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

, a monk of St. Germain-des-Pres, was the author of a poetical relation of the siege of Paris by the Normans and Danes towards the end of the 9th century. He was himself of Normandy, and an eye-witness; and if not eminent as a poet, is at least a faithful and minute historian. His poem consists of twelve hundred verses, in two books, and has been admitted into Pithou’s and Duchesne’s collections; but a more correct edition, with notes, and a French translation, may be seen in the “Nouvelles Annales de Paris,” published by D. Toussaint Duplessis, a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, 1753, 4to. There are also “Five select Sermons” under his name in vol. IX. of D'Acheri’s Spicilegium; and in vol. V. Bibl. P. P. Colon. 1618, is “Abbonis Epistola ad Desiderium episc.” There was originally a third book to his History of the siege, addressed “to the Clergy,” which his editors omitted as having no connexion with the history.

, or Abbot of Fleuri, a Benedictine monk of the tenth century, was born in the territory of Orleans, and educated in the abbey of Fleuri, and afterwards at Paris and Rheims, where he distinguished himself in all the learning of the times, and particularly in mathematics, theology, and history. Oswald, bishop of Worcester, in 985, applied to the abbey of Fleuri to obtain a proper person to preside over the abbey of Ramsay, which he had founded, or rather re-established. Abbo was sent over to England for this purpose, and much caressed by king Ethelred and the nobility. Returning to Fleuri upon the death of the abbot, he was declared his successor. Here he experienced many vexations from some of the bishops, against whom he asserted the rights of the monastic order. His enemies charged him with some acrimony against his persecutors. In his justification, he wrote an apology, which he addressed to the kings Hugh and Robert. Some time afterwards he dedicated to the same princes a collection of canons on the duties of kings and the duties of subjects. King Robert, having sent him to Rome to appease the wrath of Gregory V. who had threatened to lay the kingdom under an interdict, the pope granted him all he requested. Abbo, on his return from this expedition, set about the reform of the abbey of Reole in Gascony. He was here slain in a quarrel that rose between the French and the Gascons, in 1004. His works are: 1. “Epitome de vitis Pontificum,” taken from Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and published with an edition of that author by Busscus, Mentz, 1602, 4to. 2. “Vita S. Edmundi Anglorum Orientalium regis & martyris,” printed in Surius’ Lives of the Saints. There is a ms. of it in the Cottonian Library. 3. “Collectio, seu epitome Canonum,” printed by Mabillon. 4. “Epistola ad abbatem Fuldensem,” in Baluze’s Miscellanies, 1678, 8vo. 5. “Letters to Hugh, king of France, to St. Bernard, Gregory,” &c. and his Apology, are inserted whole, or in fragments, in his Life by Aimonius, a monk of Fleuri, and his pupil.

, bishop of Hagustald, or Hexham, in Northumberland, succeeded Wilfrid in that see, in the year 709. He was a monk of the order of St. Benedict, an Anglo-Saxon by birth, and had his education under Bosa, bishop of York; and was then taken under the patronage of Wilfrid, whom he accompanied in a journey to Rome. Here he improved himself in ecclesiastical usages and discipline; which his historian, Bede, tells us it was impracticable for him to learn in his own country. This prelate by the help of architects, masons, and glaziers, hired irT Italy, ornamented his cathedral to a great degree of beauty and magnificence, furnished it with plate and holy vestments, procured a large collection of the lives of the Saints, and erected a noble library, consisting chiefly of ecclesiastical learning. About the year 732, he was driven from his see into banishment, but for what cause is unknown. He was esteemed a very able divine, and was remarkably skilled in church-music. He not only revived and improved church music, but introduced the use of many Latin hymns hitherto unknown in the northern churches of England. Acca wrote the following pieces; -“Passiones Sanctorum;” or the Sufferings, of the Saints; “Officia Susp Ecclesiae;” and “Epistolae ad Amicos:” a treatise also for explaining the Scriptures, addressed to Bede, which occurs, or at least part of it, in the catalogue of the Bodleian library. He died in the year 740, having governed the church of Hexham 2-1 years, under Egbert king of the Northumbrians. His body was buried with great solemnity in the church at Hexham.

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

, or Adelard, born about the year 753, was son of count Bernard, grandson of Charles Martel, and cousin-german of Charlemagne. He had been invited to the court in his youth, but, fearing the infection of such a mode of life, had retired; and, at the age of 20 years, became a monk of Corbie in Picardy, and was at length chosen abbot of the monastery. His imperial relation, however, forced him again to attend the court, where he still preserved the dispositions of a recluse, and took every opportunity, which business allowed, for private prayer and meditation. After the death of Charlemagne, he was, on unjust suspicions, banished by Lewis the Meek, to a monastery on die coast of Acquitaine, in the isle of Here. After a banishment of five years, Lewis, sensible of his own injustice, recalled Adalard, and heaped on him the highest honours. The monk was, however, the same man in prosperity and in adversity, and in the year 823 obtained leave to return to Corbie. Every week he addressed each of the monks in particular 5 he exhorted them in pathetic discourses, and laboured for the spiritual good of the country around his monastery. His liberality seems to have bordered on excess; and his humility induced him to receive advice from the meanest monk. When desired to live less austerely, he would frequently say, “I will take care of your servant, that he may be enabled to attend on you the longer.” Another Adalard, who had governed the monastery during his banishment, by the direction of our Adalard, prepared the foundation of a distinct monastery, called New Corbie, near Paderborn, as a nursery for ecclesiastical laboarers, who. should instruct the northern nations. Our Adalard now completed this scheme; went himself to New Corbie twice, and settled its discipline. The success of this truly charitable project was great: many learned and zealous missionaries were furnished from the new seminary, and it became a light to the north of Europe. Adalard promoted learning in his monasteries, for he was himself a man of great learning; and instructed the people both in Latin and French: and after his second return from Germany to old Corbie, he died ill the year 827, aged 73. Such is the account given us of Adalard, a character, there is reason to believe, of eminent piety and usefulness in a dark age. To convert monasteries into seminaries of pastoral education, was a thought far above the taste of the age in which he lived, and tended to emancipate those superstitious institutions from the unprofitable and illiberal bondage in which they had long subsisted. His principal work work was “A treatise on the French Monarchy;” but fragments only of any of his works have come down to our times. Hincmar has incorporated the treatise on the French monarchy in his: fourteenth Opusculum, “for the instruction of king Carloman.” The ancient statutes of of the abbey of Corbie, by our author, are in the fourth volume of D'Achery’s Spicilegium.

, a famous Sorbonnic doctor, flourished in the 12th century. This author, who is well known as a monkish writer, and a voluminous author of biography, was born in Scotland, and educated in the monastery of Lindisferne, now called Holy Island, a few miles south of Berwick on Tweed, at that time one of the most famous seminaries of learning in the north of England. He went afterwards to Paris, where he settled several years, and taught school divinity, in the Sorbonne. In his latter years he returned to his native country, and became a monk in the abbey of Melrose, and afterwards in that of Durham, where he wrote the life of St. Columbanus, and the lives of 'some other monks of the 6th century. He likewise wrote the life of David I. king of Scotland, who died 1153. He died in 1195. His works were printed at Antwerp in fol. 1659.

When the restoration of the king was agreed on, Mr. Adams, then 74 years of age, was deputed by the city to accompany General Monk to Breda in Holland, to congratulate and accompany the king home. For his signal services the king knighted him at the Hague; and soon after the restoration advanced him to the dignity of a baronet, on the 13th of June, 1661.

, or Aymar, a monk of St. Martial, born in the year 988, rendered himself famous by the active part he took in the dispute respecting the pretended apostleship of St. Martial, but is now known chiefly by his “Chronicle of France” from the origin of the monarchy to 1029. This, although neither exact in chronology, or in proper arrangement of the events, is said to be very useful to French historians in what follows the time of Charles Martel. It was published by Labbe in his “Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Manuscripts,” and in other collections of French history. Mabillon, in his “Analecta,” has given the famous letter of Ademar’s on the apostleship of St. Martial, and some verses or acrostics.

, an ingenious and learned Carthusian monk, is the author of a treatise entitled “De remediis utriusque fortunze,”' the first edition of which, published at Cologn, 1467, 4to, is the most scarce and valuable; the second bears date 1471, 4to; the third was printed at Cremona, 1492, fol. In order to avoid confounding this treatise with that of Petrarch on the same subject, it is necessary to know that the title says: “per quendam Adrianum poetam prsestantem, necnon S. Th. professorem eximium.” No particulars are known of his birth or death.

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

, an Arian presbyter, or monk, of the fourth century, had a contest with Eustathius for the bishoprick of Sebastia and Armenia; and being disappointed, endeavoured to lessen the power and dignity of the episcopal order, by maintaining that bishops were not distinguished from presbyters by any divine right, but that according to the institution of the New Testament, their offices and authority were absolutely the same.As about this time there were some bishops who had given offence by their arrogance, these opinions of Ærius became highly popular, and he was enabled to form a considerable sect, named Brians. He also condemned prayers for the dead, stated fasts, and the celebration of Easter; but whether these were constituent principles with his followers, does not appear. Both they and he, however, were opposed by the Arians; and by the church at large, excluded from churches and cities, and obliged to associate in private places and deserts, as long as they continued a party. It is perhaps unnecessary to add, that their opinion respecting the equality of bishops and presbyters has been since adopted by the modern presbyterians, and has been ably combated by writers in favour of the established church.

, the fabulist. Of this man, the reputed author of many fables, it is very doubtful whether we are in possession of any authentic biography. The life by Planudes, a monk of the fourteenth century, is universally considered as a series of fictions; and the notices of him in writers of better authority, are not sufficiently consistent to form a narrative. The particulars usually given, however, are as follow. He was born at Amorium, a small town in Phrygia, in the beginning of the sixth century before the Christian aera, and was a slave to two philosophers, Xanthus and Idmon, the latter of whom gave him his liberty, on account of his good behaviour and pleasantry. The philosophers of Greece gained a name by their lofty sentences, clothed in lofty words; Æop assumed a more simple and familiar style, and became not less celeb rated. He taught virtue and ridiculed vice, by giving a language to animals and inanimate things; and composed those fables, which under the mask of allegory, and with all the interest of fable, convey the most useful lessons in morality. The fame of his wisdom spreading over Greece and the adjoining countries, Croesus, the king of Lydia, sent for him, and was his generous benefactor. There he found Solon, whom he soon equalled in favour, however different his mode of conducting himself. Solon preserved his austerity in the midst of a corrupt court, was a philosopher among courtiers, and often offended Croesus by obtruding his advice, who at last dismissed him. “Solon,” said Æsop, “let us not address kings, or let us say what is agreeable.” “By no means,” replied the philosopher, “let us either say nothing, or tell them what is profitable.” Æsop made frequent excursions from the court of Lydia into Greece. When Pisistratus assumed the chief power at Athens, Æsop, who witnessed the dissatisfaction of the people, repeated to them his fable of the frogs petitioning Jupiter for a king. He afterwards travelled through Persia and Egypt, everywhere inculcating morality by his fables. The kings of Babylon and Memphis received him with distinguished honour; and on his return to Lydia, Croesus sent him with a sum of money to Delphi, where he was to offer a magnificent sacrifice to the god of the place, and distribute a certain sum of money to each of the inhabitants. But being offended by the people, he offered his sacrifice, and sent the rest of the money to Sardis, representing the Delphians as unworthy of his master’s bounty. In revenge, they threw him from the top of a rock. All Greece was interested in his fate, and at Athens a statue was erected to his memory. Lurcher, in his notes on Herodotus, fixes his death in the 560th year before the Christian aera, under the reign of Pisistratus. Planudes, who, as already observed, wrote his life, represents him as exceedingly deformed in person, and defective in his speech, for which there seems no authority. It is to this monk, however, that we owe the first collection of Æsop’s Fables, such as we now have them, mixed with many by other writers, some older, and some more modern than the time of Æsop. He wrote in prose; and Socrates, when in prison, is said to have amused himself by turning some of them into verse. Plato, who banished Homer and the other poets from his republic, as the corruptors of mankind, retained Æsop as being their preceptor. Some are of opinion, that Lockman, so famous among the orientals, and Pilpay among the Indians, were one and the same with Æsop. Whatever may be in this, or in the many other conjectures and reports, to be found in the authorities cited below, the fables of Æsop may surely be considered as the best models of a species of instructive composition, that has been since attempted by certain men of learning and fancy in all nations, and particularly our own; nor will it be easy to invent a mode of arresting and engaging the attention of the young to moral truths, more pleasant or more successful. The best editions of Æsop are those of Plantin, Antwerp, 1565, 16mo; of Aldus, with other fabulists, Venice, 1505, fol. and Franckfort, 1610; that called Barlow’s, or “Æsopi Fabularum, cum Vita,” London, 1666, fol. in Latin, French, and English; the French and Latin by Rob. Codrington, with plates by Barlow, now very rare, as a great part of the edition was burnt in the fire of London; Hudson’s, published under the name of Marianus (a member of St. Mary Hall), Oxford, 1718, 8vo. They have been translated into all modern languages; and CroxalPs and Dodsley’s editions deserve praise, on account of the life of Æsop prefixed to each.

, a Greek historian, wrote a romantic history of Alexander the Great but it is not known at what time he lived. His work was translated into Latin by one Julius Valerius, who is not better known than Æsop. Freinshemius has the following passage concerning this work: “Julius Valerius wrote a fabulous Latin history of Alexander, which by some is ascribed to Æsop, by others to Callisthenes. Hence Antoninus, Vincentius, Uspargensis, and others, have taken their romantic tales.” Barthius, in his Adversaria, says: “There are many such things in the learned monk, who some years ago published a life of Alexander the Great, full of the most extravagant fictions; yet this romance had formerly so much credit, that it is quoted as an authority even by the best writers. Whether this extraordinary history was ever published I know not; I have it in manuscript, but I hardly think it worthy of a place in my library.” It is the same author that Franciscus Juretus mentions under the name of Æsop. The work was published in German at Strasburgh, 1486.

, bishop of Lindisfarne, or Holy island, in the 7th century, was originally a monk in the monastery of Iona, one of the islands called Hebrides. In the year 634, he came into England, at the request of Oswald king of Northumberland, to instruct that prince’s subjects in the knowledge of the Christian religion. At his first coming to Oswald’s court, he prevailed upon the king to remove the episcopal see from York, where it had been settled by Gregory the great, to Lindisfarne, or Holy island; a peninsula joined to the coast of Northumberland by a very narrow neck of land, and called Holy island from its being inhabited chiefly by monks; the beautiful ruins of its monastery are still extant. In this place Aidan was very successful in his preaching, in which he was not a little assisted by the pious zeal of the king; who, having lived a considerable time in Scotland, and acquired a sufficient knowledge of the language, was himself Aidan’s interpreter 9 and explained his discourses to the nobility, and the rest of his court. After the death of Oswald, who was killed in battle, Aidan continued to govern the church of Northumberland, under his successors Oswin and Oswi, who reigned jointly; the former in the province of Deira, the latter in that of Bernicia; but having foretold the untimely death of Oswin, he was so afflicted for his loss, that he survived him hut twelve days, and died in August 6^1, after having sat sixteen years. Bede gives him an extraordinary character; but at the same time takes notice that he was not altogether orthodox in keeping of Easter, in which he followed the custom of the Scots, Picts, and Britons. The same historian ascribes three miracles to bishop Aidan; two of them performed in his lifetime, and the other after his death. He was buried in his church of Lindisfarne; and part of his relics were carried into Scotlaud by his successor Colman in 664.

, Ethelred, Ælred, or Ealred, abbot of Revesby in Lincolnshire in the reigns of king Stephen and king Henry II. was born of nobie parents, in 1109, and educated in Scotland, together with Henry, son of David, king of Scots. Upon his return into England, he took the habit in the Cistertian monastery of Revesby, where his extraordinary piety and learning soon raised him to the dignity of abbot. Leland says he outshone his brethren as the sun eclipses the brightness of the inferior luminaries: and endeared himself no less to the great men of the kingdom than to the monks of his own house. His great love of retirement, and a life of contemplation and study, induced him to decline all offers of ecclesiastical preferment, and even to refuse a bishopric. He was particularly attached to St. Austin’s works, especially his “Confessions;” and was a strict imitator of St. Bernard in his writings, words, and actions. He left behind him several monuments of his learning; in the composition of which he was assisted by Walter Daniel, a monk of the same convent. This abbot died January 12, 1166, aged fifty-seven years, and was buried in the monastery of Revesby, under a tomb adorned with gold and silver; and, we are told, he was canonized on account of some miracles said to have been wrought by him after his death.

, is said to have been the first person who suffered martyrdom for Christianity in Britain; he is therefore usually styled the protomartyr of this island. He was born at Verulam, and flourished towards the end of the third century. In his youth he took a journey to Rome, in company with Amphibalus, a monk of Caerleon, and served seven years as a soldier under the emperor Dioclesian. At his return home he settled in Verulam; and, through the example and instruction of Amphibalus, renounced the errors of Paganism, in which he had been educated, and became a convert to the Christian religion. It is generally agreed that Alban suffered martyrdom during the great persecution under the reign of Diocletian; but authors differ as to the year when it happened: Bede and others fix it in the year 286, some refer it to 296, but Usher reckons it amongst the events of 303. His death is said to have been accompanied with several miracles, to which, however, it is impossible to give credit. Collier, only, of all our historians, contends for their credibility. Between 400 and 500 years after St. Alban’s death, Offa, king of the Mercians, built a very large and stately monastery to his memory; and the town of St. Alban’s in, Hertfordshire takes its name from our protomartyr.

. See Monk.

, a historian and monk of the Cistertian order, in the monastery of Trois-Fontaines, in the diocese of Chalons-sur-Marne, was born near that place, in the beginning of the thirteenth century. He is the author of a “Chronicle” containing the remarkable events from the creation to 1241. Leibnitz and Menckenius have printed it, the first in Vol. II. of his “Accessiones Histories,” Leipsic, 1698, 4to; and the second in vol. I. of“Scriptores rerum Germanicarum et Saxonic.” ibid. 1728, foL This chronicle, of which the imperial library at Paris possesses a more complete manuscript than those used by the above editors, is valued on account of the curious particulars it contains, although it is not very exact in chronological points, particularly in the very ancient periods. Alberic wrote also several poetical pieces, of which mention is made in father du Visch’s “Bibl. ordin. Cisterc.”

, a Benedictine monk in the abbey 0f Lyra, afterwards prior of Bussi au Perche, was living in 1505, and has left various pieces of poetry, which were highly esteemed in his time. The principal works that are known of his, are: 1. “Four Chants-royaux, presented at the Games du Puy at Rouen, in 4to, without date. 2.” Le Passe-terns de tout Hommeet de toute Femme,“Paris, in 8vo, and 4to, without date. The author informs us that he translated it from a work of Innocent III. It is a moral performance, on the miseries of man from the cradle to the grave. 3.” Le grand Blason des Faulses Amours, in 16, and in 4to, Paris, 1493; and in several editions of the Farce de Patelin, and of the Fifteen Joys of Marriage, Hague, 1726 and 1734, with notes by Jacob le Duchat. It is a dialogue on the evils brought on by love. In all his works he preserves the decency becoming his order, which one of his biographers remarks as rather extraordinary for the age in which he lived.

, an English bishop, flourished in the 10th century. He was a monk of the order of St. Bennet, in the monastery of Malmesbury, and afterwards preferred to the see of Exeter. He was one of the most learned men of his time, and wrote: 1. A treatise “De Naturis Rerum;” 2. The “Life of Adelmus;” and, 3. “The History of his own Abbey.” He is said to have been very intimate with St. Dunstan.

, keeper of the Vatican library, and a celebrated popish writer of the 17th century, was born in the isle of Chios, of Greek parents, 1586. At nine years of age he was removed from his native country to Calabria; bat some time after sent to Rome, and admitted into the Greek college, where he applied himself to the study of polite learning, philosophy, and divinity, and embraced the Roman Catholic religion. From thence he went to Naples, and was chosen great vicar to Bernard Justiniani, bishop of Anglona. From Naples he returned to his own country, but went soon from thence to Rome, where he studied physic under Julius Caesar Lagalla, and took a degree in that profession. He afterwards made the belles lettres his object, and taught in the Greek college at Rome. Pope Gregory XV. sent him to Germany, in 1622, in order to get the elector Palatine’s library removed to Rome; but hy the death of Gregory, he lost the reward he might have expected for his trouble in that affair. He lived some time after with cardinal Bichi, and then with cardinal Francis Barberini; and was at last, by pope Alexander VII. appointed keeper of the Vatican library. Allatius was of great service to the gentlemen of Port Royal in the controversy they had with Mr. Claude, concerning the belief of the Greeks on the subject of die Eucharist: Mr. Claude often calls him Mr. Arnaud’s great author, and gives him a character, by no means favourable, although in general very just. “Allatius,” says he, “was a Greek, who had renounced his own religion to embrace that of Rome; a Greek whom the pope had chosen his librarian: a man the most devoted to the interests of the court of Rome; a man extremely outrageous in his disposition. He shews his attachment to the court of Rome in the very beginning of his book `De perpetua consensione,‘ where he writes in favour of the pope thus: `The Roman pontiff,’ says he, `is quite independent, judges the world without being liable to be judged; we are bound to obey his commands, even when he governs unjustly; he gives laws without receiving any; he changes them as he thinks fit; appoints magistrates; decides all questions as to matters of faith, and orders all affairs of importance in the church as seems to him good. He cannot err, being out of the power of all heresy and illusion; and as he is armed with the authority of Christ, not even an angel from heaven could make him alter his opinion'.” No Latin ever shewed himself more incensed against the Greek schismatics than Allatius, or more devoted to the see of Rome. One singularity in his character is, that he never engaged in matrimony, nor was he ever in orders; and pope Alexander having asked him one day, why he did not enter into orders? “Because,” answered he, “I would be free to marry.” “But if so,” replied the pope, “why don't you marry ?” “Because I would be at liberty,” answered Allatius, “to take orders.” If we may believe Joannes Patricius, Allatius had a very extraordinary pen, with which, and no other, he wrote Greek for 40 years; and we need not be surprised that when he lost it he was so grieved that he shed tears. He wrote so fast that he copied, in one night, the “Diarium Romanorum Pontiftcium,” which a Cistertian monk had lent to him. Niceron gives him the character of a man laborious and indefatigable, of a vast memory, and acquainted with every kind of learning; but adds, that in his writings there is a display of more reading than judgment, and, that biographer might have added, than of candour or urbanity of style, at least in his controversial pieces. He died Jan. 1669, aged eighty-three, after founding several colleges or schools in the island of Chios, his native place. His principal works were, 1. “De Ecclesiæ Occidentalis et Orientalis perpetua consensione,” Cologn, 1648, 4to; which is regarded by the most impartial writers among the Protestants, as the production of a disingenuous and insidious mind. His object is, to prove that Latin and Greek churches always concurred in the same faith; and the Catholics look upon this as his ablest performance. 2. “De utriusque ecclesiæ, &c. in dogmate de purgatorio eonsensione,” Rome, 1655, 8vo. 3. “De libris ecclesiasticis Graecorum,” Paris, 1645, 8vo. 4. “De Templis Grsecorumrecentioribus,” Cologn, 1645, 8vo. 5. “Græcioe orthodoxae scriptores,” Rome, 1652 and 1657, 2 vols. 4 to. 6. “Philo Byzantinus de septem orbis spectaculis, Gr. et Lat. cum notis,” Rome, 1640, 8vo. 7. “Eustathius Antiochenus in hexameron, et de Engastrimytho,” Lyons, 1629, 4to. 8. “Symmichta, et Symmiha, sive opusculorum Græcorum ac Latinorum vetustiorum ac recentiorum libri duo,” Cologn, 1653, fol. 9. “De Mensura temporum antiquorum et proecipue Græcorupi,” Cologn, 1645, 8vo. 10. “Apes Urbanæ,” Rome, 1633, 8vo, a title borrowed from the Bees in pope Urban VIII.'s arms; the book gives an account of all the learned men who flourished at Rome from 1630 to the end of 1632, with a catalogue of their works. Fabricius printed an edition of it at Hamburgh, 1711, 8vo. 11. “Dramaturgia,” in Italian, an alphabetical collection of all the Italian dramatic works published in his time. This was reprinted at Venice, 4to, with considerable additions, and brought down to 1755. 12. “Poeti antichi raccolti da Codici manuscriti della Bibliotheca Vaticana e Barberina,” Naples, 1661, 8 vo, a very scarce work, containing the productions of many ancient Italian poets, not before published, but, according to Ginguene, full of errors. Moreri and Niceron mentions other works by Aliutius, which show the variety of his studies, and the rapidity with which he could pass from one subject to another.­Of his tediousnessan'd digressive powers, M. de Sallo complains with some humour in the Journal des Savans. After noticing a lamentation of the virgin Mary, as a remarkable piece inserted in one of Allatius’s works, he adds: “This lamentation was composed by Metaphrast, and that, was sufficient for Allatius to insert a panegyric upon Metaphrast, written by Psellus. As Metaphrast’s name was Simeon, he thence took an opportunity of making a long dis+ sertation upon the lives and works of such celebrated men. as had borne the same name. From the Simeons he passes to the Simons, from them to the Simonideses, and lastly to the Simonactides.”

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

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

, a monk, and general of the monks of Camalduli, was born in 1373, at Portico in the Romagna. Eugene IV. sent him to the council of Basil, where he much distinguished himself, as well as at those of Ferrara and Florence. He acquired a high degree of reputation by his profound knowledge of the Greek language, by his uncommon acquaintance with Grecian literature, by the zeal and industry he discovered in the attempts he made to effectuate a reconciliation between the Greek and Latin churches. He was no less admired for his candid and liberal spirit, and placid and serene temper. Having failed in an attempt to reconcile those literary rivals Poggius and Valla, he told them that men who made use of abusive language could not be supposed to possess either the charity of Christians, nor the politeness of men of letters. His talents would have recommended him to the purple, which the pope intended, but this was prevented by his death, Oct. 23, 1439. He was employed, by order of pope Eugenius IV. to reform several convents of both sexes, which had become irregular; and he has described the result of his labours in this difficult work in his “Hodseporicon,” which contains particulars of the behaviour of the inhabitants of those convents, which he found it necessary to express in Greek. This was printed at Florence, 1431 and 1432, 4to, both scarce editions, and 1678, 8vo. The other works of this learned monk were Latin translations from the fathers. Martenne, in his “Collectio amplissima,” has published twenty books of his letters, which contain many curious particulars of the history of his time. He also translated Diogenes Laertiusinto Latin, which was printed at Venice, 1475, and is a book of great price, as being prior in date by nearly sixty years to any edition of that author.

, called the Sinaite, because he was a monk of mount Sinai, flourished in the seventh century. We have several writings of this recluse: 1. “Odegos,” or the Guide on the true way, in Gr. and Lat. Ingoldstadt, 1606, 4to. 2. “Contemplationes in Hexameron,” GreecoLat. Londini, 1682, 4to, published by Allix. 3. “Cinq livres dogmatiques de Theologie.” 4. “Some sermons.” His works were published at Ingolstadt, 1606, 4to, by the Jesuit Gretser, and inserted in the Biblioth. Pp.

, a writer of the seventeenth century, was a monk of the order of the minorites of St. Francis, and a native of Marsalla in Sicily. He was also vicar-general of his order at Madrid, and became afterwards one of the fathers of the Observance. He was living in 1707, as in that year Mongitore speaks of him, among living authors, in his “Bibl. Sicula.” This monk published two volumes, the nature of which may be judged from the titles: the first was called “Lux magica, &c. ccelestiurn, terrestrium, et inferorum origo, ordo, et subordinatio cunctorum, quoad esse, fieri, etoperari, viginti quatuor voluminibus divisa,” Venice, 1685, 4to. This he published under the assumed name of Livio Betani, but prefixed his name to the second, entitled “Lux magica academica, pars secunda, primordia rerum naturulium, sanabilium, infirmarum et incurabilium continens,” Venice, 1687, 4to. These, as appears by the first, were to be followed by twenty-two more volumes on the same subjects.

, 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.

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

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

, commonly called father, of Paris, of the Augustine order, died at Paris, in the 69th year of his age, in 1691. He was the author of a very elaborate work, entitled “Histoire genealogique et chronologique de la maison de France, et des grands officiers de la couronne,” 1673, 2 vols. 4to. The second edition was published with considerable additions in 1712, by M. du Fourni, auditor of accounts, who did not, however, put his name to it. In 1725 father Ange, an Augustin monk, and Simplicien, of the same order, projected a continuation of this work which extended to nine vols. fol. and appeared in 1726 and the following years. It contains a vast stock of historical information, derived from sources not easily accessible, and much biographical matter. Bayle mentions that Anselme had made preparations for a general history of the sovereign house of Europe, part of which he left in manuscript.

, a monk of Seba, in Palestine, lived in the beginning of the seventh century. He was the author of “Pandecta3 divinse Scripturee,” and of an hundred and ninety homilies. He speaks in his preface of the taking of Jerusalem by Chosroes, king of Persia, and of the cruelties inflicted on the monks of Palestine. To this is added a poem, in which he deplores the loss of the real cross which the Persians carried away among the rest of their booty, and celebrated the restitution of it in another poem written in Italian. The former, in Greek and Latin, is inserted in the supplement to the Bibl. Patritm.

, celebrated for his musical skill, lived in the eleventh century. He was a native of Arezzo, a city of Tuscany; and having been taught the practice of music in his youth, and probably retained as a chorister in the service of the Benedictine monastery founded in that city, he became a monk professed, and a brother of the order of St. Benedict.

, a Spanish monk of the order of St. Benedict, who lived in the seventeenth century, belongs to the class of literary impostors. In 1667, he published at Madrid an ecclesiastical history of Spain, which he pretended to have compiled from the writings of St. Gregory, bishop of Grenada, and from the Chronicle of Haubert. The title was “Poblacion ecclesiastica de Espana, y noticia de sus primeras honras, hallada en los ecritos de S. Gregorio, obispo de Grenada, y en el cronicon de Hauberto,” c. 2 vol. tbl. In order to obtain the more credit, he had the impudence to dedicate this work to the Supreme Being, but the imposture was soon detected by Garcia de Molina, who proved that Argaiz had forged the pretended manuscripts of St. Gregory and Haubert.

, was born at Paris in 1634, and died a Carthusian monk, at Gaillon near Rouen, Jan. 23, 1704, at the age of seventy. He did not entirely quit the world on becoming monk. His talents and learning had procured him illustrious friends, with whom he carried on a literary correspondence. We have by him, 1. “Traite de la lecture des Peres de l'Eglise.” The best edition is of 1697, 12mo. 2. “Melanges d'histoire et de literature,” published under the name of “Vigneul Marvilliana,” reprinted in 1725, in 3 vols. 12mo, of which the abbé Banier compiled almost the whole of the last: this edition is preferable to the others. It is a curious and interesting collection of literary anecdotes, of critical reflections, and satirical strokes. There appear occasionally some violations of truth and justice in both the one and the other; and the public never forgave his censures on la Brnyere. But these miscellanies, says Dr. Warton, have more learning than the “Menagiana,” or indeed than any of the numerous “Anas,” so much at present in vogue. Bayle was fond of them, and frequently quotes them in his Dictionary, and in his Letters, 1699, where he was the first who informs us of the real name of the author. He published also under the assumed name of Moncade, “L'Education, maximeset reflexions,” 1691, 12mo.

, a learned Portuguese theatine monk, was born at Collares in Estremadura, in 1676, and died at Lisbon in 1749. He was one of the iirat members of the Portuguese academy of history, and contributed various historical papers to their Memoirs; but the works on which his reputation chiefly rests, are, 1. i: De Antiquitatibus conventus Bracarugustani, libri IV.“1728, 4to. and 1738, an improved edition. This work evinces the research of a profound antiquary. 2.” Memoires pour servir a Phistoire del'eglise primatiale de Brague,“Lisbon, 1732 44, o vols. 4to. 3.” Regras de lingoa Portugueza." Lisbon, 1725, 8vo. His other works were Sermons, and Lives of the saints.

, a Benedictine monk, and voluminous historian of his order, was born at Ancona, and after being admitted into the church became an abbé. He died in the monastery of Foligno, May 4, 1737. His works are, 1. “Bibliotheca Benedictino-Casinensis,” an account of the lives and writings of the members of the congregation of Mont-Cassin, 2 parts, fol. 1731, 1732. 2. “Catalog! tres monachorum, episcoporum reformatorum, et virorum sanctitate illustrium e congregatione Casinensi,” Assise, 1733, fol. The third of these catalogues was printed partly at Assise, and the rest at Rome, under the title “Continuatio catalogi, &c.” 1734. 3. “Additiones et correctiones bibliothecsE Benedicto-Casinensis,” Foligno, 1735, fol. Besides these he published, in Italian, a life of St. Margaret Corradi, in Italian, 1726, 12mo, said to be much inferior to what he wrote afterwards. He, also left in manuscript, as the conclusion of his labours in honour of the Benedictines, “Bibliotheca synoptica ordinis sancti Benedicti.”

, a famous scholar of the twelfth century, born at Brescia in Italy, whence he went to France, and studied under the celebrated Peter Abelard. Upon his return to Italy, he put on the habit of a monk, and began to preach several new and uncommon doctrines, particularly that the pope and the clergy ought not to enjoy any temporal estate. He maintained in his sermons, that those ecclesiastics who had any estates of their own, or held any lands, were entirely cut off from the least hopes of salvation; that the clergy ought to subsist upon the alms and voluntary contributions of Christians; and that all other revenues belonged to princes and states, in order to be disposed of amongst the laity as they thought proper. He maintained also several singularities with regard to baptism and the Lord’s supper. He engaged a great number of persons in his party, who were distinguished by his name, and proved very formidable to the popes. His doctrines rendered him so obnoxious, that he was condemned in 1139, in a council of near a thousand prelates, held in the church of St. John Lateran at Rome, under pope Innocent II. Upon this he left Italy, and retired to Swisserland. After the death of that pope, he returned to Italy, and went to Rome; where he raised a sedition against Eugenius III. and afterwards against Adrian IV. who laid the people of Rome under an interdict, till they had banished Arnold and his followers. This had its desired effect: the Romans seized upon the houses which the Arnoldists had fortified, and obliged them to retire toOtricoli in Tuscany, where they were received with the utmost affection by the people, who considered Arnold as a prophet. However, he was seized some time after by cardinal Gerard; and, notwithstanding the efforts of the viscounts of Campania, who had rescued him, he was carried to Rome, where, being condemned by Peter, the prefect of that city, to be hanged, he was accordingly executed in 1155. Thirty of his followers went from France to England, about 1160, in order to propagate their doctrine there, but they were immediately seized and put to death. Mr. Berington, the historian of Abelard and Heloisa, after a very elegant memoir of Arnold’s life, sums up his character with much candour. He thinks he was a man whose character, principles, and views, have been misrepresented; but he allows that he was rash, misjudging, and intemperate, or he would never have engaged in so unequal a contest. It appears, indeed, by all accounts, that he was one of those reformers who make no distinctions between use and abuse, and are for overthrowing all establishments, without proposing any thing in their room.

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

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

, who gave his name to the episcopal see of St. Asaph in Wales, was descended of a good family in North Wales, and became a monk in the convent of Llanelvy, over which Kentigern the Scotch bishop of that place presided. That prelate, being recalled to his own country, resigned his convent and cathedral to Asaph, who demeaned himself with such sanctity, that after his death Llanelvy lost its name, and took that of the saint. St. Asaph flourished about the year 590, under Carentius, king of the Britons. He wrote the ordinances of his church, the life of his master Kentigern, and some other pieces. The time of his death is not certainly known. After his death the see of St. Asaph continued vacant 500 years.

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

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

With respect to the writings of Athanasius, it has been justly observed, that there is little important in them, but what relates to the Avian controversy, in which he was occupied during the greater part of his life. What Photius asserts of his style may be allowed but in his life of Anthony the monk, and some other of his pieces, we find him giving too much support to the superstitions and follies of the monastic system. In other respects, he is one of the ablest supporters of the Trinitarian doctrine, and in his private conduct, although occasionally exasperated by oppression, he was in general consistent and upright.

, or Adelard, was a learned monk of Bath in England, who flourished about 1150, as appears by some manuscripts of his in the libraries of Corpus Christi and Trinity colleges, Oxford. Vossius says, he was universally learned in all the sciences of his time, and that, to increase his knowledge, he travelled into France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Egypt, and Arabia. He wrote many books himself, and translated others from different languages among the latter, he translated from Arabic into Latin, Euclid’s Elements, at a time before any Greek copies had been discovered, and “Erichiafarim” upon the seven planets. He wrote a treatise on the several liberal arts, another on the astrolobe, another on the causes of natural compositions, besides several on physics and on medicine. Some manuscripts of his referred to by Vossius remain in the colleges in Oxford as in Oriel, “De decisionibus naturalibns,” and “De philosophia Danielis,” in Corpus Christi,

, an Augustin monk, was torn at St. Philip of Agire, or Argire, an ancient town of Sicily, and became professor of church history in the university of Catania, and in 1758 provincial of his order in Sicily and Malta. He wrote, 1. a Bilancia della Verita,“Palermo, 1738, 4to. This was an answer to a book entitled” Paulus apostolus in Mari, quod hunc Venetus sinus dicifcur, naufragus," by P. Ignatius Giorgi, a Benedictine of Hagusa. The dispute respected the name of the island on which St. Paul was shipwrecked, called in Latin Melita. Giorgi was of opinion that it was an island in Dalmatia, now called Melada, while Attardi maintained the more common opinion that it was the well known island of Malta.

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

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

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

, an eminent English admiral in the last century, descended from a very good family in Lincolnshire, and entered early into the sea-service, where he obtained the character of an able and experienced officer, and the honour of knighthood from king Charles I. This, however, did not hinder him from adhering to the parliament, when by a very singular intrigue he got possession of the fleet, and so zealous he was in the service of his masters, that when in 1648, the greatest part of the navy went over to the prince of Wales, he, who then commanded the Lion, secured that ship for the parliament, which was by them esteemed an action of great importance. As this was a sufficient proof of his fidelity, he had the command given him in a squadron, that was employed to watch the motions of the prince of Wales and accordingly sailed to the coast of Ireland, where he prevented his highness from landing, and drew many of the seamen to that service from which they had deserted. The parliament next year sent him with a considerable number of ships, and the title of admiral, to the coast of Ireland, which commission he discharged with such vigour, that the parliament continued him in his command for another year, and ordered an immediate provision to be made for the payment of his arrears, and presented him with one hundred pounds. After the war was finished in Ireland, sir George Ayscue had orders to sail with a small squadron, to reduce the island of Barbadoes but his orders were countermanded, as the parliament received information, that the Dutch were treating with sir John Grenville, in order to have the isles of Scilly put into their hands, and therefore it was thought necessary to reduce these islands first. Blake and Ayscue were employed in this expedition, in the spring of 1651, and performed it with honour and success, sir John Grenville entering into a treaty with them, who used him very honourably, and gave him fair conditions, after which Blake returned to England, and Ayscue proceeded on his voyage to Barbadoes. The parliament were at first pleased, but when the conditions were known, Blake and Ayscue were accused of being too liberal. Blake resented this, and threatened to lay down his commission, which he said he was sure Ayscue would also do. Upon this, the articles were honourably complied with, and sir George received orders to sail immediately to the West Indies. Sir George continued his voyage, and arrived at Barbadoes October 26, 1651. He then found his enterprize would be attended with great difficulties, and such as had not been foreseen at home. The lord Willoughby, of Parham, commanded there for the king, and had assembled a body of 5,Ooo men for the defence of the island. He was a nobleman of great parts and greater probity, one who had been extremely reverenced by the parliament, before he quitted their party, and was Dow extremely popular on the island. Sir George, however, shewed no signs of concern, but boldly forced his passage into the harbour, and made himself master of twelve sail of Dutch merchantmen that lay there, and next morning he sent a summons to the lord Willoughby, requiring him to submit to the authority of the parliament of England, to which his lordship answered, that he knew no such authority, that he had a commission from king Charles II. to be governor of that island, and that he would keep it for his majesty’s service at the hazard of his life. On this, sir George thought it not prudent to land the few troops he had, and thereby discover his weakness to so cautious an enemy. In the mean time, he receivect a letter by an advice-boat from England, with the news of the king’s being defeated at Worcester, and one intercepted from lady Willoughby, containing a very particular account of that unhappy affair. He now summoned lord Willoughby a second time, and accompanied his summons with lady Willoughby’s letter, but his lordship continued firm in his resolution. All this time, sir George anchored in Speights bay, and stayed there till December, when the Virginia merchant fleet arriving, he made as if they were a reinforcement that had been sent him, but in fact, he had not above 2000 men, and the sight of the little army on shore made him cautious of venturing his men, till he thought the inhabitants had conceived a great idea of his strength. The Virginia ships were welcomed at their coming in, as a supply of men of war, and he presently ordered his men on shore: 159 Scotch servants aboard that fleet, were added to a regiment of 700 men, and some seamen, to make their number look more formidable. One colonel Allen landed with them on the 17th of December, and found lord Willoughby’s forces well entrenched, near a fort they had upon the sea- coast. They attacked him, however, and, in a sharp dispute, wherein about sixty men were killed on both sides, had so much the advantage, that they drove them to the fort, notwithstanding that colonel Allen, their commander, was killed by a musket shot, as he attempted to land. After other attempts, sir George procured colonel Moddiford, who was one of the most leading men on the place, to enter into a treaty with him, and this negociation succeeded so well, that Moddiford declared publicly for a peace, and joined with sir George to bring lord Willoughby, the. governor, to reason, as they phrased it but lord Willoughby never would have consented if an accident had not happened, which put most of the gentlemen about him into such confusion, that he could no longer depend upon their advice or assistance. He had called together his officers, and while they were sitting in council, a cannon-ball beat open the door of the room, and took off the head of the centinel posted before it, which so frighted all the gentlemen of the island, that they not only compelled their governor to lay aside his former design, but to retire to a. place two miles farther from the harbour. Sir George Ayscue, taking advantage of this unexpected good fortune, immediately ordered all his forces on shore, as if he intended to have attacked them in their entrenchments, which struck such a terror into some of the principal persons about the governor, that, after rhature deliberation on his own circumstances, and their disposition, he began to alter his mind, and thereupon, to avoid the effusion of blood, both parties appointed commissaries to treat. Sir George named captain Peck, Mr. Searl, colonel Thomas Moddiforcl, and James Colliton, esq. the lord Willoughby, sir Richard Peers, Charles Pirn, esq. colonel Ellice, and major Byham, who on the 17th of January agreed on articles of rendition, which were alike comprehensive and honourable. The lord Willoughby had what he most desired, indemnity, and freedom of estate and person, upon which, soon after, he returned to England. The islands of Nevis, Antigua, and St. Christopher, were, by the same capitulation, surrendered to the parliament. After this, sir George, considering that he had fully executed his commission, returned with the squadron under his command to England, and arriving at Plymouth on the 25th of May, 1652, was received with all imaginable testimonies of joy and satisfaction by the people there, to whom he was well known before, as his late success also served not a little to raise and heighten his reputation. It was not long after his arrival, before he found himself again obliged to enter upon action for the Dutch war which broke out in his absence, was then become extremely warm, and he was forced to take a share in it, though his ships were so extremely foul, that they were much fitter to be laid up, than to be employed in any farther service. On the 21st of June, 1652, he came to Dover, with his squadron of eleven sail, and there joined his old friend admiral Blake, but Blake having received orders to sail northward, and destroy the Dutch herring fishery, sir George Ayscue was left to command the fleet in the Downs. Within a few days after Blake’s departure he took five sail of Dutch merchantmen, and had scarcely brought them in before he received advice that a fleet of forty sail had been seen not far from the coast, upon which he gave chace, fell in amongst them, took seven, sunk four, and ran twenty-four upon the French shore, all the rest being separated from their convoy. The Dutch admiral, Van Tromp, who was at sea- with a great fleet, having information of sir George Ayscue’s situation, resolved to take advantage of him, and with no“less than one hundred sail, clapped iji between him and the river, and resolved to surprize such ships as should attempt to go out or, if that design failed, to go in and sink sir George and his squadron. The English admiral soon discovered their intention, and causing a signal to be made from Dover castle, for all ships to keep to sea, he thereby defeated the first part of their project. However, Van Tromp attempted the second part of his scheme, in hopes of better success, and on the 8th of July, when it was ebb, be began to sail towards the English fleet but, the wind dying away, he was obliged to come to an anchor about a league off, in order to expect the next ebb. Sir George, in the mean time, caused a strong platform to be raised between Deal and Sandown castles, well furnished with artillery, so pointed, as to bear directly upon the Dutch as they came in the militia of the county of Kent were also ordered down to the sea-shore notwithstanding which preparation, the Dutch admiral did not recede from his point, but at the next ebb weighed anchor, and would have stood intothe port but the wind coming about south-west, and blowing directly in his teeth, constrained him to keep out, and being straightened for time, he was obliged to sail away, and leave sir George safe in the harbour, with the small squadron he commanded. He was soon after ordered to Plymouth, to bring in under his convoy five East- India ships, which he did in the latter end of July and in the first week of August, brought in four French and Dutch prizes, for which activity and vigilance in his command he was universally commended. In a few days after this, intelligence was received, that Van Tromp’s fleet was seen off the back of the isle of Wight, and it was thereupon resolved, that sir George with his fleet of forty men of war, most of them hired merchantmen, except flag ships, should stretch over to the coast of France to meet them. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, between one and two o'clock at noon, they got sight of the enemy, who quitted their merchantmen, being fifty in number. About four the fight began, the English Admiral with nine others charging through their fleet; his ships received most damage in the shrouds, masts, sails, and rigging, which was repaid the Dutch in their hulls. Sir George having thus passed through them, got the weather-gage, and charged them again, but all his fleet not coming up, and the night already entered, they parted with a drawn battle. Captain Peck, the rear-admiral, lost his leg, of which, soon after, he died. Several captains were wounded, but no ship lost. Of the Dutch, not one was said to be lost, though many were shot through and through, but so that they were able to proceed on their voyage, and anchored the next day after, being followed by the English to the isle of Bassa; but no farther attempt was made by our fleet, on account, as it was pretended, of the danger of the French coasts, from whence they returned to Plymouth- Sound to repair. The truth of the matter was, some of sir George’s captains were a little bashful in this affair, and the fleet was in so indifferent a condition, that it was absolutely necessary to refit before they proceeded again to action. He proceeded next to join Blake in the northern seas, where he continued during the best part of the month of September, and took several prizes and towards the latter end of that month he returned with general Blake into the Downs, with one hundred and twenty sail of men of war. On the 27th of that mojith a great Dutch fleet appeared, after which, Blake with his fleet sailed, and sir George Ayscue, pursuant to the orders he had received, returned to Chatham with his own ship, and sent the rest of his squadron into several ports to be careened. Towards the end of November, 1652, general Blake lying at the mouth of our river, began to think that the season of the year left no room to expect farther action, for which reason he detached twenty of his ships to bring up a fleet of colliers from Newcastle, twelve more he had sent to Plymouth, and our admiral, as before observed, with fifteen sail, had proceeded up the river in order to their being careened. Such was the situation of things, when Van Tromp appeared with a fleet of eighty- five sail. Upon this Blake sent for the most experienced officers on board his own ship, where, after a long consultation, it was agreed, that he should wait for, and fight the enemy, though he had but thirtyseven sail of men of war, and a few small ships. Accordingly, on the 29th of November, a general engagement ensued, which lasted with great fury from one in the afternoon till it was dark. Blake in the Triumph, with his seconds the Victory and the Vanguard, engaged for a considerable time near twenty sail of Dutch men of war, and they were in the utmost danger of being oppressed and destrdyed by so unequal a force. This, however, did not hinder Blake from forcing his way into a throng of enemies, to relieve the Garland and Bonadventure, in doing which he was attacked by many of their stoutest ships, which likewise boarded him, but after several times beating them off, he at last found an opportunity to rejoin his fleet. The loss sustained by the English consisted in five ships, either taken or sunk, and several others disabled. The Dutch confess, that one of their men of war was burnt towards the end of the fight, and the captain and most of his men drowned, and also that the ships of Tromp and Evertson were much disabled. At last, night having parted the two fleets, Blake supposing he had sufficiently secured the nation’s honour and his own, by waiting the attack of an enemy, so much superior, and seeing no prospect of advantage by renewing the fight, retired up the river but sir George Ayscue, who inclined to the bolder but less prudent counsel, was so disgusted at this retreat, that he laid down his commission. The services this great man had rendered his country, were none of them more acceptable to the parliament, than this act of laying down his command. They had long wished and waited for an opportunity of dismissing him from their service, and were therefore extremely pleased that he had saved them this trouble however, to shew their gratitude for past services, and to prevent his falling into absolute discontent, they voted him a present of three hundred pounds in money, and likewise bestowed upon him three hundred pounds per annum in Ireland. There is good reason to believe, that Cromwell and his faction were as well pleased with this gentleman’s quitting the sea-service for as they were then meditating, what they soon afterwards put in execution, the turning the parliament out of doors, it could not but be agreeable to them, to see an officer who had so great credit in the navy, and who was so generally esteemed by the nation, laid aside in such a manner, both as it gave them an opportunity of insinuating the ingratitude of that assembly to so worthy a person, and as it freed them from the apprehension of his disturbing their measures, in case he had continued in the fleet; which it is highly probable might have come to pass, considering that Blake was far enough from being of their party, and only submitted to serve the protector, because he saw no other way left to serve his country, and did not think he had interest enough to preserve the fleet, after the defection of the army, which perhaps might not have been the case, if sir George Ayscue had continued in his command. This is so much the more probable, as it is very certain that he never entered into the protector’s service, or shewed himself at all willing to concur in his measures though there is no doubt that Cromwell would have been extremely glad of so experienced an officer in his Spanish war. He retired after this to his country-seat in the county of Surrey, and lived there in great honour and splendor, visiting, and being visited by persons of the greatest distinction, both natives and foreigners, and passing in the general opinion of both, for one of the ablest sea-captains of that age. Yet there is some reason to believe that he had a particular correspondence with the protector’s second son, Henry; since there is still a letter in being from him to secretary Thurloe, which shews that he had very just notions of the worth of this gentleman, and of the expediency of consulting him in all such matters as had a relation to maritime power. The protector, towards the latter end of his life, began to grow dissatisfied with the Dutch, and resolved to destroy their system without entering immediately into a war with them. It was with this view, that he encouraged the Swedes to cultivate, with the utmost diligence, a maritime force, promising in due time to assist them with a sufficient number of able and experienced officers, and with an admiral to command them, who, in point of reputation, was not inferior to any then living. For this reason, he prevailed on sir George, by the intervention of the Swedish ambassador and of Whitelock, and sir George from that time began to entertain favourable thoughts of the design, and brought himself by degrees to think of accepting the offer made him, and of going over for that purpose to Sweden and although he had not absolutely complied during the life of the protector, he closed at last with the proposals made him from Sweden, and putting every thing in order for his journey, towards the latter end of the year 1658, and as soon as he had seen the officers embarked, and had dispatched some private business of his own, he prosecuted his voyage, though in the very depth of winter. This exposed him to great hardships, but on his arrival in Sweden, he was received with all imaginable demonstrations of civility and respect by the king, who might very probably have made good his promise, of promoting him to the rank of high-admiral of Sweden, if he had not been taken off by an unexpected death. This put an end to his hopes in that country, and disposed sir George Ayscue to return home, where a great change had been working in his absence, which was that of restoring king CharJes It. It does not at all appear, that sir George had any concern in this great affair but the contrary may be rather presumed, from his former attachment to the parliament, and his making it his choice to have remained in Sweden, if the death of the monarch, who invited him thither, had not prevented him. On his return, however, he not only submitted to the government then established, but gave the strongest assurances to the administration, that he should be at all times ready to serve the public, if ever there should be occasion, which was very kindly taken, and he had the honour to be” introduced to his majesty, and to kiss his hand. It was not long before he was called to the performance of his promise for the Dutch war breaking out in 1664, he was immediately put into commission by the direction of the duke of York, who then commanded the English fleet. In the spring of the year 1665, he hoisted his flag as rear-admiral of the blue, under the earl of Sandwich, and in the great battle that was fought the third of June in the same year, that squadron had the honour to break through the centre of the Dutch fleet, and thereby made way for one of the most glorious victories ever obtained by this nation at sea. For in this battle, the Dutch had ten of their largest ships sunk or burned, besides their admiral Opdam’s, that blew up in the midst of the engagement, by which the admiral himself, and upwards of five hundred men perished. Eighteen men of war were taken, four fire-ships destroyed, thirteen captains, and two thousand and fifty private men made prisoners and this with so inconsiderable loss, as that of one ship only, nnd three hundred private men. The fleet being again in a condition to put to sea, was ordered to rendezvous in Southwold-bay, from whence, to the number of sixty sail, they weighed on the fifth of July, and stood over for the coast of Holland. The standard was borne by the gallant earl of Sandwich, to whom was viceadmiral sir George Ayscue, and sir Thomas Tyddiman rear-admiral, sir William Perm was admiral of the white, sir William Berkley vice-admiral, and sir Joseph Jordan rear-admiral. The blue flag was carried by sir Thomas ^Vllen, whose vice and rear, were sir Christopher Minims, and sir John Harman. The design was, to intercept de Ruyter in his return, or, at least, to take and burn the Turkey and East-India fleets, of which they had certain intelligence, but they succeeded in neither of these schemes; de Ruyter arrived safely in Holland, and the Turkey and India fleets took shelter in the port of Bergen in Norway. The earl of Sandwich having detached sir Thomas Tyddiman to attack them there, returned home, and in his passage took eight Dutch men of war, which served as convoys to their East and West India fleets, and several merchantmen richly laden, which finished the triumphs of that year. ^The plain superiority of the English over the Dutch at sea, engaged the French, in order to keep up the war between the maritime powers, and make them do their business by destroying each other, to declare on the side of theweakest, as did the king of Denmark also, which, nevertheless, had no effect upon the English, who determined to carry on the war against the allies, with the same spirit they had done against the Dutch alone. In the spring, therefore, of the year 1666, the fleet was very early at sea, under the command of the joint admirals for a resolution having been taken at Court, not to expose the person of the duke of York any more, and the earl of Sandwich being then in Spain, with the character of ambassador-extraordinary, prince Rupert, and old general Monk, now duke of Albemarle, were appointed to command the fleet; having under them as gallant and prudent officers as ever distinguished themselves in the English navy, and, amongst these, sir William Berkley commanded the blue, and sir George Ayscue the white squadron. Prince Rupert, and the duke of Albemarle, went on board the fleet, the twenty-third of April, 1666, and sailed in the beginning of May. Towards the latter end of that month, the court was informed, that the French fleet, under the command of the duke of Beaufort, were coming out to the assistance of the Dutch, and upon receiving this news, the court sent orders to prince Rupert to sail with the white squadron, the admirals excepted, to look out and fight the French, which command that brave prince obeyed, but found it a mere bravado, intended to raise the courage of their new allies, and thereby bring them into the greater danger. At the same time prince Rupert sailed from the Downs, fthe Dutch put out to sea, the wind at north-east, and a fresh gale. This brought the Dutch fleet on the coast of Dunkirk, and carried his highness towards the Isle of Wight but the wind suddenly shifting to the south-west, and blowing hard, brought both the Dutch and the duke to an anchor. Captain Bacon, in the Bristol, first discovered the enemy, and by firing his guns, gave notice of it to the English fleet. Upon this a council of war was called, wherein it was resolved to fight the enemy, notwithstanding their great superiority. After the departure of prince Rupert, the duke had with him only the red and blue squadrons, making about sixty sail, whereas the Dutch fleet consisted of ninety-one men of war, carrying 4716 guns, and 22,460 men. It was the first of June when they were discerned, and the duke was so warm for engaging, that he attacked the enemy before they had time to weigh anchor, and, as de Ruyter himself says in his letter, they were obliged to cut their cables and in the same letter he owns, that to the last the English were the aggressors, notwithstanding their inferiority and other disadvantages. This day’s fight was very fierce and bloody for the Dutch, confiding in their numbers, pressed furiously upon the English fleet, while the English officers, being men of determined resolution, fought with such courage and constancy, that they not only repulsed the Dutch, but renewed the attack, and forced the enemy to maintain the fight longer than they were inclined to do, so that it was ten in the evening before their cannon were silent. The following night was spent in repairing the damages suffered on both sides, and next morning the fight was renewed by the English with fresh vigour. Admiral Van Tromp, with vice-admiral Vander Hulst, being on board one ship, rashly engaged among the English, and were in the utmost danger, either of being taken or burnt. The Dutch affairs, according to their own account, were now in a desperate condition but admiral de Ruyter at last disengaged them, though not till his ship was disabled, and vice-admiral Vander Hulst killed. This only changed the scene for de Ruyter was now as hard pushed as Tromp had been before; but a reinforcement arriving, preserved him also, and so the second day’s fight ended earlier than the first. The duke finding that the Dutch had received a reinforcement, and that his small fleet, on the contrary, was much weakened, through the damages sustained by some, and the Joss and absence of others of his ships, took, towards the evening, the resolution to retire, and endeavour to join prince Rupert, who was coming to his assistance. The retreat was performed in good order, twenty- six or twentyeight men of war that had suffered least, brought up the rear, interposing between the enemy and the disabled ships, three of which, being very much shattered, were burnt by the English themselves, and the men taken on board the other ships. The Dutch fleet followed, but at a distance. As they thus sailed on, it happened on the third day that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, who commanded the Royal Prince (being the largest and heaviest ship of the whole fleet) unfortunately struck upon the sand called the Galloper, where being threatened by the enemy’s fire-ships, and hopeless of assistance from his friends (whose timely return, the near approach of the enemy, and the contrary tide, had absolutely rendered impossible), he was forced to surrender. The Dutch admiral de Ruyter, in his letter to the States-general, says, in few words, that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, having run upon a sand -bank, fell into their hands, and that after taking out the commanders, and the men that were left, they set the s’mp on fire. But the large relation, collected by order of the States out of all the letters written to them upon that occasion, informs us, that sir George Ayscue, in the Royal Prince, ran upon the Galloper, an unhappy accident, says that relation, for an officer who had behaved very gallantly during the whole engagement, and who only retired in obedience to his admiral’s orders. The unfortunate admiral made signals for assistance but the English fleet continued their route so that he was left quite alone, and without hope of succour in which situation he was attacked by two Dutch fire-ships, by which, without doubt, he had been burnt, if lieutenant-admiral Tromp, who was on board the ship of rear-admiral Sweers, had not made a signal to call off the fire-ships, perceiving that his flag was already struck, and a signal made for quarter, upon which rear-admiral Sweers, by order of Tromp, went on board the English ship, and brought off sir George Ayscue, his officers, and some of his men, on board his own vessel, and the next morning sir George was sent to the Dutch coast, in order to go to the Hague in a galliot, by order of general de Ruyter. The English ship was afterwards got off the sands, notwithstanding which, general de Ruyter ordered the rest of the crew to be taken out, and the vessel set on fire, that his fleet might he the less embarrassed, which was accordingly done. But in the French relation, published by order of that court, we have another circumstance, which the Dutch have thought fit to omit, and it is this, that the crew gave np the ship against the admiral’s will, who had given orders /or setting her on fire. There were some circumstances which made the loss of this ship, in this manner, very disagreeable to the English court, and perhaps this may be the reason that so little is said of it in our own relations. In all probability general de Ruyter took the opportunity of sending sir George Ayscue to the Dutch coast the next morning, from an apprehension that he might be retaken in. the next day’s fight. On his arrival at the Hague he was very civilly treated but to raise the spirits of their people, and to make the most of this dubious kind of victory, the states ordered sir George to be carried as it were in triumph, through the several towns of Holland, and then confined him in the castle of Louvestein, so famous in the Dutch histories for having been the prison of some of their most eminent patriots, and from whence the party which opposed the prince of Orange were styled the Louvestein faction. As soon as sir George Ayscue came to this castle, he wrote a letter to king Charles II. to acquaint him with the condition he was in, which letter is still preserved in the life of the Dutch admiral, de Ruyter. How long he remained there, or whether he continued a prisoner to the end of the war, is uncertain, but it is said that he afterwards returned to England, and spent the remainder of his days in peace. Granger observes very justly, that it is scarcely possible to give a higher character of the courage of this brave admiral, than to say that he was a match for Van Tromp or de Ruyter.

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

, a learned English monk of the Franciscan order, who flourished in the thirteenth century, was born near Ilchester in Somersetshire, in 1214, and was descended of a very ancient and honourable family. He received the first tincture of letters at Oxford, where having gone through grammar and logic, the dawnings of his genius gained him the favour and patronage of the greatest lovers of learning, and such as were equally distinguished by their high rank, and the excellence of their knowledge. It is not very clear, says the Biographia Britannica, whether he was of Merton college, or of Brazen-nose hall, and perhaps he studied at neither, but spent his time at the public schools. The latter is indeed more probable than that he studied at Merton college, which did not then exist. It appears, however, that he went early over to Paris, where he made still greater progress in all parts of learning, and was looked upon as the glory of that university, and an honour to his country. In those days such as desired to distinguish themselves by an early and effectual application to their studies, resorted to Paris, where not only many of the greatest men in Europe resided and taught, but many of the English nation, by whom Bacon was encouraged and caressed. At Paris he did not confine his studies to any particular branch of literature, but endeavoured to comprehend the sciences in general, fully and perfectly, by a right method and constant application. When he had attained the degree of doctor, he returned again, to his own country, and, as some say, took the habit of the Franciscan order in 1240, when he was about twenty-six years of age but others assert that he became a monk before he left France. After his return to Oxford, he was considered, by the greatest men of that university, as one of the ablest and most indefati^ gable inquirers after knowledge that the world had ever produced and therefore they not only shewed him all due respect, but likewise conceiving the greatest hopes from his improvements in the method of study, they generously contributed to his expences, so that he was enabled to lay out, within the compass of twenty years, no less than two thousand pounds in collecting curious authors, making trials of various kinds, and in the construction of different instruments, for the improvement of useful knowledge. But if this assiduous application to his studies, and the stupendous progress he made in them, raised his credit with the better part of mankind, it excited the envy of some, and afforded plausible pretences for the malicious designs of others. It is very easy to conceive, that the experiments he made in all parts of natural philosophy and the mathematics, must have made a great noise in an ignorant age, when scarcely two or three men in a whole nation were tolerably acquainted with those studies, and when all the pretenders to knowledge affected to cover their own ignorance, by throwing the most scandalous aspersions on those branches of science, which they either wanted genius to understand, or which demanded greater application to acquire, than they were willing to bestow. They gave out, therefore, that mathematical studies were in some measure allied to those magical arts which the church had condemned,and thereby brought suspicions upon men of superior learning. It was owing to this suspicion that Bacon was restrained from reading lectures to the young students in the university, and at length closely confined and almost starved, the monks being afraid lest his writings should extend beyond the limits of his convent, and be seen by any besides themselves and the pope. But there is great reason to believe, that though his application to the occult; sciences was their pretence, the true cause of his ill-usage was, the freedom with which he had treated the clergy in, his writings, in which he spared neither their ignorance nor their want of morals. But notwithstanding this harsh feature in the character of the times, his reputation continued to spread over the whole Christian world, and even pope Clement IV. wrote him a letter, desiring that he would send him all his works. This was in 1266, when our author was in the flower of his 4 age, and to gratify his holiness, collected together, greatly enlarged and ranged in some order, the several pieces he had written before that time, and sent them the next year by his favourite disciple John of London, or rather of Paris, to the pope. This collection, which is the same that himself entitled Opus Majus, or his great work, is yet extant, and was published by Dr. Jebb, in 1773. Dr. Jebb had proposed to have published all his works about three years before his edition of the Opus Majus, but while he was engaged in that design, he was informed by letters from his brother at Dublin, that there was a“manuscript in the college library there, which contained a great many treatises generally ascribed to Bacon, and disposed in such order, that they seemed to form one complete work, but the title was wanting, which l,iad been carelessly torn off from the rest of the manuscript. The doctor soon found that it was a collection of those tracts which Bacon had written for the use of pope Clement IV. and to which he had given the title of Opus Majus, since it appeared, that what he said of that work in his Opus Tertium, addressed to the same pope, exactly suited with this; which contained an account of almost all the new discoveries and improvements that he had made in the sciences,. Upon this account Dr. Jebb laid aside his former design, and resolved to publish only an edition of this Opus Majus. The manuscripts which he made use of to complete this edition, are, 1. ms. in the Cotton library, inscribed^” Jul. D. V.“which contains the first part of the Opus Majus, under the title of a treatise” Jl)e utijitate Scientiarnii). “2. Another ms. in the same library, marked” Tib. C. V." containing the fourth part of the Opus Majus, in which is shewn the use of the mathematics in the sciences and affairs of the world in the ms. it is erroneously called the fifth part. 3. A ms. in the library belonging to Corpus Christi in Cambridge, containing that portion of the fourth part which treats of geography. 4. A ms. of the fifth part, containing a treatise upon perspective, in the earl of Oxford’s library. 5. A ms. in the library of Magdalen college, Cambridge, comprehending the same treatise of perspective. 6. Two Mss. in the king’s library, communicated to the editor by Dr. Richard Bentley, one of which contains the fourth part of Opus Majus, and the other the fifth part. It is said that this learned book of his procured him the favour of Clement IV. and also some encouragement in the prosecution of his studies but this could not have lasted long, as that pope died soon after, and then we find our author under fresh embarrassments from the same causes as before; but he became in more danger, as the general of his order, Jerom de Ascoli, having heard his cause, ordered him to be imprisoned. This is said to have happened in 1278, and to prevent his appealing to pope Nicholas III. the general procured a confirmation of his sentence from Rome immediately, but it is not very easy to say upon what pretences. Yet we are told by others, that he was imprisoned by Reymundus Galfredus, who was general of his order, on account of some alchemistical treatise which he had written, and that Galfredus afterwards set him at liberty, and became his scholar. However obscure these circumstances may be, it is certain that his sufferings for many years must have brought him low, since he was sixty-four years of age when he was first put in prison, and deprived of the opportunity of prosecuting his studies, at least in the way of experiment. That he was still indulged in the use of his books, appears very clearly from the great use he made of them in the learned works he composed.

, surnamed the Resolute Doctor, and one of the most learned men of his time, was born about the end of the 13th century, at Baconthorp, an obscure village in Norfolk, from which he took his name. In his youth, he was a monk in the convent of Blackney, a small town in Norfolk, about five miles from Walsingham. After some years dedicated to learning and piety, he removed to Oxford, and from thence to Paris, where he was honoured with the degrees in divinity and laws, and acquired a great reputation for learning, being esteemed the head of the followers of the philosopher Averroes. Upon his return into England, he was unanimously chosen the twelfth provincial of the English Carmelites, in a general assembly of that order held at London, in the year 1329. Four years after he was invited by letters to Rome where, in several disputations on the subject of marriage, he gave no little offence, by carrying the papal authority too high in the case of divorces; but he thought fit afterwards to retract his opinion, and was held in great esteem at Rome, and other parts of Italy. His biographers report that he was of small stature, but of a great and lofty genius, and besides the encomiums bestowed upon him by his own countrymen, he has had the praises, not less high, of Baptista Mantuanus, and Paulus Panza. Bale seems to think that he anticipated the better opinions of more enlightened times. Of his works, which are numerous, the following have been published “Commentaria, seu Questiones per quatuor libros sententiarum,” which has undergone six editions; “Compendium iegis Chris ti,- et Quodlibeta,” Venice, 1527. Leiand, Bale, and Pitts give a catalogue of his manuscripts. He died at London in 1346.

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

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

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

, a Swedish lawyer, was born at Norcopin, and was professor of civil law in the university of Franeker for fifteen years, a place conferred upon him on account of his high reputation when a scholar. He died Oct. 13, 1662. In 1649 he published at Franeker a work, “De tyrannide papae in reges et principes Christianos,” and seven years after, “Roma triumphans, seu inauguratio Innocentii X.” also some writings, “de Bancse ruptoribus,” “de Duellis,” “de conciliis et consiliariis principum” but his most celebrated work was an edition of the Taxes of the Roman Chancery, on the sums paid for absolution for crimes, even of the most atrocious kind. It was published at Franeker in 1651, in 8vo, after he had consulted the most ancient copies, printed or manuscript, and by comparing them word for word, supplied by means of one what was wanting in others. He made use of the edition of Cologne in 1523, of that of Wittembergin 1538, of that of Venice in 1584, and of a manuscript, which had been communicated to him by John Baptista Sibon, a Bernardine monk, and reader in the college of Rome. By this means he has made his edition somewhat larger than all that had been published before, and he has added notes, in which he explains a great many terms, which are difficult to be understood it is a kind of glossary. He has likewise joined to it a small Italian tract, which contains the lax which was made use of under pope Innocent X. and he has explained the value of the money as it was at that time. It is almost unnecessary to add, that this work was soon added to the list of prohibited books.

, a Barnabite monk, born at Serravalle, in the environs of Verceil in Piemont, in 1590, was chosen professor of philosophy and mathematics at Anneci, where he was much distinguished by the acuteness of his genius. The general of his order having sent him into France to form some establishments, he proceeded to Paris, where he acquired reputation both as a philosopher and as a preacher. He was one of the first that had the courage to abandon the trammels of Aristotle. He died at Montargis the 23d of December, 1622, aged only thirtythree. La Mothe le Vayer classes him among the foremost of the learned in his time. He adds, that Baranzano had several times assured him that he would appear to him, if he should depart the first out of this world, but that he did not keep his word. Lord chancellor Bacon had as great an esteem for him as la Mothe le Vayer, as appears by a letter he wrote to him in June 1622, which Niceron has printed. His works are, 1. “Campus Philosophicus,” Lyons, 1620, 8vo. 2. “Uranoscopia, seu universa doctrina de Coelo,” 1617, folio. 3. “Novae Opiuiones Physicx,” Lyons, 1617, 8vo.

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

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

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

, a learned father of the Romish church, and a monk of the Benedictine order, was born at Martres in the diocese of Rieux in Gascony, and entered into the order of the preaching friars at Toulouse in 1622. He taught divinity several years with applause in the convent of the same city, and was made prior there; as he was likewise at Avignon, and in the general novitiate of the suburb of St. Germain at Paris. He was definitor for his province in the general chapter held in 1656, in which he presided at the theses dedicated to pope Alexander VII. which gained him the esteem of all the city and his whole order. He was present at the assembly, in which the pope ordered the definitors and fathers of the chapter to be told, from him, that he was extremely grieved to see the Christian morality sunk into such a deplorable relaxation, as some of the new casuists had reduced it to, and that he exhorted them to compose another system of it, which should be conformable to the doctrine of St. Thomas. This was what engaged father Baron to undertake the works which he wrote upon that subject. He was again chosen provincial; and afterwards sent by the father general as commissary to Portugal, upon important affairs, which he managed with such success, that the queen, the court, and all the monks gave testimony of his merit by a public act. He returned to Paris to the general novitiate, and died there, Jan. 21, 1674, aged seventy years. Besides several Latin poems, which he left as instances of his capacity in polite literature, he published the following works: 1. “Theologia Moralis,” Paris, 1665, in 5 vols. 8vo, and again in 1667. 2. “Libri Apologetici contra Theophilum Rainaudum,” Paris, 1666, in 2 vols. 8vo. 3. “Mens sancti Augustini & Thorn ae de Gratia & Libertate,” 1666, 8vo. 4. “Ethica Christiana,” Paris, 1666, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “Responsio ad Librum Cardense,” ibid, in 8vo. 6. “L'Heresie Convaincue,” Paris, 1668, 12mo. 7. “Panegyriques des Saints,” ibid. 1660, '4to. The first two volumes of his Moral Theology were prohibited. It relates to the principal points in dispute between the Dominicans and Jesuits.

, a Cistercian monk, born at Celano in the kingdom of Naples in 1613, was professor of the Hebrew tongue at the college of the Neophytes and Transmarins at Rome, from 1651 to the time of his death, Nov. 1, 1687, aged seventy-four. There is by him a Bibliotheca Rabbinica, entitled “Bibliotheca magna rabbinica de scriptoribus et scriptis Hebra'icis, ordine alphabetico Hebraice et Latine digestis;” in folio, 4 vols. Rom. 1675. Father Charles Joseph Imbonati, one of his disciples, added a fifth volume, under the title of “Bibliotheca Latino-Hebraica.” Jvi. Simon allows that Bartolocci possessed a great fund of Rabbinical learning, but was deficient in sacred criticism, and in strict impartiality, and that his work, in order to be made really useful, should be abridged into a single volume.

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

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

, a poet of some note in the fourteenth century, and author of several works, was born in Yorkshire, not far from Nottingham. In his youth he became a Carmelite monk, and afterwards prior of the convent of that order at Scarborough. Bale says that he was likewise poet laureat and public orator at Oxford, which Wood thinks doubtful. Edward I. (not Edward II. as Mr. Warton says) carried him with him in his expedition to Scotland in 1304, to be an eye-witness and celebrate his conquest of Scotland in verse. Holinshed mentions this circumstance as a singular proof of Edward’s presumption and confidence in his undertaking against Scotland, but it appears that a poet was a stated officer in the royal retinue when the king went to war. On this occasion Baston was peculiarly unfortunate, being taken prisoner, and compelled by the Scots to write a panegyric on Robert Bruce, as the price of his ransom. This was the more provoking, as he had just before written on the siege of Stirling castle in honour of his master, which performance is extant in Fordun’s Scoti-chronicon. His works, according to Bale and Pits, were written under these titles: 1. “De Strivilniensi obsidione:” of the Siege of Stirling, a poem in one book. 2. “De altero Scotorum Beilo,” in one book. 3. “De Scotiae Guerris variis,” in one book. 4. “De variis mundi Statibus,” in one book. 5. “De Sacerdotum luxuriis,” in one book. 6. “Contra Artistas,” in one book. 7. “De Divite et Lazaro.” 8. “Epistolae ad diversos,” in one book. 9. “Sermones Synodales,” in one book. 10. A Book of Poems; and, 11. A volume of tragedies and comedies in English, the existence of which is doubtful. His other poems are in monkish Latin hexameters. He died about 1310, and was buried at Nottingham.

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

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.

, otherwise named Bever, and in Latin Fiber, Fiberius, Castor, and Castorius, was a Benedictine monk in Westminster-abbey, and nourished about the beginning of the fourteenth century. He was a man of quick parts, and of great diligence and ingenuity: and applied himself particularly to the study of the history and antiquities of England. Among other things, he wrote a “Chronicle of the British and English Affairs,” from the coming in of Brute to his own time, now among the Cottonian Mss. Hearne issued proposals for publishing it in 1735, which his death prevented. He also wrote a book “De Rebus ccenobii Westmonasteriensis,” of Westminsterabbey, and the several transactions relating thereto. Leland commends him, as an historian of good credit; and he is also cited with respect by Stowe in his Survey of London and Westminster. Bale says he does not give a slight or superficial account, but a full and judicious relation, of things; and takes proper notice of the virtues and vices of the persons mentioned in his history.

There was another of the same name, a monk of St. Alban’s; who left behind him a collection of some treatises that are of no great value. They are extant in the king’s library.

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

, a monk of the EcolesPies, or Pious Schools, was born at Mondovi, and died at Turin, May 22, 1781. He was professor of mathematics and philosophy, first at Palermo, then at Rome; and by his experiments and discoveries was so successful as to throw great light on natural knowledge, and especially on that of electricity. He was afterwards called to Turin to take upon him the professorship of experimental philosophy. Being appointed preceptor to the two princes, Benedict duke of Chablais, and Victor Amadscus duke of Ctirignan, neither the life of a court, nor the allurements of pleasure, were able to draw him aside from study. Loaded with benefits and honours, he spared nothing to augment his library, and to procure the instruments necessary for his philosophical pursuits. His dissertations on electricity would have been more useful, if he had been less strongly attached to some particular systems, and especially that of Mr. Franklin. He published, 1. “Experimenta quibus Electricitas Vindex late constituitur, &c.” Turin, 1771, 4to. 2. “Electricismo artificiale,” 1772, 4to, an English translation of which was published at Lond. 1776, 4to. We have also by him an “Essay on the cause of Storms and Tempests,” where we meet with nothing more satisfactory than what has appeared in other works on that subject; several pieces on the meridian of Turin, and other objects of astronomy and physics. Father Beccaria was no less respectable for his virtues than his knowledge.

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

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

, a native of Paris, where he was born in 1654, became a monk of the Celestine order, and was for forty years their librarian at Paris. He was a man of considerable taste, well acquainted with books an.d authors, and wrote Latin and French with great purity. He died at Paris, Jan. 20, 1730. His principal work is a history of the congregation of the Celestines, with the lives of the most distinguished men among them. This work, written in Latin, was published at Paris, 1719, 4to. In 1721 he published in French, a pamphlet, entitled “Supplement et remarques critiques sur le vingt-troisieme chapitre du vi. tome de Phistoire des ordres monastiques et militaires, par le P. Heliot.” Where he speaks of the Celestines, Becquet corrects his errors, and throws considerable light on the history of St. Celestin and the order. In the Trevoux memoirs, where this piece is inserted, Becket wrote also some remarks on Baillet’s lives of the saints, and on the abbe Fleuri’s Ecclesiastical History. He is said to have employed some years on a “Roman Martyrology,” with notes biographical, critical, and astronomical, but this has not been published, nor is it certain it was completed.

, daughter of a gentleman of Dauphine, abbess of St. Honore de Tarascon, where she was honoured with the name of Scholastica, made great progress in the Latin language, and in several branches o science, under Denys Faucher, monk of Lerins and almoner of his monastery. Francis I. was so charmed with the letters of this abbess, that he carried them, as it is said, about him, and shewed them to the ladies of his court, as models for their imitation. He went from Avignon to Tarascon, with queen Margaret of Navarre, for the sake of conversing with this learned lady. She died in 1547, after having published several works, Latin and French, in verse and in prose. Two Italian writers, Louis Domenichi and Augustin della Chiesa, have published eloges on this lady in their respective works.

, a celebrated preacher in the fourteenth century, was a monk of the order of St. Augustin at Clare, and surnamed de Bury, because he was born at St. Edmund’s Bury, in Suffolk. Having from his youth shewn a quick capacity, and a great inclination to learning, his superiors took care to improve these excellent faculties, by sending him not only to our English, but also to foreign universities; where closely applying himself to his studies, and being a constant disputant, he acquired such fame, that at Paris he became a doctor of the Sorbonne. Not long after he returned to England, where he was much followed, and extremely admired for his eloquent way of preaching. This qualification, joined to his remarkable integrity, uprightness, and dexterity in the management of affairs, so recommended him to the esteem of the world, that he was chosen provincial of his order throughout England, in which station he behaved in a very commendable manner. He wrote several things, as 1 “Lectures upon the master of the sentences, i. e. Peter Lombard, in four books.” 2. “Theological Questions,” in one book. 3. “Sermons upon the blessed Virgin.” 4. " A course of sermons for the whole year. Besides several other things of which no account is given. He flourished about the year 1380, in the reign of Richard II.

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

One leading object with him was to unite the four religious communities in Christendom. He proposed that four councils should be held at different places, each consisting of a certain number of representatives of the Romish, Greek, Lutheran, and Calvinist churches; but it is unnecessary to add that this scheme was found impracticable. In all his transactions, however, with the catholic sovereigns of Europe, he endeavoured to operate by a conciliatory temper, and although not always successful, yet the purity of his intentions was visible. It has been said that he was more of a monk than of a pope, by which we may probably understand, that he was more attached to what he conceived to be the genuine interests of the church, than to her political influence. Indefatigable in his apostolical duties, he continued to preach and pray, attended to all pontifical and sacerdotal functions, and directed the conduct of subordinate prelates, and ministers of the church. He frequently visited the poor, and not only gave them spiritual comfort, but relieved them by his bounty, selling for that purpose the presents which he received. He habituated himself to the plainest fare, and lived in the most frugal manner, like a hermit in his cell, that he might more liberally bestow upon others the blessings of fortune. His chief blemish was that easiness of temper, and reluctance to active business, which led him to suffer cardinal Coscia, an unprincipled Neapolitan, to have the entire management of the government, and would listen to no complaints against him, although Coscia was guilty of the most enormous and notorious extortions. Yet he died, without losing his popularity, Feb. 21, 1730, in the sixth year of his pontificate. His works were published in 3 vols. 1728, fol. under the title of “Opera di Benedetto XIII.”

, an Italian monk of the order of the minorite conventuals, was born at Palermo, and in 1650, when he officiated during Lent at Bologna, acquired high reputation as a preacher. He was professor of philosophy and divinity in the convents of his order, provincial in Sicily, and superintendant of the great convent of Palermo, where he died, November 17, 1679. He published a philosophical work, or at least a work on philosophy, entitled “De objecto philosophise,” Perug. 1649, 4to; and it is said that he wrote an Italian epic poem called “Davidiade,” a collection entitled “Poesis miscellanea,” and an elementary work on medicine, “Tyrocinium medicoe facultatis” but these have not been printed.

, a monk in the tenth century, who was born in the year 923, in the neighbourhood of Annecy, of one of the most illustrious houses of Savoy, rendered himself not more celebrated in the annals of religion than of benevolence, by two hospitable establishments which he formed, and where, for nine hundred years, travellers have found relief from the dangers of passing the Alps in the severe part of the season. Bernard, influenced by pious motives and a love of study, refused in his early years a proposal of marriage to which his parents attached great importance, and embraced the ecclesiastical life. He afterwards was promoted to be archdeacon of Aoste, which includes the places of official and grand-vicar, and consequently gave him considerable weight in the government of the diocese. This he employed in the laudable purposes of converting the wretched inhabitants of the neighbouring mountains, who were idolaters, and made very great progress in ameliorating their manners, as well as religious opinions. Affected at the same time with the dangers and hardships sustained by the French and German pilgrims in travelling to Rome, he resolved to build on the summit of the Alps two hospitia, or hotels, for their reception, one on mount Joux (mons Jcrffis, so called from a temple of Jupiter erected there), and the other, the colonnade of Jove, so called from a colonnade or series of upright stones placed on the snow to point out a safe track. These places of reception were afterwards called, and are still known by the names of the Great and Little St. Bernard. The care of them the founder entrusted to regular canons of the order of St. Augustin, who have continued without interruption to our days, each succession of monks during this long period, zealously performing the duties of hospitality according to the benevolent intentions of St. Bernard. The situation is the most inhospitable by nature that can be conceived even in spring, the cold is extreme; and the whole is covered with snow or ice, whose appearances are varied only by storms and clouds. Their principal monastery on Great St. Bernard, is probably the highest habitation in Europe, being two thousand five hundred toises above the sea. Morning and evening their dogs, trained for the purpose, trace out the weary and perishing traveller, and by their means, many lives are saved, the utmost care being taken to recover them, even when- recovery seems most improbable. After thus establishing these hospitia, Bernard returned to his itinerant labours among the neighbouring countries until his death in May 28, 1008. The Bollandists have published, with notes, two authentic lives of St. Bernard de Menthon, one written by Richard, his successor in the archdeaconry of Aoste y by which it appears that he was neither a Cistertian, nor of the regular canons, as some writers have asserted. The two hospitals possessed considerable property in Savoy, of which they were deprived afterwards, but the establishment still subsists, and the kind and charitable duties of it have lately been performed by secular priests.

, successively poet laureate of Henry VII. and VIII. kings of England, was a native of Tholouse, and an Augustine monk. By an instrument in Rymer’s Foedera, Vol. XII. p. 317, pro Potta laureafo, dated 1486, the king grants to Andrew Bernard, poet& laureato, which, as Mr. Warton remarks, we may construe either “the laureated poet,” or “a poet laureat,” a salary of ten marks, until he can obtain some equivalent appointment. He is also supposed to have been the royal historiographer, and preceptor in grammar to prince Arthur. All the pieces now to be found, which he wrote in the character of poet laureat, are in Latin. Among them are, an “Address to Henry VIII. for the most auspicious beginning of the tenth year of his reign,” with “An epithrflamium on the Marriage of Francis the dauphin of France with the king’s daughter.” These were formerly in the possession of Mr. Thomas Martin of Palgrave, the antiquary; - A New Year’s gift for 1515,“in the library of New college, Oxford and” Verses wishing prosperity to his Majesty’s thirteenth year,“in the British museum. He has also left some Latin hymns, a Latin life of St. Andrew, and many Latin prose pieces, which he wrote as historiographer to both monarchs, particularly a” Chronicle of the life and achievements of Henry VII. to the taking of Perkin Warbeck," and other historical commentaries on thq reign of that king, which are all in the CotIonian library. He was living in 1522, but is not mentioned by Bale, Pits, or Tanner.

, 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 gentleman of Artois, and a man of great learning, was burnt for being a Protestant, at Paris, 1529. He was lord of a village, whence he took his name, and for some time made a considerable figure at the court of France, where he was honoured with the title of king’s counsellor. Erasmus says, that his great crime was openly professing to hate the monks and hence arose his warm contest with William Quernus, one of the most violent inquisitors of his time. A charge of heresy was contrived against him, the articles of his accusation being extracted from a book which he had published, and he was committed to prison, but when the affair came to a trial, he was acquitted by the judges. His accusers pretended that he would not have escaped, had not the king interposed his authority; but Berquin himself ascribed it entirely to the justice of his cause, and went on with equal courage in avowing his sentiments. Some time after, Noel Beda and his emissaries made extracts from some of his books, and having accused him of pernicious errors, he was again sent to prison, and the cause being tried, sentence was passed against him; viz. that his books be committed to the flames, that he retract his errors, and make a proper submission, and if he refuse to comply, that he be burnt. Being a man of an undaunted inflexible spirit, he would submit to nothing; and in all probability would at this time have suffered death, had not some of the judges, who perceived the violence of his accusers, procured the affair to be again heard and examined. It is thought this was owing to the intercession of madame the regent. In the mean time Francis I. returning from Spain, and finding the danger his counsellor was in from Beda and his faction, wrote to the parliament, telling them to be cautious how they proceeded, for that he himself would take cognizance of the affair. Soon after Berquin was set at liberty, which gave him such courage, that he turned accuser against his accusers, and prosecuted them for irreligion, though, if he had taken the advice of Erasmus, he would have esteemed it a sufficient triumph that he had got free from the persecution of such people. He was sent a third time to prison, and condemned to a public recantation and perpetual imprisonment. Refusing to acquiesce in this judgment, he was condemned as an obstinate heretic, strangled on the Greve, and afterwards burnt. He suffered death with great constancy and resolution, April 17, 1529, being then about 40 years of age. The monk, who accompanied him on the scaffold, declared, that he had observed in him signs of abjuration which Erasmus however believes to be a falsehood. “It is always,” says he, “their custom in like cases. These pious frauds serve to keep up their credit as the avengers of religion, and to justify to the deluded people those who have accused and condemned the burnt heretic.” Among his works are, 1 “Le vrai moyen de bien et catholiquement se confesser,” a translation from the Latin of Erasmus, Lyons, 1S42, 16mo. 2. “Le Chevalier Chretien,” 1542, another translation from Erasmus. Of his other writings, we have some account in the following extract from Chevillier’s History of Printing. “In 1523, May 23, the parliament ordered the books of Lewis de Berquin to be seized, and communicated to the faculty of divinity, for their opinion. The book” De abroganda Missa“was found upon him, with some others of Luther’s and Melancthon’s books and seven or eight treatises of which he was the author, some under these titles” Speculum Theologastrorum“” De usu & officio Missae, &c.“” Rationes Lutheri quibus omnes Christianos esse Sacerdotes molitur suadere,“” Le Debat de Pieté & Superstition.“There were found also some books which he had translated into French, as” Reasons why Luther has caused the Decretals and all the books of the Canon Law to be burnt“” The Roman Triad,“and others. The faculty, after having examined these books, judged that they contained expressly the heresies and blasphemies of Luther. Their opinion is dated Friday, July 26, 1523, and addressed to the court of parliament. After having given their censure upon each book in particular, they conclude that they ought all to be cast into the fire that Berquiu having made himself the defender of the Lutheran heresies, he ought to be obliged to a public abjuration, and to be forbidden to compose any book for the future, or to snake any translation prejudicial to the faith.”

, a famous Augustine monk, born May 28, 1696, at Serravezza, a small village in Tuscany, was called to Rome by his superiors, and obtained the title of assistant-general of Italy, and the place of prefect of the papal library. His great proficiency in theological studies procured him these distinctions, and appeared to advantage in his grand work, “De disciplinis theologicis,” printed at Rome in 8 vols. 4to. He here adopts the sentiments of St. Augustine in their utmost rigour, after the example of Bellelli his brother- monk. The archbishop of Vienna [Salmon], or rather the Jesuits who managed him, published under his name in 1744, two pieces against the two Augustine theologues, inveighing against them as being too severely Augustine. The first is entitled, “Ba'ianismus redivivus in scriptis pp. Bellelli et Berti,” in 4to. The second bore this title “Jansenismus redivivus in scriptis pp. Bellelli et Berti,” in 4to. At the same time father Berti was accused to pope Benedict XIV. as a disciple of Ba'ius and of Jansenitis. The prudent pontiff, without returning any answer to the accusers, advised Berti to defend himself; which he accordingly did in a work of two vols. 4to, 1749. In this apology, rather long, though learned and lively, he laid down the difference there is between Jansenism and Augustinianism. After this piece Berti brought out several others, the principal of which is an ecclesiastical history in Latin, in 7 vols. 4to: it made however but little way out of Italy, by reason of the dryness of the historian, and of his prejudices in favour of exploded tenets. He speaks of the pope, both in his theology and in his history, as the absolute monarch of kingdoms and empires, and that all other princes are but his lieutenants. Berti wrote also dissertations, dialogues, panegyrics, academical discourses, and some Italian poems, which are by no means his best productions. An edition in folio of all his works has been printed at Venice. He died at the age of 70, May 26, 1766, at Pisa, whither he had been called by Francis I. grand duke of Tuscany.

, in Latin Beverlacius, archbishop of York in the eighth century, was born of a noble family among the English Saxons, at Harpham, a small town in Northumberland. He was first a monk, and afterwards abbot of the monastery of St. Hilda. He was instructed in the learned languages by Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, and was justly esteemed one of the best scholars of his time. Alfred of Beverly, who wrote his life, pretends that he studied at Oxford, and took there the degree of master of arts; but bishop Godwin assures us this cannot be true, because such distinction of degrees was not then known at Oxford, nor any where else. Our abbot’s merit recommended him to the favour of Alfred, king of Northumberland, who, in the year 685, advanced him to the see of Hagustald, or Hexham, and, upon the death of archbishop Bosa in 687, translated him to that of York. This prelate was tutor to the famous Bede, and lived in the strictest friendship with Acca, and other AngloSaxon doctors, several of whom he put upon writing comments on the scriptures. He likewise founded, in 704, a college at Beverly for secular priests. After he had governed the see of York thirty-four years, being tired with the tumults and confusions of the church, he divested himself of the episcopal character, and retired to Beverly; and four years after died May 7, 721. The day of his death was appointed a festival by a synod held at London in 1416. Bede, and other monkish writers, ascribe several miracles to him. Between three and four hundred years after his death, his body was taken up by Alfric, archbishop of York, and placed in a shrine richly adorned with silver, gold, and precious stones. Bromton relates, that William the conqueror, when he ravaged Northumberland with a numerous army, spared Beverly alone, out of a religious veneration for St. John of that place. This prelate wrote some pieces, 1. “Pro Luca exponendo;” an essay towards an exposition of St. Luke, addressed to Bede. 2. “Homiliee in Evangelia.” 3. Epistolae ad Hildara Abbatissam.“4.” Epistolse ad Herebaldum, Andenum, et Bertinum.“- -Pits mentions another John of Beverly, so called from the place of his nativity, who was a Carmelite monk in the fourteenth century, and a very learned man, and doctor and professor of divinity at Oxford. He flourished about 1390, in the reign of Richard II. and wrote, 1.” Questiones in magistrum sententiarum“in four books. 2.” Disputationes ordinariae" in one book.

, a learned divine and historian of the seventh century, was son of the preceding, and born in Northumberland, but educated almost from his infancy in the isle of Wight. He was a man of a very humane and mild disposition, a good historian, and well skilled in geometry. He gave an accurate description of the isle of Wight from his own observations, as well as from the accounts of Ptolemy and Pliny. Upon his return to his own country he studied under Elbode, a bishop eminent for his uncommon sanctity and learning, by whose instructions he made great progress both in profane and sacred literature. At last he applied himself to the study of the history of his nation, which he examined with the utmost accuracy, and wrote in Latin “Annotations upon Nennius,” an “History of the actions of king Arthur in Scotland,” and an “Historical Itinerary.” Leland is of opinion that he was a monk, since all the learning which. was then extant, was among those of that profession. He flourished in the year 640, according to Bale; or 650, according to Pits. He had a very intimate friendship with the famous Nennius, abbot of Bangor.

, was born at Guise in Picardy, of which place his father was governor, in 1535, and died at Paris at the house of Genebrard his friend, the 25th of December 1581. He presided over the abbey of St. Michel en PLerm, which John his brother had ceded to him in order to become a Carthusian monk. There are of his several pieces both in verse and prose; and especially translations of the Greek fathers into Latin. The most esteemed of them are, those of St. Gregory of Nazianzen, of St. Isidore of Pelusium, and of St. John Damascenus. Few of the learned have been more masters of the Greek tongue. He distinguished himself in other departments of literature. He composed several pieces of French poetry, 1576, in 8vo, and published learned “Observationes sacrse,” 1585, in folio. His life was written in Latin by Chatard, Paris, 1582, in 4to. It is also found at the end of the works of St. Gregory Nazianzenus, of the edition of 1583.

, or Bryckinton, or Brickington, so called from Birchington, in the isle of Thanet, where he was born, was a Benedictine monk, belonging to the church of Canterbury, into which order he entered about the year 1382. He wrote a history of the archbishops of Canterbury to the year 1368, which forms the first article in the first volume of Wharton’s Anglia Sacra, who copied it from the ms. in the Lambeth library. Other historical Mss. in the same library are attributed to him, but remain unpublished. He is supposed to have died in 1407.

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

, a monk of the order of St. Benedict, was born in the county of Fife, in Scotland, in the reign of king Alexander III. and educated with the celebrated sir William Wallace, at the school of Dundee. He then went over to France, where he studied for some time in the university of Paris, and became a monk of the order of St. Benedict. On his return to Scotland, he found his country in great confusion, owing to the death of Alexander III. without issue, and the contests of various competitors for the throne. At first, therefore, he retired to the house of the Benedictines at Dumfermline but when, sir William Wallace was made governor or viceroy of the kingdom in 1294, Blair became his chaplain, and being by this means an eye-witness of most of his actions, he composed the history of his life in Latin verse. Of this a, fragment only is left, which was copied by sir James BaU four out of the Cottonian library, and published in 1705, by sir Robert Sibbald, the celebrated botanist. It appears to have been written in 1327 and what remains is translated in Hume’s “History of the Douglasses.” Blair, the exact period of whose death is uncertain, is sometimes called John, and sometimes Arnold, which latter name he is said to have adopted when he retired into his monastery, and which is also used by sir Robert Sibbald in his “Relationes quaedam Arnoldi Blair monachi de Dumfermelem et Capellani D. Willelmi Wallas Militis. Cum Comment.” Edinb. 1705, 8vo.

February 12, 1649, he was appointed to command the fleet, in conjunction with col. Deane and col. Popham, and soon after was ordered to sail, with a squadron of men of war, in pursuit of prince Rupert. Blake came before Kinsale in June 1649, where prince Rupert lay in harbour. He kept him in the harbour till the beginning of October; when the prince, despairing of relief by sea, and Cromwell being ready to take the town by land, provisions of all sorts falling short, he resolved to force his way through Blake’s squadron, which he effected with the loss of three of his ships. The prince’s fleet steered their course to Lisbon, where they were protected by the king of Portugal. Blake sent to the king for leave to enter, and coming near with his ships, the castle shot at him; upon which he dropped anchor, and sent a boat to know the reason of this hostility. The captain of the castle answered, he had no orders from the king to let his ships pass: however, the king commanded one of the lords of the court to wait upon Blake, and to desire him not to come in except the weather proved bad, lest some quarrel should happen between him and prince Rupert; the king sent him, at the same time, a large present of fresh provisions. The weather proving bad, Blake sailed up the river into the bay of Wyers, but two miles from the place where prince Rupert’s ships lay; and thence he sent capt. Moulton, to inform the king of the falsities in the prince’s declaration. The king, however, still refusing to allow the admiral to attack prince Rupert, Blake took five of the Brazil fleet richly laden, and at the same time sent notice to him, that unless he ordered the prince’s ships out from his river, he would seize the rest of the Portuguese fleet from America. Sept. 1650 the prince endeavoured to get out of the harbour, but was soon driven in again by Blake, who sent to England nine Portuguese ships bound for Brazil. October following, he and Popham met with a fleet of 23 sail from Brazil for Lisbon, of whom, they sunk the admiral, took the vice-admiral, and 11 other ships, having 10,000 chests of sugar on board. Jn his return home, he met with two ships in search of the prince, whom he followed up the Streights when he took a French man of war, the captain of which had committed hostilities. He sent this prize, reported to be worth a million, into Calais, and followed the prince to the pore of Carthagena, where he lay with the remainder of his fleet. As soon as Blake came to anchor before the fort, he sent a messenger to the Spanish governor, informing him, that an enemy to the state of England was in his port, that the parliament had commanded him to pursue him, and the king of Spain being in amity with the parliament, he desired leave to take all advantages against their enemy. The governor replied, he could not take notice of the difference of any nations or persons amongst themselves, only such as were declared enemies to the king his master; that they came in thither for safety, therefore he could not refuse them protection, and that he would do the like for the admiral. Blake still pressed the governor to permit him to attack the prince, and the Spaniard put him off till he could have orders from Madrid. While the admiral was cruizing in the Mediteranean, prince Rupert got out of Carthagena, and sailed to Malaga. Blake, having notice of his destroying many English ships, followed him and attacking him in the port, burnt and destroyed his whole fleet, two ships only excepted this was in January 1651. In February, Blake took a French man of war of 40 guns, and sent it, with other prizes, to England. Soon after 'he came with his squadron to Plymouth, when he received the thanks of the parliament, and was made warden of the cinque ports. March following, an act passed, whereby colonel Blake, colonel Popham, and colonel Deane, or any two of them, were appointed admirals and generals of the fleet, for the year ensuing. The next service he was put upon, was the reducing the isles of Scilly,- which were held for the king. He sailed in May, with a body of Boo land troops on board. Sir John Grenville, who commanded in those parts for the king, after some small resistance, submitted. He sailed next for Guernsey, which was held for the king, by sir George Carteret. He arrived there in October, and landing what forces he had the very next day, he did every thing in his power in order to make a speedy conquest of the island, which was not completed that year. In the beginning of the next, however, the governor, finding all hopes of relief vain, thought proper to make the best terms he could. For this service Blake had thanks from the parliament, and was elected one of the council of state. March 25, 1652, he was appointed sole admiral for nine months, on the prospect of a Dutch war. The states sent Van Trump with forty-five sail of men of war into the Downs, to insult the English Blake, however, though he had but twentv-three ships, and could expect no succour but from major Bourne, who commanded eight more, yet, being attacked by Van Trump, fought him bravely, and forced him to retreat. This was on the 19th of May, 1652. After this engagement the states seemed inclined to peace but the commonwealth of England demanded such terms as could not be complied with, and therefore both sides prepared to carry on the war with greater vigour. Blake now harassed the enemy by taking their merchant ships, in which he had great success. On the 10th of June, a detachment from his fleet fell upon twenty-six sail of Dutch merchantmen, and took them every one and by the end of June he had sent into port forty prizes. On the 2d of July he sailed, with a strong squadron, northwards. In his course he took a Dutch man of war; and about the latter end of the month, he fell on twelve men of war, convoy to their herring busses, took the whole convoy, 100 of their busses, and dispersed the rest. August 12, he returned into the Downs, with six of the Dutch men of war, and 900 prisoners. Thence he stood over to the coast of Holland, and on Sept. 28th, having discovered the Dutch about noon, though he had only three of his own squadron with him, vice-admiral Penii with his squadron at some distance, and the rest a league or two astern, he bore in among the Dutch fleet, being bravely seconded by Penn and Bourne when three of the enemy’s ships were wholly disabled at the first brunt, and another as she was towing oft* The rear-admiral was taken by captain Mildmay and had not night intervened, it was thought not a single ship of the Dutch fleet would have escaped. On the 29th, about day-break, the English espied the Dutch fleet N.E. two leagues off; the admiral bore up to them, but the enemy having the wind of him, he could not reach them however, he commanded his light frigates to ply as near as they could, and keep firing while the rest bore up after them upon which the Dutch hoisted their sails, and run for it. The English being in want of provisions, returned to the Downs. Blake having been obliged to make large detachments from his fleet Van Trump, who had again the command of the Dutch navy, consisting of eighty men of war, resolved to take this opportunity of attacking him in the Downs, knowing he had not above half his number of ships. He accordingly sailed away to the back of the Goodwin. Blake having intelligence of this, called a council of war, wherein it was resolved to fight, though at so great a disadvantage. The engagement began November 29, about two in the morning, and lasted till near six in the evening. Blake was aboard the Triumph; this ship, the Victory, and the Vanguard, suffered most, having been engaged at one time with twenty of the enemy’s best ships. The admiral finding his ships much disabled, and that the Dutch had the advantage of the wind, drew off his fleet in the night into the Thames, having lost the Garland and Bonaventure, which were taken by the Dutch a small frigate was also burnt, and three sunk and his remaining ships much shattered and disabled Van Trump, however, bought this victory dear, x one of his flag-ships being blown up, all the men drowned, and his own ship and De Kuyter’s both unfit for service till they were repaired. This success invigorated the spirits of the Dutch exceedingly; Van Trump sailed through the channel with a broom at his main-top-mast, to signify that he had swept the seas of English ships. In the mean time, Blake having repaired his fleet, and Monk and Deane being now joined in commission with him, sailed Feb. 8, 1653, from Queensborough, with sixty men of war, which were soon after joined with twenty more from Portsmouth. On the 18th they discovered Van Trump with seventy men of war, and 300 merchant ships under his convoy. Blake, with twelve ships, came up with and engaged the Dutch fleet, and, though grievously wounded in the thigh, continued the fight till night, when the Dutch, who had six men of war sunk and taken, retired. After having put ashore his wounded men at Portsmouth, he followed the enemy, whom he came up with next day, when the fight was renewed, to the loss of the Dutch, who continued retreating towards Boulogne. All the night following Blake continued the pursuit, and, in the morning of the 20th, the two fleets fought again till four in the afternoon, when the wind blowing favourably for the Dutch, they secured themselves on the flats of Dunkirk and Calais. In these three engagements the Dutch lost eleven men of war, thirty merchant ships, and had fifteen hundred men slain. The English lost only one ship, but not fewer men than the enemy. In April Cromwell turned out the parliament, and shortly after assumed the supreme power. The states hoped great advantages from this, but were disappointed Blake said on this occasion to his officers, “It is not for us to mind state affairs, but to keep foreigners from fooling us.” Towards the end of the month Blake and his colleagues, with a fleet of an hundred sail, stood over to the Dutch coast, and forced their fleet to take shelter in the Texel, where, for some time, they were kept by Monk and Deane, while Blake sailed Northward at last Van Trump got out, and drew together a fleet of an hundred and twenty men of war. June 3d, Deane and Monk engaged him off the North Foreland. On the 4th Blake came to their assistance with eighteen fresh ships, by which means a complete victory was gained; and if the Dutch had not again saved themselves on Calais sands, their whole fleet had been sunk or taken. Cromwell having called the parliament, styled the Little Parliament, Blake, Oct. 10, took his seat in the house, where he received their solemn thanks for his many and faithful services. The protector afterwards called a new parliament, consisting of four hundred, 'where Blake sat also, being the representative for his native town of Bridgewater. Dec. 6th he was appointed one of the commissioners of the admiralty. Nov. 1654, Cromwell sent him with a strong fleet into the Mediterranean, with instructions to support the honour of the English flag, and to procure satisfaction for any injuries that might have been done to our merchants. In December Blake came into the road of Cadiz, where he was treated with great respect; a Dutch admiral would not hoist his flag while he was there. The Algerines were so much afraid of him, that they stopped their Sallee rovers, obliged them to deliver up what English prisoners they had on board, and sent them to Blake, in, order to procure his favour. Nevertheless, he came before Algiers on the 10th of March, when he sent an officer on shore to the dey to tell him he had orders to demand satisfaction for the piracies committed on the English, and to insist on the release of all such English captives as were then in the place. To this the dey made answer, that the captures belonging to particular men he could not restore; but, if Mr. Blake pleased, he might redeem what English captives were there at a reasonable price; and, if he thought proper, the Algerines would conclude a peace with him, and for the future offer no acts of hostility to the English. This answer was accompanied with a present of fresh provisions. Blake sailed to Tunis on the same errand. The dey of Tunis sent him a haughty answer. “Here,” said he, “are our castles of Goletta and Porto Ferino, do your worst! do you think we fear your fleet?” On the hearing this, Blake, as his custom was when in a passion, began to curl his whiskers; and, after a short consultation with his officers, bore into the bay of Porto Ferino with his great ships when, coming within musket-shot of the castle, he fired on it so briskly, that in two hours it was rendered defenceless, and the guns on the works along the shore were dismounted, though sixty of them played at a time upon the English. He found nine ships in the road, and ordered every captain, even of his own ship, to man his long boat with choice men, and these to enter the harbour and tire the Tuniseens, while he and his fleet covered them from the castle, by playing continually on it with their cannon. The seamen in their boats boldly assaulted the pirates, and burnt all their ships, with the loss of twenty-five men killed, and forty-eight wounded. This daring action spread the terror of his name throughout Africa and Asia, which had for a long time before been formidable in Europe. He also struck such terror into the piratical state of Tripoly, that he made them glad to strike up a peace with England. These and other exploits raised the glory of the English name so high, that most of the princes and states in Italy thought fit to pay their compliments to the protector, particularly the grand duke of Tuscany, and the republic of Venice, who sent magnificent embassies for that purpose. The war in the mean time was grown pretty hot with Spain and Blake used his utmost efforts to ruin their maritime force in Europe, as Penn had done in the West Indies. But finding himself now in a declining state of health, and fearing the ill consequences which might ensue in case he should die without any colleague to take charge of the fleet, he wrote letters into England, desiring some proper person to be named in commission with him; upon which general Montague sent joint-admiral, with a strong squadron to assist him. Soon after his arrival in the Mediterranean, the two admirals sailed with their whole fleet to block up a Spanish squadron in the bay of Cadiz. At length, in September, being in great want of water, Blake and Montague stood away for the coast of Portugal, leaving captain Stayner with seven ships to look after the enemy. Soon after they were gone, the Spanish plate fleet appeared, but were intercepted by Stayner, who took the vice-admiral and another galleon, which were afterwards burnt by accident, the rear-admiral, with two millions of plate on board, and another ship richly laden. These prizes, together with all the prisoners, were seat into England under general Montague, and Blake alone remained in the Mediterranean till, being informed that another plate fleet had put into Santa Cruz, in the island of Teneriffe, he sailed thither in April 1657, with a fleet of twenty-five men of war. On the 20th he came into the road of Santa Cruz; and though the Spanish governor had timely notice, was a man of courage and conduct, and had disposed all things in the most proper manner, so that he looked upon an attack as what no wise admiral would think practicable yet Blake having summoned him, and received a short answer, was determined to force the place, and to burn the fleet therein; and he performed it in such a manner as appears next to incredible. It is allowed to be one of the most remarkable actions that ever happened at sea. As soon as the news arrived of this extraordinary action, the protector sent to acquaint his second parliament, then sitting, therewith upon which they ordered a public thanksgiving, and directed a diamond ring worth 500l. to be sent to Blake and the thanks of the house was ordered to all the officers and seamen, and to be given them by their admiral. Upon his return to the Mediterranean he cruised some time before Cadiz but finding himself declining fast, resolved to return home. He accordingly sailed for England, but lived not to see again his native land for he died as the fleet was entering Plymouth, the 17th of August 1657, aged 58.His body was conveyed to Westminster abbey, and interred with great pomp in Henry the Seventh’s chapel but removed from thence in 1661, and re-interred in St. Margaret’s church-yard. He was a man of a low stature but of a quick, lively eye, and of a good soldier-like countenance. He was in his person brave beyond example, yet cool in action, and shewed a great deal of military conduct; in the disposition of those desperate attacks which men of a cooler composition have judged rather fortunate thun expedient. He certainly* loved his country with extraordinary ardour, and, as he never meddled with intrigues of state, so whatever government he served, he was solicitous to do his duty. He was upright to a supreme degree, for, notwithstanding the vast sums which passed through his hands, he scarcely left five hundred pounds behind him of his own acquiring. In fine, he was altogether disinterested and unambitious, exposing himseii on all occasions for the benefit of the public and the g-ory of the nation, and not wkh any view to his own private profit or fame. In respect to his personal character, he was pious without affectation, strictly just, and liberal to the utmost extent of his fortune. His officers he treated with the familiarity of friends, and to his sailors he was truly a parent. The state buried him as it was fit: at the public expence a grave was given him, but no tomb; and though he still wants an epitaph, writers of all parties have shewn an eagerness to do his memorv justice. We find it very positively asserted, that captain Benjamin Blake, brother to the general, suffered so many hardships for being a dissenter, in the latter end of the reign of king Charles II. that he found himself under the necessity of selling his patrimony, and transporting himself and his family to Carolina. Another author (though some indeed think it is the same) relates this story of Mr. Humphry Blake, the general’s brother, and tells us, that the family estate was worth tsvo hundred pounds a year, which he was obliged to dispose of, to pay the fines laid upon him for his nonconformity. It is jiowever strange, that every one of the general’s nephevfs an,d nieces, by his sister Susannah, who married a gentleman at Mineheacl, in Somersetshire, should be totally unacquainted with this transaction, and that none of the family should be able to give any account of that matter; and therefore it seems to be justly doubted whether there be any truth in the story, or whether it is only grounded on there being a considerable family of his name settled in that province, one of whom, when it was in private hands, was a lord proprietor.

The predominant passion of Boccaccio, in youth, was the love of pleasure tempered by that of study; as he advanced in age, study became his sole delight. He had no ambition either for rank or fortune. The public employments confided to him came unasked, and when he could lay them down, he did so. He was equally averse to any domestic employments which were likely to take up much of his time, and would accept of no private tutorships, which so often eventually promote a man’s interest. His character was frank and open, but not without a degree of pride, which, however, particularly when he was in low circumstances, kept him from mean compliances. With respect to his talents, it is eviuent that he had always made a false estimate of them he had the fullest confidence in his poetical powers, yet nothing he wrote in verse rises above mediocrity, and many of his prose Italian writings desefve no higher praise. He is superior and inimitable only in his tales, on which he did not pride himself, nor indeed set any value. He fell into the same error with his master Petrarch in supposing that his serious Latin works would be the source of his fame, which he owes entirely to his Tales, as Petrarch owes his to his love-verses. All his Latin writings are crude and hasty. * In them, says Paul Cortesius, “he labours with thought, and struggles to give it utterance but his sentiments find no adequate vehicle, and the lustre of his native talents is obscured by the depraved taste of the times.” In his youth, he was flattered as having obtained the second place in poetry, his admiration for Dante not permitting him to aspire to the first, and the sonnets of Petrarch were not yet known. It is to his honour, however, that as soon us he saw the latter, he threw into the fire the greater part of his lyric compositions, sonnets, canzoni, &e. and seems to have determined to apply himself entirely to the perfection of Italian prose, in which it must be confessed he has succeeded admirably. As a recent event has rendered some of Boccaccio’s writings an object, of research among collectors, we shall enter somewhat more fully than is usual into a detail of their editions. Among his Latin works, we have, 1. “De genealogia Deorum lib. XV. De montium, sylvarum, lucuum, fluviorum, stagnorum, et marium nominibus, liber.” These two were first printed together in folio without date, but supposed to be at Venice, and. anterior to 1472, in which year appeared the second edition, at Venice, with that date. The third was published at the same place in 1473, and followed by others at Reggio, Vincenza, Venice, Paris, and Basle, which last, in 1532, is accompanied with notes and supplements. This account of the genealogy of the Gods, or the heathen mythology, must have been the fruit of immense reading, and as no information on the subject existed then, a high value was placed on it, although it has been since superseded by more recent and accurate works. He has been very unjustly accused of quoting authors no where else to be found, as if he had invented their names, but it is surely more reasonable to think they might be known in his days, although their memory has since perished, or that he might have been himself deceived. This same work, translated into Italian by Joseph Betussi, has gone through twelve or thirteen edi-. tions, the first, of Venice, 1547, 4to. There are -also two French translations, the first anonymous, Paris, 1498, fol. and 1531, also in fol. the second by Claude Wittard, Paris, 1578, 8vo. The lesser book, or Dictionary of the names of mountains, forests, &c. was also translated into Italian by Niccolo Liburnio, and printed in 4to. without date or place, but there is a second edition at Florence, 1598, 8vo. 2. “De casibus Virorum et Foeminarum illustrium libri IX.” Paris, 1535, 1544, fol. and at Vincenza the same year translated into Italian by Betussi, Venice, 1545, 8vo, and often reprinted. But there must have been an edition long previous to the oldest of these, as we find it translated into English in 1494, by John Lydgate, monk of Edmundsbury, at the commandment of Humphrey duke of Gloucester, under the title of “John Boccace of the Fall of Princes and Princesses .” It has likewise been translated and often reprinted in French, Spanish, and German. The first of the Spanish translations is dated Seville, 1495, and the first of the French was printed at Bruges in 1476, folio, then at Paris, 1483, at Lyons the same year, and again at Paris in 1494, 1515, folio, and 1578, 8vo. 3. “De claris Mulieribus.” The first edition of this is without place or date, in the black letter the second is that of Ulm, 1473, fol. followed by those of Louvain and Berne from 1484 to 1539. Of this work the Italians have two translations, one by Vincent Bagli, a Florentine, Venice, 1506, 4to; the other by Betussi, who prefixed a life of Boccaccio, Venice, 1545, and 1547, 8vo. The first edition of the Spanish translation is dated Seville, 1528, fol. That of the German translation is dated Augsburgh, 1471, and was followed by one at Ulm, 1473, 4to. The French have two translations, the oldest 1493, fol. 4. “Eclogae,” sixteen in number, and printed with those of Virgil, Calphurnius, &c. Florence, 1504, 8vo. They are also inserted in the “Bucolicorum auctorcs,” Basil, 1546, 8vo. Like Petrarch, he introduces the events of his time in these eclogues, with the principal personages under fictitious names, but he has furnished us with a key to these in a letter to P. Martin de Signa, his confessor, of which Manni has givdn an extract in his history of the Decameron. His Italian works in verse are, 5. “La Teseide,” the first attempt at an epic in Italian, and written in the ottava rima, or heroic verse, of which Boccaccio is considered as the inventor; printed at Ferrara, 1475, fol. Venice, 1528, 4to, and translated into French, 1597, 12mo. 6. “Amorosa visione,” Milan, 1520 and 1521, 4to, and with grammatical observations and an apology for Boccaccio by Claricio d'Lmola, Venice, 1531, 8vo. This singular poem is divided into fifty cantos or chapters, which contain five triumphs, namely those of wisdom, glory, riches, love, and fortune, written in the terza rima, with a curious contrivance, gratifying to the bad taste of the times, by which the initial letters of each stanza are made to compose an acrostic in praise of the princess Mary, whom elsewhere he celebrates under the name of Fiammetta. 7. “II Filastrato,” a poetical romance in heroic verse, the hero of which is young Troilus, the son of Priam, and the subject, his amours with Chryseis, whom the poet does not make the daughter of Chryses, but of Calchas. Of this there are four editions Bologna, 1498, 4to, Milan, 1499, 4to, Venice 1501 and 1528, 4to. 8. “Nimfale Fiesolano.” It is thought that in this poem Boccaccio has concealed, under the disguise of a pastoral fiction, an amorous adventure which happened in his time in the environs of Florence. The first edition is in 4to. without place or date; the second is of Venice 1477, and was followed by many others at Venice and Florence, and one recently of Paris, 1778, 12mo. It was translated into French by Anthony Guercin du Crest, and printed at Lyons, 1556, 16mo. 9. “Rime,” or miscellaneous poems. We have noticed that he burned the greater part of his minor poems, but those which were dispersed in manuscript in various hands, have been often collected, and the publication of them announced. M. Baldelli, who has since, in 1806, published a good life of Boccaccio, collected all of these poems he could find, and printed them at Leghorn, 1802, 8vo.

, a French lawyer, and political writer, was born at Angers about 1530. In his youth he was supposed, but not upon good foundation, to have been a monk. He studied first at Toulouse, and after taking his degrees, read lectures there with much applause, having a design to settle there as law- pro lessor, and with that view he pronounced an oration on public instruction in the schools but finding Toulouse not a sufficiently ample stage for his ambition, he removed to Pans, and began to practise at the bar, where his expectations being likewise disappointed, he determined to apply himself to literary occupations, and in this he had very considerable success. Henry III. who liked to have men of letters about him, admitted him into familiar conversation, and had such an opinion of him, that he sent to prison one John, or Michael de la Serre, who had written against Bodin, and forbid him under pain of death to publish his work but this courtly favour did not last. Thuanus ascribes the king’s withdrawing his countenance to the envy of the courtiers but others think it was occasioned by Bodin' s taking a political part in opposition to the king. He found an asylum, however, with the duke of Alene,on, who made him secretary of his commands, one of the masters of the requests of his palace, and grand master of his waters and forests. The insurgents in the Netherlands at this time intended to declare the duke their sovereign, and were said to be prompted to this by queen Elizabeth of England. Bodin, however, accompanied him into England and Flanders, but he had the misfortune to lose this patron in 1584.

, a writer, whose whole merit was inventing abominable lies and absurdities against the first reformers in the sixteenth century; and, by this means supplying popish missionaries with matter of invective against them, he was often quoted, and became respected. He was a Carmelite of Paris, who, having preached somewhat freely in St. Bartholomew’s church, forsook hiaonier, and fled into Italy, where he set up for a physician, and married; but soon after committed some crime, for which he was driven away. He set up afterwards in Geneva as a physician; but not succeeding in that protession, he studied divinity. At first he dogmatized privately on the mystery of predestination, according to the principles of Pelagius; and afterwards had the boldness to make a public discourse against the received opinion. Upon this, Calvin went to see him, and censured him mildly. Then he sent for him to his house, and endeavoured to reclaim him from his error; but this did not hinder Bolsec from delivering in public an insulting discourse against the decree of eternal predestination. Calvin was among his auditors; but, hiding himself in the crowd, was not seen by Bolsec, which made him the bolder. As soon as Bolsec had ended his sermon, Calvin stood up, and confuted all he had been saying. “He answered, overset, and confounded him,” says Beza, “with so many testimonies from the word of God, with so many passages, chiefly from St. Augustine in short, with so many solid arguments, that every body was miserably ashamed for him, except the brazen-faced monk himself.” On this, a magistrate who was present in that assembly, sent him to prison. The cause was discussed very fully, and at last, with the advice of the Swiss churches, the senate of Geneva declared Bolsec convicted of sedition and Pelagian ism; and as such, in 1551, banished him from the territory of the republic, on pain of being whipped if he should return thither. He retired into a neighbouring place, which depended on the canton of Bern, and raised a great deal of disturbance there, by accusing Calvin of making God the author of sin. Calvin, to prevent the impressions which such complaints might make upon the gentlemen of Bern, caused himself to be deputed to them, and pleaded his cause before them. He was so fortunate, that though he could not get a determination upon his doctrine, whether it was true or false, yet Bolsec was ordered to quit the country.

, was born at Florence in 1515 of a noble family, and became a Benedictine monk in 1531. He was one of the persons appointed to correct the Decameron of Boccace, by order of the council of Trent, and performed this curious task for the edition of Florence, 1573, 8vo. But the best known of his works, and which did him the most honour, is that entitled, “Discovsi di M. Vincenzo Borghini,” printed at Florence 1584 and 1585, in 2 vols. 4to, and reprinted at the same place in 1755, with annotations. In these dissertations he treats of the origin of Florence, and of several interesting particulars of its history, of its families, of its coins, &c. Borghini died in 1680, after having refused, through humility, the archbishopric of Pisa, which was offered to him some time before his death. His only promotion was that of prior of the hospital of St. Maria degh Innocenti in Florence. Another writer of the same name [IlAFAELLO Borghini], was author of several comedies, and of a tract on painting and sculpture, in some estimation, under the title of “Riposo della Pittura, e della Scukura,” published at Florence in 1584, 8vo.

In 1788 he published his “Vindication of the rights of the Holy See on the kingdom of Naples,” 4to, a work now of little importance, and relating to a dispute which will probably never be revived. On the 30th of March, 1789, he was promoted to the rank of cardinal, and about the same time was appointed prefect of the congregation of the Index; and, what was more analogous to his pursuits, he held the same office in the Propaganda, and in the congregation for the correction of the books of the oriental churches. After these promotions, he continued to be the liberal patron of all who had any connection either with his offices or with his literary pursuits, until Italy was inTaded by the French, when, like the greater part of his colleagues, he was involved in losses and dangers, both with respect to his fortune and to his pursuits. He forfeited all his benefices, and was near witnessing the destruction of all the establishments committed to his care, especially the Propaganda. He was soon, however, extricated from his personal difficulties; and, by his timely measures, the invaluable literary treasures of the Propaganda were also saved. He was allowed a liberal pension from the court of Denmark, and he soon obtained the removal of the establishment of the Propaganda to Padua, a city which, being then under the dominion of the emperor <?f Germany, was thought to be sheltered from robbery. Here he remained till the death of pope Pius VI. after which he repaired, with his colleagues, to Venice, to attend the conclave; and, a new pope being elected, he returned to Rome. When the coronation of the emperor of France was ordered, cardinal Borgia was one of those individuals who were selected by the pope as the companions of his intended journey to Paris, but having caught a, violent cold on his way, he died at Lyons, Nov. 23, 1804. Cardinal Stephen Borgia was not much favoured by nature with respect to person. He was so clumsy, and his motions so much embarrassed, as to have little of the appearance of a person of birth and rank. He was far, also, from being nice in his house or equipage. These little defects, however, were compensated by the superior qualities of his mind. From, the time of Alexander Albani, no Roman cardinal had so many distinguished connections and correspondents in every part of Europe: and a great similarity (elegance of manners excepted) was remarked between the character of that illustrious prelate and his own. The Borgian ms. so called by Michaelis, is a fragment of a Coptic-Greek manuscript, brought by a monk from Egypt, consisting of about twelve leaves, and sent to cardinal Borgia. The whole of it is printed in “Georgii Fragmentum Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum,” Rome, 1789, 4to.

, 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.

, a monk of St. Edmund’s bury in the fourteenth century, and who is thought to have died in 1410, was one of the first collectors of the lives of English writers, and the precursor of Leland, Bale, and Pitts. He searched indefatigably all the libraries of the kingdom, and wrote a catalogue of the authors, with short opinions of them. Archbishop Usher had the most curious ms copy of this book, which became afterwards Mr. Thomas Gale’s property. Wood mentions another smaller catalogue of his writing. He wrote also “Speculum ccenobitarum,” in which he gives the origin and progress of monachism; and a history of his own monastery. “De rebus cœnobii sui,” which last is lost, but the former was printed at Oxford 1722, 8vo, by Hall at the end of “Trivet. Annal.”

“Brantome,” (says M. Anquetil) “is in the hands of every body. All the world pretends to have read him; but he ought particularly to be put into the hands of princes, that they may learn how impossible it is for them to hide themselves they they have an importance in the eyes of their courtiers, which draws attention to all their actions; and that, sooner or later, the most secret of them are revealed to posterity. The reflections that would occur, on seeing that Brantome has got together all the little transactions, all the idle words that have escaped them, all the actions pretended to be indifferent, which were thought to be neglected and lost, and which nevertheless mark the character, would render them more circumspect. In reading Brantome a problem forces itself on the mind, which it is difficult to solve. It is very common to see that author joining together the most discordant ideas in regard to morals. Sometimes he will represent a woman as addicted to the most infamous refinements of libertinism, and then will conclude by saying that she was prudent, and a good Christian. So likewise of a priest, of a monk, or any other ecclesiastic, he will relate anecdotes more than wanton; and will tell us very gravely at the end, that this man lived regularly according to his station. Almost all his memoirs are full of similar contradictions in a sort of epigram. On which 1 have this question to propose: Was Brantome a libertine; who, in order to sport more securely with religion and morals, affects in the expression a respect to which the very matter of the recital gives the lie? or, Was he one of those persons who generally go under the name of amiable fops; who, without principles as without design, confound virtue and vice, making no real difference between one character and another? Whatever judgment we may form of him, we must always blame him for omitting to observe a proper reverence for decorum in his writings, and for frequently putting modesty to the blush. We perceive in Brantome the character of those young men, who, making a part of the court by their birth, pass their lives in it without pretensions and without desires. They amuse themselves with every thing: if an action has a ridiculous side, they seize it; if it has not, they give it one. Brantome only skims along the surface of a subject; he knows nothing of diving into an action, and unfolding the motives that gave it birth. He gives a good picture of what he has seen, relates in simple terms what he has heard; but it is nothing uncommon to see him quit his main object, return to it, quit it a and conclude by thinking no more of it. With all this irregularity he pleases, because he amuses.”

, was born at the village of Beaumains near Falaise, in the diocese of Seez, in 1724. He was educated at the grammar-school at Caen, whence he was removed to that university, and pursued his studies with great diligence and success till 1745, when he became a Benedictine monk of the abbey of St. Martin de Seez, then en regie, that is, under the direction of a conventual abbot. Some time after this, Dom Bourget was appointed prior claustral of the said abbey, and continued six years in that office, when he was nominated prior of Tiron en Perche; whence being translated to the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen, in the capacity of sub-prior, he managed the temporalities of that religious house during two years, as he did their spiritualities for one year longer; after which, according to the custom of the house, he resigned his office. His superiors, sensible of his merit and learning, removed him thence to the abbey of Bee, where he resided till 1764. He was elected an honorary member of the society of antiquaries of London, Jan. 10, 1765; in which year he returned to the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen, where he continued to the time of his death. These honourable offices, to which he was promoted on account of his great abilities, enabled him not only to pursue his favourite study of the history and antiquities of some of the principal Benedictine abbie.s in Normandy, but likewise gave him access to all their charters, deeds, register-books, &c. &c. These he examined with great care, and left behind him in ms. large and accurate accounts of the abbies of St. Peter de Jumieges, St. Stephen, and the Holy Trinity at Caen (founded by William the Conqueror and his queen Matilda), and a very particular history of the abbey of Bee. These were all written in French. The History of the royal abbey of Bee (which he presented to Dr. Ducarel in 1764) is only an abstract of his larger work. This ancient abbey, (which has produced several archbishops of Canterbury and other illustrious prelates of this kingdom) is frequently mentioned by our old historians. The death of this worthy Benedictine (which happened on new-year’s day, 1776) was occasioned by his unfortunate neglect of a hurt he got in his leg by falling down two or three steps in going from the hall to the cloister of the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen, being deceived by the ambiguous feeble light of a glimmering and dying lamp that was placed in that passage. He lived universally esteemed, and died sincerely regretted by all those who were acquainted with him and was buried in the church of the said abbey, Jan. 3, 1776.

He soon raised in that kingdom a troop and a regiment of 1500 men, with which he joined Cromwell on his arrival; and, acting in the course of the war conjointly with Cromwell and Ireton, contributed greatly to the reduction of the Irish. Cromwell was so exceedingly struck with his conduct and courage, that after he was declared protector, he sent for lord Broghill, made him one of his privy council, and allowed him as great a share of his conh'dence as any man, except Thurloe . In 1656, the protector, either suspecting Monk’s attachment to his person, or desirous of relieving the people of Scotland, who complained of this man’s severity, proposed to lord Broghill to go to that kingdom with an absolute authority; to which his lordship consented, upon condition that he should have a discretionary power to act as he should see proper; that no credit should be given to any complaints, till he had an opportunity of vindicating himself; and that he should be recalled in a year. Cromwell kept his word to him; for though the complaints against Broghill were more numerous than those against Monk, upon giving, at his return to London when the year was expired, an account of the reasons of his conduct, Cromwell conceived a higher esteem for him than ever.

After the death of Cromwell, Broghill did his utmost to serve his son, to whom his lordship, in conjunction with lord Howard and some others, made an offer, that if he would not be wanting to himself, and give them a sufficient authority to act under him, they would either force his enemies to obey him, or cut them off. Richard, startled at this proposal, answered in a consternation, that he thanked them for their friendship, but that he neither had done, nor would do, any person any harm; and that rather than that a drop of blood should be spilt on his account, he would lay down that greatness which was a burden to him. He was so fixed in his resolution, that whatever the lords could say was not capable of making him alter it; and they found it to no purpose to keep a man in power who would do nothing for himself. Lord Broghill, therefore, finding the family of Cromwell thus laid aside, and not being obliged by any ties to serve those who assumed the government, whose schemes too he judged wild and ill-concerted, from this time shewed himself most active and zealous to restore the king, and for that purpose repaired forthwith to his command in Munster; where, finding himself at the head of a considerable force, he determined to get the army in Ireland to join with him in the design, to gain, if possible, sir Charles Coote, who had great power in the north, and then to send to Monk in Scotland. Whilst meditating this design, a summons came to him from the seven commissioners, sent over by the committee of safety to take care of the affairs of Ireland, requiring him to attend them immediately at the castle of Dublin. His friends advised him to be upon his guard, and not put himself in the power of his enemies; but, as he thought himself not strong enough yet to take such a step, he resolved to obey the summons. Taking, therefore, his own troop with him as a guard, he set out for Dublin. When he came to the city, leaving his troop in the suburbs, he acquainted the commissioners, that, in obedience to their commands, he was come to know their farther pleasure. Next day, on appearing before them, they told him, that the state was apprehensive he would practise against their government, and that therefore they had orders to confine him, unless he would give sufficient security for his peaceable behaviour. He desired to know what security they expected. They told him, that since he had a great interest in Munster, they only desired him to engage, on the forfeiture of his life and estate, that there should be no commotion in that province. He now plainly perceived the snare which was laid for him; and that, if he entered into such an engagement, his enemies themselves might raise some commotions in Munster. He saw himself, however, in their power, and made no manner of doubt but that if he refused to give them the security they demanded, they would immediately put him up in prison. He therefore desired some time to consider of their proposal; but was told, they could give him no time, and expected his immediate answer. Finding himself thus closely pressed, he humbly desired to be satisfied in one point, namely, whether they intended to put the whole power of Munster into his hands? if they did, he said, he was ready to enter into the engagement they demanded; but if they did not, he must appeal to all the world how cruel and unreasonable it was, to expect he should answer for the behaviour of people over whom he had no command. The commissioners found themselves so much embarrassed by this question, that they ordered him to withdraw; and fell into a warm debate in what manner to proceed with him. At last Steel, one of the commissioners, who was also lord chancellor of Ireland, declared himself afraid, that even the honest party in Ireland would think it rery hard to see a man thrown into prison, who had dons such signal services to the Protestants; but that, on the other hand, he could never consent to the increase of lord Broghill’s power, which the state was apprehensive might one day be employed against them. He therefore proposed that things should stand as they did at present; that his lordship should be sent back to his command in Munster in a good humour, and be suffered at least to continue there till they received further instructions from England. This proposal was agreed to by the majority of the board, and lord Broghill being called in, was told in the most obliging manner, that the board was so sensible of the gallant actions he had performed in the Irish wars, and had so high an opinion of his honour, that they would depend upon that alone for his peaceable behaviour.

Upon his return to Munster, he applied himself as closely as ever to form a party for the king’s restoration. After making sure of his own officers, the first person of weight he engaged in the design was colonel Wilson, governor of Limerick, in which place there was a garrison of 2000 men; and having now secured all Munster, he sent a trusty agent to sir Charles Coote, to persuade that gentleman to do in the north of Ireland, what he himself had done in the south. Sir Charles, who had taken disgust at the superiority of lieutenant-general Ludlow, and the parliament’s commissioners, and thought his eminent services not sufficiently rewarded by the presidency of Connaught, came readily into the design. Lord Broghill being empowered by most of the chief officers in Ireland under their hands, dispatched his brother, the lord Shannon, to the king, then in Flanders, with a letter quilted in the neck of his doublet, to acquaint his majesty with the measures he had taken, and inviting him to come into his kingdom of Ireland; assuring him that if he pleased to land at Cork, he should be received with a sufficient force to protect him against all his enemies. At the same time he dispatched a messenger to general Monk, then on his march from Scotland, to let him know what they were doing in Ireland, and to persuade him to do the like. Shannon was scarce embarked for Flanders, when lord Broghill received a letter from sir Charles Coote, to acquaint him that their design of declaring for the king had taken air, and that he had therefore been obliged to declare somewhat sooner than they had agreed upon; and to conjure his lordship to declare himself likewise; which Broghill did immediately. that he might not desert his friend, though he was a little apprehensive that sir Charles’s precipitancy might ruin their design. By this means those who had assumed the government of Ireland, finding themselves in the midst of two powerful parties, made little or no resistance; and lord Broghill and sir Charles Coote secured that kingdom for his majesty.

was a Cistercian monk, and abbot of Jorevall, or Jerevalf, in Richmondshire. The “Chronicon” that goes under his name begins at the year 588, when Augustin the monk came into England, and is carried on to the death of king Richard I. anno domini 1198. This chronicle, Selden says, does not belong to the person whose name it goes under, and that John Brompton the abbot did only procure it for his monastery of Jorevall. But whoever was the author, it is certain he lived after the beginning of the reign of Edward III. as appears by his digressive relation of the contract between Joan, king Edward’s sister, and David, afterwards king of Scots. This historian has borrowed pretty freely from Hoveden. His chronicle is printed in the “Decem Script. Hist. Angliae,” Lond. 1652, fol.

After St. Bruno had governed this infant society for six years, he was invited to Rome by pope Urban II. who had formerly been his scholar at Rheims, and now received him with every mark of respect and confidence, and pressed him to accept the archbishopric of Reggio. This however he declined, and the pope consented that he should withdraw into some wilderness on the mountains of Calabria. Bruno found a convenient solitude in the diocese of Squiiiaci, where he settled in 1090, with some new disciples, until his death, Oct. 6. 1101. There are only two letters of his remaining, one to Raoul le Verd, and the other to his monks, which are printed in a folio volume, entitled “S. Brunonis Qpera et Vita,” 1524, but the other contents of the volume belong to another St. Bruno, first a monk of Soieria in the diocese of Ast, and hence called Astiensis. He distinguished himself at the council of Rome in 1079 against Berenger, and was consecrated bishop of Segni by Gregory VII. He died in 1125, and is reckoned among the fathers of the church. He is reputed to have written with more elegance, clearness, and erudition, than most authors of his time, and there are several editions of his works. The Carthusian Bruno wrote on the Psalms and on some of St. Paul’s epistles. He followed the system of Augustine concerning grace, but it seems doubtful if any genuine works of his remain, unless what we have mentioned.

On the accession of pope Julius II. a patron of genius and learning, Michel Angelo was among the first invited to his court, and after some time the pope, gave him an unlimited commission to make a mausoleum. Having received full powers, he commenced a design worthy of himself and his patron. The plan was a parallelogram, and the superstructure to consist of forty statues, many of which were to be colossal, interspersed with ornamental figures and bronze basso-relievos, besides the necessary architecture, with appropriate decorations, to unite the composition into one stupendous whole. When this magnificent design was completed, it met with the pope’s entire approbation, and Michel Angelo was desired to go into St. Peter’s to see where it could be conveniently placed. Michel Angelo fixed upon a particular spot, but the church itself, now old, being considered as ill-adapted, for so superb a mausoleum, the pope, after many consultations with architects, determined to rebuild St. Peter’s; and this is the origin of that edifice which took a hundred and fifty years to complete, and is now the grandest display of architectural splendour that ornaments the Christian world. To those, says his late excellent biographer, who are curious in tracing the remote causes of great events to their source, Michel Angelo perhaps may be found, though very unexpectedly, to have thus laid the first stone of the reformation. His monument demanded a building of corresponding magnificence; to prosecute the undertaking money was wanting, and indulgences were sold to supply the deficiency of the treasury. A monk of Saxony (Luther) opposed the authority of the church, and this singular fatality attended the event, that whilst the most splendid edifice which the world had ever seen was building for the catholic faith, the religion to which it was consecrated was shaken to the foundation.

, a noted impostor, whose true name was Joseph Balsamo, was born at Palermo the 8th of June 1743; Peter Balsamo being his father, and Felix Braconieri his mother, both of humble parentage. He was still a child when his father died; and was therefore brought up by the relations of his mother, who caused him to be instructed in the first principles of religion and philosophy, but it was not long before he shewed how little he was disposed to either, by running away more than once from the seminary of St. Roche at Palermo, where he had been placed for education. In his thirteenth year his guardians delivered him to the care of the general of the friars of mercy, who took him along with him to the monastery of that order at Cartagirone; where he was entered as a novice, and committed to the tuition of the apothecary; under whom, as he says, he found means of acquiring the first elements of chemistry and physic. But neither here did he make any long stay. He continued to shew himself on his worst side, and his superiors were frequently obliged to give him correction for obliquities in his conduct. When, according to the custom oi monastic foundations, it came to his turn to read during dinner-time, he never read what was contained in the book, but delivered a lecture according to the dictates of his fancy. He himself confesses, that in reading from the martyrology, instead of the names of the holy women, he inserted those of the most noted courtesans of the town. At length, being weary of repeated chastisement, he threw off the cowl, and went back to Palermo, where for a time he studied drawing; and without making any reform in his manners, addicted himself to excesses of every kind. It was his greatest pleasure to rove about armed, and to frequent the company of the most profligate young men of the town. There was no fray in which he was not concerned, and he enjoyed nothing more than when he could resist the magistrate, and deliver the prisoner from his authority. He even stooped to the mean felony of forging the tickets of admission to the theatres; and from an uncle, with whom he lived, he stole considerable sums of money and other property. In a love intrigue between a person of rank and a cousin of his, he made himself the letter-carrier, and occasionally demanded of the lover at one time money, at another a watch, and always something of value, in the name of the fair one, which he appropriated to himself. He then insinuated himself into the good graces of a notary, to whom he was related; and, for the sake of a bribe, counterfeited a will in favour of a certain marchese Maurigi. The forgery was discovered some years afterwards, and the affair being brought before the judges, was fully proved; but this was at a time when the persons interested were not at Palermo. He was likewise charged with having murdered a canon, and with obtaining several sums of money from a monk for giving him written permits of absence from his convent at various times; all of which papers were found to be forged.

, by some called Marbres, an English Franciscan monk, and an able Aristotelian of the fourteenth century, studied some time at Oxford, from which he removed to Paris, where he became a pupil of Duns Scotus, whom, says Pits, he long attended, and always imitated. He returned afterwards to Oxford, and there taught theology to the time of his death, which, according to Dupin, happened about the year 1340. Dupin also says that he was a doctor of divinity of Paris. He was particularly learned in the Aristotelian philosophy, and in civil and canon-law. In Lincoln college library, Oxford, is one of his manuscripts, to which are prefixed many verses in honour of him, and in one of them he is styled “Alter Aristoteles.” His published works are, 1. “In Aristotelis Physica, Lib. VIII.' 7 printed at St. Alban’s in 1481, 8vo, and reprinted at Venice 1431, 1492, and 1505. 2.” Lecturae magistrales; Lib. I. Questiones disputatae, Lib. I. Qusestiones dialectices, Lib. I." printed with the former at Venice, 1492 and 1516.

, emp.eror of Constantinople, and a celebrated Byzantine historian, was born at Constantinople about the year 1295, of a very ancient and noble family; his father being governor of Peloponnesus, and his mother a near relation of the emperor’s. He was bred to letters and to arms, and afterwards to the highest offices of statej in which he acquitted himself in such a manner as to gain the favour of both court and city. He was made prelect of the bedchamber to the emperor Andronicus the elder, but lost his favour about 1320, by addicting himself too much to the interest of his grandson Andronicus. In 1328, when the grandson seized the empire, he loaded Cantacuzenus with wealth and honours; made him generalissimo of his forces; did nothing without consulting him; and fain would have joined him with himself in the government, which Cantacuzenus refused. In 1341 Andronicus died, and left to Cantacuzenus the care of the empire, till his son John Paleologus, who was then but nine years of age, should be fit to take it upon himself: which trust he discharged very diligently and faithfully. But the empress dowager, the patriarch of Constantinople, and some of the nobles, soon growing jealous and envious of Cantacuzenus, formed a party against him, and declared him a traitor: upon which a great portion of the nobility and army besought him to take the empire upon himself, and accordingly he was crowned at Hadrianopolis in May 1342. A civil war raged for five years, and Cantacuzenus was conqueror, who, however, came to the following terms of peace with John Paleologus; viz. that himself should be crowned, and that John should he a partner uith him in the empire, though not upon an equal footing, till he should arrive at years sufficient. He gave him also his daughter Helen, to whom he had formerly been engaged, for a wife; and the nuptials were celebrated in May 1347. But suspicions and enmities soon arising between the new emperors, the war broke out again, and lasted till John took Constantinople in 1355. A few days after that city was taken, Cantacuzenus, unwilling to continue a civil war any longer, abdicated his share of the empire, and retired to a monastery, where he took the habit of a monk, with the new name of Joasaphus, and spent the remainder of his life in study and writing. His wife retired also at the same time to a nunnery, where she changed her own name Irene for the new one of Eugenia.

Besides this history, he wrote also some theological works, particularly an apology for the Christian religion against that of Mahomet, in four books: this he did at the request of a monk and friend of his, who had been solicited by a mussulman of Persia to desert Christianity, and embrace Muimmetanism. In this he does not content himself with replying to the particular objection of the musulman to Christianity, but writes a general defence of it against the Koran. He calls himself Christodulus as a writer. This apology was printed in Greek and Latin at Basil, 1543, by Bibliander and Gualtharus, from Greek Mss. Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” says, that the name and situation of the emperor John Cantacuzenus might inspire the most lively curiosity. His memorials of forty years extend from the revolt of the younger Andronicus to his own abdication of the empire and it is observed, that, like Moses and Cresar, he was the principal actor in the scenes which he describes. But in this eloquent work, “we should vainly seek the sincerity of an hero or a penitent. Retired in a cloister from the vices and passions of the world, he presents not a confession, but an apology, of the life of an ambitious statesman. Instead of unfolding the true counsels and characters of men, he displays the smooth and specious surface of events, highly varnished with his -own praises and those of his friends. Their motives are always pure their ends always legitimate they conspire and rebel without any views of interest and the violence which they inflict or suffer is celebrated as the spontaneous effect of reason and virtue.”

, a Cistercian monk, born at Madrid in 1606, was at first abbot of Melrose, in the Low Countries, then titulary bishop of Missi; afterwards, by a singular turn, engineer apd intendant of the fortifications in Bohemia, from having served as a soldier. The same capricious and inconstant humour which made him lay down the crozier to take up the halberd, now led him from being engineer to, become bishop again. He had successively the bishoprics of Konigsgratz, of Campano, and of Vigevano, in which lastmentioned town he died in 1682, aged 76. He was a man of the most unbounded mind, and of whom it was said, that he was endowed with genius to the eighth degree, with eloquence to the fifth, and with judgment to the second. He wrote several works of controversial theology and a system of divinity in Latin, 7 vols. folio.

, was a celebrated solitary, a native of Scythia, of the fifth century, who spent part of his life in the monastery of Bethlehem with the monk Germain, his friend. They engaged openly in the defence of St. Chrysostom, against Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria. Cassian went to Rome, and from thence to Marseilles, where he founded two monasteries, one of men, the other of virgins. He ranks among the greatest masters of the monastic life, and died about the year 448. He left “Collations,” or conferences of the fathers of the desert, and “Institutions,” in 12 books, translated iHto French by Nic. Fontaine, 1663, 2 vols. 8vo; and seven books upon the Incarnation. These are all written in Latin, with a clearness and simplicity of style excellently calculated to inspire the heart with virtuous dispositions. They were printed at Paris, 1642, and at Leipsic, 1722, folio, and are in the library of the fathers. St. Prosper has written against the “Conferences.” Cassian is reckoned among the first of the Semi-Pelagians, of which sect Faustus of Riez, Vincent of Lerins, Gennadius of Marseilles, Hilerias of Aries, and Arnobius the younger, were the principal defenders. The semi-pelagians were opposed by the whole united forces of St. Augustin and Prosper, without being extirpated, or overcome by them. This sect was condemned by some synods, and was rejected by the church.

, a man of eminence in many respects, and called by way of distinction “the senator,” was born at Squillace, in Calabria, about the year 4i>7. He had as liberal an education as the growing barbarism of his times afforded; and soon recommended himself by his eloquence, his learning, and his wisdom, to Theodoric king of the Goths in Italy. Theodoric first made him governor of Sicily; and when he had Sufficiently proved his abilities and prudence in the administration of that province, admitted him afterwards to his cabinet-councils, and appointed him to be his secretary. After this he had all the places and honours at his command, which Theodoric had to bestow; and, having passed through all the employments of the government, was raised to the consulate, which he administered alone, in the year 514. He was continued in the same degree of confidence and favour by Athalaric, who succeeded Theodoric, about the year 524; but afterwards, in the year 537, being discarded from all his offices by king Vitiges, he renounced a secular life, and retired into a monastery of his own founding in the extreme parts of Calabria. Here he led the life of a man of letters, a philosopher, and a Christian. He entertained himself with forming and improving several curious pieces of mechanism, such as sun-dials, water clocks, perpetual lamps, &c. He collected a very noble and curious library, which he enlarged and improved by several books of his own composing. About the year 556, he wrote two books “De Divinis Lectionibus;” and afterwards a book “De Orthographia,” in the preface to which he tells us, that he was then in his ninety-third year. There are extant of his twelve books of letters, ten of which he wrote as secretary of state, in the name of kings Theodoric and Athalaric, and two in his own. He composed also twelve books “De rebus gestis Gothorum,” which are only extant in the abridgment of Jornandes; though it has been surmised that a manuscript of Cassiodorus is still remaining in some of the libraries in France. He wrote also a commentary upon the Psalms, and several other pieces, theological and critical. Father Simon has ?poken of him thus “There is no need,” says he, “of examining Cassiodorus’s Commentaries on the Psalms, which is almost but an abridgment of St. Augustin’s Commentaries, as he owns in his preface. But besides these commentaries, we have an excellent treatise of this author’s, entitled < De institutione ad Divinas Lectiones,' which shews, that he understood the criticism of the scriptures, and that he had marked out what were the best things of this nature in the ancient doctors of the church. In the same book Cassiodorus gives many useful rules for the criticism of the scriptures; and he takes particular notice of those fathers who have made commentaries upon the Bible, &c.” It seems generally agreed that he was in all views a very extraordinary man; and we think that those have done him no more than justice, who have considered him as a star, which shone out amidst the darkness of a barbarous age. When he died we cannot precisely determine, but most writers seem to be of opinion this happened in the year 575. His works have been collected and printed several times; the best edition is that of Rohan, 1679, 2 vols. fol. with the notes and dissertations of John Garret, a Benedictine monk. In 1721, Signer Scipio Maffei published a work of Cassiodorus, which had long been missing; and in the following year the same was published at London, by Mr. Samuel Chandler, entitled “Complexions, or short Commentaries upon the Epistles, the Acts, and the Revelation,” which Dr. Lardner has enumerated among the testimonies to the credibility of the gospel history.

, a Grecian monk, who lived in the eleventh century, wrote annals, or an abridged history, from the beginning of the world to the reign of Isaac Comnenus, emperor of Constantinople, who succeeded Michael IV. in 1057. This work is no more than an extract from several historians, and chiefly from Georgius Syncellus, whose chronology he has followed from the creation to the reign of Dioclesian. Theophanes is another historian he has made use of from Dioclesian to Michael Curopalates. The next he borrows from is Thracesius Scylitzes from Curopalates to his own time. This compilation, although not executed with much judgment, was probably once in request. It was translated into Latin by Xylander, Basil, 1566, and was again printed at Paris in 1647, 2 vols. folio, with the Latin version of Xylander, and the notes of father Goar, a Dominican.

“Over the north porch of St. Mary Redcliffe church, which was founded, or at least rebuilt, by Mr. W. Canynge (an eminent merchant of Bristol, in the fifteenth century, and in the reign of Edward the Fourth), there is a kind of muniment room, in which were deposited six v or seven chests, one of which in particular was called Mr. Canynge’s cofre: this chest, it is said, was secured by six keys,- two of which were entrusted to the minister and procurator of the church, two to the mayor, and one to each of the church-wardens. In process of time, however, the six keys appear to have been lost: and about the year 1727, a notion prevailed that some title deeds, and other vyrjtings of value, wtrje contained in Mr. Ciniynge’s cofre. In consequence of this opinion an order of vestry was made, that the chest should be opened under the inspection of an attorney; and that those writings which appeared of consequence should be removed to the south porch of the church. The locks were therefore forced, and not only the principal chest, but the others, which were also supposed to contain writings, were all broken open. The deeds immediately relating to the church were removed, and the other manuscripts were left exposed as of no value. Considerable depredations had, from time to time, been committed upon them by different persons: but the most insatiate of these plunderers was the father of Chatterton. His uncle being sexton of St. Mary Redcliffe gave him free access to the church. He carried off, from time to time, parcels of the parchments, and one time alone, with the assistance of his boys, is known to have filled a large basket with them. They were deposited in a cupboard in the school and employed for different purposes, such as the covering of copy-books, &c. in particular, Mr. Gibbs, the minister of the parish, having presented the boys with twenty Bibles, Mr. Chatterton, in order to preserve these books from being damaged, covered them with some of the parchments. At his death, the widow being under a necessity of removing, carried the remainder of them to her own habitation. Of the discovery of their value by the younger Chatterton, the account of Mr. Smith, a very intimate acquaintance, which he gave to Dr. Glynn of Cambridge, is too interesting to be omitted. When young Chatterton was first articled to Mr. Lambert, he used frequently to come home to his mother, by way of a short visit. There one day his eye was caught by one of these parchments, which had been converted into a thread-paper. He found not only the writing to be very old, the characters very different from common characters, but that the subject therein treated was different from common subjects. Being naturally of an inquisitive and curious turn, he was very much struck with their appearance, and, as might be expected, began to question his mother what those threadpapers were, how she got them, and whence they came. Upon further inquiry, he was led to a full discovery of all the parchments which remained; the bulk of them consisted of poetical and other compositions, by Mr. Canynge, and a particular friend of his, Thomas Rowley, whom Chatterton at first called a monk, and afterwards a secular priest of the fifteenth century. Such, at least, appears to be the account which. Chatterton thought proper to give, and which he wished to be believed. It is, indeed, confirmed by the testimony of his mother and sister. Mrs. Chatterton informed a friend of the dean of Exeter (Dr. Milles), that on her removal from Pyle-street, she emptied the cupboard of its contents, partly into a large long deal box, where her husband used to keep his clothes, and partly into a square oak box of a smaller size; carrying both with their contents to her lodgings, where, according to her account, they continued neglected and undisturbed till her son first discovered their value; who having examined their contents, told his mother ‘ that he had found a treasure, and was so glad nothing could be like it.’ That he then removed all these parchments out of the large long deal box in which his father used to keep his clothes, into the square oak box: that he was perpetually ransacking every corner of the house for more parchments; and from time to time, carried away those he had already found by pockets full. That one day happening to see Clarke’s History of the Bible covered with one of those parchments, he swore a great oath, and stripping the book, put the cover into his pocket, and carried it away; at the same time stripping a common little Bible, but finding no writing upon the cover, replaced it again very leisurely. Upon being informed of the manner in which his father had procured the parchments, he went himself to the place, and picked up four more.”

The general character of his works has been both fairly and elegantly appreciated by lord Orford, in the last edition of his lordship’s works. His life, says this critic, should be compared with “the powers of his mind, the perfection of his poetry, his knowledge of the world, which though in some respects erroneous, spoke quick intuition; his humour, his vein of satire, and above all, the amazing number of books he must have looked into, though chained down to a laborious and almost incessant service, and confined to Bristol, except at most for the last five months of his life, the rapidity with which he seized all the topics of conversation then in vogue, whether of politics, literature, or fashion; and when added to all this 'mass of reflection, it is remembered that his youthful passions were indulged to excess, faith in such a prodigy may well be suspended and we should look for some secret agent behind the curtain, if it were not as dificult to believe that any man who possessed such a vein of genuine poetry would have submitted to lie concealed, while he actuated a puppet; or would have stooped to prostitute his muse to so many unworthy functions. But nothing in Chatterton can be separated from Chatterton. His noblest flight, his sweetest strains, his grossest ribaldry, and his most common- place imitations of the productions of magazines, were all the effervescences of the same ungovernable impulse, which, cameleon-like, imbibed the colours of all it looked on. It was Ossian, or a Saxon monk, or Gray, or Smolldt, or Jun i us ant l if it failed most in what it most affected to be, a poet of the fifteenth century, it was because it could not imitate what had not existed.” The facts already related are principally taken from the account drawn up originally for the Biographia Britannica, and at the distance of eighteen years, prefixed to an edition of his works, without any addition or alteration. Something yet remains to be said of his virtues, which, if the poetical eulogiums that have appeared deserve any credit, were many. Except his temperance, however, already noticed, we find only that he preserved an affectionate attachment for his mother and sister, and even concerning this, it would appear that more has been said than is consistent. It has been asserted that he sent presents to them from London, when in want himself; but it is evident from his letters that these were unnecessary articles for persons in their situation, and were not sent when he was in want . Six weeks after, when he felt himself in that state, he committed an act which affection for his relations, since he despised all higher considerations, ought to have retarded. His last letter to his sister or mother, dated July 20, is full of high-spirited hopes, and contains a promise to visit them before the first of January, but not a word that can imply discontent, far less an intention to put an end to his life. What must have been their feelings when the melancholy event reached them! How little these poor women were capable of ascertaining his character appears from the very singular evidence of his sister, who affirmed that he was “a lover of truth from the earliest dawn of reason.” The affectionate prejudices of a fond relation may be pardoned, but it was surely unnecessary to introduce this in a life every part of which proves his utter contempt for truth at an age when we are taught to expect a disposition open, ingenuous, and candid.

, whose name we find sometimes spelt Chamney, Chancy, and Channy, was a monk of the Charter-house, London, and with many others of the same order, was imprisoned in the reign of Henry VIII. for refusing to own his supremacy. When the monastery was dissolved, and several of his brethren executed in 1535, Chauncy and a few others contrived to remain unmolested partly in England and partly in Flanders, until the accession of queen Mary, when they were replaced at Shene near Richmond, a monastery formerly belonging to the Carthusians. On the queen’s death, they were permitted to go to Flanders, under Chauncy, who was now their prior. The unsettled state of the reformation there obliged them to remove from Bruges to Doway, and from Doway to Louvain, where they remained until a house was prepared for them at Nieuport, and there at length they obtained a settlement under the crown of Spam, Chauncy, however, died at Bruges July 15, 1581, highly respected by those of his own order. Of his works one only is worth mentioning, entitled “Historia aliquot nostri saeculi Martyrum, cum pia, turn lectu jucunda, nuuqua.ni antehac typis excusa,” printed at Mentz, 1550, 4to, with eurious copper-plates. This work, which is very rare, contains the epitaph of sir Thomas More, written by himself; the captivity and martyrdom of Fibber, bishop of Rochester; and the same of sir Thomas More; and of other eminent persons, who were executed in Henry VIII.'s reign. Wood mentions a second edition at Cologne in 1608, which we think we have seen.

Cimabue was also a great architect as well as painter, and concerned in the fabric of Sancta Maria del Fior in Florence during which employment he died in 1300. He left many disciples, and among the rest Giotto, who proved an excellent master, and was his first rival. Dante mentions him in the eleventh canto of his purgatory as without a rival till Giotto appeared. Cimabue’s portrait, by Simon Sanese, was in the chapel-house of Sancta Maria Novella. It is a figure which has a lean face, a little red beard, in point; with a capuche, or monk’s hood upon his head, after the fashion of those times.

, a learned English monk and Jiistorian, lived Jn the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. He was of the Cistercian order, and was esteemed a man of uncommon knowledge for his time. The surname under which we here place this article, was given him from the abbey over which he presided. The principal work of his which is come down to us, is a chronicle of the Holy Land; and it is so much the more valuable, as he was an eye-witness of the facts he relates. He was at Jerusalem, and was even wounded there, during the siege of that city by Saladin. It is thought that he died in 1228. This chronicle was published in 1729, by the fathers Martenne and Durand, in the fifth volume of the “Amplissima collectio veterum scriptorum et monumentorum,” &c. In this volume are likewise two other works of the same author; the first entitled “Chronicon Anglicanum ab anno 1066 ad annum 1200;” and the second, “Libellus de motibus Anglicanis sub Johanne rege.” Some of his Mss. are in our public libraries.

, a French monk, a native of Paris, is known as the author or editor of different works which met with a favourable reception. Among others he published “The remarkable Travels of Peter della Valle, . Si Roman gentleman, translated from the Italian,” 4 vols. 4to; “A new and interesting History of the kingdoms of Tonquin and Laos,” 4to, translated from the Italian of father Manni, in 1666. In the year preceding this, he published the third volume of father Lewis Coulon’s “History of the Jews.” He died at Paris in 1689.

, and surnamed the African, was born at Carthage in the eleventh century, and travelled into the east, where he lived thirty years, chiefly at Babylon and Bagdad, studied the medical art, and made himself master of the Arabic and the other oriental languages, and then returned to Carthage; from whence he went into Apulia, and lived at Reggio, and at last became a monk of Monte Casino. He is said to have been the first that brought the Greek and Arabian physic into Italy again. He compiled several books; and has given us a translation of Isaac Israelitus on fevers, out of Arabic into Latin; and another book, which he calls “Loci Communes,” contains the theory and practice of physic, and is chiefly copied from Hali Abbas. After a residence of thirty-nine years at Babylon, he returned to Carthage, but soon fell into such disgrace with his countrymen, whom he suspected of intending to destroy him, that he went to Salernum. Though he was there introduced to duke Rdbert, who wished to retain him about his person, preferring a life of ease and retirement, he entered into a monastery of the Benedictines, St. Agatha, in A versa, where he died in 1087.

, a distinguished military officer in the 17th century, was the eldest son of Sir Charles Coote, who was created baronet in April 1621. He was a gentleman of great consideration in Ireland. Upon the breaking out of the rebellion, in 1641, he had a commission for a regiment of foot, and was made governor of Dublin. From this period to the year 1652, he was engaged in a great number of important services for his country. In almost all the contests of which he took a part, he was successful. After Ireland was reduced to the obedience of the parliament, sir Charles was one of the court of justice in the province of Connaught, of which he was made president by act of parliament. Being in England at the time of the deposing of Richard Cromwell, he went post to Ireland, to carry the news to his brother Henry Cromwell, that they might secure themselves; but when he perceived that king Charles the Second’s interest was likely to prevail, he sent to the king sir Arthur Forbes, “to assure his Majesty of sir Charles’s affection and duty, and that if his Majesty would vouchsafe to come to Ireland, he was confident the whole kingdom would declare for him; that though the present power in England had removed all the sober men from the government of the state in Ireland, under the character of presbyterians, and had put Ludlow, Corbet, and others of the king’s judges in their places, yet they were generally so odious to the army as well as to the people, that they could seize on their persons and the castle of Dublin when they should judge it convenient.” The king did not think it prudent to accept the invitation. In a short time after, sir Charles Coote, and some others, so influenced the whole council of officers, that they prevailed upon them to vote not to receive colonel Ludlow as commander in chief, and made themselves masters of Athlone, Drogheda, Limerick, Dublin, and other important places, for the service of the king. He immediately caused colonel Monk to be made acquainted with the progress of the king’s interest in Ireland, who urged them by every means not to restore the suspended commissioners to the exercise of their authority. Soon after, sir Charles Coote and others sent to the parliament a charge of high treason against colonel Ludlow, Corbet, Jones, and Thomlinson. He likewise made himself master of Dublin castle; and apprehended John Coke, chief justice of Ireland, who had been solicitor-general at the trial of king Charles I. Notwithstanding this, parliament thought themselves so sure of him in their interest, that he received their vote of thanks on the 5th of Jan. 1659-60. On the 19th of the same month he was appointed one of the commissioners for the management of the affairs of Ireland. Before those commissioners declared for king Charles, they insisted upon certain things relating to their interest as members of that nation. On the 6th of September 1660, sir Charles Coote, on account of his many and very valuable services for the royal cause, was created baron and viscount Coote, and earl of Montrath in the Queen’s county. He was also appointed one of the lords justices of Ireland, but he did not long enjoy these marks of his sovereign’s favour, for he died in December 1661, and was succeeded in his estate and titles by his son Charles, the second earl. Dr. Leland asserts that Coote and his father had engaged in the parliamentary service not from principle, but interest. Dr. Kippis, however, doubts the assertion, upon the ground that the Cootes were zealous presbyterians; and therefore he thinks it highly probable that they were influenced, at least in part, by their real sentiments, civil and religious, and especially by their aversion from popery.

, a monk of the Ecoles-Pies, and a mathematician and antiquary, was born at Fanano in 1702, and died in 1765, at Pisa, where the grand duke had given him a chair in philosophy. This science occupied his first studies, and his success soon appeared from the “Philosophical and Mathematical Institutions,” 1723 and 1724, 6 vols. 8vo. For the doctrines of Aristotle, which then were generally adopted in a part of Italy, he substituted a species of philosophy at once more useful and more true. Encouraged by the favourable reception his work had met with, he published in 1735 a new “Course of Geometrical Elements,” written with precision and perspicuity. On being appointed professor at Pisa, he revised and retouched his two performances. The former appeared, with considerable corrections, at Bologna in 1742; and the second, augmented with f< Elements of Practical Geometry,“was published at Venice in 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. He was well versed in hydrostatics and history. After having sedulously applied for several years to the classical authors, and particularly those of Greece, he proposed to write the” Fasti of the Archons of Athens,“the first volume of which appeared in 1734, in 4to, and the fourth and last, ten years after. Being called in 1746 to the chair of moral philosophy and metaphysics, he composed a” Course of Metaphysics,“which appeared afterwards at Venice in 1758. His learned friends Muratori, Gorio, Maffei, Quirini, Passionei, now persuaded him to abandon philosophy; and, at their solicitations, he returned to criticism and erudition. In 1747 he published four dissertations in 4to, on the sacred games of Greece, in which he gave an exact list of the athletic victors. Two years afterwards he brought out, in folio, an excellent work on the abbreviations used in Greek inscriptions, under this title,” De notis Graecorum.“This accurate and sagacious performance was followed by several dissertations relative to objects of learning. But the high esteem in which he was held by his acquaintance on account of his virtues and industry, was an interruption to his labours, he being appointed general of his order in 1754; yet the leisure left him by the arduous duties of his station he devoted to his former studies, and when the term of his generalship expired, he hastened back to Pisa, to resume the functions of professor. He now published several new dissertations, and especially an excellent work, one of the best of his performances, entitled” De praefectis urbis.“At length he confined the whole of hi:; application on the” History of the University of Pisa," of which he had been appointed historiographer, and was about to produce the first volume when a stroke of apoplexy carried him off, in spite of all the resources of the medical art, in December 1765.

, of Alexandria in Egypt, called Indopleustj-:S or Indicopleustes, on account of a voyage which he made to the Indies, was at first a merchant, afterwards a monk, and author, and is supposed to have flourished about the year 547. He wrote several things, particularly the “Christian Topography, or the opinion of Christians concerning the World, in 12 books still extant, and published by Montfaucon in 1707, in the” Nova collectio Patrum,“vol. II. Cosmas performed his voyage in 522, and pub^ lished his book at Alexandria in 547: it contains some very curious information, but contrary to the sentiments of all astronomers, he denies the earth to be spherical, and endeavours to prove his opinion from reason, scripture, and Christian writers, who lived before him. As his testimony to the authenticity of the scriptures, however, is very considerable, Lardner has selected many passages from” The Christian Topography,“in his” Credibility."

, whose family name was Baseillac, was a monk of the order of the Fetiillans, in Paris, and born in 1703. He was educated to the practice of surgery; but at his father’s death, which happened when he was young, he retired from the world, and became a monk, yet went on improving himself in the art to which he had been bred, and gave his assistance to all who applied without any reward. He had bestowed his principal attention on lithotomy, and the instrument with which he performed the operation he called lithotome cachc^ a hollow tube, in which was concealed a knife, with which he cut through the prostate gland, into the bladder. His care was to make the wound sufficiently large, to enable him to extract the stone easily, and without bruising the parts. To this, it is probable, his success, which was far superior to any of his rivals, must be attributed. The fame he acquired drew upon him the envy of the surgeons of Paris so far, that they applied to the king to interdict his practising. Not succeeding in this attempt, Mons. Le Cat published “Lettre au sujet du Lithotome Cache*, &c. contre F. Cosme Dissert.” 1749. Cosme’s dissertation, describing, the operation, had been published the preceding year, in the “Journal des Savans.” This produced an answer from De Cosme, under the title of “Recueil des pieces imporiantes sur ['operation da la Taille,” Paris, 1751; in which he acknowledges some failures, and that he had lost one patient by haemorrhage; but challenges his adversaries to produce lists of successful cases equal to his. In 1779, he published “Nouvelle methode d'extraire la Pierre,” Paris, 12mo. After having for some time been director of the hospital of Bayeux, he established an hospital in the Feuillans, where he practised gratis. It is thought that in the course of his life he had performed the operation for the stone above a thousand times. He diedJuly 28, 1781, most particularly lamented by the poor, towards whom he was equally compassionate and charitable. When any father of a family offered him money, he used to say, “Keep it;. I must not injure your children” and often, instead of accepting a fee from the opulent, he would recommend some poor object to be relieved by them.

, the pious and learned bishop of Exeter in the reign of Edward VI. was born in Yorkshire in 1487, as appears by his age on his epitaph. He was educated at Cambridge, in the house of the Augustine friars, of which Dr. Barnes, afterwards one of the protestant martyrs, was then prior. One of his name took the degree of bachelor of law in 1530, but Lewis thinks this must have been too late for the subject of the present article; yet it is not improbable it was the same, as he appears to have been in Cambridge at that time. He afterwards, according to Godwin, who does not furnish the date, received the degree of D. D. from the university of Tubingen, and was, though late in life, admitted ad eundem at Cambridge. Being in his early years attached to the religion in which he was brought up, he became an Augustine monk. In 1514 he entered into holy orders, being ordained at Norwich; but afterwards changing his religious opinions, Bale says he was one of the first, who, together with Dr. Robert Barnes, his quondam prior, taught the purity of the gospel, and dedicated himself wholly to the service of the reformation. About this time, probably 1530, or 1531, the reformed religion began to dawn at Cambridge. Various eminent men, not only in the colleges, but monasteries, began to assemble for conference on those points which had been discussed by the reformers abroad, and their usual place of meeting was a house called the White Horse, which their enemies nicknamed Germany, in allusion to what was passing in that country; and this house being contiguous to King’s, Queen’s, and St. John’s colleges, many members of each could have access unobserved. Among the names on record of these early converts to protestantism, we find that of Coverdale. In 1532 he appears to have been abroad, and assisted Tyndale in his translation of the Bible, and in 1535 his own translation of the Bible appeared, with a dedication by him to king Henry VIII. It formed a folio volume, printed, as Humphrey Wanley thought, from the appearance of the types, at Zurich, by Christopher Froschover. If so, Coverdale must have resided there while it passed through the press, as his attention to it was unremitting. He thus had the honour of editing the first English Bible allowed by royal authority, and the first translation of the whole Bible printed in our language. It was called a special translation, because it was different from the former English translations, as Lewis shews by comparing itwithTyndale’s; and the psalms in it are those now used in the Book of Common Prayer. In 1538 a quarto New Testament, in the Vulgate Latin, and in Coverdale’s English, though it bore the name of Hollybushe, was printed with the king’s licence, and has a dedication by Coverdale, in which he says, “he does not doubt but such ignorant bodies as, having cure of souls, are very unlearned in the Latin tongue, shall, through this small labour, be occasioned to attain unto more knowledge, or at least be constrained to say well of the thing which heretofore they have blasphemed.”

After this, he was much inclined to become a monk of the Carthusian order, and had thoughts of entering into the monastery of English Carthusians at Newport, in Flanders, but from this he was dissuaded by some of his zealous countrymen, who were desirous that he should continue to employ his pen in defence of their religion, for which the severe discipline of that order would have allowed him but little time; and therefore by their advice he laid aside that design, and being recommended to Henrietta-Maria, queen-dowager of England, he was taken under her protection, and being invited by the Benedictine college of English monks at Douay, in Flanders, he at length resolved to retire thither, and for the expence of his journey received one hundred crowns as a bounty from that princess, who could but ill spare even so small a sura at that time. Some time after his arrival at Douay he entered into the Benedictine order, and upon that occasion changed the name he received at his baptism, of Hugh Paulin, for that of Serenus de Cressey, by which he was afterwards known to the learned world. He remained about seven years or more in that college, and during his residence tnere published a large work, of the mystical kind, entitled “Sancta Sophia, or directions for the prayers of contemplation, &c. extracted out of more than XL treatises, written by the late reverend father Aug. Baker, a monk of the English congregation of the holy order of St. Benedict,” Douay, 1657, 2 vols. 8vo. To which are added, “Certain patterns of devout exercises of immediate acts and affections of the will.” This father Augustine Baker, whose true name was David Baker, who had studied the law in the Middle temple, and who from being little better than an atheist, became a convert to popery, and a very zealous devotionist, had once, it seems, some intention of writing the Ecclesiastical History of England, for which he had made very copious collections, that were of great service to Cressey, when he entered upon the execution of the same project.

, bishop of Durham, the fifth sen of John lord Crewe, of Stean, co. Northampton, by Jemima, daughter and coheir of Edward Walgrave, of Lawford, in Essex, esq. was born at Stean, the 3 1st of January, 1633; and in 1652 admitted commoner of Lincoln college, in Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. Feb. 1, 1655-6; soon after which he was chosen fellow of that college. On June 29th, 1658, he took the degree of M. A. At the restoration he declared heartily in favour of the crown and hierarchy; and in 1663 was one of the proctors of the university. The year following, on the 2d of July, he took the degree of LL. D.; and soon after went into holy orders. August the 12th, 1668, he was elected rector of Lincoln -college, upon the decease of Dr. Paul Hood. On the 29th of April, 1669, he was installed dean of Chichester, and held with that dignity, the praecentorship, in which he had been installed the day before. He was also appointed clerk of the closet to king Charles II. In 1671, upon the translation of Dr. Blandford to the see of Worcester, he was elected hishop of Oxford in his room, on the 16th of June, confirmed June the ISth, consecrated July the 2d, and enthroned the 5th of the same month; being allowed to hold with it, in commendam, the living of Whitney, and the rectorship of Lincoln college, which last he resigned in October 1672. In 1673 he performed the ceremony of the marriage of James duke of York with Maria of Este; and through that prince’s interest, to whom he appears to have been subservient, he was translated, the 22d of October, 1674, to the bishopric of Durham. In the beginning of J6.75, he baptized Katharina- Laura, the new-born daughter of James duke of York. The 26th of April, 1676, he was sworn of the privy council to king Charles II. and upon the accession of king James II. to the crown, he was in great favour with that prince; he was made dean of his majesty’s royal chapel in 1685, in the room of Compton, bishop of London, who had been removed; and within a few days after, was admitted into the privy council. In 1686 he was appointed one of the commissioners in the new ecclesiastical commission erected by king James, an honoqr which he is said to have valued beyond its worth. By virtue of that commission, he appeared on the 9th of August, at the proceedings against Henry bishop of London, and was for suspending him during the king’s pleasure; though the earl and bishop of Rochester, and chief justice Herbert, were against it. Immediately after that bishop’s suspension, commissioners were appointed to exercise all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the diocese of London, of which bishop Crewe was one. The 20th of November following, he was present at, and consenting to, the degradation of Mr. Samuel Johnson, previously to the most severe punishment that was inflicted on that eminent divine; and countenanced with his presence a prosecution carried on, in May 1687, against Dr. Peachy, vice-chancellor of Cambridge, for refusing to admit one Alban Francis, a Benedictine monk, to the degree of master of arts in that university, without taking the oaths. In July the same year, he offered to attend the pope’s nuncio at his public entry into London; but we are told his coachman refused to "drive lijm that way. His name was put again in a new ecclesiastical commission issued out this year, in October; in which he acted, during the severe proceedings against Magdalen college in Oxford, for refusing to elect one Anthony Farmer their president, pursuant to the king’s mandate. The bishop continued acting as an ecclesiastical commissioner till October 1688; when that commission was abolished. Towards the end of the year 1687, he was employed, with the bishops of Rochester and Peterborough, to draw up a form of thanksgiving for the queen’s being with child. But finding that the prince of Orange’s party was likely to' prevail, he absented himself from the council-board, and told the archbishop of Canterbury, that he was sorry for having so long concurred with the courtand desired now to be reconciled to his grace, and the other bishops. Even in the convention that met January 22, 1688-9, to consider of filling the throne, he was one of those who voted, on the 6th of February, that king James II. had abdicated the kingdom. Yet his past conduct was too recent to be forgotten, and therefore he was excepted by name out of the pardon granted by king William and queen Mary, May 23, 1690, which so terrified him, that he went over to Holland, and returned just in time to take the oaths to the new government, and preserved his bishopric. But, in order to secure to himself the possession of that dignity, he was forced to permit the crown to dispose of, or at least to nominate to, his prebends of Durham, as they should become vacant. By the death of his two elder brothers, he became in 1691, baron Crewe of Stean; and, about the 21st of December the same year, he married, but left no issue. During the rest of king William’s reign, he remained quiet and unmolested; and in the year 1710, he was one of the lords that opposed the prosecution then carried on against Dr. Sacheverell, and declared him not guilty; and likewise protested against several steps taken in that affair. He applied himself chiefly, in the latter part of his life, to works of munificence and charity. Particularly, he was a very great benefactor to Lincoln college, of which he had been fellow and rector; and laid out large sums in beautifying the bishop’s palace at Durham; besides many other instances of generosity and munificence of a more private nature. At length, his lordship departed this life on Monday September 18, 1721, aged eighty-eight; and was buried in his chapel at Stean, the 30th of the same month, with an inscription on his monument. He held the see of Durham forty-seven years. Dying without issue, the title of Baron Crewe of Stean became extinct with him.

, an eminent and loyal citizen in the reigns of king Charles the First, and king Charles the Second, the son of a very eminent merchant of London, was born in 1598, and bred, according to the custom of those times, in a thorough knowledge of business, though heir to a great estate. He made a considerable addition to this by marriage; and being a man of an enterprizing genius, ever active and solicitous about new inventions and discoveries, was soon taken notice of at court, was knighted, and became one of the farmers of the king’s customs. When the trade to Guinea was under great difficulties and discouragements, he framed a project for retrieving it, which required a large capital, but his reputation was so great, that many rich merchants willingly engaged with him in the prosecution of the design; and to give a good example, as well as to shew that he meant to adhere to the work that he had once taken in hand, he caused the castle of Cormantyn upon the Gold Coast, to be erected at his own expence. By this judicious precaution, and by his wise and wary management afterwards, himself and his associates carried their trade so successfully, as to divide amongst them fifty thousand pounds a year. When the rebellion began, and the king was in want of money, sir Nicholas Crispe, and his partners in the farming of the customs, upon very short warning, and when their refusing it would have been esteemed a merit with the parliament, raised him one hundred thousand pounds at once. After the war broke out, and in the midst of all the distractions with which it was attended, he continued to carry on a trade to Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Norwaj', Moscovy, and Turkey, which produced to the king nearly one hundred thousand pounds a year, besides keeping most of the ports open and ships in them constantly ready for his service. All the correspondence and supplies of arms which were procured by the queen in Holland, and by the king’s agents in Denmark, were consigned to his care, and by his prudence and vigilance safely landed in the north, and put into the hands of those for whom they were intended. In the management of so many nice and difficult affairs, he was obliged to keep up a very extensive correspondence, for which he hardly ever made use of cypher, but penned his letters in such a peculiar style, as removed entirely his intentions from the apprehension of his enemies, and yet left them very intelligible unto those with whom he transacted. He had also great address in bringing any thing to bear that he had once contrived, to which it contributed not a little, that in matters of secrecy and danger he seldom trusted to any hands but his own, and made use of all kinds of disguises. Sometimes, when he was believed to be in one place, he was actually at another; letters of consequence he carried in the disguise of a porter; when he wanted intelligence he would be at the water side, with a basket of flounders upon his head, and often passed between London and Oxford in the dress of a butter-woman on horseback, between a pair of panniers. He was the principal author of a well-laid design for publishing the king’s commission of array at London, in which there was nothing dishonourable, so far as sir Nicholas Crispe was concerned, which, however, Clarendon inadvertently confounds with another design, superinduced by Mr. Waller, of surprizing the parliament, in bringing which to bear he proceeded very vigorously at first, till, finding that he had engaged in a matter too big for his management, he suddenly lost his spirits, and some of the chief men in the house of commons gaining intelligence that something was in agitation to their prejudice, May 31st, 1643, they presently seized Mr. Waller, and drew from him a complete discovery, which, from the account they published, plainly distinguished these two projects. By the discovery of this business, sir Nicholas Crispe found himself obliged to declare openly the course he meant to take; and having at his own expence raised a regiment of horse for the king’s service, he distinguished himself at the head of it as remarkably in his military, as he had ever done in his civil capacity. When the siege of Gloucester was resolved on, sir Nicholas Crispe was charged with his regiment of horse to escort the king’s train of artillery from Oxford, which important service he very gallantly performed; but in the month of September following, a very unlucky accident occurred, and though the circumstances attending it clearly justified his conduct to the world, yet the concern it gave him was such as he could not shake off so long as he lived. He happened to be quartered at Rouslidge, in Gloucestershire, where one sir James Ennyon, bart. of Northamptonshire, and some friends of his took up a great part of the house, though none of them had any commands in the army, which, however, sir Nicholas bore with the utmost patience, notwithstanding he was much incommoded by it. Some time after, certain horses belonging to those gentlemen were missing, and sir James Ennyon, though he had lost none himself, insinuating that some of sir Nicholas’s troopers must have taken them, insisted that he should immediately draw out his regiment, that search might be made for them. Sir Nicholas answered him with mildness, and offered him as full satisfaction as it was in his power to give, but excused himself from drawing out his regiment, as a thing improper and inconvenient at that juncture, for reasons which he assigned. Not content, however, sir James left him abruptly, and presently after sent him a challenge, accompanied with a message to this effect, that if he did not comply with it, he would pistol him against the wall. Upon this, sir Nicholas Crispe taking a friend of his with him, went to the place appointed, and finding sir James Ennyon and the person who brought him the challenge, sir Nicholas used his utmost endeavours to pacify him; but he being determined to receive no satisfaction, unless by the sword, they engaged, and sir James received a wound in the rim of the belly, of which he died in two days. Before this, however, he sent for sir Nicholas Crispe, and was sincerely reconciled to him. Upon the 2d of October following, sir Nicholas was brought to a court-martial for this unfortunate affair, and upon a full examination of every thing relating to it, was most honourably acquitted. He continued to serve with the same zeal and fidelity during 1644, and in the spring following; but when the treaty of Uxbridge commenced, the parliament thought fit to mark him, as they afterwards did in the Isle of Wight treaty, by insisting that he should be removed from his majesty’s presence; and a few months after, on April 16th, 1645, they ordered his large house in Breadstreet to be sold, which for many years belonged to his family. Neither was this stroke of their vengeance judged a sufficient punishment for his offences, since having resolved to grant the elector palatine a pension of eight thousand pounds a year, they directed that two thousand should be applied out of the king’s revenue, and the remainder made up out of the estates of lord Culpeper and sir Nicholas Crispe, Sir Nicholas finding himself no lon^ev in a capacity to render his majesty any service, thought it expedient to preserve himself; and in April 1646 embarked with lord Culpeper and colonel Monk for France, but as he had many rich relations who had interest with those in power, they interposed in his favour; and as sir Nicholas perceived that he could be of no service to the royal cause abroad, h did not look upon it as any deviation from his duty, to return and live quietly at home. Accordingly, having submitted to a composition, he came back to London, to retrieve his shattered fortunes, and very soon engaged again in business, with the same spirit and success as before. In this season of prosperity he was not unmindful of the wants of Charles II. but contributed cheerfully to his relief, when his affairs seemed to be in the most desperate condition. After the death of Oliver Cromwell, he was instrumental in reconciling many to their duty, and so well were his principles known, and so much his influence apprehended, that when it was proposed that the royalists in and about London should sign an instrument signifying their inclination to preserve the public tranquillity, he was called upon, and very readily subscribed it. He was also principally concerned in bringing the city of London, in her corporate capacity, to give the encouragement that was requisite to leave general Monk without any difficulties or suspicion as to the sincerity and unanimity of their inclinations. It was therefore very natural, after reading the king’s letter and declaration in common-council, May 3d, 1660, to think of sending some members of their own body to preSent their duty to his majesty; and having appointed nine aldermen and their recorder, they added sir Nicholas Crispe, with several other worthy persons, to the committee, that the king might receive the more satisfaction from their sentiments being delivered by several of those who had suffered deeply in his own and in his father’s cause. His majesty accordingly received these gentlemen very graciously, as a committee, and afterwards testified to them separately the sense he had of their past services, and upon his return, sir Nicholas Crispe and sir John Wolstenholme, were re-instated as farmers of the customs. Sir Nicholas was now in years, and somewhat infirm, spent a great part of his time at his noble country seat near Hammersmith, where he was in some measure the founder of the chapel, and having an opportunity of returning the tbligation he had received from some of his relations, he procured for them that indemnity from the king, gratis, for which he had so dearly paid during the rebellion. The last testimony he received of his royal master’s favour, was his being created a baronet, April 16th, 1665, which he did not long survive, dying February 26th, the next year, in the sixty-seventh year of his age, leaving a very large estate to his grandson, sir Nicholas Crispe. His corpse was interred with his ancestors, in the parish church of St. Mildred, in Bread-street, and his funeral sermon was preached by his reverend and learned kinsman Mr. Crispe, of Christ-church, Oxford. But his heart was sent to the chapel at Hammersmith, where there is a short and plain inscription upon a cenotaph erected to his memory; or rather upon that monument which himself erected in grateful commemoration of king Charles I. as the inscription placed there in sir Nicholas’s life-time tells us, under which, after his decease, was placed a small white marble urn, upon a black pedestal, containing his heart.

, abbot of Westminster in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, was born in Normandy, of a considerable family, and educated in the monastery of Bee, under Lanfranc, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who was then prior of that convent, and taught the liberal arts with great reputation. In this seminary Crispin became a monk, under Anselm, who was at that time abbot. He was much esteemed by both these eminent men, the former of whom, after his advancement to the see of Canterbury, sent for him to England, and made him abbot of St. Peter’s, Westminster, and Lanfranc parted with him reluctantly, and continued to correspond with him as long as he lived. Crispin was abbot of Westminster thirty-two years, during which he was sent on different embassies by king Henry I. Leland says, that he was some time at Rome, probably on some ecclesiastical errand. He died in 1117, and was buried in the south part of the great cloisters. Leland, Bale, and Pits, who give him the character of a very learned and pious ecclesiastic, attribute a great many works in divinity to him, of which we know of one only that was published, “De fide ecclesise, contra Judasos,” Cologne, 1537, and Paris, 1678, with Anselm’s works. This was occasioned by a disputation which he held with a very learned Jew at Mentz, whose arguments, with his own, he drew up in the form of a dialogue.

The true reason why Cromwell thus dismissed this council of state, was, because he intended to have another of his own framing; these being men entirely devoted to the parliament, from whom they derived their authority. He now projected such measures as appeared to him the most proper for the support of that great authority which he had attained. He continued for a few days to direct all things by the advice of the council of officers; but afterwards a new council of state was called, by virtue of letters or warrants under the lord-general’s hand. But this consisting chiefly of fifth-monarchy and other madmen, soon dissolved of itself; and then the power returned into the hands of Cromwell, from whom it came. Harrison, and about twenty more, remained in the house, and seeing the reign of the saints at an end, placed one Moyer in the speaker’s chair, and began to draw up protests; but they were soon interrupted by colonel White with a party of soldiers. White asking them what they did there, they told him, “they were seeking the Lord;” to which he replied, “that they might go somewhere else, for to his knowledge, the Lord had not been there many years;” and so turned them out of doors. The scene thus changed, the supreme power was said to be in the council of officers again; and they very speedily resolved, that the lordgeneral, with a select council, should have the administration of public affairs, upon the terms contained in a paper, entitled “The Instrument of Government;” and that his excellency should be protector of the commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and have the title of Highness. Accordingly he was invested therewith Dec. 16, 1653, in the court of chancery in Westminster-hall, with great solemnity; and thus, in his 54th year, assumed the sovereign power, which he well knew how to exercise with firmness. When he had thus reduced the government into some order at least, he proceeded very wisely and warily; appointed a privy-council, in which there were great and worthy men, who he knew would either not act at all, or not very long with him; but their names giving a sanction for the present, he proceeded, with the advice of as many of them as attended, to make several ordinances that were necessary, as also to dispose matters for the holding a new parliament. He applied himself also to the settlement of the public affairs, both foreign and domestic; he concluded a peace with the states of Holland and Sweden; he obliged the king of Portugal, notwithstanding all that had passed between the parliament and bim, to accept of a peace upon his terms; and adjusted matters with France, though not without some difficulty. As to affairs at home, he filled the courts in Westminsterhall with able judges; and directed the lawyers themselves to make such corrections in the practice of their profession, as might free them from public odium. The same moderation he practised in church matters; professing an unalterable resolution to maintain liberty of conscience. He gave the command of all the forces in Scotland to general Monk, and sent his son Henry to govern Ireland. By an ordinance dated April 12, 1654, he united England and Scotland, fixing the number of representatives for the latter at 30; and soon after he did the same by Ireland. He affected to shew great zeal for justice, in causing the brother of the ambassador from Portugal to be executed for murder; which he did July 10, in spite of the greatest application to prevent it.

, of Piemont, was born at San Chirico, in 1503, of a noble family, and cultivated philosophy, and made several journies in Germany and Italy. Having abjured the religion of Rome to embrace the doctrines of Luther, he was thrown into prison, and confined for several months, but without this making any impression on his sentiments; and he was no sooner released than he played a very bold trick. Having access to the relics of the monastery of St. Benigno, he executed the plan of carrying away the holy shrine, and leaving in its place what to him was more holy and estimable, the Bible, inscribed with these words, “Haec est area foederis, ex qua vera sciscitari oracula liceat, et in qua veroe sunt sanctorum reliquiae.” As, however, he was aware the fury of the populace would not permit him to escape with his life, if he were suspected, he thought it prudent to retire, and we find him afterwards at Milan, where he married in 1530, and began to preach. Having-fixed his abode near Casal, he one day heard a Dominican declaiming loudly against Luther, and charging him with criminal acts and heretical notions, of which he was not guilty; he asked permission to give an answer to the outrageous preacher. This being granted: “My father,” said he to the monk, “you have attributed to Luther a number of terrible declarations; but where does he say them? Can you point me out the book where he has delivered such a doctrine?” — The monk replied that he could not immediately shew him the passage; but that, if he would go with him to Turin, he would point it out to him. “And I,” said Curio, “will shew you this moment that what you advance cannot be true.” Then pulling out of his pocket Luther’s Commentary on the epistle to the Galatians, he refuted the Dominican with so much strength of argument, that the crowd fell upon him, and it was with great difficulty that he escaped out of their hands. The inquisition and the bishop of Turin being informed of this quarrel, Curio was arrested; but the bishop, perceiving that he was supported by a considerable party, went to Rome, to receive advice from the pope in what manner he should proceed. In the mean time, Curio was carried in irons to a private prison, and kept under a constant guard; but, notwithstanding these precautions, found means to escape during the night. He fled to Salo, in the duchy of Milan, and from thence to Pavia; whence, three years afterwards, he was obliged to take refuge at Venice, because the pope had threatened to excommunicate the senate of Pavia, if they did not put him under an arrest. From Venice Curio went successively to Ferrara, to Lucca, to Lausanne, in Switzerland, where he was made principal of the college, and lastly to Bale, in 1547. Here he became professor of eloquence and the belles-lettres, which situation he held until his death, which happened in 1569, at the age of sixty-seven. There is a singular work by him, entitled “De amplitudine bead regni Dei,” Bale, 1550, 8vo, in which he extends that kingdom to the comprehension of a far greater number of elect than the generality of divines allow. He also wrote: 1. “Opuscula,” Bale, 1544, 8vo, scarce, and containing a dissertation on Providence, another on the Immortality of the Soul, &c. 2. “Letters,” Bale, 1553, 8vo. 3. “Calvinus Judaisans,” 1595, 8vo. 4. To him are attributed: u Pasquillorum tomi duo,“1544, 2 parts in 1 vol. 8vo. What has led the critics to think him the editor of this collection, is, that he is indeed the author of the two editions of” Pasquillus extaticus,“8vo, the one without date, the other of Geneva, 1544. The second was reprinted with” Pasquillus theologaster,“Geneva, 1667, 12mo. These are satires, which petulance on one side, and the desire of suppressing them on the other, have occasioned to be sought after. The book-collectors add to these, two volumes, the works of a certain German, named” Pasquillus merus.“This makes a third volume, which has scarcely any relation to the former, nor is either of much value. 5. A Latin translation of Guicciardini’s history, 1566, 2 vols. fol. 6.” De Bello Melitense, anno 1565,“8vo, inserted in Muratori. 7.” Vita et doctrina Davidis Georgii haeresiarchse,“Bale, 1599, 4to. 8.” Forum Romanum,“a Latin dictionary, Bale, 1576, 3 vols. fol. 9.” Historia Francisci Spirae,“8vo, &c. Of a very scarce work of his,” Paraphrasis in principium Evangelii S. Johannis,“but which, if we mistake not, was originally published among his” Opuscula,“an extract may be seen in the” New Memoirs of Literature," vol. XIII.

, a native of Brussels, where he was born in 1586, became a monk of the Augustine order, and rose to honours and high official situations among his order; being prefect of the schools of Brussels and Louvaine, a provincial of various convents, and counsellor and historiographer to the emperor of Germany. He had the character of a man of extensive learning and piety, the latter carried sometimes to the minuUsc of superstition, as appears by his work “De Clavis Dominicis,” of which there are three editions, 1622, 1632, and 1670: in this he gravely discusses whether our Saviour. was fixed to the cross with three nails or four? and decides in favour of the latter number. His more valuable works are: 1. “Vita; S. S. Rupert! et Virgilii,” Ingolstadt, 1622. 2. “Epistolas familiares,” ibid. 1621. 3. “Poematum libri tres,” Ant. 1629, 12mo. 4. “Amphitheatrum amorum, Christ. Fonseca auctore, Curtio interprete,” Ingolstadt, 1623, 8vo. 5. “Quadragesimale” by Fonseca, translated from the Spanish into Latin, Cologn. 6. “Vitae quinque Virginum Augustiniarum,” ibid. 1636. 7. “Elogia virorum illustrium Ord. Eremit. S. Augustini,” with engraven portraits, Antwerp, 1636, 4to. 8. “Vita S. Nicolai Tolentinatis,” with the lives of other Augustines, ibid, 1637, 16mo. He left also some unfinished manuscripts. He died in Oct. 1633.

The works of this father and confessor have been often printed. The first edition of any note was that of Rigaltius, printed at Paris in 1648; afterwards in 1666, with very great additions. This edition of Rigaltius was considerably improved by Fell, bishop of Oxford; at which place it was handsomely printed in 1682, with the “Annales Cyprianici” of bishop Pearson prefixed. Fell’s edition was reprinted at Amsterdam in 1700; after which a Benedictine monk published another edition of this father at Paris in 1727. The works of Cyprian have been translated into English by Dr. Marshal in 1717; for this reason chiefly, that of all the fathers none are capable of being so usefully quoted, in supporting the doctrines and discipline of our church, as he. His letters are particularly valuable, as they not only afford more particulars of his life than Pontius has given, but are a valuable treasure of ecclesiastical history. The spirit, taste, discipline, and habits of the times, among Christians, are strongly delineated; nor have we in all the third century any account. to be compared with them. In his general style, he is the most eloquent and perspicuous of all the Latin fathers.

The next specimen of his learning was in the edition he gave of the twelfth book of the anagogical contemplations of St. Anastasius, monk of mount Sinai, upon the creation of the world, now first published, together with notes and a Latin translation, London, 1682, 4to.

Daillé, having lived seven years with so excellent a master, set out on his travels with his pupils in the autumn of 1619, and went to Geneva; and from thence through Piedmont and Lombardy to Venice, where they spent the winter. During their abode in Italy, a melancholy affair happened, which perplexed him not a little. One of his pupils fell sick at Mantua; and he removed him with all speed to Padua, where those of the protestant religion have more liberty, but here he died; and the difficulty was, to avoid the observation of the inquisitors, and remove the corpse to France, to the burial-place of his ancestors. After much consideration, no more eligible plan presented itself than to send him under the disguise of a bale of merchandize goods, or a cargo of books; and in this manner the corpse was conveyed to France, under the care of two of his servants; not, however, without the necessary safe-conduct and passports, which were procured for him from the republic by the celebrated father Paul. He then continued his travels with his other pupil, visiting Switzerland, Germany, Flanders, Holland, England; and returned to France towards the end of 1621. The son relates, that he had often heard his father regret those two years of travelling, which he reckoned as lost, because he could have spent them to better purpose in his closet; and, it seems, he would have regretted them still more, if he had not enjoyed the privilege at Venice of a familiar acquaintance with father Paul, the only fruit which he said he had reaped from that journey. M. du Plessis, with whom that father corresponded by letters, had recommended to him in a very particular manner both his grandsons and their crovernor; so that M. Daille was immediately admitted into his confidence, and there passed not a day without his enjoying some hours discourse with him. The good father even conceived such an affection for M. Daille, that he used his utmost endeavours with a French physician of the protestant religion, and one of his intimate friends, to prevail with him to stay at Venice. This circumstance of Daille’s life, among many others, has been thought no inconsiderable proof, that father Paul concealed, under the habit of a monk, a temper wholly devoted to protestantism and its professors.

, or John of Damascus, a learned priest and monk of the 'eighth century, surnamed Mansur, was born at Damascus about G76. His father, who was rich, and held several considerable offices, had him instructed in the sciences by an Italian monk, named Cosmo, and he was afterwards raised to the highest posts, and became chief counsellor to the prince of the Saracens All these dignities, however, St. John Damascenus resigned, and entered himself a monk in the monastery of St. Sabas near Jerusalem, where he led a pious and exemplary life, and became famous in the church by his piety and writings. It is said, that the caliph Hiocham, having ordered his right hand to be cut off on account of a forged letter by the emperor Leo, the hand was restored to him the night following by a miracle, as he slept; which miracle was universally known, or as much so as many other miracles propagated in the credulous ages. He died about the year 760, aged eighty-four. He left an excellent treatise on the orthodox faith, and several other works published in Greek and Latin, by le Quien, 1712, 2 vols. fol. A book entitled “Liber Barlaam et Josaphat Indite regis,” is ascribed to St. John Damascenus, but without any foundation; it has no date of time or place, but was printed about 1470, and is scarce. There are several French translations of it, old, and little valued. Damascenus may be reckoned the most learned man of the eighth century, if we except our countryman Bede; and, what is less to his credit, ono of the first who mingled the Aristotelian philosophy with the Christian religion. He became among the Greeks what Thomas Aquinas was afterwards among the Latins. Except with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, most of his notions were erroneous, and his learning and fame gave considerable support to the worshipping of images, and other superstitions of that time.

, a French monk, was born at Montet in Auvergne, in 1637, and became a monk of Clermont in 1656, where he recommended himself to the notice and respect of his superiors by his application and talents. He was fixed on, at the instigation of the celebrated Arnaud, to give a new edition of the works of St. Augustine, and had made considerable preparation for the publication, when an anonymous tract, entitled “L' Abbe commandataire,” exposing certain ecclesiastical abuses, was imputed to him, it is said unjustly. He must, however, have had no means of disproving the charge, as he was banished for it to Lower Bretagne. He was shortly after called upon to preach at Brest, on some public occasion, when the vessel in which he took his passage was wrecked, and he was among the number of those that were drowned, in October 1676, in the thirty-ninth year of his age. He was author of several works, of little importance now, if we except an historical eulogy, entitled “The Epitaph of Casimir, king of Poland, who, after having abdicated his crown, retired into France, and became abbot of St. Germain de Pres.”

His works have been several times printed together in one volume, under the title of “Poems and translations, with the Sophy, a tragedy.” The sixth edition is that of 1719, and besides this collection, Wood mentions: 1. “A Panegyric on his excellency the lord general George Monk, commander in chief,” &c. printed at London in 1659, and generally ascribed to him, though his name is not to it, S. “A New Version t>f the Book of Psalms.” 3. A prologue to his Majesty at the first play presented at the Cockpit in Whitehall, being part of that noble entertainment which their majestes received on November 20, 16-0, from his grace the duke of Albemarle. 4. “The True Presbyterian without disguise: or, a character of a Presbyterian’s ways and actions,” Lond. 1680. Our author’s name is to tiiis poem; but it was then questioned by many, whether he was the author of it. In 1666 there were printed by stealth, in 8vo, certain poems, entitled “Directions to a Painter,” in four copies or parts, each dedicated to Charles II. They were very satirically written against several persons engaged in the Dutch war in 1665. At the end of them was a piece, entitled, “Clarendon’s House-warming,” and after that his epitaph; both containing bitter reflections on that excellent nobleman. Sir John Denham’s name is to these pieces; but they were generally thought to be written by the well-known Andrew Marvel: the printer, however, being discovered, was sentenced to stand in the pillory for the same.

or Dion Cassius, an ancient historian, known also by the surnames of Cocceius or Cocceianus, was born at Nicsea, a city of Bithyuia, and flourished in the third century. His father Aproniatius, a man of consular dignity, was governor of Dalmatia, and some time after proconsul of Cilicia, under the emperors Trajan and Adrian. Dio was with his father in Cilicia; and from thence went to Rome, where he distinguished himself by public pleadings. From the reign of Commodus he was a senator of Rome; was made prtetor of the city under Pertinax; and raised at length to the consulship, which he held twice, and exercised the second time, jointly with the emperor Alexander Severus. He had passed through several great employments under the preceding emperors. Macrinus had made him governor of Pergamus and Smyrna; he commanded some time in Africa; and afterwards had the administration of Austria and Hungary, then called Pannonia, committed to him. He undertook the task of writing history, as he informs us himself, because he was admonished and commanded to do it by a vision from heaven; and he tells us also, that he spent ten years in collecting materials for it, and twelve more in composing it. His history began from the building of Rome, and proceeded to the reign of Alexander Severus. It was divided into So books, or eight decades; many of which are not now extant. The first 34 books are lost, with part of the 35th. The 25 following are preserved intire; but instead of the last 20, of which nothing more than fragments remain, we have only the epitome, which Xiphtliuus, a monk of Coustantinople, has given of them. Photius observes, that he wrote his Roman history, as others had also done, not from the foundation of Rome only, but from the descent of Æneas into Italy; which he continued to the year of Home 982, and of Christ 228, when, as we have observed, he was consul a second time with the emperor Alexander Severus. What we now have of it, begins with the expedition of Lucullus against Mithridates king of Pontus, about the year of Rome 684, and ends with the death of the emperor Claudius about the year 806.

, surnamed Exiguus, or Little, on account of his stature, was a monk by profession, and born in Scythia, where he is supposed to have died about the year 540, as Dupin reckons, or 556, according to Cave. He understood Greek and Latin, and was well acquainted with the holy scriptures. Cassiodorus, who was intimate with him, wrote his panegyric in the 23d chapter of his book on divine learning. At the desire of Stephen, bishop of Salone, he made a collection of canons, which contains, besides those which were in the code of the universal church, the fifty first canons of the apostles, those of the council of Sardica, and 138 canons of the council of Africa. This code of canons was approved and received by the church of Rome, and France, and by the Latin churches; and was printed by Justel in 1628, with a version of the letter of St. Cyril, and of the council of Alexandria against Nestorius, which is also the translation of Dionysius Exiguus. He afterwards joined these with the decretals of the popes from Syricius to Anastasius, to which have been, since added those of Hilary, Simplicius, and other popes, to St. Gregory. This second collection was printed by Justel in his Bibliotheca of Canon law. Dionysius was the first who introduced the way of counting the years from the birth of Jesus Christ, and who fixed it according to the epocha of the vulgar sera. He wrote also two letters upon Easter in the years 525 and 526, which were published by Petavius and Buchevius; and made a cycle of 95 years. Father Mabillon published a letter of his written to Eugippius, about the translation which he made of a work of Gregory Nyssen, concerning the creation of man. With respect to the epoch which he invented, he began his account from the conception or incarnation, usually called the Annunciation, or Lady-day which method obtained in the dominions of Great Britain till 1752, before which time the Dionysian was the same as the English epoch but in that year the Gregorian calendar having been admitted by act of parliament, they now reckon from the first of January, as in the other parts of Europe, except in the court of Rome, where the epoch of the Incarnation still obtains for the date of their bulls.

, a Florentine, first a monk and then a secular priest, died in 1574, at the age of sixtyone. He was member of the academy of the Peregrini, in which he took the academical name of Bizzaro, perfectly suitable to his satirical and humourous character. Some of his works are, 1. “Letters,” in Italian, 8vo. 2. “La Libraria,” 1557, 8vo. 3. “La Zucca,” 1565, 4 parts, 8vo, with plates. 4. “I mondi celesti, terestri ed infernali,” 4to: there is an old French translation of it. 5. “I martiii, cive Raggionamenti fatti a i marmi di Fiorenza,” Venice, 1552, 4to. In all his writings, of which there is a list of more than twenty in Niceron, he aspires at singularity, and the reputation of a comical fellow; in the first he generally succeeds, and if he fail in the second, it is not for want of great and constant efforts to become so. Dr. Burney gives an account of a very rare book of his, entitled “Dialoghi della Musica,” which was published at Venice, 1544, which the doctor never saw, except in the library of Padre Martini. The author was not only a practical musician and composer by profession, but connected, and in correspondence with the principal writers and artists of his time. Dr. Burney also remarks that his “Libraria” must have been an useful publication when it first appeared; as it not only contains a catalogue and character of all the Italian books then in print, but of all the Mss. that he had seen, with a list of the academies then subsisting, their institution, mottos, and employment; but what rendered this little work particularly useful to Dr. Burney in his inquiries after early musical publications, is the catalogue it contains of all the music which had been published at Venice since the invention of printing.

, a writer of the fifteenth century, was born at Kiritz, in the marche of Brandenburgh, and was very young when he became a monk of the order of St. Francis. After studying philosophy and theology with distinguished success, he became eminent not only as a preacher, but as a lecturer on the scriptures at Erfurt, and professor of theology at Magdeburgh. He was likewise made minister of his order in the province of Saxe, and held that office in 1431, at which time the Landgrave of Thuringia wrote several letters to him, instructing him to introduce some reform amono 1 the Franciscans of Eisenac. About the same time he was sent as one of the deputies to the council of Basil, by that party of his order who adhered to that council. It was either then, or as some think, ten years later, that he was raised to be general of his order. Whether he had been dismissed, or whether he resigned the office of minister of Saxe, he held it only six years, and went afterwards to pass the rest of his days in the monastery of Kiritz, where he devoted himself to meditation and study, and wrote the greater part of his works. The time of his death is a disputed point. Casimir Oudin gives 1494 as the date of that event, which Marchand, with some probability reduces to 1464.

, a celebrated monk in the abbey of Corby, in the ninth century, was born in Aquitaine, and afterwards taught in the monasteries of Stavelo and Malmedy, in the diocese of Leige. He was very learned for the age he lived in, and left a commentary on St. Matthew, Strasburg, 1514; or Haguenau, 1530, fol. and in the library of the fathers, which contained some opinions respecting transubstantiation that were favourable to the protestant faith. The second edition is scarce, but the first much more so. At the end of each is part of a Commentary on St. Luke and St. John, which he did not finish. The scarcity of his work may be accounted for from its being suppressed, in consequence of his opinions on transubstantiation. Dupin says that his commentaries are short, historical, easy, and without allegories or tropes; and adds, that Druthmar was called the Grammarian, on account of his skill in the languages, particularly Greek and Latin, which he always interpreted literally.

The doctor gave a ms abstract of the large history of the Benedictine abbey of Bee in Normandy, drawn up by Dom John Bourget (see Bourget), monk of that house, and F. A. S. of London, to Mr. Nichols, who printed it in 1771', 8vo, with an appendix of original deeds; and who likewise printed, in the same year, in two volumes, 8vo. “Some account of the Alien Priories, and of such lands as they are known to have possessed in England and Wales,” collected by John Warburton, esq. Somerset herald, and Dr. Ducarel (who did not, however, at the time, permit his name to be mentioned); and considerably augmented by Mr. Gough and some other learned friends of the publisher; to which was prefixed, a general description of the seven Norman cathedrals, with very neat prints of them, The very useful and excellent “Collection of Royal and Noble Wills,” from the conqueror to Henry VII. printed by Mr. Nichols in 1780, was given to the world in consequence of the suggestions of Dr. Ducarel; from whose stores the far greater part of the materials was purchased by the printer at a very considerable price.

For many years it was his custom to travel incognito in August, with his friend Samuel Gale, esq. attended only by his own coachman and Mr. Gale’s footman, George Monk. Twenty miles was their usual stage on the first day, and every other day about fifteen. It was a rule not to go out of their road to see any of their acquaintance. The coachman was directed to say, “it was a job; and that he did not know their names, but that they were civil gentlemen;” and the footman, “that he was a friend of the coachman’s, who gave him a cast.” They usually took up their quarters at an inn, and penetrated into the country for three or four miles round. After dinner, Mr. Gale smoked his pipe, whilst Dr. Ducarel took notes, which he regularly transcribed, and which after his death were purchased by Mr. Gough. They constantly took with them Camden’s Britannia, and a set of maps. In Vertue’s plate of London-bridge chapel, the figure measuring is Dr. Ducarel; that standing is Mr. Samuel Gale.

, a writer of the ninth century, better known by his works than his personal history, is supposed to have been a native of Ireland, who emigrated to France, and there probably died. Cave and Dupin call him deacon, but Dungal himself assumes no other title than that of subject to the French kings, and their orator. In his youth he studied sacred and profane literature with success, and taught the former, and had many scholars, but at last determined to retire from the world. The influence which Valclon or Valton, the abbot of St. Denis near Paris, had over him, with some other circumstances, afford reason to think that if he was not a monk of that abbey, he had retired somewhere in its neighbourhood, or perhaps resided in the house itself. During this seclusion he did not forsake his studies, but cultivated the knowledge of philosophy, and particularly of astronomy, which was much the taste of that age. The fame he acquired as an astronomer induced Charlemagne to consult him in the year 811, on the subject of two eclipses of the sun, which took place the year before, and Dungal answered his queries in a long letter which is printed in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium, vol. III. of the folio, and vol. X. of the 4to edition, with the opinion of Ismael Bouillaud upon it. Sixteen years after, in the year 827, Dungal took up his pen in defence of images against Claude, bishop of Turin, and composed a treatise which had merit enough to be printed, first separately, in 1608, 8vo, and was afterwards inserted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” It would appear also that he wrote some poetical pieces, one of which is in a collection published in 1729 by Martene and Durand. The time of his death is unknown, but it is supposed he was living in the year 834.

, or Edmer, the faithful friend and historian of archbishop Anselm, was an Englishman, who flourished in the twelfth century, but we have no information respecting his parents, or the particular time and place of his nativity. He received a learned education, and very early discovered a taste for history, by recording every remarkable event that came to his knowledge. Being a monk in the cathedral of Canterbury, he had the happiness to become the bosom friend and inseparable companion of the two archbishops of that see, St. Anselm, and his successor Ralph. To the former of these he was appointed spiritual director by the pope; and that prelate would do nothing without his permission. In 1120 he was elected bishop of St. Andrew’s, by the particular desire of Alexander I. king of Scotland; but on the very day after his election, an unhappy dispute arose between the king and him respecting his consecration. Eadmer would be consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he regarded as primate of all Britain, while Alexander contended that the see of Canterbury had no pre-eminence over that of St. Andrew’s. After many conferences, their dispute becoming more warm, Eadmer abandoned his bishopric, and returned to England, where he was kindly received by the archbishop and clergy of Canterbury, who yet thought him too precipitate in leaving his bishopric. Eadmer at last appears to have been of the same opinion, and wrote a long and submissive letter to the king of Scotland, but without producing the desired effect. Whartort fixes his death in 1124, which was not long after this affair, and the very year in which the bishopric of St. Andrew’s was tilled up. Eadmer is now best known for his history of the affairs of England in his own time, from 1066 to 1122, in which he has inserted many original papers, and preserved many important facts that are nowhere else to be found. This work has been highly commended, both by ancient and modern writers, for its authenticity, as well as for regularity of composition and purity of style. It is indeed more free from legendary tales than any other work of this period, and affords many proofs of the learning, good sense, sincerity and candour of its author. The best edition is that by Selden, under the title of “Eadmeri monachi Cantuarensis Historiac Novorum, give sui Saeculi, Libri Sex,” Lond. 1623, fol. His other works are, 1. A Life of St. Auselm, from 1093 to 1109, often printed with the works of that archbishop, and by Wharton in the “Anglia Sacra.” 2. The Lives of St. Wilfrid, St. Oswald, St. Dunstan, &c. &c. and others inserted in the “Anglia Sacra,” or enumerated by his biographers, as in print or manuscript.

Erasmus’s enemies, and among the rest Julius Scaliger, have pretended that he led a very loose life during his stay in this convent, a charge which his friends have endeavoured to repell by going into the other extreme, and attributing to him a more virtuous course than he pursued, since it is evident from several acknowledgments of his own, that he did not spend his younger days with the utmost regularity. In a letter to father Servatius, he owns that “in his youth he had a propensity to very great vices; that, however, the love of money, or even of fame, had never possessed him; that, if he had not kept himself unspotted from sensual pleasures, he had not been a slave to them; and that, as for gluttony and drunkenness, he had always held them in abhorrence.” He also appears to have been of a playful turn, of which Le Clerc gives an instance, although without producing his authority. There was, it seems, a pear-tree in the garden of the convent at Stein, of whose fruit the superior was extremely fond, and reserved entirely to himself. Erasmus had tasted these pears, and liked them so well as to be tempted to steal them, which he used to do early in the morning. The superior, missing his pears, resolved to watch the tree, and at last saw a monk climbing up into it; but, as it was yet hardly light, waited a little till he could; discern him more clearly. Meanwhile Erasmus had perceived that he was seen; and was musing with himself how he should get off undiscovered. At length he bethought himself, that they had a monk in the convent who was lame, and therefore, sliding gently down, imitated as he went the limp of this unhappy monk. The superior, now sure of the thief, as having discovered him by signs not equivocal, took an opportunity at the next meeting of saying abundance of good things upon the subject of obedience; after which, turning to the supposed delinquent, he charged him with a most flagrant breach of it, in stealing his pears. The poor monk protested his innocence, but in vain. All he could say, only inflamed his superior the more; who, in spite of his protestations, inflicted upon him a very severe penance.

About 1520, a clamour was raised against Erasmus in England, although he had many friends there; and, among them, even persons of the first quality, and the king himself. He gives a remarkable instance of this in the behaviour of one Standish, who had been a monk, and was bishop of St. Asaph; and whom Erasmus sometimes calls, by way of derision, “Episcopum a sancto asino.” Standish had censured Erasmus, in a sermon preached at St. Paul’s, for translating the beginning of St. John’s gospel, “In principle erat sermo,” and not “verbum.” He also accused Erasmus of heresy before the king and queen but this charge was repelled by two learned friends, who are supposed to have been Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, and sir Thomas More. This year, Jerome Aleander, the pope’s nuncio, solicited the emperor, and Frederic elector of Saxony, to punish Luther. Frederic was then at Cologn, and Erasmus came there, and was consulted by him upon this occasion. Erasmus replied, ludicrously at first, saying, “Luther has committed two unpardonable crimes: he touched the pope upon the crown, and the monks upon the belly.” He then told the elector seriously, that “Luther had justly censured many abuses and errors, and that the welfare of the church required a reformation of them; that Luther’s doctrine was right in the main, but that it had not been delivered by him with a proper temper, and with due moderation.” The pope’s agents, finding Erasmus thus obstinately bent to favour, at least not to condemn and write against Luther, as they often solicited him to do, endeavoured to win him over by the offer of bishoprics or abbeys. “I know,” says he, “that a bishopric is at my service, if I would but write against Luther: but Luther is a man of too great abilities for me to encounter; and, to say the truth, I learn more from one page of his, than from all the volumes of Thomas Aquinas.”

, a native of Antwerp, and secretary to the duke of Florence, was born at Antwerp in 1584, of protestant parents, said to be of the same family with Peter the Hermit, so celebrated in the history of the crusades. In his youth Scaliger had a great esteem for him, and recommended him in the strongest terms to Casaubon; who procured him employment, and endeavoured to get him into Mr. de Montaterre’s family, in quality of preceptor, and was likely to have succeeded, when Eremita found means to ingratiate himself with Mr. de Vic, who was going ambassador into Switzerland. In the course of their intimacy De Vic, a man of great bigotry, and fired with a zeal for making converts, soon won over Eremita, by means of a conference with a Portuguese monk; and fre became a Roman catholic, which gave Casaubon great uneasiness. Eremita, however, still retained a veneration for Scaliger, and, after his death, defended him against Scioppius, who in his answer, speaks with very little respect of Eremita, and informs us that after being at Rome in 1606, he disappeared for some time after, as it was supposed at first from poverty, but it afterwards was discovered that he had retired to Sienna, where he made his court to archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini, who recommended him to Silvio Piccolomini, great chamberlain to the great duke of Florence. By this means he obtained a pension from that prince, as a reward for a panegyric written on the nuptials of the great duke with Magdalen of Austria, and published in 1608, and at his earnest request he was sent into Germany with the deputy, to acquaint the several princes of the empire with the death of the great duke’s father. At his return to Florence, he affected to be profoundly skilled in allairs of government; and promised a commentary which should exceed whatever had been written upon Tacitus. As he looked upon the history of our Saviour as fabulous, so he took a delight in exclaiming against the inquisitors and the clergy; and had many tales ready upon these occasions, all which he could set off to advantage.

, a pious and learned Jesuit, born at Seville in 15.58, of a noble and ancient family, possessed a large estate, which he employed in works of charity: His zeal led him to the Indies, where he took the habit of a monk, and died at Lima in 1624, at the age of sixty-six. He published, 1. “Condones quadragesimales et de adventu,” fol. 2. “De festis Domini.” 3. “Sermones de historiis Sacrse Scriptune;” but these works are scarcely known out of Spain.

a Greek monk of Constantinople, was in favour with the emperor Alexis Comnenus, whom he survived, the emperor dying in 1118. At the command of Alexis, he composed his great work, entitled “Panoplia dogmatica Orthodoxos fidei,” or, the whole armour of the doctrine of the orthodox faith, against heretics of all kinds; which has lately been rendered famous by being cited in the dispute concerning 1 John v. 7. It was printed at Leyden, 1556, 8vo, and reprinted at Tergovist in Wallnchia, 1710. He wrote besides nine other works on various theological subjects, which are enumerated by Fabricius, in his Biblioth. Graec. \. v. c. 11 the principal are a commentary on the four Gospels and the Psalms, and on Solomon’s Song these commentaries are literal, moral, and allegorical but in the use of allegory, he is more rational than most of the authors of the thirteenth century. In some of his works he very highly praises Alexis for his theological knowledge and excellence in disputation It is not known at what time he died. We have mentioned him above as the supposed author of a funeral oration on the Greek commentator Eustathius. There is also a Georgius Zigabenus mentioned by Fabricius.

, originally a monk of the fifth century, and for his piety elected abbot of the convent near Constantinople to which he belonged, is said to have lived to an advanced age before he distinguished himself by any peculiar opinions. Then, through a violent desire to oppose the Nestorian heresy, which was supposed to divide the nature of Christ into two distinct persons, he became the leader of a new heresy, by absorbing the human nature of Christ entirely in the divine, and maintaining that the human body of Christ was only apparent. His doctrines were first noticed in a council assembled at Constantinople by Fluvianus, in the year 448, where they were condemned, and himself deposed from his dignity of abbot. Eutyches, however, had interest enough with the emperor Theodosius to procure another council at Ephesus, in the year 449, in which the former acts were reversed, Flavian and other bishops who had opposed Eutyches deposed, and every thing carried with such violence, that this council is generally named woJoj xwrrpun), the convention of robbers. A third council was necessary to settle these differences; and pope Leo the First, (called St. Leo, or Leo the Great) prevailed on Marcian, the successor of Theodosius, to cull one at Chalcedon, which met in the year 451, and was reckoned the fourth recumenical or general council. Six hundred and thirty bishops were present. Here Kutyches was condemned, though absent, and the following doctrine laid down in opposition to his heresy: “That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, without any change, mixture, or confusion.” Yet even after this decision, violent disputes and divisions subsisted for a considerable time. It is uncertain what became of Eutyches after the council of Ephesus; Leo certainly applied ta Marcian and to Pulcheria to have him deposed; but whether he succeeded or not, is unknown. Two supplications to Theodosius, one confession, and a fragment of another by Eutyches, are still extant.

, a monk at the latter end of the fourth century, surnamed Ponticus from the place of his nativity, not far from the Pontus Euxinus, was at first lecturer of the congregation at Caesarea, afterwards deacon, and lastly made archdeacon of Constantinople, by Gregory Nazianzen, by whom he had been instructed in the Scriptures; but was obliged to fly that country in the year 385, on account of some suspicions thrown out against him by a person of consequence concerning his wife; upon this, he devoted himself to the monastic life at Jerusalem, and afterwards in Syria, where be espoused the tenets of Origen, and propagated others which afterwards led to the Pelagian heresy. He wrote, 1. “Orationes, sive preces centum.” 2. “Gnosticus, sive de iis, qui cognitionis munere donati sunt, in anachoretarum usnm, sive elementarium, lib. ii.” 3. “Περὶ διαφόρον λογισμῶν,” which tractate is usually ascribed to Evagrius Scholasticus, but without foundation. 4. “Monachus, sive de vita activa.” 5. “Anthirrticus adversus tentantes daeniones,” &c. All these are found in the “Bibl. Patrum,” and in Cotelerius’s “Monum. Eccl. Gnjec.” He died A.D. 399.

This scheme, which is characteristic of the state of Mr. Evelyn’s mind, at a time when good men sickened at the contemplation of successful rebellion, would, in all likelihood, have gradually departed from its principles, and is perhaps too romantic to have stood the collision of human passions and human events. But, when a prospect appeared of better times, it occasioned some change in his sentiments; and, upon an attempt being made to damp the desires of the people for the king’s return, he drew his pen in that critical season in defence of his majesty’s character, which, at such a juncture, was both an acceptable and a very important service. The conduct of Mr. Evelyn in this critical year, 1659, which was in truth the most active in his whole life, is hardly taken notice of by any of those who have undertaken to preserve his memoirs. After the death of Oliver and the deposition of Richard Cromwell, there were many of the commanders in the army that shewed an inclination to reconcile themselves to the king; which disposition of theirs was very much encouraged by such as had his majesty’s interest truly at heart. Amongst these, Mr. Evelyn had a particular eye upon colonel Herbert Morley, an old experienced officer in the parliament army, who had two stout regiments entirely at his devotion, was very much esteemed by his party, and had the general reputation of being a person of probity and honour. It was a very dangerous step, as things then stood, to make any advances to one in his situation; yet Mr. Evelyn, considering how much it might be in that gentleman’s power to facilitate the king’s return, fairly ventured his life, by advising the colonel freely to make his peace with, and enter into the service of, the king. The colonel, as might well be expected, acted coldly and cautiously at first, but at last accepted Mr. Evelyn’s offer, and desired him to make use of his interest to procure a pardon for himself, and some of his relations and friends whom he named, promising in return to give all the assistance in his power to the royal cause. At the same time that Mr. Evelyn carried on this dangerous intercourse with colonel Morley, he formed a resolution of publishing something that might take off the edge of that inveteracy, expressed by those who had been deepest in the parliament’s interest, against such as had always adhered to the king and with this view he wrote a small treatise, which had the desired effect, and was so generally well received, that it ran through three impressions that year. The title of this piece was, “An Apology for the Royal Party, written in a letter to a person of the late council of state; with a touch at the pretended plea of the army,” Lond. 1659, in two sheets in 4to. But while Mr. Evelyn and other gentlemen of his sentiments were thus employed, those of the contrary party were not idle; and, amongst these, Marchamont Needham, who first wrote with great bitterness for the king against the parliament, and afterwards with equal acrimony for the parliament against the king, was induced to write a pamphlet, which was deservedly reckoned one of the most artful and dangerous contrivances for impeding that healing spirit that began now to spread itself through the nation, and with that view was handed to the press by Praisegod Barebones, one of the fiercest zealots in those times, the title of which, at large, runs thus: “News from Brussels, in a letter from a near attendant on his majesty’s person, to a person of honour here, dated March 10th, 1659.” The design of this pretended letter was to represent the character of king Charles II. in as bad a light as possible, in order to destroy the favourable impressions that many had received of his natural inclination to mildness and clemency. All the king’s friends were extremely alarmed at this attempt, and saw plainly that it would be attended with most pernicious consequences; but Mr. Evelyn, who had as quick a foresight as any of them, resolved to lose no time in furnishing an antidote against this poison, and with great diligence and dexterity sent abroad in a week’s time a complete answer, which bore the following title: “The late news or message from Brussels unmasked,” London, I 659, 4to. This very seasonable and very important service, for his own safety, our author managed with such secrecy, that hardly any body knew from whom this pamphlet came. But how much soever he had reason to be pleased with the success of his pen upon this occasion, he could not help being extremely mortified at the change he perceived in his friend colonel Morley’s behaviour, who on a sudden grew very silent and reserved, and at length plainly avoided any private conversation with Mr. Evelyn. In this situation our author had the courage to write him an expostulatory letter, which was in effect putting his life into his hands, and yet even this failed of procuring him the satisfaction he expected. However, he felt no inconvenience from it; for this alteration in colonel Motley’s countenance towards him was not the effect of any change in his disposition, but arose from his having entered into new engagements for the king’s service with sir Anthony Ashley Cooper and general Monk, who had tied him down to such absolute secrecy that he was not able at that juncture to give Mr. Evelyn any hint that might make him easy; but the latter soon saw plainly enough, from the colonel’s public behaviour, that he had no reason to apprehend any mischief from the confidence he had reposed in him.

Hitherto, the crafty and ambitious Cromwell had permitted him to enjoy in all respects the supreme command, at least to outward appearance. And, under his conduct, the army’s rapid success, after their new model, had much surpassed the expectation of the most sanguine of their masters, the parliament* The question now was, to disband the majority of them after their work was done, and to employ a part of the rest in the reduction of Ireland. But either of the two appeared to all of them intolerable. For, many having, from the dregs of the people, risen to the highest commands, and by plunderings and violence amassing daily great treasures, they could not bear the thoughts of losing such great advantages. To maintain themselves therefore in the possession of them, Cromwell, and his son-in-law Ireton, as good a contriver as himself, but a much better writer and speaker, devised how to raise a mutiny in the army against the parliament. To this end they spread a whisper among the soldiery, “that the parliament, now they had the king, intended to disband them; to cheat them of their arrears; and to send them, into Ireland, to be destroyed by the Irish.” The army, enraged at this, were taught by Ireton to erect a council among themselves, of two soldiers out of every troop and every company, to consult for the good of the army, and to assist at the council of war, and advise for the peace and safety of the kingdom. These, who were called adjutators, or agitators, were wholly under Cromwell’s influence and direction, the most active of them being his avowed creatures. Sir Thomas saw with uneasiness his power on the army usurped by these agitators, the forerunners of confusion and anarchy, whose design (as he observes) was to raise their own fortunes upon the public ruin; and that made him resolve to lay down his commission. But he was over-persuaded by the heads of the Independent faction to hold it till he had accomplished their desperate projects, of rendering themselves masters not only of the parliament, but of the whole kingdom; for, he joined in the several petitions and proceedings of the army that tended to destroy the parliament’s power. About the beginning of June, he advanced towards London, to awe the parliament, though both houses desired his army might not come within fifteen miles of the same; June 15, he was a party in the charge against eleven of the members of the house of commons; in August, he espoused the speakers of both houses, and the sixty -six members that had fled to the army, and betrayed the privileges of parliament: and, entering London, August 6, restored them in a kind of triumph; for which he received the thanks of both houses, and was appointed constable of the Tower. On the other hand it is said that he was no way concerned in, the violent removal of the king from Holmby, by cornet Joyce, on the 3d of June; and waited with great respect upon his majesty at sir John Cutts’s house near Cambridge. Being ordered, on the 15th of the same month, by the parliament, to deliver the person of the king to such persons as both houses should appoint; that he might be brought to Richmond, where propositions were to be presented to him for a safe and well-grounded peace; instead of complying (though he seemed to do so) he carried his majesty from place to place, according to the several motions of the army, outwardly expressing, upon most occasions, a due respect for him, but, not having the will or resolution to oppose what he had not power enough to prevent, he resigned himself entirely to Cromwell. It was this undoubtedly that made him concur, Jan. 9, 1647-8, in that infamous declaration of the army, of “No further addresses or application to the king; and resolved to stand by the parliament, in what should be further necessary for settling and securing the parliament and kingdom, without the king and against him.” His father dying at York, March 13, he became possessed of his title and estate and was appointed keeper of Pontefract-castle, custos rotulorum of Yorkshire, &c. in his room. But his father’s death made no alteration in his conduct, he remaining the same servile or deluded tool to Cromwell’s ambition. He not only sent extraordinary supplies, and took all pains imaginable for reducing colonel Poyer in Wales, but also quelled, with the utmost zeal and industry, an insurrection of apprentices and others in London, April 9, who had declared for God and king Charles. The 1st of the same month he removed his head-quarters to St. EdmundV bury; and, upon the royalists seizing Berwick and Carlisle, and the apprehension of the Scots entering England, he was desired, May 9, by the parliament, to advance in person into the North, to reduce those places, and to prevent any danger from the threatened invasion. Accordingly he began to march that way the 20th. But he was soon recalled to quell an insurrection in Kent, headed by George Goring, earl of Norwich, and sir William Waller. Advancing therefore against them from London in the latter end of May, he defeated a considerable party of them at Maidstone, June 2, with his usual valour. But the earl and about 500 of the royalists, getting over the Thames at Greenwich into Essex, June 3, they were joined by several parties brought by sir Charles Lucas, and Arthur lord Capel, which made up their numbers about 400; and went and shut themselves up in Colchester on the 12th of June. Lord Fairfax, informed of their motions, passed over with his forces at Gravesend with so much expedition, that he arrived before Colchester June 13. Immediately he summons the royalists to surrender; which they refusing, he attacks them the same afternoon with the utmost fury, but, being repulsed, he resolved, June 14, to block up the place in order to starve the royalists into a compliance. These endured a severe and tedious siege of eleven weeks, not surrendering till August 28, and feeding for about five weeks chiefly on horse-flesh; all their endeavours for obtaining peace on honourable terms being ineffectual. This affair is the most exceptionable part in lord Fairfax’s conduct, if it admits of degrees, for he granted worse terms to that poor town than to any other in the whole course of the war he endeavoured to destroy it as much as possible he laid an exorbitant fine, or ransom, of J2,000l. upon the inhabitants, to excuse them from being plundered; and he vented his revenge and fury upon sir Charles Lucas and sir George Lisle, who had behaved in the most inoffensive manner during the siege, sparing that buffoon the earl of Norwich, whose behaviour had been quite different: so that his name and memory there ought to be for ever detestable. After these mighty exploits against a poor and unfortified town, he made a kind of triumphant progress to Ipswich, Yarmouth, Norwich, St. Edmund’s-bui y, Harwich, Mersey, and Maldon. About the beginning of December he came to London, to awe thatcity and the parliament, and to forward the proceedings against the king quartering himself in the royal palace of Whitehall: and it was by especial order from him and the council of the army, that several members of the house of commons were secluded and imprisoned, the 6th and 7th of that month; he being, as Wood expresses it, lulled in a kind of stupidity. Yet, although his name stood foremost in the list of the king’s judges, he refused to act, probably by his lady’s persuasion. Feb. 14, 1648-9, he was voted to be one of the new council of state, but on the 19th he refused to subscribe the test, appointed by parliament, for approving all that was done concerning the king and kingship. March 31 he was voted general of all the forces in England and Ireland; and in May he inarched against the levellers, who were grown very numerous, and began to be troublesome and formidable in Oxfordshire, and utterly routed them atBurford. Thence, on the 22d of the same month, he repaired to Oxford with Oliver Cromwell, and other officers, where he was highly feasted, and created LL.D. Next, upon apprehension of the like risings in other places, he went and viewed the castles and fortifications in the Isle of Wight, and at Southampton, and Portsmouth; and near Guildford had a rendezvous of the army, which he exhorted to obedience. June 4, he was entertained, with other officers, &c. by the city of London, and presented with a large and weighty bason and ewer of beaten gold. In June 1650, upon the Scots declaring for king Charles II. the juncto of the council of state having taken a resolution to be beforehand, and not to stay to be invaded from Scotland, but to carry first the war into that kingdom; general Fairfax, being consulted, seemed to approve of the design: but afterwards, by the persuasions of his lady, and of the presbyterian ministers, he declared himself unsatisfied that there was a just ground for the parliament of England to send their army to invade Scotland and resolved to lay down his commission rather than engage in that affair and on the 26th that high trust was immediately committed to Oliver Cromwell, who was glad to see him removed, as being no longer necessary, but rather an obstacle to his farther ambitious designs. Being thus released from all public employment, he went and lived quietly at his own house in Nun-Appleton in Yorkshire; always earnestly wishing and praying (as we are assured) for the restitution of the royal family, and fully resolved to lay hold on the first opportunity to contribute his part towards it, which made him always looked upon with a jealous eye by the usurpers of that time. As soon as he was invited by general Monk to assist him against Lambert’s army, he cheerfully embraced the occasion, and appeared, on the 3d of December 1659, at the head of a body of gentlemen of Yorkshire and, upon the reputation and authority of his name, the Irish brigade of 1200 horse forsook Lambert’s army, and joined him. The consequence was, the immediate breaking of all Lambert’s forces, which gave general Monk an easy inarch into England. The 1st of January 1659-60, his lordship made himself master of York; and, on the 2d of the same month, was chosen by the rump parliament one of the council of state, as he was again on the 23d of February ensuing. March '29 he was elected one of the knights for the county of York, in the healing parliament; and was at the head of the committee appointed May 3, by the house of commons, to go and attend king Charles II. at the Hague, to desire him to make a speedy return to his parliament, and to the exercise of his kingly office. May 16 he waited upon his majesty with the rest, and endeavoured to atone in some measure for all past offences, by readily concurring and assisting in his restoration. After the dissolution of the short healing parliament, he retired again to his seat in the country, where he lived in a private manner till his death, which happened November 12, 1671, in the sixtieth year of his age. Several letters, remonstrances, and other papers, subscribed with his name, are preserved in Rushworth and other collections, being published during the time he was general; but he disowned most of them. After his decease, some “short memorials, written by himself,” were published in 1699, 8vo, by Brian Fairfax, esq. but do his lordship no great honour, either as to principle, style, or accuracy. Lord Fairfax, as to his person, was tall, but not above the just proportion, and of a gloomy and melancholy disposition. He stammered a little, and was a bad orator ou the most plausible occasions. As to the qualities of his mind, he was of a good natural disposition; a great lover of learning, having contributed to the edition of the Polygiott, and other large works; and a particular admirer of the History and Antiquities of Great Britain, as appears by the encouragement he gave to Mr. Dodsvrorth. In religion he professed Presbyterianismn, but where he first learned that, unless ia the army, does not appear. He was of a meek and humble carriage, and but of few words in discourse and council; yet, when his judgment and reason were satisfied, he was unalterable; and often ordered things expressly contrary to the judgment of all his council. His valour was unquestionable. He was daring, and regardless of self-interest, and, we are told, in the field he appeared so highly transported, that scarcely any durst speak a word to him, and he would seem like a man distracted and furious. Had not the more successful ambition and progress of Cromwell eclipsed lord Fairfax’s exploits, he would have been considered as the greatest of the parliamentary commanders; and one of the greatest heroes of the rebellion, had not the extreme narrowness of his genius, in every thing but war, obstructed his shining as a statesman. We have already noticed that he had some taste for literature, and that both at York and at Oxford he endeavoured to preserve the libraries from being pillaged. He also presented twenty-nine ancient Mss. to the Bodleian library, one of which is a beautiful ms. of -Cower' s “Confessio Amantis.” When at Oxford we do not find that he countenanced any of the outrages committed there, but on the contrary, exerted his utmost diligence in preserving the Bodleian from pillage; and, in fact, as Mr. Warton observes, that valuable repository suffered less than when the city was in' the possession of the royalists. Lord Orford has introduced lord Fairfax among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” “not only as an historian, but a poet. In Mr. Thoresby’s museum were preserved in manuscript the following pieces:” The Psalms of David;“”The Song of Solomon“” The Canticles;“and” Songs of Moses, Exod. 15. and Deut. 32.“and other parts of scripture versified.” Poem on Solitude.“Besides which, in the same collection were preserved” Notes of Sermons by his lordship, by his lady, and by their daughter Mary,“the wife of the second duke of Buckingham; and” A Treatise on the Shortness of Life.“But, of all lord Fairfax’s works, by far the most remarkable were some verses which he wrote on the horse on which Charles the Second rode to liis coronation, and which had been bred and presented to the king by his lordship. How must that merry monarch, not apt to keep his countenance on more serious occasions, have smiled at this awkward homage from the old victorious hero of republicanism and the covenant” Besides these, several of his Mss. are preserved in the library at Denton, of which Mr. Park has given a list in his new edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors.”

, an English monk of the fifth century, was created abbot of a monastery in the Lerin islands about the year 433, and afterwards bishop of Riez in Provence, about the year 466. The time of his death is uncertain. He wrote a homily on the life of his predecessor in the see, Maximus; which is extant among those attributed to Eusebius Emisenus. He governed his diocese unblamcably, led a holy life, and died regretted and esteemed by the church. In the grand controversy of the fifth century, he rather favoured the Semi-Pelagians, which a recent historian attributes to his fear of the abuses of predestination, and a misunderstanding of the consequences of Augustine’s doctrine. It is certain that in a treatise which he wrote on saving grace, he shewed that grace always allures, precedes, and resists the human will, and that all the reward of our lahour is the gift of God. In a disputation, likewise, with Lucidus, a priest, who was very tenacious of the sentiments of Augustine, Faustus endeavoured to correct his ideas by suggesting, that we must not separate grace and human industry; that we must abhor Pelagius, and yet detest those who believe, that a man may be of the number of the elect, without labouring for salvation.

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

But although he made so great a figure in the diversions of a court, he preserved at the same time his credit with all the learned world, and was no idle spectator of political affairs. This appears from the history of the reign of Mary, which though inserted in the chronicle, and published under the name of Richard Grafton, was actually written by Ferrars as Stow expressly tells us. Our author was an historian, a lawyer, and a politician, even in his poetry as appears from pieces of his, inserted in the celebrated work entitled * The Mirror for Magistrates,“&c. The first edition of this work was published in 1559, by William Baldwin, who prefixed an epistle before the second part of it, wherein he signifies, that it had been intended to reprint” The Fall of Princes,“by Boccace, as translated into English by Lidgate the monk; but that, upon communicating his design to seven of his friends, all of them sons of the Muses, they dissuaded him from that, and proposed to look over the English Chronicles, and to pick out and dress up in a poetic habit such stories as might tend to edification. To this collection Ferrars contributed the following pieces: 1.” The Fall of Robert Tresilian, Chief Justice of England, and other his fellows, for misconstruing the Laws, and expounding them to serve the Prince’s affections.' 7 2. “The Tragedy, or unlawful murder of Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester.' 13.” Tragedy of king Richard II.“4.” The Story of dame Eleanor Cobham, dutchess of Gloucester,“much altered and augmented in the second edition of 1587, in which are added, to the four already mentioned, 5.” The Story of Humphrey Plantagenet, duke of Gloucester, protector of England.“6.” The Tragedy of Edmund duke of Somerset." A farther account will be given of this work when we come to the article Sackville.

, of Vincenza, was a Benedictine monk, and eminent as an antiquary. In 1672 he published, at Verona, his “Musae Lapidariae,” in folio, which is a colledlion, though by no means complete or correct, of the verses found inscribed on ancient monuments. Burman the younger, in his preface to the “Anthologia Latino,” seems to confound this Ferreti with him who flourished in the fourteenth century, speaking of his history of his own times. The exact periods of this author’s birth and death are not known.

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

Upon his brother-in-law Richard Cromwell’s succeeding to the title of protector, he signed the order for his proclamation; but soon discovered his enmity to that succession, being disappointed of the protectorship, which he had expected, and determined that no single person should be his superior. He joined therefore with the discontented officers of the army in deposing Richard, after he had persuaded him to dissolve his parliament; and invited the members of the long parliament, who had continued sitting till April 20, 1653, when they were dissolved by Oliver Cromwell, to return to the exercise of their trust. Upon their meeting in May 1659, he was chosen one of the council of state, and the next month made lieutenant general of the forces; which post he held till Oct. 12 following, when he was appointed one of the commissioners to govern all the forces; and on the 17th of that month was nominated by the general council of state, commander in chief of all the forces. But in December 1659, finding that his interest declined in the army, who were now zealous to have the parliament sit again in honour, freedom, and safety, and that this, concurring with the general temper of the nation, would evidently restore the king, he was advised by Whitelocke to send immediately some person of trust to his majesty at Breda, with offers of restoring him to his rights, and by that means anticipate Monk, who had undoubtedly the same design. Fleetwood in return asked Whiteiocke, whether he was willing to undertake that employment; who consenting, it was agreed that he should prepare himself for the journey that evening or the^ next morning, while the general and his friends should draw up instructions for him. But sir Henry Vane, general Disbrowe, and col. Berry, coming in at that critical moment, diverted Fleetwood from this resolution; who alledged, that those gentlemen had reminded him of his promise, not to attempt any such affair without general Lambert’s consent; while Whitelocke, on the other hand, represented to him that Lambert was at too great a distance to give his assent to a business which must be immediately acted, and was of the utmost importance to himself and his friends. He appears, indeed, before that time, to have entertained some design of espousing the king’s interests, if he had had resolution to execute it; for lord Mordaunt, in a letter to the king, dated from Calais, October 11, 1659, asserts, that Fleetwood then 1 looked upon his majesty’s restoration as so clearly his interest as well as his duty, that he would have declared himself publicly, if the king or the duke of York had landed; and that although that engagement failed, he was still ready to come in to his majesty, whensoever he should attempt in person. Sir Edward Hyde likewise, in a letter to the marquis of Ormonde from Brussels of the same date, rves, that the general made then great professions of being converted, and of his resolution to serve the king upon the first opportunity. But the same noble writer, in his “History of the Rebellion,” represents Fleetwood as “a weak man, though very popular with all the praying part of the army, whom Lambert knew well how to govern, as Cromwell had done Fairfax, and then in like manner to lay him aside;” and that amidst tbo several desertions of the soldiers from the interests of their officers to the parliament in December 1659, he remained still in consultation with the “committee of safety;” and when intelligence was brought of any murmur among the soldiers, by which a revolt might ensue, and he was desired to go among them to confirm them, he would fall upon his knees to his prayers, and could hardly be prevailed with to go to them. Besides, when he was among them, ancj in the middle of any discourse, he would invite them all to prayers, and put himself upon his Icnees before them. And when some of his friends importuned him to appear more vigorous in the charge he possessed, without which they must be all destroyed, they could get no other answer from him than that “God had spit in his face, and would not hear him.” So that it became no great wonder why Lambert had preferred him to the office of general, and been content with the second command for himself.

, a learned Portuguese ecclesiastic, was born at Lisbon in 1523, and entered among the Dominicans in February 1539. Having acquired a critical knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, king John III. sent him to study theology in the university of Paris, where he became distinguished for his proficiency. On his return to Lisbon the king appointed him his preacher, and prince Louis at the same time entrusted to him the education of his son. Of all the divines sent by king Sebastian to the council of Trent in 1561, he held the first place in respect of talents. It is said that one day when he was about to ascend the pulpit, he asked the fathers of the council, who were his auditors, in what language they would wish to hear him preach, such facility he had in all the modern languages. In consideration of his uncommon merit these fathers appointed him a member of that celebrated council of Feb. 26, 1562. He was also appointed secretary to the committee for examining and condemning such publications as they thought unfit to be disseminated, and this office was ever after given to a monk of his order. The fathers of the council afterwards sent him on an important mission to pope Pius IV. who discovering his talents, and knowing his integrity, conferred upon him the place of confessor to his nephew, the cardinal St. Charles Borromeo. At Rome he was also employed to reform the Breviary and the Roman Missal, and to compose the Roman catechism. This detained him at Rome for some time; but having at length returned to Portugal, he was chosen prior of the Dominican convent at Lisbon in 1568. His other offices were those of confessor to king John III. and the princess Mary, daughter of king Emanuel, qualificator of the inquisition, and deputy of the tribunal of conscience, and of the military orders. From the profits of these places he built the convent of St. Paul in the village of Almada, opposite Lisbon, and there he died, Feb. 10, 1581. He published an oration at the council of Trent, and the catechism and breviary mentioned above; but his principal work was a commentary of Isaiah, “Isaiae prophetae vetus et nova ex Hebraico versio, cum commentario, &c.” Venice, 163, fol. This is a very rare edition; but the work was afterwards added to the London edition of the “Critici Sacri,”

, an English clergyman and traveller, was descended from Robert Gage of Haling, in Surrey, third son of sir John Gage, of Firle, in Sussex, who died in 1557. He was the son of John Gage, of Haling, and his brother was sir Henry Gage, governor of Oxford, who was killed in battle at Culham-bridge,' Jan. 11, 1644. Of his early history we are only told that he studied in Spain, and became a Dominican monk. From thence he departed with a design to go to the Philippine islands, as a missionary, in 1625; but on his arrival at Mexico, he heard so bad an account of those islands, and became so delighted with New Spain, that he abandoned his original design, and contented him with a less dangerous mission. At length, being tired of this mode of life, and his request to return to England and preach the gospel among his countrymen being refused, he effected his escape, and arrived in London in 1637, after an absence of twentyfour years, in which he had quite lost the use of his native language. On examining into his domestic affairs, he found himself unnoticed in his father’s will, forgotten by some of his relations, and with difficulty acknowledged by others. After a little time, not being satisfied with respect to some religious doubts which had entered his mind while abroad, and disgusted with the great power of the papists, he resolved to take another journey to Italy, to “try what better satisfaction he could find for his conscience at Rome in that religion.” At Loretto his conversion from popery was fixed by proving the fallacy of the miracles attributed to the picture of our Lady there; on which he immediately returned home once more, and preached his recantation sermon at St. Paul’s, by order of the bishop of London. He continued above a year in. London, and when he saw that papists were entertained at Oxford and other parts of the kingdom attached to the royal cause, he adopted that of the parliament, and received a living from them, probably that of Deal, in Kent, in the register of which church is an entry of the burials of Mary daughter, and Mary the wife of “Thomas Gage, parson of Deale, March 21, 1652;” and in the title of his work he is styled “Preacher of the word of God at Deal.” We have not been able to discover when he died. His work is entitled “A new Survey of the West-Indies; or the English American his Travail by sea and land, containing a journal of 3300 miles within the main land of America. Wherein is set forth his voyage from Spain to St. John de Ulhua; and from thence to Xalappa, to Flaxcalla, the city of Angels, and forward to Mexico, &c. &c. &c.” The second edition, Lond. 1655, thin folio, with maps. The first edition, which we have not seen, bears date 1648. Mr. Southey, who has quoted much from this work in the notes on his poem of “Madoc,” says that Gage’s account of Mexico is copied verbatim from Nicholas’s “Conqueast of West-India,” which itself is a translation from Gomara. There is an Amsterdam edition of Gage, 1695, 2 vols. 12mo, in French, made by command of the French minister Colbert, by mons. de Beaulieu Hues O'Neil, which, however, was first published in 1676, at Paris. There are some retrenchments in this edition. Gage appears to be a faithful and accurate relator, but often credulous and superstitious. His recantation sermon was published at London, 1642, 4to; and in 165L he published “A duel between a Jesuite and a Dominican, begun at Paris, fought at Madrid, and ended at London,” 4to.

, a native of Rome, where he died in 1605, excelled in theology, and was priest of the congregation of the oratory. His works were numerous, but he is chiefly known by his “Trattato de gli instrumenti di Martirio, &c.” “A Treatise on the different kinds of Cruelties inflicted by the pagans on the Martyrs of the primitive Church, illustrated with engravings of the instruments of torture made use of by them.” This work, first published in Italian in 1591, was compiled from unquestionable authorities. In 1594 the author translated it into Latin, and published it at Rome, under the title “De Sanctorum Martyrum Cruciatibus, &c.” illustrated with wood cuts. It has since gone through many editions on the continent. In 1591 he published his “History of the Virgins,” also in Italian “The Lives of certain Martyrs,” 1697, 4to “The Life of St. Philip Neri” and “De Monachatu Sancti Gregorii,” the account of St. Gregory when a monk, in 1604.

, another historian of the thirteenth century, was a monk of the monastery of Christ’s church in that city, and wrote a chronicle of the kings of England from the year 1122 to 1200, and a history of the archbishops of Canterbury from St. Augustine to archbishop Hubert, who died in 1205. These are his principal works, and are published in Twisden’s “Hist. Anglican. Script. X.” A strict attention to chronology in the disposition of his materials, is one of the chief excellencies of this historian. Nicolson seems to think that there was a more complete copy of his chronicle in Leland’s time, beginning with the coming in of the Trojans.

, the oldest British historian, surnamed The Wise, was, according to Leland, born in Wales, in the year 511, but according to others, in 493. Where he was educated is uncertain; but from his writings he appears to have been a monk. Some writers say that he went over to Ireland others, that he visited France and Italy; but they agree that after his return to England, he became a celebrated and assiduous preacher ofChristianity. Leland says that he retired to one of the small islands in the Bristol Channel called the Hulms; but that, being disturbed by pirates, he removed thence to the monastery of Glastonbury, where he died. But all this is supposed to belong to another of the name, called Gildas Albanius. Du Pin says he founded a monastery at Venetia in Britain. The place and time of his death are as uncertain as ther particulars of his history which may be found in our airthorities. He is the only British author of the sixth century whose works are printed; and they are therefore valuable on account of their antiquity, and as containing the only information of the times in which he wrote. The only book, however, attributed to him with certainty, i$ his “Epistola de excidio Britanniæ, et castigatio ordinis ecclesiastici,” Lond. 1525, 8vo, Basil, 1541, 8vo, Lond. 1567, 12mo, Paris, 1576, Basil, 1568, 12mo, and by Gale, in his “Rerum Anglic. Scriptores veteres,” fol. 1684—7. There is also an English translation, Lond. 1652, 12mo. In this he laments over the miseries and almost total ruia of his countrymen, and severely reproves th corruption and profligacy of the age. The first part contains a vague accwnnt of events from the Roman invasion to his own umes. There were two other Gildas’s of the sixth century, whom some make distinct persons, and others consider as one and the same.

, a Benedictine monk, first of St. Germaine d'Auxerre, and afterwards of Cluni, and a man of superstitious credulity, flourished in the eleventh century, and wrote a “Chronicle or History of France,” in the Latin language. It consists of five books, of which the first relates to the events of the monarchy previously to Hugh Capet, and the four subsequent ones to those following it, as far down as 1046. This work is defective as a composition, and, at the same time, full of fabulous stories, yet it contains much valuable information relative to those remote ages. It was printed in the collections of Pithou and Duchesne. He was author of a life of William, abbot of St. Benignus at Dijon.

, was one of the Byzantine historians, but biographers are not agreed as to the period when he lived. Some years ago, professor Walchius published in the Gottingen Transactions an inquiry into this subject, but was obliged to confess that he could arrive at no probable conclusion. Some place Glycas in the twelfth, and some in the fifteenth century. No ancient record or writer mentions even his name, and all that is known of him has been gleaned from his works. It appears that he was a native of Constantinople; but passed a great part of his life in Sicily. Some have thought he was a monk, but this is uncertain, nor do we know whether he lived in public life, or in retirement. His letters, however, show that he was a grammarian, and was acquainted with theology, history sacred and profane, and other branches of knowledge; and such was his reputation that he was frequently consulted by monks, bishops, and the most celebrated doctors of his time. His “Annals,” by which only he is now known, contain an account of the patriarchs, kings, and emperors, and, in a word, a sort of history of the world as far as the emperor Alexis Comnenus, who died in 1118, including many remarks on divinity, philosophy, physic, astronomy, &c. Leunclavius first translated this work into Latin, and the whole was published by father Labbe, Paris, 1660, fol. Some of his letters have been published in the “Deliciae eruditorum,” Florence, 1736, and other collections.

, surnamed Fulgentius, and celebrated for propagating and exciting a controversy on the doctrines of predestination and free grace, was born in Germany, in the beginning, probably, of the ninth century. From early life he had been a monk, and had devoted himself to theological inquiries. He was peculiarly fond of the writings of St. Augustine, and entered with much zeal into his sentiments. About the year 846, he left his monastery at Fulcla, and went into Dalmatia and Pannonia, where he spread the doctrines of St. Augustine, under a pretence, as his enemies said, of preaching the gospel to the infidels. At his return, he remained some time in Lombardy, and in the year 847 held a conference with Notingus, or Nothingus, bishop of Vienne, concerning predestination, who prevailed on Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, to undertake the confutation of what was called a new heresy. This the archbishop undertook, and was supported by a synod at Mentz, which condemned Gotteschalcus. He was farther prosecuted by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, was degraded from the priesthood, and ordered to be beaten with rods, and imprisoned. But as nothing was proved against him, except his adherence to the sentiments of Augustine, which were still held in estimation in the church, this shews, in the opinion of Dupin, that he was an injured man. He was, however, so severely whipped in the presence of the emperor Charles and the bishops, that his resolution failed him, and he complied with their commands so far as to throw into the fire a writing in which he had made a collection of scripture texts in order to prove his opinion. After this he was kept a close prisoner by Hincmar in a monastery, where he continued to maintain his opinions until his death in the same prison in the year 870. Hincmar, hearing that he lay at the point of death, sent him a formulary, which he was to subscribe, in order to his being received into the communion of the church; Gotteschalcus, however, rejected the offer with indignation, and therefore, by orders of Hincrnar, was denied Christian burial. But even in that age there were men who loudly remonstrated against the barbarity with which he had been treated. Remigius, archbishop of Lyons, distinguished himself among these; and, in a council held at Valence, in Dauphiny, in the year 855, both Gotteschalcus and his doctrine were vindicated and defended, and two subsequent councils confirmed the decrees of this council. The churches also of Lyons, Vienne, and Aries, vigorously supported the sentiments of Gotteschalcus, whom nothing but the secular influence of Hincmar could have detained in prison, while his cause was thus victorious. The only writings of this confessor that have reached the present times are, two “Confessions of Faith,” inserted in archbishop Usher’s “Historia Gotteschalci,” printed at Dublin in 1641; an epistle to Ratramnus, published in Cellot’s “Historia Gotteschalci,” at Paris, in 1655, and some fragments of other pieces, noticed by Cave. In 1650, the celebrated Maguin published, at Paris, a collection of the treatises produced on both sides of this controversy, entitled “Veterum Auctorum qui nono saeculo de Prasdestinatione et Gratia scripserunt, &c.” 2 vols. 4to.

, a French writer of some note, was the son of Nicholas Goulu, royal professor of Greek in the university of Paris, in 1567, and author of a translation from Greek into Latin of Gregentius’s dispute with the Jew Herbanus, which De Noailles, the French ambassador, had brought from Constantinople, and of other works, a collection of which was printed at Paris in 1580. His son was born at Paris Aug. 25, 1576, and educated for the bar; but, having failed in the first cause he pleaded, he felt the disappointment so acutely as to relinquish the profession, and retire into a convent. He chose the order of the Feuillans, and entered amongst them in 1604. He was so much esteemed in his order that he always enjoyed some office in it, and was at last made general. The name he took when he became a monk, was Dom John of St. Francis. As he understood the Greek tongue, he translated into French Epictetus’s Manual, Arrian’s Dissertations, some of St. Basil’s treatises, and the works of Dionysius Areopagita; to which he added a vindication of this St. Dionysius’s works. He also revised his father’s Latin translation of St. Gregory Nyssen against Eunomius, and published it. He also wrote a book against Du Moulin’s treatise of the calling of pastors, “De la Vocation des Pasteurs” the Life of Francis de Sales, bishop of Geneva; and a Funeral Oration on Nicholas le Fevre, preceptor to Lewis XIII.; but it is said that he never delivered it. He did not, however, gain so great reputation by all those writings as by his angry controversy with Balzac, already noticed in our account of that writer. Goulu died Jan. 5, 1629.

His lordship continued steady in the same sentiments, which were so opposite to those of the court, and inconsistent with the measures taken by the administration, that he must needs be sensible a watchful eye was kept ever upon him. Accordingly, when the flame broke out against his friends, on account of what is sometimes called Atterbury’s plot, in 1722, his lordship, as some say, to avoid a second imprisonment in the Tower, withdrew to France, but others attribute his going thither to a degree of profusion which had embarrassed his circumstances. He had been at Paris but a little while, when the first volume of Burnet’s “History of his oun Times” was published. Great expectations had been raised of this work, which accordingly he perused with attention; and finding the characters of the duke of Albemarle and the earl of Bath treated in a manner he thought they did not deserve, he formed the design of doing them justice. This led him to consider what had been said by other historians concerning his family; and, as Clarendon and Echard had treated his uncle sir Richard Granvilie more roughly, his lordship, being possessed of memoirs from which his conduct might be set in a fairer light, resolved to follow the dictates of duty and inclination, by publishing his sentiments upon these heads. These pieces are printed in his works, under the title of “A Vindication of General Monk,” &c. and “A Vindication of Sir Richard Greenville, General of the West to King Charles I.” &c. They were answered by Oldmixon, in a piece entitled “Reflections historical and politic,” c. 1732, 4to, and by judge Burnet, in “Remarks,” &c. a pamphlet. His lordship replied, in “A Letter to the author of the Reflections,” &c. 1732, 4to, and the spring following, there came out a very rough answer in defence of Echard, by Dr. Colbatch, entitled “An Examination of Echard’s Account of the Marriage Treaty,” &c.

, a Spanish writer, was born in the province of Alaba, towards the end of the fifteenth century, and was brought up at court. After the death of Isabella, queen of Castile, he turned Franciscan monk, but afterwards having made himself known at court, became preacher and historiographer to Charles V. He was much admired for his politeness, eloquence, and great parts, but his preaching and conversation proved very superior to his writing. His style was found to be extravagantly figurative, and full of antitheses, but this was trifling, compared with his notions of writing history, and the liberty he took to, falsify whatever he pleased, and to advance as matter of fact the inventions of his own brain, and when censured for it, alleged by way of excuse, that no history, excepting the Holy Scripture, is certain enough to be credited. Being in the emperor’s retinue he had an opportunity of visiting a great part of Europe, an4 was made bishop of Guadix, in the kingdom of Granada, and then bishop of Mondonedo, in Galicia. He died in 1544, or 1548. He was the author of several works in Spanish, the most famous of which is his “Dial of Princes, or Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,” which has been translated into all the languages of Europe. Vossius says it “has nothing in it of Antoninus, but is all a fiction, and the genuine offspring of Guevara himself, who scandalously imposes upon the reader, plainly against the duty of an honest man, but especially of a bishop. In the mean time he has many things not unuseful nor unpleasant, especially to a prince, whence it is entitled The Dial of Princes’.” Those who may be supposed to have spoken of Guevara in the most indulgent manner, have yet been forced to set him in a most scandalous light. “It deserves our pity rather than our censure,” says Nicolas Antonio, “that a writer of such fame should think himself at liberty to forge ancient facts, and to play with the history of the world, as with Æsop’s Fables or Lucian’s Monstrous Stories.” Among Guevara’s works must be ranked his “Epistles,” with which some have been so charmed, that they have not scrupled to call them Golden Epistles; but Montaigne says, “Whoever gave them this title, had a very different opinion of them from what I have, and perhaps saw more in them than I do.” Bayle had such a contempt for Guevara as an author, as to speak with surprize of “the eagerness of foreigners in translating some of his works into several languages.” Mr. Hay ley, however, remarks, that if we may judge of his personal character from his “Letters,” he appears to have been an amiable man. In one he reproves a female relation, with good nature, for intemperate sorrow on the death of a little dog and in another he draws the character of a true friend, with great energy of sentiment and expression. One of Guevara’s sayings, that heaven is filled with those that have done good works, and hell with those that have resolved to do them," has been, under a different form of expression, ascribed to other writers.

His attachment to the royal cause, however, soon involved him in the sentence passed on all who held such sentiments, and in 1651 he was deposed by five commissioners of general Monk’s army. From this time he appears to have resided in a private station at Aberdeen, improving his charitable foundation, and adding to it exhibitions for three scholars of Marischal college. He also during this retirement wrote “An Explication of the Song of Solomon,” London, 1658, 8vo “The Sealed Book opened,” or an explanation of the Revelation of St. John and “The Novelty of Popery discovered,” Aberdeen, 1656, 16mo.

His most truly meritorious labours, however, at the close of the above mentioned period, were those which had in view the unrivalled museum of Portici; an object which lad not yet been accessible to his researches. The history of the discovery of Herculaneum, and of the Royal museum to which it gave rise, is too well known to require any detailed notice in this place: it is equally alien to our purpose to relate the several tardy and unsuccessful measures which the government took to illustrate that unrivalled establishment; and we shall only notice the ancient manuscripts in the Museum, which are immediately connected with our subject. It is known that about eight hundred objects of this kind had been found in the several excavations of Herculaneum; and that on application being made to Mr. Assemanni of the Vatican, on the subject, this learned man had recommended an able, industrious, and indefatigable Piarist monk, named Father Anthony Piaggi, who possessed the art of completely unfolding the'deca3ed manuscripts. Some successful trials were made: a work on the philosophy of Epicurus, another on morals, a third on rhetoric, and a fourth on music, were brought to light: and of the last, the author of which was a Greek named Philodemus, thirty-eight full columns were happily copied. Father Anthony’s services were still more beneficial; he instructed in his art a pupil named Merli, afterwards as able as himself. Neither of them, however, persevered in their tasks: they complained of the supineness of the ministry, and of their own scanty allowance.

Among the papers left by sir William at his death, are found more than fifty memoirs directed by Father Anthony to the marquis of Sambuca, soliciting his patronage for the great work of the manuscripts, to which solicitations that minister seemed to be deaf. Numberless other memoirs of the kind were also presented to several persons in the royal service, and they met with no better success. The consequence was, that Father Anthony at last put himself under the protection of sir William, and tendered his services for any information which the latter might wish concerning the Museum. The propriety of accepting this offer may be questioned. It was considered, however, by one who was not particularly acquainted with the administration of the establishment, as too important not to meet with an immediate compliance: a treaty was concluded, that sir William should grant to Father Anthony a pension of 600 ducats a year (100l.), and the latter should regularly send to him every week a sheet of original information; and in order to elude any ministerial inquisition, it was also agreed that the correspondence should be carried on in cyphers. This correspondence lasted till the death of Father Anthony in 1798; and, if we except a want of delicacy, and perhaps also a breach of trust in the monk, we may presume that, in the main object, it proved satisfactory to both parties: sir William was indeed so satisfied, that, some years after the commencement of the treaty, he procured for Father Anthony an additional pension, of the same sum of 600 ducats a year (100l.), from his royal highness the Prince of Wales; and Father Anthony, on his side, seemed also so sensible of the favours he had received, that on his death, he bequeathed all his manuscripts and papers of every kind to his patron.

, a monk of St. Alban’s, and a Latin poet of the twelfth century, was a native of this country, and educated at Oxford, where he took a master’s degree. He is said to have travelled through a great part of Europe, and during a long residence at Paris, studied rhetoric, and was distinguished for his taste even among the numerous and polite scholars of that flourishing seminary. On his return to England, he became a Benedictine monk in the abbey of St. Alban’s, where he died about the beginning of the thirteenth century. He wrote a long Latin poem in nine books, dedicated to Walter bishop of Rouen, entitled “Architrenius,” which Warton, who has given a long specimen of it, pronounces a learned, ingenious, and very entertaining performance, containing a mixture of satire and panegyric on public vice and virtue, with some historical digressions, but not enough to justify Simlerus’s blunder in the epitome of Gesner’s Bibliotheca, where he says the subject is *' de antiquitatibus Britannise." This work was printed at Paris, 1517, 4to, and is scarce; but there are two manuscripts of it in the Bodleian library, with some epistles, epigrams, and other poems by the same hand.

This work was no sooner published, than many undertook a refutation of it. This occasioned him to reply, and to explain his scheme, in several successive pieces, which may be easily seen in the collection of his works. In the mean time, he not only endeavoured to propagate his republican' notions by writing, but, for the more effectually advancing a cause, of which he was enthusiastically enamoured, he formed a society of gentlemen, agreeing with him in principles, who met nightly at Miles’s coffee-house, in New Palace-yard, Westminster, and were called the Rota. Wood has given a very particular account of this association, or gang, as he calls them. “Their discourses about government,” says he, “and of ordering a commonwealth, were the most ingenious and smart that ever were heard; for the arguments in the parliament-house were but flat to those. This gang had a balloting-box, and balloted how things should be carried by way of essay, which not being used, or known in England before on this account, the room was every evening very full. The doctrine there inculcated was very taking; and the more, because as to human foresight there was no possibility of the king’s return. The greatest part of the parliament-men hated this rotation and balloting, as being against their power: eight or ten were for it, who proposed it to the house, and made it out to the members, that, except they embraced that sort of government, they must be ruined. The model of it was, that the third part of the senate or house should rote out by ballot every year, not capable of being elected again for three years to come; so that every ninth year the senate would be wholly altered. No magistrate was to continue above three years, and all to be chosen by the ballot, than which nothing could be invented more fair and impartial, as it was then thought, though opposed by many for several reasons. This club of commonwealthsmen, which began about Michaelmas 1659, lasted till about Feb. 21 following; at which time, the secluded members being restored by general Monk, all their models vanished .”

Such are the general titles of Hearne’s works, but it must be understood that almost every one of these volumes contains various articles relating to antiquities and biography, perfectly distinct, and indeed generally nowise connected with the principal subject; many of which have been acknowledged the most useful of his productions. It cannot be denied, however, th:it he would have been more generally useful had he now and then questioned the importance of what he was about to publish; but with Hearne an old ms. seemed to possess an infallible claim to public attention merely because it was old and unknown. Nobody, says Mr. Gough, will condemn him for the pains he took to preserve Leland’s pieces; but Ross’s compendium contains very little that is interesting, and Alfred of Bevcrley, if genuine, is legendary. Hearne himself seems almost ashamed of Sprott’s Chronicle, to which, however, he has tacked a valuable anonymous fragment relating to the first eight years of Edward IVth’s teign. Avesbury and Elmham’s relations of Edward III. and Henry V. are accurately and methodically put too ether. Livius Koro-juliensis’s life of this last prince is an elegant abridgment of Elmham’s too pompous work. Healing’s Chartulary and the “Textus Roffensis” are valuable collections of the most ancient monuments of their respective churches. Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle takes precedence of all English poets. The two monks of Glastonbury are historians of their own house, of which its English history by an anonymous later hand gives a tolerable account. Death, adds Mr. Gough, prevented Hearne from encumbering our libraries with a meagre history of England, or additions, to Martin Polanus’s Annals, ascribed to one John Murelynch, a monk of Glassenbury, and another from Brute or Ina to Edward I. by John Bever, a monk of Westminster, borrowed from the “Flores Historiarum.” His friend Thomas Baker, the Cambridge antiquary, “often cautioned him against fatiguing himself too much, and overloading his constitution; but he was not to be advised, and so died a martyr to antiquities.” It appears from some of his correspondence, that even in his own time his works rose very much in price, and it is well known that of late years they have been among the most expensive articles brought to market, the best of them being now beyond the reach of common purchasers. A few years ago, Mr. Bagster, of the Strand, with a spirit of liberality and enterprize, published one or two of them in an elegant and accurate manner, as the prelude to a reprint of the whole series; but it is to be regretted that this scheme was soon obliged to be abandoned for want of encouragement.

, the author of an old chronicle, not in much estimation, was a Benedictine of St. Werberg’s monastery in Chester, where he died about 1360, aged between eighty and ninety. He is thought to have borrowed much from another monk of his monastery, Roger Cestrensis, but probably both were indebted to the same original materials, and both were sufficiently admirers of the marvellous to compile works rather of curiosity than of use, unless where they present us with the transactions of their own time. Higden’s work was entitled “Polychronicon;” Dr. Gale published that part which relates to the Britons and Saxons among his“Quindecem Scriptores, &c.” But the greatest curiosity among collectors is the English translation of the “Polychronicon,” by John de Trevisa, printed by Caxton in 14S2, folio, in seven books, to which Caxton added an eighth. The most magnificent copy of this work extant is in the library of earl Spencer. There are also copies in his majesty’s collection, in the Bodleian and British Museum, and in Mr. Heber’s library. The “Chester Mysteries,” exhibited in that city in 1328, at the expence of the several trading corporations, have been ascribed to our Chronicler.

, a celebrated archbishop of Rheims, and one of the most learned men of his time, was originally a monk of St. Denys in France. He was elected archbishop in the year 845, and shewed great zeal for the rights of the Gallican church. He also acquired much influence at court,. and among the clergy, but made a tyrannical use of it to accomplish his de&igiis. He condemned Gotescalc, and deposed Hincmar bishop of Laon his nephew. He died in 882, at Epernay, to which place he had escaped from the Normans in a litter. Several of his works remain, the best edition of which is by Sirmond, 1645, 2 vols. foL useful as to ecclesiastical history, and learned in theology and jurisprudence, but the style is harsh and barbarous. What Hincmar wrote concerning St. Remi of Rheims, and St. Dionysius of Paris, is not in thi* edition, but may be found in Surius. There is also something more of his in Labbe’s Councils, and in the Council of Douzi, 1658, 4to.

, Hucbald, or Hugbald, a monk of St. Amand, in Flanders, who preceded Guido more than one hundred years, was contemporary with Remi, and author of a treatise on music, which is still subsisting in the king of France’s library, under the title of “Enchiridion Musicae,” No. 7202, transcribed in the eleventh century. In this work there 4s a kind of gammut, or expedient for delineating the several sourrds of the scale, in a way wholly different from his predecessors; but the method of Guido not only superseded this, but by degrees effaced the knowledge and remembrance of every other that had been adopted in the different countries and convents of Europe. However, the awkward attempts at singing in consonance, which appear in this tract, are curious, and clearly prove that Guido neither invented, nor, rude as it was before his time, much contributed to the improvement of this art.

Hubald was not only a musician, but a poet; and an idea may be formed of his patience and perseverance, if not of his genius, from a circumstance related by Sigebert, the author of his life, by which it appears that he vanquished a much greater difficulty in poetry than the lippogrammists of antiquity ever attempted: for they only excommunicated a single letter of the alphabet from a whole poem; but this determined monk composed three hundred verses in praise of baldness, which he addressed to the emperor Charles the Bald, and in which he obliged the letter C to take the lead in every word, as the initial of his patron’s name and infirmity, as thus:

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

, born in 1065, was a monk of St. Vannes at Verdun, and afterwards abbot of Flavigny in the 12th century, but was dispossessed of that dignity by the bishop of Autun, who caused another abbot to be elected. Hugh, however, supplanted St. Laurentius, abbot of Vannes, who was persecuted by the bishop of Verdun for his attachment to the pope, and kept his place till 1115, after which time it is not known what became of him. He wrote the “Chronicle of Verdun,” which is esteemed, and may be found in P. Labbe’s * Bibl. Manuscript."

A man of his amiable character was undoubtedly regretted; and Steele devoted an essay in the paper called “The Theatre,” to the memory of his virtues. In 1735 his poems were collected and published in. 2 vols. 12 mo, under the following title: “Poems on several occasions, with some select Kssays in prose.” Hughes was also the author of other works in prose. “The Advices from Parnassus,” and “The Political Touchstone of Boccalini,” translated by several hands, and printed in folio, 1706, “were revised, corrected, and had a preface prefixed to them, by him. He translated himself” Fontenelle’s Dialogues of the Dead, and Discourse concerning the Ancients and Moderns;“”the Abbé Vertot’s History of the Revolutions in Portugal;“and” Letters of Abelard and Heloisa.“He wrote the preface to the collection of the” History of England“by various hands, Called” The Complete History of England,“printed in 1706, in 3 vols. folio; in which he gives a clear, satisfactory, and impartial account of the historians there collected. Several papers in the” Tatlers,“” Spectators,“and” Guardians,“were written by him. He is supposed to have written the whole, or at least a considerable part, of the” Lay Monastery,“consisting of Essays, Discourses, &c. published singly under the title of the” Lay Monk,“being the sequel of the” Spectators.“The second edition of this was printed in 1714, 12mo. Lastly, he published, in 1715, an accurate edition of the works of Spenser, in 6 vols. 12mo; to which are prefixed the” Life of Spenser,“”An Essay on Allegorical Poetry,“” Remarks on the Fairy Queen, and other writings of Spenser,“and a glossary, explaining old words; all by Mr. Hughes. This was a work for which he was well qualified, as a judge of the beauties of writing, but he wanted an antiquary’s knowledge of the obsolete words. He did not much revive the curiosity of the public, for near thirty years elapsed before his edition was reprinted. The character of his genius is not unfairly given in the correspondence of Swift and Pope.” A month ago,“says Swift,” was sent me over, by a friend of mine, the works of John Hughes, esq. They are in prose and verse. I never heard of the man in my life, yet I find your name as a subscriber. He is too grave a poet for me; and I think among the mediocrists, in prose as well as verse.“To this Pope returns:” To answer your question as to Mr. Hughes; what he wanted in genius, he made up as an honest man; but he was of the class you think him."

The work of Jeffery is extremely entertaining, and his fables have been frequently clothed in rhyme. In the thirteenth century, Robert, a monk of the abbey of Gloucester, wrote an history of England in verse, in the Alexandrian measure, from Brutus to the reign of Edward I. Warton justly observes, in his History of English Poetry, “that the tales have often a more poetical air in Jeffery’s prose than in this rhyming chronicle, which is totally destitute of art or imagination, and, from its obsolete language, scarcely intelligible.” This historical romance, however, was not only versified by monkish writers, but supplied some of our best poets with materials for their sublime compositions. Spenser, in the second book of his Faerie Queene, has given,

He had now fixed upon Bethlehem, as the properest place of abode for him, and best accommodated to that course of life which he intended to pursue; and was no sooner arrived here, than he met with Paula, and other ladies of quality, who had followed him from Rome, with the same view of devoting themselves to a monastic life. His fame for learning and piety was indeed so very extensive, that numbers of both sexts rlocked from all parts and distances, to be trained up under him, and to form their manner of living according to his instructions. This moved the pious Paula to found four monasteries; three for the use of females, over which she herself presided, and one for males, which was committed to Jerom. Here he enjoyed all that repose which he had long desired; and he laboured abundantly, as well for the souls committed to his care, as in composing great and useful works. He had enjoyed this repose probably to the end of his life, if Origemsm had not prevailed so mightily in those parts: but, as Jerom had an abhorrence for every thing that looked like heresy, it was impossible for him to continue passive, while these asps, as he calls them, were insinuating their deadly poison into all who had the misfortune to fall in their way. This engaged him in violent controversies with John bishop of Jerusalem, and Ruffinus of Aquileia, which lasted many years. Ruffinus and Jerom had of old been intimate friends; but Ruffinus having of late years settled in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and espoused the part of the Origenists, the enmity between them was on that account the more bitter, and is a reproach to both their memories. Jerom had also several other controversies, particularly with Jovinian, an Italian monk, whom he mentions in his works with the utmost intemperance of language, without exactly informing us what his errors were. In the year 410, when Rome was besieged by the Goths, many fled from thence to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, and were kindly received by Jerom into his monastery. He died in 422, in the ninety-first year of his age; and is said to have preserved his vivacity and vigour to the last.

The principal of his works, which are enumerated by Cave and Dupin, are, a new Latin version of the whole “Old Testament,” from the Hebrew, accompanied with a corrected edition of the ancient version of the “New Testament,” which, after having been at first much opposed, was adopted by the Catholic church, and is commonly distinguished by the appellation of “Vulgate;” “Commentaries” on most of the books of the Old and New Testament “A Treatise on the Lives and Writings of Ecclesiastical Authors” “A continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius” moral, critical, historical, and miscellaneous “Letters.” The first printed edition of his works was that at Basil, under the care of Erasmus, 1516 1526, in six vols. folio, of which there have been several subsequent impressions at Lyons, Rome, Paris, and Antwerp. The most correct edition is that of Paris, by father Martianay, a Benedictine monk of the congregation of St. Maur, and Anthony Pouget, 1693 1706, in 5 vols. folio. There is, however, a more recent edition, with notes by Vallarsius, printed at Verona in 1734 -42, in eleven volumes, folio. The eleventh contains the life of Jerom, certain pieces attributed to him on doubtful authority, and an Index. Of his “Letters, or Epistles,” there are many editions executed about the infancy of printing, which are of great beauty, rarity, and value.

, so called from the place of his birth, where he is held to be a Protestant martyr. It does not appear in what year he was born, but it is certain that he was neither a monk nor an ecclesiastic: but that, being endowed with excellent natural parts, he had a learned education, and studied at Paris, Heidelberg, Cologne, and perhaps at Oxford. The degree of M. A. was conferred on him in the three first-mentioned universities, and he commenced D. D. in 1396. He began to publish the doctrine of the Hussites in 1408, and it is said he had a greater hare of learning and eloquence than John Huss himself. In the mean time, the council of Constance kept a watchful eye over him; and, looking upon him as a dangerous person, cited him before them April 17, 1415, to give an account of Jiis faith. In pursuance of the citation, he went to Constance, in order to defend the doctrine of Huss, as he had promised; but, on his arrival, April 24, finding his master Huss in prison, he withdrew immediately to Uberlingen, whence he sent to the emperor for a safe conduct, which was refused. The council, very artfully, were willing to grant him a safe-conduct to come to Constance, but not for his return to Bohemia. Upon this he caused to be fixed upon all the churches of Constance, and upon the gates of the cardinal’s house, a paper, declaring that he was ready to come to Constance, to give an account of his faith, and to answer, not only in private and under the seal, hut in full council, all the calumnies of his accusers, offering to suffer the punishment due to heretics, it he should be convinced of any errors; for which reason he had desired a safe-conduct both from the emperor and the council; but that if, notwithstanding such a pass, any violence should be done to him, by imprisonment or otherwise, all the world might be a witness of the injustice of the council. No notice being taken of this declaration, he resolved to return into his own country: but the council dispatched a safe-conduct to him, importing, that as they had the extirpation of heresy above all things at heart, they summoned him to appear in the space of fifteen days, to be heard in the first session that should be held after his arrival; that for this purpose they had sent him, by those presents, a safe-conduct so far as to secure him from any violence, but they did not mean to exempt him from justice, as far as it depended upon the council, and as the catholic faith required. This pass and summons came to his hands, yet he was arrested in his way homewards, April 25, and put into the hands of the prince of Sultzbach; and, as he had not answered the citation of April 17, he was cited again May 2, and the prince of Sultzbach, sending to Constance in pursuance of an order of the council, he arrived there on the 23d, bound in chains. Upon his examination, he denied receiving of the citation, and protested his ignorance of it. He was afterwards carried to a tower of St. Paul’s church, there fastened to a post, and his hands tied to his neck with the same chains. He continued in this posture two days, without receiving any kind of nourishment; upon which he fell dangerously ill, and desired a confessor might be allowed, which being granted, he obtained a little more liberty. On July 19, he was interrogated afresh, when he explained himself upon the subject of the Eucharist to the following effect: That, in the sacrament of the altar, the particular substance of that piece of bread which is there, is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, but that the universal substance of bread remains. Thus, with John Huss, he maintained the “universalia ex parte rei.” It is true, on a third examination, Sept. 11, he retracted this opinion, and approved the condemnation of Wickliff and John Huss; but, on May 26, 1416, he condemned that recantation in these terms: “I am not ashamed to confess here publicly my weakness, Yes, with horror, I confess my base cowardice It was only the dread of the punishment by fire, which drew me to consent, against my conscience, to the condemnation of the doctrine of Wickliff and John Huss.” This was decisive, and accordingly, in the 21st session, sentence was passed on him; in pursuance of which, he was delivered to the secular arm, May 30. As the executioner led him to the stake, Jerome, with great steadiness, testified his perseverance in his faith, by repeating his creed with aloud voice, and singing litanies and a hymn to the blessed Virgin; and, being burnt to death, his ashes, like those of Huss, were thrown into the Rhine.

, abbot of Corazzo, and afterwards of Flora in Calabria, distinguished for his pretended prophecies and remarkable opinions, was born at Celico near Cosenza, in 1130. He was of the Cistertian order, and had several monasteries subject to his jurisdiction, which he directed with the utmost wisdom and regularity. He was revered by the multitude as a person divinely inspired, and even equal to the most illustrious of the ancient prophets. Many of his predictions were formerly circulated, and indeed are still extant, having passed through several editions, and received illustration from several commentators. He taught erroneous notions respecting the holy Trinity, which amounted fully to tritheism; but what is more extraordinary, he taught that the morality of the Gospel is imperfect, and that a better and more complete law is to be given by the Holy Ghost, which is to be everlasting. These reveries gave birth to a book attributed to Joachim, entitled < The Everlasting Gospel,“or” The Gospel of the Holy Ghost.“” It is not to be doubted,“says Mosheim,” that Joachim was the author of various predictions, and that he, in a particular manner, foretold the reformation of the church, of which he might see the absolute necessity. It is, however, certain, that the greater part of the predictions and writings which were formerly attributed to him, were composed by others. This we may affirm even of the “Everlasting Gospel,” the work undoubtedly of some obscure, silly, and visionary monk, who thought proper to adorn his reveries with the celebrated name of Joachim, in order to gain them credit, and render them more agreeable to the multitude. The title of this senseless production is taken from Rev. xiv. 6; and it contained three books. The first was entitled “Liber concordiae veritatis,” or the book of the harmony of truth the second, “Apocalypsis Nova,” or new revelation and the third, “Psalterium decem Chordarum.” This account was taken from a ms. of that work in the library of the Sorbonne.“It is necessary, we should observe, to distinguish this book from the” Introduction to the Everlasting Gospel," written by a friar named Gerhard, and published in 1250. Joachim died in 1202, leaving a number of followers, who were called Joachimites. His works have been published in Venice, 1516, folio, &c. and contain propositions which have been condemned by several councils. The part of his woi>ks most esteemed is his commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse. His life was written by a Dominican named Gervaise, and published in 1745, in 2 vols. 12mo.

, a learned English Benedictine, “was born in London in 1575, although originally of a family of Brecknockshire. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, from whence he was elected a scholar of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1591, where he was chamber-fellow with Mr. Laud, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. Here he studied civil law, took a bachelor’s degree in that faculty, and was made a fellow of the college. In consequence of a course of reading on the controversies of the time, he embraced the doctrines of popery, and, going abroad, became a Benedictine monk in Spain, assuming the name of Leander a Sancto Martino. He then pursued his studies at Compostella, and was created D. D. When the English religious of his order had formed themselves into a congregation, he was invited to Douay, and made professor of Hebrew and divinity in St. Vedast’s college, during which time he was very instrumental in founding a monastery of Benedictine nuns at Cambray. He was also appointed their confessor, prior of the monastery of Douay, and twice president of the English congregation. It has been said that archbishop Laud gave him an invitation to England, for which various reasons were assigned, and, among others, that they might consult about the reunion of the churches of England and Rome; but there seems no great foundation for this story. That he did return to England, however, is certain, as he died at London Dec. 17, 1636, and was buried in the chapel at Somerset-house. He wrote, 1.” Sacra ars memoriae, ad Scripturas divinas in promptu habendas, &c. accommodata,“Douay, 1623, 8vo. 2.” Conciliatio locorum communium totius Scripturae,“ibid. 1623. He also edited” Biblia Sacra, cum glossa interlineari,“6 vols. fol.” Opera Blosii“and” Arnobius contra gentes,“with notes, Douay, 1634; and had some hand in father Reyner’s” Apostolatus Benedictinorum," 1626.

, a supposed heretic of the fourth century, was an Italian monk, and observed all the austerities of a monastic life for a time, and taught some points of doctrine directly opposite to the growing superstitions; for this he was expelled Rome, and fled to Milan, with an intent to engage Ambrose, bishop of that place, and the emperor Theodosius, who was then in that city, in his favour; but Syricius, then bishop of Rome, dispatched three presbyters to Milan, Crescentius, Leopardus, and Alexander, with letters to that church, which are still extant in Ambrose’s works, acquainting them with the proceedings of himself and his followers, in consequence of which he was rejected by Ambrose, and driven out of the town by the emperor. From Milan, Jovinian returned to the neighbourhood of Home, where his followers continued to assemble under his direction, till the year 398, when the emperor Honorius commanded him and his accomplices to be whipped and banished into different islands. Jovinian himself was confined to Boas, a small island on the coast of Dal matin, where he died about the year 406. Jovinian wrote several books, which were answered by Jerome in the year 392, but in such a manner as to render it difficult to know what were Jovinian’s errors, or what his general character, except that he was no friend to celibacy or fasting.

, a Roman emperor, commonly, although perfcaps not very justly, styled the Apostate, was the younger son of Constantius, brother of Constantine the Great. He was the first fruit of a second marriage of his father with Basilina, after the birth of Gallus, whom he had by Galla his first consort. He was born Nov. 6, in the year 331, at Constantinople; and, according to the medals of him, named Fiavius Claudius Julianus. During the life of Constantine, he received the first rudiments of his education at the court of Constantinople; but, upon the death of this emperor, all his relations being suspected of criminal actions, Julian’s father was obliged to seek his safety by flight; and his son Julian’s escape was entirely owing to Marc, bishop of Arethusa, without whose care he had inevitably perished in the persecution of his family. As soon as the storm was over, and Constantius, the son of Constantine, quietly seated on the imperial throne, he sent young Julian to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who was related to him by his mother’s side, and who educated him in the Christian faith; but at the same time employed an eunuch called Mardonius, who was a pagan, to teach him grammar, while Eulolius, a Christian of doubtful character, was his master in rhetoric. Julian made a very quick progress in learning; and, being sent afterwards to Athens to complete his education, he became the darling of that nursery of polite literature, and particularly commenced an acquaintance with St. Basil and Gregory of Nazianzen. This last, however, observed something in him which rendered his sincerity in the Christian faith suspected: and it is certain, that, notwithstanding all the care of his preceptor Eusebius, this young prince was entirely perverted by Maximus, an Ephesian philosopher and magician. His cousin Constantius the emperor was advertised of his conduct; and Julian, to prevent the effects, and save his life, professed himself a monk, and took the habit, but, under this character in public, he secretly embraced paganism. Some time before, his brother Gallus and he had taken orders, and executed the office of reader in the church; but the religious sentiments of the two brothers were widely different.

, the first patriarch of Venice, was descended of a noble family, and born there, 1381. He took the monk’s habit in the monastery of St. George, in Alga, before he was a deacon; and in 1424 became general of that congregation, to whom he gave an excellent set of rules, which were afterwards observed, and made him esteemed as one of their founders. Pope Eugenius IV. gave him the bishopric of Venice, of which he was the first patriarch, from 1451. This prelate died Jan. 8, 1455, and was canonized in 1690 by Alexander VIII. He left several works of piety, which were printed together at Brescia, 1506, 2 vols. folio; and again at Venice, 1755, folio; to which is prefixed his life, by his nephew.

, an exemplary and learned bishop of Carpentras, at which place he was born in 1683, was first a Dominican, and in that order he successfully pursued his theological studies; but, thinking the rule of the Cistertians more strict and perfect, he afterwards took the habit of that order. His merit quickly raised him to the most distinguished offices among his brethren, and being dispatched on some business to Rome, he completely gained the confidence and esteem of Clement XII. By that prelate he was named archbishop of Theodosia in partibus, and bishop of Carpentras in 1733. In this situation he was distinguished by all the virtues that can characterize a Christian bishop; excellent discernment, and knowledge, united with the completest charity and humility. His life was that of a simple monk, and his wealth was all employed to relieve the poor, or serve the public. He built a vast and magnificent hospital, and established the most extensive library those provinces had ever seen, which he gave for public use. He died in 1757, of an apoplectic attack, in his seventy-fifth year. This excellent man was not unknown in the literary world, having published some original works, and some editions of other authors. The principal of these productions are, 1. “Genuinus character reverendi admodiim in Christo Patris D. Armandi Johannis Butillierii Rancsei,” Rome, 1718, 4to. 2. An Italian translation of a book entitled “Theologie Religieuse,” being a treatise on the duties of a monastic life, Rome, 1731, 3 vols. folio. 3. An Italian translation of a French treatise, by father Didier, on the infallibility of the pope, Rome, 1732, folio. 4. An edition of the works of Bartholomew of the Martyrs, with his Life, 2 vols. folio. 5. “La Vie separee,” another treatise on monastic life, in 2 vols. 1727, 4to.

, abbot of Croyland, and author of the history of that abbey, was born in London about 1030. He received the first part of his education at Westminster, and when he visited his father, who belonged to the court of Edward the Confessor, he was so fortunate as to engage the attention of queen Edgitha, who took a pleasure in the progress of his education, and in disputing with him in logic, and seldom dismissed him without some present as a mark of her approbation. From Westminster he went to Oxford, where he applied to the study of the Aristotelian philosophy, in which he made greater proficiency than many of his contemporaries, and, as be says, “clothed himself down to the heel in the first and second rhetoric of Tully.” When he was about twenty-one years of age, ho was iotroduced to> William duke of Normandy (who visited the court of England in 105 l) y and made himself so agreeable to that prince, that be appointed him his secretary, and carried him with him into his. Owt dominions. In a little time he became the prime favourite of his prince, and the dispenser of all preferments; but he himself confesses that he did not behave in this station with sufficient modesty and prudence, and that he incurred the envy and hatred of the courtiers, to avoid which he obtained leave from the duke to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. In the course of this journey, his attendant pilgrims at one time amounted to seven thousand, but either from being attacked and killed by the Arabs, or other disasters, twenty only of this goodly company were able to return home, and those half-starved, and almost naked. Ingulph now resolved to forsake the world, and became a monk in the abbey of Fontanelle in Normandy, of which he was in a few years made prior. When his old master William of Normandy was preparing for his memorable expedition into England, in 1066 r lagulphus was sent by hiw abbot with one hundred: marks in money, and twelve young men, nobly mounted and completely armed, as a present their abbey. In consequence of this, William raised him afterwards to the government of the rich abbey of Croyland in Lincolnshire, in 107S. Here Ingulphus spent the last thirty-four years of his life, governing that society with great prudence, and protecting their possessions from the rapacity of the neighbouring barons by the favour of his royal master; and here he died Dec. 1, 1109. He wrote, but in a homely Latin style, a very curious and valuable history of Croyland abbey from its foundation, in the year 664 to 1091. It was printed by sir H. Saville,' London, 1596, and is among Gale’s “Scriptores.” There is also an edition of Francfort in 1601, and one of Oxford, 1684, which last is thought the most complete.

, sumamed Pelusiota or Damietta, from his retiring into a solitude near the town which bears both these names, was the most celebrated of the disciples of John Chrysostom, and flourished in the fifth century. He professed the monastic life from his youth, and retired from the world; but appears to have been more useful to the church and to society, than might have been expected from a monk. This appears by his letters, of which, Suidas says, he wrote no less than 3000; and Nicephorus assures us that he composed several works, and mentions particularly ten chiliads of his epistles. Sixtus Senensis also adds, that he saw in the library of St. Mark at Venice, a ms. containing 1184 of such epistles, which are not now extant. He agrees with the orthodox in the leading doctrines of the gospel, but his great excellence is his practical rules. He died about the year 440. We have remaining 2012 of his letters, in five books: they are short; but there are important things in them about many passages of Scripture, as well as theological questions, and points concerning ecclesiastical discipline; they are written in good Greek, and in an agreeable florid style. The best edition of St. Isidore’s works is that of Paris, 1638, folio, in Greek and Latin. In 1737, Christ. Aug. Heumann attacked the authenticity of some of his epistles in a tract entitled “Epistolas Isidoras Pelusiotae maximam partem esse confictas.”

of Seville, was born at Carthagena, in Spain, the son of Severian, governor of that city, and was educated by his brother Leander, bishop of Seville, whom he succeeded in the year 601. St. Isidore was the oracle of Spain during thirty-five years, and died April 4, 636, leaving the following works: Twenty books of “Origines,” or Etymologies, Paris, 1601, fol., or Cologn, 1617, fol.; a “Chronicle” ending at the year 626, useful for the history of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi “Commentaries” on the historical books of the Old Testament a treatise “on Ecclesiastical Writers” “a Rule for the Monastery of Honori;” a “Treatise on Ecclesiastical Offices,” containing many very important passages relating to Ecclesiastical Discipline, and in which he mentions seven prayers of the sacrifice. These prayers may still be found in the Mosarabic.mass, which is the ancient Spanish liturgy, and of which this saint is known to have been the principal author. The edition of the Missal, 1500, fol. and of the Breviary, 1502, fol. printed by cardinal Ximenes’ order, are very scarce; a Treatise on this Liturgy was printed at Rome, 1740, fol. The “Collection of Canons” attributed to St. Isidore, was not made by him. In the Rule above mentioned, he speaks of the monks as follows: “The monks shall every year at Pentecost make a declaration that they keep nothing as their own. A monk ought to work with his hands, according to the precept of St. Paul, and the example of the patriarchs. Every one ought to work, not only for his own maintenance, but for that of the poor. Those who are in health, and do not work, sin doubly, by idleness, and setting a bad example. Those who chuse to read without working, show that they receive no benefit from what they read, which commands them to work.” This Rule of St. Isidore prescribes about six hours work every day, and three hours reading. This Isidore is frequently ranked among musical writers. In his treatise on the divine offices, much curious information occurs concerning canto fermo, and music in general; but particularly its introduction into the church, the institution of the four tones by St. Ambrose, and the extension of that number to eight by St. Gregory. In treating of secular music, he has a short chapter on each of the following subjects of music, and its name of its invention its definition of its three constituent parts, harmonics, rhythm, and metre; of musical numbers; of the three-fold divisions of music; 1st, Of the harmonical division of music; 2dly, Of the organic or instrumental division; 3dly, Of the rhythmical division. These chapters are very short, and contain little more than compressed definitions of musical terms. In enumerating the seven liberal arts, cap. II. he ranks them in the following manner: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy.