his friends a supply of money, in 1719, which enabled him to go to Halle to study more particularly under Wolf himself. This, however, did not produce all the good consequences expected. When after two years he returned to Tubingen, the Wolfian philosophy was no longer in favour, his patrons were cold, his lessons deserted; himself unable to propagate his new doctrines, and his promotion in the church was likely to suffer. In this unpleasant state he remained about four years, when, by Wolf’s recommendation, he received an invitation from Peter I. to accept the professorship of logic and metaphysics in the new academy at St. Petersburgh. Thither accordingly he went in 1725, and was received with great respect, and the academical memoirs which he had occasion to publish increased his reputation in no small degree. The academy of sciences of Paris having about that time proposed for solution the famous problem, on the cause of gravity, Bilfinger carried off the prize, which was one thousand crowns. This made his name be known in every part of Europe, and the duke Charles of Wirtemberg having been reminded that he was one of his subjects, immediately recalled him home. The court of Russia, after in vain endeavouring to retain him, granted him a pension of four hundred florins, and two thousand as the reward of a discovery he had made in the art of fortification. He quitted Petersburgh accordingly in 1731, and being re-established at Tubingen, revived the reputation of that school not only by his lectures, but by many salutary changes introduced in the theological class, which he effected without introducing any new opinions. His greatest reputation, however, rests on his improvements in natural philosophy and mathematics, and his talents as an engineer seem to have recommended him to the promotion which the duke Charles Alexander conferred upon him. He had held many conversations with Bilfinger on the subject of fortifications, and wished to attach him to government by appointing him a privy-councillor in 1735, with unlimited credit. For some time he refused a situation which he thought himself not qualified to fill, but when he accepted it, his first care was to acquire the knowledge necessary for a member of administration, endeavouring to procure the most correct information respecting the political relations, constitution, and true interests of the country. By these means, he was enabled very essentially to promote the commerce and agriculture of his country, and in other respects to improve her natural resources, as well as her political connections, and he is still remembered as one of the ablest statesmen of Germany. The system of fortification which he invented is yet known by his name, and is now the chief means of preserving it, as he died unmarried, at Stuttgard, Feb. 18, 1750. He is said to have been warm in his friendships, but somewhat irascible; his whole time during his latter years was occupied in his official engagements, except an hour in the evening, when he received visits, and his only enjoyment, when he could find leisure, was in the cultivation of his garden. To his parents he was particularly affectionate, and gratefully rewarded all those who had assisted him in his dependent state. His principal works are 1. “Disputatio de harmonia praestabilita,” Tubinguen, 1721, 4to. 2. “De harmonia animi et corporis humani maxime prsestabilita commentatio hypothetica,” Francfort, 1723, 8vo. This was inserted among the prohibited books by the court of Rome in 1734. 3. “De origine et permissione Mali, &c.” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 4. “Specimen doctrinae veterum Sinarum moralis et politicae,” ibid. 1724, 8vo. 5. “Dissertatio historico-catoptrica de speculo Archimedis,” Tubingen, 1725, 4to. 6. “Dilucidationes philosophies; de Deo, anima, &c.” before mentioned, ibid. 1725, 4to. 7. “Bilfingeri et Holmanni epistolae de barmonia praestabilita,” 1728, 4to. 8. “Disputatio de natura et legibus studii in theologica Thetici,” ibid. 1731, 4to. 9. “Disputatio de cuku Dei rationali,” ibid. 1731. 10. “Notae breves in Spinosae methodum. explicandi scripturas,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 11. “De mysteriis Christianae fidei generatim spectatis sermo,” ibid. 1732, 4to. 12. “La Citadelle coupee,” Leipsic, 1756, 4to. 13. “Elementa physices,” Leipsic, 1742, 8vo; besides many papers in the memoirs of the Petersburgh academy, of which, as well as of that of Berlin, he was a member.

, a Scotch divine, was born in the shire of Air, 1627, and educated in the university of Glasgow, where he took his degrees, and in his nineteenth year was appointed regent and professor of moral philosophy, and was among the first in Scotland that began to reform philosophy from the barbarous terms and jargon of the school-men. As a preacher his talents were extremely popular, and after he had preached some time as a probationer, he was elected minister of Govan, near Glasgow. In his ministerial conduct and character few excelled him, and the sweetness of his temper was such, that all seemed to know his worth but himself. At last his incessant labours brought on a consumption, which put a period to his life at Govan, 1654, aged 29. He once had an interview with Cromwell when the latter was in Scotland, and had appointed a meeting of the presbyterians and independents to dispute before him. Mr. Binning was present on this occasion, and managed the cause of presbyterianism with so much skill as to puzzle Cromwell’s independent ministers. After the dispute, Oliver asked the name of that “learned and bold young man,” and being told his name was Hugh Binning, he said, with a wretched play on words, “He hath bound well indeed, but,” clapping his hand on his sword, “this will loose all again.” His tracts, sermons, and commentaries on the epistle to the Romans, were published separately but they have been since collected into one volume, 4to, and printed at Edinburgh, 1735.

, an English divine, probably the son or grandson of the rev. John Biscoe of New Inn hall, Oxford, a nonconformist, was himself educated at a dissenting academy kept by Dr. Benion at Shrewsbury, and was ordained a dissenting minister, Dec. 19, 1716. In 1726, he conformed and received deacon’s and priest’s orders in the church of England, and in 1727 was presented to the living of St. Martin Outwich, in the city of London, which he retained until his death, July 1748. He held also a prebend of St. Paul’s, and was one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. He is now chiefly known for a learned and elaborate work, entitled “The History of the Acts of the Holy Apostles confirmed from other authors and considered as full evidence of the truth of Christianity, with a prefatory discourse upon the nature of that evidence” being the substance of his sermons preached at Boyle’s lecture, in 1736, 1737, 1738, and published in 2 vols. 1742, 8vo. Dr. Doddridge frequently refers to it, as a work of great utility, and as shewing “in the most convincing manner, how incontestably the Acts of the Apostles demonstrates the truth of Christianity.”

“Mr. Blackburne had his objections to the liturgy and articles of the church of England, as well as Mr. Lindsey, and in some instances to the same passages, but differed widely from him on some particular points, which, he thought, as stated by Mr. Lindsey and his friends, could receive no countenance from scripture, unless by a licentiousness of interpretation that could not be justified. But Dr. Priestley and some of his friends having carried the obligation to secede from the church of England farther than Mr. Blackburne thought was either sufficiently candid, charitable, or modest, and had thereby given countenance to the reproach, thrown upon many moderate and worthy men, by hot and violent conformists, for continuing to minister in the church, while they disapproved many things in her doctrine and discipline, he thought it expedient, in justice to himself and others of the same sentiments, to give some check to the crude censures that had been passed upon them. And, accordingly, intending to publish ' Four Discourses’ delivered to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Cleveland, in the years 1767, 1769, 1771, and 1773, he took that opportunity to explain himself on this subject in a preface, as well on behalf of the seceders, as of those whose Christian principles admitted of their remaining in the church without offering violence to their consciences.” Of Dr. Priestley’s conduct he speaks yet more decidedly in a letter dated Jan. 4, 177O, to a dissenting minister, “I cannot think the dissenters will be universally pleased with Dr. Priestley’s account of their principles, not to mention that some degree of mercy seemed to be due to us, who have shown our benevolence to all protestant dissenters, and have occasionally asserted their rights of conscience with the utmost freedom. But no, it seems nothing will do but absolute migration from our present stations, in agreement with our supposed convictions though, perhaps, it might puzzle Dr. Priestley to find us another church, in which all of us would be at our ease, &c.” On the secession of Dr. Disney from the church, a circumstance which appears to have given him great uneasiness, he went so far as to draw up a paper under the title “An Answer to the Question, Why are you not a Socinian r” but this, although now added to his works, was not published in his life-time, from motives of delicacy. He had been suspected, from his relationship and intimacy with Mr. Lindsey and Dr. Disney, of holding the same sentiments with them, and his object in the above paper was to vindicate his character in that respect. Still, as it did not appear in his life-time, it could not answer that purpose, and although we are now told that some time before his death, he explicitly asserted to his relation, the Rev. Mr. Comber, his belief in the divinity of Christ, the suspicions of the public had undoubtedly some foundation in the silence which in all his writings he preserved respecting a point of so much importance. When considerably advanced in years, he formed the design of writing the life of Luther and had made some collections for the purpose, hut was diverted from it by being engaged to draw up a work of far less general interest, the Memoirs of Mr. Thomas Hollis. In 1787, he performed his thirty-eighth visitation in Cleveland, after which he was taken ill at the house of his friend the Rev. William Comber, but reached home a few weeks before his death, which took place Aug. 7, 1787, in his eightythird year. Mr. Blackburne left a widow (who died Aug. 20, 1799), and four children, Jane, married to the Rev. Dr. Disney the Rev. Francis Blackburne, vicar of Brignal, near Greta-bridge, Yorkshire Sarab, married to the Rev. John Hall, vicar of Chew Magna, and rector of Dundry in Somersetshire and William Blackburne, M. D. of Cavendish square, London.

In 1762, he married miss Sarah Johnston, daughter of Mr. Joseph Johnston, surgeon in Dumfries, a connexion which formed the great solace of his future life. About the same time he was ordained minister of the town and parish of Kircudbright, in consequence of a presentation from the crown, obtained for him by the earl of Selkirk; but the parishioners having objected to the appointment, after a legal dispute of nearly two years, his friends advised him to resign his right, and accept of a moderate annuity in its stead. If their principal objection was to his want of sight, it was certainly not unreasonable. He would probably in the course of a few years have found it very in­* Mr. Jameson was probably igno- cannot recollect. The manuscript was

In 1768 he published a translation, from the French of the rev. James Armand, minister of the Walloon church in Hanau, of two discourses on the spirit and evidences of Christianity, with a long dedication from his own pen, caU culated for the perusal of the clergy of the church of Scotland. In this, as in all his prose writings, his style is elegant, nervous, and animated, and his sentiments such as indicate the purest zeal for the interests of religion. His last publication, in 1774, was “The Graham, an heroic ballad in four cantos,” intended to promote harmony between the inhabitants of Scotland and England. As a. poem, however, it added little to his reputation, and has been excluded from the collection of his works formed by Mr. Mackenzie, and adopted in the late edition of the English poets.

, an ingenious and very learned writer of the last century, was born August 4, 1701, in the city of Aberdeen. His father, the rev. Mr. Thomas Blackwell, was minister of Paisley in Renfrewshire, from whence he was removed in 1700 to be one of the ministers of Aberdeen. He was afterwards elected professor of divinity in the Marischal college of that city, and in 1717 was presented by his majesty to be principal of the college, in both which offices he continued until his death in 1728. His mother’s name was Johnston, of a good family near Glasgow, and sister to Dr. Johnston, who was many years professor of medicine in the university of Glasgow. Our author received his grammatical education at the grammarschool of Aberdeen, studied Greek and philosophy in the Marischal college there, and took the degree of master of arts in 1718; which, as he was at that time only seventeen years of age, must be regarded as a considerable testimony of his early proficiency in literature. A farther proof of it was his being presented, on the 28th of November 1723, by his majesty king George the First, to the professorship of Greek, in the college in which he had been educated. He was admitted into this office on the 13th of December in the same year; and after that continued to teach the Greek language with great applause. His knowledge of that language was accurate and extensive, and his manner of communicating it perspicuous and engaging. He had a dignity of address which commanded the attention of the students, a steadiness in exacting the prescribed exercises which enforced application, and an enthusiasm for the beauties of the ancients, and utility of classical learning, which excited an ardour of study, and contributed much to diffuse a spirit for Grecian erudition far superior to what had taken place before he was called to the professorship. Together with his lessons in the Greek tongue, he gave, likewise, lessons on some of the Latin classics, chiefly with a view to infuse a relish for their beauties. To his zeal and diligence in discharging the duties of his station, it is probable that the world was, in part, indebted for such men as Campbell, Gerard, Reid, Beattie, Duncan, and the Fordyces, who have appeared with so much eminence in the republic of letters. When the celebrated Dr. Berkeley was engaged in the scheme of establishing an American university in the Summer Islands, Mr. Blackwell was in treaty with him for going out as one of his young professors; but the negociation did not take effect. In 1735 was published at London, in octavo, without the name of the bookseller, and without his own name, our author’s “Enquiry into the Life and Writings of Homer” a work, the great ingenuity and learning of which will be acknowledged by all who have perused it. It was embellished with plates, designed by Gravelot, and executed by different engravers. This we apprehend to be the most esteemed, and it is, in our opinion, the most valuable, of Mr. Blackwell’s performances. The second edition appeared in 1736; and, not long after, he published “Proofs of the Enquiry into Homer’s Life and Writings, translated into English being a key to the Enquiry with a curious frontispiece.” This was a translation of the numerous Greek, Latin, Spanish, Italian and French notes which had been subjoined to the original work. In 1748, came out, in London, “Letters concerning Mythology,” in a large octavo, but without the bookseller (Andrew Millar’s) name. On the 7th of October, in the same year, our author was appointed by his late majesty, George II. to be principal of the Marischal college in Aberdeen, and was admitted to the office on the 9th of November following. He continued, also, professor of Greek till his death. He is the only layman ever appointed principal of that college, since the patronage came to the crown, by the forfeiture of the Marischal family in 1716 all the other principals having been ministers of the established church of Scotland. When Robert and Andrew Foulis, printers at Glasgow, intended to publish an edition of Plato, Mr. Blackwell proposed to furnish them with several critical notes for it, together with an account of Plato’s Life and Philosophy but the printers not acceding to the terms which he demanded for this assistance, he promised, by a Latin advertisement in 1751, himself to give an edition of Plato. His design, however, was not carried into execution nor did it appear, from any thing found among his papers after his death, that he had made any considerable progress in the undertaking. On the 3d of March, 1752, he took the degree of doctor of Laws. In the following year, appeared the first volume of his “Memoirs of the Court of Augustus,” in 4to. The second volume came out in 1755 and the third, which was posthumous, and left incomplete by the author, was prepared for the press by John Mills, esq. and published in 1764. At the same time, was published the third edition of the two former volumes. This is a proof of the good reception the work met with from the public, though it must be acknowledged that the parade with which it was written, and the peculiarity of the language, exposed it to some severity of censure, particularly to a most acute, and in some respects humourous, criticism by Dr. Johnson, written for the Literary Magazine, and now inserted in Johnson’s works. It cannot be denied that there is a considerable degree of affectation in Dr. Blackwell’s style and manner of composition and, unhappily, this affectation increased in him as he advanced in years. His “Enquiry into the Life of Homer” was not free from it it was still more discernible in his “Letters concerning Mythology” and was most of all apparent in his “Memoirs of the Court of Augustus.” We perceive in his various productions a mixture of pedantry but it is not the sober dull pedantry of the merely recluse scholar. In Dr. Blackwell it assumes a higher form. Together with the display of his erudition, he is ambitious of talking like a man who is not a little acquainted with the world. He is often speaking of life and action, of men and manners; and aims at writing with the freedom and politeness of one who has been much conversant with the public. But; in this he is unsuccessful: for though he was not destitute of genius or fancy, and had a high relish for the beauties of the ancient authors, he never attained that simplicity of taste, which leads to true ease and elegance in composition. It is probable, also, that, like many others at that time, he might be seduced by an injudicious imitation of lord Shaftesbury; a writer, whose faults have been found more easily attainable than his excellences.

, D.D. an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was born at Edinburgh, April 7, 1718. His father, John Blair, a respectable merchant in that city, was a descendant of the ancient family of Blair, in Ayrshire, and grandson of the famous Mr. Robert Blair, minister of St. Andrew’s, chaplain to Charles I. and one of the most zealous and distinguished clergymen of the peilod in which he lived. Of the two sons who survived him, David, the eldest, was a clergyman of eminence in Edinburgh, and father to Mr. Robert Blair, minister of Athelstanford, the author of the well-known poem entitled “The Grave.” From his youngest son, Hugh, who engaged in business as a merchant, and had the honour to fill a high station in the magistracy of Edinburgh, the object of the present memoir descended.

In 1739 Dr. Blair took his degree of A.M. and in 1741 was licensed to preach by the presbytery of Edinburgh, and his first living was the parish of Colessie, in Fife but in 1743 he was recalled to his native city, as second minister of the Canongate church, in which he continued eleven years. In 1754 he was translated from the Canongate to lady Yester’s, one of the city churches, and in 1758 he was promoted to the high church of Edinburgh, the most important ecclesiastical charge in that kingdom.

While his thoughts were intent upon doing good in his office, he observed with concern that the want of schools, and proper seminaries for religion and learning, so impeded all attempts for the propagation of the gospel, that little could be hoped for, without first removing that obstacle. He therefore formed a vast design of erecting and endowing a college in Virginia, at Williamsburgh, the capital of that country, for professors and students in academical learning: in order to which, he had himself set on foot a voluntary subscription, amounting to a great sum and, not content with that, came over into England in 1693, to solicit the affair at court. Queen Mary was so well pleased with the noble design, that she espoused it with a particular zeal and king William also very readily concurred with her in it. Accordingly a patent passed for erecting and endowing a college, by the name of the William and Mary college; and Mr. Blair, who had the principal hand in laying, soliciting, and concerting the design, was appointed president of the college. He was besides rector of Williamsburgh in Virginia, and president of the council in that colony. He continued president of the college near fifty, and a minister of the gospel above sixty years. He was a faithful labourer in God’s vineyard, an ornament to his profession, and his several offices and in a good old age went to enjoy the high prize of his calling, in the year 1743. His works are “Our Saviour’s divine sermon on the mount, explained and the pi-actice of it recommended in divers sermons and discourses,” Lond. 1742, 4vols. 8vo. The executors of Dr. Bray (to whom the author had previously transferred his copy-right) afterwards published a new impression, revised and corrected. Dr. Waterland, who wrote a preface to the new edition, calls these sermons a “valuable treasure of sound divinity and practical Christianity.”

, a Scotch divine and poet, was the eldest son of the rev. David Blair, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and chaplain to the king. His grandfather was the rev. Robert Blair, sometime minister of the gospel at Bangor, in Ireland, and afterward at St. Andrew’s, in Scotland. Of this gentleman, some “Memoirs,” partly taken from his manuscript diaries, were published at Edinburgh, in 1754. He was celebrated for his piety, and by those of his persuasion, for his inflexible adherence to presbyterianism, in opposition to the endeavours made in his time to establish episcopacy in Scotland. It is recorded also that he wrote some poems. His grandson, the object of the present article, was born in the year 1699, and after the usual preparatory studies, was ordained minister of Athelstaneford, in the county of East Lothian, where he resided until his death, Feb. 4, 1747. The late right hon. Robert Blair, president of the court of session in. Scotland, who died in 1811, was one of his sons, and the late celebrated Dr. Hugh Blair, professor of rhetoric and belles-lettres, was his cousin.

, a protestant minister, celebrated for his knowledge in ecclesiastical and civil history, was born at Chalons in Champagne, 1591. He was admitted minister at a synod of the isle of France in 1614. A few years afterwards he began to write in defence of protestantism, for in 1619 he published a treatise entitled “Modeste declaration de la sincerite et verite des Eglises Reformees de France.” This was an answer to several of the catholic writers, especially to the bishop of Lucon, so well known afterwards under the title of cardinal Richelieu. From this time he was considered as a person of great hopes. He was secretary more than twenty times in the synods of the isle of France, and was deputed four times successively to the national synods. That of Castres employed him to write in defence of the Protestants. The national synod of Charenton appointed him honorary professor in 1645, with a handsome salary, which had never been granted to any professor before. He wrote several pieces; but what gained him most favour amongst the Protestants are, his “Explications on the Eucharist” his work entitled “De la primaute d'Eglise” his “Treatise of the Sybils” and his piece “De episcopis et presbyteris.” Some of his party, however, were dissatisfied with him for engaging in disputes relating to civil history; and particularly offended at the book he published to shew that what is related about pope Joan is a ridiculous fable.

, a learned French Protestant, born at Roan in Normandy, 1599. His father was a Protestant clergyman, and his mother a sister of the celebrated Peter du Moulin. He made a very early progress in learning, particularly in the Greek language, of which we have a proof in the verses he composed at the age of fourteen, in praise of Thomas Dempster, under whom he studied at Paris, and who has prefixed them to his Roman Antiquities. He went through a course of philosophy at Sedan, and studied divinity at Saumur, under Cameronius, whom he followed to London, the academy at Sauinur being dispersed during the civil war. He went also to Oxford, and in Lent term, 1622, was entered as a student at the library, where he laid in a considerable part of that stock of Oriental learning which he afterwards displayed in his works. He afterwards went over to Leyden, and studied Arabic under Erpenius. When returned to France, he was chosen minister of Caen, where, in 1630, he distinguished himself by public disputations with father Veron, a very famous polemic, and champion for the Roman catholic religion, published under the title of “Acte de la conference entre S. B. et Jean Baillebache, &c. d'un part: et Francois Veron, predicateur de controverses,” Saumur, 2 vols. 8vo. The dispute was held in the castle of Caen, in presence of a great number of Catholics and Protestants. Bochart came off with honour and reputation, which was not a little increased upon the publication of his Phaieg and Canaan, which are the titles of the two parts of his “Geographica Sacra,” 1646. While at Caen, he was tutor to Wentworth Dillon, earl of Roscommon, author of the “Essay on Translated verse.” He acquired also great fame by his tl Hierozoicon, printed at London, 1675. The great learning displayed in these works rendered him esteemed, not only amongst those of his own persuasion, but amongst all lovers of knowledge of whatever denomination, especially such as studied the scriptures in their original languages, which was then very common. Dr. Haiceweli, who was contemporary with Bochart, speaking of the knowledge of the oriental languages, observes, that “this last century (the fifteenth) afforded more skilful men that way than the other fourteen since Christ” In 1652, the queen of Sweden invited him to Stockholm, where she gave him many proofs of her regard and esteem. At his return into France, in 1653, he continued his ordinary exercises, and was one of the members of the academy of Caen, which consisted of all the learned men of that place. He died suddenly, when he was speaking in this academy, May 6, 1667, which gave M. Brieux occasion to make the following epitaph on him:

, minister of the German chapel at St. James’s, London, the son of Anthony Boehm, minister at Oeetorff, in the county of Pyrmont, in Germany, who died 1679, was born June 1, 1673, and after his father’s death was sent to school at Lemgo, and afterwards at Hameln, whence, after making proficiency in Greek and Latin, he was removed to the newly-erected university at Halle. Having finished the usual course of studies here, and taken orders, he was for some time employed as tutor to the sons of noblemen and gentlemen. About the year 1701, some German families in London requested of the university of Halle to send over a proper person as schoolmaster to their children. Boehm was invited to accept this situation, and arrived at London in November of that year, where his first object was to acquire the English language. In 1702 he opened a school in Bedfordbnry, but met with so little encouragement, although invited hither for the purpose, that he must have returned to his own country, if, in 1705, he had not been appointed by prince George of Denmark, queen Anne’s husband, to be one of his chaplains, and officiate at his chapel, which he did for some time alternately with his colleague Crusius, and gave so much satisfaction, not only to the prince, but to the queen, that after his highness’s death, in 1708, the queen ordered the same service to be continued, and gave him access to her presence, which he improved occasionally in the promotion of acts, of charity and humanity. On one occasion, particularly, by his intercession, the queen prevailed on the king of France to release many of th French Protestants condemned to the gallies for religion. When king George I. came to the crown, Mr. Boehm was confirmed in his station, which beheld to his death, May 27, 1722. He was buried in Greenwich church-yard, with a characteristic epitaph. He appears to have been a man of unfeigned and fervent piety, and remarkably zealous in promoting works of piety and charity. Dr. Watts said of him, that he feared there were but few such men then in England, British or German, Episcopal or Non -conformist. His original works are 1. “Enchiridion Precum, cum introductione de natura Orationis,” 1707, 1715, 8vo. 2. “A volume of discourses and tracts,” in English. 3. “The duty of Reformation,” 1718. 4. “The doctrine of godly sorrow,” 1720. 5. “Plain directions for reading the Holy Bible,” 1708, and 1721. 6. “Various pious tracts, in the German language. He also translared the” Pietas Hallensis,“a curious history of the rise and progress of the Orphan school at Halle, 1705 6 7, and the first” Account of the Protestant mission at Tranquebar,“1709 11, some parts of the works of bishop Hopkins, Dr. Barrow, &c. Arndt’s” True Christianity" and edited a Latin edition of the same, and editions of some other pious treatises by foreign divines. He left an unfinished history of the reformation in England from Henry VIII. to Charles II. and some other manuscripts.

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

“Linnæus, when at Ley den, had particularly wished to see and converse with Boerhaave, but in vain. No minister could be more overwhelmed with intreaties and invitations, nor more difficult in granting an au[ >nce, than Boerhaave. His menial servants reaped ad ant a ^es from this circumstance for them an audience was always a profitable money-job by the weignt of gold it could alone be accomplished. Without a douceur it was hard for anystranger or foreigner to gain admittance. Linnæus was quite unacquainted with this method, and had it not in his power to make presents. Owing to Boerhaave’s infinite occupations, and the strict regularity which he observed, ambassadors, princes, and Peter the Great himself, were obliged to wait several hours in his anti-chamber, to obtain an interview. How much more difficult must it have been for the young northern doctor, allowing him his usual spirit of liberality, to aspire at the honour of admittance. Notwithstanding all these obstacles, he obtained it at last. He sent Boerhaave a copy of his newpublished system. Eager to know the author of this work, who had likewise recommended himself by a letter, he appointed Linnæus to meet him on the day before his intended departure, at his villa, at the distance of a quarter of a league from Leyden, and charged Gronovius to give him notice of his intention. This villa contained a botanical garden, and one of the finest collections of exotics. Linnæus punctually attended to the invitation. Boerhaave, who was then sixty-seven years old, received him with gladness, and took him into his garden, for the purpose of judging of his knowledge. He shewed him, as a rarity, the Crategus Aria, and asked him if he had ever seen that tree before, as it had never been described by any botanist. Linnæus answered that he had frequently met with it in Sweden, and that it had been already described by Vaillant. Struck with the young man’s reply, Boerhaave denied the latter part of his assertion, with so much more confidence, as he had himself published Vaillant’s work, with notes of his own, and firmly believed that tree had not been described in it. To remove all doubts, and to give all possible sanction to what he advanced, Boerhaave immediately produced the work itself from his library, and to his extreme surprise, found the tree fully described in it, with all its distinctive marks. Admiring the exact and enlarged knowledge of Linnæus in botany, in which he seemed even to excel himself, the venerable old man advised him to remain in Holland, to make a fortune, which could not escape his talents. Linnoeus answered that he would fain follow this advice, but his indigence prevented him from staying any longer, and obliged him to set out next day for Amsterdam, on his return to Sweden; but nevertheless this visit to Boerhaave unexpectedly became the source of his fortune and of his eminence.”

The first edition of Boethins “De Consolatione” was printed at Nurenberg, 1176, fol. hut there was an edition in Latin and German, printed at the same place in 1473. The best edition of his whole works is that printed at Basil, 1570, 2 vols. fol. In 1785, his Consolation was translated into English, with notes and illustrations, by the vev. Philip Ridpath, minister of Hutton in Berwickshire, London, 8vo.

Boileau knew how to procure a still more powerful protection at court than the duke de Montausier’s, that of Lewis XIV. himself. He lavished upon this monarch praises the more flattering, as they appeared dictated by the public voice, and merely the sincere and warm expression of the nation’s intoxication with respect to its king. To add value to his homage, the artful satirist had the address to make his advantage of the reputation of frankness he had acquired, which served as a passport to those applauses which the poet seemed to bestow in spite of his nature; and he was particularly attentive, while bestowing praises on all those whose interest might either support or injure him, to reserve the first place, beyond comparison, for the monarch. Among other instances, he valued himself, as upon a great stroke of policy, for having contrived to place Monsieur, the king’s brother, by the side of the king himself, in his verses, without hazard of wounding the jealousy of majesty; and for having celebrated the conqueror of Cassel more feebly than the subduer of Flanders. He had however the art, or more properly the merit, along with his inundation of praises, to convey some useful lessons to the sovereign. Lewis XIV. as yet young and greedy of renown, which he mistook for real glory, was making preparations for war with Holland. Colbert, who knew how fatal to the people is the most glorious war, wished to divert the king from his design. He engaged Boileau to second his persuasions, by addressing to Lewis his first epistle, in which te proves that a king’s true greatness consists in rendering his subjects happy, by securing them the blessings of peace. But although this epistle did not answer the intentions of the minister or the poet, yet so much attention to please the monarch, joined to such excellence, did not remain unrecompensed. Boileau was loaded with the king’s favour, admitted at court, and named, in conjunction with Racine, royal historiographer. The two poets seemed closely occupied in writing the history of their patron; they even read several passages of it to the king; but they abstained from giving any of it to the public, in the persuasion that the history of sovereigns, even the most worthy of eulogy, cannot be written during their lives, without running the risk either of losing reputation by flattery, or incurring hazard by truth. It was with repugnance that Boileau had undertaken an office so little suited to his talents and his taste. “When I exercised,” said he, “the trade of a satirist, which I understood pretty well, I was overwhelmed with insults and menaces, and I am now dearly paid for exercising that of historiographer, which I do not understand at all/' Indeed,” far from being dazzled by the favour he enjoyed, he rather felt it as an incumbrance. He often said, that the first sensation his fortune at court inspired in him, was a feeling of melancholy. He thought the bounty of his sovereign purchased too dearly by the Joss of liberty a blessing so intrinsically valuable, which all the empty and fugitive enjoyments of vanity are unable to compensate in the eyes of a philosopher. Boileau endeavoured by degrees to recover this darling liberty, in proportion as age seemed to permit the attempt; and for the last ten or twelve years of his life he entirely dropped his visits to court. “What should I do there?” said he, “I can praise no longer.” He might, however, have found as much matter for his applauses as when he lavished them without the least reserve. While he attended at court^ he maintained a freedom and frankness of speech, especially on topics of literature, which are not common among courtiers. When Lewis asked his opinion of some verses which he had written, he replied, “Nothing, sire, is impossible to your majesty; you wished to make bad verses, and you have succeeded.” He also took part with the persecuted members of the Port-royal; and when one of the courtiers declared that the king was making diligent search after the celebrated Arnauld, in order to put him in the Bastile, Boileau observed, “His majesty is too fortunate; he will not find him:” and when the king asked him, what was the reason why the whole world was running after a preacher named le Tourneux, a disciple of Arnauld, “Your majesty,” he replied, “knows how fond people are of novelty: this is a minister who preaches the gospel.” Boileau appears from various circumstances, to have been no great friend to the Jesuits, whom he offended by his “Epistle on the Love of God,” and by many free speeches. By royal favour, he was admitted unanimously, in 1684, into the French academy, with which he had made very free in his epigrams; and he was also associated to the new academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, of which he appeared to be a fit rnember, by his “Translation of Longinus on the Sublime.” To science, with which he had little acquaintance, he rendered, however, important service by his burlesque “Arret in favour of the university, against an unknown personage called Reason,” which was the means of preventing the establishment of a plan of intolerance in matters of philosophy. His attachment to the ancients, as the true models of literary taste and excellence, occasioned a controversy between him and Perrault concerning the comparative merit of the ancients and moderns, which was prosecuted for some time by epigrams and mutual reproaches, till at length the public began to be tired with their disputes, and a reconciliation was effected by the good offices of their common friends. This controversy laid the foundation of a lasting enmity between Boileau and Fontenelle, who inclined to the party of Perrault. Boileau, however, did not maintain his opinion with the pedantic extravagance of the Daciers; but he happily exercised his wit on the misrepresentations of the noted characters of antiquity, by the fashionable romances of the time, in his dialogue entitled “The Heroes of Romance,” composed in the manner of Lucian. In opposition to the absurd opinions of father Hardouin, that most of the classical productions of ancient Rome had been written by the monks of the thirteenth century, Boileau pleasantly remarks, “I know nothing of all that; but though I am not very partial to the monks, I should not have been sorry to have lived with friar Tibullus, friar Juvenal, Dom Virgil, Dom Cicero, and such kind of folk.” After the death of Racine, Boileau very much retired from court; induced partly by his love of liberty and independence, and partly by his dislike of that adulation which was expected, and for which the dose of Lewis’s reign afforded more scanty materials than its commencement. Separated in a great degree from society, he indulged that austere and misanthropical disposition, from which he was never wholly exempt. His conversation, however, was more mild and gentle than his writings; and, as he used to say of himself, without “nails or claws,” it was enlivened by occasional sallies of pleasantry, and rendered instructive by judicious opinions of authors and their works. He was religious without bigotry; and he abhorred fanaticism and hypocrisy. His circumstances were easy; and his prudent economy has been charged by some with degenerating into avarice. Instances, however, occur of his liberality and beneficence. At the death of Colbert, the pension which he had given to the poet Corneille was suppressed, though he was poor, old, infirm, and dying. Boileau interceded with the king for the restoration of it, and offered to transfer his own to Corneille, telling the monarch that he should be ashamed to receive his bounty while such a man was in want of it. He also bought, at an advanced price, the library of Patru, reduced in his circumstances, and left him in the possession of it till his death. He gave to the poor all the revenues he had received for eight years from a benefice he had enjoyed without performing the duties of it. To indigent men of letters his purse was always open; and at his death he bequeathed almost all his possessions to the poor. Upon the whole, his temper, though naturally austere, was on many occasions kind and benevolent, so that it has been said of him, that he was “cruel only in verse;” and his general character was distinguished by worth and integrity, with some alloys of literary jealousy and injustice. Boileau died of a dropsy in the breast, March 11, 1711, and by his will left almost all his property to the poor. His funeral was attended by a very numerous company, which gave a woman of the lower class occasion to say, “He had many friends then I yet they say that he spoke ill of every body.”

, of the French academy, to the establishment whereof he contributed greatly, abbot of Chatilly-sur-Seine, was born at Caen in 1592, and died in 1662. He was remarkably brilliant in conversation, but with his natural and borrowed powers, often repeating scraps from many of the tales of Boccace, of Beroald, and especially the “Moyen de parvenir” of the Jatter. His imagination, fostered early by the writings of all the facetious authors, furnished him with the means of amusing and of exciting laughter. Citois, first physician to the cardinal de Richelieu, used to say to that minister, when he was indisposed, “Monseigneur, all our drugs are of no avail, unless you mix with them a dram of Boisrobert.” The cardinal for a long time was never happy without his company and jokes, and employed him as his buffoon. When Boisrobert fell into disgrace with the cardinal, he had recourse to Citois, who put at the bottom of his paper to the cardinal, as if it had been a prescription, Recipe Boisrobert. This jest had its effect, by causing him to be recalled. Boisrobert published, 1. Divers poems; the first part 1647, 4to, and the second 1659, 8vo. 2. Letters in the collection of Faret; 8vo. 3. Tragedies, comedies, and tales, which bear the name of his brother Antoine le Metel, sieur d'Ouville. 4. “Histoire Indienne d‘Anaxandre et d’Orasie;” 1629, 8vo. 5. “Nouvelles heroiques,” 1627, 8vo. His theatrical pieces, applauded by cardinal Richelieu and by some of his flatterers, are now totally forgot. All his friends, indeed, were not flatterers, if the following anecdote may be relied on. Boisrobert, among his other follies, was a gamester, and on one occasion lost ten thousand crowns to the duke de Roquelaure, who loved money, and insisted upon being paid. Boisrobert sold all he had, which amounted to four thousand crowns, which one of his friends carried to the duke, telling him, he must forgive the rest, and that Boisrobert, in return, would compose a panegyrical ode upon him, which would certainly be a bad one. “Now,” added this friend, “when it is known that your grace has rewarded a paltry piece with six thousand crowns, every one will applaud your generosity, and will be anxious to know what you would have given for a good poem.” It is most to his honour, however, that he contributed to the establishment of the French academy, and always employed his interest with cardinal Richelieu in behalf of men of merit.

The last six years of his life he was unable to officiate publicly; and was obliged to obtain assistance from the Rev. Charles Cooper, a clergyman who resided in the parish on a small patrimonial property, with whom he divided his salary, making up the deficiency from his savings. Mr. Bold’s previous saving of 5l. annually, for the preceding four or five and forty years (and that always put out to interest) enabled him to procure this assistance, and to continue his little charities, as well as to support himself, though the price of boarding was just doubled upon him from his first entrance on the cure, from 8l. to 16l. a year. But, from the annual saving even of so small a sum as 5l. with accumulating interest during that term, he not only procured assistance for the last years of his life, but actually left by his will securities for the payment of bequests to the amount of between two and three hundred pounds: of which 100l. was bequeathed to some of his nearest relations; 100l. to the farmer’s family in which he died, to requite their attendance in his latter end, and with which a son of the family was enabled to set up in a little farm; and 40l. more he directed to be placed out at interest, of which interest one half is paid at Christmas to the poorer inhabitants who attend at church; and the other, for a sermon once a year, in Lent, “on the duty of the people to attend to the instructions of the minister whom the bishop of the diocese should set over them.”

He returned to France, and applied himself to the Protestants; first at Paris, afterwards at Orleans. He shewed a great desire to be promoted to the ministry, and to be reconciled to the church of Geneva; but the persecution that arose against the Protestants, made him resolve to take up his first religion, and the practice of physic. He went and settled at Autun, and prostituted his wife to the canons of that place; and to ingratiate himself the more with the Papists, exerted a most flaming zeal against the reformed. He changed his habitation often: he lived at Lyons in 1582, as appears by the title of a book, which he caused to be printed then at Paris against Beza, and died there in the same year. The book just mentioned is entitled “The history of the life, doctrine, and behaviour of Theodorus Beza, called the spectable and great minister of Geneva.” This was preceded by the “History of the life, actions, doctrine, constancy, and death of John Calvin, heretofore minister of Geneva,” which was printed at Lyons, in 1577. Both these histories are altogether unworthy of credit, as well because they are written by an author full of resentment, as because they contain facts notoriously false.

, LL. D. was the son of Dennis Bond, esq. of Dorchester, a violent adherent of the republican party in the seventeenth century, and at whose death, a little before that of the protector, the wits said Oliver Cromwell had given the devil Bond for his appearance. Our author was educated under John White, commonly called the patriarch of Dorchester, and was afterwards entered, not of St. John’s college, Cambridge, as Wood reports, but of Catherine-hall, of which he was afterwards chosen fellow, and took the degree of B. A. in 163 1, commenced M. A. in 1635, was nominated LL. D. in 1645, and completed the year following, while he was yet a member of that society. But, although he took his doctor’s degree in law, he was by profession a divine, and had before this preached for some years, first as a lecturer in Exeter, and frequently afterwards before the long parliament at Westminster. In 1643, both he and his tutor, Mr. White, were chosen of the assembly of divines; and when Mr. White took the rectory of Lambeth, Dr. Bond succeeded him as minister of the Savoy, and on Dec. 11, 1645, hfc was made master of the Savoy hospital under the great seal. On the decease of Dr. Eden, master of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, the fellows made choice of the celebrated Selden, and the choice was confirmed by parliament, but he declining the office, Dr. Bond was chosen, chiefly by the authority or interference of parliament, March, 1646. In 1649 he was chosen law professor of Gresham college, and in 1654 was made assistant to the commissioners of Middlesex and Wesminster, for the ejection of scandalous and ignorant ministers; and in 1658 served as vice-chancellor of Cambridge. He held his mastership and law professorship until the restoration, when he was ejected from both for his adherence to the politics by which he had obtained them. He then retired into Dorsetshire, and died at Sandwich in the isle of Purbeck, July 1676. Wood, who has committed several mistakes in his life, corrected by Dr. Ward, gives a list of his works, which are few: 1. “A Door of Hope,” Lond. 1641, 4to. 2. “Holy and Loyal Activity,” Lond. 1641, 4to, and some sermons preached before the long parliament, to whose measures he adhered with great zeal. He appears, however, to have been a man of real learning. Calamy, we know not why, has mentioned his name, without one word of life.

, a pious and popular dissenting minister of the Baptist persuasion, was born at Blackwell in Derbyshire, May 20, 1734, of poor parents, who were unable to give him any education. He spent a considerable part of his youth in the farming business, and that of the stocking frame, but appears to have during this time read much, and at length began to preach among the sect called the general baptists, throughout the towns and villages in his neighbourhood. In his twenty-third year he married; and this producing a numerous family, he opened a school at Button-Ash field. At this time he held the doctrine of universal redemption, and disliked predestination to such a degree as to ridicule it in a poem (of which he was afterwards ashamed), but he now changed his sentiments and became a zealous Calvinist in that and othei points supposed to constitute the Calvinistic system. The consequence of this change was, an avowal and defence of his new opinions in his first publication, “The Reign of Grace,” in which he was encouraged hy the late rev. Henry Venn, vicar of Huddersfield, who wrote a recommendatory preface to it. It appeared in 1768, and led to a new and important aera in his life, being so much approved by the congregation of particular baptists in Prescot-street, Goodman’s fields, whose pastor was just dead, that they invited Mr. Booth to succeed him. This invitation he accepted, and in Feb. 1769, took possession of his pulpit, after being regularly ordained for the first time. Here he appears for some years to have spent what time he could spare from his public labours in laying in a stock of knowledge; and although he always lamented the want of a regular education, his proficiency, and the extent of his reading were so great as in some measure to redeem his time, and place him on a footing, both as a scholar, preacher, and writer, with the ablest of his brethren. He knew Greek and Latin usefully, if not critically: the Greek Testament he went through nearly fifty times by the simple expedient of reading one chapter every day. General science and literature, history, civil and ecclesiastical, he investigated with acuteness in the ablest writers, English, French, Dutch, and German; and his works show that he particularly excelled in a knowledge of controversial divinity, and of those arguments, pro and con, which were connected with his opinions as a baptist. After exercising his ministry in Prescot-street for nearly thirty-seven years, he died Monday, Jan. 27, 1806, and his memory was honoured by a tablet and inscription in his meeting-house, recording his virtues and the high respect his congregation entertained for him. Besides the work already mentioned, he published, 1. “The Death of Legal Hope, the Life of Evangelical Obedience,” 1770, 12mo. 2. “The Deity of Jesus Christ essential to the Christian Religion,” a translation from Abbadie, and occasioned by the subscription controversy, 1770. 3. “An Apology for the Baptists in refusing communion at the Lord’s Table to Pscdobaptists,” 1778. 4. “Paedobaptism examined, on the principles, concessions, and reasonings of the most learned Psedobaptists,” 1784, and enlarged 1737, 2 vols. a work which his sect consider as unanswerable. He published also some lesser tracts and occasional sermons.

These labours induced M. Prasslin, the minister of the marine, to wish for the aid of his talents in the French navy, and after some opposition from official etiquette, he appointed him sub-lieutenant, in which character he first appeared in 1768; but nothing occurred of consequence until 1771, when the French and English were employed in many inventions for the discovery of the longitude at sea, and the French government having determined to try the accuracy of some improved chronometers, the academy of sciences appointed Borda and Pingre to sail for that purpose in the Flora frigate. The result of their voyage was published at Paris in 1778, entitled, “Voyage fait par ordre du Roy en 1771 et 1772, &c.” 2 vols. 4to. He was afterwards employed to determine the position of the Canary Isles, and being promoted to the rank of lieutenant, sailed in 1776, and in the course of his voyage, performed its immediate object, with others. Being appointed majorgeneral to the naval armament which served under Count D'Estaign in America, his experience led him to discover many defects in the construction of vessels, which he thought might be easily remedied. He considered the want of uniformity in the construction of ships, which were to act together, as a great defect, because a great discordance arose in their movements and in the exeeution of signals. Upon his return to France he communicated this idea to government, who immediately resolved to carry it into effect, and his profound knowledge and patriotic exertions did not fail to be acknowledged not only by France, but by the best-informed men in England. The reputation which he had now acquired enabled him to be further serviceable to his country, by drawing up a plan for the schools of naval architecture, of which he may justly be termed the founder, as he not only suggested the idea, but formed the scheme for regulating these seminaries, and laid down the rules for the instruction of the pupils admitted into them.

, or Borch, a very learned physician, son of a Lutheran minister in Denmark, was born 1626, and sent to the university of Copenhagen in 1644, where he remained six years, during which time he applied himself chierly to physic. He taught publicly in his college, and Acquired the character of a man indefatigable in labour, and of excellent morals. He gained the esteem of Caspar Brochman, bishop of Zealand, and of the chancellor of the kingdom, by the recommendation of whom he obtained the canonry of Lunden. He was offered the rectorship of the famous school of Heslow, but refused it, having formed a design of travelling and perfecting his studies in physic. He began to practise as a physician during a most terrible plague in Denmark, and the contagion being ceased, he prepared for travelling as he intended; but was obliged to defer it for some time, Mr. Gerstorf, the first minister of state, having insisted on his residing in his house in the quality of tutor to his children. He continued in this capacity five years, and then set out upon his travels; but before his departure, he was appointed professor in poetry, chemistry, and botany. He left Copenhagen in November 1660, and, after having visited several eminent physicians at Hamburgh, went to Holland, the Low Countries, to England, and to Paris, where he remained two years. He visited also several other cities of France, and at Angers had a doctor’s degree in physic conferred upon him. He afterwards passed the Alps, and arrived at Rome in October 1665, where he remained till March 1666, when he was obliged to set out for Denmark, where he arrived in October 1666. The advantages which Borrichius reaped in his travels were very considerable, for he had made himself acquainted with all the learned men in the different cities through which he passed. At his return to Denmark he resumed his professorship, in the discharge of which he acquired great reputation for his assiduity and universal learning. He was made counsellor in the supreme council of justice in 1686, and counsellor of the royal chancery in 1689. This same year he had a severe attack of 'the stone, and the pain every day increasing, he wss obliged to be cut for it; the operation however did not succeed, the stone being so big that it could not be extracted. He bore this affliction with great constancy and resolution till his death, which happened in October 1690.

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

This excellent officer was so anxious for the honour of the sea-service, and his own, that when lord Anson, then first lord of the admiralty, refused to confirm his promotion of two naval officers to the rank of post-captains, in consequence of their having distinguished themselves at the siege of Louisburgh (Laforey and Balfotir, if we mistake not), he threatened to give up his seat at the board of admiralty, and lord Anson, rather than lose the advice and experience of this great seaman, thought fit to retract his opposition. Admiral Boscawen was so little infected with the spirit of party, that when, on his return from one of his expeditions, he found his friends out of place, and another administration appointed, and was asked whether he would continue as a lord of the admiralty with them, he replied, “the country has a right to the services of its professional men: should I be sent again upon any expedition, my situation at the admiralty will facilitate the equipment of the fleet I am to command.” He probably thought, with his great predecessor, Blake, “It is not for us to mind state affairs, but to prevent foreigners from fooling us.” No stronger testimony of the merit of admiral Boscawen can be given, than that afforded by the late lord Chatham, when prime minister: “When I apply,” said he, “to other officers respecting any expedition I may chance to project, they always raise difficulties; you always find expedients.”

Benedict XIV. who was a great encourager of learning, and a beneficent patron of learned men, gave Boscovich many proofs of the esteem he had for him; and both he and his enlightened minister, cardinal Valenti, consulted Boscovich on various important objects of public economy, the clearing of harbours, and the constructing of roads and canals. On one occasion, he was joined in a commission with other mathematicians and architects, invited from different parts of Italy, to inspect the cupola of St. Peter’s, in which a crack had been discovered. They were divided in opinion; but the sentiments of Boscovich, and of the marquis Poleni, prevailed. In stating, however, the result of the consultation, which was to apply a circle of iron round the building, Poleni forgot to refer the idea to its real author, and this omission grievously offended Boscovich, who was tenacious of fame, and somewhat irritable“in temper. About the same time other incidents had concurred to mortify his pride; and he became at last disgusted with his situation, and only looked for a convenient opportunity of quitting Rome. While in this temper of mind, an application was made by the court of Portugal to the general of the Jesuits, for ten mathematicians of the society to go out to Brazil, for the purpose of surveying that settlement, and ascertaining the boundaries which divide it from the Spanish dominions in America. Wishing to combine with that object the mensuration of a degree of latitude, Boscovich offered to embark in the expedition, and his proposition was readily accepted. But cardinal Valenti, unwilling to lose his services, commanded him, in the name of the pope, to dismiss the project, and persuaded him to undertake the same service at home in the Papal territory. In this fatiguing, and often perilous operation, he was assisted by the English Jesuit, Mayer, an excellent mathematician, and was amply provided with the requisite instruments and attendants. They began the work about the close of the year 1750, in the neighbourhood of Rome, and extended the meridian line northwards, across the chain of the Appennines as far as Rimini. Two whole years were spent in completing the various measurements, which were performed with the most scrupulous accuracy. The whole is elaborately described by Boscovich in a quarto volume, full of illustration and minute details’, and with several opuscules, or detached essays, which display great ingenuity, conjoined with the finest geometric taste. We may instance, in particular, the discourse on the rectification of instruments, the elegant synthetical investigation of the figure of the earth, deduce^ both from the law of attraction, and from the actual measurement of degrees, and the nice remarks concerning the curve and the conditions of permanent stability. This last tract gave occasion, however, to some strictures from D'Alembert, to which Boscovich replied, in a note annexed to the French edition of his works. The arduous service which Boscovich had now performed was but poorly rewarded. From the pope he received only a hundred sequins, or about forty-five pounds sterling, a gold box, and” abundance of praise." He now resumed the charge of the mathematical school, and besides discharged faithfully the public duties of religion, which are enjoined by his order. A trifling circumstance will mark the warmth of his temper, and his love of precedence. He had recourse to the authority of cardinal Valenti, to obtain admission into the oratory of Caravita, from which his absence excluded him, and which yet afforded only the bent-fit of a free, but frugal supper. In presiding at that social repast, the philosopher relaxed from the severity of his studies, and shone by his varied, his lively, and fluent conversation.

But, notwithstanding these discouragements, Boscovich applied assiduously to the improvement of astronomy and optics; revised and extended his former ideas, and struck out new paths of discovery. His solution of the problem to determine the orbit of a comet from three observations, is remarkable for its elegant simplicity; being derived from the mere elementary principles of trigonometry. Not less beautiful are his memoirs on the micrometer, and on achromatic telescopes. But his situation becoming more irksome, in 1783, he desired and obtained leave of absence. Two years he spent at Bassano, in the Venetian state, where he published his opuscules, in five volumes, 4to, composed in Latin, Italian, and French, and containing a variety of elegant and. ingenious disquisitions connected with astronomical and optical science. During that time he lived with his editor Remondini, and occupied himself in superintending the press. After finishing his task, he came to Tuscany, and passed some months at the convent of Valombrosa. Thence he went to Milan, and issued a Latin prospectus, in which he proposed to reprint the remaining two volumes of the philosophical poem of Stay, enriched with his annotations, and extended to ten, books. But very few subscribers appeared; his opuscules experienced a slow sale; and the Imperial minister neither consulted nor employed him in some mathematical operations which were carrying on; all symptoms that he was no more a favourite of the Italian public. These mortifications preyed upon his spirits, and made the deeper impression, as his health was much disordered by an inflammation of the lungs. He sunk into a stupid, listless melancholy, and after brooding many days, he emerged into insanity, but not without lucid intervals, during which religion suggested topics of consolation, and he regretted having spent his time in curious speculation, and considered the calamity with which he was visited as a kind of chastisement of heaven for neglecting the spiritual duties of his profession. In this temper of resignation, he expired on the 13th of February, 1787. He was interred decently, but without pomp, in the parochial church of S. Maria Pedone. “Such was the exit,” says Fabroni, “of this sublime genius, whom Rome honoured as her master, whom all Italy regarded as her ornament, and to whom Greece would have erected a statue, had she for want of space been obliged even to throw down some of her heroes.”

, a learned English clergyman and philologer, was horn at Blencogo, in the county of Cumberland, March 12, 1738; and after receiving his education at Wigton, under the rev. Joseph Blaine, went in his sixteenth year to North America. At the proper age he returned to England to be ordained, previously to which, in 1761, the vestry of the parish of Hanover, in the county of King George, Virginia, had nominated him to, the rectory of that parish. He afterwards exchanged this for the parish of St. Mary’s in Caroline county, Virginia. When the late sir Robert Eden, bart. became governor of Maryland, he appointed Mr. Boucher rector of St. Anne’s in Annapolis, and afterwards of Queen Anne’s in Prince George’s county, where he faithfully and zealously discharged the duties of a minister of the church until 1775.

, a celebrated French critic, was born at Paris in 1628; and has by some been considered as a proper person to succeed Malherbe, who died about that time. He entered into the society of Jesuits at sixteen, and was appointed to read lectures upon polite literature in the college of Clermont at Paris, where he had studied; but he was so incessantly attacked with the head-ach, that he could not pursue the destined task. He afterwards undertook the education of two sons of the duke of Longueville, which he discharged to the entire satisfaction of the duke, who had such a regard for him, that he would needs die in his arms; and the “Account of the pious and Christian death” of this great personage was the first work which Bouhours gave the public. He was sent to Dunkirk to the popish refugees from England; and, in, the midst of his missionary occupations, found time to compose and publish many works of reputation. Among these were “Entretiens d‘Ariste & d’Eugene,” a work of a critical nature, which was printed no less than five times at Paris, twice at Grenoble, at Lyons, at Brussels, at Amsterdam, at Leyden, &c. and embroiled him with a great number of critics, and with Menage in particular; who, however, lived in friendship with our author before and after. There is a passage in this work which gave great oifence in Germany, where he makes it a question, “Whether it be possible that a German could be a wit” The fame of it, however, and the pleasure he took in reading it, recommended Bouhours so effectually to the celebrated minister Colbert, that he trusted him with the education of his son, the marquis of Segnelai. The Remarks and Doubts upon the French language has been reckoned one of the most considerable of our author’s works; and may be read with great advantage by those who would perfect themselves in that tongue. Menage, in his Observations upon the French language, has given his approbation of jt in the following passage: “The book of Doubts,” says he, “is written with great elegance, and contains many fine observations. And, as Aristotle has said, that reasonable doubt is the beginning of all real knowledge; so we may say also, that the man who doubts so reasonably as the author of this book, is himself very capable of deciding. For this reason perhaps it is, that, forgetting the tide of his work, he decides oftener than at first he proposed.” Bouhours was the author of another work, “The art of pleasing in conversation,” of which M. de la Grose, who wrote the eleventh volume of the Bibliotheque Universelle, has given an account, which he begins with this elogium upon the author “A very little skill,” says he, “in style and manner, will enable a reader to discover the author of this work. He will see at once the nice, the ingenious, and delicate turn, the elegance and politeness of father Bouhours. Add to this, the manner of writing in dialogue, the custom of quoting himself, the collecting strokes of wit, the little agreeable relations interspersed, and a certain mixture of gallantry and morality which is altogether peculiar to this Jesuit. This work is inferior to nothing we have seen of father Bouhours. He treats in twenty dialogues, with an air of gaiety, of every thing which can find a way into conversation; and, though he avoids being systematical, yet he gives his reader to understand, that there is no subject whatever, either of divinity, philosophy, law, or physic, &c. but may be introduced into conversation, provided it be done with ease, politeness, and in a manner free from pedantry and affectation.” He died at Paris, in the college of Clermont, upon the 27th of May 1702; after a life spent, says Moreri, under such constant and violent fits of the head-ach, that he had but few intervals of perfect ease. The following is a list of his works with their dates: 1. “Les Entretiens d‘Ariste et d’Eugene,” 1671, 12ro. 2. “Remarques et Doutes sur la langue Franchise,” 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “La Manier de bien penser sur les ouvrages d' esprit,” Paris, 1692, 12mo. 4. “Pensees ingenieuses des anciens et des modernes,” Paris, 1691, 12mo. In this work he mentions Boileau, whom he had omitted in the preceding; but when he expected Boileau would acknowledge the favour, he coolly replied, “You have, it is true, introduced me in your new work, but in very bad company,” alluding to the frequent mention of some Italian and French versifiers whom Boileau despised. 5. “Pensees ingenieuses des Peres de l'Eglise,” Paris, 1700. This he is said to have written as an answer to the objection that he employed “too much of his time Oh profane literature. 6.” Histoire du grandmaitre d'Aubusson,“1676, 4to, 1679, and lately in 1780. 7. The lives of St. Ignatius, Paris, 1756, 12mo, and of St. Francis Xavier, 1682, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo. Both these are written with rather more judgment than the same lives by Ribadeneira, but are yet replete with the miraculous and the fabulous. The life of Xavier was translated by Dryden, and published at London in 1688, with a dedication to king James II. 's queen. Dryden, says Mr. Malone, doubtless undertook this task, in consequence of the queen, when she solicited a son, having recommended herself to Xavier as her patron saint. 8.” Le Nouveau Testament," translated into French from the Vulgate, 2 vols. 1697 1703, 12mo.

, comte de St. Saire, where he was born October 21, 1658, of a noble and ancient family, was educated at Juilli, by the rithers of the oratory, and gave proofs of genius and abilities from his childhood. His chief study was history, which he afterwards cultivated assiduously. He died January 23, 1722, at Paris, having been twice married, and left only daughters. He was author of a History of the Arabians, and Mahomet, 12mo, “Memoires sur l'ancien Governement de France; ou 14 lettres sur les anciens Parlemens de France,” 3 vols. 12mo; “Histoire de France jusqu'a Charles VIII.” 3 vols. 12mo; and “l'Etatde la Fiance,” 6 vols. 12mo, in the Dutch edition, and eight in the edition of Trevoux, “Memoire presente a M. le due d‘Orleans, sur l’Administration des Finances,” 2 vols. 12mo “Histoire de la Pairie de France,” 12mo “Dissertations sur la Noblesse de France,” 12mo. Ah his writings on the French history have been collected in 3 vols. fol. They Sire riot written (says M. de Montesquieu) with all the free-. dom and simplicity of the ancient nobility, from which he descended. M. Boulainvilliers left some other works in ms. known to the learned, who have, with great reason, been astonished to find, that he expresses in them his doubts of the most incontestable dogmas of religion, while he blindly gives credit to the reveries of juticial astrology an inconsistency common to many other infjdels. Mosheim informs us that Boulainvilliers was such an admirer of the pernicious opinions of Spinosa, that he formed the design of expounding and illustrating it, as is done wth respect to the doctrines of the gospel in books of piety, accommodated to ordinary capacities. This design he attually executed, but in such a manner as to set the atheim and impiety of Spinosa in a clearer light than they hid ever appeared before. The work was published by lenglet du Fresnoy, who, that it might be bought with avdity, and read without suspicion, called it a Refutation of theErrors of Spinosa, artfully adding some separate pieces, to which this title may, in some measure, he thought applicabk. The whole title runs, “Refutation des Erreurs de Beioit de Spinosa, par M. de Fenelon, archeveque de Cambay, par le Pere Lauri Benedictin, et par M. Le Comte de Bulainvilliers, avec la Vie de Spinosa, ecrite par Jean COerus, minister de l‘Eglise Lutherienne de la Haye, augnsntée de beaucoup de particularites tirees d’une vie manucrite de ce philosophe, fait par un de ses amis,” (Luczs, the atheistical physician), Brussels, 1731, 12mo. The account and defence of Spinosa, given by Boulainviliers, under the pretence of a refutation, take up the greatest part of this book, and are placed first, and not last in order, as the title would insinuate and the volume concludes with what is not in the title, a defence of Spinosa by Iredenburg, and a refutation of that defence by Orobio. a Jew of Amsterdam. It remains to be noticed, that his Life of Mahomet, which he did not live to complete, vas published at London and Amsterdam, in 1730, 8vo and about the same time an English translation of it appeared His letters, also, on the French parliaments, were translated and published at London, 1739, 2 vols.-8vo.

* Dr. Welsted, a physician, was also The primate maintained a son of the of this golden election, and when he doctor’s, as a commoner, at Hart-halt became poor in the latter part of his in Oxford; and would effectually have life, the archbishop, though he was no provided for him, if the young gentlerelation, gave him, at the least, two man had not died before he had taken hundred pounds a year, till his death, a degree. Dr. Welsted was one of the Nor did his grace’s kindness to the editors of the Oxford Pindar, and doctor’s family end with his decease-, esteemed an excellent Greek scholar. and some time after he was preferred to the same honour by Dr. Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury. In these stations he was under a necessity of appearing often at court, where his merit obtained him the patronage of Charles Spencer, earl of Sunderland, principal secretary of state, by whose interest he was advanced to the rectory of St. Olave in Southwark, and to the archdeaconry of Surrey. The parish of St. Olave was very populous, and for the most part poor, and required such a liberal and vigilant pastor as Dr. Boulter, who relieved their wants, and gave them instruction, correction, and reproof. When king George I. passed over to Hanover in 1719, Dr. Boulter was recommended to attend him in quality of his chaplain, and also was appointed tutor to prince Frederic, to instruct him in the English tongue; and for that purpose drew up for his use “A set of Instructions.” This so recommended him to the king, that during his abode at Hanover, the bishopric of Bristol, and deanery of Christchurch, Oxford, becoming vacant, the king granted to him that see and deanery, and he was consecrated bishop of Bristol, on the fifteenth of November, 1719. In this last station he was more than ordinarily assiduous in the visitation of his diocese, and the discharge of his pastoral duty; and during one of these visitations, he received a letter by a messenger from the secretary of state, acquainting him, that his majesty had nominated him to the archbishopric of Armagh, and primacy of Ireland, then vacant by the death of Dr. Thomas Lindsay, on the 13th of July, 1724-, and desiring him to repair to London as soon as possible, to kiss the king’s hand for his promotion. After some, consultation on this affair, to which he felt great repugnance, he sent an answer by the messenger, refusing the honour the king intended him, and requesting the secretary to use his good offices with his majesty, in making his excuse, but the messenger was dispatched back to him. by the secretary, with the king’s absolute commands that he should accept of the post, to which he submitted, though not without some reluctance, and soon after addressed himself to his journey to court. Ireland was at that juncture not a little inflamed, by the copper-coin project of one Wood, and it was thought by the king and ministry, that the judgment, moderation, and wisdom of the bishop of Bristol would tend much to allay the ferment. He arrived in Ireland on the third of November, 1724, had no sooner passed patent for the primacy, than he appeared at all the public boards, and gave a weight and vigour to them; and, in every respect, was indefatigable in promoting the real happiness of the people. Among his other wise measures, in seasons of great scarcity in, Ireland, he was more than once instrumental in averting a pestilence and famine, which threatened the nation. When the scheme was set on foot for making a navigation, by a canal to be drawn from Lough -Neagh to Newry, not only for bringing coal to Dublin, but to carry on more effectually an inland trade in the several counties of the north of Ireland, he greatlv encouraged and promoted the design, not only with his counsel but his purse. Drogheda is a large and populous town within the diocese of Armagh, and his grace finding that the ecclesiastical appointments were not sufficient to support two clergymen there, and the cure over-burthensome for one effectually to discharge, he allotted out of his own pocket a maintenance for a second curate, whom he obliged to give public service every Sunday in the afternoon, and prayers twice every day. He had great compassion for the poor clergy of his diocese, who were disabled from giving their children a proper education, and maintained several of the sons of such in the university, in order to qualify them for future preferment, He erected four houses at Drogheda for the reception of clergymen’s widows, and purchased an estate for the endowment of them, after the model of primate Marsh’s charity; which he enlarged in one particular: for as the estate he purchased for the maintenance of the widows, amounted to twenty-four pounds a year more than he had set apart for that use, he appointed that the surplus should be a fund for setting out the children of such, widows apprentices, or otherwise to be disposed of for the benefit of such children, as his trustees should think proper. He also by his will directed, which has since been performed, that four houses should be built for clergymen’s widows at Armagh, and endowed with fifty pounds a year. During his life, he contracted for the building of a stately market-house at Armagh, which was finished by his executors, at upwards of eight hundred pounds expence. He was a benefactor also to Dr. Stevens’s hospital in the city of Dublin, erected for the maintenance and cure of the poor. His charities for augmenting small livings, and buying of glebes, amounted to upwards of thirty thousand pourids, besides what he devised by his will for the like purposes in England. Though the plan of the incorporated society for promoting English protestant working schools, cannot be imputed to primate Boulter, yet he was the chief instrument in forwarding the undertaking, which he lived to see carried into execution with consider, able success. His private charities were not less munificent, but so secretly conducted, that it is impossible to give any particular account of them: it is affirmed by those who were in trust about him, that he never suffered an object to leave his house unsupplied, and he often sent them away with considerable sums, according to the judgment he made of their merits and necessities. With respect to his political virtues, and the arts of government, when his health would permit him he was constant in his attendance at the council-table, and it is well known what weight and dignity he gave to the debates of that board. As he always studied the true interest of Ireland, so he judged, that the diminishing the value of the gold coin would be a means of increasing silver in the country, a thing very much wanted in order to effect which, he supported a scheme at the council- table, which raised the clamours of unthinking people, although experience soon demonstrated its wisdom. He was thirteen times one of the lords justices, or chief governors of Ireland; which office he administered oftener than any other chief governor on record. He embarked for England June 2, 1742, and after two days illness died at his house in St. James’s place, Sept. 27, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a stately monument has been erected to his memory. His deportment was grave, his aspect venerable, and his temper meek and humble. He was always open and easy of access both to rich and poor. He was steady to the principles of liberty, both in religion and politics. His learning was universal, yet more in substance than shew; nor would his modesty permit him to make any ostentation of it. He always preserved such an equal temper of mind that hardly any thing could ruffle, and amidst obloquy and opposition, steadily maintained a resolution of serving his country, embraced every thing proposed for the good of it, though by persons remarkable for their opposition to him: and when the most public-spirited schemes were introduced by him, and did not meet with the reception they deserved, he never took offence, but was glad when any part of his advice for the public good was pursued, and was always willing to drop some points, that he might not lose all; often saying, “he would do all the good to Ireland he could, though they did not suffer him to do all he would.” His life was mostly spent in action, and therefore it is not to be expected that he should have left many remains of his learning behind him nor do we know of any thing he bath written, excepting a few Charges to his clergy at his visitations, which are grave, solid, and instructive, and eleven Occasional Sermons, printed separately. In 1769, however, were published, at Oxford, in two volumes 8vo, “Letters written by his excellency Hugh Boulter, D. D. lord primate of all Ireland, &c. to several ministers of state in England, and some others. Containing an account of the most interesting transactions which passed in Ireland from 1724 to 1738.” The originals, which are deposited in the library of Christ church, in Oxford, were collected by Ambrose Philips, esq. who was secretary to his grace, and lived in his house during that space of time in which they bear date. They are entirely letters of business, and are all of them in Dr. Boulter’s hand-writing, excepting some few, which are fair copies by his secretary. The editor justly remarks, that these letters, which could not be intended for publication, have been fortunately preserved, as they contain the most authentic history of Ireland, for the period in which they were written: “a period,” he adds, “which will ever do honour to his grace’s memory, and to those most excellent princes George the first and second, who had the wisdom to place confidence in so worthy, so able, and so successful a minister; a minister who had the rare and peculiar felicity of growing still more and more into the favour both of the king and of the people, until the very last day of his life,” It is much to be regretted that in some of his measures, he was opposed by dean Swift, particularly in that of diminishing the gold coin, as it is probable that they both were actuated by an earnest desire of serving the country. In one affair, that of Wood’s halfpence, they appear to have coincided, and in that they both happened to encourage a public clamour which had little solid foundation. The writer of archbishop' Boulter’s Life in the Biog. Brit, seems to doubt whether he assisted Ambrose Philips in the paper called the “Freethinker;” but of this we apprehend there can be no doubt. It was published while he held the living of St. Olave’s.

Antoinette Bourignon had more disciples in Scotland than in any other country perhaps of the world. Not only laymen, but some of their ecclesiastics, embraced Bourignonism: and one of Antoinette’s principal books was published, entitled “The light of the world,” in English, in 1696; to which the translator added a long preface, to prove that this maid ought at least to pass for an extraordinary prophetess. Her tenets at one time gained so much ground in Scotland, as to become an object of great jealousy with the church, and measures were adopted by the General Assembly for checking the growth of this blasphemous heresy. Dr. George Garden, a minister of Aberdeen, was deposed in 1701, for teaching its “damnable errors,” and all candidates for orders are to this day required to abjure and renounce the Bourignian doctrine. Mr. Charles Lesley, in the preface to the second edition of his “Snake in the grass,” observed the errors of this sect and they were refuted at large by Dr. Cockburn, iti a piece entitled, Bourignonism detected, against messieurs Poiret, De Cordt, and the English translator of the “Lux Mundi,” who endeavoured to shew that she was inspired, and had received a commission from God to refoi'm Christianity. This was answered by the Bourignonists in an apology for their leader who has still a remnant left in. some parts of North Britain.

"I reached Bern that night, and purposed staying some time there; but being informed by the principal minister of the place, to whom I discovered myself, that boats went frequently down the Rhine at that time of the year with goods and passengers from Basil to Holland and advised by him to avail myself of that opportunity, I set out accordingly the next day, and crossing the popish canton of Soleurre in the night, but very carefully avoiding the town of that name, I got early the next morning to Bsil. There I met with a most friendly reception from one of the ministers of the place, having been warmly recommded to him by a letter I brought with me from his brotbr at Bern. As a boat was to sail in two days, he entertaiisd me very elegantly during that time at his house and embarked the third day, leaving my horse to my host inreturn for his kindness.

, an eminent philologer, historian, and antiquary, born Sept. 12, 1612, was the son of James Zuerius, minister at Bergen-op-Zoom, by Anne Boxhorn, the daughter of Henry Boxhorn, a minister of Breda, originally a Roman Catholic, but who embracing the reformed religion, became minister first in the duchy of Cleves, then at Woorden in Holland, and lastly at Breda, which place he left in 1625 when the Spaniards took it, and retired to Leyden: here he superintended the education of his grandson, the subject of the present article, who lost his father when only six years old, and as he had no male children, gave young Zuerius his name of Boxhorn. Under his tuition, the youth made great progress in his studies, and in 1629 published some good poetry on the taking of Boisleduc, and some other victories which the Dutch had gained. This was when he was only seventeen years old, and he was but twenty when he published some more considerable works, as will appear in our list, which induced the curators of the university of Leyden in the same year, 1632, to promote him to the professorship of eloquence. His reputation extending, chancellor Oxenstiern, the Swedish ambassador, made him great offers in queen Christina’s name, but preferring a residence in his own country, he was afterwards appointed professor of politics and history in the room of Daniel Heinsius, now disabled by age. For some time he carried on a controversy with Salmasius, but they were afterwards apparently reconciled. Besides his numerous works, he contributed frequently to the labours of his learned friends: his career, however, was short, as he died, after a tedious illness, at Leyden, Oct. 3, 1653, at the age of only forty -one. How industriously this time was employed will appear from the following list of his publications. 1. “Poemata,” 1629, 12mo. 2. “Granatarum encomium,” Amsterdam, 1631, 4to. 3. “Historian Augustas Scriptores,” a new edition with his notes, Leyden, 1631, 4 vols. 12mo, which Harwood calls beautiful but incorrect. 4. “Theatrum, sive Descriptio Comitatus et Urbium Hollandiae,” ibid. 1632, 4to. and translated into German the!-ame year by Peter Montanus. 5. An edition of “Plinii Panegyricus,” Leyden, 1632 and 1648, Amsterdam, 1649, 12mo. 6. A nimadversiones ad Suetonium Tranquillum,“Leyden, 1632 and 1645, 12mo. 7.” Poetae Satiric! minores, cum Commentariis,“ibid. 1632, 8vo. 8.” Respublica Leodiensium,“ibid. 1633, 24mo. 9.” Apologia pro Navigationibus Hollandorum, adversus Pontum Heuterum,“ibid. 1633, 24mo, and reprinted at London, 1636, 8vo. 10.” Emblemata Politica, et Dissertationes Politicae,“Amsterdam, 1634 and 1651, 12mo. 11.” Julii Csesaris Opera, cum commentariis variorum,“ibid. 16:34, fol. 12.” Grammatica regia, &c. pro Christina Succor um regina,“Holm. 1635, 12nio, Leyden, 1650. 13.” Catonis Disticha, Gr. Lat. cum Notis,“Leyden, 1635, 8vo. 14.” Orationes duae de vera Nobilitate et ineptiis sseculi,“ibid. 1635, fol. 15.” Oratio inauguralis de maj estate eioqueuti Romanae,“ibid. 1636, 4to. 16. 44 Orationes Tres, de theologia paganorum, fabulis poetarum, et animarum immortalitate,” ibid. 1636, 4to. 17. “Oratio funebris in obitum Dominici Molini,” ibid. 1636, fol. 18. “Character causarum Patroni,” ibid. 1637, 4to. 19. ' Character Amoris,“ibid. 1637, 4to. 20.” Panegyricus Principi Fred. Henrico, post Bred am oppugnatam dictus,“Leyden, 1637, fol. 21.” Quaestiones Roman se, cum Plutarchi qucetionibus Romanis, commentario uberrimo explicatis,“ibid. 1637, 4to, and reprinted in Graevius, vol. V. 22.” Monumenta illustrium virorum seri incisa et elogia,“ibid. 1633, fol. 23.” JuStinus, cum notis,“Amsterdam, 1638. 24.” Panegyricus in classem Hispanorum profligatam,“Leyden, 1639, fol. 25.” Oratio de Somniis,“ibid. 1639, 4to. 26.” Historia obsidionis Bredanae, &c.“ibid. 1640, fol. 27.” De Typographies artis inventione et inventoribus, Dissertatio,“ibid. 1640, 4to. In this he is inclined to think that the art of printing was first discovered at Haerlem, and not at Mentz, as he first supposed. 28. “Dissertatio de Trapezitis, vulgo Longobardis,” ibid. 1640, 8vo, and Groningen, 1658, 4to. 29. “Panegyricus in Nuptias principis Arausionensium Gulielmi, et Mariae, Britanniae regis filiae,” Leyden, 1641, fol. 30.” Oratio in excessum Cornelii Vander Myle,“ibid. 1642, fol. 31.” Oratio qua Ser. Henricae Mariae, magnae Britannise reginae urbem Leydensem subeuntis adventum veneratur,“ibid. 1642, fol. This compliment to our exiled queen, and a subsequent publication, Bayle informs us, was disliked by some republicans. 32.” Oratio in excessum principis Const. Alexandri,“ibid. 1642, fol. 33.” Commentarius in vitam Agricolae Corn. Taciti,“ibid. 1642, 12mo, and an Apology for this edition,” adversus Dialogistam,“Amsterdam, 1643, 12mo. 34.” Animadversiones in Corn. Taciturn, Amsterdam,“1643, and often reprinted. 35. The Belgic History to the time of Charles V. in Dutch, Leyden, 1644, 1649, 4to. 36.” Chronicon Zelandiae,“Middleburgh, 1644, 4to. 37. On the worship of the goddess Nehalennia, in Dutch, Leyden, 1647, 4to. 38.” Plinii Epistolae cum ejus Panegyrico,“ibid. 1648, and Amsterdam, 1659, 12mo. 39.” Dissertatio de Amnestia,“ibid. 1648, 12mo. 40.” Dissertatio de successione etjure primogenitorum, in adeundo principatu, ad Carolum II. Magnse Britanniae regem,“ibid. 1649, 4to. 41.” De Majestate Regum, Principumque liber singularis,“a defence of the former, ibid. 1649, 4to. 42.”Com.mentariolusde Statu Fcederatarum Provinciarum Belgii, Hague, 1649. Somi offence taken by the States of Holland obliged the author to alter part of this work in the edition 1650. 43. “Oratio funebris in excessum Adriani Falkoburgii Med. Doct.” Leyden, 1650, 4to. 44. “Hayraonis Hist, ecclesiastics Breviarium,” ibid. 1650, 12mo. 45. “Disquisitiones Politicae, ex omni historia selectae,” Hague, 1654, Erfurt, 1664, 12mo. 46. “Dissertatio de Groecse, Romanae, et Germanics? Linguarum harmonia,” Leyden, 1650. 47. “Historia Universalis Sacra et Profana a nato Christo ad annum 1650,” ibid. 1651, 1652, 4to, and Leipsic, 1675, 4to. Mencke, the continuator, speaks of this as an excellent account of theorigin and rights of nations. 48. “Orationes varii argumenti,” Amst. 1651, 12mo. 49. “Oratio in excessum Gul. principis Arausiee, comitis Nassovii, Leyd. 1651, fol. 50.” Metamorphosis Anglorurn,“Hague, 1653, 12mo. 51.” Originum Gallicaruna liber,“Amst. 1654, 4to. This critical history of ancient Gaul procured him much reputation. He was employed on it in his latter days, but did not live to publish it. The following are also posthumous 52.” Ideae orationum e selection materia modern! status politici desumptae,“Leyden, 1657, ]2mo, and Leipsic, 1661, 12mo. 53.” Institutionum seu disquisitionum Politicarum Libri Duo,“Leipsic, 1659, Amst. 1663. 54.” Chronologia sacra et prophana,“edited by Bosius, Francf. 1660, fol. 55.” Epistolae et Poemata,“Amst. 1662, 12mo, with his life written by James Baselius, a Calvinist minister, and reprinted at Leipsic in 1679, with a preface by Thomasius. 56.” Dissertatio de Imperio Romano," Jena, 1664, 12mo.

, a Scotch writer of considerable reputation in the sixteenth century, the son of Robert Boyd, of Pinkill in Ayrshire, was born Jan. 13, 1562. Having lost his father early, he was educated under the inspection of his uncle, Mr. James Boyd, of Trochrig, who, with the then unpopular title of “Archbishop of Glasgow,” performed the offices of minister of the Barony parish in that city. Young Boyd, in his nature lively and headstrong, soon grew weary of academical discipline, quarreled with his preceptors, renounced his studies, and, eager to become a man of the world, presented himself at court. It is not unlikely that in this scheme ae relied chit fly on the patronage of liobert, fourth lord Boyd, who was probably the cousin-gernran of Boyd’s father. All, however, that we learn of his proficiency at cm:;c is, that he fought one duel, and was engaged in numberless broils. His relations advised him to follow the profession of arms in the Low Countries, for they could not tolerate his impetuous and unruly temper, and perhaps they were little inclined or little able to support him in a manner of life which had no determined object or aim. Boyd readily consented to become a soldier; but he chose France rather than the Low Countries, for the theatre of his future achievements. He went therefore to Paris, furnished with a small stock of money, all of which he soon lost at dice. This the author of his life ascribes to some secret fate, “occulto veluti fato” but says his more recent biographer, lord Hailes, we may absolve fate, for when the raw and self-sufficient go amongst sharpers, they ought to ascribe their ruin to folly.

, a celebrated statesman, descended from an ancient and honourable family, and distinguished by the title of the great earl of Cork, was the youngest son of Mr. Roger Boyle of Herefordshire, by Joan, daughter of Robert Naylor of Canterbury, and born in the city of Canterbury, Oct. 3, 1566. He was instructed in grammar learning by a clergyman of Kent; and after having been a scholar in Ben'et college, Cambridge, where he was remarkable for early rising, indefatigable study, and great temperance, became student in the Middle Temple. He lost his father when he was but ten years old, and his mother at the expiration of other ten years; and being unable to support himself in the prosecution of his studies, he entered into the service of sir Richard Manwood, chief baron of the exchequer, as one of his clerks: but perceiving few advantages from this employment, he resolved to travel, and landed at Dublin in June 1588, with a very scanty stock, his whole property amounting, as he himself informs us, to 271. 3s. in money, two trinkets which his mother gave him as tokens, and his wearing apparel. He was then about two-and-twenty, had a graceful person, and all the accomplishments for a young man to succeed in a country which was a scene of so much action. Accordingly he made himself very useful to some of the principal persons employed in the government, by penning for them memorials, cases, and answers; and thereby acquired a perfect knowledge of the kingdom and the state of publia affairs, of which he knew well how to avail himself. In 1595 he married at Limeric, Joan, the daughter and coheiress of William Ansley of Pulborough, in Sussex, <esq. who had fallen in love with him. This lady died 1599, in labour of her first child (born dead) leaving her husband an estate of 500l. a year in lands, which was the beginning of his fortune. Some time after, sir Henry Wallop, of Wares, sir Robert Gardiner, chief justice of the king’s bench, sir Robert Dillam, chief justice of the common pleas, and sir Richard Binghim, chief commissioner of Connaught, envious at certain purchases he had made in the province, represented to queen Elizabeth that he was in the pay of the king of Spain (who had at that time some thoughts of invading Ireland), by whom he had been furnished with money to buy several large estates; and that he was strongly suspected to be a Roman catholic in his heart, with many other malicious suggestions equally groundless. Mr. Boyle, having private notice of this, determined to come over to England to justify himself: but, before he could take shipping, the general rebellion in Minister broke out, all his lands were wasted, and he had not one penny of certain revenue left. In this distress he betook himself to his former chamber in the Middle Temple, intending to renew his studies in the law till the rebellion should be suppressed. When the earl of Essex was nominated lord-deputy of Ireland, Mr. Boyle, being recommended to him by Mr. Anthony Bacon, was received by his lordship very graciously; and sir Henry Wallop, treasurer of Ireland, knowing that Mr. Boyle had in his custody several papers which could detect his roguish manner of passing his accounts, resolved utterly to depress him, and for that end renewed his former complaints against him to the queen. By her majesty’s special directions, Mr. Boyle was suddenly taken up, and committed close prisoner to the Gatehouse: all his papers were seized and searched; and although nothing appeared to his prejudice, yet his confinement lasted till two months after his new patron the earl of Essex was gone to Ireland, At length, with much difficulty, he obtained the favour of the queen to be present at his examination; and having fully answered whatever was alledged against him, he gave a short account of his behaviour since he first settled in Ireland, and concluded with laying open to the queen and her council the conduct of his chief enemy sir Henry Wallop. Upon which her majesty exclaimed with, her usual intemperance of speech, “By God’s death, these are but inventions against this young man, and all his sufferings are for being able to do us service, and these complaints urged to forestal him therein. But we find him to be a man fit to be employed by ourselves; and we will employ him in our service: and Wallop and his adherents shall know that it shall not be in the power of any of them, to wrong him. Neither -shall Wallop be our treasurer any longer.” Accordingly, she gave orders not only for Mr. Boyle’s present enlargement, but also for paying all the charges and fees his confinement had brought upon him, and gave him her hand to kiss before the whole assembly. A few days after, the queen constituted him clerk of the council of Munster, and recommended him to sir George Carew, afterwards earl of Totness, then lord president of Munster, who became his constant friend; and very soon, after he was made justice of the peace and of the quorum, throughout all the province. He attended in that capacity the lord president in all his employments, and was sent by his lordship to the queen with the news of the victory gained in December 1601, near Kinsate, over the Irish, and their Spanish auxiliaries, who were totally routed, 1200 being slain in the field, and 800 wounded. “I made,” says he, “a speedy expedition to the court, for I left my lord president at Shannon -castle, near Cork, on the Monday morning about two of the clock; and the next day, being Tuesday, I delivered my packet, and supped with sir Robert Cecil, being then principal secretary of state, at his house in the Strand; who, after supper, held me in discourse till two of the clock in the morning; and by seven that morning called upon me to attend him to the court, where he presented me to her majesty in her bedchamber.” A journey so rapid as this would be thought, even in the present more improved modes of travelling, requires all his lordship’s authority to render it credible.

, earl of Orrery, second son of Roger second earl of Orrery, by lady Mary Sackville, daughter to Richard earl of Dorset and Middlesex, was born in August 1676, at his father’s house in Chelsea; and at fifteen entered a nobleman of Christ-church, in Oxford, under the care of Dr. Francis Atterbury, afterwards bishop of Rochester, and Dr. Freind. Dr. Aldrich, the head of that society, observing his uncommon application, drew up for his use that compendium of logic which is now read at Christ-church, wherein he styles him “the great ornament of our college.” Having quitted the university, he was in 1700 chosen member for the town of Huntington. A petition being presented to the house of commons, complaining of the illegality of his election, he spoke in support of that election with great warmth; and this probably gave rise to his duel with Mr. Wortley, the other candidate, in which, though Mr. Boyle had the advantage, the wounds he received threw him into a dangerous fit of sickness that lasted for many months. On the death of his elder brother, he became fourth earl of Orrery; soon after, he had a regiment given him, and was elected a knight of the Thistle. In 1706 he married lady Elizabeth Cecil, daughter to the earl of Exeter. In 1709 he was promoted to the rank of major-general, and sworn of her majesty’s privy council. He was envoy extraordinary from the queen to the states of Flanders and Brabant, with an appointment of ten pounds a day, at a very critical juncture, namely, during the treaty of Utrecht. There, some in authority at Brussels, knowing they were soon to become the emperor’s subjects, and that his imperial majesty was not on good terms with the queen, shewed less respect to her minister than they had formerly done: upon which, Orrery, who considered their behaviour as an indignity to the crown of Great Britain, managed with so much resolution and dexterity, that, when they thought his power was declining, or rather that he had no power at all, he got every one of them turned out of his post, Her majesty, in the tenth year of her reign, raised him to the dignity of a British peer, under the title of lord Boyle, baron of Marston, in Somersetshire. On the accession of king George I. he was made a lord of the bedchamber, and lord -lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Somerset. His frequent voting against the ministers gave rise to a report that he was to be removed from all his posts; upon which he absented himself from the court: but his friends assuring him that they had ground to believe the king had a personal esteem for him, he wrote a letter to his majesty, signifying that though he looked upon his service as a high honour, yet, when he first entered into it, he did not conceive it was expected from him that he should vote against his conscience and his judgment; that he must confess it was his misfortune to differ widely in opinion from some of his majesty’s ministers; that if those gentlemen had represented this to his majesty as a crime not to be forgiven, and his majesty himself thought so, he was ready to resign those posts he enjoyed, from which he found he was already removed by a, common report, which was rather encouraged than contradicted by the ministers. The king going soon after to Hanover, lord Orrery’s regiment was taken from him; which his lordship looking upon as a mark of displeasure, resigned his post of lord of the bedchamber.

a protestant dissenting minister, was born at Leeds in Yorkshire, in January, 1659-60. After early instruction under the care of his parents, he received the first part of his education for the ministry at the private academy of the rev. Mr. Frankland, near Kendal, in Westmoreland, and completed it under the tuition of the rev. Mr. Edward Veal, who kept a private academy at Stepney, near London. Having continued in these seminaries five years, and availed himself of the opportunities which he enjoyed in the latter situation of attending on the preaching of many able divines, both conformists and non-conformists, he entered on the exercise of his ministry about the year 1680. In 1683, finding that he could not discharge the duties of his function in England without molestation, he accepted an invitation to be joint pastor with Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams, in Dublin; and had afterwards for his coadjutor the rev. Mr. Thomas Emlyn, so well known for his writings and his sufferings. This connection subsisted for more than ten years with mutual friendship and uninterrupted harmony; but it was at length dissolved in consequence of Mr. Emlyn’s sentiments concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. On this occasion the zeal of Mr. Boyse for the orthodox led him to take some steps that were thought injurious to his former colleague, and inconsistent with the friendship that had subsisted between them; though he disapproved the prosecution which Mr. Emlyn suffered, and behaved towards him with a greater degree of kindness than any of the other dissenting ministers of Dublin. The latter years of Mr. Boyse^s life were embittered by bodily disorders and straitened circumstances. His funeral sermon was preached in December, 1728; but the precise time of his death is not known. He was considered as a pious, learned, and useful divine; assiduous in the exercise of his ministry, and in his conduct generally esteemed. He had a principal concern in promoting the act of toleration in Ireland. His works were published in 1728, in 2 vols. fol. The first contains 71 sermons, 6 dissertations on the doctrine of justification, and a paraphrase on those passages of the New Testament which chiefly relate to that doctrine. One of his sermons, originally printed separately, on “the Office of a Christian Bishop,” was ordered to be burnt by the Irish parliament in Nov. 1711. The second volume contains several pieces, of which the principal is a“Vindication of the true Deity of our blessed Saviour,” in answer to Mr. Emlyn’s “Humble inquiry into the Scripture account of Jesus Christ, &c.” As Mr. Boyse’s answer was published at the time when Mr. Emlyn was under prosecution for his sentiments, his conduct did not escape censure from the friends of Emlyn, who did not think it candid, liberal, or ingenuous.

, a facetious preacher among the dissenters, whose oddities are still traditionary, was born in 1677, at Wakefield, in Yorkshire. His father belonged to a dissenting meeting at Alverthorp, near that town, of which Mr. Peter Naylor, an ejected minister, was pastor. Under his care, and at the free-school at Leeds, he received the first rudiments of learning. He was afterwards sent to an academy kept by Mr. Jollie, at Attercliffe. He began to preach at the early age of eighteen, about the year 1696, when his juvenile figure procured him some rebuffs, which he soon disregarded, and convinced his hearers that he was a boy only in appearance. His conquest over these remarks at this time seems to have formed an aera in his history, as he used to “bless God that from that hour he had never known the fear of man.” He soon after left the academy, and was taken into the family of Mr. Whitaker, who, according to his biographer, checked his ardour, at least so far that he preached but seldom. In 1697 he went to Beverley, where he continued two years, and then became assistant to Dr. Gilpin, at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and remained there three years, with almost unbounded popularity. He then removed to Stepney, near London, and in 1707 was chosen pastor of a meeting in Fetter-lane, vacant by the death of Mr. Benoni Rowe. After preaching here to a crowded congregation for twenty years, a quarrel took place; about what, his biographer does not inform us; but Mr. Bradbury was immediately invited to succeed the noted Daniel Burgess, in the meeting at New-court, Carey-street, and in less than a fortnight exchanged his former for his latter pulpit, carrying with him such of his Fetter-lane hearers as adhered to him in the late contest. Here he succeeded Daniel Burgess as a wit as well as a divine, and his biographer gravely informs us, that “this pulpit a se*cond time presented a phenomenon as rare as it is beneficial, wit consecrated to the service of serious and eternal truth.” Of this wit, however, Mr. N. Neal, in a letter to Dr. Doddridge, (1749,) gives a different opinion. “I have seen Mr. Bradbury’s sermons, just published, the nonsense and buffoonery of which would make one laugh, if his impious insults over the pious dead did not make one tremble.” After entertaining the public by this species of comic preaching for thirty-two years, he died at Warwick-court, Gray’s-inn, Sept. 9, 1759, aged eighty-two. Of his character it is said, that “had he possessed as much judgment as quickness of wit, and as much temper as zeal, he would have been a man of much greater consideration. His usefulness was much abated after the Sailers’ -hall synod, for though he was warm on the orthodox side, his ill-conducted zeal did much mischief.” Among his other differences of opinion from his brethren, he made it his business in the pulpit to lampoon and satirize the hymns and psalms of Dr. Watts. It is said, indeed, that whentever he gave out one of the former, it was prefaced with “Let us sing one of Watts’s whims.” Among the numerous anecdotes of Tom Bradbury, as he was familiarly called, we shall give only the following, which contains some characteristic features. “Tom generally gave audience at supper-time, and the ceremony was thus conducted. On a little table lay two pocket bibles, one of which was taken up by Bradbury, and the other by his daughter, and each having read a portion, one of the visiting ministers was desired to pray: they then adjourned to supper; after which, Tom entertained the company with ‘ The roast beef of old England,’ which, it is said, he sung better than any man in England.” His printed works amply justify the character usually given of him, that with much zeal he was totally destitute of judgment, and regardless of the dignity of his sacred calling, dwelling perpetually on political topics, and enforcing them in a strain of ridicule totally unfit for the place in which he stood. These works consist of “Fifty-four Sermons,” 1762, in 3 volumes octavo, all of which, except seven, had been printed separately. They are principally of the political kind, and it was justly remarked of them at the time of publication, that " from the great number of satred texts applied to the occasion, one would imagine the bible was written only to confirm, by divine authority, the benefits accruing to this nation from the accession of king William III.

, D. D. bishop of Rochester, was a native of London, the son of William Bradford, of whom it is recorded, that being a parish-officer in the time of the plague, he looked upon it as his duty to take care in person both of the dead and living, although he removed his family to Islington. The subject of this article was born Dec. 20, 1652, in St. Anne’s Blackfriars, and was educated at St. Paul’s school, and afterwards in the Charter-house. In 1669, he was admitted a student of Bene't college, Cambridge, and matriculated March 27, 1672, but left it without taking a degree, having at that time some scruples of conscience respecting the subscriptions, declarations, and oaths then required. He pursued his studies, however, in private, and after studying divinity, having overcome his scruples by a careful examination of the matters in controversy, he became desirous of orders in the church of England; but as he was then twenty-eight years old, and could not return to the university and go regularly on in the statutable course of taking his degrees, archbishop Sancroft procured him a royal mandate for M. A. in 1680, and he was admitted to the same at Oxford in 1697. As the state of affairs, however, was critical at the time he received his degree at Cambridge, he declined proceeding in his design, living as a private tutor to gentlemen’s families, until after the revolution, when he was ordained deacon and priest in 1690, and in the spring following was elected minister of St. Thomas’s church, Southwark, by the governors of that hospital.

, an English divine of good parts and learning, the son of Nicholas Brady, an officer in the king’s army in the civil wars of 1641, was born at Bandon, in the county of Cork, Oct. the 28th, 1659; and continued in Ireland till he was 12 years of age. Then he was sent over to England to Westminster-school; and from thence elected stuJent to Christ-church in Oxford. After continuing there about four years, he went to Dublin, where his father resided; at which university he immediately commenced B. A. When he was of due stanuing, his diploma for the degree of D. D. was, on account of his uncommon merit, presented to him by that university while he was in England; and brought over by Dr Pratt, then senior travelling fellow, afterwards provost of that college. His first ecclesiastical preferment was to a prebend in the cathedral of St. Barry, at Cork; to which he was collated by bishop Wettenhal, whose domestic chaplain he was. He was a zealous promoter of the revolution, and in consequence of his zeal suffered for it. In 1690, when the troubles broke out in Ireland, by his interest with king Tatnes as general, M'Carty, he thrice prevented the burning of the town of Bandon, after three several orders given by that prince to destroy it. The same year, having been deputed by the people of Bandon, he went over to England, to petition the parliament for a redress of some grievances they had suffered while king James was in Ireland; and afterwards quitting his preferments in Ireland, he settled in London; where, being celebrated for his abilities in the pulpit, he was elected minister of St. Catherine Cree church, and lecturer of St. Michael’s Wood-street. He afterwards became minister of Richmond in Surry. and Stratford upon Avon in Warwickshire, and at length rector of Clapham in Surry; which last, together with Richmond, he held till his death. His preferments amounted to 600l. a year, but he was so little of an Œconomist as to be obliged to keep a school at Richmond. He was also chaplain to the duke of Ormond’s troop of horse-guards, as he was to their majesties king William and queen Mary. He died May 20, 1726, aged 66, leaving behind him the character of being a person of an agreeable temper, a polite gentleman, an excellent preacher, and a good poet. He has no high rank, however, among poets, and would have long ere now been forgotten in that character, if his name was not so familiar as a translator of the new version of the “Psalms,” in conjunction with Mr. Tate, which version was licensed 1696. He translated also the Æneids of Virgil,“published by subscription in 1726, 4 vols. 8vo,­and a tragedy, called” The Rape, or the Innocent Impos-­tors,“neither performances of much character. His prose works consist of” Sermons," three volumes of which were published by himself in 1704, 1706, and 1713, and three others by his eldest son, who was a clergyman at Tooting, in Surry, London, 1730, 8vo.

, an eminent mathematician of the seventeenth century, son of Thomas Brancker, some time bachelor of artsj,in Exeter college, Oxford, was born in Devonshire in 1636, and was admitted batler (and not butler, as some late biographical compilations blunderingly assert), of the said college, Nov. 8, 1652, in the seventeenth year of his age. In 1655, June 15, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and was elected probationary fellow the 30th of the same month. In 1658, April 22, he took the degree of master of arts, and became a preacher; but after the restoration, refusing to conform to the ceremonies of the church of England, he quitted his fellowship in 1662, and retired to Chester: but not long after, he became reconciled to the service of the church, took orders from a bishop, and was made a minister of Whitegate. He had, however, for some time, enjoyed great opportunity and leisure for pursuing the bent of his genius in the mathematical sciences; and his skill both in the mathematics and chemistry procured him the favour of lord Brereton, who gave him the rectory of Tilston. He was afterward chosen master of the well-endowed school at Macclesfield, in that county, where he spent the remaining years of his life, which was terminated by a short illness in 1676, at 40 years of age; and he was interred in the church at Macclesfield.

, a learned ecclesiastical historian, was born at Amsterdam, July 2 5, 1626, and after having made distinguished progress in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, philosophy, and divinity, he was invited to be pastor of a church of remonstrants at Nieukoop, where he married Susanna, daughter of the celebrated professor Gaspard Barleus. In 1660, he came to Hoorn, and in L667 to Amsterdam. He died Oct. 11, 1685, leaving two sons, both excellent scholars, Caspar and Gerard. He wrote in German, 1. “A short history of the Reformation,” and of the war between Spain and the Netherlands, until 1600, Amst. second edit. 1658, which has a continuation, in the form of a chronicle, until that year. 2. Also in German, “A history of the Reformation in the Low Countries, &c.” 4 vols. 4to, 1671, and following years, a work of which the pensionary Fagel said to bishop Burnet, that it was worth while to learn German on purpose to read it. The English public, however, has been long acquainted with it, in a translation in 4 vols. fol. 1720, & seqq. The translator was John Chamberlayne, whom Foppen has converted intoRichardCumberland, merely that he may add,with true Popish bigotry, that he was “pseudo-episcopus Petro^ burgensis.” Brandt’s history was also abridged in 1725, in English, in 2 vols. 8vo, apparently from a French abridgement. Ruleus or Ruillius, a minister of the reformed church, having attacked some parts of his history, Brandt published an apology. 3. “A history of Enkhuisen,” a celebrated mercantile town. 4. “The Life of De Ruyter,” the celebrated Dutch admiral, Amst. 1684, fol. translated into French, ibid. 1690. 5. “Historical Diary,” with biographical notices of eminent men, Amst. 1689, 4to. 6. “Poemata,” Rotterdam^ 1649, 8vo. 7. “Poemata sacra et prophana,” Amst. 1638, 4to, and 1726, in. 2 vols. 8. “Historia judicii habiti annis 1618 and 1619^ de tribus captivis, Barnevelt, Hogerbeets, et Grotio,” Rotterdam, 1708, and 1710, 4to, with some other works, enumerated by Foppen, and Adrian a Cattenburg in his “Bibl. Scriptorum Remonstrantium.”

, second son of Gerard, and brother to the preceding, was born in 1657. (Saxius says 1653, which is the year of the preceding), at Nieukoop, and studied with his brother for eight years, philosophy and divinity under Limborch, to which he joined the knowledge of Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Italian, French, and English. He was minister at Schoonhoven, at Dokkum, and at Rotterdam, where he died at the age of twenty-six, but Saxius says thirty, in 1683. He translated Dr. HeyJyn’s Quinqu articular History, or History of the Five Articles. In 1678, he published in German, without his name, and with only the letters V. T. V. a history of events in Europe for the years 1674 and 1675, and sixtyfive sermons.

, the youngest son of Gerard, and brother to the two preceding, was born at Nieukoop, July 6, 1660, 'and having gone through his divinity course, was chosen minister at Warmont in 1682, whence he was, the following year, invited to Hoorn. He was afterwards called to the Arminian church at the Hague, and some time after that, to Amsterdam, where he died Jan. 13, 1708. He wrote in German a life of St. Paul, 1695, 4to; a funeral oration on Mary queen of England, and a treatise against Leidekker. In 1702 he published a collection of letters, “Clarorum virorum Epistolae centum ineditae de vario eruditionis genere, ex museo Joan. Brandt, G. F. Gerardi filii,” comprising some from Nich. Heinsius, Grotius, Guy Patin, Huet, Rabelais, &c. He wrote also some poems.

, was second son of sir Richard Bray, one of the privy council to king Henry VI. who lies buried in the north aile of Worcester cathedral, in which county sir Reginald was born. One of this family (which were lords of Braie, or Bray, in Normandy) came with William the Conqueror into England, where they flourished in the counties of Northampton and Warwick; but Edmond, the father of sir Richard, is styled of Eton Bray, in the county of Bedford, which county they had represented in parliament in 18 Ed. I. and 6 Ed. II. In 1 Rich. III. this Reginald had a general pardon granted to him, probably on account of his having taken part with Henry VI. to whose cause he had a personal as well as hereditary attachment being receiver- general to sir Henry Stafford, who married Margaret, countess of Richmond, mother to the earl of Richmond, afterward king Henry VII. and continued in her service after the death of sir Henry, and was put in trust for her dowry, on her marriage to Thomas, earl of Derby. When the duke of Buckingham had concerted with Morton, bishop of Ely (then his prisoner at Brecknock in Wales), the marriage of the earl of Richmond with the princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Edward I V. and the earl’s advancement to the throne, the bishop recommended sir Reginald for the transaction of the affair with the countess, telling the duke he had an old friend with her, a man sober, secret, and well-witted, called Reginald Bray, whose prudent policy he had known to have compassed matters of great importance; and accordingly wrote to him in Lancashire, where he then was with the countess, to come to Brecknock with all speed. He readily obeyed the summons, entered heartily into the design, and was very active in carrying it on; and soon engaged sir Giles Daubeney (afterwards lord Daubeney), sir John Ciieney, Richard GuiUbrd, esq. and many other gentlemen of note, to take part with Henry. After the success at Bosworth, he gradually rose into great favour with the king, who eminently distinguished and liberally rewarded his services. His attachment to that prince was sincere and uriremitted; and such were his ptudence and abilities, that he never forfeited the confidence he had acquired, during an attendance of seventeen years on the most suspicious monarch of his time. He was made a knight banneret, probably at the battle of Bosworth; a knight of the bath at the king’s coronation, and afterwards a kni“ht of the garter. In the first year of the kind’s reign he had a grant of the constableship of the castle of Oakham in Rutlandshire, and was appointed joint chie‘ justice, with the lord Fitzwalter, of all the forests south of Trent, and chosen of the privy council. After this he was appointed high-treasurer, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and nigh steward of the university of Oxford. At the queen’s coronation, the ducliess of Norfolk, &c. sat at one side-table at the other, lady Ferrars, v>f Chartley, lady Bray, &c. At the christening of prince Arthur, sir Reginald bore a rich salt of gold which was given by the earl of Derby. He was amongst the knights bannerets when Henry, the king’s second son, was created duke of York in 1494. In the 7th year of the king, he by indenture covenanted to serve him in his wars beyond sea a whole year, with twelve men, himself accompted, each having his custrell and page, twenty-four demy lances, seventy-seven archers on horseback, two hundred and thirty-one archers, and bil’.es on foot twenty-four. In the 10th year he had a grant for life of the Isle of Wight, castle of Carisbrook, and the manors of Swainston, Brixton, Thorley, and Welow, in that isle, at th^ rent of 308l. 6s. 8rf. Camden mentions the grant of the Isle of Wight at the rent of 300 marks. In June 1497 he was at the battle of Blackheath, when the lord Audley, having joined the Cornish rebels, was taken prisoner; on whose execution and attainder, his manor of Shire Vachery and Crap ley in Surry, with a large estate there, was given to sir Reginald. He received many other marks of the king’s bounty and favour, and died 5th August 1503, possessed of a very great estate; notwithstanding which, and his activity as a minister, under a monarch whose love of, money was the cause of great and just complaints amongst the people, historians call him the father of his country, a sage and grave person, a fervent lover of jusuce, and one who would often admonish the king when he did any thing contrary to justice or equity. That he should do this, and the king still continue his favour, is an ample proof of the sense which his sovereign entertained of his services and abilities. He appears to have taken great delight in architecture, and to have had no small skill in it, as he had a principal concern and direction in building Henry Vllth’s chapel in Westminster-abbey, and in the finishing and bringing to perfection the chapel of St. George at Windsor, to which he was a liberal benefactor in his life-time, and for the completion of which he made farther provision by his will. His arms, crest, and device (R. B.) are exhibited on the cieling of the chapel at Windsor in many places; and in the middle of the south aile is a spacious chapel erected by him, and still called by his name, in which also, by his own particular direction, he was interred, though his executors neglected to erect a tomb for him, as he desired. Perhaps they thought his merit would be the most lasting monument. It is supposed that he is buried under the stone which covers Dr. Waterland; for, on opening the vault for that gentleman, who died in 1740, a leaden coffin, of ancient form and make, was found, which by other appearances also was judged to be that of sir Reginald, and was, by order of the dean, immediately arcned over with great decency. He was of great devotion, according to the piety of the times, and a bountiful friend, in his life-time, to many churches. In one of the letters of the dean and chapter of Westminster, John, abbot of Newminster in Northumberland, addresses him as founder of the monastery of Pipwell (in Northamptonshire); but this must be on account of some donations, as that house was founded by William Boutevileyr in 1143. In 1494, being then high steward of Oxford, he gave 40 marks to repair the church of St. Mary’s, in a window of which were the figures of him and his wife kneeling, their coats of arms on their backs, remaining in 1584. The dean and chapter of Lincoln, in recompence for his services to them, receive him and my lady his wife to be brother and sister of their chapter, and to be partakers of all suffrages, prayers, masses, fastings, almsdeeds, and other good deeds, whatever they be, done in the said church, both in their lives and after their deceases. The prior of the cathedral church of Durham receives him in like manner. In a south window of the priory church of Great Malvern in Worcestershire, were the portraits of Henry VII. Elizabeth his queen, prince Arthur, sir Reginald Bray, John Savage, and Thomas LoveJ), esquires, with their coats of arms on their armour, and the following words underneath:” Orate pro bono statu nobilissimi et excellentissimi Regis Henrici Septimi et Elizabeths Reginse, ac Domini Arthuri Principis filii eorundem, nee not) praedilectissimae consortis suoe, ac suorum trium militum." The portraits of the king and sir Reginald remained in 1774, and are engraved in Mr. Strutt’s View of the Arms and Habits of the English, vol. II, plate 60. The others have been broken and destroyed. He had no issue, and his elder brother John having only one daughter, married to sir William Sandes, afterwards lord Sandes of the Vine, he left the bulk of his fortune to Edmund, eldest son of his younger brother John (for he had two brothers of that name). This Edmund was summoned to parliament in 1530, as baron of Eaton Bray; but his son John lord Bray dying without issue in 1557, the estate was divided amongst six daughters of Edmund. Sir Reginald left very considerable estates to Edward and Reginald, younger brothers of Edmund. From Edward the manor of Shire Vachery and Cranley, above mentioned, has descended to the rev. George Bray, who was owner in 1778. Reginald settled at Barrington in Gloucestershire, where the male line of that branch became extinct about sixty years ago.

He now usually officiated in his own house every Sunday, where a few of the same persuasion assembled with his family, until he was presented at the assizes the year following, for keeping a conventicle, but the act of indemnity soon after cleared him from this. To avoid, however, any prosecution of the like sort for the future, it was thought adviseable to vary the place of their meeting, and he went accordingly, sometimes to Canterbury, and sometimes to Feversham, where part of his congregation lived, without any interruption, until upon intruding into the duties of the parochial minister of Feversham, by visiting a sick person of his communion, this minister complained of him to the archbishop in 1718, who sent him word that if he heard any more such complaints, he should be obliged to lay them before the king and council. He continued to officiate on Sundays, as usual, and no farther notice was taken of it, until in 1729 he obtained leave of Mr. Simpson, the minister of Norton, to perform the burial office in his church. Lord Townsend hearing of this, and communicating it to the archbishop, he ordered his archdeacon to reprove the vicar for granting him permission. So that it appears from his own confession (for most of the foregoing particulars are extracted from the account he gives of/ himself in a letter to a friend) both the archbishops Tenison and Wake, shewed great wisdom and charity, candour and generosity, in their conduct towards him, although they could not influence him so far as to be even ^a lay-communicant with them; and that he lived under a mild government, having no other disturbance given him, than a reproof, upon a complaint.

, a learned divine of the seventeenth century, was born in the Isle of Jersey, in the reign of king James I. and probably educated in grammar-learning in that place. From thence he went and studied logic and philosophy in the Protestant university of Saumur, where he took the degree of master of arts, on September 12, 1634. Coming to Oxford, he was, October 12, 1638, incorporated M. A. as he stood at Saumur. About this time king Charles I. having through archbishop Laud’s persuasion founded three fellowships in the colleges of Pembroke, Exeter, and Jesus, for the islands of Jersey and Guernsey, alternately, Mr. Brevint was nominated the first fellow at Jesus-college upon this foundation, in 1638. Here he continued till he was ejected from his fellowship by the parliament- visitors, for refusing to take the solemn league and covenant, and withdrew to his native country, but upon the reduction of that place by the parliament’s forces, he fled into France, and became minister of a Protestant congregation in Normandy. Not long after, he had the honour of being made chaplain to the viscount de Turenne, afterwards marshal of France, whose lady was one of the most pious women of her time. Whilst he was in that station, he was one of the persons “employed about the great design then in hand, of reconciling the Protestant and Popish religions; which gave him an access into, and made him acquainted with every corner of that church,” as he says himself. At the restoration of king Charles II. he returned to England, and was presented by that prince (wjio had known him abroad) to the tenth prebend in the church of Durham, vacant by the promotion of Dr. J. Cosin to that see, and was installed March 15, 1660-61. By bishop Cosiu, who had been his fellow-sufferer, he was also collated to a living in the diocese of Durham. On the 27th of February, 1661-62, he took his degree of D. D. at Oxford. Having during his exile seen Popery in its native deformity, and observed all the mean and dishonest arts that are used to support it, he in 1672 published “Missale Romanum; or, the depth and mystery of the Roman Mass laid open and explained, for the use of both reformed and unreformed Christians,” and the next year, “The Christian Sacramenc and Sacrifice, by way of discourse, meditation, and prayer, upon the nature, parts, and blessings of the holy communipn,” reprinted on the recommendation of Dr. Waterland, in 1739. And in 1674, “Saul and Samuel at Endor, or the new waies of salvation and service, which usually tempt men to Rome, and detain them there, truly represented and refuted,” reprinted 1688. At the end of which is, “A brief account of R. F. his Missale Vindicaturo, or vindication of the Roman mass,” being an answer to “The depth and mystery of the Roman Mass,” above-mentioned. The learning and other eminent qualifications of the author having recommended him to the esteem of the world, and to the favour of his sovereign, he was promoted to the deanery of Lincoln, and was installed January 3, 1681-82, and had the prebend of WeltonPayns-hall annexed thereto, January 7th following. He died May 5, 1695, and was buried in the cathedral church of Lincoln, behind the high altar; where, on a gravestone, is an inscription to his memory. He was a person of extensive reading, especially in the controversy between the Protestants and Papists; zealous for the church of England; and for his life and learning, truly praise-worthy. Besides the above works, he published in Latin: 1. “Ecclesiae primitives Sacramentum & Sacrificium, a pontificiis corruptelis, & exinde natis controversiis liberum,” written at the desire of the princesses of Turenne and Bouillon. 2. “Eucharistiae Christianse prsesentia realis, & pontificia ficta, luculentissimis non testimoniis modo, sed etiam fundamentis, quibus fere tota S. S. Patrum Theologia nititur, hsec explosa, ilia suffulta & asserta.” 3. “Pro Serenissima Principe Weimariensi ad Theses Jenenses accurata Responsio.” 4. “Ducentue plus minus Praelectiones in Matthaei xxv capita, et aliorum Evangelistarum locos passim parallelos.” He also translated into Frenck “The judgment of the university of Oxford concerning the solemn League and Covenant.”

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

In 1738 he published a translation of the First Three Books of Tasso, of which it is sufficient praise that Hoole says: “It is at once so harmonious and so spirited, that I think an entire translation of Tasso by him would not only have rendered my task unnecessary, but have discouraged those from the attempt whose poetical abilities are much superior to mine.” He was, however, diverted from completing his translation, by his political friends, who, among other plans of hostility against the minister of the day, endeavoured to turn all the weapons of literature against him, Their prose writers were numerous, but principally essayists and pamphleteers: from their poets they had greater expectations; Paul Whitehead wrote satires; Fielding, comedies and farces; Glover, an epic poem; and now Brooke was encouraged to introduce Walpole in a tragedy. This was entitled “Gustavus Vasa, the deliverer of his country,” and was accepted by Drury-lane theatre, and almost quite ready for performance, when an order came from the lord chamberlain to prohibit it. That it contains a considerable portion of party-spirit cannot be denied, and the character of Trollio, the Swedish minister, however unjustly, was certainly intended for sir Robert Walpole; but it may be doubted whether this minister gained much by prohibiting the acting of a play which he had not the courage to suppress when published, and when the sentiments, considered deliberately in the closet, might be nearly as injurious as when delivered by a mouthing actor. The press, however, remained open, and the prohibition having excited an uncommon degree of curiosity, the author was more richly rewarded than he could been by the profits of the stage. Above a thousand copies were subscribed for at five shillings each, and by the sale of the subsequent editions, the author is said to have cleared nearly a thousand pounds. The editor of the Biographia Dramatica says that it was acted in 1742, with some alterations, on the Irish stage, by the title of “The Patriot.” Dr, Johnson, who at this time ranked among the discontented, wrote a very ingenious satirical pamphlet in favour of the author, entitled “A complete vindication of the Licensers of the Stage from the malicious and scandalous aspersions of Mr. Brooke, author of GustavusVasa,” 1739, 4to.

He continued several years in London, where he procured many friends. One of these was Mr. William Cotton, whose son Rowland, who was afterwards knighted, he instructed in the Hebrew tongue. In 1589 Mr. Broughton went over into Germany, accompanied by Mr. Alexander Top, a young gentleman who had put himself under his care, and travelled with him, that he might continually receive the benefit of his instructions. He was some time at Frankfort, where he had a long dispute in the Jewish synagogue, with rabbi Elias, on the truth of the Christian religion. He appears to have been very solicitous for the conversion of the Jews, and his taste for rabbinical and Hebrew studies naturally led him to take pleasure in the conversation of those learned Jews whom he occasionally met with. In the course of his travels, he had also disputes with the papists; but in hig contests both with them and with the Jews, he was not very attentive to the rules either of prudence or politeness. It appears, that in 1590 he was at Worms; but in what other places is not mentioned. In 1591 he returned again to England, and met at London with his antagonist Dr. Reynolds; and they referred the -decision of the controversy between them, occasioned by his “Consent of Scripture,” to Dr. Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Aylmer, bishop of London. Another piece which he published, entitled “An Explication of the article of Christ’s Descent to Hell,” was a source of much controversy, though his opinion on this subject is now generally received. Two of his opponents in this controversy were archbishop Whitgift and bishop Bilson. He addressed on this subject “An Oration to the Geneveans,” which was first published in Greek, at Mentz, by Albinus. In this piece he treats the celebrated Beza with much severity. In 1592 he was in Germany again, and published a piece called “The Sinai Sight,” which he dedicated to the earl of Essex, and had the odd whim of having it engraved on brass, at a considerable expence. About the year 1596, rabbi Abraham Reuben wrote an epistle from Constantinople to Mr. Broughton, which was directed to him in London; but he was then in Germany. He appears to have continued abroad till the death of queen Elizabeth; and during his residence in foreign countries, cultivated an acquaintance with Scaliger, Raphelengius, Junius, Pistorius, Serrarius, and other eminent and learned men. He was treated with particular favour by the archbishop of Mentz, to whom he dedicated his translation of the Prophets into Greek. He was also offered a cardinal’s hat, if he wo<;ld have embraced the Romish religion. But that offer he retused to accept, and returned again to England, soon after the accession of king James I. In 1603 he preached before prince Henry, at Oatlands, upon the Lord!s Prayer. In 1607 the new translation of the Bible was begun; and Mr. Broughton’s friends expressed much surprize that he was not employed in that work. It might probably be disgust on this account, which again occasioned him to go abroad; and during his stay there, he was for some time puncher to the English at Middleburgh. But finding his health decline, 'having a consumptive disorder, which he found to increase, he returned again to England in November, 1611. He lodged in London, during the winter, at a friend’s house in Cannon-street; but in the spring he was removed, for the benefit of the air, to the house of another friend, at Tottenham High-cross, where he died of a pulmonary consumption on the 4th of August, 1612, in the sixty-third year of his age. During his illness he made such occasional discourses and exhortations to his friends, as his strength would enable him; and he appears to have had many friends and admirers’ even to the last. His corpse was brought to London, attended by great numbers of people, many of whom had put themselves in mourning for him; and interred in St. Amholin’s church, where his funeral sermon was preached by the rev. James Speght, B. D. afterwards D. D. minister of the church in Milkstreet, London. Lightfoot mentions it as a report, that the bishops would not suffer this sermon to be published; but it was afterwards printed at the end of his works.

, a learned divine, and one of the original writers of the Biographia Britannica, was born at London, July 5, 1704, in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn; of which parish his father was minister. At an early age he was sent to Eton-school, where he soon distinguished himself by the acuteness of his genius and the studiousness of his disposition. Being superannuated on this foundation, he removed, about 1722, to the university of Cambridge; and, for the sake of a scholarship, entered himself of Gonville and Caius college. Here two of the principal objects of his attention were, the acquisition of the knowledge of the modern languages, and the study of the mathematics under the famous professor Sanderson. May 28, 1727, Mr. Broughton, after taking the degree of B. A. was admitted to deacon’s orders. In the succeeding year, Sept. 22, he was ordained priest, and proceeded to the degree of M. A. At this time he removed from the university to the curacy of Offley in Hertfordshire. In 1739, he was instituted to the rectory of Stepington, otherwise Stibmgton, in the county of Huntingdon, on the presentation of John duke of Bedford, and was appointed one of that nobleman’s chaplains. Soon after, he was chosen reader to the Temple, by which means he became known to bishop Sherlock, then master of it, who conceived so high an opinion of our author’s merit, that, in 1744, this eminent prelate presented Mr. Broughton to the valuable vicarage of Bedminster, near Bristol, together with the chapels of St. Mary Redcliff, St. Thomas, and Abbot’s Leigh, annexed. Some short time after, he was collated, by the same patron, to the prebend of Bedminster and Redcliff, in the cathedral of Salisbury. Upon receiving this preferment, he removed from London to Bristol, where he married the daughter of Thomas Harris, clerk of that city, by whom he had seven children, six of whom survived him. He resided on his living till his death, which happened Dec. 21, 1774, in the 71st year of his age. He was interred in the church of St. Mary RedclifF.

His last publication, in 1766, was a “Letter to the rev. Dr. Lowth,” occasioned by his late letter to the right rev. author of the “Divine Legation of Moses.” Dr. Lowth had pointed at Dr. Brown, as one of the extravagant flatterers and creatures of Warburton; and Dr. Brown defended himself against the imputation, as an attack upon his moral character. To do him justice, he had a spirit too strong and independent, to bend to that literary subjection which the author of the Divine Legation expected from his followers. He insisted upon the prerogative of his own opinion; to assent and dissent, whenever he saw cause, in the most unreserved manner: and this was to Dr. Browiij as it was to many others, the cause of misunderstanding with Warburton. Besides the works mentioned, he published a poem on “Liberty,” and some anonymous pamphlets. At the end of his later writings, he advertised an intention of publishing “Principles of Christian Legislation,” but was prevented by death. He ordered, however, by his will, that the work should be published after his decease ; but it was left too imperfect for that purpose. The last memorable circumstance of his life was his intended expedition to Russia. While Dr. Dumaresque resided in Russia, 1765, whither, having been chaplain to our factory at St. Petersburg from 1747 to 1762, he had been invited the year before by the empress, to assist in the regulation of several schools she was about to establish; a correspondent in England suggested the idea tQ him of communicating the affair to Dr. Brown, as a proper person to consult with, because he had puhlished some sermons upon education. This brought on a correspondence between Dr. Dumaresque and Dr. Brown; the result of which, being communicated to the prime minister at St. Petersburg, was followed by an invitation from the empress to Dr. Brown also. Dr. Brown, acquainting the Russian court with his design of complying with the empress’s, invitation, received an answer from the minister, signifying how pleased her imperial majesty was with his intention, and informing him, that she had ordered to be remitted to him, by her minister in London, 1000l. in order to defray the expences of his journey. All the letters which passed, the plans which were drawn by Dr. Brown, and, in short, every thing relating to this affair, may be seen at large under his article in the “Biographia Britannica,” as communicated to the author of it by Dr. Dumaresque.

Those who are acquainted with the tenets and practices of some modern sects, will easily recognize in Brown their founder. The Brownists equally condemned episcopacy and presbytery, as to the jurisdiction of consistories, classes, and synods; and| would not join with any other reformed church, because they were not sufficiently assured of the sanctity and probity of its members, holding it an impiety to communicate with sinners. Their form of church-government was democratical. Such as desired to be members of their church made a confession of their faith, and signed a covenant obliging themselves to walk together in the order of the gospel. The whole power of admitting and excluding members, with the decision of all controversies, was lodged in the brotherhood. Their church officers for preaching the word, and taking care of the poor, were chosen from among themselves, and separated to their several offices by fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands from some of the brethren. They did not allow the priesthood to be any distinct order, or to give any indelible character; but as the vote of the brotherhood made a man a minister, and gave authority to preach the word and administer the sacraments among them; so the same power could discharge him from his office, and reduce him to a mere layman again. As they maintained the bounds of a church to be no greater than what would contain as many as could meet together in one place, and join in one communion, so the power of their officers was prescribed within the same limits. The minister or pastor pf a church could not administer the eucharist or baptism to the children of any but those of his own society. A lay brother was allowed the liberty of giving a word of exhortation to the people; and it was usual for some of them, after sermon, to ask questions, and reason upon the doctrines that had been preached. Until the civil war, they were much discouraged in England; but upon the ruin of episcopacy, they quitted Holland, and came over to England, they began to form churches on their peculiar model. The Presbyterians cortiplained of this as an encroachment, and insisted that the Independents should come under the Scotch regulation; This the latter refused to comply with, and continued a distinct sect, or faction; and, during the civil wars, became the most powerful party; and getting to the bead of affairs, most of the other sects, which were averse to the Church. of England^ joined with them, and all of them yielded to lose theit former names, in the general one of Independents.

, esq. F. R. S. and a very ingenious and elegant poet of the last century, was born at Burton-upon-Trent, January 21, 1705-6; and was the son of the rev. William Browne, minister of that parish, where he chiefly resided, vicar of Winge, in Buckinghamshire, and a prebendary of Litchfield, which last preferment was given him by the excellent bishop Hough. He was possessed, also, of a small paternal inheritance, which he greatly increased by his marriage with Anne, daughter of Isaac Hawkins, esq. all whose estate, at length, came to his only grandson and heir-at-law, the subject of this article. Our author received his grammatical education, first at Litchfield, and then at Westminster, where he was much distinguished for the brilliancy of his parts^ and the steadiness of his application. The uncommon rapidity with which he passed through the several forms or classes of Westminster school, attracted the notice, and soon brought him under the direction of the head master, Dr. Freind, with whom he was a peculiar favourite. Mr. Browne stayed above a year in the sixth, or head form, with a view of confirming and improving his taste for classical learning and composition, under so polite and able a scholar. When he was little more than sixteen years of age, he was removed to Trinity-college, Cambridge, of which college his father had been fellow. He remained at the university till he had taken his degree of M. A. and though during his residence there he continued his taste for classical literature, which through his whole life was his principal object and pursuit, he did not omit the peculiar studies of the place, but applied himself with vigour and success to all the branches of mathematical science, and the principles of the Newtonian philosophy. When in May 1724, king George the First established at both universities, a foundation for the study of modern history and languages, with the design of qualifying young men for employments at court, and foreign embassies, Mr. Browne was among the earliest of those who were selected to be scholars upon this foundation. On the death of that prince, he wrote an university copy of verses, which was the first of his poems that had been printed, and was much admired. About the year 1727, Mr. Browne, who had been always intended for the bar, settled at Lincoln’s-inn. Here he prosecuted, for several years, with great attention, the study of the law, and acquired in it a considerable degree of professional knowledge, though he never arrived to any eminence in the practice of it, and entirely gave it up long before his death. He was the less solicitous about the practice of his profession, and it was of the less consequence to him, as he was possessed of a fortune adequate to his desires; which, by preserving the happy mean between extravagance and avarice, he neither diminished nor increased.

, an able and learned minister and writer among the protestant dissenters, and who was remarkable for a mental disorder of a most extraordinary kind, was born at Shepton-Mallet, in Somersetshire, about 1680. He was instructed in grammar by the rev. Mr. Cumming, who was pastor of a congregation in that town; from whence he was removed to Bridgewater, and finished Jiis studies under the care of the rev. Mr. Moor. As he possessed uncommon parts, which had been improved by the most assiduous application, he was very early thought qualified for the ministry; so that he began to preach some time before he was twenty years of age. His talents soon rendered him so conspicuous among the dissenters, that he was chosen minister of a considerable congregation at Portsmouth, in which situation he continued some years. In 1706, he published a small treatise, entitled “A caveat against evil Company.” In 1709, he published, in one volume, 8vo, “The true character of the real Christian.” He discharged the duties of the pastoral office at Portsmouth with so much fidelity and diligence, as procured him universal esteem; but, in 1716, he removed to the great regret of his congregation, in consequence of his being invited to accept of the pastoral charge of the congregation of protestant dissenters in the Old Jewry, London, which was one of the most considerable in the kingdom. In 1720, he published, in one volume, 12mo, “Hymns and Spiritual Songs, in three books.” In 1722, he published a volume of “Sermons,” and about the same time a “Letter to the rev. Thomas Reynolds,” in which he censures that gentleman and other dissenters for requiring of their brethren explicit declarations of their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. At the Old Jewry he continued to preach for about seven years with the greatest reputation, mid was much beloved and esteemed by his congregation: but, in 1723, a complicated domestic affliction, the loss of his wife, and of an only son, so deeply affected him, that he was at first in a state little different from distraction; and the disorder which his imagination had sustained from the shock that he had received, at length settled into a melancholy of a very extraordinary nature. He desisted from the duties of his function, and could not be persuaded to join in any act of worship, either public or private. He imagined, " that Almighty God, by a singular instance of divine power, had, in a gradual manner, annihilated in him the thinking substance, and utterly divested him of consciousness: that though he retained the human shape, and the faculty of speaking, in a manner that appeared to others rational, he had all the while no more notion of what he said than a parrot. And, very consistently with this, he looked upon himself as no longer a moral agent, a subject of reward or punishment. 7 ' He continued in this persuasion to the end of his life, with very little variation. Nothing grieved him more, than that he could not persuade others to think of him as he thought of himself. He sometimes considered this as questioning his veracity, which affected him in the most sensible manner; and he often took pains, by the most solemn asseverations, to remove such an imputation. At other times, and in a more gloomy hour, he would represent the incredulity which was manifested towards him, as a judicial effect of the same divine power jhat had occasioned this strange alteration in him, as if God had determined to proceed against him in this way, and would have no application made in his behalf. Upon this account, for a long while, he was unwilling that any prayers should be made for him; which, he would say, could be warranted by nothing but a faith in miracles, and even refused to say grace at table, or if urged to it, appeared in the greatest distress. At the beginning of his disorder, he was so unhappy in himself, as to have frequent propensities to deprive himself of life; but he afterwards grew more serene, and appeared to have little or no terror upon his mind. He considered himself as one who, though he had little to hope, had no more to fear, and was therefore, for the most part, calm and composed; and when the conversation did not turn upon himself, as it was generally rational and very serious, so was it often cheerful and pleasant. But his opinion concerning himself occasionally led him into inconsistencies; and when these were pointed out to him, he sometimes appeared much puzzled.