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

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

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

, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

In 1767, when the question of the suppression of the Jesuits was agitated, the cardinal took an active part at the court of Rome in their favour, but without discovering the principles of a very enlightened mind. He dreaded in this suppression the commencement of the downfall of the church, and considered any concession to those monarchs who were for the measure, as a dangerous symptom of servility on the part of the church. In 1775, he was appointed bishop of Ostia and Velletri, and consequently dean of the sacred college; and in 1779, he succeeded to his uncle Alexander in almost all the charges which that prelate had long possessed. He was appointed plenipotentiary of the house of Austria, protector of the kingdom of Poland, of the order of Malta, of the republic of Ragusa, and what was most congenial to his temper, of the college of La Sapienza in Rome. He was also presented with some rich abbeys and priories, both in the Roman and in the Neapolitan state.

He was a prelate of singular learning and piety, and not only a considerable writer, but an excellent architect, which occasioned his being made comptroller of the royal works and buildings, under Henry VII. He founded a school at Kingston upon Hull (Fuller says, at Beverley); and a chapel on the south side of the church in which his parents were buried. He built the beautiful and spacious hall belonging to the episcopal palace at Ely, and made great improvements in all his other palaces. Lastly, he founded Jesus college, Cambridge, for a master, six fellows, and as many scholars; which, under the patronage of his successors, the bishops of Ely, has greatly increased in buildings and revenues; and now consists of a master, sixteen fellows, and thirty scholars. He wrote several pieces, particularly “Mons perfections ad Carthusianos,” Lond. 1501, 4to; “Galli Cantus ad Confratres suos curatos in Synodo apud Barnwell, 25 Sept. 1498,” Lond. per Pynson, 1498, 4to. At the beginning is a print of the bishop preaching to the clergy, with a cock (his crest) at each side, and there is another in the first page. “Abbatia Spiritns sancti in pura conscientia, fundata,” Lond. 1531, 4to. “In Psalmos penitentiales,” in English verse. “Homilise vulgares.” “Meditationes piae.” “Spousage pf a virgin to Christ,” 1486, 4to. Bishop Alcock died Oct. 1, 1500, at his castle at Wisbech, and was buried in the middle of a sumptuous chapel, which he had built for himself at the east end of the north aile of the presbytery pf Ely cathedral, and which is a noble specimen of his skill in architecture.

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

Aldhun had a daughter named Ecgfrid, whom he gave in marriage to Ucthred, son of Waltheof earl of Northumberland, and with her, six towns belonging to the episcopal see, upon condition that he should never divorce her. But that young lord afterwards repudiating her, with a view to a nobler alliance, Aldhun received back the church lands he had given with her. This prelate educated king Ethelred’s two sons, Alfred and Edward; and, when their father was driven from his throne by Swane, king of Denmark, he conducted them, together with queen Emma, into Normandy, to duke Richard the queen’s brother. This was in the year 1017, a little before bishop Aldhun’s death; for the next year, the English having received a terrible overthrow in a battle with the Scots, the good bishop was so affected with the news, that he died a few days after, having enjoyed the prelacy twenty-nine years. RaduU phus de Diceto calls this bishop Alfhunus, and bishop Godwin, Aldwinus.

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

, bishop of Carlisle in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. and queen Mary, was born at Burnham in Buckinghamshire; was educated at Eton, and elected a scholar of King’s college, Cambridge in 1507, where he took the degree of M. A. afterwards became proctor of the university, schoolmaster of Eton, fellow of the college, and at length provost. In 1529 he retired to Oxford, where he was incorporated B. D. About the same time he was made archdeacon of Colchester. In 1534 he was installed canon of Windsor, and the same year he was appointed register of the most noble order of the garter. July 18, 1537, he was consecrated bishop of Carlisle. He wrote several pieces, particularly 1. “Epistola ad Gulielmum Hormannum.” 2. “Epigrammata varia.” 3. “Several Resolutions concerning the Sacraments.” 4. “Answers to certain Queries concerning the Abuses of the Mass.” He wrote also resolutions of seme questions relating to bishops and priests, and other matters tending to the reformation of the church begun by king Henry VIII. Leland was his familiar acquaintance, and gives him a 'high character for parts and learning. The prelate died March 25, 1555, at Horncastle, in Lincolnshire, which was a house belonging to the bishops of Carlisle.

, one of the Latin poets who flourished in Italy in the fifteenth century, was born at Basilicata, in the kingdom of Naples, or as some think, at Mantua. He studied, however, at Naples, which he made his residence, and associated with Pontanus, Sannazarius, and the other literati of that time and place, and acted as preceptor to prince Ferdinand, who came to the throne in 1495, by the resignation of his father Alphonsus II. According to Ughelli in his “Italia sacra,” Altilio was appointed bishop of Policastro in 1471, and died in 1484; but according to Mazzuchelli, whose authority in this instance appears preferable, he was not bishop until 1489, and died about 1501. He has left but few specimens of his poetry, but they are of acknouledged merit. The most celebrated is the epithalamium he wrote on the marriage of Isabella of Arragon, daughter of Alphonsus II. with John Galeas Sforca, duke of Milan. This is published in the Carm. Illust. Poet. Ital. and with a few of his other pieces, at the close of the works of Sannazarius, by Comino, 1731, 4to, where numerous testimonies are collected of the merits of Altilio. Some of these pieces had, however, been before printed with the works of Sannazarius, Daniel Cereti, and the brothers of the Amalthei, illustrated by the notes of Peter Vlamingii, Amst. 1728, 8vo, which may be united with the variorum classics. Notwithstanding the praises generally bestowed on Altilio, there are some critics who have undervalued his talenjts. In particular, Julius Scaliger thinks there is too great a profusion of thought and expression in this performance:“Gabriel Altilius,” says he, “composed an excellent epithalamium, which would have been still better, had he restrained his genius; but, by endeavouring to say every thing upon the subject, he disgusts the reader as much in some places, as he gives him pleasure in others: be says too much, which is a fault peculiar to his nation, for in all that tract of Italy they have a continual desire of talking.” k may appear singular that his Latin poetry 'should hare raised him to the dignity of a prelate; yet it certainly did, in a great measure, to the bishopric of Policastro. Some have also reproached him for neglecting the muses after his preferment, though they had proved so serviceable to him in acquiring it: “When he was made bishop,” says Paulus Jovius, “he soon and impudently left the muses, by whose means he had been promoted: a most heinous ingratitude, unless we excuse him from the consideration of his order, which obliged him to apply to the study of the holy scriptures.”

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

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

The works of this learned prelate, which are now best known, are, 1. “A volume of Sermons,” London, 1628, and 1631, folio, consisting of ninety-six, upon the fasts, festivals, or on the more important doctrines of Christianity. 2. “The Moral Law expounded, or Lectures on the Ten Commandments, with nineteen Sermons on prayer,” 1642, fol. 3. “Collection of posthumous and orphan Lectures delivered at St. Paul’s and St. Giles’s,” London, 1657, fol. These were the most popular of all hij productions, and although very exceptionable in point of style, according to the modern criteria of style, they abound in learned and acute remarks, and are by no means so full of pun and quibble, as some writers, from a superficial vievr of them, have reported. His other works were, his “Manual of Devotions,” Gr. and Lat. often reprinted, and translated by dean Stanhope, 12mo; and several Concidnes ad Clerum, or other occasional sermons preached before the university, and at court “Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Beliannini, &c.” 1610, 4to. “Theological determinations on Usury, Tythes.” “Responsiones ad Petri Molinsei Epistolas tres.” “Stricturae, or a brief Answer to the eighteenth chapter of the first booke of cardinal! Perron’s Reply, written in French to king James his Answer written by Mr. Casaubon in Latine.” “An Answer to the twentieth chapter of the fifth book of cardinal Perron’s Reply, written in French to king James his Answer, written by Mr. Casaubon to the cardinal! in Latine.” “A Speech delivered in the Starr-chamber against the two Judaicall opinions of Mr. Traske.” The two Judaical opinions advanced by Mr. Traske were, 1. That Christians are bound to abstain from those meats, which the Jews were forbidden in Leviticus. 2. That they are bound to observe the Jewish Sabbath. “A Speech delivered in the Starr-Chamber concerning Vowes, in thecountesseof Shrewesburiescase.” This lady was convicted of disobedience, for refusing to answer or be examined, (though she had promised to do it before), alleging, that she had made a solemn vow to the contrary. The design of the bishop’s speech is to shew, that such vows were unlawful, and consequently of no force or obligation upon her. These pieces were printed after the author’s death at London by Felix Kyngston, in 1629, 4to, and dedicated to king Charles I. by Dr. William Laud bishop of London, and Dr. John Buckridge bishop of Ely.

, a learned Greek of the seventeenth century, author of several learned and curious works, was born at Peloponnesus in Greece, and obliged by the Turks to abandon his country on account of his religion, for which he suffered a variety of torments. He came afterwards to England, where he was supported by the bishop of Norwich and several of the clergy. By this prelate’s recommendation, he went to Cambridge, and studied about three years in Trinity college. In Whitsuntide 1610, he removed to Oxford, and studied at Baliol college, where he did great service to the young scholars of the university, by instructing them in the Greek language; in which manner he employed himself till his death, which happened on the 1st of February 1638. He was buried in St. Ebbe’s church of church-yard, Oxford.

valuable of all his works was lost, or, as some say, destroyed. This was “A History of the Troubles in Ireland from 1641 to 1660.” He was one of the first English peers who distinguished himself by collecting a fine library, which he did with great care, and at a large expence. But after his decease, all his books were exposed to sale. At this sale the discovery was made of the earl’s famous memorandum, in the blank leaf of an Ejkwv Bawtfuxn; according to which, it was not Charles I. but bishop Gauden, who was author of this performance. This produced a long controversy, which will be noticed in the life of that prelate.

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

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

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

, chaplain to Louis XIV. was born at Riom in Auvergne in 1645, the son of a lawyer. As his father managed the affairs of the cardinal de Bouillon, he obtained, by the interest of that prelate, a place of one of the king’s chaplains, and that of keeper of the ornaments, which was created purposely for him. In 1678, he was appointed to the abbey of St. Gilbert neuf-fontaines, in the diocese of Clermont, where he died in 1717. He wrote the “History of the Chapel of the kings of France,” Paris, 1711, 2 vols. 4to. containing a variety of curious matter, not only on the chapel, but on the great almoners, first almoners, confessors, &c. He was licentiate in theology of the faculty of Paris.

The name of this poet is still held in that kind of veneration by his countrymen with which the English consider their Shakspeare. Antonio Zatta, in his edition of Ariosto' s works of 1772, relates, that a chair and ink-standish, which, according to tradition, belonged to Ariosto, were then in the possession of II signor Dottore Giovanni Andrea Barotti, at Ferrara, and that a specimen of his hand -writing was preserved in the public library of that city. The republic of Venice did him the honour to cause his picture to be painted, and hung up with the senators and other illustrious men in the great council hall, which was afterwards destroyed by fire. It appears, however, that Ariosto did not finally receive from his professed patrons those rewards, or obtain that establishment, to which he thought his merits had entitled him. Probably the government of Grafagnana added more to his reputation than his fortune; and, from what he says in several parts of his Satires, he was by no means satisfied with his patrons of Ferrara. Nothing particular is recorded of the benefactions of the cardinal to him, before he incurred the displeasure of that prelate. The duke, indeed, gave him two assignments on certain gabels or taxes, the first of which ceased with the abolition of the tax; and the second, which produced him only twenty-five crowns every fourth month, collected, as he says himself, with great trouble, was contested and withheld from him during the wars of Lombardy; and some say, that the cardinal, upon withdrawing his patronage, deprived him of this slender advantage^ Such were the great advantages which he derived from those in whose service he had engaged, and whose names he had immortalized by his Muse.

, brother of Robert and Anthony, was born at Paris in 1597. After the death of Gournay, bishop of Toul, the chapter of that city tin; mously elected the abbé Arnauld, then dean of that cathedral, his successor. The kinsr confirmed his nomination, at the entreaty of the famous capuchin, pere Joseph; but a dispute about the right of election prevented him from accepting it. In 1645, he was sent on an extraordinary embassy from France to Rome, for quieting the disputes that had arisen between the Barbarini and Innocent X. On his return to France he was made bishop of Angers in 1649. He never quitted his diocese but once, and that vas to give advice to the prince of Tarento, in order to a reconciliation with the duke de la Tremouille his father. The city of Angers having revolted in 1652, this prelate appeased the queen-mother, who was advancing with an army to take vengeance on it, by saying to her, as he administered the sacrament: “Take, madam, the body of him who forgave his enemies, as he was dying on the cross.” This sentiment was as much in his heart as it was on his lips. He was the father of the poor, and the comforter of the afflicted. His time was divided between prayer, reading, and the duties of his episcopal function. One of his intimates telling him that he ought to take one day in the week for some recreation from fatigue, “Yes,” said he, “that I will do with all my heart, if you will point me out one day in which I am not a bishop.” He died at Angers, June 8, 1692, at the age of 95. His negotiations at the court of Rome, and in various courts of Italy, were published at Paris in 5 vols, 12 mo. a long time after his death (in 1748). They are interspersed with, a great number of curious anecdotes and interesting particulars related in the style peculiar to all the Arnaulds.

, 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.”

, born at Bonieux in the comtat-Venaissin, went to Paris in 1706, when very young, and filled in a distinguished manner the several chairs of that capital. He was afterwards made curate of S. Mery in which preferment he instructed his flock by his discourses, and edified it by his example. He was appointed bishop of Cavaillon in 1756, and died in 1760, aged 54 leaving behind him the reputation of an exemplary prelate and an amiable man. His works are 1. “Panegyric on S. Louis,” 1754, 4to. 2. “Discourse on Marriage;” on occasion of the birth of the due de Bourgogne, 1757, 4to. 3. Several Charges, and Pastoral Letters. In all his writings a solid and Christian eloquence prevails, and his sermons, which have not been printed, are said to have been models of a familiar and persuasive style.

, 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.

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

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

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

This prelate was not only one of the most learned men ef his time, but also a very great patron and encourager of learning. Petrarch he frequently corresponded with, and had for his chaplains and friends the most eminent men of the age. His custom was, to have some of his attendants read to him while he was at meals, and when they were over, to discourse with his chaplains upon the same subject. He was likewise of a very bountiful temper. Every week he made eight quarters of wheat into bread, and gave it to the poor. Whenever he travelled between Durham and Newcastle, he distributed eight pounds sterling in alms; between Durham and Stockton, tire pounds between Durham and Auckland, five marks and between Durham and Middleham, five pounds. But the noblest instance of his generosity and munificence was the public library he founded at Oxford, for the use of the students. This library he furnished with the best collection of books that was then in England, fixed it in the place where Durham, now Trinity-college, was built afterwards, and wrote a treatise containing rules for the management of the library, how the books were to be preserved, and upon what conditions lent out to scholars. The title of this book is, “Philobiblon, sou de Amore Librorum et Institutione Bibliothecae,” cum Appendice de Mss. Oxoniensibus, per Thorn. James, printed at Oxford in 1599, 4to. It was, however, first printed at Spires in 1483, and there are several ms copies in the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge. This prelate died at Auckland, April 24, 1345, and was buried in the south part of the cross aile of the cathedral of Durham.

, an eminent English prelate, descended from a very ancient and honourable family, seated at Aylmer-hall, in Norfolk, was born in 1521, and being a younger brother, was either recommended by his relations, or recommended himself by his pregnant parts, to the marquis of Dorset (Henry Grey), afterwards duke of Suffolk, who honoured him with the title of his Scholar, and gave him an exhibition at the university of Cambridge. When he had there attained competent learning, the marquis took him home, where he became tutor to his children, amongst whom was the lady Jane, who for some days was styled queen, and who, under Aylmer’s tuition, acquired the Latin and Greek tongues, reading and writing in the latter with ease and elegance, By his care also, she received right principles of religion, as he imbibed the opinions of the primitive reformers and having for his patrons the duke of Suffolk and the carl of Huntingdon, in the reign of Edward VI., was for some time the only preacherin Leicestershire; where he had great success in inculcating the, Protestant religion. When the celebrated Ascliam, in a visit to lady Jane in 1550, asked her how so young a lady (not then ahove fourteen) could have arrived at such perfection both in philosophy and the Greek language, she bore the following testimony to the merit of her tutor “1 will tell you,” said she, “and tell you truth, which, perchance, you will marvel at. One of the greatest benefits which ever God gave me, is that he sent so sharp and severe parents, and so gentle a schoolmaster. For when I am in presence either of father or mother, whether I speak, keep silence, sit, stand, or go eat, drink, be merry or sad be sewing, placing, dancing, or doing any thing else, I must do it, as it were, in such weight, measure, and number, and even so perfectly, as God made the world, or else, I am so sharply taunted, so cruelly threatened, yea, presently sometimes with pinches, nips, and bobs (or other ways, which I will not name, for the honour I bear them), so without measure misordereo”, that I think myself in hell, till time come that I must go to Mr. Elmer, who teachfeth me so gently, so pleasantly, with fair allurements to learning, that I think all the time nothing while I am with him and when I am called from him, 1 fall a weeping, because whatsoever I do else but learning, is full of grief, trouble, fear, and wholly misliking unto me and this my book hath been so much my pleasure, and bringeth daily to me more pleasure, and more yet, in respect to it, all other pleasures, in very deed, be but trifles and troubles unto me." Mr. Ascharn was so affected with this interview, that in a letter to lady Jane, dated the eighteenth of January, 1551, he speaks of it in rapture, and by a beautiful apostrophe, addressing himself to Mr. Ay liner, felicitates him on his having so ingenious a scholar, in a strain of compliment, which he says the great Sturmius made use of to him, speaking of his happiness, in having the lady Elizabeth for his pupil. In this letter it is, that he desires Mr. Aylmer, to whom be foresaw it would be shewn, to engage the lady Jane, to write a letter in Greek to himself, and another to Sturmius, and also desires they might continue to live in the same learned friendship and intercourse, which they had hitherto done.

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

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

For nearly ten years before the death of this worthy prelate, he had been in a declining state of health, and was wasted to the appearance of a mere skeleton. He was confined to bed, however, only the day before he departed this life, June 4, 1802. His remains were interred at St. Asapk with those of Mrs. Bagot, whom he survived not quite three years.

, was born at Melun, in the territory of Ath, in 1513. The emperor Charles V. made choice of him to be professor of divinity in the university of Louvain. He was afterwards chancellor of that body, guardian of its privileges, and inquisitor-general. The university, in concert with the king of Spain, elected him deputy to the council of Trent, whiere he acquired reputation. He had already published several small pieces, but was destined to be involved in controversy. Like the other followers of Augustin, he had an invincible aversion to that contentious, subtle, and intricate manner of teaching theology, that had long prevailed in the schools; and, under the auspicious name of that famous prelate, who was his darling guide, he had the courage to condemn, in an open and public manner, the tenets commonly received in the church of Rome, with respect to the natural powers of man, and the merit of good works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, 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.

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

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

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

His poetical, performances are, 1. “Chrestoleros; seven bookes of Epigrames,” London, 1598, 12nio, of which an account may be seen in the Censura Literaria, vol. IV. 2. “Magna Britannia,” a Latin poem in three books, dedicated to king James I. London, 1605, 4to. Besides which, there is in the king’s library, “Jacobo regi I. carmen gratulatorium.” Under this head we may mention his libels, two of which Mr. Wood met with in his collection of libels or lampoons, written by several Oxford students in the reign of queen Elizabeth. One of them is entitled “An admonition to the city of Oxford,” or his libel entitled “Mar-prelate’s Bastavdini” wherein he reflects upon all persons of note in Oxford, who were suspected of criminal conversation with other men’s wives, or with common strumpets. The other, made after his expulsion, and in which he disclaims the former, begins thus: “Jenkin, why man why Jenkin fie for shame,” &c. But neither of these were printed. He also published “Five Sermons,” Lond. 1615, 4to; and in the same year a collection of “Twelve Sermons,” 4to. Warton speaks of him as an elegant classical scholar, and better qualified for that species of occasional pointed Latin epigram, established by his fellow collegian, John Owen, than for any sort of English versification.

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

As the excellency of Batoni was now decidedly confessed, he had frequent and advantageous orders. The learned prelate, and afterwards cardinal, Furietti, who had the direction of building the church of St. Celsus, gave him the picture of the high altar to execute, which Mengs held to be the purest and most ingenious of all his performances.

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

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

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

, one of the English reformers, was a native of Norfolk, or Suffolk, and educated at Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1530. He was presented on May 24, 1547, to the rectory of St. Stephen Walbrook, ol which he was deprived in 1554, and imprisoned twice in queen Mary’s time, but escaped to Marpurg. From Strasburgh, in the same year, we find him addressing an “Epistle to the Faithful in England,” exhorting them to patient perseverance in the truth. After queen Mary’s death, he returned to England, and in 1560 was preferred to the rectory of Buckland, in Hertfordshire, and in 1563 to that of St. Dionis Backchurch, in London. He was also a prebend of the fourth stall in Canterbury cathedral, and had been, in Cranmer’s time, chaplain to that celebrated prelate. Tanner’s account of his promotions is somewhat different. We learn from Strype, in his life of Grindall, that he objected at first, but afterwards conformed to the clerical dress, some articles of which at that time were much scrupled by the reformers who had lived abroad. He died at Canterbury, about 1570, in his sixtieth year. In the Heerologia, a work not much to be depended on, it is said that he was professor of divinity at Oxford, an assertion contrary to all other authority. He wrote:

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

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

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

We shall add Dr. Robertson’s character of our prelate, when he mentions his pretensions to the regency. “The cardinal was by nature of immoderate ambition; by long experience he had acquired address and refinement; and insolence grew upon him from continual success. His high station in the Church placed him in the way of great employments; his abilities were equal to the greatest of these; nor did he reckon any of them to be above his merit. As his own eminence was founded upon the power of the Church of Rome, he was a zealous defender of that superstition, and for the same reason an avowed enemy to the doctrine of the reformers. Political motives alone determined him to support the one or to oppose the other. His early application to public business kept him unacquainted with the learning and controversies of the age: He gave judgment, however, upon all points in dispute, with a precipitancy, violence, and rigour, which contemporary historians mention with indignation.” Cardinal Beaton wrote, if we may depend upon Dempster, “Memoirs of his own Embassies;” “a treatise of Peter’s primacy,” which had been seen by William Barclay, and “Letters to several persons:” Of these last there are still some copies, said to be preserved in the library of the French king.

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

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

, 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.

, was born at Bologna in 1502, of a noble family. Having gone through a course of study at Padua, he applied himself to business, without however entirely quitting literature. He attachedhimself to cardinal Pole, whom he followed in the legation to Spain, and was soon appointed himself to those of Venice and Augsburg, after having assisted at the council of Trent, and the archbishopric of Ragusa was the reward of his labours. Cosmo I. grand duke of Tuscany, having entrusted him in 1563 with the education of his son, prince Ferdinand, he gave up his archbishopric, in the hope that was held out to him of obtaining that of Pisa; but, being deceived in his expectations, he was obliged to content himself with the provostship of the cathedral of Prato, where he ended his days in 1572. His principal works are: “The life of cardinal Pole,” in Italian, translated by Duditius into Latin, and thence by Maucroix into French; and that of Petrarch, in Italian, more exact than any that had appeared before. This prelate was in correspondence with almost all the learned, his contemporaries, Sadolet, Bembo, the Manuciuses, Varchi, &c. It remains to be noticed that his life of cardinal Pole was published in 1766, in English, by the Rev. Benjamin Pye, LL. B. Of this, and other lives of that celebrated cardinal, notice will be taken in his article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the plague had ceased, M. de Lauzun asked an abbey in commendarn for the humane and benevolent prelate who had attended his flock with such assiduity during the time of that dreadful visitation. The regent, to whom the request was made, had forgotten M. de Lauzun’s request, and appeared much embarrassed at having neglected to prefer a man of such transcendant virtue as M. de Belsunce was. When M. de Lauzun iterated his request to him, the latter, looking archly at him, said merely, “Monseigneur, il sera mieux un autrefois” The regent, however, soon afterwards gave him a benefice to hold with the bishopric of Marseilles, which he could never be prevailed upon to quit for a more lucrative one. Father Vanier, in his poem of the “Prsedi an Rusticum,” and Pope, in his Essay on Man, Ep. iv. v. 107, 108, have paid that tribute to his memory, to which he is entitled, as the friend and benefactor of mankind.

, 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.

, of Arragon, a cardinal and poet, one of the sons of the preceding, was born at Ferrara, March 27, 1668, and in the course of his studies, distinguished himself by the progress he made in the belleslettres, philosophy, theology, and law, and was an able and successful supporter of the literary establishments of his country. Having afterwards gone to reside at Rome, he was promoted by Clement XI. to be his domestic prelate, and clerk of the apostolic chamber, and in 1712 was sent as nuncio to France, with the title of archbishop of Carthage. There, having discovered much zeal in the affair of the bull Unigenitus, he acquired high favour at the court of Louis XIV. vvhicii he did not preserve after the death of that monarch. The pope, on that event, recalled him from Paris, and at Ferrara he was made cardinal in November, 1719. He then settled at Rome, where many other dignities were conferred upon him, and where he died, December 30, 1732. Amidst his whole career of ecclesiastical promotions and duties, he found leisure to cultivate his taste for polite literature. There are extant several of his harangues pronounced on various occasions; that which he delivered at Rome, in the academy of design, in which he investigates the uses, to taste and morals, of the arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture, was printed under the title “Utile delle belle arti riconosciuto per l'accademia del disegno, orazione,” &c. liome, 1707, and reprinted in vol. II. of the “Prose degli A-rcadi.” The work, however, which entitles him to a place among the poets of Italy, is his beautiful translation of Statius, “La Tebaidadi Stazio tradotto in verso sciolto da Seivaggio Porpora,” (a fictitious name), Rome, 1729, 4to; Milan, 1731, 2 vols. 4to. There are besides some of his sonnets in the collections. His brother Louis and his sister Cornelia were also cultivators of poetry. The latter, who died in 1711, is highly spoken of by Crescembini in his history of the academy of the Arcadians of Rome.

, an eminent and learned prelate, was born in Ireland, at Kilcrin, near Thomastown, the 12th of March 1684. He was the son of William Berkeley of Thomastown, in the county of Kilkenny; whose father, the family having suffered for their loyalty to Charles I. went over to Ireland after the restoration, and there obtained the collector-ship of Belfast. George had the first part of his education at Kilkenny school, under Dr. Hinton was admitted pensioner of Trinity college, Dublin, at the age of fifteen, under Dr. Hall; and chosen fellow of that college June the 9th, 1707, after a very strict examination, which he went through with great credit.

, a learned English divine of the seventeenth century, was educated in the university of Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. and was incorporated to the same degree at Oxford, July 15, 1628. He was probably created D. D. of the university of Dublin, but this has not been exactly ascertained. He was ordained by primate Usher, in 1626, in St. Peter’s church, Drogheda, while he was only B. A. and made his chaplain, and soon after, by his interest, was promoted to the deanery of Ardagh. His Grace having daily opportunities ojf taking notice of the learning and judgment of Mr. Bernard, employed him in making collections for some works he was then meditating, particularly for the antiquities of the British churches; which did not appear till 1639. The primate always expressed great friendship and esteem for him; and upon taking his leave of him at Drogheda in 1640, gave him “A serious preparative against the heavy sorrows and miseries that he should feel before he saw him again, and spoke of them with that confidence, as if they had been within his view.” This serious discourse proved in the event to be a prophecy, as will be noticed in the life of that prelate. The year following, Dr. Bernard published a book and a sermon which gave offence. These were entitled, 1. “The penitent death of a woful Sinner; or, the penitent death of John Atherton, late bishop of Waterford in Ireland, who was executed at Dublin the fifth of December, 1640; with some annotations on several passages,” London, 1641, 4to 1642, 8vo. 2. “A sermon preached at the burial of John Atherton, the next night after his execution, in St. John’s church, Dublin,” Lond. 1641, 4to 1642, 8vo. Dr. Bernard had the best opportunity in the world of knowing the truth of the fact for which bishop Atherton suffered, having attended him in his exemplary preparation for death, and in his last moments, and he gives us his behaviour and confession fairly and honestly. The cause of offence seems, upon the whole, to have been an opinion that this disgraceful affair had better be buried in oblivion. Archbishop Usher, however, who saw Dr. Bernard’s good intentions, did not withdraw from him his favour or countenance. The same year was published a pamphlet of his writing, upon the siege of Drogheda, of which he was an eye-witness. In the summer of 1642, having lost most of his substance, he returned safe to England to attend on the lord primate, and carried with him Usher’s valuable library, which was afterwards removed to Ireland, and is now in Trinity-college, Dublin. Upon his arrival in England, he was presented, by the earl of Bridgwater, to the rich rectory of Whitchurch in Shropshire, and after the declension of the royal cause, was made chaplain to the Protector, one of his almoners, and preacher to the society of Gray’s inn. Being thus comfortably settled, in 1642 he found leisure, from his pastoral charge, to publish “The whole proceedings of the siege of Drogheda,” London and Dublin, 1642, 4to and Dublin, 1736; and “A Dialogue tetweeu Paul and Agrippa,” London, 1642, 4to. After the restoration of king Charles II. in 1660, having no confidence in the settlement of the state of Ireland, he declined returning and taking possession of his deanery, and contilined at VV hitchurch to his death, which iiappened in winter, 1661. His other works were, 1. “A farewell sermon of comfort and concord, preached at Drogheda,” 1651, 8vo. 2. “The life and death of Dr. James Usher, late archbishop of Armagh, primate and metropolitan of all Ireland, in a sermon preached at his funeral in the abbey of Westminster, on the 17th of April, 1656,” London, 1656, 12mo, afterwards enlarged. 3. “The judgment of the late archbishop of Armagh and primate of Ireland concerning first, the extent of Christ’s death and satisfaction secondly, of the Sabbath, and observation of the Lord’s day,” &c. London, 1657, 8vo. This treatise was answered by Dr. Peter Heylyn, in a book entitled “Respondet Petrus or, the answer of Peter Heylyn, D. D. to so much of Dr. Bernard’s book entitled” The judgment of the late primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party by the said lord primate in the point of the Sabbath,“London, 1658, 4to. He also published several letters which passed between him and Dr. Heylyn, and published and enlarged several posthumous works of Dr. Usher as,” His judgment on Babylon being the present see of Rome, Rev. xviii. 4, with a sermon of bishop Bedell’s upon the same words,“London, 1659.” Devotions of the ancient church, in seven pious prayers,“&c. London, 1660, 8vo.” Clavi trabales, or nails fastened by some great masters of assemblies, confirming the king’s supremacy, the subject’s duty, and church government by bishops being a collection of some pieces written on these subjects by archbishop Usher, Mr. Hooker, bishop Andrews, and Dr. Hadrian Saravia; with a preface by the bishop of Lincoln," London, 1661, 4to.

, called by some writers Berna or Bernia, was one of the most celebrated Italian poets of the sixteenth century. He was born about the conclusion of the fifteenth, at Lamporecchio, in that part of Tuscany called Val-di-Nievole, of a noble but impoverished family of Florence. In his nineteenth year he went to Koine, to his relation cardinal Bibiena, who according to his own account, did him neither good nor harm. He was then obliged to take the office of secretary to Giberti, bishop of Verona, who was datary to pope Leo X. On this he assumed the ecclesiastical habit, in hopes of sharing some of that prelate’s patronage, but the mean and dull employment of his office of secretary, and for which he was ill paid, was very unsuitable to his disposition. There was at Rome what he liked better, a society or academy of young ecclesiastics as gay as himself, and lovers of wit and poetry like himself, who, no doubt in order to point out their taste for wine, and their thoughtless habits, were called Vignajuoli, vinedressers. To this belonged Mauro, Casa, Firenzuola, Capilupij and many others. In their meetings they laughed at every thing, and made verses and witticisms on the most grave and solemn subjects. The compositions Berni contributed on these occasions, were so superior to the others, that verses composed in the same style began to be called “La poesia Bernesca.”

One of Bernini’s first works was a portrait in marble of the prelate Montajo, a likeness so striking, that it was said to be Montajo petrified. He afterwards made busts of the pope, some of the cardinals, and some large figures after nature; a St. Laurence, a groupe of ^neas and Anchises, and David about to sling the stone at Goliath, of which our great artist sir Joshua Reynolds observes, that Bernini has given a very mean expression to David, representing him as biting his under lip, which is far from being a general expression, and still farther from being dignified but Bernini, who was as yet young, might have seen it in one or two instances, and mistook accident for generality. He was but in his eighteenth year when he executed his Apollo and Daphne, a work, from which, as sir Joshua remarks, the world justly expected he would rival the best productions of ancient Greece, but this was not ultimately the case. We are told, however, that when, about the close of his life, he surveyed this groupe, he allowed that since that time he had made very little progress. In truth his style was now more pure, and had less of manner in it than afterwards.

, a pious and learned English divine, was born in London, September 24, 1688. His father, John Berriman, was an apothecary in Bishopsgatestreet; and his grandfather, the reverend Mr. Berriman, was rector of Bedington, in the county of Surrey. His grammatical education he received partly at Banbury, in Oxfordshire, and partly at Merchant-taylors’ school, London. At seventeen years of age he was entered a commoner at Oriel college, in Oxford, where he prosecuted his studies with great assiduity and success, acquiring a critical skill in the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, and Syriac. In the interpretation of the Scriptures, he did not attend to that momentary light which fancy and imagination seemed to flash upon them, but endeavoured to explain them by the rules of grammar, criticism, logic, and the analogy of faith. The articles of doctrine and discipline which he drew from the sacred writings, he traced through the primitive church, and confirmed by the evidence of the fathers, and the decisions of the more generally received councils. On the 2d of June, 1711, Mr. Berriman was admitted to the degree of master of arts. After he left the university, he officiated, for some time, as curate and lecturer of Allhallows in Thames-street, and lecturer of St. Michael’s, Queenhithe. The first occasion of his appearing in print arose from the Trinitarian controversy. He published, in 1719, “A seasonable review of Mr. Whiston’s account of Primitive Doxologies,” which was followed, in the same year, by “A second review.” These pieces recommended him so effectually to the notice of Dr. Robinson, bishop of London, that in 1720, he was appointed his lordship’s domestic chaplain and so well satisfied was that prelate with Mr. Berriman’s integrity, abilities, and application, that he consulted and entrusted him in most of his spiritual and secular concerns. As a further proof of his approbation, the bishop collated him, in April 1722, to the living of St. Andrew-Undershaft. On the 25th of June, in the same year, he accumulated, at Oxford, the degrees of bachelor and doctor in divinity. In 1723, Dr, Berriman lost his patron, the bishop of London, who, in testimony of his regard to his chaplain, bequeathed him the fifth part of his large and valuable library. In consequence of the evidence our learned divine had already given of his zeal and ability in defending the commonlyreceived doctrine of the Trinity, he was appointed to preach lady Moyer’s lecture, in 1723 and 1724. The eight sermons he had delivered on the occasion, were published in 1725, under the title of “An historical account of the Trinitarian Controvery.” This work, in the opinion of Dr. Godolphin, provost of Eton college, merited a much greater reward than lady Moyer’s donation. Accordingly, he soon found an opportunity of conferring such a reward upon Dr. Berriman, by inviting him, without solicitation, to accept of a fellowship in his college. Our author was elected fellow in 1727, and from that time he chiefly resided at Eton in the Summer, and at his parsonage-house in the Winter. His election into the college at Eton was a benefit and ornament to that society. He was a faithful steward in their secular affairs, was strictly observant of their local statutes, and was a benefactor to the college, in his will. While the doctor’s learned productions obtained for him the esteem and friendship of several able and valuable men, and, among the rest, of Dr. Waterland, it is not, at the same time, surprising, that they should excite antagonists. One of these, who then appeared without a name, and who at first treated our author with decency and respect, was Dr. Conyers Middleton but afterwards, when Dr. Middleton published his Introductory Discourse to the Inquiry into the miraculous powers of the Christian church, and the Inquiry itself, he chose to speak of Dr. Berriman with no small degree of severity and contempt. In answer to the attacks made upon him, our divine printed in 1731, “A defence of some passages in the Historical Account.” In 1733, came out his “Brief remarks on Mr. Chandler’s introduction to the history of the Inquisition,” which was followed by “A review of the Remarks. His next publication was his course of sermons at Mr. Boyle’s lecture, preached in 1730, 1731, and 1732, and published in 2 vols r 1733, 8vo. The author, in this work, states the evidence of our religion from the Old Testament; vindicates the Christian interpretation of the ancient prophecies; and points out the historical chain and connection of these prophecies. In the preface, he asserts the authority of Moses, as an inspired historian and law-giver, against his old antagonist Dr. Middleton who, in a letter to Dr. Waterland, had disputed the literal account of the fall, and had expressed himself with his usual scepticism concerning the divine origin of the Mosaic institution, as well as the divine inspiration of its founder. Besides the writings we have mentioned, Dr. Berrimaii printed a number of occasional sermons, and, among the rest, one on the Sunday before his induction to his living of St. Andrew Undershaft, and another on Family Religion. He departed this life at his house in London, on the 5th of February, 1749-50, in the 62d year of his age. His funeral sermon was preached by the rev. Glocester Ridley, LL. B. containing many of the particulars here noticed. Such was Dr. Berriman’s integrity, that no ill usage could provoke him, no friendship seduce him, no ambition tempt him, no interest buy him, to do a wrong, or violate his conscience. When a certain right reverend prelate, unsolicited, and in pure respect to his distinguished merit, offered him a valuable prebend in his cathedral church of Lincoln, the doctor gratefully acknowledged the generosity of the offer, but conscientiously declined it, as he was bound from accepting of it by the statutes of his college. The greatest difficulty of obtaining a dispensation was from himself. In the year of his decease, forty of his sermons were published, in two volumes, 8vo, by his brother, John Berriman, M. A. rector of St. Alban’s, Wood-street, under the title of” Christian doctrines and duties explained and recommended." In 1763, nineteen sermons appeared in one volume, under the same title. With respect to Dr. Berriman’s practical discourses, it is allowed that they are grave, weighty, and useful and well fitted to promote pious and virtuous dispositions, but belong to a class which have never been eminently popular.

, an Italian antiquary of the last century, was born of a noble family, at Mereto inthe Frioul, March 13, 1676, and after studying at Venice, was ordained a priest in 1700. The same year he became canon -coadjutor of the patriarchal church of Aquileia, and soon after titular. He had already acquired a decided taste for the study of antiquities, and was in a country abounding with objects to gratify it, most of which, however, had been greatly neglected, and even destroyed by the ignorant inhabitants, who converted every remains of antiquity in stone to the common purposes of building. To prevent this for the future, Bertoli formed a society of men of learning and similar taste, who began with purchasing every valuable relic they could find, and placed the collection in the portico of the canons’ house, where it soon became an object of curiosity, not only to travellers, but to the Aquileians themselves. At the same time he copied, or caused to be copied, all the monuments in the town, and in the whole province, and entered into an extensive correspondence with many eminent characters, particularly Fontanini, to whom he liberally communicated his discoveries, in hopes they might be useful to that learned prelate; but he having deceased in 1736, Bertoli resolved to take upon himself what he had expected from him, and was encouraged in this design by Muratori and Apostolo Zeno. Accordingly he began to publish a series of memoirs and dissertations on subjects of antiquity, which he wrote at his native place, Mereto, where he resided for such periods as his official duties at Aquileia permitted. In 1747 he was elected a member of the Columbarian society of Florence, and next year of that of Cortona, and died a few years afterwards, but the date is not ascertained in either of our authorities. His principal publication is entitled “Le Aritichita di Aquileja profane e sacre,” Venice 1739, fol. He had made preparations for a second and third volume, but did not live to complete them. Several of his letters and dissertations relative to this work, and to various subjects of antiquity, are printed in Calogera’s valuable collection, vols. XXVI. XXXIII. XLIII. XLVII. XLVIII. &c. others are inserted in the Memoirs of the Columbarian Society of Florence, and in similar collections.

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

, 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.

In 1686 he returned to his own country, and was very active in re-founding the academy of the Aletophili, or lovers of truth, recommending to them more attention to mathematical studies, and to assist them, he presented the society with the instruments which Montanari had bequeathed for him; but this academy entirely depended on his presence, and on his return to Rome two years after, gradually dissolved. Settled after this at Rome, he became connected with the most eminent men of his time, and enriched his stores of knowledge, by an acquaintance with Greek, Hebrew, and French. Antiquities likewise became one of his favourite pursuits. He often passed whole days among the splendid ruins of Rome, assisted at every research, and digging among them, visited all the museums, and made elegant and correct drawings of all the monuments of antiquity. On the death of Innocent XI. cardinal Ottoboni, his protector, being chosen pope by the name of Alexander VIII. continued to interest himself in the fortune of Bianchini, gave him a canonry in the church of St. Mary Rotunda, appointed him guardian and librarian to cardinal Peter Ottoboni his nephew, gave him two pensions, and would have promoted him yet farther, if he had lived, and if Bianchini would have taken orders but he had not made up his mind to take deacon’s orders until 1699, and never would proceed farther. On the death of Alexander VIII. in 1691, the cardinal, his nephew, continued his kindness, and besides bestowing a canonry on him in the cfiurch of St. Lawrence in Damaso, invited him to reside in his palace. Clement XI. who was elected pope in 1700, bestowed on him, the year following, the title of chamberlain of honour, authorized him to wear that dress of a prelate called the mantellone, and assigned him apartments in the palace of Monte-Cavallo.

On his return to Rome in the month of June, 1713, he resumed his astronomical and antiquarian pursuits. When in France he conceived the idea of tracing a meridian line through Italy, from sea to sea, in imitation of that of Cassini through the middle of France. He accordingly began his operations, and pursued the object at his own expence, ‘ for eight years, but other plans and employments occurring, he never completed the design. The papal favours, however, were still conferred on him, purely as a man of science. Innocent XIII. the successor of Clement XI. appointed him referendary of the pontifical signatures, and domestic prelate, and in the council held at Home in 1725, he filled the office of first historiographer. Next year, his love for antiquities was highly gratified, although at the same time checked by an accident which had serious consequences. Tnere was discovered near Rome on the Appian way, a magnificent marble subterraneous building of three large halls, whose walls consisted of a great number of little cells like those of our modern pidgeon -houses. Most of these cells contained, each, four cinerary urns, accompanied with inscriptions of the name and office of the person whose ashes they contained, who were all slaves or freed-men and women of the household of Augustus, especially that of Livk. There were also in this place some exquisite specimens of mosaic ornaments. Biauchini’s joy on this discovery may be easily appreciated by genuine antiquaries; but one unfortunate day, while he was examining one of the chambers or halls, and preparing to make a drawing, the ground on which he stood gave way, and although his fall was broken by some earth which had been dug, one of his thighs received such a serious injury, that he was lame for the remainde’r of his iif and although he found some relief at the baths of Vignona near Sienna, where he went the following year, his health was never completely re-established.

, a learned writer, and bishop, in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in the city of Winchester, being the son of Harman Bilson, the same probably who was fellow of Merton-college in 1536, and derived his descent by his grandmother, or great-grandmother, from the duke of t>avaria. He was educated in Winchester school and in 1565 admitted perpetual fellow of New-college, after he had served two years of probation. October 10, 1566, he took his degree of bachelor, and April 25, 1570, that of master of arts; that of bachelor of divinity, June 24, 1579; and the degree of doctor of divinity on the 24th of January 1580. In his younger years, he was a great lover of, and extremely studious in, poetry, philosophy, and physic. But when he entered into holy orders, and applied himself to the study of divinity, which his genius chiefly led him to, he became a most solid and constant preacher, and one of the most accomplished scholars of his time. The first preferment he had was that of master of Winchester-school he was then made prebendary of Winchester, and afterwards warden of the college there. To this college he did a very important service, about the year 1584, by preserving the revenues of it when they were in danger of being swallowed up by a notorious forgery, of which, however, we have only an obscure account. In 1585, he published his book of “The true difference betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion,” and dedicated it to queen Elizabeth a work, which, although it might answer her immediate purpose, was of fatal tendency to Charles I. few books being more frequently quoted by the mal-contents to justify their resistance to that prince. In 1593, he published a very able defence of episcopacy, entitled, “The perpetuall Government of Christes Church: wherein are handled, the fatherly superioritie which God first established in the patriarkes for the guiding of his Church, and after continued in the tribe of Levi and the Prophetes and lastlie confirmed in the New Testament to the apostles and their successors: as also the points in question at this day, touching the Jewish Synedrion: the true kingdome of Christ: the Apostles’ commission: the laie presbyterie: the distinction of bishops from presbyters, and their succession from the apostles times and hands: the calling and moderating of provinciall synods by primates and metropolitanes the allotting of dioceses, and the popular electing of such as must feede and watch the flock and divers other points concerning the pastoral regiment of the house of God.” On the 20th of April, 15y6, he was elected v confirmed June the llth, and the 13th of the same month consecrated bishop of Worcester and translated in May following to the bishopric of Winchester, and made a privy-counsellor. In 1599, he published “The effect of certaine Sermons touching the full Redemption of Mankind by the death and bloud of Christ Jesus wherein, besides the merite of Christ’s suffering, the manner of his offering, the power of his death, the comfort of his crosse, the glorie of his resurrection, are handled, what paines Christ suffered in his soule on the crosse together with the place and purpose of his descent to hel after death” &c. Lond. 4to. These sermons being preached at Paul’s Cross in Lent 1597, by the encouragement of archbishop Whitgift, greatly alarmed most of the Puritans, because they contradicted some of their tenets, but they are not now thought consonant to the articles of the church of England. The Puritans, however, uniting their forces, and making their observations, sent them to Henry Jacob, a learned puritan, who published them under his own name. The queen being at Farnham-castle, and, to use the bishop’s words, “taking knowledge of the things questioned between him and his opponents, directly commanded him neither to desert the doctrine, nor to let the calling which he bore in the church of God, to be trampled under foot by such unquiet refusers of trueth and authoritie.” Upon this royal command, he wrote a learned treatise, chiefly delivered in sermons, which was published in 1604, under the title of “The survey^of Christ’s sufferings for Man’s Redemption and of his descent to hades or hel for our deliverance,” Lond. fol. He also preached the sermon at Westminster before king James I. and his queen, at their coronation on St. James’s day, July 28, 1603, from Rom. xiii. L. London, 1603, 8vo. In January 1603-4, he was one of the speakers and managers at the Hampton-Court conference, in which he spoke much, and, according to Mr. Fuller, most learnedly, and, in general, was one of the chief maintainers and supports of the church of England. The care of revising, and putting the last hand to, the new translation of the English Bible in king James Ist’s reign, was committed to our author, and to Dr. Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. His last public act, recorded in history, was the being one of the delegates that pronounced and signed the sentence of divorce between Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and the lady Frances Howard, in the year 1613 and his son being knighted soon after upon this very account, as was imagined, the world was so malicious as to give him the title of sir Nullity Bilson. This learned bishop, after having gone through many employments, departed this life on the 18th of June, 1616, and was buried in Westminsterabbey, near the entrance into St. Edmund’s chapel, on the south side of the monument of king Richard II. His character is represented to the utmost advantage by several persons. Sir Anthony Weldon calls him “an excellent civilian, and a very great scholler” Fuller, “a deep and profound scholar, excellently well read in the fathers” Bishop Godwin, “a very grave iman and how great a divine (adds he), if any one knows not, let him consult his learned writings” Sir John Harrington, “I find but foure lines (in bishop Godwin’s book) concerning him and if I should give him his due, in proportion to the rest, I should spend foure leaves. Not that I need make him better known, being one of the most eminent of his ranck, and a man that carried prelature in his very aspect. His rising was meerly by his learning, as true prelates should rise. Sint non modo labe mali sed suspicione carentes, not onely free from the spot, but from the speech of corruption.” He wrote in a more elegant style, and in fuller and betterturned periods, than was usual in the times wherein he lived. It is related of our prelate, that once, when he was preaching a sermon* at St. Paul’s Cross, a sudden panic, occasioned by the folly or caprice of one of the audience, seized the multitude there assembled, who thought that the church was falling on their heads. The good bishop, who sympathized with the people more from pity than from fear, after a sufficient pause, reassumed and went through his sermon with great composure.

How much Mr. Birch was affected by this calamity appears from some verses written by him, August 3d, 1729, on his wife’s coffin, and inserted in Mrs. Rowe’s Miscellaneous Works. That Mrs. Birch was a woman of very amiable accomplishments, is not only evident from the verses now mentioned, but from two Latin epitaphs drawn up for her one by her husband, and the other by Dr. Dale, which last was translated into English by Mr. James Ralph. In both these epitaphs, she is celebrated as having- possessed an uncommon share of knowledge and taste, and many virtues. After this melancholy event, he was ordained deacon by the bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Hoadly, Jan. 17, 1730, and priest by the same prelate, Dec. 21, 1731, and at the same time was presented to the rectory of Siddington St. Mary, and the vicarage of Siddington St. Peter, in Gloucestershire. He had been recommended, by a common friend, to the friendship and favour of the late lord high chancellor Hardwicke, then attorney-general; to whom, and to the late earl of Hardwicke, he was indebted for all his preferments. The chancellor gave him the living of Ulting in the county of Essex, to which he was instituted by Dr. Gibson, bishop of London, on the 20th of May, and he took possession of it on the day following. In 1734, he was appointed one of the domestic chaplains to William earl of Kilmarnock, the unfortunate nobleman who was afterwards beheaded, on the 18th of August, 1746, for having been engaged in the rebellion of 1745. The earl of Kilmarnock was, we believe, in more early life, understood to be a whig; and under no other character could Mr. Birch have been introduced to his lordship’s notice. On the 20th of February, 1734-5, Mr. Birch had the honour of being chosen a member of the royal society, sir Hans Sloane taking a leading part in the election. The same honour was done him on the llth of December 1735, by the society of antiquaries of which he afterwards became director. A few weeks before he was chosen into the latter, the Marischal college of Aberdeen had conferred on him, by diploma, the degree of master of arts. In the Spring of 1743, by the favour of his noble patron before mentioned, he received a more substantial benefit; being presented by the crown to the rectory of Landewy Welfrey in the county of Pembroke. To this benefice, which was a sinecure, he was instituted on the 7th of May, by Dr. Edward Willes, bishop of St. David’s. On the 24th of February, 1743-4, he was presented to the rectories of St. Michael, Wood-street, and St. Mary, Staining, united. His next preferment was likewise in the city of London; being to the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, to which he was presented in the beginning of February, 1745-6. In January, 1752, he was elected one of the secretaries of the royal society, in the room of Dr. Cromwell Mortimer, deceased. In January 1753, the Marischal college of Aberdeen created him doctor of divinity and in that year, the same honour was conferred on him by that excellent prelate, Dr. Thomas Herring, archbishop of Canterbury. Our author was also a trustee of the British Museum. The last preferment given to Dr. Birch, was the rectory of Depden in Essex; for which he was indebted to the late earl of Hardwicke. Depden itself, indeed, was in the patronage of Mr. Chiswell, and in the possession of the rev. Dr. Cock. But the benefice in lord Hardwicke’s gift, being at too great a distance from town, to be legally held by Dr. Birch, he obtained an exchange with Dr. Cock. Dr. Birch was instituted to Depden by the late eminent bishop Sherlock, on the 25th of February 1761; and he continued possessed of this preferment, together with the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, till his decease. In 1765, he resigned his office of secretary to the royal society, and was succeeded by Dr. Maty. Dr. Birch’s health declining about this time, he was ordered to ride for the recovery of it but being a bad horseman, and going out, contrary to advice, on a frosty day, he was unfortunately thrown from his horse, on the road betwixt London and Hampstead, and killed on the spot. Dr. William Watson, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, as soon as he heard of the accident of the fall, hastened to the relief of his friend, but in vain. It is not known whether Dr. Birch’s fall might not have been occasioned by an apoplexy. This melancholy event happened on the 9th of January 1766, in the 61st year of his age, to the great regret of the doctor’s numerous literary friends. Some days after his death, he was buried in the chancel of his own church of St. Margaret Pattens. Dr. Birch had, in his life-time, been very generous to his relations; and none that were near to him being living at his decease, he bequeathed his library of books and manuscripts, many of which are valuable, to the British Museum. He, likewise, left the remainder of his fortune, which amounted to not much more than five hundred pounds, to be laid out in government securities, for the purpose of applying the interest to increase the stipend of the three assistant librarians. Thus manifesting at his death, as he had done during his whole life, his respect for literature, and his desire to promote useful knowledge.

Having related the more personal and private circumstances of Dr. Birch’s history, we proceed to his various publications. The first great work he engaged in, was “The General Dictionary, historical and critical” wherein a new translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle was included and which was interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. It was on the 29th of April, 1734, that Dr. Birch, in conjunction with the rev. Mr. John Peter Bernard, and Mr. John Lockman, agreed with the booksellers to carry on this important undertaking; and Mr. George Sale was employed to draw up the articles relating to oriental history. The whole design was completed in ten volumes, folio; the first of which appeared in 1734, and the last in 1741. It is universally allowed, that this work contains a very extensive and useful body of biographical knowledge. We are not told what were the particular articles written by Dr. Birch but there is no doubt of his having executed a great part of the dictionary neither is it, we suppose, any disparagement to his coadjutors, to say, that he was superior to them in abilities and reputation, with the exception of Mr. George Sale, who was, without controversy, eminently qualified for the department he had undertaken. The next great design in which Dr. Birch engaged, was the publication of “Thurloe’s State Papers.” This collection, which comprised seven volumes in folio, came out in 1742. It is dedicated to the late lord chancellor Hardwicke, and there is prefixed to it a life of Thurloe but whether it was written or not by our author, does not appear. The same life had been separately published not long before. The letters and papers in this collection throw the greatest light on the pe'riod to which they relate, and are accompanied with proper references, and a complete index to each volume, yet was a work by which the proprietors were great losers. In 1744, Dr. Birch published, in octavo, a “Life of the honourable Robert Boyle, esq” which hath since been prefixed to the quarto edition of the works of that philosopher. In the same year, our author began his assistance to Houbraken and Vertue, in their design of publishing, in folio, the “Heads of illustrious persons of Great Britain,” engraved by those two artists, but chiefly by Mr. Houbraken. To each head was annexed, by Dr, Birch, the life and character of the person represented. The first volume of this work, which came out in numbers, was completed in 1747, and the second in 1752. Our author’s concern in this undertaking did not hinder his prosecuting, at the same time, other historical disquisitions: for, in 1747, appeared, in octavo,“His inquiry into the share which king Charles the First had in the transactions of the earl of Glamorgan.” A second edition ef the Inquiry was published in 1756, and it was a work that excited no small degree of attention. In 1751, Dr. Birch was editor of the “Miscellaneous works of sir Walter Raleigh” to which was prefixed the life of that unfortunate and injured man. Previously to this, Dr. Birch published “An historical view of the negociations between the courts of England, France, and Brussels, from 1592 to 1617; extracted chiefly from the ms State Papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, knight, embassador in France, and at Brussels, and treasurer of the household to the kings James I. and Charles I. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon. To which is added, a relation of the state of France, with the character of Henry IV. and the principal persons of that court, drawn up by sir George Carew, upon his return from his embassy there in 1609, and addressed to king James I. never before printed.” This work, which consists of one volume, in octavo, appeared in 1749; and, in an introductory discourse to the honourable Philip Yorke, esq. (the late earl of Hardwicke), Dr. Birch makes some reflections on the utility of deducing history from its only true and unerring sources, the original letters and papers of those eminent men, who were the principal actors in the administration of affairs; after which he gives some account of the lives of sir Thomas Edmondes, sir George Carew, and Mr. Anthorry Bacon. The “Historical View” is undoubtedly a valuable performance, and hath brought to light a variety of particulars relative to the subjects and the period treated of, which before were either not at all, or not so fully known. In 17.51, was published by our author, an edition, in two volumes, 8vo, of the “Theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn” with an account of her life. In the next year came out his “Life of the most reverend Dr. John Tillotson, lord archbishop of Canterbury. Compiled chiefly from his original papers and letters.” A second edition, corrected and enlarged, appeared in 1753. This work, which was dedicated to archbishop Herring, is one of the most pleasing and popular of Dr. Birch’s performances; and he has done great justice to Dr. Tillotsou’s memory, character, and virtues. Our biographer hath likewise intermixed with his narrative of the good prelate’s transactions, short accounts of the persons occasionally mentioned; a method which he has pursued in some of his other publications. In 1753, he revised. the quarto edition, in two volumes, of Milton’s prose works, and added a new life of that great poet and writer. Dr. Birch gave to the world', in the following year, his “Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581, till her death. In which the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad, are particularly illustrated. From the original papers of his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, esq. and other manuscripts never before published.” These memoirs, which are inscribed to the earl of Hardwicke, give a minute account of the letters and materials from which they are taken and the whole work undoubtedly forms a very valuable collection in which our author has shewn himself (as in his other writings) to be a faithfnl and accurate compiler and in which, besides a full display of the temper and actions of the earl of Essex, much light is thrown on the characters of the Cecils, Bacons, and many eminent persons of that period. The book is now becoming scarce, and, as it may not speedily be republished, is rising in its value. This is the case, likewise, with regard to the edition of sir Walter Raleigh’s miscellaneous works. Dr. Birch’s next publication was “The history of the Royal Society of London, for improving of natural knowledge, from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those papers, communicated to the society, which have hitherto not been published, are inserted in their proper order, as a supplement to the Philosophical Transactions.” The twq first volumes of this performance, which was dedicated to his late majesty, appeared in 1756, and the two other volumes in 1757. The history is carried on to the end of the year 1687 and if the work had been continued, and had been conducted with the same extent and minuteness, it would have been a very voluminous undertaking. But, though it may, perhaps, be justly blamed in this respect, it certainly contains many curious and entertaining anecdotes concerning the manner of the society’s proceedings at their first establishment. It is enriched, likewise, with a number of personal circumstances relative to the members, and with biographical accounts of such of the more considerable of them as died in the course of each year. In 1760, came out, in one volume, 8vo, our author’s “Life of Henry prince of Wales, eldest son of king James I. Compiled chiefly from his own papers, and other manuscripts, never before published.” It is dedicated to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. Some have objected to this work, that it abounds too much with trifling details, and that Dr. Birch has not given sufficient scope to such reflections and disquisitions as arose from his subject. It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that it affords a more exact and copious account than had hitherto appeared of a prince whose memory has always been remarkably popular; and that various facts, respecting several other eminent characters, are occasionally introduced. Another of his publications was, “Letters, speeches, charges, advices, &c. of Francis Bacon, lord viscount St. AJban, lord chancellor of England.” This collection, which is comprised in one volume, 8vo, and is dedicated to the honourable Charles Yorke, esq. appeared in 1763. It is taken from some papers which had been originally in the possession of Dr. Rawley, lord Bacon’s chaplain, whose executor, Mr. John Rawley, having put them into the hands of Dr. Tenison, they were, at length, deposited in the manuscript library at Lambeth. Dr. Birch, speaking of these papers of lord Bacon, says, that it can scarcely be imagined, but that the bringing to light, from obscurity and oblivion, the remains of so eminent a person, will be thought an acquisition not inferior to the discovery (if the ruins of Herculaneum should afford such a treasure) of a new set of the epistles of Cicero, whom our immortal countryman most remarkably resembled as an orator, a philosopher, a writer, a lawyer, and a statesman. Though this, perhaps, is speaking too highly of a collection, which contains many things in it seemingly not very material, it must, at the same time, be allowed, that nothing can be totally uninteresting which relates to so illustrious a man, or tends, in any degree, to give a farther insight into his character. To this catalogue we have still to add “Professor Greaves’s miscellaneous works,” 1737, in two vols. 8vo. Dr. Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” (improved from the Latin edition of Mosheim) his discourse on the true notion of the Lord’s Supper, and two sermons, with an account of his life and writings, 1743, in two vols. 4to. An edition of Spenser’s “Fairy Queen,” 1751, in three Vols. 4to, with prints from designs by Kent. “Letters between col. Robert Hammond, governor of the Isle of Wight, and the committee of lords and commons at Derbyhouse, general Fairfax, lieut.-general Cromwell, commissary general Ireton, &c. relating to king Charles I. while he was confined in Carisbrooke-castle in that island. Now first published. To which is prefixed a letter from John Ashburnham, esq. to a friend, concerning his deportment towards the king, in his attendance on his majesty at Hampton-court, and in the Isle of Wight,” 1764, 8vo. Dr. Birch’s last essay, “The life of Dr. Ward,” which was finished but a week before his death, was published by Dr. Maty, in 1766.

, a political author in the seventeenth century, was the son of Richard Birkenhead, of Northwych, in the county of Cheshire, an honest saddler, who, if some authors may deserve credit, kept also a little ale-house. Our author was born about 1615, and having received some tincture of learning in the common grammar-schools, came to Oxford, and was entered in 1632, a servitor of Oriel college, under the tuition of the learned Dr. Humphrey Lloyd, afterwards bishop of Bangor. Dr. Lloyd recommended him to Laud, archbishop of Canterbury, as his amanuensis, and in that capacity he discovered such talents, that the archbishop, by his diploma, created him A. M. in 1639, and the year following, by letter commendatory from the same great prelate, he was chosen probationary fellow of All-souls college. This preferment brought him to reside constantly in Oxford, and on king Charles I. making that city his head-quarters during the civil war, our author was employed to write a kind of journal in support of the royal cause, by which he gained great reputation; and his majesty recommended him to be chosen reader in moral philosophy, which employment he enjoyed, though with very small profit, till 1648, when he was expelled by the parliament visitors. He retired afterwards to London, where adhering steadily to his principles, he acquired, among those of his own sentiments, the title of “The Loyal Poet,” and suffered, from such as had then the power in their hands, several imprisonments, which served only to sharpen his wit, without abating his courage. He published, while he thus lived in obscurity, and, as Wood says, by his wits, some very tart performances, which were then very highly relished, and are still admired by the curious. These were, like his former productions, levelled against the republican leaders, and were written with the same vindictive poignancy that was then fashionable. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. he was created April 6, 1661, on the king’s letters sent for that purpose, D. C. L. by the university of Oxford and in that quality was o'ne of the eminent civilians consulted by the convocation on the question “Whether bishops ought to be present in capital cases?” and with the rest, Keb. 2, 1661-2, gave it under his hand, they ought and might. He was, about the same time, elected a burgess, to serve in parliament for Wilton, in the county of Wilts, and continuing his services to his master, was by him promoted, on the first vacancy, to some office at court, which he quitted afterwards, and became master in the Faculty office. He was knighted November 14, 1662, and upon sir Richard Fanshaw’s going with a public character to the court of Madrid, sir John Birkenhead succeeded him as master of requests. He was also elected a member of the royal society, an honour at that time conferred on none who were not well known in the republic of letters, as men capable of promoting the truly noble designs of that learned body. He lived afterwards in credit and esteem with men of wit and learning, and received various favours from the court, in consideration of the past, and to instigate him to other services; which, however, drew upon him some very severe attacks from those who opposed the court. Anthony Wood has preserved some of their coarsest imputations, for what reason is not very obvious, as Wood is in general very partial to the loyalist writers. He died in Westminster, December 4, 1679, and was interred at St. Martin’s in the Fields, leaving to his executors, sir Richard Mason, and sir Muddiford Bamston, a large and curious collection of pamphlets on all subjects.

, a celebrated Italian scholar of the last century, was born at Florence, Aug. 14, 1674. After finishing his studies, he taught a school, which produced Bottari, the prelate, and some other eminent men. The grand duke Cosmo III. having given him some benefices, he took priest’s orders, and the degree of doctor in the university of Florence, and spent several years in preaching, particularly in the cathedral church of St. Laurence. The chapter, in 1713, appointed him keeper of the Mediceo-Laurentian library, and to this office he was re-elected in 1725, 1729, and 1739, but he could not, with all his endeavours, prevail on the chapter to grant it him for life. While here, however, he began a new course of studies, learned Greek, Hebrew, and other oriental languages, and applied himself particularly to the Tuscan here also he found a very useful patron in Nicolas Panciatichi, a very opulent Florentine nobleman, who received him into his house, where he remained eleven years, and made him his children’s tutor, his librarian, secretary, archivist, &c. and amply rewarded him for his services in all thi’se departments. He was also appointed apostolic prothonotary, synodal examiner at Florence and Fiesola, and reviser of cases of conscience in these dioceses. At length, in 174-1, the grand duke of his own accord made him royal librarian of the Laurentian library, and in 1745, gave him a canonry of St. Laurence. In his place as librarian, he was of essential service to men of letters, and was engaged in many literary undertakings which were interrupted by his death, May 4, 1756. He left a very capital collection of rare editions and manuscripts, which the grand duke purchased and divided between the Laurentian and Magliabechian libraries. Biscioni during his life-time was a man of great reputation, and many writers have spoken highly in his praise. He published very little that could be called original, his writings consisting principally of the notes, commentaries, prefaces, letters, and dissertations, with which he enriched the works of others such as the preface and notes to his edition of the “Prose di Dante Alighieri e di Gio. Boccaccio,” Florence, 1713 1723, 4to his notes on “Menzini’s Satires” his preface and notes on the “Riposo” of Raphael Borghini, Florence, 1730, 4to, &c. &c. The only work he published not of this description, was a vindication of the first edition of the “Canti Carnascialeschi,” against a reprint of that work by the abbé Bracci, entitled “Parere sopra la seconda edizione de' Canti Carnascialeschi e in difesa della prima edizione,” &c. Florence, 1750, 8vo. He had begun the catalogue of the Mediceo- Laurentian library, of which the first volume, containing the oriental manuscripts, was magnificently printed at Florence, 1752, folio, and the rest continued by the canon Giulanelli, many years after, who added the Greek Mss. Biscioni left many notes, critical remarks, &c. on books, a history of the Panciatichi family, and of his own family, and some satires on those who had so long prevented him from being perpetual keeper of the Laurentian library, an injury he seems never to have forgotten.

, an eminent English divine, was born in London, 1654, and educated at Catherine-hail, Cambridge. In 1690, he was inducted into the living of South Okenden, Essex, and four years afterwards to the rectory of St. Mary Aldermary, London and was successively chosen lecturer of St. Olave’s, and of St. Dunstan’s in the West. He was likewise appointed chaplain to king William. He preached before the house of commons Jan. 30, 1699, and in his sermon animadverted on Mr. Toland for his asserting in his life of Milton, that Charles I. was not the author of “Icon Basilike,” and for some insinuations against the authenticity' of the holy scriptures which drew him into a controversy with that author. In 1700, he preached a course of sermons at Boyle’s lecture, in the cathedral church of St. Paul, which were afterwards published. In 1707, he was consecrated to the bishopric of Exeter. Burnet, having mentioned him and sir William Dawes as raised to bishoprics, tells us, “that these divines were in themselves men of value and worth; but their notions were all on the other side. They had submitted to the government but they, at least Blackall, seemed to condemn the revolution, and all that had been done pursuant to it.” And it is asserted in an anonymous pamphlet, published in 1705, that he had refused for two years to take the oath of allegiance to king William. But what contributed most to his fame in his life- time was a controversy he had with Mr. (afterwards bishop) Hoadly, which was occasioned by his sermon upon Rom. xiii. 3, 4, entitled, “The Divine Institution of Magistracy, and the gracious design of its institution,” preached before the queen at St. James’s on Tuesday, March 8, 1708, being the anniversary of her majesty’s happy accession to the throne, and published by her majesty’s special command. The next year, 1709, Mr. Hoadly animadverted upon the bishop’s sermon, in a piece, entitled “Some Considerations humbly offered to the right reverend the lord bishop of Exeter, occasioned by his lordship’s sermon before her majesty, March 8, 1708.” Upon this the bishop published “An Answer to Mr. Hoadly’s Letter,” dated from Bath, May the 10th, 1709. Mr. Hoadly endeavoured to vindicate himself, in “An humble Reply to the right reverend the lord bishop of Exeter’s answer; in which the Considerations offered to his lordship are vindicated, and an apology is added for defending the foundation of the present government,” London, 1709, in 8vo. In this controversy, bishop Blackall defends the High-church, Tory, principles (as they usually are called), of the divine institution of magistracy, and unlimited passive obedience and non-resistance; which Mr. Hoadly opposes. There were several pamphlets written on the side of the bishop against Mr. Hoadly particularly one, entitled, “The best Answer that ever was made, and to which no answer will be made” supposed to be wi'itten by Mr. Lesley, a nonjuring clergyman, and which Mr. Hoadly animadverts upon in the postscript to his humble reply. The wits in the Tatler engaged in this controversy on the side of Hoadly, and with an illiberality not usual in the writers of that paper. He died at Exeter, Nov. 29, 1716, and was interred in the cathedral there. Archbp. Dawes, who had a long and intimate friendship with him, declares, that in his whole conversation he never met with a more perfect pattern of a true Christian life, in all its parts, than in him: so much primitive simplicity and integrity; such constant evenness of mind, and uniform conduct of behaviour; such unaffected and yet most ardent piety towards God such orthodox and steadfast faith in Christ such disinterested and fervent charity to all mankind such profound modesty, humility, and sobriety such an equal mixture of meekness and courage, of cheerfulness and gravity such an exact discharge of all relative duties and in one word, such an indifferency to this lower world and the things of it and such an entire affection and joyous hope and expectation of things above. He says also, that his “manner of preaching was so excellent, easy, clear, judicious, substantial, pious, affecting, and upon all accounts truly useful and edifying, that he universally acquired the reputation of being one of the best preachers of his time.” Felton, in his Classics, commends him as an excellent writer. M. de la Roche, in his memoirs of literature, tells us, that our prelate was one of those English divines, who, when they undertake to treat a subject, dive into the bottom of it, and exhaust the matter. His works were published by archbishop Dawes, in 2 vols. fol. 1723, consisting of Practical discourses on our Saviour’s Sermon on the mount, and on the Lord’s Prayer, together with his sermons preached at Boyle’s lecture, with several others upon particular occasions.

Many of our modern writers, and particularly bishop Godwin, fall into frequent inaccuracies concerning this prelate, sometimes mistaking his sirname, and sometimes confounding him with Richard Blount, bishop of Lincoln. After his return from Rome, and being deprived of his high dignity, he retired once again to Oxford, and, as Leland tells us, consoled himself under his misfortunes, by an ardent application to his studies. In this manner he spent sixteen years, during which time he composed several learned works, and amongst them various commentaries on the Holy Scriptures. He was celebrated by his contemporaries for the elegance of his style, and for the extensiveness of his learning. John Ross, of Warwick, no contemptible historian, and who did not live above a century after his time, speaks of him as a prodigy of science. This very learned, though unfortunate person, having attained to a good old age, and to a high reputation for his knowledge, prudence, and piety, died hi 1248, having always shevyn an equanimity of mind, which demonstrated him worthy of the highest station, by enabling him to bear with fortitude his fall from thence.

, a younger brother of sir Thonas Bodley, and, as already noticed, a benefactor to his library, was born in the city of Exeter, about the year 1546. After a suitable education, though in what school is not known, he was sent to Christ-church-college in Oxford, where he took the degrees of bachelor and master of arts. From thence he removed into his native country, where his merit became so conspicuous, that he was made one of the canons, residentiary of Exeter cathedral, and rector of Shobroke, about seven miles from that city, near Crediton. He was chief mourner at his brother’s funeral and, March 30, 1613, was created doctor in divinity, as a member of Christ-church. He died April the 19th, 1615, in the seventieth year of his age, and was interred in St. Peter’s cathedral in Exeter, near the choir, under a flat marble stone, with an epitaph. As to his character we are told, that for his pious zeal, and continual labour in the faithful discharge of the duties of his function, he cannot be over-praised, and that he was of an hospitable disposition, very charitable, and pious. In his will, he bequeathed to the mayor and chamber of Exeter, four hundred pounds in money, to purchase twenty pounds a year in lands, towards the maintenance of a preacher in that city. There is nothing of his writing extant, except an. elegy on the death of the famous bishop Jewel, inserted in Humphrey’s life of that prelate. Dr. John Prideaux, regius professor of divinity and rector of Exeter college, dedicated an act sermon to him, and acknowledges himself indebted to him for some preferment. Prideaux entered Exeter college as a poor servitor, and probably was then indebted to Dr. Bodley for his advancement.

After some time he returned to Rome, where Gregory II. consecrated him bishop of the new German churches, by the name of Boniface, a Roman name, which Gregory probably thought might procure from the German converts more respect to the pope, than an English one. Solicitous also to preserve his dignity, Gregory exacted from Boniface an oath of subjection to the papal authority, drawn up in very strong terms. Boniface then returned to the scenes of his mission, and had great success in Hesse, encouraged now by Charles Martel, the dominion of the French extending at this time a considerable way into Germany. We do not, however, find that he derived any other assistance from the civil authority, than personal protection, which doubtless was of great importance. If he complied with the instructions sent from England, he employed no means but what became a true missionary. These, instructions, or rather advice sent to him by Daniel, bishop of Winchester, about the year 723, afford too striking an instance of good sense and liberality in that dark age, to be omitted. Daniel’s method of dealing with idolaters was conceived in these words, “Do not contradict in a direct manner their accounts of the genealogy of their gods; allow that they were born from one another in the same way that mankind are: this concession will give you the advantage of proving, that there was a time when they had no existence. Ask them who governed the world before the birth of their gods, and if these gods have ceased to propagate? If they have not, shew them the consequence; namely, that the gods must be infinite in number, and that no man can rationally be at ease in worshipping any of them, lest he should, by that means, offend one, who is more powerful. Argue thus with them, not in the way of insult, but with temper and moderation: and take opportunities to contrast these absurdities with the Christian doctrine: let the pagans be rather ashamed than incensed by your oblique mode of stating these subjects. Shew them the insufficiency of their plea of antiquity; inform them that idolatry did anciently prevail over the world, but that Jesus Christ was manifested, in order to reconcile men to God by his grace.” From this same prelate he received other instructions respecting reforming the church, and exercising discipline 'with the refractory and scandalous priests, who occasioned much obstruction to his mission. In the mean time, the report of his success induced many of his countrymen to join him, who dispersed themselves and preached in the villages of Hesse and Thuringia.

, bishop of London, proverbial for his cruelty, was the son of an honest poor man, and born, at Hanley in Worcestershire, although some have very eagerly reported that he was the natural son of one George Savage, a priest, as if the circumstance of his birth could have had any effect on his future disposition. He was maintained at school by an ancestor of Nicholas Lechmere, esq. a baron of the exchequer in the reign of king William; and in 1512, he was entered at Broadgate-hall in Oxford, now Pembroke college. On June 12, 1519, he was admitted bachelor of the canon, and the day following bachelor of the civil law. He entered into orders about the same time, and had some employment in the diocese of Worcester; and on the 12th of July 1525, was created doctor of the canon law. He was a man of some, though not great learning, but distinguished himself chiefly by his skill and dexterity in the management of affairs, which made him be taken notice of by cardinal Wolsey, who appointed him his commissary for the faculties; and he was with this prelate at Cawood, when he was arrested for high treason. He enjoyed at once the livings of Blaydon and Cherry Burton in Yorkshire, Ripple in Worcestershire, East Dereham in Norfolk, and the prebend of Chiswick in the cathedral church of St. Paul: but the last he resigned in 1539, an of East Dereham in 1540. He was installed archdeacon of Leicester, October 17, 1535.

Upon queen Elizabeth’s accession, Bonner went to meet her at Highgate, with the rest of the bishops; but she looked on him as a man stained with blood, and therefore would shew him no mark of her favour. For some months, however, he remained unmolested; but being called before the privy council on the 30th of May 1359, he refused to take the oath of allegiance and supremacy: for which reason only, as it appears, he was deprived a second time of his bishopric the 29th of June following, and committed to the Marshalsea. After having lived in confinement some years, he died September 5, 1569, and three days after he was buried at midnight, in St. George’s churchyard, Southwark, to prevent any disturbances that might have been made by the citizens, who hated him extremely. He had stood excommunicated several years, and might have been denied Christian burial; but of this no advantage was taken. As to his character, he was a violent, furious, and passionate man, and extremely cruel in his nature; in his person he was very fat and corpulent, the consequence of excessive gluttony, to which he was much addicted. He was a great master of the canon law, being excelled in that faculty by very few of his time, and well skilled in politics, but understood little of divinity. Several pieces were published under his name, of which the following is a list 1. Preface to the Oration of Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, concerning true Obedience. Printed at London, in Latin, 1534, 1535, and at Hamburgh in 1536, 8vo. Translated into English by Mi-, chael Wood, a zealous Protestant, with a bitter preface to the reader, and a postscript, Roan, 1553, 8vo. It is also inserted in J. Fox’s book of Martyrs. In the preface Bonner speaks much in favour of king Henry the VHIth’s marriage with Ann Boleyn, and against the tyranny exercised by the bishop of Rome in this kingdom. 2. Several letters to the lord Cromwell. 3. A declaration to lord Cromwell, describing to him the evil behaviour of Stephen (bishop of Winchester), with special causes therein contained, wherefore and why he misliked of him. 4. Letter of his about the proceedings at Rome concerning the king’s divorce from Catherine of Arragon. 5. An admonition and advertisement given by the bishop of London to all readers of the Bible in the English tongue. 6. Injunctions given by Bonner, bishop of London, to his clergy (about preaching, with the names of books prohibited). 7. Letter to Mr. Lechmere. 8. Responsum & exhortatio, Lond. 1553, 8vo. Answer and exhortation to the clergy in praise of priesthood: spoken by the author in St. Paul’s cathedral, the 16th October, 1553, after a sermon preached before the clergy, by John Harpesfield. 9. A letter to Mr. Lechmere, 6th September, 1553. 10. Articles to be enquired of in the general visitation of Edmund bishop of London, exercised by him in 1554, in the city and diocese of London, &c. To ridicule them, John Bale, bishop of Ossory, wrote a book, entitled, A declaration of Edmund Bonner’s articles, concerning the clergy of London diocese, whereby that execrable anti-christ is in his right colours revealed, 1554, and 1561, 8vo. 11. A profitable and necessary doctrine, containing an exposition on the Creed, seven Sacraments, ten Commandments, the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, with certain homilies adjoining thereto, for the instruction and information of the diocese of London, Lond. 1554-5, 4to. This book was drawn up by his chaplains John Harpesfield and Henry Pendleton; the former part of it, which is catechism, is mostly taken out of the Institution of a Christian man, set out by king Henry VIII. only varied in some points. 12. Several letters, declarations, arguings, disputes, &c. of his are extant in John Fox’s book of Martyrs, vol. last. 13. His objections against the process of Robert Horn, bishop of Winchester, who had tendered the oath of supremacy to him a second time, are preserved by Mr. Strype in his Annals of the Reformation. The character of bishop Bonner is so familiar to our readers as to require little illustration, or any addition to the preceding account from the former edition of this Dictionary; yet some notice may be taken of the defence set up by the Roman Catholic historians. Dodd, alluding to his cruelties, says, that “Seeing he proceeded according to the statutes then in force, and by the direction of the legislative power, he stands in need of no apology on that score.” But the history of the times proves that Bonner’s character cannot be protected by a reference to the statutes, unless his vindicator can likewise prove that he had no hand in enacting those statutes; and even if this were conceded, his conduct will not appear less atrocious, because, not content with the sentence of the law carried into execution by the accustomed officers, Bonner took frequent opportunities to manifest the cruelty of his disposition by anticipating, or aggravating, the legal punishments. He sometimes whipped the prisoners with his own hands, till he was tired with the violence of the exercise; and on one occasion he tore out the beard of a weaver who refused to relinquish his religion; and that he might give him a specimen of burning, he held his hand to a candle, till the sinews and veins shrunk and burst . The fact is, that Bonner was constitutionally cruel, and delighted in the sufferings he inflicted. Granger very justly says, that “Nature seems to have designed him for an executioner,” and as, wherever he could, he performed the character, how can he be defended by an appeal to the statutes? The most remarkable circumstance in his history is the lenity shown to him after all this bloody career. There seems no reason to think that he would have even been deprived of his bishopric, had he consented to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, a circumstance which is surely very extraordinary. His compliance, had he taken, that step, could have been only hypocritical, and what an object it would have been to have seen the duties and power of a protestant prelate intrusted to such a monster, and in that diocese, where so many families preserved the bitter remembrance of his cruelty.

, an ancient prelate of the fourth century, is known in church history as the heretical bishop of Naissus in Dacia, though some authors say of Sardica, the metropolis of that province. In the year 391 he was accused of crimes against the canons of the chnrch and the law of God, and was reported for heresy at the council of Capua, which met the latter end of that year. The particulars of his crimes cannot now be known, but his heresy may be gathered from St. Augustin and St. Ambrose. He had, before, been condemned by Damasus, bishop of Rome, who died A. D. 384. The council of Capua committed the hearing of his cause to the bishops of Mecodon, his neighhours, under their metropolitan Anysius, bishop of Thessalonica. The bishops assembled, agreeably to the order of the council, and Bonosus appeared before them; after examination, they were so well convinced of the truth of the charge, that they immediately suspended him from all episcopal functions; at the same time writing a letter to Syricius bishop of Rome, declaring their abhorrence of the detestable error, that the virgin Mary should have other children than Christ. Bonosus died A. D. 410; but his doctrine did not die with him, being maintained by some 200 years after his death. Pope Gregory makes mention of the Bonosians in the latter end of the sixth century.

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.

, bishop of Lodeve, and afterwards of Montpellier, was one of the most learned French prelates in the seventeenth century. He was born at Narbonne, May 28, 1605, and studied atThoulouse. He was afterwards appointed judge royal of Narbonne, intendant of Guienne and Languedoc, solicitor general to the parliament of Normandy, and counsellor of state in ordinary. For his services in this last office he was promoted to the bishopric of Lodeve, Jan. 1650. When the affair of the five propositions was agitated at Rome, Bosquet was appointed deputy on the part of the king and clergy of France, and while there, the cardinal Este appointed him bishop of Montpellier. He was exemplary for piety, disinterestedness, and charity, and, like the best of his brethren at that time, practised rigorous austerities. He assisted at the general assembly of the clergy held at Paris in 1670, and was distinguished for his learning and eloquence. An apoplexy carried him off July 24, 1676, and he was interred in the cathedral, with an epitaph celebrating his many virtues. The first work he published was “Pselli Synopsis Legum,” 1632, apiece never before printed, and written in Greek verse by Pselius for the use of his pupil Michael Ducas,in the eleventh century. Bosquet translated it into Latin, and added notes to it. He then published, 2. “Ecclesiye Gallicanae Historiarum liber primus,” 1656, 4to. 3. “Pontificum Romanorum qui e Gallia oriundi in ea seclerunt, historia, ab anno 1315 ad ann. 1394 ex Mss. edita,” Paris, 1632, The second edition of his history of the Gallican Church, the one above mentioned "in 1636, was much enlarged, but some passages were omitted that had appeared in the first octavo edition, which archbishop Usher has transcribed. By these it appears that Bosquet was of opinion that the mistaken zeal of the monks was the chief cause of those fabulous traditions which have destroyed all confidence in the early history of the Gallican church, and while he makes some apology for the credulous believers of those stories, he makes none for those who originally invented them, a concession of great liberality from a prelate of the Romish church.

In estimating the character of this celebrated prelate, we must not be guided by d'Alembert’s desultory and artful Eloge, who, however, struggles in vain to conceal the truth, that Bossuet was, with all his taste and talents, a furious bigot in favour of the Catholic religion, and while he affected to dislike persecution, either submitted to the exercise of it, or promoted it by the asperity of his writings. We shall come nearer the truth by adopting Bossuet’s character as contrasted with that of Fenelon by the writer of the “Letters concerning Mythology,” who represents him as a prelate of vast parts, learned, eloquent, artful, and aspiring. By these qualities he rose to the first dignities in the Gallican church: while another of finer fancy and better heart (Fenelon), humble, holy, and sincere, was censured at Rome, and disgraced at the French court. Both were intrusted with the education of princes, and acquitted themselves of those duties in a very different manner. The one endeavoured to make his royal pupil noble, virtuous, and just, a father to his people, ana a friend to mankind, by the maxims of his inimitable Telemaque. The other in his discourses upon universal history, is perpetually turning his prince’s eyes from mankind to the church, as the sacred object of his care, from whose everlasting stem whoever separates is lost: and for whose interests, in the extirpation of heresy, and aggrandizement of her ministers, he is, like his father Lewis XIV. to exert all the power he has received from God.

His celebrated “Exposition of the Roman Catholic Faith,” mentioned above, was designed to show the protestants, that their reasons against returning to the Romish church might be easily removed, if they would view the doctrines of that church in their true light, and not as they had been erroneously represented by protestant writers. Nine years, however, passed before this book could obtain the pope’s approbation. Clement X. refused it positively; and several catholic priests were rigorously treated and severely persecuted, for preaching the doctrine contained in the exposition of Bossuet, which was likewise formally condemned by the university of Louvain in the year 1685, and declared to be scandalous and pernicious. All this we should have thought a proof of the merit of the work, if it had not been at length licensed and held up as unanswerable by the protestants. The artifice, however, employed in the composition of it, and the tricks that were used in the suppression and alteration of the first edition, have been detected with great sagacity by archbishop Wake in the introduction to his “Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England,” and in his two “Defences” of that Exposition, in which the perfidious sophistry of Bossuet is unmasked and refuted in the most satisfactory manner. There was also an excellent answer to Bossuet' s book by M. de la Bastide, one of the most eminent protestant ministers in France. Of this answer the French prelate took no notice during eight years: at the end of which he published an advertisement, in a new edition of his “Exposition,” which was designed to remove the objections of La Bastide. The latter replied in such a demonstrative manner, that the learned bishop, notwithstanding all his eloquence and art, was obliged to quit the field of controversy. There is a very interesting account of this insidious work of Bossuet, and the controversies it occasioned, in the “Bibliotheque des Sciences,” published at the Hague, vol. XV Ih. This account, which is curious, ample, accurate, and learned, was given partly on occasion of a new edition of the “Exposition” printed at Paris in 1761, and accompanied with a Latin translation by Fleury, and partly on occasion of Burigny’s “Lite of Bossuet,” published the same year at Paris.

Had the French press, however, remained open, the controversy between the catholics and protestants might have soon been brought to a conclusion: but other measures were to be adopted, more characteristic of the genius of popery. Bossuet has been praised by most French writers for his laudable attempts to promote an union between the catholic and reformed churches of France. The basis of this union was not very promising. The reformed were to give up every thing, the catholics nothing, and the subsequent practice was worse than this principle. In the “Memoirs pour servira I'histoire des Refugies Francois dans les etats du Roi,” or Memoirs of the French refugees in the dominions of the king of Prussia, by Messrs. Erman and Reclam, published at Berlin in 1782, we have a curious developement of the plan of union, as detected by the celebrated Claude. The reformed church of Paris, which was a considerable edifice, was to be surrounded with troops; the archbishop of Paris and the bishop of Meaux (Bosquet) accompanied with a train of priests and the lieutenant of the police, were to march thither in procession, during divine service: one of these prelates was to mount the pulpit and summon the congregation to submit to the mother church and re-unite; a number of Roman Catholics, posted for the purpose in different parts of the church, as if they belonged to it, were to answer the prelate’s summons, by crying out “re-union!” after which the other prelate was to give the congregation a public absolution from the charge of heresy, and to receive the new pretended converts into the bosom of the church; and this scandalous farce was to be imposed upon the world for an actual re-union. This plan affords a tolerable specimen of Bossuet as a prelate, and a man of candour; and it is worthy of notice, that his associate in this expedition, was the libertine Harlai, archbishop of Paris, whose life and death were so scandalous, that not a single curate could be found, among the most unprincipled part of the Romish clergy, who would undertake to preach his funeral sermon.

, a very learned prelate of the court of Rome, was born at Florence, Jan. 15, 1689, and became early distinguished for the purity of his style, and his intimate knowledge of the Tuscan dialect. He studied rhetoric and Latin uiuier Antonio-Maria Biscioni, who was afterwards dictator of the Mediceo-Lorenzian library. (See Biscioni). He then studied philosophy, divinity, mathematics, and Greek, the latter under the learned Salvini. His proficiency in these branches of knowledge soon made him noticed, and he was appointed by the academy della Crusca, to superintend the new edition of their dictionary, in which labour he was assisted by Andrea Alamaorni and Rosso Martini. He had afterwards the direction of the printing-ofBce belonging to the Grand Duke, from which several of his works issued. Clement XII. made him librarian of the Vatican, in which he arranged a cabinet of medals, which that pope wished to be considered as a part of the library. On his death, Bottari entered the conclave Feb. 6, 1740, with the cardinal Neri Corsini. Next year was published by P. Marmoreus, the edition of Virgil^ Rome, 1741, fol. a fac-simile of the famous Codex Vaticanus, to which Bottari prefixed a learned preface. He was the first who had the curiosity to examine this valuable manuscript, which belonged formerly to Pontanus, afterwards to Bembus, and lastly to Fulvius Ursinus, who deposited it in the Vatican, when he became librarian there. Benedict XIV. being elected pope, who had long been the friend of Bottari, he conferred on him the canonry of St. Maria-Transteverini, and that he might reside in his palace, appointed him his private almoner. He was also a member of all the principal academies of Italy; and Fontanini, Apostolo Zeno, Gori, and others, have written his eloges, having all profited, in the publication of their works, by his valuable communications. His long and studious life terminated June 3, 1775, in his eighty-sixth year. Among his works, of which Mazzuchelli has given a long list, are, 1. Vita di Francesco Sacchetti,“Vicenza (Naples) 1725, with Sacchetti’s” Novelle,“8vo. 2.” L'Ercolano, dialogodi Benedetto Varchi,“Florence, 1730, 4to. 3.” Lezione tre sopra il tremuoto,“Rome, 1733 and 1748, 4to. 4.” Sculture, e Pitture sacre estratte dai cimeteri di Roma, &c.“Rome, 1737, 1747, 1753, 3 vols. fol. 5.” Vocabularia della Crusca,“Florence, 1738, 6 vols. 6. The Virgil already noticed. 7.” De Museo Capitolino,“1750, 3 vols fol. 8.” Raccolta di lettere sulla Pittura, Sculrura, ed Architettura,“Rome, 1754, 1757, and 1759, 3 vols. 4to; and again, an enlarged edition at Naples, 1772. 9.” Dialog hi sopra tre arti del Disegno," Lucca, 1754, 4to. He also contributed to a new edition oi Vasari and Passori’s Lives of the Painters.

, a Jesuit, and one of the most eloquent preachers France ever produced, was born at Bourges, Aug. 20, 1632, and entered the society of the Jesuits in 1648. After having passed some years in teaching grammar, rhetorick, philosophy, and divinity, his talents pointed him out for the office of preacher, and the extraordinary popularity of his sermons in the country, determined his superiors to call him to Paris in 1669, to take the usual course of a year’s preaching in their church of St. Louis, which soon became crowded with multitudes of both sexes both from the court and city; nor was this a transient impression, as whoever heard him once wished to hear him again, and even Louis XIV. listened with pleasure, although he appears to have introduced subjects in his discourses which could not be very acceptable in his court. On the revocation of the edict of Nantz, the king sent him into Languedoc to strengthen the new or pretended converts from the heresies of the protestant faith, and we are told the effect of his eloquence was great. His eloquence was undoubtedly superior to that of his contemporaries, and he has justly been praised for introducing a more pure style than was customary in the French pulpips. One effect of his preaching was, that great numbers of his hearers requested him to take their souls into his hands, and be the director of their consciences, in other words, to turn father confessor, with which he complied, and frequently sat five or six hours in the confessional, completing there, says his biographer, what he had only sketched in the pulpit. He was yet more admired for his charitable attentions and the sick and poor, among whom he passed much of his time, in religious conference and other acts of humanity. He died at Paris May 13, 1704, universally lamented and long remembered as the most attractive and eloquent of preachers. He had preached thirty -four years at court and in Paris. Father Bretonneau published two editions of his works, the first of 16 vols. 8vo. 1716, reckoned the best, or at least, the most beautifully printed; and the second in 18 vols. 12rrio. Comparisons have been formed between him and Massillon, but several are still inclined to give him the preference. There is warmth, zeal, and elegance in his style and reasoning, but he is frequently declamatory and verbose. It is difficult, however, for English critics to appreciate the merits of his sermons, calculated as they were for a class of hearers with whose taste we are unacquainted. Of his catholic spirit we have an instance on record, that in an interview with bishop Burnet at Paris, he told the English prelate that he believed “all honest protestants would be saved.”

Her father, however, to whom all this appeared unnatural, considered her as a mere woman and, having found an agreeable match, promised her in marriage to a Frenchman. Easter-day, 1636, was fixed for the nuptials; but, to avoid the execution, the young lady fled, under the disguise of a hermit, hut was stopped at Blacon, a village of Hainault, on suspicion of her sex. It was an officer of horse quartered in the village who seized her; he had observed something extraordinary in her, and mentioning her to the archbishop of Cambray, that prelate came to examine her, and sent her home. But being pressed again with proposals of matrimony, she ran away once more: and, going to the archbishop, obtained his licence to set up a small society in the country, with some other maidens of her taste and temper. That licence, however, was soon retracted, and Antoinette obliged to withdraw into the country of Liege, whence she returned to Lisle, and passed many years there privately in devotion and great simplicity. When her patrimonial estate fell to her, she resolved at first to renounce it; but, changing her mind, she took possession of it; and as she was satisfied with a few conveniences, she lived at little expence: and bestowing no charities, her fortune increased apace. For thus taking possession of her estate, she gave three reasons: first, that it might not come into the hands of those who had no right to it; or secondly, of those who would have made an ill use of it; thirdly, God shewed her that she should have occasion for it to his glory. And as to charity, she says, the deserving poor are not to be met with in this world. This patrimony must have been something considerable, since she speaks of several maid servants in her house. What she reserved, however, for this purpose, became a temptation to one John de Saulieu, the son of a peasant, who resolved to make his court to her; and, getting admittance under the character of a prophet, insinuated himself into the lady’s favour by devout acts and discourses of the most refined spirituality. At length he declared his passion, modestly enough at first, and was easily checked; but finding her intractable, he grew so insolent as to threaten to murder her if she would not comply. Upon this she had recourse to the provost, who sent two men to guard her house; and in revenge Saulieu gave out, that she had promised him marriage, and even bedded with him. But, in conclusion, they were reconciled; he retracted his slanders, and addressed himself to a young devotee at Ghent, whom he found more tractable. This, however, did not free her from other applications of a similar nature. The parson’s nephew of St. Andrew’s parish near Lisle fell in love with her; and as her house stood in the neighbourhood, he frequency environed it, in order to force an entrance. Our recluse threatened to quit her post, if she was not delivered f*om this troublesome suitor, and the uncle drove himrom his house upon which he grew desperate, and someimes discharged & musquet through the nun’s chamber, giung out that she was his espoused wife. This made a nose in the city; the devotees were offended, and threatined to affront Bourignon, if they met her in the streets. At length she was relieved by the preachers, who publisied from their pulpits, that the report of the marriage wis a scandalous falsehood.

He was buried in St. Martin’s church in the Fields, Westminster, on the 7th of January following: and his funeral sermon was preached by his friend Dr. Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury. The bishop made choice upon this occasion of a text very apposite to his subject, namely, “For God giveth to a man, that is good in his sight, wisdom, knowledge, and joy.” Eccles. xi. 26. After explaining the meaning of the words, he applies the doctrine to the honourable person deceased; of whom, he tells us, he was the better able to give a character, from the many happy hours he had spent in conversation with him, in the course of nine-and-twenty years. He gives a large account of Mr. Boyle’s sincere and unaffected piety, and more especially of his zeal for the Christian religion, without having any narrow notions concerning it, or mistaking, as so many do, a bigoted heat in favour of a particular sect, for that zeal which is the ornament of a true Christian. He mentions, as a proof of this, his noble foundation for lectures in defence of the gospel against infidels of all sorts; the effects of which have been so conspicuous in the many volumes of excellent discourses which have been published hi consequence of that noble and pious foundation . He had, says our prelate, designed it in his life-time, though some accidents did, upon great considerations, divert him from settling it; but not from ordering by his last will, that a liberal provision should be made for one who should, in a very few well-digested sermons, every year set forth the truth of the Christian religion in general, without descending to the subdivisions among Christians. He was at the charge of the translation and impression of the New Testament into the Malayan tongue, which he sent over all the East Indies. He gave a noble reward to him that translated Grotius’s incomparable book of the truth of the Christian religion into Arabic: and was at the charge of a whole impression, which he took care should be dispersed in all the countries where that language is understood. He was resolved to have carried on the impression of the New Testa-, meut in the Turkish language; but the company thought it became them to be the doers of it, and so suffered him only to give a large share towards it. He was at 700l. charge in the edition of the Irish Bible, which he ordered to be distributed in Ireland: and he contributed liberally, both to the impression of the Welsh Bible, and of the Irish Bible for Scotland. He gave, during his life, 300l. to advance the design of propagating the Christian religion in America; and, as soon as he heard that the East India company were entertaining propositions for the like design in the East, he presently sent a hundred pounds for a beginning, as an example; but intended to carry it much farther when it should be set on foot to purpose. When he understood how large a share he had in impropriations, he ordered considerable sums to be given to the incumbents in those parishes, and even to the widows of those who were dead before this distribution of his bounty. He did this twice in his life-time, to the amount of above 600l. and ordered another distribution, as far as his estate would bear, by his will. In other respects his charities were so bountiful and extensive, that they amounted, as this prelate tells us, from hfs own knowledge, to upwards of 1000l. per annum.

, archbishop of Canterbury, is supposed to have been born at Hortfield, in Cheshire, about the middle of the reign of king Edward I. in the fourteenth century. He was of Merton colle'ge, Oxford, and was one of the proctors of that university in 1325. He excelled in mathematical knowledge, and was in general distinguished for his accurate and solid investigations in divinity, which procured him the title of the “profound Doctor.” He was confessor to Edward III. and attended that monarch in his French wars, often preaching before the army. Sir Henry Savile informs us that some writers of that time attributed the signal victories of Edward, rather to the virtues and holy character of his chaplain, than to> the bravery or prudence of the monarch or of any other person. He made it his business to calm and mitigate the fierceness of his master’s temper when he saw him eitherimmoderately fired with warlike rage, or improperly flushed with the advantages of victory. He also often addressed the army, and with so much meekness and persuasive discretion, as to restrain them from those insolent excesses which are too frequently the attendants of military success. When the see of Canterbury became vacant, the monks of that city chose him archbishop, but Edward, who was fond of his company, refused to part with him. Another vacancy happen ing soon after, the monks again elected him^ and Edward yielded to their desires. The modesty and innocence of his manners, and his unquestionable piety and integrity, seem to have been the principal causes of his advancement. He was, however, by no means adapted to 'a court, where his personal manners and character became an object of derision, the best proof history can afford us of their excellence. Even when he was consecrated at Avignon, cardinal Hugh, a nephew of the pope, ridiculed the prelate by introducing into the hall a person in a peasant’s habit, ridiog on an ass, petitioning the pope to make him archbishop of Canterbury, but the jest was so ill relished that the pope and cardinals resented the indignity, and frowned on the insolent contriver. Bradwardine was consecrated in 1349; but not many weeks after his consecration, and only seven days after his return into England, he died at Lambeth. His principal work “De Causa Dei,” against the Pelagian heresy, was edited from the ms. in Merton college library by sir Henry Savile, 1618, fol. with a biographical preface, in which he informs us that Bradwardine devoted his principal application to theology and mathematics; and that particularly in the latter he distanced, perhaps, the most skilful of his contemporaries. These mathematical works are, 1. “Astronomical tables,” in ms. in the possession of Sir Henry. 2. “Geometria Speculativa, cum Arithmetica specuiativa,” Paris, 1495, 1504, fol. The arithmetic had been prAited separately ia 1502, and other editions of both appeared in 1512 and 1530. 3. “De proportionibus,” Paris, 1495, Venice, 1505, fol. 4. “De quadratura circuli,” Paris, 1495, fol. Sir Henry Savile informs us that the treatise against Pelagius was first delivered in lectures at Oxford, and the author, at the request of the students of Merton college, arranged, enlarged, and polished them, while he was chancellor of the diocese of London. As Bradwardine was a very excellent mathematician, he endeavoured to treat theological subjects with a mathematical accuracy, and was the first divine, as far as I know, says sir Henry, who pursued that method. Hence this book against Pelagianism is one regular, connected series of reasoning, from principles or conclusions which have been demonstrated before; and if, in the several lemmas and propositions, a mathematical accuracy is not on all occasions completely preserved, the reader must remember to ascribe the defect to the nature of the subject, rather than to the author.

, an eminent prelate, was descended from the antient family of the Bramhalls, of Cheshire, and born at Pontefract, in Yorkshire, about 1593. He received his school education at the place of his birth, and was removed from thence to Sidney-college, Cambridge, in 1608. After taking the degrees of B A. and M. A. he quitted the university; and, entering into orders, had a living given him in the city of York. About the same time he married a clergyman’s widow of the Hally’s family, with whom he received a good fortune, and a valuable library, left by her former husband. In 1623 he had two public disputations, at North-Allerton, with a secular priest and a Jesuit. The match between prince Charles and the infanta of Spain was then depending; and the papists expected great advantages and countenance to their religion from it. These two, therefore, by way of preparing the way for them, sent a public challenge to all the protestant clergy in the county of York; and when none durst accept it, our author, though then but a stripling in the school of controversy, undertook the combat. His success in this dispute gained him. so much reputation, and so recommended him in particular to Matthews, archbishop of York, that he made him his chaplain, and took him into his confidence. He was afterwards made a prebendary of York , and then pf Rippon; at which last place he went and resided after the archbishop’s death, which happened in 1628, and managed most of the affairs of that church, in the quality of sub-dean. He had great political influence, especially in elections, in the town of Rippon, and was also appointed one of his majesty’s high commissioners, in the administration of which office he was by some accounted severe, although far less so than some of his brethren.

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

, a French writer of a singular character for versatility, was born at Aix, in 1640, and trained in the reformed religion, in defence of which he published some controversial pieces, particularly against Bossuet’s “Exposition de la Foi,” or Exposition of the faith; but the prelate, instead of answering, converted him. Brueys, become catholic, combated with the Protestant ministers, with Jurieu, Lenfant, and La Roche; but his airy spirit not rightly accommodating itself to serious works, he quitted theology for the theatre. He composed, jointly with Palaprat, his intimate friend, several comedies full of wit and gaiety. We have also of this writer a prosaic paraphrase or commentary on Horace’s art of poetry. In his latter years he became again a controversial writer, and, as his countrymen say, imitated Bellarmine and Moliere by turns. He died at Moritpellier in 1723, aged eighty -three; and all his dramatic pieces were collected, 1735, in 3 vols. 12mo. His comedies have some merit, but his tragedies and other works are deservedly sunk into oblivion.

, a Scottish historian, and Latin poet, of great eminence, and uncommon abilities and learning, was descended from an ancient family, and was born at Killairn, in the shire of Lenox, in Scotland, in the month of February 1506. His father died of the stone in the prime of life, whilst his grandfather was yet living; by whose extravagance the family, which before was but in low circumstances, was now nearly reduced to the extremity of want. He had, however, the happiness of a very prudent mother, Agnes, the daughter of James Heriot of Trabrown, who, though she, was left a widow with five sons and three daughters, brought them all up in a decent manner, by judicious management. She had a brother, Mr. James Heriot, who, observing the marks of genius which young George Buchanan discovered when at school, sent him to Paris in 1520 for his education. There he closely applied himself to his studies, and particularly cultivated his poetical talents but before he had been there quite two years, the death of his uncle, and his own ill state of health, and want of money, obliged him to return home. Having arrived in his native country, he spent almost a year in endeavouring to re-escablish his health; and in 1523, in order to acquire some knowledge of military affairs, he made a campaign with the French auxiliaries, who came over into Scotland with John duke of Albany. But in this new course of life he encountered so many hardships, that he was confined to his bed by sickness all the ensuing winter. He had probably much more propensity to his books, than to the sword; for early in the following spring he went to St. Andrews, and attended the lectures on logic, or rather, as he says, on sophistry, which were read in that university by John Major, or Mair, a professor in St. Saviour’s college, and assessor to the dean, of Arts, whom he soon after accompanied to Paris. After struggling for about two years with indigence and ill fortune, he was admitted, in 1526, being then not more than twenty years of age, in the college of St. Barbe, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1527, and M. A. in 1528, and in 1529 was chosen procurator nationis, and began then to teach grammar, which he continued for about three years. But Gilbert Kennedy, earl of Cassils, a young Scottish nobleman, being then in France, and happening to fall into the company of Buchanan, was so delighted with his wit, and the agreeableness of his manners, that he prevailed upon him to continue with him five years. According to Mackenzie, he acted as a kind of tutor to this young nobleman; and, during his stay with him, translated Linacre’s Rudiments of grammar out of English into Latin; which was printed at Paris, by Robert Stephens, in 1533, and dedicated to the earl of Cassils. He returned to Scotland with that nobleman, whose death happened about two years after; and Buchanan had then an inclination to return to France: but James V. king of Scotland prevented him, by appointing him preceptor to his natural son, James, afterwards the abbot of Kelso, who died in 1548, and not, as some say, the earl of Murray, regent of that kingdom. About this time, he wrote a satirical poem against the Franciscan friars, entitled, “Somnium;” which irritated them to exclaim against him as a heretic. Their clamours, however, only increased the dislike which he hud conceived against them on account of their disorderly and licentious lives; and inclined him the more towards Lutheranism, to which he seems to have had before no inconsiderable propensity. About the year 1538, the king having discovered a conspiracy against himself, in which he suspected that some of the Franciscans were concerned, commanded Buchanan to write a poem against that order. But he had probably already experienced the inconveniency of exasperating so formidable a body; for he only wrote a few verses which were susceptible of a double interpretation, and he pleased neither party. The king was dissatisfied, that the satire was not more poignant; and the friars considered it as a heinous offence, to mention them in any way that was not honourable. But the king gave Buchanan a second command, to write against them with more seventy; which he accordingly did in the poem, entitled, “Franciscanus;” by which he pleased the king, and rendered the friars his irreconcileable enemies. He soon found, that the animosity of these ecclesiastics was of a more durable nature than royal favour: for the king had the meanness to suffer him to feel the weight of their resentment, though it had been chiefly excited by obedience to his commands. It was not the Franciscans only, but the clergy in general, who were incensed against Buchanan: they appear to have made a common cause of it, and they left no stone unturned till they had prevailed with the king that he should be tried for heresy. He was accordingly imprisoned at the beginning of 1539, but found means to make his escape, as he says himself, out of his chamber-window, while his guards were asleep. He fled into England, where he found king Henry the Eighth persecuting both protestants and papists. Not thinking that kingdom, therefore, a place of safety, he again went over into France, to which he was the more inclined because he had there some literary friends, and was pleased with the politeness of French manners. But when he came to Paris, he had the mortification to find there cardinal Beaton, who was his great enemy, and who appeared there as ambassador from Scotland. Expecting, therefore, to receive some ill offices from him, if he continued at Paris, he withdrew himself privately to Bourdeaux, at the invitation of Andrew Govea, a learned Portuguese, who was principal of a new college in that city. Buchanan taught in the public schools there three years; in which time he composed two tragedies, the one entitled, “Baptistes, sive Calurania,” and the other “Jephthes, Votum;” and also translated the Medea and Alcestig of Euripides. These were all afterwards published;-but they were originally written in compliance with the rules of the school, which every year required some new dramatic exhibition; and his view in choosing these subjects was, to draw off the youth of France as much as possible from the allegories, which were then greatly in vogue, to a just imitation of the ancients; in which he succeeded beyond his hopes. During his residence at Bourdeaux, the emperor Charles V. passed through that city; upon which Buchanan presented his imperial majesty with an elegant Latin poem, in which the emperor was highly complimented, and at which he expressed great satisfaction. But the animosity of cardinal Beaton still pursued our poet: for that haughty prelate wrote letters to the archbishop of Bourdeaux, in which he informed him, that Buchanan had fled his country for heresy; that he had lampooned the church in most virulent satires; and that if he would put him to the trial, he would find him a most pestilentious heretic. Fortunately for Buchanan, these letters fell into the hands of some of his friends, who found means to prevent their effects: and the state of public affairs in Scotland, in consequence of the death of king James V. gave the cardinal so much employment, as to prevent any farther prosecution of his rancour against Buchanan.

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of William Buckeridge, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Thomas Keblewhyte of Basilden in Berks, son of John Keblewhyte, uncle to sir Thomas White, founder of St. John’s college, Oxford. He was educated in Merchant Taylors’ school, and thence sent to St. John’s college, Oxon, in 1578, where he was chosen fellow, and proceeded, through other degrees, to D. D. in the latter end of 1596. After leaving the university, he became chaplain to Robert earl of Essex, and was rector of North Fambridge in Essex, and of North Kiiworth in Leicestershire, and was afterwards one of archbishop Whitgii't’s chaplains, and made prebendary of Hereford, and of Rochester. In 1604, he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Northampton; and the same year, Nov. 5, was presented by king James to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, in which he succeeded Dr. Andrews, then made bishop of Chichester. About the same time he was chaplain to the king; was elected president of St. John’s college, 1605, and installed canon of Windsor, April 15, 1606. His eminent abilities in the pulpit were greatly esteemed at court; insomuch that he was chosen to be one of the four (Dr. Andrews, bishop of Chichester, Dr. Barlow of Rochester, and Dr. John King, dean of Christ-church, Oxford, being the other three) who were appointed to preach before the king at Hampton-court in September 1606, in order to bring the two Melvins and other presbyterians of Scotland to a right understanding of the church of England. He took his text out of Romans xiii. 1. and managed the discourse (as archbishop Spotswood, who was present, relates), both soundly and learnedly, to the satisfaction of all the hearers, only it grieved the Scotch ministers to hear the pope and presbytery so often equalled in their opposition to sovereign princes.

, bishop of St. David’s, was born March 25, 1634, in the parish of St. Cuthbert, at Wells in Somersetshsre. He was descended from an ancient and genteel family, seated at Shapwick in that county. Our prelate’s father, Mr. George Bull, dedicated his son to the church from his infancy, having declared at the font, that he designed him for holy orders, but he died when George was but four years old, and left him under the care of guardians, with an estate of two hundred pounds per annum. When he was fit to receive the first rudiments of learning, he was placed in a grammar-school at Wells, from whence he was soon removed to the free-school of Tiverton, in Devonshire, where he made a very quick progress in classical learning, and became qualified for the university at fourteen years of age.

Whilst he remained minister of this parish, the providence of God wonderfully interposed for the preservation of his life; for his lodgings being near a powder-mill, Mr. Morgan, a gentleman of the parish, represented to him. the danger of his situation, and at the same time invited him to his own house. Mr. Bull, at first, modestly declined the offer, but after some importunity accepted it; and, not many days after his removal to Mr. Morgan’s, the mill was blown up, and his apartment with it. In this part of his life he took a journey once a year to Oxford, where he stayed about two months, to enjoy the benefit of the public libraries. In his way to and from Oxford, he always paid a visit to sir William Masters, of Cirencester, by which means he contracted an intimacy with Mr. Alexander pregory, the minister of the place, and after some time married Bridget, one of his daughters, on the 20th of May, 1658. The same year he was presented by the lady Pool, to the rectory of Suddington St. Mary, near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. The next year, 1659, he was made privy to the design of a general insurrection in favour of king Charles II. and several gentlemen of that neighbourhood who were in the secret, chose his house at Suddington for one of the places of their meeting. Upon the restoration, Mr. Bull frequently preached for his father-in-law, Mr. Gregory, at Cirencester, where there was a large and populous congregation; and his sermons gave such general satisfaction, that, upon a vacancy, the people were very solicitous to have procured for him the presentation; but the largeness of the parish, and the great duty attending it, deterred him Trom consenting to the endeavours they were making for that purpose. In 1662, he was presented by the lord high-chancellor, the earl of Clarendon, to the vicarage of Suddington St. Peter, which lay contiguous to Suddington St. Mary, at the request of his diocesan Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester, both livings not exceeding 100l. a year. When Mr. Bull came first to the rectory of Suddington, he began to be more open in the use of the liturgy of the church of England, though it was not yet restored by the return of the king; for, being desired to marry a couple, he performed the ceremony, on a Sunday morning, in the face of the whole congregation, according to the form prescribed by the book of common -prayer. He took the same method in governing these parishes, as in that of St. George’s, and with the same success; applying himself with great diligence to the discharge of his pastoral functions, and setting the people an admirable example in the government and œconomy of his own family. During his residence here, he had an opportunity of confirming two ladies of quality in the protestant communion, who were reduced to a wavering state of mind by the arts and subtleties of the Romish missionaries. The only dissenters he had in his parish were quakers; whose extravagances often gave him no small uneasiness. In this part of his life, Mr. Bull prosecuted his studies with great application, and composed most of his works during the twenty-seven years that he was rector of Suddington. Several tracts, indeed, which cost him much pains, are entirely lost, through his own neglect in preserving them; particularly a treatise on the posture used by the ancient Christians in receiving the Eucharist; a letter to Dr. Pearson concerning the genuineness of St. Ignatius’ s epistles; a long one to Mr. Glanvil, formerly minister of Bath, concerning the eternity of future punishments; and another, on the subject of popery, to a person of very great quality. In 1669, he published his Apostolical Harmony, with a view to settle the peace of the church, upon a point of the utmost importance to all its members; and he dedicated it to Dn William Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester. This performance was greatly disliked, at first, by many of the clergy, and others, on account of the author’s departing therein from the private opinions of some doctors of the church, and his manner of reconciling the two apostles St. Paul and St. James, as to the doctrine of justification. It was particularly opposed by Dr. Morley, bishop of WinChester; Dr. Barlow, Margaret-professor of divinity at Oxford; Mr. Charles Gataker, a presbyterian divine; Mr. Joseph Truman, a non-conformist minister; Dr. Tully, principal of St. Edmund’s-hall; Mr. John Tombes, a famous anabaptist preacher; Dr. Lewis Du Moulin, an independent; and by M. De Marets, a French writer, who tells us, “that the author, though a professed priest of the church of England, was more addicted to the papists, remonstrants, and Socinians, than to the orthodox party.” Towards the end of 1675, Mr. Bull published his “Examen Censuræ,” &c. in answer to Mr. Gataker, and his “Apologia pro Harmonia,” &c. in reply to Dr. Tully. Mr. Bull’s notion on this subject was “That good works, which proceed from faith, and are conjoined with faith, are a necessary condition required from us by God, to the end that by the new and evangelical covenant, obtained by and sealed in the blood of Christ the Mediator of it, we may be justified according to his free and unmerited grace.” In this doctrine, and throughout the whole book, Mr. Bull absolutely excludes all pretensions to merit on the part of men; but the work nevertheless excited the jealousy of many able divines both in the church and among the dissenters, as appears from the above list. About three years after, he was promoted by the earl of Nottingham, then lord chancellor, to a prebend in the church of Gloucester, in which he was installed the 9th of October, 1678. In 1680, he finished his “Defence of the Nicene Faith,” of which he had given a hint five years before in his Apology. This performance, which is levelled against the Arians and Socinians on one hand, and the Tritheists and Sabellians on the other, was received with universal applause, and its fame spread into foreign countries, where it was highly esteemed by the best judges of antiquity, though of different persuasions. Five years after its publication, the author was presented, by Philip Sheppard, esq. to the rectory of Avening in Gloucestershire, a very large parish, and worth two hundred pounds per annum. The people of this parish, being many of them very dissolute and immoral, and many more disaffected to the church of England, gave him for some time great trouble and uneasiness; but, by his prudent conduct and diligent discharge of his duty, he at last got the better of their prejudices, and converted their dislike iuto the most cordial love and affection towards him. He had not been long at Avening, before he was promoted, by archbishop Sancroft, to the archdeaconry of Landaff, in which he was installed the 20th of June, 1686. He was invited soon after to Oxford, where the degree of doctor in divinity was conferred upon him by that university, without the payment of the usual fees, in consideration of the great and eminent services he had done the church. During the reign of James II. the doctor preached very warmly against popery, with which the nation was then threatened. Some time after the revolution, he was put into the commission of the peace, and continued in it, with some little interruption, till he was made a bishop. In 1694, whilst he continued rector of Avening, he published his “Judicium Ecclesia? Catholicse, &c.” in defence of the “Anathema,” as his former book had been of the Faith, decreed by the first council of Nice. The last treatise which Dr. Bull wrote, was his “Primitive Apostolical Tradition,” &c. against Daniel Zwicker, a Prussian. All Dr. Bull’s Latin works, which he had published by himself at different times, were collected together, and printed in 1703, in one volume in folio, under the care and inspection of Dr. John Ernest Grabe, the author’s age and infirmities disabling him from undertaking this edition. The ingenious editor illustrated the work with many learned annotations, and ushered it into the world with an excellent preface. Dr, Bull was in the seventy-first year of his age, when he was acquainted with her majesty’s gracious intention of conferring on him the bishopric of St. David’s; which promotion he at first declined, on account of his ill state of health and advanced years; but, by the importunity of his friends, and strong solicitations from the governors o*f the church, he was at last prevailed upon to accept it, and was accordingly consecrated in Lambeth-chapel, the 29th of April, 1705. Two years after, he lost his eldest son, Mr. George Bull, who died of the small-pox the 11th of May, 1707, in, the thirty-seventh year of his age. Our prelate took his seat in the house of lords in that memorable session, when the bill passed for the union of the two kingdoms, and spoke in a debate which happened upon that occasion, in favour of the church of England. About July after his consecration, he went into his diocese, and was received with all imaginable demonstrations of respect by the gentry and clergy. The episcopal palace at Aberguilly being much out of repair, he chose the town of Brecknock for the place of his residence; but was obliged, about half a year before his death, to remove from thence to Abermarless, for the benefit of a freer air. He resided constantly in his diocese, and carefully discharged all the episcopal functions. Though bishop Bull was a great admirer of our ecclesiastical constitution, yet he would often lament the distressed state of the church of England, chiefly owing to the decay of ancient discipline, and the great number of lay-impropriations, which he considered as a species of sacrilege, and insinuated that he had known instances of its being punished by the secret curse which hangs over sacrilegious persons. Some time before his last sickness, he entertained thoughts of addressing a circular letter to all his clergy; and, after his death, there was found among his papers one drawn up to that purpose. He had greatly impaired his health, by too intense and unseasonable an application to his studies, and, on the 27th of September, 1709, was taken with a violent fit of coughing, which brought on a spitting of blood. About the beginning of February following, he was seized with a distemper, supposed to be an ulcer, or what they call the inward piles; of which he died the 17th of the same month, and was buried, about a week after his death, at Brecknock/ leaving behind him but two children out of eleven.

, an elegant Latin scholar, was born at Toulouse in 1499, and studied at Paris, where he was distinguished by his quick progress and promising talents. On his return to Toulouse, finding his family unable to maintain him, he went to Padua, where he was supported by Emilius Perrot. He was afterwards taken into the family of Lazarus de Baif, the French ambassador at Venice, by whose generosity he was not only maintained, but enabled to study the Greek tongue, and he afterwards studied Hebrew. George de Selve, bishop of Lavaur, who succeeded de Baif as ambassador, retained Bunel in his service, and when his embassy was finished, carried him with him to Levaur. Upon the death of that prelate, which happened in 1541, Bunel returned to Toulouse^ where he would have been reduced to the greatest indigence, had not messieurs de Faur, the patrons of virtue and science, extended their liberality to him unasked. One of these gentlemen appointed him tutor to his sons; but whilst he was making the tour of Italy with them, he was cut off at Turin by a fever, in 1546. Mr. Bayle says, that he was one of the politest writers of the Latin tongue in the sixteenth century; but though he was advantageously distinguished by the eloquence of his Ciceronian style, he was still more so by the strictness of his morals. The magistrates of his native town of Toulouse set up a marble statue to his memory in their town-house. He left som'e Latin epistles written with the utmost purity, which were first published by Charles Stevens in 1551, and afterwards by Henry Stevens in 1581. Another, but a more incorrect edition, was printed at Toulouse in 1687, with notes by Mr. Gravero, advocate of Nimes.

During the affair of the popish plot, Dr. Burnet was often consulted by king Charles, upon the state of the nation; and, about the same time, refused the vacant bishopric of Chichester, which his majesty offered him, “provided he vvould entirely come into his interest.” But, though his free access to that monarch did not procure him preferment, it gave him an opportunity of sending his majesty a most remarkable letter , in which, with great freedom, he reprehends the vices and errors both of his private life and his government The unprejudiced part he acted during the time the nation was inflamed with the discovery of the popish plot; his candid endeavours to save the lives of Staley and the lord Stafford, both zealous papists; his temperate conduct in regard to the exclusion of the duke of York; and the scheme of a prince regent, proposed by him, in lieu of that exclusion; are sufficiently related in his “History of his own Time.” In 1682, when the administration was wholly changed in favour of the duke of York, he continued steady in his adherence to his friends, and chose to sacrifice all his views at court, particularly a promise of the mastership of the Temple, rather than break off his correspondence with them. This year our author published his “Life of sir Matthew Hale,” and his “History of the Rights of Princes, in disposing of ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-lands;” which being attacked bv an anonymous writer, Dr. Burnet published, the same year, “An answer to the Animadversions on the History of the Rights of Princes.” As he was about this time much resorted to by persons of all ranks and parties, as a pretence to avoid the returning of so many visits, he built a laboratory, and, for above a year, went through a course of chemical experiments. Upon the execution of the lord Russel, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, he was examined before the house of commons, with respect to that lord’s speech upon the scaffold, in the penning of which he was suspected to have had a hand. Not long after, he refused the offer of a living of three hundred pounds a year, in the gift of the earl of Halifax, who would have presented him, on condition of his residing *till in London. In 1683, he went over to Paris, where he was well received by the court, and became acquainted with the most eminent persons, both popish and protestant. This year appeared his “Translation and Examination of a Letter, writ by the last General Assembly of the Clergy of France to the Protestants, inviting them to return to their Communion, &c.;” also his “Translation of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia,” with a “Preface concerning the Nature of Translations.” The year following, the resentment of the court against our author was so great, that he was discharged from his lecture at St, Clement’s, by virtue of the king’s mandate to Dr. Hascard, rector of that parish; and in December the same year, bv an order from the lord-keeper North to sir Harbottle Grimstone, he was forbidden preaching any more at the Rolls chapel. In 1685 came out our author’s “Life of Dr. William Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland.” Upon the death of king Charles, and accesion of king James, having obtained leave to go out of the kingdom, he went first to Paris, where he lived in great retirement, to avoid being involved in the conspiracies then forming in favour of the difke of Monmbuth. But, having contracted an acquaintance with brigadier Stouppe, a protestant officer in the French service, he was prevailed upon to take a journey with him into Italy, and met with an agreeable reception at Rome and Geneva. After a tour through the southern parts of France, Italy, Switzerland, and many places of Germany, of which he has given an account, with reflections on their several ojovernments, &c. in his “Travels,” published in 1687, he came to Utrecht, and intended to have settled in some quiet retreat within the Seven Provinces; but, being invited to the Hague by the prince and princess of Orange, he repaired thither, and had a great share in the councils then carrying on, concerning the affairs of England. In 1687, our author published a “Translation of Lactantius, concerning the Death of the Persecutors.” The high favour shewn him at the Hague disgusting the English court, king James wrote two severe letters against him to the princess of Orange, and insisted, by his ambassador, on his being forbidden the court; which, at the king’s importunity, was done; though our author continued to be employed and trusted as before. Soon after, a prosecution for high-treason was commenced against him, both in Scotland and England; but the States refusing, at the demand of the English court, to deliver him up, designs were laid of seizing his person, and even destroying him, if he could be taken. About this time Dr. Burnet married Mrs. Mary Scott, a Dutch lady of large fortune and noble extraction. He had a very important share in the whole conduct of the revolution in 1688; the project of which he gave early notice of to the court of Hanover, intimating, that the success of this enterprise must naturally end in an entail of the British crown upon that illustrious house. He wrote also several pamphlets in support of the prince of Orange’s designs, which were reprinted at London in 1689, in 8vo, under the title of “A Collection of eighteen Papers relating to the affairs of Church and State during the Reign of King James II. &c.” And when his highness undertook the expedition to England, our author accompanied him as his chaplain, notwithstanding the particular circumstances of danger to which he was thereby exposed. At Exeter, after the prince’s landing, he drew up the association for pursuing the ends of his highness’s declaration. During these transactions, Dr. Crew, bishop of Durham, who had rendered himself obnoxious by the part he had acted in the high-commission court, having proposed to the prince of Orange to resign his bishopric in favour of Dr. Burnet, on condition of an allowance of 1000l. per annum out of the revenue, our author refused to accept it on those terms. But king William had not been many days on the throne before Dr. Burnet was advanced to the see of Salisbury, and consecrated March 31, 1689 . Our prelate had scarcely taken his seat in the house of lords, when he distinguished himself by declaring for moderate measures with regard to the clergy who scrupled to take the oaths, and for a toleration of the protestant dissenters; and when the bill for declaring the rights and privileges of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown, was brought into parliament, he was the person appointed by king William to propose naming the duchess (afterwards electress) of Brunswick, next in succession after the princess of Denmark and her issue; and when this succession afterwards took place, he had the honour of being chairman of the committee to whom the hill was referred. This made him considered by the house of Hanover as one firmly attached to their interests, and engaged him in an epistolary correspondence with the princess Sophia, which lasted to her death. This year bishop Buruet addressed a “Pastoral Letter” to the clergy of his diocese, concerning the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to king Wiliiam and queen Mary; in which having grounded their majesties title to the crown upon the right of conquest, some members of both houses took such offence at it, that about three years after, they procured an order for burning the book by the hands of the common executioner. After the session of parliament was over, the bishop went down to his diocese, where, by his pious, prudent, and vigilant discharge of the episcopal functions, he gained universal esteem.

In 1692, he published a treatise, entitled “The Pastoral Care,” in which the duties of the clergy are laid down with great strictness, and enforced with no less zeal and warmth. The next year came out his “Four Discourses to the Clergy of his Diocese.” In 1694, our author preached the funeral sermon of archbishop Tillotson, with whom he had long kept up an intimate acquaintance and friendship, and whose memory he defended in “A Vindication of Abp. Tillotson,” 1696. The death of queen Mary, which happened the year following, drew from our author’s pen that “Essay on her character,” which her uncommon talents merited at the hands of a person who enjoyed so high a degree of her favour and confidence. After the decease of that princess, through whose hands the affairs and promotions of the church had wholly passed, our prelate was one of the ecclesiastical commission appointed by the king to recommend to all bishoprics, deanries, and other vacant benefices in his majesty’s gift.

In 1698 the bishop lost his wife by the small-pox; but the consideration of the tender age of his children, and his own avocations, soon induced him to supply that loss by a marriage with Mrs. Berkley. This year he was appointed preceptor to his highness the duke of Gloucester, and employed great care in the education of that young prince. In 16.99 our author published his “Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.” This work was censured by the lower house of convocation in 1701, first, as allowing a diversity of opinions, which the Articles were framed to prevent; 2dly, as containing many passages contrary to the true meaning of the Articles, and to other received doctrines of our church; and, 3dly, as containing some things of pernicious consequence to the church, and derogatory from the honour of the reformation: but that house refusing to enter into particulars, unless they might at the same time offer some other matters to the upper house, which the bishops would not admit of, the affair was dropped. The “Exposition” was attacked, supposed by Dr. William Binckes, in a piece entitled “A prefatory discourse to an examination of a late book, entitled ‘An Exposition, &c.’” London, 1702, 4to. An answer to this discourse came out the year following, supposed by Dr. John Hoadly, primate of Ireland. Dr. Jonathan Edwards likewise attacked our author in a piece entitled “The Exposition given by my lord bishop of Sarum of the second Article of our Religion, examined,” London, 1702, 4to. In answer to which there appeared “Remarks on the Examinist of the Exposition,” &c. London, 1702. At the same time, Mr. Robert Burscough published “A Vindication of the twenty-third Article of Religion, from a late Exposition, ascribed to my lord bishop of Sarum.” Mr. Edmund Elys likewise published, in 1704, “Reflections on a late Exposition of the Thirtynine Articles,” &c. 4to. There were two editions of the Exposition, in folio, the same year. In 1704 the scheme for the augmentation of poor livings, first projected by bishop Bur net, took place, and passed into an act of parliament. In 1706, he published a collection of “Sermons and Pamphlets,” 3 vols. 4to; in 1710, an “Exposition of the Church Catechism;” and in 17 13, “Sermons on several occasions,” with an “Essay towards a new book of Homilies.” This learned and eminent prelate died the 17th of March 1714—15, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was interred in the parish-church of St. James Clerkenwell, in London. Since his death, his “History of his own Time,” with an account of his life annexed, was published in 2 vols. fol. but the best edition is that of 1753, 4 vols. 8vo, edited by the rev. Dr. Flexman, with the life enlarged, and a very large catalogue of his publications, to which some trifling additions were made in the last edition of the Biographia Britannica.

, the bishop’s second son, had the same advantages of education with his elder brother, having a distinct tutor both at home and the university. He pursued his studies, likewise, for two years at Leyden. At Oxford he was admitted a commoner of Merton college; but how long he studied there we are not informed, nor what degree he took. Having entered into holy orders, we find him a chaplain in ordinary to his majesty so early as in 1718, when he could not be thirty years of age. He is said to have been a contributor to Hibernicus’s Letters, a periodical paper carried on at Dublin in the years 1725, 1726, and 1727: and we believe there is no doubt of his having been one of the writers of another valuable paper, entitled “The Free-thinker,” which was afterwards collected into three volumes, 12mo. In the Hoadlian controversy he was an able assistant to the eminent prelate from whom that controversy received its denomination. Three pieces were published by Mr. Burnet on this occasion, the first of which was, “A Letter to the rev. Mr. Trapp, occasioned by his Sermon on the real Nature of the Church and Kingdom of Christ;” the second, “An Answer to Mr. Law’s Letter to the Lord Bishop of Bangor;” and the third, “A full and free examination of several important points relating to Church-Authority, the Christian Priesthood, the positive Institutions of the Christian Religion, and Church-Communion, in answer to the notions and principles contained in Mr. Law’s second Letter to the lord bishop of Bangor.” Dr. Hoadly considered our author as one of his best defenders. In 1719 Mr. Burnet published an abridgment of the third volume of his father’s History of the Reformation. If he had not been cut off in early life, there is no doubt but that he would have made a distinguished figure in the literary world; and it is probable that he would have risen to a high rank in the church. The Gilbert Burnet who abridged the Boylean Lectures was another person.

, the third and youngest son of the bishop, had an education equally advantageous with that of his two elder brothers. When he had acquired a sufficient preparation of grammatical learning, he was sent to the university of Oxford, where he becam^a commoner of Merton-college. After this, he studied two years at Leyden, from whence he seems to have made a tour through Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Having chosen the profession of the law, he was entered at the Temple, where he appears to have contracted wildness of disposition, and irregularity of conduct. To this part of his character there are frequent allusions in the satirical publications of the times; and particularly in Dr. Arbuthnol’s notes and memorandums of the six days preceding the death of a right reverend prelate. Mr. Thomas Burnet was even suspected of being one of the Mohocks mentioned in the Spectator, whose extravagant and cruel exploits made much noise, and excited no small degree of terror at that period. Swift, in one of his letters to Stella, has the following passage: “Young Davenant was telling us, how he was set upon by the Mohocks, and how they ran his chair through with a sword. It is not safe being in the streets at night. The bishop of Salisbury’s son is said to be of the gang. They are all whigs. A great lady sent to me, to speak to her father, and to lord treasurer, to have a care of them, and to be careful likewise of myself; for she heard they had malicious intentions against the ministry and their friends. I know not whether there be any thing in this, though others are of the sante opinion.” The report concerning Mr. Burnet might be groundless; but it is certain that his time was not wholly spent in dissipation; for, being warmly devoted to the cause of the whigs, he commenced political writer against the administration of the four last years of queen Anne. No less than seven pamphlets of this kind, though without his name, were written by him, in 1712 and 1713. His first was entitled “A Letter to the People, to be left for them at the Booksellers; with a word or two of the Bandbox Plot.” This small tract is drawn up in short paragraphs, after the manner of Mr. Asgill; but not in ridicule of that author, who is spoken of in terms of high commendation. Another piece of Mr. Burnet’s was: “Our Ancestors as wise as we, or ancient Precedents for modern Facts, in answer to a Letter from a noble Lord;” which was followed by “The History of Ingratitude, or a second Part of ancient Precedents for modern Facts,” wherein many instances are related, chiefly from the Greek and Roman histories, of the ungrateful treatment to which the most eminent public characters have been exposed; and the whole is applied to the case of the duke of Marlborough. A subsequent publication, that had likewise a reference to the conduct of the ministry towards the same great general, and which was dedicated to him, was entitled “The true Character of an honest Man, especially with relation to public Affairs.” Another of Mr. Burnet’s tracts, which was called “Truth, if you can find it; or a Character of the present Ministry and Parliament,” was entirely of an ironical nature, and sometimes the irony is well supported. But our author’s principal political pamphlet, during the period we are speaking of, was, “A certain Information of a certain Discourse, that happened at a certain Gentleman’s House, in a certain County: written by a certain Person then present; to a certain Friend now at London; from whence you may collect the great Certainty of the Account.” This is a dialogue in defence of the principles and conduct of the whigs; and it gave such offence to queen Anne’s Tory ministry, that on account of it, Mr. Burnet was taken into custody in January 1712—13. He wrote, also, “Some new Proofs by which it appears that the Pretender is truly James the Third;” in which, from the information, we suppose, of his father, he gives the same account, in substance, of the Pretender’s birth, that was afterwards published in the bishop’s History of his own Time. What Mr. Burnet endeavours to make out is, that three supposititious children Vol. VII. C c were introduced; and consequently, that the “Pretender was James the Third;” or, to put it more plainly, “the third pretended James.” Whilst our young author, notwithstanding his literary application and engagements, still continued his wild courses, it is related, that his father one day seeing him uncommonly grave, asked what he was meditating. “A greater work,” replied the son, “than your lordship’s History of the Reformation.” “What is that, Tom?” “My own reformation, my lord.” “I shall be heartily glad to see it,” said the bishop, “but almost despair of it.” This, however, was happily accomplished, though, perhaps, not during the life of the good prelate, and Mr. Burnejt became not only one of the best lawyers of his time, but a very respectable character. After the accession of king George the First, he wrote a letter to the earl of Halifax, on “the Necessity of impeaching the late Ministry,” in which he urges the point with great zeal and warmth, and shews the utmost dislike of treating with any degree of lenity, a set of men whose conduct, in his opinion, deserved the severest punishment. He insists upon it, that the makers of the treaty of Utrecht ought to answer for their treasons with their heads. The letter to the earl of Halifax, which appeared with Mr. Burnet’s name, was followed by an anonymous treatise, entitled “A second Tale of a Tub; or the History of Robert Powel the Puppet-Showman.” This work, which is a satire on the earl of Oxford and his ministry, and is far from being destitute of wit and humour, hath never had the good fortune (nor, indeed, did it deserve it,) of being read and admired like the original “Tale of a Tub.” The author himself, in the latter part of his life, wished it to be forgotten; for we are well informed that he sought much for it, and purchased such copies as he could meet with, at a considerable price. Soon after his father’s death, he published “A Character of the right reverend father in God, Gilbert lord bishop of Sarum; with a true copy of his last Will and Testament.” In ridicule of this publication, was printed in Hudibrastic verse, and with a very small portion of merit, “A certain dutiful Son’s Lamentation for the Death of a certain right reverend; with the certain Particulars of certain Sums and Goods that are bequeathed him, which he will most certainly part with in a ctrtain time.” In 1715, Mr. Burnet, in conjunction with Mr. Ducket, wrote a truvestie of the first book of the Iliad, under the title of “Homerides;” which exposed him to the lash of Mr. Pope, and occasioned that great poet to give him a place, though not with remarkable severity, in the Dunciad. He was likewise concerned in a weekly paper, called “The Grumbler.” He was, however, soon, taken from these literary occupations, by being appointed his majesty’s consul at Lisbon, where he continued several years. Whilst he was in this situation, he had a dispute with lord Tyrawley, the ambassador, in which the merchants sided with Mr. Burnet. During the continuance of the dispute, the consul took an odd method of affronting-' his antagonist. Employing the same taylor, and having learned what dress his lordship intended to wear on a birthday, Mr. Burnet provided the same dress as liveries for his servants, and appeared himself in a plain suit. It is said, that in consequence of this quarrel (though how truly, may, perhaps, be doubted), the ambassador and consul were both recalled. Upon Mr. Burnet’s return to his country, he resumed the profession of the law. In 1723, he published, with a few explanatory notes, the first volume of his father’s “History of his own Time;” and, in 1732, wrote some remarks in defence of that history, in answer to lord Lansdowne’s letter to the author of the “Reflections historical and political.” When Mr. Burnet gave to the public, in 1734, the second volume of the bishop’s history, he added to it the life of that eminent prelate. In Easter term 1736 he was called to the degree of serjeant at law; and, in May 1740, was appointed king’s serjeant, in the room of serjeant Kyre > deceased. When, in 1741, judge Fortescue was raised to the mastership of the rolls, Mr. Burnet, in the month of October in that year, succeeded him as one of the justices of the court of common-pleas. On the 23d of No-/ vember, 1745, when the lord chancellor, the judges, and the associated gentlemen of the law, waited on the king, with their address on occasion of the rebellion, his majesty conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. He was also a member of the royal society. Sir Thomas Burnet continued in the court of common -pleas, with great reputation, to his death, which happened on the 5th of January, 1753. He died of the goat in his stomach, and left behind nim the character of an ab<e and upright judge, a sincere friend, a sensible and agreeable companion, and a munificent benefactor to the poor. Dr. Ferdinando Warner, in his dedication of sir Thomas More’s Life to the then lord keeper Henley, haying mentioned that Mr. justice Burnet recommended to him the translation of the Utopia, adds: “of whom I take this opportunity to say with pleasure, and which your lordship, I am sure, will allow me to say with truth, that for his knowledge of the world, and his able judgment of things, he was equalled by few, and excelled by none of his contemporaries.” The following clause in our learned judge’s will was the subject of conversation after his decease, and was inserted in the monthly collections, as being somewhat extraordinary. “I think it proper in this solemn act to declare, that as I have lived, so I trust I shall die, in the true faith of Christ as taught in the Scriptures; but not as taught or practised in any one visible church that I know of; though I think the church of England is as little stuffed with the inventions of men as any of them; and the church of Rome is so full of them, as to have destroyed all that is lovely in the Christian religion.” This clause gave occasion to the publication of a serious and sensible pamphlet, entitled: “The true Church of Christ, which, and where to be found, according to the Opinion of the late judge Burnet; with an Introduction concerning divine worship, and a caution to gospel preachers; in which are contained, the Reasons for that Declaration in his last Will and Testament.” A judgment may be formed of his abilities in his profession, from his argument in the case of Ryal and Rowls. In 1777 were published in 4to, “Verses written on several occasions, between the years 1712 and 1721.” These were the poetical productions of Mr. Burnet in his youth, of whom it is said by the editor, that he was connected in friendship and intimacy with those wits, which will for ever signalise the beginning of the present century; and that himself shone with no inconsiderable lustre amidst the constellation of geniuses which then so illustriously adorned the British hemisphere.

, a prelate of the most distinguished character and abilities, was born at Wantage in Berkshire, in 1692. His father, Mr. Thomas Butler, who was a reputable shopkeeper in that town, observing in his son Joseph an excellent genius and inclination for learning, determined to educate him for the ministry, among the protestant dissenters of the presbyterian denomination. For this purpose, after he had gone through a proper course of grammatical literature, at the free grammarschool of his native place, under the care of the rev. Mr. Philip Barton, a clergyman of the church of England, he was sent to a dissenting academy, then kept at Gloucester, but which was soon afterwards removed to Tewkesbury, the principal tutor of which was Mr. Jones, a man of uncommon abilities and knowledge. At Tewkesbury, Mr. Butler made an extraordinary progress in the study of divinity; of which he gave a remarkable proof in the letters addressed by him, whilst he resided at Tewkesbury, to Dr. Samuel Clarke, laying before him the doubts that had arisen in his mind concerning the conclusiveness of some arguments in the doctor’s “Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God.” The first of these letters was dated November the 4th, 1713; and the sagacity and depth of thought displayed in it immediately excited Dr. Clarke’s particular notice. This condescension encouraged Mr. Butler to address the doctor again upon the same subject, which, ^likewise, was answered by him; and the correspondence being carried on in three other letters, the whole was annexed to the celebrated treatise before mentioned, and the collection has been retained in all the subsequent editions of that work. The management of this correspondence was entrusted by Mr. Butler to his friend and fellow-pupil Mr. Seeker, who, in order to conceal the affair, undertook to convey the letters to the post-office at Gloucester, and to bring back Dr. Clarke’s answers. When Mr. Butler’s name was discovered to the doctor, the candour, modesty, and good sense with which he had written, immediately procured him his friendship. Our young student was not, however, during his continuance at Tewkesbury, solely employed in metaphysical speculations and inquiries. Another subject of his serious consideration was, the propriety of his becoming a dissenting minister. Accordingly, he entered into an examination of the principles of non-conformity; the result of which was, such a dissatisfaction with them, as determined him to conform to the established church. This intention was at first very disagreeable to his father, who endeavoured to divert him from his purpose; and with that view called in the assistance of some eminent presbyterian divines; but finding his son’s resolution to be fixed, heat length suffered him to be removed to Oxford, where he was admitted a commoner of Oriel college, on the 17th of March, 1714. At what time he took orders is uncertain, but it must have been soon after his admission at Oxford, if it be true, as is asserted, that he sometimes assisted Mr. Edward Talbot in the divine service, at his living of Hendred near Wantage. With this gentleman, who was the. second son of Dr. William Talbot, successively bishop of Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham, Mr. Butler formed an intimate friendship at Oriel college, which laid the foundation of all his subsequent preferments, and procured for him a very honourable situation when he was only twentysix years of age. In 1718, at the recommendation of Mr. Talbot and Dr. Clarke, he was appointed by sir Joseph Jekyll to be preacher at the Rolls. This was three years before he had taken any degree at the university, where he did not go out bachelor of law till the 10th of June, 1721, which, however, was as soon as that degree could statutably be conferred upon him. Mr. Butler continued at the Rolls till 1726, in the beginning of which year he published, in one volume 8vo, “Fifteen Sermons preached at that Chapel.” In the mean time, by the patronage of Dr. Talbot, bishop of Durham, to whose notice he had been recommended (together with Mr. Benson and Mr. Seeker) by Mr. Edward Talbot on his death-bed, our author had been presented first to the rectory of Haughton, near Darlington, in 1722, and afterwards to that of Stanhope in the same diocese, in 1725, At Haughton there was a necessity for rebuilding a great part of the parsonagehouse, and Mr. Butler had neither money nor talents for that work. Mr. Seeker, therefore, who had always the interest of his friends at heart, and had acquired a very considerable influence with bishop Talbot, persuaded that prelate to give Mr. Butler, in exchange for Haughton, the rectory of Stanhope, which was not only free from any such incumbrance, but was likewise of much superior value, being indeed one of the richest parsonages in England. Whilst our author continued preacher at the Rolls chapel, he divided his time between his duty in town and country; but when he quitted the Rolls, he resided, during seven years, wholly at Stanhope, in the conscientious discharge of every obligation appertaining to a good parish priest. This retirement, however^ was too solitary for his disposition, which had in it a natural cast of gloominess: and though his recluse hours were by no means lost either to private improvement or public utility, yet he felt at times very painfully the want of that select society of friends to which he had been accustomed, and which could inspire him with the greatest chearfulness. Mr. Seeker, therefore, who knew this, was extremely anxious to draw him out into a more active and conspicuous scene, and omitted no opportunity of expressing this desire to such as he thought capable of promoting it. Having himself been, appointed king’s chaplain in 1732, he took occasion, in a conversation which he had the honour of holding with queen Caroline, to mention to her his friend Mr. Butler. The queen said she thought he had been dead. Mr. Seeker assured her he was not. Yet her majesty afterwards asked archbishop Blackburne if he was not dead? His answer was, “No, madam, but he is buried.” Mr. Seeker, continuing his purpose of endeavouring to bring his friend out of his retirement, found means, upon Mr. Charles Talbot' s being made lord chancellor, to have Mr. Butler recommended to him for his chaplain. His lordship accepted and sent for him; and this promotion calling him to town, he took Oxford in his way, and was admitted there to the degree of doctor of law, on the 8th of December, 1733. The lord chancellor, who gave him also a prebend in the church of Rochester, had consented that he should reside at his parish of Stanhope one half of the year.

Dr. Butler being thus brought back into the world, his merit and talents soon introduced him to particular notice, and paved the way for his rising to those high dignities which he afterwards enjoyed. In 1736, he was appointed clerk of the closet to queen Caroline; and, in the same year, he presented to her majesty a copy of his celebrated treatise, entitled “The Analogy of Religion, natural and revealed, to the constitution and course of Nature.” His attendance upon his royal mistress, by her especial command, was from seven to nine in the evening every day; and though this was interrupted by her death in 1737, yet he had been so effectually recommended by her, as well as by the late lord chancellor Talbot, to his majesty’s favour, that, in the next year, he was raised to the highest order of the church, by a nomination to the bishopric of Bristol; to which see he was consecrated on the 3d of December, 1738. King George II. not being satisfied with this proof of his regard to Dr. Butler, promoted him, in 1740, to the deanry of St. Paul’s London; into which he was installed on the 24th of May in that year, and finding the demands of this dignity to be incompatible with his parish duty at Stanhope, he immediately resigned that rich benefice. Besides our prelate’s unremitted attention to his peculiar obligations, he was called on to preach several discourses on public occasions, which were afterwards separately printed, and have since been annexed to the later editions of the Sermons at the Rolls chapel. In 1746, upon the death of Dr. Egerton, bishop of Hereford, Dr. But> ler was made clerk of the closet to the king; and in 1750, he received another distinguished mark of his majesty’s favour, by being translated to the see of Durham on the 16th of October in that year, upon the decease of Dr. Edward Chandler. Our prelate, being thus appointed to preside over a diocese with which he had long been connected, delivered his first, and indeed his last charge to his clergy, at his primary visitation in 1751. The principal subject of it was, “External Religion.” The bishop having observed, with deep concern, the great and growing neglect of serious piety in the kingdom, insisted strongly on the usefulness of outward forms and institutions, in fixing and preserving a sense of devotion and duty in the minds of men. In doing this, he was thought by several persons to speak too favourably of pagan and popish ceremonies, and to countenance, in a certain degree, the cause of superstition. 'Under that apprehension, an able and spirited writer, who was understood to be a clergyman of the church of England, published in 1752, a pamphlet, entitled “A serious inquiry into the use and importance of External Religion: occasioned by some passages in the right reverend the lord bishop of Durham’s Charge to the Clergy of that diocese; humbly addressed to his lordship.” Many persons, however, and, we believe, the greater part of the clergy of the diocese, did not think our prelate’s charge so exceptionable as it appeared to this author. The charge, which was first printed at Durham, was afterwards annexed to Dr. Butler’s other works, by Dr. Halifax. By his promotion to the see of Durham, our worthy bishop was furnished with ample means of exerting the virtue of charity, the exercise of which was his highest delight. But this gratification he did not long enjoy. He had been but a short time seated in his new bishopric, when his health began visibly to decline; and having been complimented, during his indisposition, upon account of his great resignation to the divine will, he is said to have expressed some regret, that he should be taken from the present world so soon after he had been rendered capable of becoming much more useful in it. In his last illness, he was carried to Bristol, to try the waters of that place; but, these proving ineffectual, he removed to Bath, where, being past recovery, he died on the 16th of June, 1752. His corpse was conveyed to Bristol, and interred in the cathedral there, where a monument, with an inscription, is erected to his memory. On the greatness of bishop Butler’s intellectual character we need not enlarge; for his profound knowledge, and the prodigious strength of his mind, are amply displayed in his incomparable writings. His piety was of the most serious and fervent, and perhaps somewhat of the ascetic kind. His benevolence was warm, generous, and diffusive. Whilst he was bishop of Bristol, he expended, in repairing and improving the episcopal palace, four thousand pounds, which is said to have been more than the whole revenues of the bishopric amounted to, during his continuance in that see. Indeed he used to say that the deanery of St. Paul’s paid for it. Besides his private benefactions, he was a contributor to the' Infirmary at Bristol, and a subscriber to three of the Hospitals at London. He was, likewise, a principal promoter, though not the first founder, of the Infirmary at Newcastle, in Northumberland. lu supporting the hospitality and dignity of the rich and powerful diocese of Durham, he was desirous of imitating the spirit of his patron, bishop Talbot. In this spirit, he set apart three clays every week for the reception and entertainment of the principal gentry of the country. Nor were even the clergy who had the poorest benefices neglected by him. He not only occasionally invited them to dine with him, but condescended to visit them at their respective parishes. By his will, he left five hundred pounds to the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, and some legacies to his friends and domestics. His executor was his chaplain, the rev. Dr. Nathaniel Forster, a divine of distinguished literature, who was especially charged to destroy all his manuscript sermons, letters, and papers. Bishop Butler was never married. The bishop’s disposition, which had in it a natural ca’st of gloominess, was supposed to give a tincture to his devotion. As a proof of this, and that he had even acquired somewhat of a superstitious turn of mind, it was alleged, that he had put a. cross in his chapel at Bristol. The cross was a plain piece of marble inlaid. This circumstance, together with the offence which some persons had taken at his charge delivered at Durham, might possibly give rise to a calumny, that, almost fifteen years after his death, was advanced concerning him, in an obscure and anonymous pamphlet, entitled “The Root of Protestant Errors examined.” It was there said, that our prelate died in the communion of the church of Rome. Of this absurd and groundless charge, we shall take no other notice, than to transcribe what the worthy and learned Dr. Porteus has written concerning it, in his Life of Archbishop Seeker. “This strange slander, founded on the weakest pretences and most trivial circumstances that can be imagined, no one was better qualified to confute than the archbishop; as well from his long and intimate knowledge of bishop Butler, as from the information given him at the time by those who attended his lordship in his last illness, and were with him when he died. Accordingly, by an article in a newspaper, signed Misopseudes, his grace challenged the author of that pamphlet to produce his authority for what he had advanced; and in a second article defended the bishop against him; and in a third (all with the same signature) confuted another writer, who, under the name of ‘A real Protestant,’ still maintained that ridiculous calumy. His antagonists were effectually subdued, and his superiority to them was publicly acknowledged by a sensible and candid man, who signed himself, and who really was ‘A dissenting Minister.’ Surely, it is a very unwise piece of policy, in those who profess themselves enemies to popery, to take so much pains to bring the most respectable names within its pale; and to give it the merit of having gained over those who were the brightest ornaments and firmest supports of the protestant cause.”

July 12, the king came to that city in person, and soon after Hewet and Simpson were deprived and imprisoned. After this, Calderwood was called upon, and refusing to comply with what the king in person required of him, James, after haranguing at some length on his disobedience, committed him to prison; and afterwards the/ privy-council, according to the power exercised by them at that time, directed him to banish himself out of the king’s dominions before Michaelmas following, and not to return without licence; and upon giving security for this purpose, he was discharged out of prison, and suffered to return to his parish, but forbid to preach. Having applied to the king for a prorogation of his sentence without success, because he would neither acknowledge his offence, nor promise conformity for the future, he retired to Holland in 1619, where his publications were securely multiplied, and diffused through Scotland, particularly one entitled “The Perth Assembly,” which was condemned by the council. In 1623 he published his celebrated treatise entitled “Altare Damascenum, seu ecclesiae Anolicanse politia, ecclesiae Scoticanae obtrusa a formalista quodam delineata, illustrata, et examinata,” The writer of the preface prefixed to Calderwood’s “True history of the church of Scotland” telis us, that “the author of this very learned and celebrate 1 treatise (which is an answer to Lin wood’s ‘ Description of the Policy of the church of England’) doth irrefragably and unanswerably demonstrate the iniquity of designing and endeavouring to model and conform the divinely simple worship, discipline, and government of the church of Scotland to the pattern of the pompously prelatic and ceremonious church of England; under some conviction whereof it seems king James himself was, though implacably displeased with it, when, being after the reading of it somewhat pensive, and being asked the reason by an English prelate standing by and observing it, he told him he had seen and read such a book; whereupon the prelate telling his majesty not to suffer that to trouble him, for they would answer it he replied, not without some passion, < What would you answer, man There is nothing here but scripture, reason, and the fathers’.” This work was in fact an enlargement, in Latin, of one which he wrote in English, and published in 1621, under the title of “The Altar of Damascus,” and which is uncommonly rare. It concludes with noticing a rumour spread by bishop Spotswood, that Mr. Calderwood had turned Brownist, which rumour it denies in strong language, and with the following intemperate and unbecoming threat: “If either Spotswood, or his supposed author, persist in their calumny after this declaration, 1 shall try if there be any blood in their foreheads.” Calderwood having in 1624 been afflicted with a long fit of sickness, and nothing having been heard of him for some time, one Patrick Scot (as Calderwood himself informs us), took it for granted that he was dead; and thereupon wrote a recantation in his name, as if before his decease he had changed his sentiments. This imposture being detected, Scot went over to Holland, and staid three weeks at Amsterdam, where he made diligent search for the author of “Altare Damascenum,” with a design, as Calderwood believed, to have dispatched him: but Calderwood had privately returned into his own country, where he remained for several years. Scot gave out that the king furnished him with the matter for the pretended recantation, and that he only put it in order.

, an Italian poet and prelate, was born in 1427 at Cavelli, a village of Campania, of parents so obscure that he bore no name but that of his country, and was employed in his early years as a shepherd, in which situation an ecclesiastic discovering some promise of talents in him, sent him to Naples, where he studied under Laurentius Valla. He went afterwards to Perugia, where he rose to be professor of eloquence, and filled that chair with so much reputation, that when, in 1459, pope Pius II. happened to pass through Perugia in his way to the council of Mantua, he bestowed his patronage on him, and made him bishop of Crotona, and secondly of Teramo. Enjoying the same favour under pope Paul II. this pontiff sent him to the congress of Ratisbon, which assembled for the purpose of consulting on a league of the Christian princes against the Turks. Sixtus IV. who had been one of his scholars at Perugia, made him successively governor of Todi, of Foligno, and of Citta di Castello; but the pope having thought proper to besiege this last named city, because the inhabitants made some scruple about receiving his troops, Campano, touched with the hardships they were likely to suffer, wrote to the pope with so much freedom and spirit as to enrage his holiness, and provoke him to deprive him of his government, and banish him from the ecclesiastical states. Campano on this went to Naples, but not rinding the reception he expected, he retired to his bishopric at Teramo, where he died July 15, 1477, of chagrin and disappointment. His works, which were first printed at Rome in 1495, fol. consist of several treatises on moral philosophy, discourses, and funeral orations, and nine books of letters, in which there is some curious information with respect both to the political and literary history of his times. This volume contains likewise, the life of pope Pius II. and of Braccio of Perugia, a famous military character, and lastly, of eight book of elegies and epigrams, some of which are rather of too licentious a nature to accord with the gravity of his profession. These, or part of them, were reprinted at Leipsic in 1707, and in 1734. Campano was at one time a corrector of the press to Udalric, called Gallus, the first printer of Rome, and wrote prefaces to Livy, Justin, Plutarch, and some other of the works which issued from that press.

This character may be seen enlarged, with many interesting and instructive particulars of the private and public life of Dr. Campbell, in an excellent account of him written by the rev. Dr. George Skene Keith, and prefixed to Dr. Campbell’s “Lectures on Ecclesiastical History,” published in 1800, 2 vols. 8vo. These lectures have since been the subject of much ingenious criticism, particularly in the British Critic, vol. XX. As their object is to give a preference to the church government of Scotland, it was thought necessary by the advocates for the church of England to bestow particular notice on an attack on the latter coining from a man of so high talents and literary fame. In Scotland Dr. Campbell’s opinions were opposed by Dr. Skinner, a prelate of the Scotch episcopal church, in a volume entitled “Primitive Truth and Order vindicated,' 1 and in England, by archdeacon Daubeny, in his” Eight Discourses,“&c. Dr. Campbell’s” Lectures on Systematic Theology,' 1 and on “The Pastoral character,” have also been recently published, which, if inferior in popularity, are yet worthy of the pen which produced the “Essay on Miracles,' 1 the” Philosophy of Rhetoric, 11 and the “Translation of the Gospels.”

, was born at Amiens Jan. 31, 1643, of very poor parents. Serroni, bishop of Mende, took him from the Dominican convent of the fauxbourg St. Germain, in Paris, provided for his education, and made him his secretary. This prelate also gave him the priory at Flore, obtained for him the abbey of St. Marcel, the coadjutorship of Glandeves, and lastly the bishopric of Pamiers. But not able to obtain his bulls from Rome, on account of his bad conduct, he had by way of compensation the abbey of Signy. He is the author of several dissertations on medals, on the history of France, on the title of Most Christian given to the kings of France, on the guard of these monarchs, on the daughters of the house of France given in marriage to heretical or pagan princes, on the nobility of the royal race, on the heredity of the grand fiefs, on the origin of ensigns armorial, on the hereditary dignities attached to titled estates, &c. all which were published in the Paris Mercuries for 1719, 1720, 1722, and 1723. His cabinet was rich in medals; the celebrated Vaillant published the most curious of them accompanied with explications. Abbe de Camps died at Paris in 1723, aged 81. He was learned and laborious, and his investigations have been of great use to the historians that have come after him.

, an exemplary French prelate, was born at Paris in 1582, and on account of his excellent character and talents, was nominated to the bishopric of Bellay by Henry IV. in 1609, before he was of age, but having obtained the pope’s dispensation, he was consecrated on Dec. 30th of the same year. From this time he appears to have devoted his time and talents to the edification of his flock, and of the people at large, by frequent preaching, and more frequent publication of numerous works calculated to divert their attention to the concerns of an immortal life. In his time romances began to be the favourite books with all who would be thought readers of taste; and Camus, considering that it would not be easy to persuade them to leave off such books without supplying them with some kind of substitute, published several works of practical piety with a mixture of romantic narrative, by which he hoped to attract and amuse the attention of romancereaders, and draw them on insensibly to matters of religious importance. He contrived, therefore, that the lovers, in these novels, while they encountered the usual perplexities, should be led to see the vanity and perishable nature of all human enjoyments, and to form resolutions of renouncing worldly delights, and embracing a religious life. Among these works we find enumerated, 1. “Dorothee, ou recit de la pitoyable issue d'une volorite violentee,” Paris, 1621. 2. “Alexis,” 1^22, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. L'Hyacinte, histoire Catalane,“ibid. 1627, 8yo. 4.” Alcime, relation funeste, &c.“ibid. 12mo, 1625, &c. But the principal object of his reforming spirit was the conduct of the rnonks, or mendicant friars, against whom he wrote various severe remonstrances, and preached against them with a mixture of religious fervour and satirical humour. Among the works he published against them are, 1.” Le Directeur desinteresse,“Paris, 1632, 12mo. 2.” Desappropriation claustrale,“Besangon, 1634. 3.” Le Rabat-joy e du triomphe monagal.“4.” L'anti-Moine bien prepare,“1632, &c. &c. These monks teazed the cardinal Richelieu to silence him, and the cardinal told him,” I really find no other fault with you but this horrible bitterness against the monks; were it not for that, I would canonize you.“”I wish that may come to pass,“said the bishop,” “for then we should both have our wish; you would be pope, and I a saint.” Many of his bons-mots were long in circulation, and show that he had the courage to reprove vices and absurdities among the highest classes. In 1620 he established in the city of Bellay a convent of capuchins, and in 1622 one for the nuns of the visitation, instituted by St. Francis de Sales. In 1629 he resigned his bishopric that he might pass the remainder of his days in retirement, in the abbey of Cluny in Normandy, but the archbishop of Rouen, unwilling that so active a member of the church should not be employed in public services, associated him in his episcopal cares, by appointing him his grand vicar. At length he finally retired to the hospital of incurables in Paris, where he died April 26, 1652. Moreri has enumerated a large catalogue of his works, the principal of which, besides what we have enumerated, are, “L' Esprit de S. Frangois de Sales,” 6 vols. 8vo, reduced to one by a doctor of the Sorbonne; and “L'Avoisinement des Protestans avec TEglise Romaine,” republished in 1703 by Richard Simon, under the title of “Moyens de reunir les Protestans avec l'Eglise Romaine.” Simon asserted, that Bossuet’s exposition of the catholic faith was no more than this work in a new dress.

, a Dominican, born in 1504 at Miranda in Navarre, appeared with great distinction at the council of Trent, where he composed a treatise on trie residence of bishops, which he held to be of divine right, treating the contrary opinion as diabolical. Philip II. king of Spain, having married queen Mary in 1554, took Carranza with him into England, who laboured to restore the Catholic religion there, and pleased Philip so much, that he appointed him archbishop of Toledo 1557. This illustrious prelate was, however, accused before the Inquisition, 1559, and carried as a heretic to Rome, where he was thrown into prison, and suffered greatly during ten years, notwithstanding the solicitations of his friend Navarre, who openly undertook his defence. At length the Inquisition declared by a sentence passed 1576, that there was not any certain proof that Carranza was a heretic. They condemned him nevertheless to abjure the errors which had been imputed to him, and confined him to la Minerve, a monastery of his order, where he died the same year, aged 72. His principal works are, 1. “Summary of the Councils” in Latin, 1681, 4to, which is valued. 2. “A Treatise on the residence of Bishops,” 1547, 4to. 3. “A Catechism” in Spanish, 1558, fol.; censured by the Inquisition in Spain, but justified at the council of Trent in 1563.

In 1712 be made the tour of Europe with a nobleman, and on his return entered into orders, and was appointed render of the Abbey-church at Bath; where he preached a sermon on Jan. 30, 171 J-, in which he took occasion to vindicate Charles I. from aspersions cast upon his memory with regard to the Irish rebellion. This drew Mr. Carte into a controversy with Mr. (afterwards the celebrated Dr.) Chandler, and gave rise to our historian’s first publication, entitled “The Irish Massacre sot in a clear light,” &c. which is inserted in lord Sotners’s Tracts. ‘ Upon the accession of George I. Mr. Carte’s principles not permitting him to take the oaths to the new government, he assumed a lay-habit, and at one time assisted the celebrated Jeremiah Collier, who preached to a non’} tiring congregation in a house in Broad-street, London, and on a Sunday he used to put on his gown and cassock, and perform divine service in his own family. What particular concern he had in the rebellion of 1715 does not appear; but that he had some degree of guilt in this respect, or, at least, that he was strongly suspected of it by administration, is evident, from the king’s troops having orders to discover and apprehend him. He had the good fortune to elude their search, by concealing himself at Coleshili, Warwickshire, in the house of Mr. Badger, then curate of that town. Mr. Carte himself officiated for a time as curate of the same place; after which, he was some time secretary to bishop Atterbury. This connexion threw him into fresh difficulties: so deeply was he thought to he engaged in the conspiracy ascribed to that eminent prelate, that a charge of high treason was brought against him; and a proclamation was issued, Aug. 13, 1722, offering a reward of 1000l. for seizing his person. He was again successful in making his escape, and fled into France, where he resided several years, under the borrowed name of Philips. Whilst Mr. Carte continued in that country, he was introduced to the principal men of learning and family, and gained access to the most eminent libraries, public and private, by which means he was enabled to collect large materials for illustrating an English edition of Thuanus. The collection was in such forwardness in 1724, that he consulted Dr. Mead r at that time the great patron of literary undertakings, on the mode of publication. The doctor, who perceived that the plan might he rendered more extensively useful, obtained Mr. Carte’s materials at a very considerable price, and engaged Mr. Buckley in the noble edition completed in 17^3, in 7 vols. fol. Mr. Carte would probably himself have been the principal editor, if he had not been an exile at the time the undertaking commenced, but we find that the Latin address to Dr. Mead, prefixed to that work, and dated from the Inner-temple, Jan. 1733, is signed Thomas Carte. Whilst this grand work was carrying on, queen Caroline, whose regard to men of letters is well known, received such favourable impressions of Mr. Carte, that she obtained permission for his returning to England in security; which he did some time between the years 1728 and 1730. He had not long been restored to his own country before he engaged in one of the most important of his works, “The history of the life of James duke of Ormonde, from his birth, in 1610, to his death, in 1688,” 3 vols. fol. The third volume, which was published first, came out in 1735, and the first and second volumes in 1736. From a letter of Mr. Carte’s to Dr. Swift, dated Aug. 11, 1736, it appears, that in writing the life of the duke of Ormonde, he had availed himself of some instructions which he had derived from the dean . In the same letter he mentions his design of composing a general history of England and finds great fault, not only with Rapin, but with Ilymer’s Fcedera; but his accusations of that noble collection are in several respects erroneous and groundless.

Very severe measures had now been adopted for several years against the puritans; on whose behalf a piece was published, intituled, “An admonition to the parliament;” to which were annexed, A letter from Beza to the earl of Leicester, and another from Gualter to bishop Parkhurst, recommending a reformation of church discipline. This work contained what was called the “platform of a church;” the manner of electing ministers; their several duties; and arguments to prove their equality in government. It also attacked the hierarchy, and the proceedings of the bishops, with much severity of language. The admonition was concluded with a petition to the two houses, that a discipline more consonant to the word of God, and agreeing with the foreign reformed churches, might be established by law. Mr. Field and Mr. Wilcox, authors of the admonition, and who attempted to present it to parliament, were committed to Newgate on the second of October 1572. Notwithstanding which, Mr. Cartwright, after his return to England,“wrote” a second admonition to the parliament,“with an humble petition to the two houses, for relief against the subscription required by the ecclesiastical commissioners. The same year Dr. Whitgift published an answer to the admonition: to which Mr. Cartwright published a reply in 1573; and aboat this time a proclamation was issued for apprehending him. In 1574 Dr. Whitgift published, in folio,” A defence of the answer to the admonition, against the reply of T. C.“In 1575 Mr. Cartwright published a second reply to Dr. Whitgift; and in 1577 appeared,” the rest of the second reply of Thomas Cartwright, against master Doctor Whitgift’s answer, touching the church discipline.“This seems to have been printed in Scotland; and it is certain, that before its publication Mr. Cartwright had found it necessary to leave the kingdom, whilst his opponent was raised to the bishopric of Worcester. Mr. Cartwright continued abroad about five years, during which time he officiated as a minister to some of the English factories. About the year 1580 James VI. king of Scotland, having a high opinion of his learning and abilities, sent to him, and offered him a professorship in the university of St. Andrew’s; but this he 'thought proper to decline. Upon his return to England, officers w.e re sent to apprehend him, as a promoter of sedition, and he was thrown into prison. He probably obtained his li­* berty through the interest of the lord treasurer Burleigh, and the earl of Leicester, by both of whom he was favoured: and the latter conferred upon him the mastership of the hospital which he had founded in Warwick. In 1583 he was earnestly persuaded, by several learned protestant divines, to write against the Rhemish translation of the New Testament. He was likewise encouraged in this design by the earl of Leicester and sir Francis Walsingham: and the latter sent him a hundred pounds towards the expences of the work. He accordingly engaged in it; but after some time received a mandate from archbishop Whitgift, prohibiting him from prosecuting the work any farther. Though he was much discouraged by this, he nearly completed the performance; but it was not published till many years after his death in 1618, fol. under the title” A Confutation of the Rhemish Translation, Glosses, and Annotations on the New Testament.“It is said, that queen Elizabeth sent to Beza, requesting him to undertake a work of this kind; but he declined it, declaring that Cartwright was much more capable of the task than himself. Notwithstanding the high estimation in which he was held, and his many admirers, in the year 1585 he was again committed to prison by Dr. Aylmer, bfshop of London; and that prelate gave some offence to the queen by making use of her majesty’s name on the occasion. When he obtained his liberty is not mentioned: but we find that in 1590, when he was at Warwick, he received a citation to appear in the starchamber, together with Edmund Snape, and some other puritan ministers, being charged with setting up a new discipline, and a new form of worship, and subscribing their names to stand to it. This was interpreted an opposition and disobedience to the established laws. Mr. Cartwright was also called upon to take the oath ex officio; but this he refused, and was committed to the Fleet. In May 1591 ije was sent for by bishop Ay liner to appear before him, and some others of the ecclesiastical commissioners, at that prelate’s house. He had no previous notice given him, to prevent any concourse of his adherents upon the occasion. The bishop threw out some reproaches against him, and again required him to take the oath ex officio. The attorney general did the same, and represented to him” how dangerous a thing it was that men should, upon the conceits of their own heads, and yet under colour of conscience, refuse the things that had been received for laws for a long time.“Mr. Cartwright assigned sundry reasons for refusing to take the oath; and afterwards desired to be permitted to vindicate himself from some reflections that had been thrown out against him by the bishop and the attorney general. But to this bishop Aylmer would not consent, alleging,” that he had no leisure to hear his answer,“but that he might defend himself from the public charges that he had brought against him, by a private letter to his lordship. With this Mr. Cartwright was obliged to be contented, and was immediately after again committed to the Fleet. In August 1591 he wrote a letter to lady Russel, stating some of the grievances under which he laboured, and soliciting her interest with lord Burleigh to procure him better treatment. The same year king James wrote a letter to queen Elizabeth, requesting her majesty to shew favour to Mr. Cartwright and his brethren, on account of their great learning and faithful labours in the gospel. But he did not obtain his liberty till about the middle of the year 1592, when he was restored to his hospital at Warwick, and was again permitted to preach: but his health appears to have been much impaired by his long confinement and close application to study. He died on the 27th of December 1603, in the 68th year of his age, having preached a sermon ou mortality but two days before. He was buried in the hospital at Warwick. He was pious, learned, and laborious; an acute disputant, and an admired preacher; of a disinterested disposition, generous and charitable, and particularly liberal to poor scholars. It is much to be regretted that such a man should have incurred the censure of the superiors either in church or state; but inuovations like those he proposed, and adhered to with obstinacy, could not be tolerated in the case of a church establishment so recently formed, and which required every effort bf its supporters to maintain it. How far, therefore, the reflections which have been cast on a the prelates who prosecuted him are just, may be safely left to the consideration of the reader. There is reason also to think, that before his death Cartwright himself thought differently of his past conduct. Sir Henry Yelverton, in his epistle to the reader, prefixed to bishop Moreton’s” Episcopacy justified,“says that the last words of Thomas Cartwright, on his death-bed, were, that he sorely lamented the unnecessary troubles he had caused in the church, by the schism, of which he had been the great fomenter; and that be wished he was to begin his life again, that he might testify to the world the dislike he had of his former ways In tnis opinion, says sir Henry, he died; and it appears certain, that he abated something of the warmth of his spirit towards the close of his days. When he had obtained his pardon, of the queen, which, as sir George Paule asserts, was at the instance of aichbishop Whitgilt, Cartwright, in his letters of acknowledgment to that prelate, vouchsafed to stile him a” Right Reverend Fatner in God, and his Lord the Archbishop’s Grace of Canterbury.“This title of Grace he often yielded to Whitgift in the course of their correspondence. Nay, the archbishop was heard to say, that if Mr. Cartwright had not so far engaged himself as he did in the beginning, he verily thought tnat he would, in his letter time, have been drawn to conformity: for when he was freed from his troubles, he often repaired to the archbishop, who used him kindly, and was contented to tolerate his preaching at Warwick for several years, upon his promise that he would not impugn the laws, orders, and government of the church of England, but persuade and procure, as much as he could, both publicly and privately, the estimation and peace of the same. With these terms he complied; notwithstanding which, when queen Elizabeth understood that he preached again, though in the temperate manner which had been prescribed, she would not permit him to do it any longer without subscription; and was not a little displeased with the archbishop, for his having connived at his so doing. Sir George Paule farther adds, that, by the benevolence and bounty of his followers, Mr Cartwright was said to have died rich. Besides the pieces already mentioned, Mr. Cartwright was author of the following works: 1.” Commentaria practica in totam historiam evangelicam, ex quatuor evangelistis harmonice concinnatam,“1630, 4to. An elegant edition of this was printed at Amsterdam, by Lewis Elzevir, in 1647, under the following title:” Harmonia evangelica commentario analytico, metaphrastico, practice, illustrata,“&c. 2.” Commentarii succincti & dilucidi in proverbia Salomonis,“Amst. 1638, 4to. 3.” Metaphrasis & homiliae in librum Salomonis qui inscribitur Ecclesiastes,“Amst. 1647, 4to. 4.” A Directory of Church Government,“1644, 4to. 5.” A Body of Divinity," Lond. 1616, 4to.

, son of the preceding, was born at Geneva, August 14, 1599, and had the name of Meric from Meric de Vicq, a great friend and benefactor to his father. His first education he received at Sedan, but coming to England with his father, in the year 1610, he was instructed by a private master till 1614, when he was sent to Christ Church, Oxford; and being put there under a most careful tutor, Dr. Edward Meetkirk (afterwards Regius Hebrew professor), was soon after elected a student of that house. He took the degree of bachelor of arts, May 8, 1618, and that of master, June 14, 1621, being even then eminent for his extensive learning; and the same year, though he was but two and twenty, he published a book in defence of his father, against the calumnies of certain Roman catholics, entitled “Pietas contra maledicos, &c.” Loud. 1621, 8vo. This book made him known to king James I. who ever after entertained a good opinion of him; and also brought him into reputation abroad, especially in France, whither he was invited with offers of promotion, when his godfather, Meric de Vicq, was keeper of the great seal of that kingdom. Three years after, he published another vindication of his father, written by the command of king James I. and entitled, “Vindicatio Patris, &c.” 1624, 4to. About that time he was collated by Dr. Lancelot Andrews, bishop of Winchester, to the rectory of Bledon in Somersetshire; and June 1628, took the degree of bachelor of divinity. He had now formed the design of continuing his father’s “Exercitations against Baronius’s Annals,” but was diverted by some accident. At length, when he came to maturity of years for such a work, and had acquainted archbishop Laud, his great friend and patron, with his design, who was very ready to place him conveniently in Oxford or London, according to his desire, that he might be furnished with books necessary for such a purpose, the rebellion broke out in England. Having now no fixed habitation, he was forced to sell a good part of his books; and, after about twenty years’ sufferings, became so infirm, that he could not expect to live many years, and was obliged to relinquish his design. Before this, however, in June 1628, he was made prebendary of Canterbury, through the interest of bishop Laud; and when that prelate was promoted to the archbishopric of Canterbury, he collated him, in Oct. 1634, to the vicarage of Minster, in the Isle of Thanet; and in the same month, he was inducted into the vicarage of Monckton, in that island. In August 1636, he was created doctor in divinity, by order of king Charles I. who was entertained at the same time, with his queen, by the university of Oxford. About the year 1644, during the heat of the civil wars, he was deprived of his preferments, abused, fined, and imprisoned. In 1649, one Mr. Greaves, of Gray’s inn, an intimate acquaintance of his, brought him a message from Oliver Cromwell, then lieutenant-general of the parliament forces, desiring him to come to Whitehall, on purpose to confer with him about matters of moment; but his wife being lately dead, and not, as he said, buried, he desired to be excused. Greaves came again afterwards, and Dr. Casaubon being somewhat alarmed, desired him to tell him the meaning of the matter; but Greaves refusing, went away the second time. At length he returned again, and told him, that the lieutenant-general intended his good and advancement; and his particular errand was, that he would make use of his pen to write the history of the late war; desiring withal, that nothing but matters of fact should be impartially set down. The doctor answered, that he desired his humble service and hearty thanks should be returned for the great honour done unto him; but that he was uncapable in several respects for such an employment, and could not so impartially engage in it, as to avoid such reflections as would be ungrateful, if not injurious, to his lordship. Notwithstanding this answer, Cromwell seemed so sensible of his worth, that he acknowledged a great respect for him; and, as a testimony of it, ordered, that upon the first demand there should be delivered to him three or four hundred pounds, by a bookseller in London, whose name was Cromwell, whenever his occasions should require, without acknowledging, at the receipt of it, who was his benefactor. But this ofter he rejected, although almost in want. At the same time, it was proposed by Mr. Greaves, who belonged to the library at St. James’s, that if our author would gratify him in the foregoing request, Cromwell would restore to him all his father’s books, which were then in the royal library, having been purchased by king James; and withal give him a patent for three hundred pounds a year, to be paid to the family as long as the youngest sou of Dr. Casaubon should live, but this also was refused. Not long after, it was intimated to him, by the ambassador of Christiana, queen of Sweden, that the queen wished him to come over, and take upon him the government of one, or inspection of all her universities; and, as an encouragement, she proposed not only an honourable salary for himself, but offered to settle three hundred pounds a year upon his eldest son during life: but this also he waved, being fully determined to spend the remainder of his days in England. At the restoration of king Charles II. he recovered his preferments; namely, his prebend of Canterbury in July 1660, and his vicarages of Monckton and Minster the same year: but, two years after, he exchanged this last for the rectory of Ickham, near Canterbury, to which he was admitted Oct. 4, 1662. He had a design, in the latter part of his days, of writing his own life; and would often confess, that he thought himself obliged to do it, out of gratitude to the Divine Providence, which had preserved and delivered him from more hazardous occurrences than ever any man (as he thought) besides himself had encountered with; particularly in his escape from a fire in the night-time, which happened in the house where he lived, at Geneva, while he was a boy: in his recovery from a sickness at Christ Church, in Oxford, when he was given over for dead, by a chemical preparation administered to him by a young physician: in his wonderful preservation from drowning, when overset in a boat on the Thames near London, the two watermen being drowned, and himself buoyed up by his priest’s coat: and in his bearing several abuses, fines, imprisonments, &c. laid upon him by the republicans in the time of his sequestration: but this he did not execute. He died July 14, 1671, in the seventy-second year of his age, and was buried in the south part of the first south cross aile of Canterbury cathedral. Over his grave was soon after erected a handsome monument with an inscription. He left by will a great number of manuscripts to the university of Oxford. His character is thus represented. He was a general scholar, but not of particular excellence, unless in criticism, in which probably he was assisted by his father’s notes and papers. According to the custom of the times he lived in, he displays his extensive reading by an extraordinary mixture of Greek and Latin quotations and phrases. He was wont to ascribe to Descartes’s philosophy, the little inclination people had in his time for polite learning. Sir William Temple very highly praises his work, hereafter mentioned, on “Enthusiasm;” and unquestionably it contains in any curious and learned remarks; buthisbeingamaintainer of the reality of witches and apparitions, shews that he was not more free from one species of enthusiasm than most of his contemporaries. In his private character he was eminent for his piety, charity to the poor, and his courteous and affable disposition towards scholars. He had several children, but none made any figure in the learned world; one, named John, was a surgeon at Canterbury .

, Queen Of England, and first consort of Henry VIII. was the fourth daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Castile and Arragon. She was born in 1485. In the sixteenth year of her age, Nov. 14, 1501, she was married to Arthur, prince of Wales, son of Henry VII. who died a few months after. The king, either from political reasons, or, as some think, because he was unwilling to restore Catherine’s dowry, which was 200,000 ducats, obliged his second son Henry, whom he created prince of Wales, and who was then in his twelfth year, to be contracted to the infanta. The prince resisted this injunction to the utmost of his power; but the king was invincible, and the espousals were at length, by means of the pope’s dispensation, contracted between the parties. Immediately after the accession of Henry VIII. to the crown, in 1509, the king began to deliberate on his former engagements, to which he had many objections, but his privy council, though contrary to the opinion of the primate, gave him their advice for celebrating the marriage. Even the prejudices of the people were averse to an union betwixt such near relations as Henry and his brother’s widow; and the late king is thought to have had an intention to avail himself of a proper opportunity of annulling the contract. In 1527 several circumstances occurred which combined to excite scruples in the king’s mind concerning the lawfulness of his marriage, but probably the chief were what arose from his own passions. The queen was six years older than the king; and the decay of her beauty, together with particular infn-mities and diseases, had contributed, notwithstanding her blameless character and deportment, to render her person unacceptable to him. Though she had borne him several children, they all died in early infancy, except one daughter, Mary; and it was apprehended, that if doubts of Mary’s legitimacy concurred with the weakness of her sex, the king of Scots, the next heir, would advance his pretensions, and might throw the kingdom into confusion. But most of all, Anne Boleyn had acquired an entire ascendant over his affections, and he was now determined on a divorce, and upon consulting them, all the prelates of England, except Fisher, bishop of Rochester, unanimously declared that they deemed his marriage unlawful. In this they were supported by cardinal Wolsey, who had political purposes to answer in breaking off the match with Catherine, although he was no friend to Anne Boleyn. Accordingly Henry determined to apply to the pope, Clement VII. for a divorce, who, though at first disposed to favour Henry’s application, and had actually concerted measures for its successful issue, was overawed by the interference of the emperor, Charles V. Catherine’s nephew; and when the negociation was protracted to such a length as to tire Henry’s patience, the pope, importuned by the English ministers, put into their hands a commission to Wolsey, as legate, in conjunction with the archbishop of Canterbury, or any other English prelate, to examine the validity of the king’s marriage, and of the late pope’s dispensation. He also granted them a provisional dispensation for the king’s marriage with any other person; and promised to issue a decretal bull, annulling the marriage with Catherine; but he enjoined secrecy, and conjured them not to publish these papers, or to make any farther use of them, till his afflxirs with regard to the emperor were in such a train as to secure his liberty and independence. After considerable hesitation and delay, the legates, Campeggio and Wolsey, to whom the pope had granted a new commission for the trial of the king’s marriage, opened their court in London, May 31, 1529, and cited the king and queen to appear before it. They both presented themselves, and the king answered to his name, when called; but the queen, instead of answering to her’s, threw herself at the king’s feet, and appealed to his justice, declaring that she would not submit her cause to be tried by the members of a court who depended on her enemies; and making the king a low reverence, she departed, and never would again appear in that court.

Sir William Cavendish xvrote the life of his old master cardinal Wolsey, and therein gives him a very high character; affirming that, in his judgment, he never saw the kingdom in better obedience and quiet than during the time of his authority, or justice better administered. Indeed, impartial inquirers into the history of Wolsey will be ready to conclude that he was not the worst man in the court of Henry VIII. No work, however, has experienced a more singular fate than sir William Cavendish’s “Life of' Wolsey.” It was long known only by manuscripts, and by the large extracts from it, inserted by Stowe in his “Annals,” and in this state it remained from the reign of queen Mary in which it was composed, until 1641, when it was first printed under the title of “The Negociations of Thomas Wolsey,” &c. 4to; and as the chief object of the publication was to institute a parallel between the cardinal and archbishop Laud, in order to reconcile the public to the murder of that prelate, the manuscript was mutilated and interpolated without shame or scruple, and no pains having been taken to compare the printed edition with the original, the former passed for genuine above a century, and was reprinted, with a slight variation in the title, in 1667 and 1706, besides being inserted in the Harleian Miscellany. At length Dr. Wordsworth printed a correct transcript in his valuable “Ecclesiastical Biography,” 1810, 6 yols. 8vo, collated with four Mss. two in the Lambeth, one in the York cathedral library, and one in the British Museum.

, a learned English prelate, was the son of Samuel Chandler, esq. of the city of Dublin, by his wife Elizabeth, whose maiden name was Calvert. Our prelate was probably born in that city, but received his academical education at Emanuel college, Cambridge, where at the age of twenty-five, he commenced M. A. was ordained priest, and made chaplain to Lloyd, bishop of Winchester, in 1693. He was prebendary of Pipa Minor, April 27, 1697, and afterwards canon of Lichfield and Worcester. He was nominated to the bishopric of Lichfield, Sept. 5, 1717, and consecrated at Lambeth, Nov. 17. From that see he was translated to Durham, Nov. 5, 1730; and it was then publicly said that he gave 9000l. for that opulent see, which is scarcely credible. He was, it is universally acknowledged, a prelate of great erudition, having rendered himself justly valued and esteemed as a worthy father of the church of England, and patron of the truth, by his learning and convincing writings, particularly “A Defence of Christianity from the prophecies of the Old Testament, wherein are considered all the objections against this kind of proof advanced in a late Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion,” London, 1725, 8vo. This was reckoned a very learned and elaborate work, and compelled Collins to produce in 1727 a second book, particularly in answer to the bishop of Lichfield, which rank our author then held: this was entitled “The Scheme of Literal Prophecy considered,” and this occasioned a second answer from the learned bishop, entitled “A Vindication of the Defence of Christianity, from the prophecies of the Old Testament,” published in 1728: in this he largely and very solidly vindicates the antiquity and authority of the book of Daniel, and the application of the prophecies there contained to the Messiah, against Collins’s objections; and also fully obviates what he had farther advanced against the antiquity and universality of the tradition and expectation among the Jews concerning the Messiah. His other publications were eight occasional Sermons, the “Chronological Dissertation” prefixed to Arnald’s Ecclesiasticus, and a preface to a posthumous work of Dr. Ralph Cudworth’s, entitled “A Treatise concerning eternal and immutable MotaKty.” He died at his house in Grosvenor-square July 20, 1750, of the stone, several large ones being found in his body, when opened, and was buried at Farnham Royal, in the county of Bucks. Whilst he was bishop of Durham, he gave 50l. towards augmenting Monkwearmouth living, also 200l. to purchase a house for the minister of Stockton, and 2000l. to be laid out in a purchase for the benefit of clergymen’s widows in the diocese of Durham; and it is recorded, much to his honour, that he never sold any of his patent offices.

, D. D. was the son of the rev. William Chapman, rector of Stratfield-say in Hampshire, where he was probably born in 1704. He was educated at King’s college, Cambridge, A. B. 1727, and A. M. 1731. His first promotion was the rectory of Mersham in Kent, and of Alderton, with the chapel of Smeeth; to which he was appointed in 1739 and 1744, being then domestic chaplain to archbishop Potter. He was also archdeacon of Sudbury, and treasurer of Chichester, two options. Being educated at Eton, he was a candidate for the provostship of that college, and lost it by a small majority, and after a most severe contest with Dr. George. Among his pupils he had the honour to class the first lord Camden, Dr. Ashton, Horace Walpole, Jacob Bryant, sir W. Draper, sir George Baker, and others who afterwards attained to considerable distinction in literature. His first publication was entitled “The Objections of a late anonymous writer (Collins) against the book of Daniel, considered/' Cambridge, 1728, 8vo. This was followed by his” Remarks on Dr. Middleton’s celebrated Letter to Dr. Waterland,“published in 1731, and which has passed through three editions. In his” Eusebius,“2 vols. 8vo, he defended Christianity against the objections of Mor-­gan, and against those of Tindal in his” Primitive Antiquity explained and vindicated.“The first volume of Eusebius, published in 1739, was dedicated to archbishop Potter; and when the second appeared, in 1741, Mr. Chapman styled himself chaplain to his grace. In the same year he was made archdeacon of Sudbury, and was honoured with the diploma of D. D. by the university of Oxford. He is at this time said to have published the” History of the ancient Hebrews vindicated, by Theophanes Cantabrigiensis,“8vo but this was the production of Dr. Squire. He published two tracts relating to” Phlegon,“in answer to Dr. Sykes, who had maintained that the eclipse mentioned by that writer had no relation to the wonderful darkness that happened at our Saviour’s crucifixion. In 1738 Dr. Chapman published a sermon preached at the consecration of bishop Mavvson, and four other single sermons, 1739, 1743, 1748, and 1752. In a dissertation written in elegant Latin, and addressed to Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Tunstall, then public orator of the university of Cambridge, and published with his Latin epistle to Dr. Middleton concerning the genuineness of some of Cicero’s epistles, 1741, Dr. Chapman proved that Cicero published two editions of his Academics; an original thought that had escaped all former commentators, and which has been applauded by Dr. Ross, bishop of Exeter, in his edition of Cicero’s” Epistolse ad familiares,“1749. In 1744 Mr. Tunstall published” Observations on the present Collection of Epistles between Cicero and M. Brutus, representing several evident marks of forgery in those epistles,“&c. to which was added a” Letter from Dr. Chapman, on the ancient numeral characters of the Roman legions.“Dr. Middleton had asserted, that the Roman generals, when they had occasion to raise new legions in distant parts of the empire, used to name them according to the order in which they themselves had raised them, without regard to any other legions whatever. This notion Dr. Chapman controverts and confutes. According to Dr. Middleton there might have been two thirtieth legions in the empire. This Dr. Chapman denies to have been customary from the foundation of the city to the time when Brutus was acting against Anthony, but affirms nothing of the practice after the death of Brutus. To this Dr. Middleton made no reply. In 1745 Dr. Chapman was employed in assisting Dr. Pearce, afterwards bishop of Rochester, in his edition of” Cicero de Officiis.“About this time Dr. Chapman introduced Mr. Tunstall and Mr. Hall to archbishop Potter, the one as his librarian, the other as his chaplain, and therefore had some reason to resent their taking an active part against him in the option cause, though they both afterwards dropped it. Dr. Chapman’s above-mentioned attack on Dr. Middleton, which he could not parry, and his interposition in defence of his much-esteemed friend Dr. Waterland, provoked Dr. Middleton to retaliate in 1746, by assailing him in what he thought a much more vulnerable part, in his Charge to the archdeaconry of Sudbury, entitled <e Popery the true bane of letters.” In 1747, to Mr. Mounteney’s edition of some select orations of Demosthenes, Dr. Chapman prefixed in Latin, without his name, observations on the Commentaries commonly ascribed to Ulpian, and a map of ancient Greece adapted to Demosthenes. Mr. Mounteney had been schoolfellow with Dr. Chapman at Eton, and was afterwards a baron of the exchequer in Ireland. If archbishop Potter had lived to another election, Dr. Chapman was intended for prolocutor. As executor and surviving trustee to that prelate, his conduct in that trust, particularly his presenting himself to the precentorship of Lincoln, void by the death of Dr. Trimnell (one of his grace’s options), was brought into chancery by the late Dr. Richardson, when lord keeper Henley in 1760 made a decree in Dr. Chapman’s favour; but, on an appeal to the house of lords, the decree was reversed, and Dr. Richardson ordered to be presented, When Mr. Yorke had finished his argument, in which he was very severe on Dr. Chapman, Mr. Pratt, afterwards lord Camden, who had been his pupil, and was then his counsel, desired him, by a friend, not to be uneasy, for that the next day he “would wash him as white as snow.” Thinking his case partially stated by Dr. Burn, in his “Ecclesiastical Law,' 1 vol. I. (article Bishops), as it was taken from the briefs of his adversaries, he expostulated with him on the subject by letter, to which the doctor candidly replied,” that he by no means thought him criminal, and in the next edition of his work would certainly add his own representation." On this affair, however, Dr. Hurd passes a very severe sentence in his correspondence with Warburton lately published. Dr. Chapman died the 34th of October, 1784, in the 80th year of his age.

In 1638 his patrons, the earl of Strafford, and the archbishop of Canterbury, preferred him to the bishoprics of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross; and he was consecrated at St. Patrick’s, Dublin, Nov. 11, though he had done all he could to avoid this honour. By the king’s command he continued in his provostship till July 20, 1640; before which time he had endeavoured to obtain a small bishopric in England, that he might return to his native country, as he tells us, and die in peace. But his endeavours were fruitless; and he was left in Ireland to feel all the fury of the storm, which he had long foreseen. He was attacked in the house of commons with great bitterness by the puritan party, and obliged to come to Dublin from Cork, and to put in sureties for his appearance. June 1641, articles of impeachment were exhibited against him to the house of peers, consisting of fourteen, though the substance of them was reduced to two; the first, perjury, on a supposed breach of his oath as provost; the second, malice towards the Irish, founded on discontinuing the Irish lecture during the time of his being provost. The prosecution was urged with great violence, and, as is supposed, for no other reason but because he had enforced uniformity and strict church discipline in the college. This divine’s fate was somewhat peculiar, for although his conduct was consistent, he was abused at Cambridge for being a puritan, and in Ireland for being a papist. Yet as we find the name of archbishop Usher among his opponents in Ireland, there seems reason to think that there was some foundation for his unpopularity, independent of what was explicitly stated. While, however, he laboured under these troubles, he was exposed to still greater, by the breaking out of the rebellion in the latter end of that year. He was under a kind of confinement at Dublin, on account of the impeachment which was still depending; but at length obtained leave to embark for England, for the sake of returning thence to Cork, which, from Dublin, as things stood, he could not safely do. He embarked Dec. 26, 1641, and the next day landed at Milford-haven, after a double escape, as himself phrases it, from the Irish wolves and the Irish sea. He went from Milford-haven to Pembroke, and thence to Tenby, where information was made of him to the mayor, who committed him to gaol Jan. 25. After lying there seven weeks, he was set at liberty by the interest of sir Hugh Owen, a member of parliament, upon giving bond in 1000l. for his appearance; and March 16, set out for Bristol. Here he learnt that the ship bound from Cork to England, with a great part of his effects, was lost near Minehead; and by this, among other things, he lost his choice collection of books. After such a series of misfortunes, and the civil confusions increasing, he withdrew to his native soil, where he spent the remainder of his life in retirement and study; and died at Derby, where he had some time resided, upon Whitsunday, 1649. He published the year before his death, “Methodus concionandi,” that is, the method of preaching, which for its usefulness was also translated into English. His “Use of Holy Scripture,” was printed afterwards in 1653. He left behind him also his own life, written by himself in Latin, which has been twice printed; first from a ms. in the hands of sir Philip Sydenham, bart. by Hearne, and a second time by Peck, from a ms. still preserved in Trinity-hall, Cambridge, for the author left two copies of it. Mr. Peck adds, by way of note upon his edition, the following extract of a letter from Mr. Beaupre Bell: “’Tis certain ‘The whole Duty of Man’ was written by one who suffered by the troubles in Ireland; and some lines in this piece give great grounds to conjecture that bishop Chappel was the author. March 3, 1734.” Thus we see this prelate, as well as many other great and good persons, comes in for part of the credit of that excellent book; yet there is no explicit evidence of his having been the author of it. It appears indeed to have been written before the death of Charles I. although it was not published till 1657, and the manner of it is agreeable enough to this prelate’s plain and easy way of writing; but then there can be no reason given why his name should be suppressed in the title-page, when a posthumous work of his was actually published with it but a few years before.

, in Latin Castellanus, a very learned French prelate, is said by some to have been of obscure birth, but his biographer Galland makes him of an ancient family, and the son of a brave knight. Yet this is doubtful, if what he said to king Francis I. be more than a witticism. The king once asked him if he was a gentleman; to which Chatel answered “that there were three in the ark, but he did not really know from which of them he descended.” He was, however, born at Arc, in Burgundy, and in the eleventh year of his age, before which his parents died, he was sent to Dijon, for education, where he made an astonishing progress, and before he had been there six years, was appointed a teacher, in which capacity he soon distinguished himself, and on one occasion made a public display of more than grammatical talents. His master, Peter Turreau, was accused of being an astrologer, and Chatel pleaded his cause so ably that he was acquitted. He afterwards travelled, in order to cultivate the acquaintance of the learned men of his time, and particularly of Erasmus, whom he met at Basil, and who conceived such a high opinion of his learning, as to recommend him to Frobenius, to be corrector of the Greek and Latin authors, printed at his celebrated press. While here he had also an opportunity of correcting some of Erasmus’s works; but they left Basil together, when the popish religion was established there. Erasmus retired to Fribourg, and Chatel returned to France, where he accepted the offer made him by some persons of distinction, to be tutor to certain young men who were to study law at Bourges, under the celebrated Alciat. As they were not yet prepared to depart, he read public lectures on the Greek text of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans; and unfortunately for his reputation, was entrapped into an intrigue with a young woman, a circumstance on which Bayle expatiates with his usual delight ~in what is indelicate. ChatePs scholars, however, being at length ready, he accompanied them to Bourges, and studied law, filling up his leisure hours with topics of polite literature. His diligence was unremitting, as he slept scarcely three hours in the night, and the moment he waked ran with eagerness to his books. This method of study he preserved, even afterwards, when appointed reader to the king.

In order to secure his conquest, Fisher persuaded him to go over to the college of the Jesuits at Doway; and he was desired to set down in writing the motives or reasons which had engaged him to embrace the Romish religion. But his godfather, Laud, who was then bishop of London, hearing of this affair, and being extremely concerned at it, wrote to him; and Chillingworth’s answer expressing much moderation, candour, and impartiality, that prelate continued to correspond with him, and to press him with several arguments against the doctrine and practice of the Romanists, This set him upon a new inquiry, which had the desired effect. But the place where he was not being suitable to the state of a free and impartial inquirer, he resolved to come back to England, and left Doway in 1631, after a short stay there. Upon his return, he was received with great kindness and affection hy bishop Laud, who approved his design of retiring to Oxford, of which university that prelate was then chancellor, in order to complete the important work he was then upon, “A free Enquiry into Religion.” At last, after a thorough examination, the protestant principles appearing to him the most agreeable to holy scripture and reason, he declared for them; and having fully discovered the sophistry of the motives which had induced him to go over to the church of Rome, he wrote a paper about 1634 to confute them, but did not think proper to publish it. This paper is now lost; for though we have a paper of his upon the same subject, which was first published in 1687, among his additional discourses, yet it seems to have been written on some other occasion, probably at the desire of some of his friends. That his return to the church of England 'was owing to bishop Laud, appears from that prelate’s appeal to the letters which passed between them; which appeal was made in his speech before the lords at his trial, in order to vindicate himself from the charge of popery.

For his character Wood has given the following: “He was a most noted philosopher and orator, and, without doubt, a poet also; and had such an admirable faculty in reclaiming schismatics and confuting papists, that none in his time went beyond him. He had also very great skill in mathematics. He was a subtle and quick disputant, and would several times put the king’s professor to a push. Hobbes of Malmesbury would often say, that he was like a lusty fighting fellow, that did drive his enemies before him, but would often give his own party smart back-blows; and it was the current opinion of the university, that he and Lucius lord Falkland,” who by the way was his most intimate friend, “had such extraordinary clear reason, that, if the great Turk or devil were to be converted, they were able to do it. He was a man of little stature, but of great soul: which, if times had been serene, and life spared, might have done incomparable services to the church of England.” Archbishop Tillotson has spoken of him in the highest terms: “I know not how it comes to pass,” says that eminent prelate, “but so it is, that every one that offers to give a reasonable account of his faith, and to establish religion upon rational principles, is presently branded for a Socinian; of which we have a sad instance in that incomparable person Mr. Chillingworth, the glory of this age and nation: who, for no other cause that I know of, but his worthy and successful attempts to make the Christian religion reasonable, and to discover those firm and solid foundations upon which our faith is built, has been requited with this black and odious character. But, if this be Socinianism, for a man to inquire into the grounds and reasons of Christian religion, and to endeavour to give a satisfactory account why he believes it, I know no way, but that all considerate and inquisitive men, that are above fancy and enthusiasm, must be either Socinians or atheists.” Mr. Locke has also spoken of Chillingworth with equal commendation. In a small tract, containing “Some thoughts concerning reading and study for a gentleman,” after having observed that the art of speaking well consists chiefly in two things, namely, perspicuity and right reasoning, and proposed Dr. Tillotson as a pat tern for the attainment of the art of speaking clearly, he adds: “Besides perspicuity, there masjt-be also right reasoning, without which, perspicuity serves but to expose the speaker. And for attaining of this, I should propose the constant reading of Chillingworth, who, by his example, will teach both perspicuity and the way of right reasoning, better than any book that I know: and therefore will deserve to be read upon that account over and over again; not to say any thing of his argument.”

He left behind him two volumes of posthumous works, which he calls “A Farewell to his readers,” from which we may fairly form this judgment of his opinions: “that he had little or no belief of revelation; that indeed he plainly rejects the Jewish revelation, and consequently the Christian, which is founded upon it; that he disclaims a future judgment, and is very uncertain as to any future state of existence; that a particular providence is not deducible from the phenomena of the world, and therefore that prayer cannot be proved a duty, &c. &c.” With such a man we may surely part without reluctance. The wonder is that he should have ever drawn any considerable portion of public attention to the reveries of ignorance, presumption, and disingenuous sophistry. Like his legitimate successor, the late Thomas Paine, he was utterly destitute of that learning and critical skill which is necessary to the explanation of the sacred writings, which, however, he tortured to his meaning without shame and candour, frequently bringing forward the sentiments of his predecessors in scepticism, as the genuine productions of his own unassisted powers of reasoning. His writings are now indeed probably little read, and his memory might long ago have been consigned to oblivion, had not the editors of the last edition of the Biographia Britannica brought forward his history and writings in a strain of prolix and laboured panegyric. By what inducement such a man as Dr. Kippis was persuaded to admit this article, we shall not now inquire, but the perpetual struggle to create respect for Chubb is evidently as impotent as it is inconsistent. While compelled to admit his attacks upon all that the majority of Christians hold sacred, the writer tells us that “Chubb’s views were not inconsistent with a firm belief in our holy religion,” and in another place, he says that “Chubb appears to have had very much at heart the interests of our holy religion.” To his own profound respect for Chubb, this writer also unites the “admiration” of Dr. Samuel Clarke, bishop Hoadly, Dr. John Hoadly, archdeacon Rolleston, and Mr. Harris; but he does not inform us in what way the admiration of these eminent characters was expressed; and the only evidence he brings is surely equivocal. He tells us that “several of his tracts, when in manuscript, were seen by these gentlemen but they never made the least correction in them, even with regard to orthography, in which Chubb was deficient.” Amidst all these efforts to screen Chubb from contempt, his biographer has not suppressed the character of him given by Dr. Law, bishop of Carlisle, in his “Considerations on the theory of religion,” and which, from the well-knowncandour of that prelate, may be adopted with safety. “Chubb,” says Dr. Law, “notwithstanding a tolerably clear head, and strong natural parts, yet, by ever aiming at things far beyond his reach, by attempting a variety of subjects, for which his narrow circumstances, and small compass of reading and knowledge, had in a great measure disqualified him; from a fashionable, but a fallacious kind of philosophy, (with which he set out, and by which one of his education might very easily be misled), fell by degrees to such confusion in divinity, to such low quibbling on some obscure passages in our translation of the Bible, and was reduced to such wretched cavils as to several historical facts and circumstances, wherein a small skill either in the languages or sciences, might have set him right; or a small share of real modesty would have supplied the want of them, by putting him upon consulting those who could and would have given him proper assistance; that he seems to have fallen at last into an almost universal scepticism; and quitting that former serious and sedate sobriety which gave him credit, contents himself with carrying on a mere farce for some time; acts the part of a solemn grave buffoon; sneers at all things he does not understand; and after all his fair professions, and the caveat he has entered against such a charge, must unavoidably be set down in the seat of the scorner.” Every point in this charge is fully proved in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Dr. Leland’s View of Deistical Writers.

, a learned divine and antiquary, was horn at Haghmon abbey, in Shropshire, in the year 1696, and was educated at Shrewsbury school, under the care of Mr. Lloyd, for whom he always entertained the greatest regard. From Shrewsbury he was removed to St. John’s college, in the university of Cambridge, where he became a fellow, Jan. 22, 1716-17. His election at so early a period of life was owing to a number of vacancies, occasioned by the removal of several non-juring fellows, in consequence of an act of parliament. He commenced B. A. 1715; in 1719 became M. A.; and the reputation which he acquired when young was such, that he was chosen to be chaplain to Dr. Adam Ottley, bishop of St. David’s: but this prelate dying in 1723, he does not appear to have received any advantage from the appointment. He was afterwards domestic chaplain to Thomas Holies, duke of Newcastle; in which situation he did not continue long, as in 1724, he was presented by archbishop Wake to the rectory of Buxted, in Sussex, without any solicitation of his own, partly on account of his extraordinary merit, and partly from a regard to the special recommendation of the learned Dr. William Wotton, whose daughter he married. In 1738, he was made prebendary and residentiary of the prebend of Hova Villa in the cathedral church of Chichester, Some years before this he had given to the public a specimen of his literary abilities, in a preface to his father-in-law Dr. Wotton’s “Leges Walliae Ecclesiastical,” 1730; and it is thought that an excellent “Discourse on the Commerce of the Romans,” which was highly extolled by Dr. Taylor, in his “Elements of the Civil Law,” came either from his hand or from that of his friend Mr, Bowyer. It is reprinted in that gentleman’s “Miscellaneous Tracts,” and in “The Progress of Maritime Discovery,” by Mr. Clarke’s grandson. But Mr. Clarke’s chief work was “The Connexion of the Roman, Saxon, and English Coins; deducing the antiquities, customs, and manners of each people to modern times; particularly the origin of feudal tenures, and of parliaments: illustrated throughout with critical and historical remarks on various authors, both sacred and profane,” 1767, 4to, dedicated to the duke of Newcastle. It had been perused in manuscript by Arthur Onslow, esq. speaker of the house of commons, who honoured him with some useful hints and observations: but he was chiefly indebted to Mr. Bowyer, who superintended the publication, drew up several of the notes, wrote part of the dissertation on the Roman sesterce, and formed an admirable index to the whole. By this work our author acquired great reputation. Mr. Pinkerton, in his Essay on Medals, says that a student cannot begin with a better book in this science.

In 1754, the bishop of Clogher favoured the literary world with the second part of his “Vindication of the Histories of the Old and New Testament,” but written with more ingenuity than judgment. His account of the formation of the earth and of the deluge, was successfully attacked by Mr. Alexander Catcott. Our prelate’s next publication was in 1755, and consisted only of some letters which had passed between his lordship, when bishop of Cork, and Mr. William Penn, on the subject of baptism, in which he contended that the true Christian baptism is to continue to the end of the world; whereas the baptism of the Holy Ghost ceased with the ceasing of miracles. We have already noticed that his object in publishing the “Essay on Spirit” was to recommend Arianism, and consequently, alterations in the Liturgy. He now determined to avow the same sentiments in his legislative capacity; and accordingly, on Monday the 2d of February, 1756, he proposed in the Irish house of lords, that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds should for the future be left out of the Liturgy of the church of Ireland. The speech which our prelate delivered upon this occasion being taken down in short-hand, was afterwards published, and passed through several editions. Though so declared and avowed an attack upon the establishment was regarded in a very unfavourable light, no measures were taken for calling Dr. Clayton to an account for it till he had published the third part of his “Vindication of the Histories of the Old and New Testament,” 1757, in which he renewed his attacks upon the Trinity, and gave up so many doctrines as indefensible, and advanced others so contradictory to the thirtynine articles, that the governors of the church of Ireland determined to proceed against him. Accordingly his late majesty ordered the lord-lieutenant to take the proper steps toward a legal prosecution of the bishop of Clogher. A day was fixed for a general meeting of the Irish prelates at the house of the primate, to which Dr. Clayton was summoned, that he might receive from them the notification 1 of their intentions. A censure was certain; a deprivation was apprehended. But, before the time appointed, he was seized with a nervous fever, of which he died February 26, 1753. It is on all hands agreed, that the agitation of mind into which the bishop was thrown by the prosecution commenced against him, was the immediate cause of his death. When informed of the prosecution, he consulted a celebrated lawyer on the subject, and asked him if he thought he would lose his bishopric? “My lord,” he answered, “I believe you will.” “Sir,” he replied, “you have given me a stroke I'll never get the better of.” What followed is surely very inconsistent with the story reported by his biographer, namely, that after he had delivered hi$ speech in the house of lords, the bishop declared “that his mind was eased of a load which had long lain upon it and that he now enjoyed a heart- felt pleasure, to which he had been a stranger for above twenty years before.”

Our prelate left behind him several works in manuscript in the possession of his executor, Dr. Barnard, dean of Derry, but these have not been thought worthy of publication. Dr. Clayton was a member of the royal society, and of the society of antiquaries. He maintained a regular correspondence with several gentlemen of eminent literature in this country; and, among the rest, with the learned printer, Mr. Bowyer, to whom he made a present of the copy-right of all his works published in England. His Lancashire estate he bequeathed to his nearest male heir, Richard Clayton, esq. chief justice of the common pleas in Ireland; but the greatest share of his fortune fell to Dr. Barnard, who married his niece. Some interesting' anecdotes of the bishop are given in Burdy’s Lite of the rev. Philip Skelton, to whom he was neither a liberal nor impartial patron.

, brother to the preceding, a celebrated writer, and universal scholar, was born at Geneva, March 19, 1657. He was sent to a grammar-school at eight years of age; where he soon discovered an insatiable inclination to books, and such a genius for poetry, that he flattered himself, if he had duly cultivated it, he would probably have gained no small reputation. But the more serious studies, to which he applied himself, made him entirely neglect poetry, and he never wrote verses but on particular occasions. Thus, in 1689, having translated into French two sermons of bishop Burnet, preached before king William, on account, he says, of the friendship which subsisted between himself and that prelate, he subjoined to the one a small poem in heroic, and to the other an epigram in elegiac verse, upon England restored to liberty.

In 1693, when she was only fourteen years of age, she wrote some verses, and sent them to Mr. Bevil Higgons, tf on his sickness and recovery from the small-pox,“and was only in her seventeenth year when she produced a tragedy, entitled” Agnes de Castro,“which was acted with applause at the Theatre-Royal in 1695, and printed the following year in 4to, without her name. The play is founded upon a French novel of the same title, printed at Paris in 1688. In 1697, she addressed some verses to Mr. Congreve on his” Mourning Bride“which gave rise to an acquaintance between her and that celebrated writer. In 1698, her tragedy, entitled” Fatal Friendship,“was performed at the new theatre in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and printed the same year in 4to, with a dedication to the princess Anne of Denmark. This play was considered as the most perfect of her dramatic performances and it was praised by Hughes and Farquhar. On the death of Mr. Dry den, in 1701, our poetess joined with several other ladies, in paying a just tribute to his memory in verse. Their performances were published together in that year, under the title of” The Nine Muses; or, Poems written l>y so many Ladies, upon the death of the late famous John Dryden, esq.“The same year she also brought upon the stage a comedy, called” Love at a Loss; or, most votes carry it,“acted at the Theatre-Royal, and published in quarto; but on account of her absence from London while it was in the press, it was so incorrectly printed, that she would gladly have suppressed the edition; and many years after she revised it, with a view to a second performance, which never took place. Soon after, before the close of the year 1701, she produced another tragedy, called” The Unhappy Penitent,“which was performed at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-lane, also printed in 4to. In the midst of this attention to poetry and dramatic writing, she spent much of her time in metaphysical studies. She was a great admirer of Mr. Locke’s” Essay on Human Understanding;" and drew up a defence of that work, against some remarks written by Dr. Thomas Burnet, master of the Charter-house. This was published in May 1702, without a name, lest the public should be prejudiced against a metaphysical treatise written by a woman. She also professed herself to be desirous of concealing her name, from an unwillingness tobe known to Mr. Locke, under the character of his defender. But her name was not long concealed; and Mr. Locke desired his cousin, Mr. King, afterwards lord chancellor, to pay her a visit, and make her a present of books; and upon her owning her performance, he wrote her a letter of acknowledgment. She also received a letter of thanks for this piece from Mrs. Burnet, the last wife of the celebrated prelate of that name. It appears, that at the latter end of 1701, she was some time at Salisbury, on a visit to her relations in that city.

, an eminent antiquary and benefactor to the history and antiquities of England, was the son of William Cole, a gentleman of landed property, at Baberham in Cambridgeshire, by his third wife, Catharine, daughter of Theophilus Tuer, of Cambridge, merchant, but at the time she married Mr. Cole, the widow of Charles Apthorp . He was born at Little Abington, a village near Baberham, Aug. 3, 1714, and received the early part of “his education under the Rev. Mr. Butts at Saffron-Walden, and at other small schools. From these he was removed to Eton, where he was placed under Dr. Cooke, afterwards provost, but to whom he seems to have contracted an implacable aversion. After remaining five years on the foundation at this seminary, he was admitted a pensioner of Cla/e hall, Cambridge, Jan. 25, 1733; and irt April 1734, was admitted to one of Freeman’s scholarships, although not exactly qualified according to that benefactor’s intention: but in 1735, on the death of his father, from whom he inherited a handsome estate, he entered himself a fellow-commoner of Clare Hall, and next year removed to King’s college, where he had a younger brother, then a fellow, and was accommodated with better apartments. This last circumstance, and the society of his old companions of Eton, appear to have been his principal motives for changing his college. In April 1736, he travelled for a short time in French Flanders with his halfbrother, the late Dr. Stephen Apthorp, and in October of the same year he took the degree of B. A. In 1737, in consequence of bad health, he went to Lisbon, where he remained six months, and returned to college May 1738. The following year he was put into the commission of the peace for the county of Cambridge, in which capacity he acted for many years. In 1740 his friend lord Montfort, then lord lieutenant of the county, appointed him one of his deputy lieutenants and in the same year he proceeded M. A. In 1743, his health beting again impaired, he took another trip through Flanders for five or six weeks, visiting St. Omer’s, Lisle, Tournay, &c. and other principal places, of which he has given an account in his ms collections. In Dec. 1744 he was ordained deacon in the collegiate church of Westminster, by Dr. Wilcocks, bishop of Rochester, and was in consequence for some time curate to Dr. Abraham Oakes, rector of Wethersfield in Suffolk. In 1745, after being admitted to priest’s orders, he was made chaplain to Thomas earl of Kinnoul, in which office he was continued by the succeeding earl, George. He was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in 1747; and appears to have resided at Haddenham in the Isle of Ely in 1749, when he was collated by bishop Sherlock to the rectory of Hornsey in Middlesex, which he retained only a very short time. Speaking of that prelate, he says,” He gave me the rectory of Hornsey, yet his manner was such that I soon resigned it again to him. I have not been educated in episcopal trammels, and liked a more liberal behaviour; yet he was a great man, and I believe an honest man." The fact, however, was, as Mr. Cole elsewhere informs us, that he was inducted Nov. 25; but finding the house in so ruinous a condition as to require rebuilding, and in a situation so near the metropolis, which was always his aversion, and understanding that the bishop insisted on his residing, he resigned within a month. This the bishop refused t accept, because Mr. Cole had made himself liable to dilapidations and other expences by accepting of it. Cole continued therefore as rector until Jan. 9, 1751, when he resigned it into the hands of the bishop in favour of Mr. Territ. During this time he had never resided, but employed a curate, the rev. Matthew Mapletoft. In 1753 he quitted the university on being presented by his early friend and patron, Browne Willis, esq. to the rectory of Bletchley, in Buckinghamshire, which he resigned March 20, 1767, in favour of his patron’s grandson, the rev. Thomas Willis, and this very honourably, and merely because he knew it was his patron’s intention to have bestowed it on his grandson had he lived to effect an exchange.

In 1767, after resigning Bletchley, he went into a hired house at Waterbeche, and continued there two years, while a house was fitting for him at Milton, a small village on the Ely road, near Cambridge, where he passed the remainder of his days, and from which he became familiarly distinguished as “Cole of Milton.” In May 1771, by lord Montfort’s favour, he was put into the commission o-f the peace for the town of Cambridge. In 1772, bishop Keene, without any solicitation, sent Mr. Cole an offer oif the vicarage of Maddingley, about seven miles from Milton, which, for reasons of convenience, he civilly declined, but has not spoken so civilly of that prelate in his ts Atbenae/' He was, however, instituted by Dr. Green, bishop ef Lincoln, to the vicarage of Burnham, in Buckinghamshire, on the presentation of Eton college, June 10, 1774, void by the cession of his uterine brother, Dr. Apthorp. He still, however, resided at Milton, where he died Dec. 16, 1782, in his sixty-eighth year, his constitution having been shattered and worn down by repeated attacks of the gout. Mr. Cole was an antiquary almost from the cradle, and had in his boyish days made himself acquainted with those necessary sciences, heraldry and architecture. He says, the first “essay of his antiquarianism” was taking a copy both of the inscription and tomb of Ray, the naturalist, in 1734; but it appears that, when he was at Eton school, he used during the vacations to copy, in trick, arms from the painted windows of churches, particularly Baberham iii Cambridgeshire, and Moulton in Lincolnshire* Yet, although he devoted his whole life to topography and biography, he did not aspire to any higher honour than that of a collector of information for the use of others, and certainly was liberal and communicative to his contemporaries, and so partial to every attempt to illustrate our English antiquities, that he frequently offered his services, where delicacy and want of personal knowledge would have perhaps prevented his being consulted.

, an eminent prelate of the church of England, was the youngest son of the preceding Spencer second earl of Northampton, and born at Compton in 1632. Though he was but ten years old when his father was killed, yet he received an education suitable to his quality; and when he had gone through the grammarschools, was entered a nobleman of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1649. He continued there till about 1652; and after having lived some little time with his mother, travelled into foreign countries. Upon the restoration of Charles II. he returned to England; and became a cornet in a regiment of horse, raised about that time for the king’s guard: but soon quitting that post, he dedicated himself to the service of the church; and accordingly went to Cambridge, where he was created M, A. Then entering into orders, when about thirty years of age, and obtaining a grant of the next vacant canonry of Christ church in Oxford, he was admitted canon-commoner of that college, in the beginning of 1666, by the advice of Dr. John Fell, then dean of the same. In April of the same year, he was incorporated M. A. at Oxford, and possessed at that time the rectory of Cottenham in Cambridgeshire, worth about 500l. per annum. In 1667, he was made master of St. Crosse’s hospital near Winchester. On May 24, 1669, he was installed canon of Christ church, in the room of Dr. Heylin deceased; and two days after took the degree of B. D. to which, June 28 following, he added that of doctor. He was preferred to the bishopric of Oxford in December 1674; and about a year after was made dean of the chapel royal, and was also translated to the see of London.

, a learned divine and prelate of the church of England, was born at Pinhoe, near Exeter, on the 31st of January, 1691-2. His father was the rev. John Conybeare, vicar of Pinhoe; and his mother, Grace Wilcocks, was the daughter of a substantial gentleman farmer of that place. At a proper age, he was sent to the free-school of Exeter for grammatical education, where Hallet and Foster, afterwards two eminent dissenting divines, were his contemporaries. On the 23d of February, 1707-8, Mr. Conybeare was admitted a battler of Exeter college, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Kennel, afterwards Dr. Kennel, many years rector of Drew’s Teington, Pevon. Mr. Conybeare, on his coming to the university, was, according to the language of that place, chum with Mr. Richard Harding, who was elected fellow of Exeter college in 1709, and died rector of Marwood in Devonshire, in 1782, in the ninety-fifth year of his age. How early our young student obtained the esteem of the learned society with which he was connected, appears from his having been chosen on the 30th of June, 1710, and admitted on the 8th of July following, a probationary fellow of his college, upon sir William Petre’s foundation, in the room of Mr. Daniel Osborrie. When he was proposed as a candidate, it was only with the design of recommending him to future notice; but such was the sense entertained of his extraordinary merit, that he was made the object of immediate election. Mr. Harding used to say, that Mr. Conybeare had every way the advantage of him, excepting in seniority; and that he should have had no chance in a competition with him, if they had both been eligible at the same time. The patronage of Dr. Ilennel, Mr. Conybeare' s worthy tutor, concurred with his own desert, in bringing him forward thus early to academical advantages. On the 17th of July, 1713, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts; and at the next election of college officers, upon the 30th of June, 1714, he was appointed praelector, or moderator, in philosophy. On the 19th of December following, he received deacon’s orders from the hanclaof Dr. William Talbot, bishop of Oxford; and on the 2rikof May, 1716, he was ordained priest by sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester. On the 16th of April, 1716, he proceeded to the degree of master of arts; soon after which he entered upon the curacy of Fetcham, in Surry, where he continued about a year. He was advised to this change of scene for the benefit of his health, which was always delicate, and had been greatly impaired by the intenseness of his application. Upon his return from Fetcham to Oxford, he became a tutor in his own college, and was much noticed in the university as a preacher. In the beginning of the year 1722, he published a sermon, which he had delivered before the university, on the 24th of December preceding, from Hebrews ii. 4, entitled “The nature, possibility, and certainty of Miracles, &c.” This discourse was so well received, that it went through four editions. Mr. Conybeare was hence encouraged to commit to the press a second sermon, from 1 Corinthians xiii. 12, which he had preached before the university, on the 21st of October, 1724, and the title of which was, “The Mysteries of the Christian Religion credible.” It is probable, that the reputation our author gained by these discourses, recommended him to the notice of the bishop of London (Dr. Gibson), who appointed him one of his majesty’s preachers at Whitehall, upon the first establishment of that institution. The esteem in which his abilities and character were held, procured him, also, the favour of the lord chancellor Macclesfield, who, in May 1724, presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s in Oxford; a preferment of no great value, but which was convenient to iiim from his constant residence at that place, and from its being compatible with his fellowship. In 1725, he was chosen senior proctor of the university, which office he served in conjunction with Mr. Barnaby Smyth, fellow of Corpus-Christi college, and a scholar of eminence. In the same year, Mr. Conybeare was called upon to preach a visitation sermon before the bishop of Oxford, at whose request it was published, under the title of “The Case of Subscription to Articles of Religion considered,” and obtained no small degree of celebrity, being referred to in the controversy relating to subscription. The position of Mr. Conybeare is, that “every one who subscribes the articles of religion, does thereby engage, not only not to dispute or contradict them; but his subscription amounts to an approbation of, and an assent to, the truth of the doctrines therein contained, in the very sense in which the compilers are supposed to have understood them.” Mr. Conybeare’s next publication was an assize sermon, preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, in 1727, from Ezra vii. 26, and entitled “The Penal sanctions of laws considered.” This discourse was dedicated by him to the honourable Charles Talbot, at that time solicitor-general, afterwards lord high chancellor of Great Britain, who had honoured our author with the care of his two eldest sons, Mr. Charles Talbot, celebrated by the poet Thomson, and the late earl Talbot, steward of his majesty’s household. On the llth of July, 1728, Mr. Conybeare was admitted to the degree of bachelor of divinity; and on the 24th of January following, he took his doctor’s degree. In the year 1729, he again appeared from the press, in a sermon that had been preached before the lord mayor and aldermen at St. Paul’s cathedral, and which was entitled ^The Expediency of a Divine Revelation represented.“It was accompanied with a dedication to bishop Talbot, father of the solicitor-general. From Dr. Conybeare’s introduction to this family, and the reputation he had acquired as a divine, it was expected that he would soon have been promoted to some dignity in the church. But the good bishop was taken off before he had a proper opportunity of carrying his benevolent intentions in our author’s favour into execution. In 1730, the headship of Exeter college becoming vacant, by the death of Dr. Hole, Dr. Conybeare was chosen to succeed him. His competitor, on this occasion, was the rev. Mr. Stephens, vicar of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth, a truly worthy clergyxpan, and the author of several ingenious discourses, Nevertheless, as he had retired early from the society, he could not be supposed to carry such weight with him as Dr. Conybeare, who had resided constantly in the college. In this year Dr. Tindal’s famous deistical book had appeared, entitled” Christianity as old as the Creation, or the Gospel a Republication of the Law of Nature.“This work excited the greatest attention, and drew forth the pens of some of the ablest divines of the kingdom, both in the church of PZngland, and among the protestant dissenters. Bishop Gibson, who had himself engaged in the controversy in his” Pastoral Letters,“encouraged Dr. Conybeare to undertake the task of giving a full and particular answer to Tindal’s production. Accordingly, he published in 1732, his” Defence of Revealed Religion,“Londoq, 8vo, by which he gained great credit to himself, and performed an eminent service to the cause of Christianity. In his dedication to the learned prelate now mentioned, he observes, that if he has not succeeded in his book according to his wishes, he may plead that it was drawn up amidst a variety of interruptions, and under a bad state of health.” This,“says he,” will in some sort excuse the author, though it may detract from the performance.“But Dr. Conybeare’s work did not stand in need of an apology. It is distinguished by the perspicuity of its method, and the strength of its reasoning; and is, indeed, one of the ablest vindications of revelation which England has produced. So well was the work received, that the third edition of it was published in 1733. Dr. Warburton justly styles it one of the best reasoned books in the world. It is likewise recommended by the temper and candour with which it is composed. Dr. Conybeare' s Defence will always maintain its rank, and perhaps be thought to sustain the first place among the four capital answers which Tindal received. The other three were, Foster’s” Usefulness, Truth, and Excellency of the Christian Revelation;“Leland’s” Answer to a late book, entitled Christianity as old as the Creation;“and Mr. Simon Browne’s” Defence of the Religion of Nature and the Christian Revelation."

Though Dr. Conybeare, by his promotion to the headship of Exeter college, had obtained a considerable rank in the university, he did not, by the change of his situation, make any addition to his fortune. Indeed, the emoluments of his new place were so small, that he was much richer as a private fellow and tutor, than as the governor of his college. It may be presumed that this circumstance in part, and still more the reputation he had acquired by his answer to Tindal, induced the bishop of London, who at that time had great influence in the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments, to exert himself more vigorously in our author’s behalf. This the good prelate so effectually did, that on the death of Dr. Bradshaw, bishop of Bristol, and dean Of Christ church, Oxford, in December, 1732, Dr. Conybeare was appointed to succeed him in the latter dignity. Accordingly the doctor was installed dean of that cathedral in the month of January following. On this occasion, he resigned the headship of Exeter college; and not long after, he gave up likewise the rectory of St. Clement’s, in favour of a friend, the rev. Mr. Webber, one of the fellows of Exeter. On the 6th of June, 1733, dean Conybeare married Miss Jemima Juckes, daughter of Mr. William Juckes, of Hoxton-square, near London; and in the same year he published a sermon, which he had preached in the cathedral of St. Peter, Exon, in August 1732, from 2 Peter iii. 16, on the subject of scripturedifficulties. In the beginning of the next year, he had the honour of entertaining the prince of Orange at the deanery of Christ church. The prince, who had come into England to marry the princess royal, being desirous of visiting Oxford, and some of the places adjacent, took up his residence at Dr. Conybeare’s apartments; and how solicitous the dean was to treat his illustrious guest with a proper splendour and dignity, appears from his having received, by the hands of one of her servants, the especial thanks of queen Caroline on the occasion.

Jearn that bishop Couybeare made no Bishop Newton’s account of this bimore than 350l. clear per annum of shopric is, we believe, much the same, this bishopric, during the whole time lord mayor and aldermen of the city of London, in which the virtue of being merciful was stated and enforced. The second was preached before the house of lords, on the llth of June, in the same year, from Psalm Ixxviii. 72, upon occasion of his majesty’s accession to the throne: the subject treated of, was civil government. The third was from Matthew xviii. 10, 11, in favour of the Irish protestant schools; and the fourth, from James i. 27, was before the sons of the clergy, at Bristol. Both these discourses were printed in 1752. It may be observed, with regard to the twelve single sermons published by our prelate, that they were not vague, declamatory essays, calculated only to answer a present purpose, but judicious and solid compositions, in which important topics were discussed with great perspicuity of method and language, and with equal strength of reasoning; so that it is not a little to be regretted, that they have not been collected together in a volume. Dr. Conybeare did not long enjoy a good state of health, after his being raised to the bishopric of Bristol. He was much afflicted with the gout; and, having languished about a year and a half, was carried off by that disorder at Bath, on the 13th of July, 1755. He was interred in the cathedral church of Bristol, where, some time after his death, an inscription was erected to his memory.

Bishop Conybeare had by his lady five children, three of whom died in their infancy. A daughter and a son survived him. The daughter, Jemima, departed this life at Oxford, on the 14th of March 1785. The son, William, is the present Dr. Conybeare. As our worthy prelate died in but indifferent circumstances, and consequently left behind him a very slender provision for his children, it was proposed by some friends of the family, to publish two volumes of sermons by subscription. The scheme succeeded so well that the number of subscribers amounted to nearly four thousand six hundred persons, many of whom took more than one copy. Such an almost unparalleled subscription can only be accounted for from Dr. Conybeare' s numerous connections, in consequence of his having presided over such a society as that of Christ-church, with the greatest reputation, for twenty- two years and a half; from the general estimation in which his abilities and character were held in the world, among men of all denominations; and from the disinterestedness of his temper in making but a small provision for his family. Besides this, his majesty, king George II. was pleased, in consideration of the bishop’s merits, to bestow upon the family, for the life of miss Jemima Conybeare, a pension, the clear produce of which was about one hundred pounds a year.

His writings were: 1. “The epitome of Chronicles from the 17th year after Christ to 1540, and thence to 1560.” The two first parts of this chronicle, and the beginning of the third, as far as the 17th year after Christ, were composed by Thomas Lanquet, a young man of 24 years old: but he dying immaturely, Cooper finished the work, and published it under the title of “Cooper’s Chronicle,” though the running-title of the first and second partis “Lanquet’s Chronicle.” A faulty edition of this work was published surreptitiously in 1559; but that of 1560, in 4to, was revised and corrected by Cooper. 2. “Thesaurus Linguae Romanae & Britannicse,” &c. and, “Dictionarium historicum & poeticum,” 1565, folio. This dictionary was so much esteemed by queen Elizabeth, that she endeavoured, as Wood tells us, to promote the author for it in the church as high as she could. It is an improvement of “Bibliotheca Eliotae,” Eliot’s library or dictionary, printed in 1541; or, as some think, it is taken out of Robert Stephens’s “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, and” Frisii Lexicon Latino-Teutonicum.“3.” A brief exposition of such chapters of the Old Testament as usually are read in the church at common prayer, on the Sundays throughout the year,“1573, 3to. 4.” A sermon at Lincoln,“1575, 8vo. 5. ”Twelve Sermons,“1580, 4to. 6.” An admonition to the people of England, wherein are answered not only the slanderous untruths reproachfully uttered by Martin the libeller, but also many other crimes by some of his brood, objected generally against all bishops and the chief of the clergy, purposely to deface and discredit the present state of the church,“1589, 4to, This was an answer to John ap Henry’s books against the established church, published under the name of Martin Mar-Prelate. Ap Henry, or his accomplices, replied to the bishop’s book, in two ludicrous pamphlets, entitled,” Ha' ye any work for a Cooper?“and” More work for a Cooper."

, an eminent astronomer, was born at Thorn in Prussia, January 19, 1473. His father was a stranger, but from what part of Europe is unknown. He settled here as a merchant, and the archives of the city prove that he obtained the freedom of Thorn in 1462. It seems clear that he must have been in opulent circumstances, and of consideration, not only from the liberal education which he bestowed upon his son, but from the rank of his wife, the sister of Luca Watzelrode, bishop of Ermeland, a prelate descended from one of the most illustrious families of Polish Prussia. Nicholas was instructed in the Latin and Greek languages at home; and afterward sent to Cracow, where he studied philosophy, mathematics, and medicine: though his genius was naturally turned to mathematics, which he chiefly studied, and pursued through all its various branches. He set out for Italy at twenty-three years of age; stopping at Bologna, that he might converse with the celebrated astronomer of that place, Dominic Maria, whom he assisted for some time in making his observations. From hence he passed to Rome, where he was presently considered as not inferior to the famous Regiomontanus. Here he soon acquired so great a reputation, that he was chosen professor of mathematics, which he taught there for a long time with the greatest applause and here also he made some astronomical observations about the year 1500.

, an English prelate, but better known and perhaps more respected as a poet, was the son of Vincent Corbet, and was born at Ewell in Surrey, in 1582. His father, who attained the age of eighty, appears to have been a man of excellent character, and is celebrated in one of his son’s poems with filial ardour. For some reason he assumed the name of Pointer, or, perhaps, relinquished that for Corbet, which seems more probable: his usual residence was at Whitton in the county of Middlesex, where he was noted for his skill in horticulture, and amassed considerable property in houses and land, which he bequeathed to his son at his death in 1619. Our poet was educated at Westminster school, and in Lenu term, 1597-8, entered in Broadgate hall (afterwards Pembroke college), and the year following was admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, where he soon became noted among men of wit and vivacity. In 1605 he took his master’s degree, and entered into holy orders. In 3612 he pronounced a funeral oration in St. Mary’s church, Oxford, on the death of Henry, prince of Wales; and the following year, another on the interment of that eminent benefactor to learning, sir Thomas Bodley. In 1618 he took a journey to France, from which he wrote the epistle to sir Thomas Aylesbury. His “Journey to Fiance,” one of his most humorous poems, is remarkable for giving some traits of the French character that are visible in the present day. King James, who showed no weakness in the choice of his literary favourites, made him one of his chaplains in ordinary, and in 1627 advanced him to the dignity of dean, of Christ Church. At this time he was doctor in divinity, vicar of Cassington near Woodstock, in Oxfordshire, and prebendary of Bedminster Secunda in the church of Sarum.

, an Italian prelate, was born in 1465, at San Geminiano, in Tuscany. In early life he applied himself to the forming of his style by reading the best authors of antiquity, and particularly Cicero. He was not above twenty -three when he published a dialogue on the learned men of Italy, “De hominibus tloctis.” This production, elegantly composed, and useful to the history of the literature of his time, remained in obscurity till 1734, when it was given to the public by Manni, from a copy found by Alexander Politi, Florence, 4to, with notes, and the life of the author. Angelo Politianus, to whom he communicated it, wrote to him, that “the work, though superior to his age, was not a premature fruit.” There is still extant by this writer a commentary on the four books of sentences, 1540, folio, in good Latin, but frequently in such familiar terms as to throw a ludicrous air over the lofty mysteries of the papal church, which was not a little the fashion of his time. He also wrote a tract on the dignity of the cardinals, “De Cardinalatu;” full of erudition, variety, and elegance, according to the testimony of some Italian authors, and destitute of all those qualities, according to that of Du Pin. P. Cortezi died bishop of Urbino in 1510, in the 45th year of his age. His house, furnished with a copious library, was the asylum of the muses, and of all that cultivated their favour.

, an English prelate, was the son of Giles Cosin, a rich citizen of Norwich, and born in that city Nov. 30, 1594. He was educated in the free-school there, till 14 years of age; and then removed to Caius college in Cambridge, of which he was successively scholar and fellow. Being at length distinguished for his ingenuity and learning, he had, in 1616, an offer of a librarian’s place from Overall bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Andrews bishop of Ely, and accepted the invitation of the former; who dying in 1619, he became domestic chaplain to Neil bishop of Durham. He was made a prebendary of Durham in 1624; and the year following collated to the archdeaconry of the east riding in the church of York, vacant by the resignation of Marmaduke Blakestone, whose daughter he had married that year. July 1626, Neil presented him to the rich rectory of Branspeth, in the diocese of Durham; the parochial church of which he beautified in an extraordinary manner. About that time, having frequent meetings at the bishop of Durham’s house in London, with Laud and other divines of that party, he began to be obnoxious to the puritans, who suspected him to be popishly affected; grounding their suspicion on his “Collection of Private Devotions,” published in 1627. This collection, according to one of his biographers, was drawn up at the command of Charles I. for the use of those protestants who attended upon the queen; and, by way of preserving them from the taint of certain popish books of devotion, supposed to be thrown, on purpose, about the royal apartments. Collier, however, says that it was written at the request of the countess of Denbigh, the duke of Buckingham’s sister. This lady being then somewhat unsettled in her religion, and inclining towards popery, these devotions were drawn up to recommend the Church of England farther to her esteem, and preserve her in that communion. This book, though furnished with a great deal of good matter, was not altogether acceptable in the contexture; although the title-page sets forth, that it was formed npon the model of a book of private Prayers, authorized by queen Elizabeth, in 1560. The top of the frontispiece had the name of Jesus in three capital letters, I. H. 8. Upon these there was a cross, encircled with the sun supported by two angels, with two devout women praying towards it. Burton, Prynne, and other celebrated puritans, attacked it very severely; and there is no doubt but it greatly contributed to draw upon him all that persecution which he afterwards underwent.

On the accession of queen Mary, and the consequent re-establishment of popery, he was ejected from the see and thrown into prison, out of which he was released after two years confinement, at the earnest request of the king of Denmark. Coverdale and Dr. John Machabseus, chap­* Dr. Weston does not occur in Le Neve’s List of Chancellors, bu.1 there can be no doubt of the fact. lain to that monarch, had married sisters, and it was at his chaplain’s request that the king interposed, but was obliged to send two or three letters be Core he could accomplish his purpose. By one of these, dated April 25, 1554, it would appear that Coverdale was imprisoned in consequence of being concerned in an insurrection against the queen, but this is not laid to his charge in the queen’s answer, who only pretended that he was indebted to her concerning his bishopric. As the first fruits had been forgiven by Edward VI. this must be supposed to allude to his tenths; and Coverdale’s plea, as appears by the king of Denmark’s second letter, was, that he had not enjoyed the bishopric long enough to be enabled to pay the queen. This second letter bears date Sept. 24, 1554, and, according to Strype, the queen’s grant of his request was not given till Feb. 18, 1555. Strype, therefore, from his own evidence, is erroneous in his assertion that in 1554 Coverdale was preacher to a congregation of exiled protestants at Wesel, until he was called by the duke of Deux Fonts, to be preacher at Bergzabern . On his release, which was on the condition of banishing himself, he repaired to the court of Denmark, where the king would fain have detained him, but as he was not so well acquainted with the language as to preach in Danish, he preferred going to the places above mentioned, where he could preach with facility in Dutch; and there and at Geneva he passed his time, partly in teaching and partly in preaching. He also, while here, joined some other English exiles, Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham, Sampson, Cole, &c. in that translation of the Bible usually called the “Geneva translation;” part of which, the New Testament, was printed at Geneva, by Conrad Badius, in 1557, and again in 1560, in which last year the whole Bible was printed in the same place by Rowland Harte. Of this translation, which had explanatory notes, and therefore was much used in private families, there were above thirty editions in folio, quarto, and octavo, mostly printed in England by the king’s and queen’s printers, from the year 1560 to 1616. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he returned from his exile, but, unfortunately for the church, had imbibed the principles of the Geneva reformers, as far as respected the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. In 1559, however, we find him taking his turn as preacher at St. Paul’s Cross, and he assisted also at the consecration of archbishop Parker, in which ceremony, although he performed the functions of a bishop, he wore only a long black cloth gown. This avowed non-compliance with the habits and ceremonies prevented his resuming his bishopric, or any preferment being for some time offered to him. In 1563 bishop Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff; and in 1564, Coverdale had the honour to admit that prelate to his doctor’s degree, by a mandate from the vicechancellor of Cambridge, a proof that he was still in high estimation. Grindal, particularly, had a great regard for him, and was very uneasy at his want of preferment. On one occasion he exclaimed, “I cannot excuse us bishops.” He also applied to the secretary of state, “telling him, that surely it was not well that father Coverdale,” as he styled him, “qui ante nos omnes fuit in Christo,” “who was in Christ before us all,” should be now in his age without stay of living.“It was on this occasion that Grindal recommended him to the bishopric of Llandaff, as already noticed, but it is supposed Coverdale’s age and infirmities, and the remains of the plague, from which he had just recovered, made him decline so great a charge. In lieu of it, however, the bishop collated him to the rectory of St. Magnus, London Bridge; and here again the good man’s poverty presented an obstruction, as appears from some affecting letters he wrote to be excused from the first fruits, amounting to 60l. which he was utterly incapable of paying: one of these letters, in which he mentions his age, and the probability of not enjoying the preferment long, he concludes with these words:” If poor old Miles might be thus provided for, he should think this enough to be as good as a feast." His request being granted, he entered upon his charge, and preached about two years; but resigned it in 1566, a little before his death. He was very much admired by the puritans, who flocked to him in great numbers while he officiated at St. Magnus’s church, which he did without the habits, and when he had resigned it, for it does not appear that he was deprived of it, as Neal asserts, his followers were obliged to send to his house on Saturdays, to know where they might hear him the next day, which he declined answering lest he should give offence to government. Yet, according to Strype, he had little to fear; for, Fox, Humphrey, Sampson, and others of the same way of thinking, were not only connived at, but allowed to hold preferments. He died, according to Richardson in his edition of Godwin, May 20, 1565 and according to Neal in his History of the Puritans, May 20, 1567 but both are wrong. The parish register proves that he was buried Feb. 19, 1568, in the chancel of the church of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, with the following inscription on his tombstone, which was destroyed at the great fire along with the church.

, a learned divine of the church of Rome, who was long resident in England, was born at Vernon in “Normandy, in the year 1681, and being educated for the church, became canon regular and librarian of the abbey of St. Genevieve, a situation extremely favourable to the prosecution of his studies, as the library of which he had the care is a very considerable one. Among other theological inquiries, he engaged in one, which was productive of very important consequences respecting his future life. Having been employed in reading abbe Reuaudot’s” Memoire sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois,“inserted in abbe Gould’s” La veritable croyance de T'eglise Catholique,“he was induced to enter into a farther examination of that subject. Accordingly he drew up a memoir upon it, for his own satisfaction only, but which grew insensibly into a treatise; and at the instance of some friends to whom it was communicated, he was at length prevailed with to consent to its publication. He therefore made the usual application for permission to print it; and obtained the approbation of Mons. Arnaudin, the royal licenser of the press. Some persons, however, afterwards found means to prevail on the chancellor to refuse to affix the seal to the approbation of the licenser. Terms were proposed to father Courayer, to which he could not accede, and he gave up all thoughts of publishing. Some of his friends, however, being in possession of a copy, resolved to print it; and this obliged him to acquiesce in the publication. When he first wrote his treatise, all his materials were taken from printed authorities, and he had no acquaintance or correspondence in England. But sundry difficulties, which occurred to him in the course of his inquiries, suggested to him the propriety of writing to England, in order to obtain clearer information on some points; and knowing that a correspondence had been carried on between Dr. Wake, then archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Dupin, on the project of re-uniting the churches of England and France, he took the liberty, in 1721, although entirely unknown to that prelate, to desire his information respecting some particulars. The archbishop answered his inquiries with great readiness, candour, and politeness, and many letters passed between them on this occasion. Father Courayer’s book was at length published in 1723, in two volumes small 8vo, entitled,” Dissertation sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois, et sur la Succession des Evesques de l'Eglise Anglicane: avec les preuves justificatives des faits avancez dans cet ouvrage.“It was printed at Nancy, though Brussels is placed in the title. It was afterwards translated into English, by the rev. Mr. Daniel Williams, and published at London in one volume 8vo, under the title” A Defence of the validity of the English Ordinations, and of the Succession of the Bishops in the Church of England: together with proofs justifying the facts advanced in this treatise.“Father Courayer’s work was immediately attacked by several popish writers, particularly by father le Quien and father Hardouin. But in 1726 he published, in four volumes 12mo,” Defense de la Dissertation sur la validite des Ordinations des Anglois, coutre les differentes reponsesqui y out 6te faites. Avec les preuves justiticatives des faits avancez dans cet ouvrage. Par l'Auteur de la Dissertation.“An English translation of this also was afterwards published at London, in two volumes 8 vo, under the following title:” A Defence of the Dissertation on the validity of the English Ordinations," &c.

One other circumstance respecting Courayer’s history remains to be noticed. From the fourth volume of bishop Atterbury’s Epistolary Correspondence, we learn that the bishop was exposed to some trouble on account of Courayer' s escape from France, which he was supposed to have facilitated. The French king and cardinal Fleury sent him a message on the subject by the lieutenant de police. “I did not mince the matter to the magistrate,” says the bishop, “nor am I at all ashamed of what has happened, or concerned for it. I owned my friendship for Pere Courayer told them frankly a great deal more than they knew of that matter, as <far as I was concerned and thought there was no reason to wonder at, or blame my conduct. I convinced them of that point, and I believe there is an end of it. I shewed the lieutenant the picture of Pere Courayer hanging up in my room; told him I had visited him in his retreat at Hanment, while he was in disgrace there; and that he came to take his leave of me the night before he left Paris; and that in all this I thought I had done nothing that misbecame me.” The lieutenant, who behaved with great politeness, was perfectly satisfied with our prelate’s explanation but this was not the case with the cardinal, who was persuaded that father Courayer’s escape was entirely owing to Atterbury, and displayed much resentment on that account. The picture of Courayer, in the bishop’s possession, was left by him to the university of Oxford.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of king Richard II. was the fourth son of Hugh Courtney, earl of Devonshire, by Margaret, daughter of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of king Edward I. and was born in the year 1341. He had his education at Oxford, where he applied himself to the study of the civil and canon law. Afterwards, entering into holy orders, he obtained three prebends in three cathedral churches, viz. those of Bath, Exeter, and York. The nobility of his birth, and his eminent learning, recommending him to public notice, in the reign of Edward III. he was promoted in 1369 to the see of Hereford, and thence translated to the see of London, September 12, 1375, being then in the 34th year of his age. In a synod, held at London in 1376, bishop Courtney distinguished himself by his opposition to the king’s demand of a subsidy; and presently after he fell under the displeasure of the high court of chancery, for publishing a bull of pope Gregory II. without the king’s consent, which he was compelled to recall. The next year, in obedience to the pope’s mandate, he cited Wickliff to appear befofe his tribunal in St. Paul’s church: but that reformer being accompanied by John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and other nobles, who favoured his opinions, and appeared openly in the bishop’s court for him, and treated the bishop with very little ceremony, the populace took his part, went to the duke of Lancaster’s house in the Savoy, plundered it, and would have burnt it to the ground, had not the bishop hastened to the place, and drawn them off by his persuasions. The consequences of this difference with so powerful a nobleman as John of Gaunt, were probably dreaded even by Courtney; for, with respect to Wickliff, he at this time proceeded no farther than to enjoin him and his followers silence. In 1378, it is said by Godwin, but without proper authority, that Courtney was made a cardinal. In 1381, he was appointed lord high chancellor of England. The same year, he was translated to the see of Canterbury, in the room of Simon Sudbury; and on the 6th of May, 1382, he received the pall from the hands of the bishop of London in the archiepiscopal palace at Croydon. This year also he performed the ceremony of crowning queen Anne, consort of king Richard II. at Westminster. Soon after his inauguration, he restrained, by ecclesiastical censures, the bailiffs, and other officers, of the see of Canterbury, from taking cognizance of adultery and the like crimes, which then belonged to the ecclesiastical court. About the same time, he held a synod at London, in which several of Wickliff’s tenets were condemned as heretical and erroneous. In 1383, he held a synod at Oxford, in which a subsidy was granted to the king, some of WicklifT's followers obliged to recant, and the students of the university to swear renunciation of his tenets. The same year, in pursuance of the pope’s bull directed to him for that purpose, he issued his mandate to the bishop of London for celebrating the festival of St. Anne, mother of the blessed virgin. In 1386, the king, by the advice of his parliament, put the administration of the government into the hands of eleven commissioners, of whom archbishop Courtney was the first; but this lasted only one year. In 1387, he held a synod at London, in which a tenth was granted to the king. The same year, it being moved in a parliament held at London on occasion of the dissension between the king and his nobles, to inflict capital punishment on some of the ringleaders, and it being prohibited by the canons for bishops to be present and vote in cases of blood, the archbishop and his suffragans withdrew from the house of lords, having first entered a protest in relation to their peerage and privilege to sit upon all other matters. In 1399, he held a synod in St. Mary’s church in Cambridge, in which a tenth was granted to the king, on condition that he should pass over into France with an army before the 1st of October following. This year, archbishop Courtney set out upon his metropolitical visitation, in which he was at first strongly opposed by the bishops of Exeter and Salisbury; but those prelates being at last reduced to terms of submission, he proceeded in his visitation without farther opposition: only, at the intercession of the abbot of St. Alban’s, he refrained from visiting certain monasteries at Oxford. The same year, the king directed his royal mandate to the archbishop, not to countenance or contribute any thing towards a subsidy for the pope. In a parliament held at Winchester in 1392, archbishop Courtney, being probably suspected of abetting the papal encroachments upon the church and state, delivered in an answer to certain articles exhibited by the commons in relation to those encroachments, which is thought to have led the way to the statute of pr&munire. The same year, he visited the diocese of Lincoln, in which he endeavoured to check the growth of Wickliff’s doctrines. In 1395, he obtained from the pope a grant of four-pence in the pound on all ecclesiastical benefices; in which he was opposed by the bishop of Lincoln, who would not suffer it to be collected in his diocese, and appealed to the pope. But before the matter could be decided, archbishop Courtney died, July 31, 1396, at Maidstone in Kent, where he was buried, but has a monument in the cathedral church of Canterbury, on the south side, near the tomb of Thomas Becket, and at the feet of the Black Prince. His remains at Maidstone, only a few bones, were seen some years ago. This prelate founded a college of secular priests at Maidstone. He left a thousand marks for the repair of the cathedral church of Canterbury also to the same church a silver- gilt image of the Trinity, with six apostles standing round it weighing 160 pounds some books, and some ecclesiastical vestments. He obtained from king Richard a grant of four fairs to be kept at Canterbury yearly within the site of the priory. The character of archbishop Courtney, weighed in the balance of modern opinions, is that of a persecuting adherent to the church of Rome, to which, however, he was not so much attached as to forget what was due to his king and country. He appears to have exhibited in critical emergencies, a bold and resolute spirit, and occasionally a happy presence of mind. One circumstance, which displays the strength and firmness of Courtney’s mind in the exercise of his religious bigotry, deserves to be noticed. When the archbishop, on a certain day, with a number of bishops and divines, had assembled to condemn the tenets of Wickliff, just as they were going to enter upon business, a violent earthquake shook the monastery. Upon this, the terrified bishops threw down their papers, and crying out, that the business was displeasing to God, came to a hasty resolution to proceed no farther. “The archbishop alone,” says Mr. Gil pin in his Life of Wickliff, “remained unmoved. With equal spirit and address he chid their superstitious fears, and told them, that if the earthquake portended any thing, it portended the downfall of heresy; that as noxious vapours are lodged in the bowels of the earth, and are expelled by these violent concussions, so by their strenuous endeavours, the kingdom should be purified from the pestilential taint of heresy, which had infected it in every part. This speech, together with the news that the earthquake was general through the city, &s it was afterwards indeed found to have been through the island, dispelled their fears Wickliff would often merrily speak of this accident; and would call this assembly the council of the herydene; herydene being the old English word for earthquake.”

, a medical and metaphysical writer, was the son of Mr. William Coward of Winchester, where he was born in the year 1656 or 1657. It is not certain where young Coward received his grammatical education; but it was probably at Winchester-school. In his eighteenth year he was removed to Oxford, and in May 1674 became a commoner of Hart-hall; the inducement to which might probably be, that his uncle was at the head of that seminary. However, he did not long continue there; for in the year following he was admitted a scholar of Wadham college. On the 27th of June, 1677, betook the degree of B. A. and in January 1680 he was chosen probationer fellow of Merton college. In the year 1681, was published Mr. Dvyden’s Absalom and Achitophel, a production on the celebrity of which we need not expatiate. At Oxford it could not fail to be greatly admired for its poetical merit; besjde which, it might be the better received on account of its containing a severe satire on the duke of Monmouth and the earl of Sbftftesboryj two men who were certainly no favourites with tnat loyal university. Accordingly, the admiration of the poem produced two Latin versions of it, both of which were written and printed at Oxford; one by Mr. Francis Atterbury (afterwards the celebrated bishop of Rochester), who was assisted in it by Mr. Francis Hickman, a student of Christchurch; and the other by Mr. Coward. These translations were published in quarto, in 1682. Whatever proof Mr. Coward’s version of the Absalom and Achitophel might afford oi“his progress in classical literature, he was not very fortunate in this first publication. It was compared with Mr. Atterbury’s production, not a little to its disadvantage. According to Anthony Wood, he was schooled for it in the college; it was not well received in the university; and Atterbury’s poem was extolled as greatly superior. To conceal, in some degree, Mr. Coward’s mortification, a friend of his, in a public paper, advertised the translation, as written by a Walter Curie, of Hertford, gentleman; yet Coward’s version was generally mistaken for Atterbury’s, and a specimen given of it in Stackhouse’s life of that prelate. On the 13th of December, 1683, Mr. Coward was admitted to the degree of M.A. Having determined to apply himself to the practice of medicine, he prosecuted his studies in that science, and took the degree of bachelor of physic on the 23d of June 1685, and of doctor on the 2,d of July 1687. After his quitting Oxford he exercised his profession at Northampton, from which place he removed to London in 1693 or 1694, and settled in Lombard-street. In 1695 he published a tract in 8vo, entitled” De fermento volatili nutritio conjectura rationis, qua ostenditur spiritum volatilemoleosum, e sanguine suffusurn, esse verum ac genuinum concoctionis ac nutritionis instrumentum.“For this work he^iad an honourable approbation from the president and censors of the college of physicians. But it was not to medical studies only that Dr. Coward confined his attention. Besides being fond of polite learning, he entered deeply into metaphysical speculations, especially with regard to the nature of the soul, and the natural immortality of man. The result of his inquiries was his publication, in 1702, under the fictitious name of Estibius Psycalethes, entitled” Second Thoughts concerning Human Soul, demonstrating the notion of human soul, as believed to be a spiritual immortal substance united to a human body, to be a plain heathenish invention, and not consonant to the principles of philosophy, reason, or religion; but the ground only of many absurd and superstitious opinions, abominable to the reformed church, and derogatory in general to true Christianity.“This work was dedicated by the doctor to the clergy of the church of England; and he professes at his setting out,” that the main stress of arguments, either to confound or support his opinion, must be drawn from those only credentials of true and orthodox divinity, the lively oracles of God, the Holy Scriptures.“In another part, in answer to the question, Does man die like a brute beast? he says,” Yes, in respect to their end in this life; both their deaths consist in a privation of life.“” But then,“he adds,” man has this prerogative or pre-eminence above a brute, that he will be raised to life again, and be made partaker of eternal happiness in the world to come.“Notwithstanding these professions to the authority of the Christian Scriptures, Dr. Coward has commonly been ranked with those who have been reputed to be the most rancorous and determined adversaries of Christianity. Swift has ranked him with Toland, Tindal, and Gildon; and passages to the like purpose are not unfrequent among controversial writers, especially during the former part of the last century. His denial of the immateriality and natural immortality of the soul, and of a separate state of existence between the time of death and the general resurrection, was so contrary to universal opinion, that it is not very surprising that he should be considered as an enemy to revelation. It might be expected that he would immediately meet with opponents; and accordingly he was attacked by various writers of different complexions and abilities; among whom were Dr. Nichols, Mr. John Broughton, and. Mr. John Turner. Dr. Nichols took up the argument in his” Conference with a Theist.“Mr. Broughton wrote a treatise entitled” Psychologia, or, an Account of the nature of the rational Soul, in two parts;“and Mr. Turner published a” Vindication of the separate existence of the Soul from a late author’s Second Thoughts.“Both these pieces appeared in 1703. Mr. Turner’s publication was answered by Dr. Coward, in a pamphlet called” Farther Thoughts upon Second Thoughts,“in which he acknowledges, that in Mr. Turner he had a rational and candid adversary. He had not the same opinion of Mr. Broughton who therefore was treated by him with severity, in” An Epistolary Reply to Mr. Broughton’s Psychologia;“which reply was not separately printed, but annexed to a work of the doctor’s, published in the beginning of the year 1704, and entitled,” The Grand Essay or, a Vindication of Reason and Religion against the impostures of Philosophy." In this last production, the idea of the human soul’s being an immaterial substance was again vigorously attacked.

After the restoration, and the marriage of king Charles II. queen Catharine appointed our author, who was then become one of the mission in England, her chaplain, and from that time he resided in Somerset-house, in the Strand. The great regularity of his life, his sincere and unaffected piety, his modest and mild behaviour, his respectful deportment to persons of distinction, with whom he was formerly acquainted when a protestant, and the care he took to avoid all concern in political affairs or intrigues of state, preserved him in quiet and safety, even in the most troublesome times- He was, however, a very zealous champion in the cause of the church of Rome, and was continually writing in defence of her doctrines, or in answer to the books of controversy written by protestants of distinguished learning or figure; and as this engaged him in a variety of disputes, he had the good fortune to acquire great reputation with both parties, the papists looking upon him to be one of their ablest advocates, and the protestants allowing that he was a grave, a sensible, and a candid writer. Among the works he published after his return to England, were: 1. “A non est inventus returned to Mr. Edward Bagshaw’s enquiry and vainly boasted discovery of weakness in the Grounds of the Church’s Infallibility,” 1662, 8vo. 2. “A Letter to an English gentleman, dated July 6th, 1662, wherein bishop Morley is concerned, printed amongst some of the treatises of that reverend prelate,” 3. “Roman Catholic Doctrines no Novelties; or, an answer to Dr. Pierce’s court-sermon, miscalled The primitive rule of Reformation,” 1663, 8vo; answered by Dr. Daniel Whitby. But that which contributed to make him most known, was his large and copious ecclesiastical history, entitled “The Church History of Britanny,” Roan, 1668, fol. which was indeed a work of great pains and labour, and executed with much accuracy and diligence. He had observed that nothing made a greater impression upon the people in general of his communion, than the reputation of the great antiquity of their church, and the fame of the old saints of both sexes, that had flourished in this island; and therefore he judged that nothing could be more serviceable in promoting what he styled the catholic interest, than to write such a history as might set these points in the fairest and fullest light possible. He had before him the example of a famous Jesuit, Michael Alford, alias Griffith, who had adjusted the same history under the years in which the principal events happened, in four large volumes, collected from our ancient historians; but, as this was written in Latin, he judged that it was less suited to the wants of common readers, and therefore he translated what suited his purpose into English, with such helps and improvements as he thought necessary. His history was very much approved by the most learned of his countrymen of the same religion, as appears by the testimonies prefixed to it. Much indeed may be said in favour of the order, regularity, and coherence of the facts, and the care and punctuality shewn in citing his authorities. On the other hand, he has too frequently adopted the superstitious notions of many of our old writers; transcribing from them such fabulous passages as have been long ago exploded by the inquisitive and impartial critics of his own faith. The book, however, long maintained its credit among the Romanists, as a most authentic ecclesiastical chronicle, and is frequently cited by their most considerable authors. He proposed to have published another volume of this history, which was to have carried it as low as the dissolution of monasteries by king Henry VIII. but he died before he had proceeded full three hundred years lower than the Norman conquest. Dodd, however, informs us that a considerable part of the second volume was preserved in ms. in the Benedictine monastery at Douay, and that it was never published “upon account of some nice controversies between the see of Rome, and some of our English kings, which might give offence.” While engaged on this work, he found leisure to interfere in all the controversies of the times, as will presently be noticed. His last dispute was in reference to a book written by the learned Dr. Stillingfleet, afterwards bishop of Worcester, to which, though several answers were given by the ablest of the popish writers, there was none that seemed to merit reply, excepting that penned by father Cressey, and this procured him the honour of a very illustrious antagonist, his old friend and acquaintance at Oxford, Edward earl of Clarendon. Being now grown far in years, and having no very promising scene before his eyes, from the warm spirit that appeared against popery amongst all ranks of people, and the many excellent books written to confute it by the most learned of the clergy, he was the more willing to seek for peace in the silence of a country retirement; and accordingly withdrew for some time to the house of Richard Caryll, esq. a gentleman of an ancient family and affluent fortune, at East Grinstead, co. Sussex, and dying upon the 10th of August 1674, being then near the seventieth year of his age, was buried in the parish church there. His loss was much regretted by those of his communion, as being one of their ablest champions, ready to draw his pen in their defence on every occasion, and sure of having his pieces read with singular favour and attention. His memory also was revered by the protestants, as well on account of the purity of his manners, and his mild and humble deportment, as for the plainness, candour, and decency with which he had managed all the controversies that he had been engaged in, and which had procured him, in return, much more of kindness and respect, than almost any other of his party had met with, or indeed deserved. It is very remarkable, however, that he thought it necessary to apologize to his popish readers for the respectful mention he made of the prelates of our church. Why this should require an apology, we shall not Inquire, but that his candour and politeness deserve the highest commendation will appear from what he says of archbishop Usher: “As for B. Usher, his admirable abilities in ‘chronological and historical erudition,’ as also his faithfulness and ingenuous sincerity in delivering without any provoking reflection*, what with great labour he has observed, ought certainly at least to exempt him from being treated by any one rudely and contemptuously, especially by me, who am moreover always obliged to preserve a just remembrance of very many kind effects of friendship, which I received from, him.” We have already taken notice of his inclination to the mystic divinity, which led him to take so much pains about the works of father Baker, and from the same disposition he also published “Sixteen revelations of divine love, shewed to a devout servant of our Lord, called mother Juliana, an anchorete of Norwich, who lived in the days of king Edward Hi.” He left also in ms. “An Abridgment of the book called The cloud of unknowing, and of the counsel referring to the same.” His next performance, was in answer to a famous treatise, written by Dr. Stillingfleet, against the church of Rome, which made a very great noise in those days, and put for some time a stop to the encroachments their missionaries were daily making, which highly provoked those of the Roman communion. This was entitled “Answer to part of Dr. Stillingfleet’s book, entitled Idolatry practised in the church of Rome,” 1672, 8vo, and was followed by “Fanaticism fanatically imputed to the Catholic Church by Dr. Stillingfleet, and the imputation refuted and retorted,” &c. 1672, 8vo, and “Question, Why are you a Catholic? Question, Why are you a Protestant?” 1673, 8vo. In support of Dr. Stillingfleet, the earl of Clarendon wrote “Animadversions” upon our author’s answer; in which he very plainly tells him and the world, that it was not devotion, but necessity and want of a subsistence, which drove him first out of the church of England, and then into a monastery. As this noble peer knew him well at Oxford, it may be very easily imagined that what he said made a very strong impression, and it was to efface this, that our author thought tit to send abroad an answer under the title of “Epistle apologetical to a person of honour, touching his vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet,' 1 1674, 8vo. In this work he gives a large relation of the state and condition of his affairs, at the time of what he styles his conversion, in order to remove the imputation of quitting his faith to obtain bread. The last work that he published was entitled” Remarks upon the Oath of Supremacy."

, an eminent prelate, and third son of the preceding, was born Oct. 18, 1603, at Great Milton near Thame, in Oxfordshire, in the house of sir William Green, his mother being then on a journey to London. In his thirteenth year he was sent to Oxford; but upon his father’s embracing the popish religion, and removing to Doway, he -was taken there, and after some time sent to the English college of Jesuits at St. Omer’s; where he was not only reconciled to the church of Rome, but persuaded also to enter into the order. Some time before his father’s death in 1622, he was sent back into England, to transact some family affairs; and becoming acquainted with Morton, bishop of Durham, he was by him brought back to the church of England. At the desire of Dr. Laud, he went a second time to Oxford, and was admitted a student of Christ-church; and the university generously allowing the time he had spent abroad to be included in his residence, he soon after took the degree of 13. D. entered into orders, and became minister of a church in Gloucestershire, and rector of Harding in Oxfordshire. August 1639 he was collated to a prebend in the church of Salisbury; and the year after took the degree of D. D. being then chaplain in ordinary to the king. The same year he was made a prebendary of Worcester, and the year after a canon of Windsor. In 1644 he was nominated dean of Hereford, where he married Mrs. Anne Brown, the daughter of his predecessor, though in constant peril of his then small fortune, and sometimes of his life. He suffered extremely for his loyalty to Charles I; but at length, in 1659, by the successive deaths of his two elder brothers, became possessed of the family-estate. At the restoration he was reinstated in his preferments; and Dec. 2, 1661, promoted to the see of Hereford, which he never would quit, though he was offered a better see more than once. He became afterward^, about 1667, dean of the royal chapel, which he held to 1669, and then resigned it; being weary of a court life, and finding but small effects from his pious endeavours. He then retired to his diocese, where he lived an example of that discipline he was strict in recommending to others; and was much beloved for his constant preaching, hospitable temper, and extensive charity. He was very intent upon reforming some things in the church, which he thought abuses, and not tending to edification. He was very scrupulous in his manner of admitting persons into orders, and more especially to the priesthood; and he refused to admit any prebendaries into his cathedral church, except such as lived within his diocese, that the duty of the church might not be neglected, and that the addition of a prebend might be a comfortable addition to a small living. In all these resolutions, it is said, he continued inflexible.

This was the first thing bishop Croft published, except two sermons: one on Isaiah xxvii. verse last, preached before the house of lords upon the fast-day, Feb. 4, 1673; the other before the king at Whitehall, April 12, 1674, on Philipp. i. 21. In 1678 he published a third sermon, preached Nov. 4, at the cathedral church in Hereford, and entitled, “A second call to a farther Humiliation.” The year after he published “A Letter written to a friend concerning popish idolatry:” and also a second impression, corrected, with additions, of his “Legacy to his diocese; or a short determination of all controversies we have with the papists by God’s holy word,” 4to. Besides the epistle to all the people within his diocese, especially those of the city of Hereford, and a preface, this work consists of three sermons upon John v. 39. “Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life;” and a supplement, together with a tract concerning the holy sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, promised in the preface. This work was calculated by him to preserve the people of his diocese from the snares of popish missionaries, who were then very active all over the kingdom. In 1685 he published some animadversions on a book entitled “The Theory of the Earth;” and in 1688, “A Short Discourse concerning the reading his majesty’s late declaration in Churches.” This, which was the last employment of his pen, was shewn by a certain courtier to king James; who ordered so much of the discourse, as concerned the reading of the declaration, to be published to the world, and the rest to be suppressed, as being contrary to the views with which that declaration had been set forth. It is remarkable of this excellent prelate, that he had taken a resolution some years before his death, of resigning his bishopric; to which, it seems, he was moved by some scruples of conscience. His motives he expressed in a long letter to Dr. Stillingfleet; who, however, in an answer, persuaded him to continue his episcopal charge with his usual earnestness and vigour. He died at his palace at Hereford, May 18, 1691, and was buried in the cathedral there, with this short inscription over his grave-stone “Depositum Herbert! Croft de Croft, episcopi Herefordensis, qui obiit 18 die Maii A. D. 1691, DDtatis suae 88; in vita conjuncti” that is, “Here are deposited the remains of Herbert Croft of Croft, bishop of Hereford, who died May 18, 1691, in the 88th year of his age in life united.” The last words, “in life united,” allude to his lying next dean Benson, at the bottom of whose grave-stone are these, “in morte non divisi,” that is, “in death not divided:” the two gravestones having hands engraven on them, reaching from one to the other, and joined together, to signify the lasting and uninterrupted friendship which subsisted between these two reverend dignitaries.

, earl of Essex, an eminent statesman in the sixteenth century, was the son of Walter Cromwell, a blacksmith, at Putney, near London, and in his latter days a brewer; after whose decease, his mother was married to a sheerman in London. What education he had, was In a private school: and all the learning he attained to, was (according to the standard of those times), only reading and writing, and a little Latin. When he grew up, having a very great inclination for travelling, he went into foreign countries, though at whose expence is not known; and by that means he had an opportunity of seeing the world, of gaining experience, and of learning several languages, which proved of great service to him afterwards. Coming to Antwerp, where was then a very considerable English factory, he was by them retained to be their clerk, or secretary. But that office being too great a confinement, he embraced an opportunity that offered in 1510, of taking a journey to Rome. Whilst he remained in Italy he served for some time as a soldier under the duke of Bourbon, and was at the sacking of Rome: and at Bologna he assisted John Russel, esq. afterwards earl of Bedford, in making his escape, when he had like to be betrayed into the hands of the French, being secretly in those parts about our king’s affairs. It is also much to his credit, as an early convert to the reformation, that, in his journey to and from Rome, he learned by heart Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament. After his return from his travels he was taken into the family and service of cardinal Wolsey, who is said to have first discovered him in France, and who made him his solicitor, and often employed him in business of great importance. Among other things, he had the chief hand in the foundation of the two colleges begun at Oxford and Ipswich by that magnificent prelate; and upon the cardinal’s disgrace in 1529, he used his utmost endeavours and interest to have him restored to the king’s favour: even when articles of high-treason against him were sent down to the house of commons, of which Cromwell was then a member, he defended his master with so much wit and eloquence, that no treason cauld be laid to his charge: which honest beginning procured Cromwell great reputation, and made his parts and abilities to be much taken notice of. After the cardinal’s household was dissolved, Cromwell was taken into the king’s service (upon the recommendation of sir Christopher Hales, afterwards master of the rolls, and sir John Russel, knt. above-mentioned) as the fittest person to manage the disputes the king then had with the pope; though some endeavoured to hinder his promotion, and to prejudice his majesty against him, on account of his defacing the small monasteries that were dissolved for endowing Wolsey’s colleges. But he discovering to the king some particulars that were very acceptable to him respecting the submission of the clergy to the pope, in derogation of his majesty’s authority, he took him into the highest degree of favour, and soon after he was sent to the convocation, then sitting, to acquaint the clergy, that they were all fallen into a praemunire on the above account, and the provinces of Canterbury and York were glad to compromise by a present to the king of above 100,000l. In 1531 he was knighted; made master of the king’s jewel-house, with a salary of 50l. per annum; and constituted a privy-counsellor. The next year he was made clerk of the Hanaper, an office of profit and repute in chancery; and, before the end of the same year, chancellor of the exchequer, and in 1534, principal secretary of state, and master of the rolls. About the same time he was chosen chancellor of the university of Cambridge; soon after which followed a general visitation of that university, when the several colleges delivered up their charters, and other instruments, to sir Thomas Cromwell. The year before, he assessed the fines laid upon those who having 40l. per annum estate, refused to take the order of knighthood. In 1535 he was appointed visitor-general of the monasteries throughout England, in order for their suppression; and in that office is accused of having acted with much violence, although in other cases promises and pensions were employed to obtain the compliance of the monks and nuns. But the mode, whatever it might be, gave satisfaction to the king and his courtiers, and Cromwell was, on July 2, 1536, constituted lord keeper of the privy seal, when he resigned his mastership of the rolls . On the 9th of the same month he was advanced to the dignity of a baron of this realm, by the title of lord Cromwell of Okeham in Rutlandshire; and, six days after, took his place in the house of lords. The pope’s supremacy being now abolished in England, lord Cromwell was made, on the 18th of July, vicar-general, and vicegerent, over all the spirituality, under the king, who was declared supreme head of the church. In that quality his lordship satin the convocation holden this year, above the archbishops, as the king’s representative. Being-invested with such extensive power, he employed it in discouraging popery, and promoting the reformation. For that purpose he caused certain articles to be enjoined by the king’s authority, differing in many essential points from the established system of the Roman-catholic religion; and in September, this same year, he published some injunctions to the clergy, in which they were ordered to preach up the king’s supremacy; not to lay out their rhetoric in extolling images, relics, miracle*, or pilgrimages, but rather to exhort their people to serve God, and make provision for their families: to put parents and other directors of youth in mind to teach their children the Lord’s-prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments in their mother-tongue, and to provide a Bible in Latin and English, to be laid in the churches for every one to read at their pleasure. He likewise encouraged the translation of the Bible into English; and, when finished, enjoined that one of the largest volume should be provided for every parish church, at the joint charge of the parson and parishioners. These alterations, with the dissolution of the monasteries, and (notwithstanding the immense riches gotten from thence) his demanding at the same time for the king subsidies both from the clergy and laity, occasioned very great murmurs against him, and indeed with some reason. All this, however, rather served to establish him in the king’s esteem, who was as prodigal of money as he was rapacious and in 1537 his majesty constituted him chief justice itinerant of all the forests beyond Trent and on the 26th of August, the same year, he was elected knight of the garter, and dean of the cathedral church of Weils. The year following he obtained a grant of the castle and lordship of Okeham in the county of Rutland; and was also made constable of Carisbrook-castle in the Isle of Wight. In September he published new injunctions, directed to all bishops and curates, in which he ordered that a Bible, in English, should be set up in some convenient place in every church, where the parishioners might most commodiously resort to read the same: that the clergy should, every Sunday and holiday, openly and plainly recite to their parishioners, twice or thrice together, one article of the Lord’s Prayer, or Creed, in English, that they might learn the same by heart: that they should make, or cause to be made, in their churches, one sermon every quarter of a year at least, in which they should purely and sincerely declare the very gospel of Christ, and exhort their hearers to the works of charity, mercy, and faith not to pilgrimages, images, &c. that they should forthwith take clown all images to which pilgrimages or offerings were wont to be made: that in all such benefices upon which they were not themselves resident, they should appoint able curates: that they, and every parson, vicar, or curate, should for every church keep one book of register, wherein they should write the day and year of every wedding, christening, and burying, within their parish; and therein set every person’s name that shall be so wedded, christened, or buried, &c. Having been thus highly instrumental in promoting the reformation, and in dissolving the monasteries, he was amply rewarded by the king in 1539, with many noble manors and large estates that had belonged to those dissolved houses. On the 17th of April, the same year, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Essex; and soon after constituted lord high chamberlain of England. The same day he was created earl of Essex he procured Gregory his son to be made baron Cromwell of Okeham. On the 12th of March 1540, he was put in commission, with others, to sell the abbey-lands, at twenty years’ purchase: which was a thing he had advised the king to do, in order to stop the clamours of the people, to attach them to his interest, and to reconcile them to the dissolution of the monasteries. But as, like his old master Wolsey, he had risen rapidly, he was now doomed, like him, to exhibit as striking an example of the instability of human grandeur; and au unhappy precaution to secure (as he imagined) his greatness, proved his ruin. Observing that some of his most inveterate enemies, particularly Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, began to be more in favour at court than himself, he used his utmost endeavours to procure a marriage between king Henry and Anne of Cleves, expecting great support from a queen of his own making; and as her friends were Lutherans, he imagined it would bring down the popish party at court, and again recover the ground he and Cranmer had now lost. But this led immodiaieiy to his destruction; for the king, not liking the queen, began to hate Cromwell, the great promoter of the marriage, and soon found an opportunity to sacrifice him; nor was this difficult. Cromwell was odious to all the nobility by reason of his low binh: hated particularly by Gardiner, and the Roman catholics, for having been so busy in the dissolution of the abbies: the reformers themselves found he could not protect them from persecution; and the nation in general was highly incensed against him for his having lately obtained a subsidy of four shillings in the pound from the clergy, and one tenth and one fifteenth from the laity; notwithstanding the immense sums that had flowed into the treasury out of the monasteries. Henry, with his usual caprice, and without ever considering that Cromwell’s faults were his own, and committed, if we may use the expression, for his own gratification, caused him to be arrested at the council table, by the duke of Norfolk, on the 10th of June, when he least suspected it. Being committed to the Tower, he wrote a letter to the king, to vindicate himself from the guilt of treason; and another concerning his majesty’s marriage with Anne of Cleves; but we do not find that any notice was taken of these: yet, as his enemies knew if he were brought to the bar he would justify himself by producing the king’s orders and warrants for what he had done, they resolved to prosecute him by attainder; and the bill being brought into the house of lords the 17th of June, and read the first time, on the 19th was read the second and third times, and sent down to the commons. Here, however, it stuck ten days, and at last a new bill of attainder was sent up to the lords, framed in the house of commons: and they sent back at the same time the bill the lords had sent to them. The grounds of his condemnation were chieHy treason and heresy; the former very confusedly expressed. Like other falling favourites, he was deserted by most of his friends, except archbishop Cranmer, who wrote to the king in his behalf with great boldness and spirit. But the duke of Norfolk, and the rest of the popish party, prevailed; and, accordingly, in pursuance of his attainder, the lord Cromwell was brought to a scaffold erected on Tower-hill, where, after having made a speech, and prayed, he was beheaded, July 28, 1540. His death is solely to be attributed to the ingratitude and caprice of Henry, whom he had served with great faithfulness, courage, and resolution, in the most hazardous, difficult, and important undertakings. As for the lord Cromwell’s character, he is represented by popish historians as a crafty, cruel, ambitious, and covetous man, and a heretic; but their opponents, on better grounds, assert that he was a person of great wit, and excellent parts, joined to extraordinary diligence and industry; that his apprehension was quick and clear; his judgment methodical and solid; his memory strong and rational; his tongue fluent and pertinent; his presence stately and obliging; his heart large and noble; his temper patient and cautious; his correspondence well laid and constant; his conversation insinuating and close: none more dextrous in finding out the designs of men and courts; and none more reserved in keeping a secret. Though he was raised from the meanest condition to a high pitch of honour, he carried his greatness with wonderful temper; being noted in the exercise of his places of judicature, to have used much moderation, and in his greatest pomp to have taken notice of, and been thankful to mean persons of his old acquaintance. In his whole behaviour he was courteous and affable to all; a favourer in particular of the poor in their suits; and ready to relieve such as were in danger of being oppressed by powerful adversaries; and so very hospitable and bountiful, that about two hundred persons were served at the gate of his house in Throgmorton-strcet, London, twice every day, with bread, meat, and drink sufficient. He must be regarded as one of the chief instruments in the reformation; and though he could not prevent the promulgation, he stopped the execution, as far as he could, of the bloody act of the six articles. But when the king’s command pressed him close, he was not firm enough to refuse his concurrence to the condemnation and burning of John Lambert. In his domestic concerns he was very regular; calling upon his servants yearly, to give him an account of what they had got under him, and what they desired of him; warning them to improve their opportunities, because, he said, he was too great to stand long; providing for them as carefully, as for his own son, by his purse and credit, that they might live as handsomely when he was dead, as they did when he was alive. In a word, we are assured, that for piety towards God, fidelity to his king, prudence in the management of affairs, gratitude to his benefactors, dutifulness, charity, and benevolence, there was not any one then superior to him in England.

In his public way of living, there was a strange kind of splendour at Whitehall; for sometimes his court wore an air of stately severity; at other times he would unbend himself, and drink freely never indeed to excess, but only so far as to have an opportunity of sounding men’s thoughts in their unguarded moments. Sometimes, in the midst of serious consultations, he started into buffoonery; sometimes the feasts that were prepared for persons of the first distinction, were, by a signal of drums and trumpets, made the prey of his guards. There was a kind of madness in his mirth, as well as of humour in his gravity, and much of design in all. Some have commended him for keeping up a great face of religion in his court and through the nation: but it is not easy to know what they mean: certain it is, that religion never wore so many faces as in his time; nor was he pleased to discover which face he liked best. The presbyterians he hated; the church of England he persecuted; against the papists he made laws; but the sectaries he indulged. Yet some of the presbyterian divines he courted affected kindness to a few of the ministers of the church of England and entered into some very deep intrigues with the papists. This made sir Kenelm Digby’s favourite father White write in defence of his government, and even of his conduct; and the popish primate of Ireland sent precepts through all his province under his seal, to pray for the health, establishment, and prosperity of the protector Cromwell and his government. With regard to personal religion, it would be difficult to find, or even to conceive, an instance of more consummate, impudent hypocrisy than Cromwell exhibited, or a more unfeeling contempt for every thing that deserves the name of religion, when it interfered with the purposes of his ambition. As for the judges in Westminster-hall, he differed with St. John, and was sometimes out of humour with Hale. He set up high courts of justice unknown to the law, and put Dr. Hewett to death for not pleading before one of them, though he ottered to plead, if any one that sat there, and was a lawyer, would give it under his hand, that it was a legal jurisdiction; and Whitlocke himself owns, that, though he was named in the commission, he would never sit, because he knew it was not lawful. His majors-general, while they acted, superseded all law; and thv protector himself derided Magna Charta, so much respected by our kings. He was indeed kind to some learned men. Milton and Marvel were his secretaries. He would have hired Meric Casaubon to have written his history; and have taken the famous Hobbes into his service for writing the Leviathan, probably because in that celebrated work power is made the source of right and the basis of religion the foundation on which Cromwell’s system, as well as Hobbes’s, was entirely built. He gave archbishop Usher a public funeral in Westminster-abbey; yet he paid but half the expence, and the other half proved a heavy burden upon that prelate’s poor family. And when all this is allowed to so inflexible a tyrant, how much is deducted from the infamy that attaches to his character? The most execrable of mankind are never uniform in villainy.

With such arts and qualities as these, joined to his great military skill and reputation, we may account for all his successes, and that prodigious authority to which he raised himself, without having-recourse to that contract of his with the devil, of which, as Echard pretends, colonel Lindsey was eye and ear-witness. In the course of his life he was temperate and sober, and despised those who were not so. In his family he shewed great kindness, but without any diminution of his authority. He was very respectful to his mother, and very tender to his wife; yet neither had any influence over him. He expressed a deep sense of the concern which the former discovered for his danger, heard whatever she said to him patiently, but acted as he thought proper, and, in respect to her burial, directly against her dying request. His wife is said to have made a proposition tending to restore the king; but he rejected it unmoved, as he had shewn himself before, when his son Richard threw himself at his feet, to dissuade him from taking the king’s life. He did not seem offended at applications of the same kind from other persons, as from Whitlocke, though that gentleman thought he lost his confidence by it; from the marquis of Hertford, whom he treated very respectfully; and from Dr. Brownrig, bishop of Exeter, to whom he shewed more kindness than to any other man of his rank and profession. Asking advice once of this prelate, “My advice,” said he to him, “must be in the words of the Gospel: ' Render to Citsar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s:” to which Cromwell made no reply. He shewed a great respect for learning and learned men, without affecting to be learned himself. His letters, however, are the best testimonies of his parts; for they are varied in their style in a wonderful manner, exactly adapted to the purposes for which they were written, and the persons to whom they were addressed. A great number of them are to be found in Thurloe’s and Nichols’s collections, as well as in Rushworth and Whitlocke. His public speeches were long, dark; and perplexed; and though mixed with the cant of the times, yet have sentiments in them which shew a superiority of understanding. Several of these are in Whitlocke’s “Memorials.” In his conversation he was easy and pleasant, and could unbend himself without losing his dignity. He made an excellent choice in those he cmployed, but trusted none of them farther than was necessary.

The high fame and repeated praises of this work did not divert the author from his studies or his duties; and in his station of a private clergyman, so great was his reputation, that he was importuned by the university, and by other acquaintance, to take upon him the weighty exercise of responding at the public commencement. Nothing but the earnest solicitation of his friends could have prevailed with a man void not only of ambition, but of even the desire of applause, to appear so publicly. This he did in 1680, in so masterly a manner, as to be remembered for many years after. The next specimen of his abilities was his “Essay on Jewish Measures and Weights,” 1686, 8vo, a work not only highly useful in its nature, but very much wanted, and was therefore received with the highest applause by the best judges, who were equally pleased with the method and matter, as well as the manner and conciseness, of the performance. It was afterwards reprinted, and will continue to support the reputation of its author, as long as this kind of literature is either en-, couraged or understood. His sincere attachment to the protestant religion made him very apprehensive of its danger; and the melancholy prospect of affairs in the reign of king James made so deep an impression on him as to affect his health. After the revolution he appears to have entertained no thoughts of soliciting for better preferment; and it was, therefore, a greater surprize to himself than to any body else, when walking after his usual manner, on a post-day, to the coffee-house, he read there in a newspaper, that one Dr. Cumberland, of Stamford, was named to the bishopric of Peterborough, This piece of intelligence, however, proved true, and he had the singular satisfaction of finding himself raised to a bishopric, not only without pains or anxiety, but without having so much as sought for it; but at that time it was necessary to the establishment of the new government, that men who were to be raised to these high stations in the church, should be such only as had been most eminent for their learning, most exemplary in their lives, and firmest to the protestant interest; and whilst these qualifications were only considered, the king, who in two years’ time had appointed no less than fifteen bishops of the above character, was told that Dr. Cumberland was the fittest man he could nominate to the bishopric of Peterborough. He was elected in the room of Dr. Thomas White, who refused the new oaths May 15th; was consecrated with other bishops, July 5th, and enthroned September 12th, 1691, in the cathedral of Peterborough. He now applied himself to the work of a bishop, making no omissions to consult his own ease, or to spare his pains; and the desires of his mind, that all under him should do their duty, were earnest and sincere. His composition had no alloy of vain-glory. He never did any thing to court applause, or gain the praise of men. He never acted a part, never put on a mask. His tongue and heart always went together. If he ran into any extreme, it was the excess of humility; he lived with the simplicity and plainness of a primitive bishop, conversed and looked like a private man, hardly maintaining what the world calls the dignity of his character. He used hospitality without grudging; no man’s house was more open to his friends, and the ease and freedom with which they always found themselves entertained, was peculiar to it. The poor had substantial relief at his door, and his neighbours and acquaintance a hearty welcome to his table, after the plentiful and plain manner in which he lived. Every thing in his house served for friendly entertainment, nothing for luxury or pomp. His desire was to make every body easy, and to do them good. He dispensed with a liberal hand, and in the most private and delicate manner, to the necessities of others. His speeches to the clergy at his visitations, and his exhortations to the catechumens before his confirmations, though they had not the embellishments of oratory, yet they were fervent expressions of the inward desires of his soul to do what good he was able, and to excite others to be influenced by it; the pious breathings of a plain and good mind. On all occasions he treated his clergy with singular ta and indulgence. An expression that often came from him, was, “I love always to make my clergy easy.” This was his rule in all applications made to him by them, and if he erred, it was always on this side. When the duties of his office required it, he never spared himself. To the last month of his life it was impossible to dissuade him from undertaking fatigues that every body about him feared were superior to his strength. He was inflexible to their intreaties, and his answer and resolution was, “I will do my duty as long as I can.” He had acted by a maxim like this in his vigour. When his friends represented to him, that by his studies and labours he would injure his health, his usual reply was, “A man had better wear out than rust out.” The last time he visited his diocese, he was in the eightieth year of his age; and at his next triennial, when he was in the eighty-third year of his age, it was with the utmost difficulty that he could be dissuaded from undertaking again the visitation of his diocese. To draw the clergy nearer than the usual decanal meetings, to make his visitations easier to himself, was a thing he would not hear of. Such were the public acts of this great prelate in the discharge of his duty as a father of the church. In respect to his temporal concerns, and his management of the revenue arising from his see, he was not less liberal and munificent. His natural parts were not quick, but strong and retentive. He was a perfect master of every subject he studied. Eyery thing he read staid with him. The impressions on his mind were some time in forming, but they were clear, distinct, and durable. The things he had chiefly studied, were researches into the most ancient times; mathematics in all its parts and the Scripture in its original languages but he was also thoroughly acquainted with all the branches of philosophy, medicine, and anatomy, and was a good classical scholar. He was so thoroughly conversant in Scripture, that no difficult passage ever occurred, either occasionally, or in reading, but he could readily give the meaning of it, and the several interpretations, without needing to consult his books. He sometimes had thoughts of writing an exposition of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, with a view to set the doctrine of justification in a light very different from that in which it has been hitherto considered by most divines, but what that light was we are not told. One of his chief objects was the examination of Sanchoniatho’s Phoenician History, about which the greatest men had been most mistaken, and in relation to which none had entered into so strict an examination as our learned prelate thought it deserved. He spent many years in these speculations; for he began to write several years before the revolution, and he continued improving his design down to 1702. Jt may be justly wondered, that, after taking so mnch pains, and carrying a work of such difficulty to so high a degree of perfection, he should never judge it expedient to publish it; for though his bookseller refused to print the first part at a critical season, yet afterwards both might have seen the light; and for this the most probable reason that can be assigned is, that thorough dislike he had to controversy. His son-in-law, however, the rev. Mr. Payne, has done justice to his memory, and published it under the title of“Sanchoniatho’s Phoenician History, translated from the first book of Eusebius de Preparatione Evangelica,” &c. Lond. 1720, 8vo. Mr. Payne observes, that our author had a quicker sense than many other men, of the advances popery was making upon us, and was affected with the apprehension of it to the last degree. This made him turn his thoughts to the inquiry, by what steps and methods idolatry got ground in the world. The oldest account of this he believed he found in Sanchoniathe'a fragment. This he saw was a professed apology for idolatry, and owned openly what other heathens would have made a secret of, that the gods of the Gentile world had been all mortal men. He studied this fragment with no other view than as it led to the discovery of the original of idolatry. He spent some time upon it, before ever he had a thought of extracting from it footsteps of the history of the world preceding the flood. While other divines of the church of England were engaged in the controversy with the papists, in which they gained over them so complete a victory, our author was endeavouring to strike at the root of their idolatrous religion. These fragments have exercised the talents of some of the ablest scholars that foreign nations have produced, and several of these, being able to make nothing clear or consistent out of them, incline to think they were forgeries, and consequently not worthy of notice. Our prelate was not only of a different sentiment, but with great knowledge and great labour, has made it very evident that these fragments are genuine, and that he thoroughly understood them. He has proved that they contain the most ancient system of atheism and idolatry; that very system which took place in Egypt, and was set up against the true religion contained in the writings of Moses.

, born in 1497, at Paris, of a noble family, studied at the college of Navarre, and was the pupil of Budeus and of John Lascaris. Being appointed by Francis I. to open the Greek school at the college-royal, he was professor there for five years, and had scholars that afterwards signalized themselves. He next became preceptor and confessor to the dauphin, afterwards Francis If. He was sent to the council of Trent, where he delivered a very celebrated speech in 1546, which was afterwards published; and during the session of this council he was made bishop of Lavaur. Sponde and de Thou have handed down to us an ingenious answer of this prelate. Nicholas Pseaume, bishop of Verdun, speaking very freely one day in the council, the bishop of Orvietta looking at the French, said to them with a sarcastic smile, “Gallus cantat,” (the cock crows), “Utinam,” replied Danes, “ad istud Gallicinium Petrus resipisceret!” (I wish that Peter would repent at this cock’s crowing.) This prelate died at Paris the 23d of April, 1577, at the age of 80. He had been married. When news was brought him of the death of his only son, he retired for a moment into his closet; and, on rejoining the company, “Let us be comforted,” said he, “the poor have gained their cause,” alluding to his being wont to distribute a part of his revenues among the poor, which he now thought he might increase. With the erudition of a true scholar he had the talent of speaking well, integrity of character, and a great simplicity of manners. His custom was to write much, and almost always to conceal his name. It has been suspected by some critics that the tenth book of the history of France, by Paulus Æmilius, is his. At least it was Danes who sent it from Venice to the printer Vascosan. His “Opuscula” were collected and printed in 1731, 4to, by the care of Peter Hilary Danes, of the same family with the bishop of Lavaur, who added the life of the author. The abbe Lenglet du Fresnoi attributes to P. Danes, two Apologies for king Henry II. printed in Latin in 1542, 4to. One publication of Danes’s merits particular notice, viz. an edition of Pliny the elder, very beautiful and correct, Paris, 1532, folio. This, for whatever reason, he thought proper to publish under the name of Bellocirius, i. e. Belletiere, the name of one of his servants. The short and elegant preface, so highly praised by Rezzonicus in his “Disquisitiones Pliniani,” is to be found amongour author’s “Opuscula.” This edition is so rare on the continent that Rezzonicus was able to find only two copies of it in Spain, and not a single one in Italy; and Ernesti pronounces it as valuable as it is rare.

On account of sir William Dawes’s “Anatomy of Atheism,” Mr. Gibber has assigned him an article in his “Lives of the Poets.” But the worthy prelate had very little title to be ranked in that catalogue. The piety of his work is unquestionable, and it is probably not defective in good sense; but it has no claim to poetical excellence, nor has it even the merit of harmonious versification.

Though these labours of sir Symonds contributed not a little to illustrate the general history of Great Britain, as well as to explain the important transactions of one of the most glorious reigns in it, yet two or three circumstances of his life have occasioned him to have been set by writers in perhaps a more disadvantageous light than he deserved; not to mention that general one, common to many others, of adhering to the parliament during the rebellion. Having occasion to write to archbishop Usher in 1639, he unfortunately let fall a hint to the prejudice of Camden’s *' Britannia;“for, speaking of the time and pains he had spent in collecting materials for an accurate history of Great Britain, and of his being principally moved to this task, by observing the many mistakes of the common writers, he adds,” And indeed what can be expected from them, considering that, even in the so much admired ‘Britannia’ of Camden himself, there is not a page, at least hardly a page, without errors?“This letter of his afterwards coming to light, among other epistles to that learned prelate, drew upon him the heaviest censures. Smith, the writer of the Latin life of Camden, assures us, that his” Britannia“was universally approved by all proper judges, one only, sir Symonds D'Ewes, excepted; who,” moved,“says he,” by I know not what spirit of envy, gave out that there was scarce a page,“&c. Nicolson, in his account of Camden’s work, says, that” some early attempts were made by an envious person, one Brook or Brookmouth, to blast the deservedly great reputation of this work but they perished and came to nothing; as did likewise the terrible threats given out by sir Symonds D'Ewes, that he would discover errors in every page.“Bishop Gibson has stated the charge against this gentleman more mildly, in his Life of Camden, prefixed to the English translation of his Britannia.” In the year 1607,“says the bishop,” he put the last hand to his Britannia, which gained him the titles of the Varro, Strabo, and Pausanias of Britain, in the writings and letters of other learned men. Nor did it ever after meet with any enemies that I know of, only sir Symonds D‘Ewes encouraged us to hope for animadversions upon the work, after he had observed to a very great man, that there was not a page in it without a fault. But it was only threatening; and neither the world was the better, nor was Mr. Camden’s reputation e’er the worse for it." Sir Symonds was certainly not defensible for throwing out at random, as it should seem, such a censure against a work universally well received, without ever attempting to support it; yet some have excused him by saying that this censure was contained in a private letter; and that sir Symonds had a high sense of Camden’s merit, whom he mentions very respectfully in the preface to his Journals, &c.

Father Simon speaks advantageously of the writings of Lewis de Dieu in the 35th chapter of his “Critical History of the Commentators on the New Testament.” The estimation in which he was held by archbishop Usher, appears from the Letters of that excellent prelate, published by Dr. Parr. The titles of his learned writings are, 1. “Compendium Grammatica; Hebraicae,” Leyden, 1626, 4to. 2. “Apocalypsis S. Joanna Syriace ex manuscripto exemplari bibliothecce Jos. Scaligeri edita, &c.” Leyden, 1627, 4to. 3. “Grammatica trilinguis, Hebraica, Syriaca, et Chaldaica,” ibid. 1628, 4to. 4. “Animadversiones in quatuor evangelia,” ibid. 1631, 4to. 5. “Animadversiones in Acta Apostolorum,” ibid. 1634, 4to. 6. “Historia Christi et S. Petri Persice conscripta, &c.” ibid. 1639, 4to. 7. “Rudimenta linguae Persictc,” ibid. 1639, 4to. 8. “Animadversiones in Epistolam ad Romanes et reliquas Epistolas,” ibid. 1646, 4to. 9. “Animadversiones in omnes libros Veteris Testamenti,” ibid. 1648. 10. “Critica Sacra, sive animadversiones in loca qucedam difficiliora Veteris et Novi Testamenti,” Amst. 1693, folio. 11. “Grammatica Linguarum Orientalium ex recensione Davidis Clodii,” Francfort, 1683, 4to, in which the editor has collected all that De Dieu had published on the grammar of the Eastern languages. 12. “Aphorismi Theologi,” Utrecht, 1693. This and the two following were edited by professor Leydecker of Utrecht. 13. “Traite co‘ntre l’avarice, par Louis de Dieu, qui est le seul de tous ses ouvrages Flamans qu‘il ait souhaite qu’on publiat.” Deventer, 1695, 8vo. 14. “Khetorica Sacra.”

After a long stay in France, where he was highly caressed, he came over to England; and in 1639 was, with sir Walter Montague, employed by the queen to engage the papists to a liberal contribution to the king, which they effected; on which account some styled the forces then raised for his majesty, the popish army. Jan. 1640, the house of commons sent for sir Kenelm in order to know how far, and upon what grounds, he had acted in. this matter; which he opened to them very clearly, without having the least recourse to subterfuges or evasions. Upon the breaking out of the civil war, being at London, he was by the parliament committed prisoner to Winchesterhouse; but at length, in 1643, set at liberty, her majesty the queen dowager of France having condescended to write a letter, with her own hand, in his favour. His liberty was granted upon certain terms; and a very respectful letter written in answer to that of the queen. Hearne has preserved a copy of the letter, directed to the queen regent of France, in the language of that country; of which the following is a translation: “Madam, the two houses of parliament having been informed by the sieur de Gressy, of the desire your majesty has that we should set at liberty sir Kenelm Digby; we are commanded to make known to your majesty, that although the religion, the past behaviour, and the abilities of this gentleman, might give some umbrage of his practising to the prejudice of the constitutions of this realm; nevertheless, having so great a regard to the recommendation of your majesty, they have ordered him to be discharged, and have authorized us farther to assure your majesty, of their being always ready to testify to you their respects upon every occasion, as well as to advance whatever may regard the good correspondence between the two states. We remain your majesty’s most humble servants, &c.” In regard to the terms upon which this gentleman was set at liberty, they will sufficiently appear from the following paper, entirely written, as well as subscribed by his own hand: “Whereas, upon the mediation of her majesty the queen of France, it hath pleased both houses of parliament to permit me to go into that kingdom; in humble acknowledgement of their favour therein, and to preserve and confirm a good opinion of my zeal and honest intentions to the honour and service of my country, I do here, upon the faith of a Christian, and the word of a gentleman, protest and promise, that I will neither directly nor indirectly negociate, promote, consent unto or conceal, any practice or design prejudicial to the honour or safety of the parliament. And, in witness of my reality herein, I have hereunto subscribed my name, this 3d day of August, 1643, Kenelm Digby.” Hovfever, before he quitted the kingdom, he was summoned by a committee of the house of commons, in order to give an account of any transactions he might be privy to between archbishop Laud and the court of Rome; and particularly as to an offer supposed to be made to that prelate from thence of a cardinal’s hat. Sir Kenelm assured the committee that he knew nothing of any such transactions; and that, in his judgment, the archbishop was what he seemed to be, a very sincere and learned protestant. During his confinement at Winchester-house, he was the author of two pieces at the least, which were afterwards made public; namely, 1. “Observations upon Dr. Browne’s Religio Medici,” 1643. 2. “Observations on the 22d stanza in the 9th canto of the 2d book of Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” 1644, containing, says his biographer, “a very deep philosophical commentary upon these most mysterious verses.” His appearance in France was highly agreeable to many of the learned in that kingdom, who had a great opinion of his abilities, and were charmed with the spirit and freedom, of his conversation. It was probably about this time that, having read the writings of Descartes, he resolved to go to Holland on purpose to see him, and found him in his retirement at Egmond. There, after conversing with him. upon philosophical subjects some time, without making himself known, Descartes, who had read some of his works, told him, that “he did not doubt but he was the famous sir Kenelm Digby!” “And if you, sir,” replied the knight, “were not the illustrious M. Descartes, I should not have come here on purpose to see you.” Desmaizeaux, who has preserved this anecdote in his Life of St. Evremond, tells us also of a conversation which then followed between these great men, about lengthening out life to the period of the patriarchs, which we have already noticed in our account of Descartes. He is also said to have had many conferences afterwards with Descartes at Paris, where he spent the best part of the ensuing winter, and employed himself in digesting those philosophical treatises which he had been long meditating; and which he published in his own language, but with a licence or privilege from the French king the year following. Their titles are, J. “A Treatise of the nature of Bodies.” 2. “A Treatise declaring the operations and nature of Man’s Soul, out of which the immortality of reasonable Souls is evinced/' Both printed at Paris in 1644, and often reprinted at London. He published also, 3.” Institutionum peripateticarum libri quinque, curn appendice theologica de origine mundi," Paris, 1651: which piece, joined to the two former, translated into Latin by J. L. together with a preface in the same language by Thomas Albius, \hat is, Thomas White, was printed at London in 4to, 1C69.

, a Polish historian, was born in Ml 5, at Brzeznich, a town in Poland, of which his father was governor. In his sixth year, his father being appointed governor of Korczyn, he was removed thither with the family, and began his education, which was continued in the different places of which his father was successively appointed governor, until he was sent to Cracow. Here and at other places he pursued his studies, with very little encouragement from his father, but found a friend in Zbigneus, bishop of Cracow, who was a patron of learned men. This prelate first placed him at the head of his chancery, after that of his house, and at last made him general manager of his affairs; and he acquitted himself so much to the satisfaction of the bishop, that on his death-bed he appointed him one of his executors. He had also ordained him priest at the age of twenty-five, and gave him some church preferment, particularly the living of St. Martin of Klobuczk, and a canonry of Cracow. He was afterwards promoted to be chanter, and treasurer of the church of Vissicza, canon of Sendomir, and got some other preferments less considerable. The only use he made of the wealth arising from these benefices, was to share it with poorer clergymen of talents and character;. or to bestow it on the poor, on the repairs of churches, and other pious purposes. Eugene IV. having appointed Zbigneus to the dignity of cardinal, and several impediments being thrown in the way of this preferment, Dlugoss went to Rome in 1449, and had these difficulties removed. Pope Nicholas V. employed him to carry the cardinal’s cap to the bishop, which he had the honour to put on his head in the cathedral of Cracovr, in the same year. In 1450 he took a journey to the land of Palestine, where he contemplated with veneration the places dignified by being the site of Scripture history. On his return to Poland, king Casimir IV. appointed him tutor to his sons, which office he filled for many years with great reputation. On the death of his early patron, cardinal Zbigneus, in April 1455, Dlugoss was accused by the brother of the deceased for having abused his confidence, a charge which he had little difficulty in repelling, but was less successful with the king, whose displeasure he incurred by espousing the cause of an ecclesiastic whom the pope had nominated bishop of Cracow, while the king had nominated another; and for this slight reason Dlugoss was exiled for the space of three years; at the end of which, however, he was recalled, and his majesty restored him to his favour, and not only consulted him on many public affairs of importance, but employed him to negociate in various parts of Europe, on matters respecting the interests of Poland. At length he was appointed archbishop of Leopold, but died before his consecration, May 29, 1480. His principal historical work is entitled “Historia Polonica,” the first volume of which was printed in 1615, fol. This edition, which is of rare occurrence, is one of the few scarce books which proceed from the private press of Herburt of Dobromil, It contains, however, only the first six books, bringing the history down to 1240; the rest remained in manuscript until 1711, when they were printed at Francfort, along with the preceding, under the title “J. Dlugossi historiie Polonicoe Hbri duodecim, &c.” This hrings the history down to 1444, but a continuation was published by J. G. Krause, which he called the thirteenth book, at Leipsic, 1712, folio, and which extends to 1480, the year of the author’s death. He is esteemed a very correct historian, although not free from the barbarism of his age. His other works are, 1. “Vita St. Stanislai episcopi et martyns,” Cracow, 1611 and 1666. 2. “Plocensium episcoporuin vita 1” which is inserted in “Stanislai Lubienski opera posthum^,” Antwerp, 1643, fol. 3.“Vitae episcoporum Postnajiiensium,” 1G'24, 4to and some other lives of bishops.

Dr. Squire, who in 1760 was made bishop of St. David’s, had published the year before a work entitled “Indifference for Religion inexcusable:” on the appearance of which, Dodd wrote a sonnet, and addressed it to the author, who was so well pleased with this mark of his attention, that in 1761 he made him his chaplain, and in 1763 procured for him a prebend of Brecon. He also egregiously flattered this prelate in “The Public Ledger,” in which he then wrote: and about the same time he is supposed to have defended the measures of administration, in some political pieces. From 1760 to 1767 he superintended and contributed largely to “The Christian’s Magazine,” for which he received from the proprietors 100l. yearly. By all these employments and contrivances he earned money enough to support a man of moderate expences; but a very considerable fortune would have been too small for the luxurious style of living in which he delighted to indulge, and which in him may have been reckoned original, as he never lived in any situation where he could have acquired the habit.

, archbishop of York, was a prelate of considerable worth, abilities, and eminence, in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. a man who, to the courage and fidelity which had first deserved a military reward, united all those talents and qualifications which could justify his subsequent advancement to the honours of the church. He was born at Stanwick, in Northamptonshire, March 20, 1625, being the fifth in descent from William Dolben of Denbighshire; and descended from an ancient family of that name, settled at Segrayd, in the same county. Dr. William Dolben, the father of the archbishop, was at that time rector of Stanwick, and of Benefield, to both of which he was instituted in one day; and prebendary of Lincoln, through the interest of the lord keeper Williams, whose niece Elizabeth Williams he had married. Few marriages have been more fortunate in their issue: besides the subject of the present article, their second son William proved highly eminent in the profession to which he was educated. He became recorder of London, received the honour of knighthood, and in 1678 was appointed one of the judges in the court of common pleas. In 1683 he was removed from that situation, very highly to his honour, being the only judge that gave his opinion against the legality of dissolving corporations by quo warranto. His rank was justly restored by king William; who, in 1689, appointed him a judge of the king’s bench; and in that station he remained till his death, which happened in 1693, the 65th year of his age. He was buried in the Temple church, and left a character of high estimation for strict integrity, and the most penetrating discernment. Dr. William Dolben, however, neither lived to see the eminence of his sons, nor to complete his own career of advancement; for he died in 1631, when his eldest son John was only six years old, being himself nominated, at the time, for the succession to a vacant bishopric, but his death produced an affecting testimony to his merit, of no small value in the moral estimate , of honours. This was conferred by his parishioners of Stanwick, by whom he was so sincerely beloved, that on his falling ill at London of the sickness which proved fatal to him, they plowed and sowed his glebe lands at their own expence, that his widow might have the benefit of the crop which she accordingly received after his decease; an anecdote more felt and valued by his family than any thing that usually adorns the page of the biographer.

, archbishop of Spalato in Dalmatia, was born about 1561, at Arba, and educated at Padua. He was remarkable for a fickleness in religious matters, which at length proved his ruin; otherwise he was a man of great abilities and learning. He was entered early amongst the Jesuits, but left that society to be bishop of Segni, and afterwards archbishop of Spalato but instead of growing more firmly attached to the church of Rome on account of his preferment, he became every day more and more disaffected to it. This induced him to write his famous books “De Republica Ecclesiastica,” which were afterwards printed in London; and in which he aimed a capital blow at the papal power. These books were read over and corrected, before publication, by our bishop Bedell, who was then at Venice in quality of chaplain to sir Henry Wotton, ambassador there from James I. De Dominis coming to Venice, and hearing a high character of Bedell, readily discovered his secret, and commuicated his copy to him. Bedell took the freedom he allowed him, of correcting many improper applications of texts in scripture, and quotations of fathers: for that prelate, being ignorant of the Greek tongue (a common thing in those days even amongst the learned), had committed many mistakes both in the one and the other. De Dominis took all this in very good part, entered into great familiarity with Bedell, and declared his assistance so useful, and indeed so necessary to him, that he could, as he used to say, do nothing without him.

At this period of our history, it was deemed expedient to select such men for high offices in the church, as promised by their abilities and zeal to vindicate the reformed religion. King James, who was no incompetent judge of such merit, though perhaps too apt to measure the talents of others by his own standard, conceived from a perusal of the “Pseudo-Martyr,” that Donne would prove an ornament and bulwark to the church, and therefore not only endeavoured to persuade him to take orders, but resisted every application to exert the royal favour towards him in any other direction. When the favourite earl of Somerset requested that Mr. Donne might have the place of one of the clerks of the council, then vacant, the king replied, *' I know Mr. Donne is a learned man, has the abilities of a learned divine, and will prove a powerful preacher, and my desire is to prefer him that way, and in that way I will deny you nothing for him." Such an intimation must have made a powerful impression, yet there is no reascn to conclude from any part of Mr. Donne’s character, that he won I'd have been induced to enter the church merely by the persuasion of his sovereign, however flattering. To him, however, at this time, the transition was not difficult. He had relinquished the follies of youth, and had nearly outlived the remembrance of them. His studies had long inclined to theology, and his frame of mind was adapted to support the character expected from him. His oldfriend Dr, Morton probably embraced this opportunity to second the king’s wishes, and remove Mr. Donne’s personal scruples; and Dr. King, bishop of London, who had been chaplain to the chancellor when Donne was his secretary, and consequently knew his character, heard of his intention with much satisfaction. By this prelate he was ordained deacon and afterwards priest; and the king, although not uniformly punctual in his promises of patronage, immediately made him his chaplain in ordinary, and gave him hopes of higher preferment.

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

This learned prelate enjoyed a very high share of reputation during a very long life. He was, if not one of the most profound, one of the most general scholars in the kingdom, and the range of his information was most extensive. Nor was he more an enlightened scholar, than a warm friend to men of learning and genius; in private life, he was amiable, communicative, and interesting in his conversation and correspondence. As a divine, if he took no distinguished part in the controversies of the times, he evinced by his “Criterion,” his detection of Lauder, and his controversy with Bower, what a formidable antagonist he could have proved, and what an unanswerable assertor of truth. His character likewise stood high for fidelity and a conscientious discharge of the public duties of his station., and when not employed in the pulpit, for always countenancing public worship by his presence. His punctuality in this last respect is still remembered by the congregations of St. Faith’s and St. Paul’s. In a word, as his talents recommended him in early life to patronage, so he soon demonstrated that he wanted only to be better known to be thought deserving of the highest preferments.

, an English prelate, was the second son of George Henry, seventh earl of Kinnoul, and Abigail, youngest daughter of Robert Harley, earl of Oxford and Mortimer, lord high treasurer of Great Britain. He was born in London, Nov. 10, 1711, and after being educated at Westminster school, was admitted student of Christ church, Oxford, where he prosecuted his studies with great diligence and credit. When he had taken his first degree in arts, he accompanied his cousingerman, Thomas duke of Leeds, on a tour to the continent. From that he returned in 1735 to college, to pursue the study of divinity; the same year, June 13, he was admitted M. A. and soon after entered into holy orders, and was presented by the Oxford family to the rectory of Bothall in Northumberland; and in 1737, by the recommendation of queen Caroline, was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty. In 1739 he assumed the name and arms of Drummond, as heir in entail of his great grandfather William, first viscount of Strathallan. In 1743, he attended the king abroad, and on his return was installed prebendary of Westminster, and in 1745 was admitted B. D. and D. D. In 1748 he was promoted to the see of St. Asaph; a diocese where his name will ever be revered, and which he constantly mentioned with peculiar affection and delight, as having enjoyed there for thirteen years, a situation most congenial to his feelings, and an extent of patronage most gratifying to his benevolent heart.

In 1753 when a severe attack was made on the political character of his two intimate friends Mr. Stone and Mr. Murray, afterwards the great earl of Mansfield, the bishop vindicated his old school-fellows before a committee of the privy council, directed to inquire into the charge, with that persuasive energy of truth, which made the king exclaim on reading the examination, “That is indeed a man to make a friend of.” In May 1761 he was translated to the see of Salisbury, and when archbishop of York elect, in which dignity he was enthroned in the November following, he preached the coronation sermon of their present majesties, and soon after became lord high almoner, and a member of the privy council. In the former office he rectified many abuses, and rendered it more extensively beneficial, by preventing the royal bounty from being considered as a fund to which persons of high n;nk and opulence could transfer any just claims on their own private generosity. On one occasion, when applied to by a very rich peer in behalf of two of his cousins, he replied, “that he was sorry to say that the very reason which would induce himself to assist them, prevented his considering them as objects of his majesty’s charity their near relationship to his lordship.” His conduct in the metropolitan see of York is described with great spirit and truth by Mr. llastal, the topographer of Southwell, who styles him “peculiarly virtuous as a statesman, attentive to his duties as a churchman, magnificent as an archbishop, and amiable as a man.” This character appears to be confirmed by all who knew him. As a statesman he acted upon manly and independent principles, retiring from parliament in 1762, when new men and measures were promoted, averse, in his opinion, to that system of government under which the country had so long flourished. When, however, any question was introduced, in which the interference of a churchman was proper, he was sedulous in his attendance, and prompt in delivering his sentiments. His munificence in his see deserves to be recorded. When he was translated to York, he found the archiepiscopal palace, small, mean, and incommodious; and the parish church in a state of absolute decay. To the former he made many splendid additions, particularly in the private chapel. The latter he rebuilt from its foundation, with the assistance of a small contribution from the clergyman of the parish, and two or three neighbouring gentlemen. He died at his palace at Bishopsthorpe, Dec. 10, 1776, in the 66th year of his age, and was buried by his own desire, in a very private manner, under the altar of the church. Although his literary attainments were very considerable, he published only six occasional sermons, which were much admired, and of which his son, rev. George Hay Drummond, M. A. prebendary of York, published a correct edition in 1803: to this edition are prefixed “Memoirs of the Archbishop’s Life,” and it also contains “A Letter on Theological Study,” addressed to the son of an intimate friend, then a candidate for holy orders, which evinces an intimate acquaintance with many of the best writers on theological subjects. His own principles appear to have been rather more remote from those contained in the articles and homilies than could have been wished, because they are thereby not so consistent with some of the writers whom he recommends; and he speaks with unusual freedom of certain doctrines which have been held sacred by some of the wisest and best divines of the established church. Of the “Memoirs” prefixed to this new edition of his Sermons, we have availed ourselves in this brief record of a prelate whose memory certainly deserves to be rescued from oblivion. His Sermons are composed in an elegant and classical style, and contain many admirable passages, and much excellent advice on points of moral and religious practice.

, bishop of Olmutz in Moravia, in the sixteenth century, was bora at Piltzen in Bohemia, and died Sept. 6, 1553, with the reputation of a pious and enlightened prelate. The funclions of the episcopate did not prevent him from being ambassador in Silesia, afterwards in Bohemia, and president of the chamber instituted for trying the insurgents who had been concerned in the troubles of Smalkalde. Dubraw is the author of several works: the principal of which is a History of Bohemia in 33 books; executed with fidelity and accuracy. The best editions are those of 1575, with chronological tables; and that of 1688, at Francfort, augmented with the history of Bohemia by Æneas Sylvius. The first edition of 1552 is uncommonly rare, as a small number only were printed for distribution among the author’s friends.

, an eminent prelate, was born Feb. 6, 1533, at Buda, and educated by his uncle, who was bishop of Vaccia, or Veitzen, and out of respect to him he took the name of Shardellet. In 1560 the emperor Ferdinand II. admitted Dudith into his council, and appointed him bishop of Tina. He was sent soon after to the council of Trent, in the name of the emperor, and all the Hungarian clergy; and there made a very eloquent speech, April 9, 1568, which was heard with great pleasure. But this was not the case with another speech which he delivered in that place on July 6; for, though he shewed great zeal for the pope, and exclaimed strongly against Luther, yet he expressed himself so freely, both there and in his common conversation, on the necessity of episcopal residence, and in favour of marriage among the clergy, and administering the cup in the sacrament, that the legates, apprehensive of his drawing many prelates to his opinion, wrote to the pope, informing him, that Dudith was a dangerous man, and that it was necessary he should leave Trent. Upon tnis the pope solicited the emperor to recall him, which he accordingly did: but Ferdinand, far from blaming his conduct, rewarded it with the bishopric of Chonat, and soon after gave him that of five churches. This prince dying 1564, Dudith was sent by Maximilian II. into Poland, whither he nad been sent before by Ferdinand, and privately married lleyna Strazzi, maid of honour to the queen, resigning his bishopric. Rome cited him, excommunicated him, and even condemned him to the flames as an heretic, yet he despised her threats, and remained in security. After the death of his first wife, by whomhehadthreechildren, he married in 1579, a lady descended from an illustrious Polish family, widow of count John Zarnow, and sister of the famous Sborowits, by whom also he had children. Dudith, at length, openly professed the reformed religion, and even became a Socinian, according to most authors, particularly of the modern school^ who seem proud of their convert; but the fact is denied by the writer of his life, who, on the contrary, asserts, he disputed strongly against Socinus. He then settled at Breslaw in Silesia, where he died February 23, 1589, aged 56. Dudith, according to the representations both of his friends and enemies, was a handsome well-made man, of a peaceable disposition; civil, affable, regular in his conduct, very charitable to the poor, and benevolent towards all mankind. He had a taste for the classics, and so great a veneration for Cicero, that he wrote all that orator’s works, three times over, with his own hand. He likewise understood several languages, and was well acquainted with history, philosophy, mathematics, physic, law, and divinity. He left a great number of works: the principal are, “Dissertationes de Cometis,” Utrecht, 1665, 4to; two discourses, delivered at the council of Trent; an apology for the emperor Maximilian II. &c. published with other tracts, and his Life by Reuter, 1610, 4to. He published also, the Life of cardinal Pole, translated from the Italian of Beccatelli. Several of Dudith’s letters and poems occur in the collections.

In 1588, when the nation was alarmed with the apprehensions of the Spanish armada, lord Leicester was made lieutenant-general, under the queen, of the army assembled at Tilbury. This army the queen went to review in person, and there made this short and memorable speech “I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns: and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time my lieutenant-general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but, by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.” In such high favour did this noble personage stand to the last: for he died this year, Sept. 4, at his house at Cornbury in Oxfordshire, while he was upon the road to Kenilworth. His corpse was removed to Warwick, and buried there in a magnificent manner. He is said to have inherited the parts of his father. His ambition was great, but his abilities seem to have been greater. He was a finished courtier in every respect; and managed his affairs so nicely, that his influence and power became almost incredible. He differed with archbishop Grindal, who, though much in confidence of the queen, was by him brought first into discredit with her, and then into disgrace; nay, to such a degree was this persecution carried, that the poor prelate desired to lay down his archiepiscopal dignity, and actually caused the instrument of his resignation to be drawn: but his enemies, believing he was near his end, did not press the perfecting of it, and so he died, with his mitre on his head, of a broken heart. This shews the power the earl had in the church, and how little able the first subject of the queen was to bear up against his displeasure, though conceived upon none of the justest motives .

, 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.

, successively bishop of Worcester and Salisbury, was born at York in the year 1601, and entered of Merton-college, Oxford, in 1620, where hebecame M. A. in 1624, was senior proctor in 1631, and about that time was created chaplain to Philip earl of Pembroke, who presented him with the living of Bishopston, in Wiltshire. He was afterwards appointed chaplain and tutor to prince Charles, and chancellor of the cathedral of Salisbury. For his steady adherence to the royal cause, he was deprived of every thing he possessed, and at length was compelled to fly into exile with Charles II. who made him his chaplain, and clerk of the closet. He was intimate with Dr. Morley, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and lived with him a year at Antwerp, in sir Charles Cotterel’s house, who was master of the ceremonies; thence he went into France, and attended James, duke of York. On the restoration he was made dean of Westminster, and on Nov. 30, 1662, was consecrated bishop of Worcester, and in Sept of the following year, was removed to the see of Salisbury, on the translation of Dr. Henchman to London. In 1665 he attended the king and queen to Oxford, who had left London on account of the plague. Here he lodged in University-college, and died Nov. 17, of the same year. He was buried in Mertoncollege chapel, near the high altar, where, on a monument of black and white marble, is a Latin inscription to his memory. Walton sums up his character by saying that since the death of the celebrated Hooker, none have lived “whom God hath blest with more innocent wisdom, more sanctified learning, or a more pious, peaceable, primitive temper.” When the nonconformist clergy stepped forward to administer to the relief of the dying in the great plague, what is called the Five-mile Act was passed, forbidding them, unless they took an oath against taking up arms on any pretence whatever, &c. to come within five miles of any city or town. Our prelate before his death declared himself much against this act. Burnet, who informs us of this, adds, that “he was the man of all the clergy for whom the king had the greatest esteem.”