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

With the bishopric of Chichester, he was allowed to hold the rectory of Petworth, and having now a protection from his enemies, he applied himself closely to his favourite study of ecclesiastical history; and first published his “Originum Ecclesiasticarum Apparatus,” at Oxford, 1635, which was followed in 1636 by his “Originum Ecclesiasticarum, Tomus Primus,” Lond. fol. In 1638, on the promotion of Dr. Wren to Ely, bishop Mountagu was translated to Norwich. Although now in a bad state of health, from an aguish complaint, he continued his researches into ecclesiastical history, and published a second volume under the title of “Theanthropicon; seu de vita Jesu Christi originum ecclesiasticarum libri duo. Accedit Groecorum versio, et index utriusque partis,” Lond. 1640. He died April 13, 1641, and was interred in the choir of Morwich cathedral. * After his death appeared a posthumous work, “The Acts and Monuments of the Church before Christ incarnate,” 1642, fol. with the singularity of a dedication to Jesus Christ, in Latin, which he had himself prepared. In 1651 also was published his “Versio et notae in Photii epistolas,” Gr. Lat. fol.

Bishop Mountagu was allowed by his opponents to be a man of extensive learning, particularly in ecclesiastical history; but of a warm temper, and from his attachment to the writings of the fathers, holding some peculiar opinions, which were acceptable neither to churchmen or sectaries. Fuller says of him, that “his great parts were attended with a tartness of writing; very sharp the nib of his pen, and much gall in the ink, against such as opposed him. However, such the equability of this sharpness of his style, he was impartial therein: be he ancient or modern writer, papist or protestant, that stood in his way, they should equally taste thereof.” Selden was one of those against whom he exercised not a little of this sharpness of style; and yet, which is a considerable testimony in his favour, “he owns him to have been a man well skilled in ancient learning.”

, an eminent school -master, was descended from an ancient family in Cumberland. His father, William Mulcaster, resided at Carlisle, where, according to Wood, his son Richard was born. He was educated on the foundation at Eton, whence, in 1548, he gained his election to King’s college, Cambridge. Here he took no degree, but while scholar removed to Oxford; for what reason we know not. In 1555, he was elected student of Christ-Church; and, in the next year, was licensed to proceed in arts, and became eminent for his proficiency in Eastern literature. He began to be a teacher about 1559, and on Sept. 24, 1561, for his extraordinary accomplishments in philology was appointed the first master of Merchant Taylors’ school, then just founded; and he provided the first usher, and divided the boys into forms, &c. In this school he passed nearly twenty-six years; a severe disciplinarian, according to Fuller, but beloved by his pupils when they came to the age of maturity and reflected on the benefit they had derived from his care. Of these, bishop Andrews appears always to have preserved the highest respect for him, had his portrait hung over his study-door, behaved with great liberality to him, and by his will bequeathed a handsome legacy to his son. In April 1594, he was collated to the prebendal-stall of Gatesbury in the cathedral of Sarum; and, in 1596, he resigned the mastership of Merchant Taylors. The company were desirous that he should remain with them; but Fuller has recorded that he gave for answer, Fidelis semus, perpetuus asinus; and it appears from Mr. Wilson’s History that he had at last reason to think himself slighted . With his profession he certainly was not dissatisfied, nor, able to give it up for when he left the Merchant Taylors, he was chosen, in the same year, 1596, upper master of St. Paul’s School, in which office he remained for twelve years, and then retired to the rich rectory of StamfordRivers, in Essex, to which he had been instituted at the presentation of the queen. His retirement might also have been hastened by the loss of an affectionate wife, as well as by the decaying state of his own health; for, two years after putting up a plate with an inscription to her memory, in the church of Stamford, he died April 15, 1611, and was buried in the same church, but without any memorial.

In 1753, a most injurious attack was made upon Mr. Murray’s character on the following occasion: It had been said, that Dr. Johnson, a person then thought of for considerable preferment, and afterwards bishop of Worcester, a very intimate friend of Mr. Murray, was of Jacobitical principles, and had even drank the pretender’s health in a company near twenty years before. This story was thought of sufficient importance to induce Mr. Pelham, then minister, to write down to Newcastle to Mr. Fawcett, the recorder, who was the author of the story, to learn the truth. Mr. Fawcett answered this inquiry in an evasive manner; but, in a subsequent conversation with lord Ravensworth, added, that Mr. Murray and Mr. Stone had done the same several times. Lord Ravensworth thought, that, Mr. Stone holding an office about the prince, such a suggestion as to his loyalty and principles ought not to be slighted; and he made it so much a matter of conversation, that the ministry advised the king to have the whole information examined; and a proceeding was had in the council, and afterwards in, the House of Lords, for that purpose. When Mr. Murray heard of the committee being appointed to examine this idle affair, he sent a message to the king, humbly to acquaint him, that, if he should be called before such a tribunal on so scandalous and injurious account, he would resign his office, and would refuse to answer. It came, however, before the House of Lords, on the motion of the duke of Bedford, on Jan. 22, 1753, who divided the house upon it, but the house was not told; and thus ended a transaction, which, according to lord Melcombe, was “the worst judged, the worst executed, and the worst supported point, he ever saw of such expectation.”

, an eminent physician at Rome, acquired such reputation as to be appointed physician to the emperor Augustus, about 21 B. C. He is said to have been the first who prescribed the use of the cold bath; but whatever may be in this, he advised cold bathing and a cool regimen in the case of his imperial master, which effected the cure of many disorders with which Augustus had been previously afflicted, and made him a great favourite both with the emperor and the people. Little is Known of his history besides, and none of his writings have descended to posterity. The tract, printed among others on the materia medica at Basil in 1528 and 1549, “Libellus de Botanica,” and attributed to Musa, is thought to have been the production of a later pen. Bishop Atterbury, in a letter to Dr. Freind, endeavours to prove that the lapis mentioned by Virgil (Eneid XII. 391) was our Musa; but Dr. Templeman and others have differed from him in this opinion, for reasons which cannot easily be rejected.

During his exile he employed his time in writing his history, which was printed at Venice, 1636, fol. under the title “Historia Augusta Henrici VII. Imp. et alia quse extant opera, cum notis Laur. Pignorii, &c. additis aliis rerum Tarvisianarum et Patavinarum scriptoribus.” This history is written in Latin, and with much judgment and regard to truth. Had his style been equal, he would have deserved the appellation which some bestowed upon him, that of being the second Livy of Padua. Of this history there are three books written in heroic verse, on the subject of the siege of Padua. His prose style, although, as we have just hinted, not unexceptionable on. the score of purity, was yet the best that had appeared since the decline of letters; and Scipio Maffei goes so far as to say that the restoration of the purity of the Latin language was not so much owing to Petrarch, which is the general opinion, as to Mussato, who died thirty-five years before Petrarch. Mussato’s poetical works consist of eclogues, elegies, epistles in verse, and an Ovidian Cento. He also wrote two tragedies in Latin, the first that had appeared in Italy, the one entitled “Eccerinis,” the other “Achilles.” Jn these he imitates the manner of Seneca, and with success, but some critics object to the model. They are, with his other works, reprinted in the “Thesaurus Histor. Ital.” vol. VI. part II. Muratori, in his “Script. Rer. Ital.” vol. X. has given only his historical writings, and the tragedy of “Eccerinis.” Scardonius, in his “Antiquities of Padua,” p. 130, relates that Mussato was so highly honoured, that the bishop of Padua gave him a laurel crown, and issued an edict, that on every Christmas Day, the doctors, regents, and professors of the two colleges in that city, should go to his house in solemn procession with wax tapers in their hands, and offer him a triple crown honours which he appears to have well merited, both as a scholar and patriot.

Immediately after completing the bridge, he was appointed surveyor of St. Paul’s cathedral, by the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, and the lord-mayor; and not only directed the repairs that have been found necessary in that noble fabrick, but those temporary erections required by the anniversaries of the sons of the clergy, and that most interesting spectacle, the annual assemblage of the charity-children of the metropolis, as well as those more elegant preparations made for the visits of the royal family and the two houses of parliament in 1789, 1797, &c. &c. It was by his suggestion that the noble inscription in honour of sir Christopher Wren, ending, “Si monumentum requiras,” &c. was placed over the entrance of the choir. Among the other edifices which Mr. Mylne erected, or was concerned in the repairs, we may enumerate Rochester cathedral, Greenwich hospital, of which he was clerk of the works for fifteen years Kings- Weston, the seat of lord De Clifford Blaze castle, near Bristol Addington, the seat of the archbishop of Canterbury; Wormlybury, sir Abraham Hume’s; Lying-in hospital, City road the duke of Northumberland’s pavillion, on the banks of the Thames at Sion general Skene’s house, in Fifeshire lord Frederic Campbell’s at Ardincaple; Inverary castle, the duke of Argyle’s; the embankment at the Temple gardens, &c. &c. He was also consulted on almost all the harbours in England. Mr. Milne died, May 5, 1811, at the New River Head, where he had long resided, as engineer to that company; an office to which he was appointed in 1762. He was interred, by his own desire, in St. Paul’s cathedral, near the tomb of his illustrious predecessor, Wren.

, a learned divine and antiquary, was born in 1740, at Norwich, of reputable parents. His father, who was of a Scotch family, had his son’s grammatical education completed at Amsterdam. Thence he was removed to Bene't college, Cambridge, where his ingenuous and open temper gained him the love and esteem of the whole society, who elected him a fellow, after he had taken his degree of B. A. in 1764. In 1767 he took the degree of M. A. and was frequently honoured for his application and proficiency in every branch of academic studies. Having entered into holy orders, he served the sequestration of Hinxton in Cambridgeshire for some years, to which he was presented by bishop Mavvson, and was junior proctor of the university in 1771. He was afterwards elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and became one of his majesty’s justices of peace for the county of Cambridge. In this situation he was eminently conspicuous for his correct knowledge and mild administration of the laws; and he filled the office of chairman at the sessions of Cambridge and Ely with moderation, justice, and impartiality, at once distinguishing himself as the gentleman, the lawyer, and the divine.

Having been early engaged to a daughter of Mr. Salmon, a clergyman near Norwich, and sister to Mr. Salmon, a fellow of his own college, and then chaplain to one of our factories in the East Indies, he accepted the rectory of St. Mary Abchurch in London, in 1773, which Mr. Forster had vacated by preferment in Devonshire. This, however, he held only about a year, when, by permission of the college and the bishop of Ely, he exchanged it for Snailwell in Cambridgeshire, with Dr. John Warren, afterwards bishop of Bangor. He took his degree of D. D. in 1797. His last preferment was the rectory of Leveringtori, in the Isle of Ely, where he died Oct. 16, 1808, in the sixtyeighth year of his age.

From this time he published only five occasional sermons, till 1732, when the first volume of his “History of the Puritans” appeared; and continued to be published, the second volume in 1733, the third in 1736, and the fourth in 1738, in 8vo. Of the impartiality of this work various opinions were then and are still entertained. We have had repeated occasions to examine it, and we think it exhibits as much impartiality as could have been expected from a writer whose object was to elevate the character of the puritans and non-conformists, at the expence of the members of the established church. And when it was discovered that he represented the church of England as almost uniformly a persecuting church, it was not surprizing he should meet with answers from those who, in surveying the history of the puritans, when they became known by the name of non-conformists, considered that the ejected were at one time the ejectors; the right of the usurping powers in Cromwell’s time to throw down the whole edifice of the church, being the main principle on which the controversy hinges. Mr. Neal’s representation of that event, and of the sufferings of his brethren, first called forth the abilities of Dr. Maddox, bishop of St. Asaph, who published “A Vindication of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Church of England, as established in the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the injurious reflections of Mr. Neal’s first volume,” &c. 8vo. To this Mr. Neal replied in “A Review of the Principal Facts objected to in the first volume of the History of the Puritans.” The subject was then taken up by Dr. Zachary Grey, in “An Impartial Examination of the second volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans. In which the reflections of that author, upon king James I. and king Charles I. are proved to be groundless; his misrepresentations of the conduct of the prelates of those times, fully detected; and his numerous mistakes in history, and unfair way of quoting his authorities, exposed to public view,” 1736, 8vo. In 1737 and 1739, Dr. Grey published two more volumes, containing the same kind of examination of the third and fourth volumes of Neal’s History. Although Mr. Neal lived seven years after the appearance of Dr. Grey’s first volume in 1736, we are told that it was his declining state of health which prevented him from publishing a vindication. This task has been since attempted by Dr. Joshua Toulmin of Birmingham, in a new edition of Neal begun in 1793, and completed in 1797, 5 vols. 8vo; but we may repeat the opinion given in our account of Dr. Grey, that his and bishop Maddux’s volumes are still absolutely necessary to an impartial consideration of the subject.

, an Oxford divine, was born at Yeate, in Gloucestershire, in 1519, and was educated under the care of his uncle Alexander Belsire, who was afterwards first president of St. John’s college, at Winchester school. From this he was removed to New college, Oxford, in 1538, and admitted fellow in 1540. He also took his degree of M. A. and six years afterwards was admitted into holy orders. He was reckoned an able divine, but was most noted for his skill in Greek and Hebrew, on which account sir Thomas White, the founder of St. John’s college, encouraged him by a yearly pension often pounds. His adherence to the popish religion induced him to go to the university of Paris, during king Edward the Sixth’s reign, where he took his degree of bachelor of divinity. On his return during Mary’s reign, he held the rectory of Thenford in Northamptonshire, and became chaplain to bishop Bonner but on the accession of queen Elizabeth, according to Dodd, he suffered himself to be deprived of his spiritualities, retired to Oxford, and entered himself a commoner in Hart-hall. He had not been long here before he professed conformity to the newly-established religion, and in 1559 was appointed Hebrew professor of the foundation of Henry VIII. in which office he remained until 1569. When first appointed he built lodgings opposite Hart-hall, joining to the westend of New college cloister, which were for some time known by the name of Neal’s lodgings. During queen Elizabeth’s visit to the university in 1566, he presented to her majesty, a ms. now in the British Museum, entitled “Rabbi Davidis Kimhi commentarii super Hoseam, Joellem, Amos, Abdiam, Jonam, Micheam, Nahum, Habacuc, et Sophonian; Latine redditi per Thomam Nelum, Heb. linguae profess. Oxonii; et R, Elizabethse inscripti.” He presented also to her majesty a little book of Latin verses, containing the description of the colleges, halls, &c.; and a few days after exhibited a map of Oxford, with small views very neatly drawn with a pen by Bereblock. These views, with the verses, were published by Hearne at the end of “Dodwell de parma equestri.” The verses are in the form of a dialogue between the queen and the earl of Leicester, chancellor of the university, and are not wanting in that species of pedantic flattery so frequently offered to her majesty. Neal, however, was never a conformist irr his heart, and in 1569 either resigned, or being known to be a Roman catholic, was ejected from his professorship, and then retired to the village of Cassington near Oxford, where he lived a private and studious life. Wood can trace him no further, but Dodd says that he was frequently disturbed while at Cassington on account of his religion, and being often obliged to conceal, or absent himself, went abroad. The records of Doway mention that one Thomas Neal, an ancient clergyman, who had suffered much in prison in England, arrived there June 1, 1578, and returned again to England January 7, 1580. How long he lived afterwards is uncertain. He was certainly alive in 1590, as appears by an inscription he wrote for himself to be put upon his tomb-stone in Cassington church, which also states that he was then seventy-one years old. In the British Museum, among the royal Mss. is another ms. of his, entitled “Rabbinicae qusedam Observationes ex praedictis commentariis.” Wood speaks of one of his names, of Yeate in Gloucestershire, who dying in 1590, his widow had letters of administration granted, and adds, “whether it be meant of our author I cannot justly say, because I could never learn that he was married.” But nothing can be more improbable than the marriage of -a man who had suffered so much for a religion that prohibits the marriage of the clergy, and who was so inveterate against the reformed religion, that we are told the fable of the Nag’s-head ordination was first propagated by him.

, a celebrated bishop of the catholics in Holland, known by the title of bishop of Castoria, was born at Gorcum in 1626. He entered the congregation of the oratory at Paris, and, having finished his plan of education there, went to be professor of philosophy at Saumur, then of divinity at Mechlin, and was afterwards archdeacon of Utrecht, and apostolical provincial. James de la Torre, archbishop of Utrecht, being dead, M. de Neercassel was elected in his place by the chapter of that city; but, Alexander VII. preferring M. Catz, dean of the chapter of Harlem, they agreed between them, as a means to preserve peace, that M. Catz should govern the diocese of Harlem under the title of archbishop of Philippi, and M. de Neercassel that of Utrecht, under that of bishop of Castoria. This agreement being approved by the nuncio of Brussels, they were both consecrated in the same day at Cologn, September 9, 1662; but, M. Catz dying a year after, M. de Neercassel remained sole bishop of all the catholics in Holland, of which there were above four hundred thousand. He governed them with great prudence, and, after having discharged the duties of his office in the most exemplary manner, died June 8, 1686, aged sixty, in consequence of the fatigues attending the visitation of his churches. This prelate left three tracts in Latin, the first “On reading of the Holy Scriptures;” to which he has added a dissertation “On the Interpretation of Scripture;” the second “On the worship of the Saints and the Holy Virgin;” the third, enticed “Amor Prerii tens.” This last is a treatise on the necessity of the love of God in the sacrament of penitence. The two first have been translated into French by M. le Roy, abbot of Haute- Fontaine, 2 vols. 8vo, and the third by Peter Gilbert, a Parisian, 1741, 3 vols. 12mo. The best Latin edition of “Amor Pcenitens” is that of 1684, 2 vols. 8vo; the second part of the Appendix, which is in this edition, was written by M. Arnauld, and only approved by M. de Neercassel. The above three tracts having some expressions which were thought to favour the errors of Jansenius, an attempt was made to get the “Amor Prenitens” condemned at Rome but pope Innocent XL to whom the application was addressed, declared that “the book contained sound doctrine, and the author was a holy man.”

At th'e same time he engaged zealously in every public scheme for propagating the faith, and promoting the practice of true Christianity, both at home and abroad; and was eminently active in forwarding the building, repairing, and endowing churches, and establishing charity-schools, then a matter of very great importance in counteracting the seductions of the popish party. Nelson, we have remarked, was not fully decided in quitting the communion of the church of England; and upon the death of Dr. Lloyd, the deprived bishop of Norwich, in the end of 1709, he returned to it again. Dr. Lloyd was the last survivor of the deprived bishops, except Dr. Kenn, by whose advice Mr. Nelson was determined in this point. It had been a case in view some time, and had been warmly argued on both sides, whether the continuance of their separation from the church should be schismatical or no; and our author had some conferences upon it with Dr. Hickes, who was for perpetuating the nonjuring church, and charging the schism upon the church established .

Mr. Nelson’s tutor, Dr. George Bull, bishop of St. David’s, dying before the expiration of this year, he was easily prevailed upon, by that prelate’s son, to draw up an account of his father’s life and writings. He had maintained a long and intimate friendship with the bishop, which gave him an opportunity of being acquainted with his solid and substantial worth; had frequently sate at his feet, as he was a preacher, and as often felt the force of those distinguishing talents which enabled him to shine in the pulpit. But, above all, he had preserved a grateful remembrance of those advantages, which he had received, from him in his education and he spared no pains to embalm his memory. The life was published in 1713. He had, for some time, laboured under an asthma and dropsy in the breast; and the distemper grew to such a height soon after the publication of that work, that, for the benefit of the air, he retired at length to his cousin’s, Mrs. Wolf, daughter of sir Gabriel Roberts, a widow, who lived at Kensington, where he expired Jan. 16, 1714-15, aged fifty-nine .

He was interred in the cemetery of St. George’s chapel, now a parochial church, in Lamb’s-Conduit Fields, where a monument is erected to his memory, with a long and elegant Latin inscription, written by bishop Smalridge. He was the first person buried in this cemetery and being done to reconcile others to the place, who had taken an insurmountable prejudice against it, it had the desired effect. He published several works of piety, and left his whole estate to pious and charitable uses, particularly to charity-schools. A good portrait of him was given by Mr. Nichols, in 1779, to the Company of Stationers, and is placed in the parlour of their public hall. After the death of sir Berkeley Lucy, Mr. Nelson’s library was sold by auction in 1760, together with that of sir Berkeley, forming, united, a most extraordinary assemblage of devotion and infidelity. Several of Mr. Nelson’s original letters, highly characteristic of his benevolence, may be seen ia the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.”

His publications were, 1. “Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture; or, the Protestant’s Answer to the Seeker’s Request, 1688.” This was at the same time that his lady engaged on the popish side of the controversy. 2. “A. Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, 1704,” 8vo, and large impressions of it several times since. 3. “A Letter on Church Government, in answer to a pamphlet entitled The Principles of the Protestant Reformation,” 1705, 8vo. 4. “Great duty of frequenting the Christian Sacrifice,” &c. 1707, 8vo. Dr. Waterland observes, that, in this piece, our author, after Dr. Hickes, embraced the doctrine of a material sacrifice in the symbols of the eucharist, which was first stated among the protestants in 1635, by the famous Mede, and, having slept for some years, was revived by Dr. Hickes, in 1697. Waterland’s Christian Sacrifice explained,“&c. p. 37, 42d. edit. 1738, 8vo. 5.” The Practice of true Devotion, &c. with an office for the Communion,“1708, 8vo. 6.” Life of Bishop Bull,“&c. 1713, 8vo. 7.” Letter to Dr. Samuel Clarke,“prefixed to” The Scripture doctrine of the most holy and undivided Trinity vindicated against the misrepresentations of Dr. Clarke,“1713, 8vo. To this Clarke returned an answer; in which he highly extols Mr. Nelson’s courtesy and candour; which he had likewise experienced in a private conference with him upon this subject. 8.” An Address to Persons of Quality and Estate,“&c. 1715, 8vo. 9.” The whole Duty of a Christian, by way of question and answer, designed for the use of the charity-schools in and about London.“10. Thomas a Kempis’s Christian Exercise.” 11.“The archbishop of Cambray (Fenelon’s) Pastoral Letter.” 12. “Bishop Bull’s important points of Primitive Christianity maintained” and other posthumous pieces of that learned prelate.

, a Latin poet, was born at Carthage, and flourished about the year 281, under the emperor Carus, and his sons Carinus and Numerian; the last of whom was so fond of poetry, that he contested the glory with Nemesianus, who had written a poem upon fishing and maritime affairs. We have still remaining a poem of our author, but in an imperfect state, called “Cynegeticon,” and four eclogues; they were published by Paulus Manutius in 1538; by Berthelet in 1613, and at Leyden, in 1653, with the notes of Janus Vlitias. Giraldi hath preserved a fragment of Nemesianus, which was communicated to him by Sannazarius; to whom we are obliged for all our poet’s works: for, having found them written in Gothic characters, he procured them to be put into the Roman, and then sent them to Paulus Manutius. Although this poem has acquired some reputation, it is greatly inferior to those of Oppian and Gratian upon the same subject; yet Nemesianus’s style is natural, and not without some degree of elegance. Such was the reputation of this poem in the eighth century, that it was read among the classics in the public schools, particularly in the time of Charlemagne, as appears from a letter of the celebrated Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, to his nephew, of Laon. There was another poet of the same name and century, who wrote a piece termed “Ixeutica,” published in the “Poetse Rei Venaticae,” but of far inferior merit.

was a Greek philosopher, who embraced Christianity, and was made bishop of Emesa in Phoenicia, where he was born about the year 370. We have a piece by him, entitled “De Natura Hominis;” in which he refutes the fatality of the Stoics, and the errors of the Manichees, the Apollinarists, and the Eunomians: but he espouses the opinion of Origen concerning the pre-existence of souls. Brucker calls this treatise one of the most elegant specimens, now extant, of the philosophy which prevailed among the ancient Christians. The writer relates and examines the opinions of the Greek philosophers on the subject of his dissertation with great perspicuity of thought, and correctness of language. But the treatise is chiefly curious, as it discovers a degree of acquaintance with physiology, not to be paralleled in any other writers of this period. Brucker adds, that he treats clearly concerning the use of the bile, the spleen, the kidneys, and other glands of the human body, and seems to have had some idea of the circulation of the blood. But Brucker was not aware that his knowledge of this last discovery has been shewn to be a mistake by Dr. Freind, in his “History of Physic.” This treatise was translated by Valla, and printed in 1535. Another version was afterwards made of it by Ellebodius, and printed in 1665; it is also inserted into the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” in Greek and Latin. The last and best edition was published at Oxford, in 1671, 8vo.

, an ancient British historian, abbot of Bangor, is generally said to have flourished about the year 620, and to have taken refuge at Chester, at the time of the massacre of the monks at that monastery. This, however, has been controverted by Lloyd, who says that he flourished about the beginning of the ninth century; and bishop Nicolson says, that from his own book he appears to have written in that century. He was author of several works, but the only one remaining is his “Historia Britonum,” or “Eulogium Britanniæ,” which has been printed in Gale’s Hist. Brit. Scrip. Oxon. 1691. Great part of this work is supposed to have been compiled, or perhaps transcribed, from the history of one Elborus or Elvodugus. There, is a ms. of it in the Cottonian library, in the British Museum.

Nestor was successively followed by three annalists; the first was Sylvester, abbot of the convent of St. Michael at Kiof, and bishop of Perislaf, who died in 1123; he commences his “Chronicle” from 1115, only two years posterior to that of Nestor, and continues it to 1123; from which period a monk, whose name has not been delivered down to posterity, carries the history to 1157 and another, equally unknown, to 1203. With respect to these performances, Mr. Muller informs us, “the labours of Nestor, and his three continuators, have produced a connected series of the Russian history so complete, that no nation can boast a similar treasure for so long and unbroken a period.” We may add, likewise, from the same authority, that these annals record much fewer prodigies and monkish legends than others which have issued from the cloister in times so unenlightened.

, from whom the sect of the Nestorians derive their name, was born in Germanica, a city of Syria, in the fifth century. He was educated and baptized at Antioch, and soon after the latter ceremony withdrew himself to a monastery in the suburbs of that city. When he had received the order of priesthood, and began to preach, he acquired so much celebrity by his eloquence and unspotted life, that in the year 429 the emperor Theodosius appointed him to the bishopric of Constantinople, at that time the second see in the Christian church. He had not been long in this office before he began to manifest an extraordinary zeal for the extirpation of heretics, and not above five days after his consecration, attempted to demolish the church in which the Arians secretly held their assemblies. In this attempt he succeeded so far, that the Brians, grown desperate, set fire to the church themselves, and with it burnt some adjoining houses. This fire excited great commotions in the city, and Nestorius was ever afterwards called an incendiary. From the Arians he turned against the Novatians, but was interrupted in this attack by the emperor. He then began to persecute those Christians of Asia, Lydia, and Caria, who celebrated the feast of Easter upon the 14th day of the moon; and for this unimportant deviation from the catholic practice, many of these people were murdered by his agents at Miletum and at Sardis. The time, however, was now come when he was to suffer by a similar spirit, for holding the opinion that “the virgin Mary cannot with propriety be called the mother of God.” The people being accustomed to hear this expression, were much inflamed against their bishop, as if his meaning had been that Jesus was a mere man. For this he was condemned in the council of Ephesus, deprived of his see, banished to Tarsus in the year 435, whence he led a wandering life, until death, in the year 439, released him from farther persecution. He appears to have been unjustly condemned, as he maintained in express terms, that the Word was united to the human nature in Jesus Christ in the most strict and intimate sense possible; that these two natures, in this state of union, make but one Christ, and one person; that the properties of the Divine and human natures may both be attributed to this person; and that Jesus Christ may be said to have been born of a virgin, to have suffered and died: but he never would admit that God could be said to have been born, to have suffered, or to have died. He was not, however, heard in his own defence, nor allowed to explain his doctrine. The zealous Cyril of Alexandria (see Cyril) was one of his greatest enemies, and Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis^ one of the chief promoters of his doctrines, and the co-founder of the sect. In the tenth century the Nestorians in Chaldsea, whence they are sometimes called Chaldaeans, extended their spiritual conquest beyond mount Imaus, and introduced the Christian religion into Tartary, properly so called, and especially into that country called Karit, and bordering on the northern part of China. The prince f that country, whom the Nestorians converted to the Christian faith, assumed, according to the vulgar tradition, the name of John, after his baptism, to which he added the surname of Presbyter, from a principle of modesty; whence it is said, his successors were each of them called Prester John, until the time of Jenghis Khan. But Mosheim observes, that the famous Prester John did not begin to reign in that part of Asia before the conclusion of the eleventh century. The Nestorians formed so considerable a body of Christians, that the missionaries of Rome were industrious in their endeavours to reduce them under the papal yoke. Innocent IV. in 1246, and Nicolas IV. in 1278, used their utmost efforts for this purpose, but without success. Till the time of pope Julius III. the Nestorians acknowledged but one patriarch, who resided first at Bagdat, and afterwards at Mousul; but a division arising among them in 1551, the patriarchate became divided, at least for a time, and a new patriarch was consecrated by that pope, whose successors fixed their residence in the city of Ormus, in the mountainous part of Persia, where they still continue distinguished by the name of Simeon; and so far down as the seventeenth century, these patriarchs persevered in their communion with the church of Rome, but seem at present to have withdrawn themselves from it. The great Nestorian pontiffs, who form the opposite party, and look with a hostile eye on this little patriarch, have, since 1559, been distinguished by the general denomination of Elias, and reside constantly in the city of Mousul. Their spiritual dominion is very extensive, takes in a great part of Asia, and comprehends also within its circuit the Arabian Nestorians, and also the Christians of St. Thomas, who dwell along the coast of Malabar. It is observed, to the honour of the Nestorians, that of all the Christian societies established in the East, they have been the most careful and successful in avoiding a multitude of superstitious opinions and practices that have infected the Greek and Latin churches* About the middle of the seventeenth century the Romish missionaries gained over to their communion a small number of Nestorians, whom they formed into a congregation or church, the patriarchs or bishops of which reside in the city of Amida, or Diarbekir, and all assume the denomination of Joseph. Nevertheless, the Nestorians in general persevere, to our own times, in their refusal to enter into the communion of the Romish church, notwithstanding the earnest entreaties and alluring offers that have been made by the pope’s legate to conquer their inflexible constancy.

, an English divine, was born at Wotton, in the parish of Stanton Lacy, near Lud'low in Shropshire, in 1694, and was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1714. He appears then to have left college, and became schoolmaster of Spalding, and minor-canon of Peterborough, where he was a joint-founder of “The Gentleman’s Society,” and became its secretary. He was afterwards prebendary of Lincoln, archdeacon of Huntingdon in 1747, and rector of Alwalton in Huntingdonshire, where he died Feb. 3, 1757, aged sixty-three. There is an inscription to his memory against the West wall of the North transept, in which he is styled D. D. In 1727, he communicated to the Spalding Society “An Essay on the invention of Printing and our first Printers,” and bishop Rennet’s donation of books to Peterborough cathedral. In the first leaf of the catalogue (3 vols. in folio, written neatly in the bishop’s own hand) is this motto “Upon the dung-­hill was found a pearl. Index librorurn aliquot vetustiss. quos in commune bonum congessit W. K. dec. Petriburg. 1712.” These books are kept with dean Lockyer’s, in the library of Lady-chapel, behind the high altar, in deal presses, open to the vergers and sextons. In a late repair of this church, which is one of the noblest monuments of our early architecture, this benefactor’s tomb-stone was thrust and half-covered behind the altar, and nothing marks the place of his interment. Mr. Neve was chaplain to, and patronised by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, and published one sermon, being his first visitation-sermon, entitled “Teaching with Authority;” the text Matth. vii. 28, 29. Dr. Neve bore an excellent character for learning and personal worth. He married, for his second wife, Christina, a daughter of the rev. Mr. Greene, of Drinkstone, near Bury, Suffolk, and sister to lady Davers of Rushbrook. His son Timothy was born at Spalding, Oct. 12, 1724, and was elected scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, where he proceeded M. A. 1744; and in 1747 was elected fellow. In 1753, he took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in 1758, and on being presented by the college to the rectory of Geddington in Oxfordshire, resigned his fellowship in 1762. He was also presented by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, to the rectory of Middleton Btoney, in the same county. On the death of Dr. Randolph (father to the late bishop of London), in 1783, he was elected Margaret professor of divinity, at Oxford, and was installed prebendary of Worcester in April of that year. He was early a member of the Literary Society of Spalding. He died at Oxford Jan. 1, 1798, aged seventy-four, leaving a wife and two daughters.

, an eminent prelate, descended from a non-conformist family, was born at Barton-le-Clay, in Bedfordshire, April 10, 1729, and educated at Abingdon school. In 1745 he entered of Pembroke college, Oxford, but removed some time after to Hertford college, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1753, and became a tutor of considerable eminence. Among other pupils who preserved a high respect for his memory, was the late hon. Charles James Fox. In 1765 he took his degrees of B. D. and D. D. and was appointed chaplain to the earl of Hertford, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, who conferred on him, withiti a year, the see of Dromore. In 1775, he was translated to Ossoryj and in 1778 produced his first workj “An Harmony of the Gospels,” which involved him in a controversy with Dr. Priestley respecting the duration of our Lord’s ministry, Dr. Priestley confining it to one year, while the bishop extended its duration to three years and a half. In 1779 Dr. Newcome was translated to the see of Waterford; and in 1782 published “Observations on our Lord’s conduct as a divine Instructor, and on the excellence of his moral character.” This was followed, ia 1785, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the Twelve Minor Prophets,” 4to, and in 1788, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the prophet Ezekiel,” 4to. He published also about the same time “A Review of the chief difficulties in the Gospel history respecting our Lord’s Resurrection,” 4to, the purpose of which was to correct some errors in his “Harmony.” In 1792 he published at Dublin one of his most useful works, “Art historical view of the English Biblical translations; the expediency of revising by authority our present translation; and the means of executing such a work,” 8vo. Concerning the latter part of this scheme there are many differences of opinion, and in the learned prelate’s zeal to effect a new translation, he is thought, both in this and his former publications, to have been too general in his strictures on the old. He lived, however, to witness Dr. Geddes’s abortive attempt towards a new translation, and the danger of such a work falling into improper hands. For the historical part, the bishop is chiefly indebted to Lewis, but his arrangement is better, and his list of editions more easily to be consulted, and therefore more useful. Except a very valuable Charge, this was the last of Dr. Newcorae’s publications which appeared in his life-time. In January 1795 he was translated to the archbishopric of Armagh. He died at his house in St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Jan. 11, 1800, in the seventy-first year of his age; and was interred in the new chapel of Trinity college. Soon after his death was published his “Attempt towards revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant of Jesus Christ,” &c. The writer of his life in the Cyclopaedia says that this work “has been made the basis of an” Improved Version of the New Testament, published by a Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, &c.“much to the mortification, as we have heard, of some of the archbishop’s relatives;” nor will our readers fail to sympathize with them, when they are told that this “Improved version” is that which has been so ably and justly censured and exposed by the Rev. Edward Nares, in his “Remarks on the Version of the New Testament lately edited by the Unitarians,” &c. 1810, 8vo. Archbishop Newcome’s interleaved Bible, in four volumes folio, is in the library at Lambeth-palace. He was, unquestionably, an excellent scholar, and well-qualified for biblical criticism; but either his zeal for a new version, or his views of liberality, led him to give too much encouragement to the attempts of those witb whom he never could have cordially agreed, and who seem to consider every deviation from what the majority hold sacred, as an improvement.

At length a variety of circumstances concurred to wean him from the sea, and after having been for some time placed in a situation as tidewaiter at Liverpool, he applied with great diligence to his studies, and acquired a competent knowledge of the sacred languages, with a view to take orders in the church. In 1758 he had received a title to a curacy, but on application to the archbishop of York, Dr. Gilbert, was refused ordination, as it appeared that he had been guilty of some irregularities, such as preaching in dissenting meetings, or other places, without ordination of any kind. In April 1764, however, by dint of strong recommendation, and a professed attachment, which he ever most carefully preserved, to the doctrines and discipline of the church, he was ordained by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, to the curacy of Olney, and admitted into priest’s orders in June 1765. The living of Olney was at this time held by the celebrated angler, Moses Brown (see his article), a man who maintained the same evangelical sentiments as Mr. Newton, but had been under pecuniary difficulties, and was glad to accept the chaplaincy of Morden college, Blackheath, leaving the charge of his flock at Olney to Mr. Newton, who remained here for sixteen years.

Sir Isaac Newton was buried with great magnificence, at the public expence. On March 28, he lay in state in the Jerusalem -chamber, and was buried from thence in WesN minster-abbey, near the entry into the choir. The spot is one of the most conspicuous in the abbey, and had been previously refused to different noblemen who had applied for it. The pall was supported by the lord high chancellor, the dukes of Montrose and Roxborough, and the earls of Pembroke, Sussex, and Macclesfield, being fellows of the Royal Society. The hon. sir Michael Newton, knight of the Bath, was chief mourner, and was followed by some other relations, and some eminent persons intimately acquainted with sir Isaac. The office was performed by the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Bradford, attended by the prebendaries and choir. A magnificent monument was afterwards erected to his memory, in the abbey, and, by the munificence of the late Dr. Robert Smith, master of Trinity college, the antichapel of that college contains an admirable full-length statue of sir Isaac, by Roubilliac. Medals also were struck to his memory, one by Croker of our mint; one by Dassier of Geneva; and another by Roettiers in France. The only portrait for which he ever sat was by Kneller, and is, if we mistake not, in the collection of the duke of Rutland.

“He died at Lavendon Grange, extremely lamented by all the poor of that neighbourhood, to whom he was a kind benefactor, and by all his friends and acquaintance throughout the kingdom. Upon his death-bed, he ordered all his writings to be destroyed, as his worthy widow informed me; and she was a conscientious person. His friend, Dr t Hunt, advised her to be cautious, and to be sure she did not mistake his meaning, especially with regard to some articles. I also, to whom she paid a favourable regard, presumed to suggest the same caution. How far that good lady proceeded in the proposed destruction of the worthy doctor’s papers, I am not able to say; but do hitherto suppose she reduced them to ashes. Upon a vacancy of the public orator’s place at Oxford, Newton offered himself a candidate; but Digby Cotes, then fellow of All Souls-college, and afterwards principal of Magdalenhall, carried the point against him. Newton’s friends thought him to be by far the more qualified person for that eminent post; though orator Digby was also, I think, a man of worth as well as reputation. Newton survived him. Dr. Newton was well skilled in the modern foreign languages, as well as in the ancient ones of Greece and Rome. A well-polished gentleman, and, at the same time, a sincere Christian. He carried dignity in his aspect, but sweetened with great modesty, humility, and freedom of conversation. This I know, having carefully observed bim, and having always found him even and uniform, both in his temper and in his conduct. One thing comes novr into my mind. Being a guest for a night or two at his house at Lavendon, in the summer-1749, and in my way to Oxford and London, &c. I had much familiar and free discourse with him, and particularly upon the subject of a reasonable reform in some particulars relating to our ecclesiastical establishment a reform, to which he was a hearty welt- wisher. One evening, there being present his worthy vice-principal Mr. Saunders, and an ingenious young gentleman of fortune, a pupil of Saunders, the doctor was pleased to propose to us this question: What share are ifce to allow to Common Sense and Reason in matters of lieKgion? Those two gentlemen and myself being silent, he addressed himself particularly to me, who was, in pqiuT-qf age, superior to them both. I freely answered, that, in my poor opinion, the due exercise of common sense and reason^ and private judgment in all matters of religion, ought to be allowed to all Christians. He said, he was of the same mind. He read prayers in his family at Lavendon, morning and evening, being select parts of the public liturgy. On Wednesdays and Fridays the litany only. He appointed to his studious guests several separate apartments (being parlours) for private study, with pen, ink, and paper, for each, and the use of his library, which was near those apartments, &c. When Pelham was minister, that station corrupted the man, and made him like other ministers; for when he was asked why he did not place, in proper station, the able and meritorious Dr. Newton, he said, `How could I do it? he never asked me' forgetting his tutor. Mr. Pelham more than once employed Dr. Newton to furnish king’s speeches.” His foundation of Hertford-college, for which chiefly he is now remembered, was an unfortunate speculation, ft was preceded by some publications calculated to make known his opinions on academic education. The first of these, which appeared in 1720, was entitled “A Scheme of Discipline, with Statutes intended to be established by a royal charter for the education of youth in Hert-hall;” and in 1725, he drew up the statutes of Hertford -college, which he published in 1747. In 1726, or 1727, he published his “University Education,” which chiefly relates to the removal of students from one college to another, without the leave of their respective governors, or of the chancellor. This appears to have involved him in some unpleasant altercations with his brethren. His application, for a charter to take Hert-hall from under the jurisdiction of Exeter- college, and erect it into an independent college, occasioned a controversy between him and Dr. Conybeare, then rector of Exeter, and afterwards bishop of Bristol and dean of Christ church. In August 1740, however, he obtained the charter for raising Hert-hall into a perpetual college, for the usual studies; the society to consist of a principal, four senior fellows or tutors, eight junior fellows or assistants, eight probationary students, twenty-four actual students, and four scholars. He contributed an annuity of 55l. 6s. Sd. issuing out of his house at Lavendon, and other lands in that parish, to be an endowment for the four senior fellows at the rate of 13l. 6s. Sd. each yearly. He then purchased some houses in the neighbourhood of Hert-hall for its enlargement, and expended about 1500l. on building the chapel and part of an intended new quadrangle. Very few benefactors afterwards appeared to complete the establishment, which, by the aid of independent members subsisted for some years, but has of late gradually fallen off, and it is but within these few months that a successor could be found to the late principal Dr. Bernard Hodgson, who died in 1805. Dr. Newton’s radical error in drawing up the statutes, was his fixing the price of every thing at a maximum, and thus injudiciously overlooking the progress of the markets, as well as the state of society. He seems indeed to have been more intent on establishing a school upon rigid and ceconomical principles, than a college which, with equal advantages in point of education, should keep pace with the growing liberality and refinement of the age. Besides some single sermons, Dr. Newton published in answer to the learned Wharton on pluralities, a volume entitled “Pluralities indefensible,” 1744; and in 1752 issued “Proposals for printing by subscription 4000 copies of the Characters of Theophrastus, for the benefit of Hertford-college;” but this did not appear until a year after his death, when it was published by his successor Dr. William Sharp, in an 8vo volume. The produce to the college is said to have amounted to 1000l., which we much doubt, as the price was only six shillings each copy. In 1784, a volume of his “Sermons” was published by his grandson, S.Adams, LL. B. 8vo.

, an eminent English prelate, was born at Lichfield Jan. 1, 1704, N. S. His father, John Newton, was a considerable brandy and cyder merchant, a man of much industry and integrity; his mother was the daughter of Mr. Rhodes, a clergyman, and died when this, ber only son, was about a year old. He received the first part of his education in the free-school of Lichfield, which, at that time flourished greatly under the direction of Mr. Hunter, and at all times has sent forth several persons of eminence, from bishop Smalridge to Dr. Johnson When he was of an age to be sent out into the world, his father married a second wife, the daughter of the rev. Mr. Trebeck of Worcester, and sister to Dr. Trebeck, the first rector of St. George’s, Hanover-square; and by the advice of Pr. Trebeck, and the encouragement of bishop Smalrulge, young Newton was removed from Lichfield to Westminster school in 1717. Here he was placed at the lower- end of the fourth form, and the year following became a king’s scholar, being admitted into the college by the nomination of bishop Smalridge.

Mr. Newton continued six years at Westminster-school, five of which he passed in college, having stayed one year to be captain. He always thought the mode of education in college, and the taste which prevailed there, as far superior to that of the school, as that of the school was to any country school. At the election in 1723, he went to Cambridge, knowing., as he candidly confesses, that the fellowships of Trinity-college were much more valuable than the studentships of Christ-church. He accordingly applied to Dr. Bentley to be by him elected first to Cambridge, with which Bentley complied, and Mr. Newton constantly resided there eight months at least in every year, till he had taken his bachelor of arts degree, which was in 1756. He took his degree of M. A. in 1730; and, soon after he was chosen fellow of Trinity, he came to settle in Condon. This appears to have been previous to his taking the lasUmentioned degree, as he was ordained deacon Pec. 21, 1729, and priest in the February following, by bishop Gibson.

In 1749 he published his edition of “Milton’s Paradise Lost,” which was so favourably received by the public as to go through, in his life-time, eight editions. The title of this work was, “Paradise Lost, a Poem, in twelve books. The author, John Milton: a new edition, with notes of various authors. By Thomas Newton, D. D.” 1749, 2 vols. 4to. The type of the text is remarkably large, and the whole printed with much elegance. It is dedicated to the earl of Bath, who, the editor states, was entitled to this mark of respect, as it was undertaken chiefly at his de sire, and in some measure carried on at his expence,“his lordship having contributed the engravings. The whole dedication is in a style of respect evidently dictated by gratitudes;t cannot be accused of direct flattery, or at least it is a flattery which we could wish there were oftener cause to imitate. His lordship is complimented” on his open profession of the truth of the Christian revelation; his regard for our established church, and regular attendance upon public worship.“Dr. Newton’s design in this edition was to publish the” Paradise Lost,“as the work of a classic author, cum notis variorum, and his first care was to print the text correctly, according to Milton’s own 'editions, that is, the two printed in his life-time. In his preface, he criticises with freedom, and generally, in our opinion, with justice, Milton’s annotators and editors, Patrick Hume, Dr. Bentley, Dr. Pearce, who, with the earl of Bath, first engaged him in this undertaking, and gave him much assistance; Richardson the painter, Warburton, and some anonymous commentators. He was assisted, of living authors, by Dr. Heylin, Dr. Jortin, Dr. Warburton, a copy of Bentley’s edition with Pope’s ms notes, Mr. Richardson, jun. Mr. Thyer of Manchester, and some others. The notes are of various kinds, critical and explanatory; some to correct the errors of former editions, to discuss the various readings, and to establish the genuine text; some to illustrate the sense and meaning, to point out the beauties and defects of sentiment and character, and to commend or censure the conduct of the poem; some to remark the peculiarities of style and language, to clear the syntax, and to explain the uncommon words, or common words used in an uncommon signification; some to consider and examine the numbers, an-d to display the versification, the variety of the pauses, and the adaptness of the sound to the sense; and some to show his imitations and allusions to other authors, sacred or profane, ancient or modern. The preface is followed by a life of Milton, compiled from the best authorities, and with a defence of Milton’s religious and political principles, as far as in Dr. Newton’s opinion they are capable of being defended. This is followed by Addison’s excellent papers on the” Paradise Lost,“taken from the Spectator, and a jnost copious list of nearly a thousand subscribers. The plates were designed by Hayman, and engraved by Grignion, &c. and have very considerable merit. What perhaps distinguishes this edition from all others, is an elaborate verbal index, which was compiled by the indefatigable Mr. Alexander Cruden, author of the Concorto the Bible, Sometime after, Dr. Newton was prevailed upon to publish the” Paradise Regained, and Milton’s smaller poems“upon the same plan, which accordingly appeared in one volume 4to, 1752, but this is not accompanied by a verbal index.” These things,“he says,” detained him too long from other more material studies, though he had the good fortune to gain more by them than Milton did by all his works together." He gained 735l. Among other advantages, he estimates very highly, their having procured him the friendship and intimacy of two such men as bishop Warburton and Dr. Jortin.

In June 1754, he lost his father at the age of eightythree, by a gradual, gentle decline; and within a few days Jiis wife, at the age of fifty-eight, by a sudden and violent inflammation of the bowels. These trials together almost overwhelmed him with affliction. But at this time, he says, he was engaged in writing his “Dissertations on the Prophecies;” and “happy it was for him, for in any affliction he never found a better or more effectual remedy than plunging deep into study, and fixing his thoughts as intensely as he possibly could upon other subjects.” The first volume of “Dissertations on the Prophecies, which have remarkably been fulfilled, and are at this time fulfilling in the world,” 8vo, was published in the winter of 1754. This is the most interesting, and by far the most popular of all his works, and that, indeed, by which principally his name will be handed down to posterity. In the publication, he had the advantage of having it perused and corrected by bishop Pearce, Dr. Warburton, and Mr. Jortin; and its success was very great. Six large editions were published in his life-time, and its popularity seems lately to have been revived, although many works have been published since on the same subject, with different views and conclusions. Soon after the appearance of these “Dissertations,” they were translated into the Danish and German languages. The second and third volumes were not published until 1758, and as an encouragement to the work he was in the interim appointed to preach the Boyle’s Lectures, which he adverts to in the commencement of the second volume.

, a celebrated French antiquary ia the seventeenth century, was descended of a good family at Dijon, where his brother was proctor-general of the chamber of accounts, and born in 1623. Being inclined to the church, he became an ecclesiastic, and was made a canon in the holy chapel at Dijon but devoted himself wholly to the study and knowledge of antique monuments. Having laid a proper foundation of learning at home, he resigned his canonry, and went to Rome, where he resided many years; and, after his return to France, he held a correspondence with almost all the learned men in Europe. Perhaps there never was a man of letters, who had so frequent and extensive a commerce with the learned men of his time as the abbe Nicaise, nor with men of high rank. The cardinals Barbarigo and Noris, and pope Clement XL were among his regular correspondents. This learned intercourse took up a great part of his time, and hindered him from enriching the public with any large works; but the letters which he wrote himself, and those which he received from others, would make a valuable “Commercium Epistolicum.” The few pieces which he published are, a Latin dissertation “De Nummo Pantheo,” dedicated to Mr. Spanheim, and printed at Lyons in 1689. The same year he published an explication of an antique monument found at Guienne, in the diocese of Aach; but the piece which made the greatest noise was “Les Sirenes, ou discours sur leur forme et figure,” Paris, 1691, 4to; “A discourse upon the form and figure of the Syrens,” in which, following the opinion of Huet, bishop of Auvranches, he Undertook to prove, that they were, in reality, birds, and not fishes, or sea-monsters. He translated into French, from the Italian, a piece of Bellori, containing a description of the pictures in the Vatican, to which he added, “A Dissertation upon the Schools of Athens and Parnassus,” two of Raphael’s pictures. He wrote also a few letters in the literary journals, and a small tract upon the Ancient music; and died while he was labouring to present the public with the explanation of that antique inscription which begins “Mercurio et Minervæ Arneliæ, &c.” which was found in the village of Villy, where he died in Oct. 1701, aged 78.

, a Greek historian, a native, as some relate, of Paphlagonia, flourished about the end of the ninth century. He wrote the “Life of St. Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,” translated into Latin by Frederic Mutius, bishop of Termoli, and made use of by cardinal Baronius: but we have another version, by father Matthew Raderi, printed at Ingoldstadt, in 1604. This Nicetas composed also several panegyrics, in honour of the apostles and other saints, which are inserted in the last continuation of the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” by Combesis. There are several authors of this name mentioned by Gesner and Leo Allatius.

, deacon of the church of Constantinople, and contemporary with Theophylact in the eleventh century, and afterwards bishop of Heraclea, composed several “Funeral Orations upon the death of Gregory Nazianzen;” as also a “Commentary,” which is inserted in Latin among the works of that father. There is ascribed to him a “Catena upon the Book of Job,” compiled of passages taken from several of the fathers, which was printed by Junius at London, 1637, in folio. We have also, by the same author, several “Catenx upon the Psalms and Canticles,” printed at Basil in 1552. Ttiere is likewise a “Commentary upon the Poems of Gregory Nazianzen,” printed at Venice, under the name of Nicetas of Paphlagonia, which is apparently the same author.

That he deserved more attention, will appear from the following list of his useful publications. 1. “An Answer to an Heretical Book called `The naked Gospel,' which was condemned and ordered to be publicly burnt by the Convocation of the University of Oxon, Aug. 19, 1690, with some Reflections on Dr. Bury’s new edition of that book,” 1691, 4to. 2. “A short History of Socinianism,” printed with the answer before-mentioned; and dedicated to his patron the earl of Montague. 3, “A Practical Essay on the Contempt of the World,” 1694, 8vo, inscribed to “sir John Trevor, master of the rolls,” to whom the author acknowledges his obligations for “a considerable preferment, bestowed in a most obliging and generous manner.” 4. “The Advantages of a learned Education,” a sermon preached at a school-feast, 1698, 4to. 5. “The Duty of Inferiors towards their Superiors, in five practical discourses; shewing, I. The Duty of Subjects to their Princes. II. The Duty of Children to their Parents. III. The Duty of Servants to their Masters. IV. The Duty of Wives to their Husbands. V. The Duty of Parishioners and the Laity to their Pastors and Clergy. To which is prefixed a dissertation concerning the divine right of Princes,” 1701, 8vo. 6. “An Introduction to a Devout Life, by Francis Sales, bishop and prince of Geneva; translated and reformed from the Errors of the Romish edition. To which is prefixed, a Discourse of the Rise and Progress of the Spiritual Books in the Romish. Church,” 1701, 8vo. 7. “A Treatise of Consolation to Parents for the Death of theirChildren written upon the occasion of the Death of the Duke of Gloucester and addressed to the most illustrious Princess Anue of Denmark,” 1701, 8vo. 8. “God’s Blessing on Mineral Waters;” a Sermon preached at the chapel at Tunbridge Wells,“1702, 4to. 9.” A Conference with a Theist, in five parts; dedicated to the Queen’s most excellent Majesty,“1703, 8vo; of which a third edition, with the addition of two Conferences, the one with a Machiavelian, the other with an Atheist, all carefully revised and prepared for the pres$ by the author, was published in 1723, 2 vols. 8vo. This was particularly designed, says Leland, by the learned and ingenious author, in opposition to the” Oracles of Reason,“published by Blount; and he has not left any material part of that work unanswered. 10.” A Practical Essayon the Contempt of the World; to which is prefixed, a Preface to the Deists and vicious Libertines of the Age,“1704, 2d edit. 8vo. 11.” The Religion of a Princes shewing that the Precepts of the Holy Scriptures are the best maxims of Government,“1704, 8vo, in opposition to Machiavel, Hobbes, c. and written when the queen gave up the tenths and first fruits to the inferior clergy. 12.” Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae,“1707, 12mo. 13.” A Paraphrase on the Common Prayer, with Notes on the Sundays and Holidays,“1708, 8vo. 14.” Afflictions the lot of God’s children, a Sermon on the Death of Prince George,“1709, 8vo. 15.” A Comment on the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments,“&c. 1710, folio. This volume has the royal licence prefixed, and a list of more than 900 subscribers. In his dedication to the queen, he notices, as what never happened before, that all the copies were bespoke or paid for before the day of publication. It still continues to be printed in 8vo. The late sir James Stonhouse, in a letter to the rev. Thomas Stedman, dated 1793, says of this work,” I would have you recommend it to every family in your parish as it will shew them the use of the common prayer and psalms, as read in our churches, and be a standard book from father to son.“16.” A Supplement to the Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer,“1711, folio. In the preface to this supplement, Dr. Nichols mentions” a long fit of illness with which God had pleased to visit him, and a very unestablished state of health both before and after it.“This illness appears soon to have ended in his death. 17.” Historic Sacroe Libri VII. Ex Antonii Cocceii Sabellici Eneadibus concinnatum, in usum Scholarurn et Juventutis Christianae,“1711, 12mo. 18” A Commentary on the first fifteen, and part of the sixteenth Articles of the Church of England,“1712, fol. 39.” A Defence of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; first written in Latin, for the use of foreigners, by William Nichols, D. D. and translated into English by himself,“1715, 12mo. Dr. Nichols was reckoned a very excellent scholar, and was known abroad as well as at home by the learned correspondence he kept with foreigners of eminence. A volume of such correspondence with JaUlonski, Osterwald, Wetstein, &c. was presented by his widow Catharine Nichols to the archbishop of Canterbury, Oct. 28,* 1712, to be deposited either in Lambeth or St. Martin’s library, and is now among the valuable Mss. at Lambeth, No. 676. He died in the end of April 1712, and was buried in St. Swithin’s church May 5. It may not be improper to distinguish this pious divine from his name-sake William Nichols, M. A. and rector of Stockport, in Cheshire, who was a student of Christ church, Oxford, and. published, 1.” De Literis jnventis Libri sex ad illustrissinuum Principem Thomam, Herbertum, Pembrokiae Comitem,“&c. 1711, 8vo. 2.” Oratio corarn venerabili Spcietate promovenda Religione Christiana habita Londini, Dec. 29, 171.&,“12mo; and, 3.” Περι Αρχων Libri Septem. Accedunt Liturgica," 1717, 12mo.

, father of the celebrated Peter Nicole, was descended of a reputable family, and born at Chartres, in Get, 1600. He applied himself to the law, and made a good proficiency in it; so that he became an advocate in parliament, and judge official to the bishop of Chartres. As a pleader, however, he is said to have been more flowery than solid, and he injured his reputation by interspersing his pleadings with verses and scraps of romances, which his son took care afterwards to burn. It does not appear that he published much, unless part if not the whole of a French translation of Quintilian, printed at Paris, in 1642, and dedicated to Mr. Seof, bishop of Chartres. The abbé de Marolles says that he had several times received verses in Latin and French from our advocate, who died at Chartres in 1678.

, a celebrated French divine, was born at Chartres, Oct. 6, 1625. He was the son of John Nicole above mentioned, who, discovering him to be a youth of promising talents, gave him his first instructions in grammar, and so grounded him in classical knowledge, that at the age of fourteen he was qualified to go to Paris, and commence a course of philosophy; and at its completion, in about two years, he took the degree of M. A. July 23, 1644. He afterwards studied divinity at the Sorbonne, in 1645 and 1646 and, during this course, learned Hebrew, improved himself farther in Greek, acquired a knowledge of Spanish and Italian. He also devoted part of his time to the instruction of the youth put under the care of messieurs de Port-royal. As soon as he had completed three years, the usual period, in the study of divinity,he proceeded bachelor in that faculty in 1649, on which occasion he maintained the theses called the Tentative, He afterwards prepared himself to proceed a licentiate;, but was diverted from it by the dispute which arose about the five famous propositions of Jansenius, added to his connections with Mr. Arnauld. By this means he was at more leisure to cultivate his acquaintance with gentlemen of the Port-royal, to which house he now retired, and assisted Mr. Arnauld in several pieces, which that celebrated divine published in his own defence. They both went to M. Varet’s house at Chatillon near Paris, in 1664, and there continued to write, inconcert. Nicole afterwards resided at several places, sometimes at Port-royal, sometimes at Paris, &c. He was solicited to take holy orders but, after an examination of three weeks, and consulting with M. Pavilion, bishop of Aleth, he remained only a tonsured priest. It has been asserted by some, that having failed to answer properly when examined for the subdeaconship, he considered his being refused admission to it, as a warning from heaven. He continued undisturbed at Paris till 1677, when a letter which he wrote, for the bishops of St. Pons and Arras, to pope Innocent XI. against the relaxations of the casuists, drew upon him a storm, that obliged him to withdraw. He went 6rst to Chartres, where his father was lately dead; and, having settled his temporal affairs, he repaired to Beauvais, and soon after took his leave of the kingdom, in 1679. He retired first to Brussels, then went to Liege, and, after that, risited Orval, and several other places. A letter, dated July 16, 1679, which he wrote to Harlai, archbishop of Paris, facilitated his return to France: and Robert, canon of the church of Paris, obtained leave of that archbishop, some time after, for Nicole to come back privately to Chartres. Accordingly he repaired immediately to that, city, under the name of M. Berci, and resumed his usual employments. The same friend afterwards solicited a permission for him to return to Paris, and having obtained it at length in 1683, he employed his time in the composition of various new works. In 1693, perceiving himself to be grown considerably infirm, he resigned a benefice, of a very moderate income, which her had at Beauvais; and after remaining for about two years more in a very languishing state, died of the second stroke of an apoplexy, Nov. 16, 1695, aged 70 years.

, a learned English prelate and antiquary, was both by the father and mother’s side of Cumberland extraction. His grandfather was Joseph Nicolson, of Averas Holme in that county, who married Radigunda- Scott, heiress to an estate at Park Broom, in the parish of Stanvvix which estate descended to Catherine eldest surviving daughter of our prelate. His father, who married Mary daughter of John Brisco of Grofton, esq. was a clergyman, of Queen’s college, Oxford; and rector of Orton near Carlisle. He was born at Orton in 1655, and in 1670 was entered of Queen’s college, under the tuition of Dr. Thos. Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, and took his degree of B. A. in 1676. While here he became known to sir Joseph Williamson, then secretary of state, the great benefactor to Queen’s college, and the patron of many of its scholars, who in 1678 sent him to Leipsic to learn the septentrional languages. While there he translated into Latin an essay of Mr. Hook’s, containing a proof of the motion of the earth from the sun’s parallax, which was printed at Leipsic by the professor who had recommended the task.

After a short tour into France, he returned to college, and completed his degree of M. A. July 23, 1679, and in the. same year was elected and admitted fellow of Queen’s college. He received deacon’s orders in December. In 1680, he furnished an account of the kingdoms of Poland, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, for the first volume of Pitt’s English Atlas, and he compiled also the principal part, if 'not the whole, of the second and third volumes. In February of the same year, he was sent by the vicechancellor to wait on George Lewis., prince of Brunswick, afterwards George I. who was then at Tetsworth, in his way to the university, where next day his highness was complimented with the degree of LL. D. In Sept. 1681, Mr. Nicolson was ordained priest, and was in that year collated by bishop Rainbow to a vacant prebend in the cathedral church of Carlisle, and also to the vicarage of Torpenhow, and in the year following to the archdeaconry of Carlisle, vacant by the resignation of Mr. Thomas Musgrave. His attachment to the study of antiquities began to appear early, and although we cannot minutely trace the progress of his studies at Oxford, it is evident from his correspondence, that in addition to the ordinary pursuits of classical, philosophical, and theological information, he had accumulated a great stock of various learning. He had, among other branches, studied botany with much attention, and had paid particular attention to the natural history of the earth, the effects of the deluge, the authority of the scripture account of that event, and other subjects connected with it, which at that time were agitated by Dr. Woodward and his contemporaries. He made also great proficiency in ancient northern literature; and in matters of antiquarian research, had a great portion of that enthusiasm, without which no man can form an accomplished or successful antiquary. In one place we find him, speaking of a journey to Scotland, where “he met with a most ravishing Runic monument;” and it indeed appears that he spared neither labour or expence in investigating the remains of antiquity wherever they could be found. In 1685 he wrote a letter to Mr. Obadiah Walker, master of University college, Oxford, concerning a Runic inscription at Bewcastle in Cumberland, which is printed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 178, and in Hutch inson’s Hist. of Cumberland, with the opinions of subsequent antiquaries. He likewise sent a letter to sir William Dugdale, printed in the same number of the Transactions, concerning a Runic inscription on the font in the church of Bride-kirk. Dr. Hickes, in the preface to his “Thesaurus,” acknowledges the able, polite, and prompt aid he received from Mr. Nicolson in preparing that great work. In 1696 he published the first part of his “English Historical Library,” a work intended to point out the sources whence all information respecting English history and aniiqu ties,- whether printed or in manuscript, was to be derived. The whole, in three parrs, was completed in 1699, and was followed by a similar “Library” for Scotland, in 1702; and for Ireland in 1724. These were published together in folio, and more recently in what, if not the best, is the most convenient edition, in 1776, 4-to, by T. Evans. Of the controversy which arose from this work, some notice will be taken hereafter.

In 1702, on the eve of Ascension day, our author was elected bishop of Carlisle, confirmed June 3, and consecrated June 14, at Lambeth. This promotion he owed to the interest of the house of Edenhall. On Sept. 15, 1704, the celebrated Dr. Atterbury, who had reflected with much harshness on some parts of the “Historical Library,” waited upon bishop Nicolson at Rose, for institution to the deanery of Carlisle; but the letters patent being directed to the chapter, and not to the bishop, and the date thereof being July 15, though the late dean (Grahme,) did not resign till the 5th of August, and some dispute also arising about the regal supremacy, institution was then refused. The bishop, however, declared at the same time that the affair should be laid forthwith before the queen; and that, if her majesty should, notwithstanding these objections, be pleased to repeat her commands for giving Dr. Atterbury possession of the deanery, institution should be given, which was accordingly done in consequence of her intimation to the bishop through the secretary of state. This preferment, however, was followed by many unpleasant consequences, as we shall have occasion to notice, a^ter enumerating the remaining productions of our learned prelate.

In November 1705, bishop Nicolson was elected F.R.& and published his “Leges Marchiarum, or Border Laws; with a preface, and an appendix of Charters and Records relating thereto,” Lond. 8vo, reprinted in 1747. In 1713 he wrote an essay, or discourse, to be affixed to Mr. Chamberlayne’s collection of the Lord’s prayer in one hundred different languages. Dr. Hickes bestows the highest praises on this essay: “I know not,” says he, “which is most to be admired in it, the vast variety of reading, or the putting all his observations together in so short, clear, and easy a discourse, which mightily confirms the history of Moses, and refutes the vain cavils which atheists, and deists, and latitudinarians are wont to make against the truth of it.” In 1718 he wrote a preface to the third edition of Dr. Wilkins’s “Leges Anglo-Saxonicae.” This appears to be the last of his literary performances, to the list of which may be added. seven occasional sermons, published in the course of his life.

In 1715, George I. appointed bishop Nicolson lord high almoner; an office which was resigned in his favour by his friend archbishop Wake. On March 17, 1718, he was nominated to the bishopric of Derry in Ireland, but was allowed to be continued bishop of Carlisle and lord almoner till after Easter. On Feb. 9, 1727, he was translated to the archbishopric of Cashel, but died suddenly, on the 14th of that' month, and was buried in the cathedral at Derry, without any monumental inscription. He married Elizabeth youngest daughter of John Archer, of Oxenholme near Kendal, esq. by whom he had eight children. One daughter, Catherine, was living unmarried in 1777, but this family is probably now extinct. He had a brother, who was master of the Apothecaries company, and died in 1723.

The archbishop left three ms volumes, fol. to the dean and chapter of Carlisle, consisting of copies and extracts from various books, Mss. registers, recorus, and charters, relating to the diocese of Carlisle, from which many articles in the “History of Cumberland,” by his nephew Joseph Nicolson, esq. and Dr. Richard Burn, were transcribed. There is also a large octavo ms. of his, containing miscellaneous accounts of the state of the churches, parsonage and vicarage houses, glebe lands, and other possessions, in the several parishes within the diocese, collected in his parochial visitation of the several churches in 1703, 1704, and 1707, which, in 1777, was in the possession of his nephew. Bagford, in his catalogue prefixed to Gibson’s edition of Camden’s “Britannia,” 1695, advertised, as ready for the press, but stiil remaining in the dean and chapter’s library at Carlisle, a description of the ancient kingdom of Northumberland, by bishop Nicolson. when archdeacon of Carlisle, consisting of eight parts; but although no man was more capable of executing such a work, we are assured by Mr. Wallis in the preface to his account of Northumberland, that all that can now be found in the Carlisle library is only a compendious ecclesiastical view of that diocese in a parochial method. The truth appears to have been, that instead of making a separate publication of his account of Northumberland, he made other uses of his collections, as in his “Leges Marchiarum,” where we find much information respecting the ancient state of Northumberland, but we are not permitted to doubt that a separate work was his original design. In 1692 he speaks of his having hopes that his “Essay on the Kingdom of Northumberland,” would be completed in a few months; and that Mr. Ray had promised (in the preface to his late collection of English words), that it should shortly be published. He informs us also that he was the author of the “Glossarium Northanhymbricum,” in Ray’s work.

The publication of the first part of his “Historical Library” involved him in the first literary controversy in which he was engaged. Two of his antagonists were Dr, Hugh Todd, and Dr. Simon Lowth, against whom he appears to have defended himself with much reputation, as they were both far beneath him in talents and learning. In Atterbury, who likewise attacked him, he had an antagonist more worthy of his powers; but even against him he was very successful, although not very temperate, in the long letter addressed to Dr. Kennett, which was originally a separate publication, and has since been prefixed with some alterations to the various editions of the “Historical Library.” This, however, perhaps laid the foundation for that degree of animosity which prevailed between our prelate and Dr. Atterbury. The latter, unfortunately for both parties, considering their hostile tempers, was made dean of Carlisle while Nicolson was bishop. In any other arrangement of preferments, their passions might have had leisure to cool, but they were now brought together, with no personal respect on either side, and the consequences were what might have been expected. Nicolson, it must be allowed, had some reason to complain, or some apology for his feelings concerning Atterbury: Atterbury had made an, attack on his “Historical Library,” in very contemptuous language; but what was worse, Atterbury appears to have been the cause of Nicolson 9 s being for some time refused a degree at his own university, when, on his promotion to the bishopric of Carlisle, he applied for that of D. D. For an explanation of this we must refer to the principles of the times, as well as of the men; and both perhaps will be sufficiently illustrated by the following paper which was sent to Mr. Nicolson (in answer to his request of having a doctor’s degree by diploma) by the vice-chancellor, Dr. Mander, “Whereas the members of the university of Oxford, in a very full convocation held the (fifth) day of (March) 1701, did unanimously agree to confer the degree of Doctor of Divinity upon the reverend Mr. Francis Atterbury, as a testimony of the sense which they had of the signal service he had done the church, by his excellent book entitled The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation, 7 &c. (See Atterbury, vol. III. p. 113, &c.) And whereas W. Nicolson, archdeacon of Carlisle, in a pamphlet, entitled ‘ A Letter to Dr. White Kennett, in defence of the English Historical Library against the unmannerly and slanderous objections of Mr. Francis Atterbury, preacher at the Rolls,’ &c. and printed in 1702, doth, in and through the said pamphlet, term the said doctor Mr. Atterbury only, in a seeming contempt of the honour done him by the said university: And whereas the said archdeacon (in the thirty-fourth page of the said pamphlet) hath these words: viz.” I need not, Sir, acquaint you what a toil and expence the very collecting of those materials hath brought upon me; nor how much trouble I have had in the composure. And it is but a discouraging prospect (after all) to see so many men of gravity and good learning, to whom I thought my labours might have been chiefly useful, caressing an empty misrepresenter of our antiquities, histories, and records; and patronizing an ambitious wretch in his insolent attempts against our ancient and apostolical church-government; which words are conceived to contain a severe and undecent reflection upon the proceedings of the university; it is humbly proposed to Mr. Vice-chancellor, by several members of your venerable convocation, whether it can be consistent with the honour of the university to bestow any mark of favour upon the said archdeacon, before he shall have made suitable satisfaction for so high an indignity, and open an affront, as he hath hereby put upon her."

The vice-chancellor, who communicated this paper to bishop Nicolson, added that he would notwithstanding propose the degree, if “he would please to order him what to say in answer.” Nicolson, however, irritated at the superiority thus given to his antagonist, determined to send no answer. His own words on this occasion are: “Mr. Vice-chancellor not having acquainted me who the masters or members of the venerable convocation are, that presented this libellous memorial to him: the most civil treatment, which (as I thought, by advice of my friends) could be given to it, was, to take no manner of notice of its coming to my hand.” He accordingly applied to Cam-­bridge, where the degree in question was readily granted; and, what must have been yet more gratifying, he received the same honour from the university of Oxford, on July 25 following. The former refusal seems to have been that of a party, and not of the convocation at large. In one of his letters written at this time to Dr. Charlett, master of University-college, he enters upon a defence of his vindication of the “Historical Library,” and not unsuccessfully. The objection that he had called the doctor Mr. Atterbury was certainly trifling and unjust, for he was Mr. Atterbury when he wrote against Nicolson. He also alludes to the coarse treatment of himself in the above paper, where he is styled only William Nicolson, although at that time a bishop elect. But whatever may be thought of bishop Nicolson’s conduct, or that of these members of the convocation, it was not to be expected that when Atterbury was made dean of Carlisle, there could be much cordiality between them. Nicolson knew to whom he had been indebted for the affront he had received from the university; and Atterbury was equally out of humour with the bishop, in addition to his usual turbulence of disposition. In 1707, when the bishop found that Atterbury was continually raising fresh disputes with his chapter, he endeavoured to appease them once for all, by visiting the chapter in pursuance of the power given by the statutes of Henry VIII. at the foundation of the corporation of the dean and chapter. But Dr. Todd, already mentioned, one of the prebendaries, was instigated by Atterbury to protest against any such visitation, insisting upon the invalidity of Henry VIII's statutes and that the queen, and not the bishop, was the local visitor. Nicolson, conscious of his strength in a point which he had probably studied more deeply than any of the chapter, during the course of his visitation suspended and afterwards excommunicated Dr. Todd on which the latter moved the court of common pleas for a prohibition, and obtained it unless cause shown. In the mean time such proceedings alarmed the whole bench of bishops; and the archbishop of Canterbury, Tenison, wrote a circular letter on the subject to all his suffragans, considering the cause of the bishop of Carlisle as a common cause, and of great concern to the church, which, he added, “will never be quiet so long as that evil generation of men who make it their business to search into little flaws in ancient charters and statutes, and to unfix what laudable custom hath well fixed, meet with any success.” Soon afterwards a bill was carried into parliament, and passed into a law, which established the validity of the local statutes given by Henry VIII. to his new foundations. Bishop Nicolson published on this occasion, “Short Remarks on a paper of Reasons against thepassing of a bill for avoiding of doubts and questions touching the statutes of divers cathedrals and collegiate churches,” 4to, in one half sheetj without date. His triumph was now compleat, and a fevr years afterwards, when Atterbury was preferred to the deanry of Christ-church, his old friends of the university of Oxford had reason to change their sentiments of him.

In some accounts of bishop Nicolson it has been said that he was deeply engaged in the Bangorian controversy. In one sense this could not be true, for although his opinions were in opposition to those which produced that memorable controversy, we cannot find that he wrote any thing expressly on the subject. In another sense he may be said to have been too deeply concerned, for on the very commencement of the controversy, he became involved in a dispute with Dr. Kennett, which threatened to affect his veracity, and from which it certainly did not escape without some injury. We have already noticed that he addressed his letter in vindication of his “Historical Library” to Dr. Kennett, and it may be added that they had lived for many years in habits of mutual respect and friendship, which were now to be dissolved by violence. It is not necessary to enter into a long detail of this affair; referring, therefore, to Newton’s Life of bishop Kennett, we shall confine ourselves to the following simple statement of the fact. Bishop Nicolson had asserted that some words in Dr. Hoadly’s memorable sermon were not originally in it, but were inserted by the advice of a friend, and by way of caution; and upon being called upon to give up his authority, mentioned Dr. White Kennett, not only as his authority, but as the person who advised Hoadly to leave out the objectionable words. Dr. Kennett, in the most solemn and positive manner, denied, either that he had given Dr. Nicolson such information, or that he had ever seen Dr. Hoadly’s sermon before it was preached, or that it had ever been submitted to his correction. In rejoinder, Dr. Nicolson re-affirmed as before in the most decided manner. Many letters passed between the parties (in the newspapers) which our prelate published in 1717, under the title of “A Collection of Papers scattered lately about the town in the. Daily Courant, St. James’s Post, &c. with some remarks upon them in a letter to the bishop of Bangor,” 8vo; and after this he determined to take no farther notice of the matter. His antagonists came at length to the conclusion that he stood convicted at least of forgetfulness “in charging a fact upon the bishop of Bangor which was not true, and quoting a witness for it who knew nothing of the matter.” And this is certainly the conclusion which every one will wish to draw who respects his characv ter, or forms a judgment of it from his “Letters” lately published by Mr. Nichols, a collection to which we have been greatly indebted in drawing up our account, and rectifying the errors of his preceding biographers* Many of his sentiments are given without disguise in these letters, and prove him to have been a steady friend to the civil and ecclesiastical government of his country, and a man of liberality and candour. That he was not uniformly accurate in his historical researches has been oftenrepeated, but he appears to have been always ready to correct what errors were pointed out. In one letter, after defending some apparent mistakes noticed by his correspondent, he adds, “but nothing can be pleaded, except ignorance, in excuse for the rest.” It must still be admitted, what is equally evident from his correspondence, that his temper was somewhat irritable, and that, living in days of bitter controversy, he admitted in his disputes too much of that style which has in all ages been the reproach of literature.

, cardinal and archbishop of Paris, commander of the order of the Holy Ghost, proviseur of the house and society of the Sorbonne, and superior of that of Navarre, was the second son of Anne dukede Noailles, peer of France, and born May 27, 1651. In consequence of his birth, he became lord of Aubrach, commander of the order of the Holy Ghost, duke of St. Cloud, and peer of France. He was bred with great care, and his inclination leading him to the church, he took holy orders; and proceeding in the study of divinity, he performed his exercise for licentiate in that science with reputation, and was created D. D. of the Sorbonne, March 14, 1676. Three years afterwards the king gave him the bishopric of Cahors, whence he was translated to Chalons on the Marne, in 1680. He discharged the duties of both these dioceses with a distinguished vigilance, and a truly pastoral charity; so that, the archbishopric of Paris becoming vacant in 1695, by the death of Francis de Harlay, his majesty chose the bishop of Chalons to fill that important see. Invested with this dignity; he applied himself wholly to the affairs of it, and made excellent rules for the reformation of the clergy.

This celebrated bull brought our cardinal into a great deal of trouble on this account. Pasquin Quesnel, one of the fathers of the oratory, publishing his New Testament, with moral reflections upon every verse, in 1694, our cardinal, then bishop of Chalons, gave it his approbation, and recommended it to his clergy and people in 1695; and, after his removal to Paris, procured a new edition, corrected, to be printed there in 1699. But as the book contained some doctrines in favour of Jansenism, the Jesuits took the alarm, and, after writing several pieces, charging the author with heresy and sedition, obtained, in 1708, a decree of pope Clement XI. condemning it in general. Although this decree could neither be received nor published in France, not being conformable to the usage of that kingdom, the book was condemned, without mentioning the decree, by some French bishops, at whose solicitation Lewis XIV. applied to his holiness to condemn it by a constitution in form, which was granted; and, in 1715, appeared the famous constitution “Unigenitus,” condemning the “Moral Reflections,” and 101 propositions extracted from the work. The pope also condemned all such writings as had been already published, or should hereafter be published in its defence. But the king’s letters patent, for the publication of this bull, were not registered in the parliament without several modifications and restrictions, in pursuance of a declaration made by a great number of bishops, that they accepted it purely and simply, although at the same time they gave some explications of it in their pastoral instructions. Cardinal Noailles, and some other prelates, not thinking these explications sufficient, refused absolutely to accept it, till it should be explained by the pope in such a manner as to secure from all danger the doctrine, discipline, and liberty, of the schools, the episcopal rights, and the liberties of the Gallican church. The faculty of divines at the Sorbonne declared, that the decree which was made March 5, 1714, for accepting the bull, was false. The four bishops also of Mirepoix, Seine’s, Montpelier, and Boulogne, appealed from it, March 4, 1717 and the same day the faculty of divines at Paris adhered to their appeal. This example was followed by several faculties of divines, monasteries, curates, priests, &c, and cardinal deNoailles, having appealed, about the same time, with the four bishops, published his appeal in 1718. However, he retracted this appeal, and received the constitution some time before his death, which happened in his palace at Paris, May 4, 1729.

, a learned Italian, was born at Verona, of a family that had produced several men of letters about the beginning of the sixteenth century. In early life he became introduced to John-Matthew Giberti, bishop of Verona, at whose house he had an opportunity of profiting by the conversation of various learned men. The Greek appears to have been his favourite study, and his fame was established by his able translations from that language. In September 1545, he was employed, with two other persons of consequence at Verona, to furnish provisions for that city, at a time when a scarcity was apprehended; but not long after we find him at the council of Trent, where he delivered an harangue that was published at the end of his “Apostolicae Institutiones.” In 1554, he was one of the ambassadors deputed by the city of Verona to compliment the doge of Venice on his accession; and on this occasion he was created a knight of that republic, On his return home, he was appointed president of the jurisdiction of silk-manufacturers, a corporation which was then established. He enjoyed the favour and esteem of many Italian princes, but of none more than of Guy Ubaldi, duke of Urbano, whom he accompanied to Rome, and was made commander of the ecclesiastical troops by pope Julius III. Here he had begun a translation of Ocellus Lucanus, when he was seized with a disorder which interrupted his studies and his attendance at court; but he was enabled to complete his translation in 1558, and it was printed the year following, in which year he died.

, canon and theologal of Seez, the son of John le Noir, counsellor to the presidial of Alenon, was a celebrated preacher at Paris, and in the provinces, about the middle of the seventeenth century; but, having had a quarrel afterwards with M. de Mendavi, his bishop, in consequence of the boldness with which he censured not only the doctrine, but the conduct of his superiors, he was banished in 1663, confined in the Bastille in 1683, and condemned April 24, 1684, to make amende honorable before the metropolitan church at Paris, and to the gallies for life. This punishment, however, being changed to perpetual imprisonment, M. le Noir was afterwards carried to St. Malo, then to the prisons of Brest, and, lastly, to those of Nantes, where he died April 22, 1692, leaving several works, which are curious, but full of intemperate abuse. The principal are, A collection of his Requests and Factums, folio; a translation of “L'Echelle du Clottre” “Les Avantages incontestable de PEglise sur les Calvinistes,” 8vo “L‘Herésie de la Domination Episcopate qu’on etablit en France,” 12mo “Les nouvelles Lumieres politiques pour le Gouvernement de l'Eglise, ou TEvangile nouveau du cardinal Palavicini dans son Histoiredu Concile de Trente,” Holl. 1676, 12mo. This work occasioned the French translation of cardinal Palavicini’s history to be suppressed.

His “History of Pelagianism,” however, although approved by many learned men, and in fact, the origin of his future advancement, created him many enemies. In it he had defended the condemnation pronounced, in the eighth general council, against Origen and Mopsuesta, the first authors of the Pelagian errors: he also added “An Account of the Schism of Aquileia, and a Vindication of the Books written by St. Augustine against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians.” A controversy now arose, which was carried on between him and various antagonists, with much violence on their part, and with much firmness and reputation on his, and his book was at last submitted to the sovereign tribunal of the inquisition; but, although it was examined with the utmost rigour, the author was dismissed without the least censure. It was reprinted twice afterwards, and Noris honoured, by Pope Clement X. with the title of Qualificator of the Holy Office. Notwithstanding this, the charge was renewed against the “Pelagian History,” and it was brought again before the inquisition, in 1676; and was again acquitted of any errors that affected the church. He now was left for sixteen years to the quiet enjoyment of his studies, and taught ecclesiastical history at Pisa, till he was called to Rome by Innocent XII. who made him under-librarian of the Vatican, in 1692. These distinctions reviving the animosity of his opponents, they threw out such insinuations, as obliged the pope to appoint some learned divines, who had the character of impartiality, to re-examine father Noris’s books, and make their report of them; and their testimony was so much to the advantage of the author, that his holiness made him counsellor of the inquisition. Yet neither did this hinder father Hardouin, one of his adversaries, and the most formidable on account of his erudition, from attacking him warmly, under the assumed title of a “Scrupulous Doctor of the Sorbonne.” Noris tried to remove these scruples, in a work which appeared in 1695, under the title of “An Historical Dissertation concerning the Trinity that suffered in the Flesh;” in which having justified the monks of Scythia, who made use of that expression, he vindicated himself also from the imputation of having attacked the pope’s infallibility, of having censured Vincentius Lirinensis, and other bishops of Gaul, as favourers of Semi-Pelagianism, and of having himself adopted the errors of the bishop of Ypres.

He usually attended the Norfolk circuit, and was soon employed as counsel in every important cause. When the great level of the fens was to be divided, he was appointed chairman in the commission, and directed the execution in such a manner as greatly to augment his fame. Dr. Lane, then bishop, likewise constituted him judge of the royal franchise of Ely; a creditable employment, which increased his business in the country. He was also appointed to assist the earl of Oxford, lord chief justice in eyre, in a formal iter, or justice-seat of the forests, which was of great pecuniary advantage to him, and gave him an idea of the ancient Jaw in the immediate practice of it He was promoted to be the king’s solicitor- general, in the room of sir Edward Turner, made lord chief baron, and was knighted the same day, May 23, 1671. He now dropt the circuit, and was chosen to represent the borough of Lynn, in the house of commons. In 1673 he was appointed attorney-general, on the promotion of sir Heneage Finch to the great seal. In former times, when he applied close to his studies, and spent his days in his chamber, he was subject to the spleen, and apprehensive of many imaginary diseases; and by way of prevention, wore warm cloathing, and leather skull-caps, and inclined much to quackery; but as business flowed in, his complaints vanished, and his skull-caps were destined to lie in a drawer, and receive hjs money. Though his profits were now very great, while the king approved his judgment and fidelity, and the chiefs of the law were mostly his friends, yet he soon grew weary of his post, and wished for another, though less profitable, in a calmer region. The court was sunk in pleasure and debauchery; averse to, and ignorant of all business. The great men were many of them corrupt, false, and treacherous; and were continually tormenting him with improper projects and unreasonable importunities. Among all the preferments of the law, his thoughts were most fixed upon that of lord chief justice of the common pleas; the business there being wholly matter of pure law, and having little to do in criminal causes, or court intrigues: and, on the death of lord chief justice Vaughan in 1674 he succeeded to his wishes. While he presided in this court, he was very attentive to regulate what was amiss in the law, arising either from the nature of things changing, or from the corruption of agents: when any abuse or necessity of regulation appeared, he noted it down, and afterwards digested his thought, and brought it into the form of a tract, from which he might prepare acts of parliament, as he had encouragement and opportunity. He had a great hand in “The Statute of Frauds and Perjuries,” of which the lord Nottingham said, that every line was worth a subsidy. In 1679, the king, being under great difficulties from the parliament, in order to bring them to better temper, and that it might not be said he wanted good counsellors, made a reform of his privy-council, dissolved the old, and constituted a new one, which took in the lord Shaftsbury as president, and the heads of the opposition in both houses; but that he might not be entirely at their mercy, he joined some of his friends, in whose fidelity and judgment he had an entire confidence, among whom lord chief justice North had the honour to be one. Not long after this, he was taken into the cabinet, that he might be assistant, not only in the formal proceedings of the privy-council, but also in the more private consultations of his majesty’s government. He was also often obliged to fill the office of speaker, and preside in the House of Lords, in the room of the chancellor Nottingham, who, towards the latter end of his time, was much afflicted with the gout and other infirmities. From his interest with the king he was considered as probable successor to Nottingham, and accordingly, on his death, in 1683, the great seal was committed to his custody, on which occasion he was created a peer, by the title of lord Guilford, barori of Guilford, in the county of Surrey, by patent bearing date Sept. 27th, 1683.

He now became a frequent preacher at St. Paul’s cross, and on one occasion, a passage of his sermon was much talked of, and grossly misrepresented by the papists, as savouring of an uncharitable and persecuting spirit. He had little difficulty, however, in repelling this charge, which at least shews that his words were considered as of no small importance, and were carefully watched. One of his sermons at St. Paul’s cross was preached the Sunday following a very melancholy event, the burning of St. Paul’s cathedral by lightning, June 4, 1561. Such was. his reputation now, that in September of this year, when archbishop Parker visited Eton college, and ejected the provost, Richard Bruerne, for nonconformity, he recommended to secretary Cecil the choice of several persons fit to supply the place, with this remark, “that if the queen would have a married minister, none comparable to Mr. Nowell.” The bishop of London also seconded this recommendation; but the queen’s prejudice against the married clergy inclined her to give the place to Mr. Day, afterwards bishop of Winchester, who was a bachelor, and in all respects worthy of the promotion. In the course of the ensuing year, 1562, No well was frequently in the pulpit on public occasions, before large auditories; but his labours in one respect commenced a little inauspiciously. On the new-year’s day, before the festival of the circumcision, he preached at St. Paul’s, whither the queen resorted. Here, says Strype, a remarkable passage happened, as it is recorded in a great man’s memorials (sir H. Sidney), who lived in those times. The dean having met with several fine engravings, representing the stories and passions of the saints and martyrs, had placed them against the epistles and gospels of their respective festivals, in a Common Prayer-book; which he caused to be richly bound, and laid on the cushion for the queen’s use, in the place where she commonly sat; intending it for a new-year’s gift to her majesty, and thinking to have pleased her fancy therewith. But it had a quite contrary effect. For she considered how this varied from her late injunctions and proclamations against the superstitious use of images in churches, and for the taking away all such reliques of popery. When she came to her place, and had opened the book, and saw the pictures, she frowned and blushed; and then shutting the book (of which several took notice) she called for the verger, and bade him bring her the old book, wherein she was formerly wont to read. After sermon, whereas she used to get immediately on horseback, or into her chariot, she went straight to the vestry, and applying herself to the dean, thus she spoke to him: “Mr. Dean, how came it to pas’s, that a new service-book was placed on my cushion r” To which the dean answered, “May it please your majesty, I caused it to be placed there.” Then said the queen, “Wherefore did you so” “To present your majesty with a new year?s gift.” “You could never present me with a worse.” “Why so, madam?” “You know I have an aversion to idolatry, to images, and pictures of this kind.” “Wherein is the idolatry, may it please your majesty?” “In the cuts resembling angels and saints; nay, grosser absurdities, pictures resembling the blessed Trinity.” “I meant nq harm; nor did I think it would offend your majesty, when I intended it for a new-year’s gift.” *“You must needs be ignorant then. Have you forgot our proclamation against images, pictures, and Romish reliques, in the churches? Was it not read in your deanery?” “It was read. But be your majesty assured I meant no harm when I caused the cuts to be bound with the service-book.” “You must needs be very ignorant to do this after our prohibition of them.” “It being my ignorance, your majesty may the better pardon me.” “I am sorry for it; yet glad to hear it was your ignorance rather than your opinion.” “Be your majesty assured it was my ignorance.” “If so, Mr. dean, God grant you his spirit, and more wisdom for the future.” “Amen, I pray God.” “I pray, Mr. Dean, how came you by these pictures who engraved them” “I know not who engraved them I bought them.” “From whom bought you them” “From a German.” “It is well it was from a stranger. Had it been any of our subjects, we should have questioned the matter. Pray let no more of these mistakes, or of this kind, be committed within the churches of our realm for the future.” “There shall not.” Strype adds to this curious dialogue, that it caused all the clergy in and about London, and the churchwardens of each parish, to search their churches and chapels; and to wash out of the walls all paintings that seemed to be Romish and idolatrous; in lieu whereof, suitable texts of Holy Scripture were written.

Towards the close of 1562, his patron Grindall, bishop of London, collated him to the valuable rectory of Great Hadham, in Hertfordshire, where the ample tithe-bara which he built still remains. Nowell was one of those eminent men mentioned by Isaac Walton, who were fond of angling; and to enable him more commodiously to indulge in this amusement, Dr. Sandys, the succeeding bishop of London, conferred on him a grant of the custody of the river, within the manor of Hadham, with leave to take fish, and to cut down timber, to make pits and dams, free of all expence whatsoever. When the memorable convocation, in which the Articles of Religion were revised and subscribed, met in 1563, Nowell was chosen prolocutor of the lower house. Among other more important matters, rites and ceremonies were warmly agitated in this house. On this occasion, Nowell, with about thirty others, chiefly such as had been exiles during queeu Mary’s reign, proposed that some other long garment should be used instead of the surplice, or that the minister should, in time of divine service, use the surplice only; that the sign of the cross should be omitted in baptism, and that kneeling at the holy communion should be left to the discretion of the ordinary; that saints’ days should be abrogated, and organs removed. But the majority would allow of no alterations in the liturgy or rules of Edward the Sixth’s service-book (knowing the wisdom, deliberation, and piety, with which it had been framed) as it was already received and enforced by the authority of parliament, in the first year of the queen. During the plague, the ravages of which this year were very extensive, he was appointed to draw up a homily suitable to the occasion, and a form of prayer for general use, both of which were set forth by the queen’s special commandment, July 10, 1563.

Nowell, who continued to be a very frequent, and one of the most approved of the public preachers at Paul’s Cross, introduced in one of his sermons, Harding’s answer to Jewell, reading some passages of it, and confuting them. This was no uncommon practice in those days, during the activity of the popish party, and before matters of controversy could be usefully committed to the press. In the same year he“noticed, in another of his sermons, Dorman’s answer to Jewell, and appears from this time to have employed his leisure in preparing a more formal answer to that heap of misrepresentations. It was in 1560 that Jewell made his famous challenge to the papists, that none of the peculiar and discriminating dogmas of popery could be proved, either by warrant of scripture, or by authority of the fathers or councils, during six hundred years from the birth of Christ. Attempts were made to answer this challenge by Rastell, and Harding, (see their articles) and now Mr. Dorman published what he called” A Proof of certain articles in Religion, denied by Mr. Jewell.“Against this, Nowell published,” A Reproof of a book, entitled “A Proof,' &c.” 1565, 4to, reprinted, with some additions, in little more than a month. In the same year appeared Dorman’s “Disproof of Nowell’s Reproof,” followed in 1566 by Nowell’s “Continuation of his Reproof,” and in 1567, by his “Confutation as well of Mr. Dorman’s last book, intituled * a Disproof,' &c.” as also of Dr. Sanders’s causes of Transubstantiation,“&c. In this controversy Nowell’s learning and deep knowledge of ecclesiastical history were not more conspicuous than the candour with which he treated his adversaries. He appears to have had the aid of the bishop of London and other high characters of the time in the publication of these works, which appeared to his learned contemporaries to be of such importance to the cause of the reformation and the character of the reformed church, as to merit their utmost care, even in the minutiae of typographical correction. This circumstance, says his biographer, shows” how solicitous the persons to whom, under God, we in great measure owe the final reformation of our church, were ut writes ipsa limaretur in disputatione, that genuine truth might be fully known, and accurately expressed."

NowelPs preaching as well as writing, appears to have greatly assisted the reformation. In 1568 we find him among his friends in Lancashire; where, by his continual preaching in divers parts of the country, he brought many to conformity; and obtained singular commendation and praise, even of those who had been great enemies to his religion. So Downham, bishop of Chester, who this year visited his whole diocese, and therefore had the better opportunity of informing himself, reported the matter to secretary Cecil; desiring him to be a means to the queen, and to her honourable council, to give the dean thanks for his great pains, taken among his countrymen.

The principal remaining monument of Nowell’s fame is his celebrated “Catechism,” of the history of which and of catechisms in general, his biographer has given a very interesting detail. The precise time when he wrote it has not been discovered; nor whether, as is not improbable, he first devised it (or some such summary) for the use of his pupils in Westminster-school, It is, however, certain that it was composed, and in readiness for publication, before the convocation sat in 1562, for, among the minutes of matters to be moved in that synod, we find two memorable papers, both of them noted by the archbishop of Canterbury’s hand (Parker), and one of them drawn up by one of his secretaries, in both of which there is express mention of Nowell’s catechism. For the proceedings of the convocation on the subject, we must refer to his excellent biographer. The work was not published until June 1570, 4to. This is what is called his “Larger Catechism,” and in the preface it is announced that he intended to publish it, reduced into a shorter compass, as soon as possible. The abridgment accordingly came out the same year, and both in Latin. They were soon after, for the sake of more extensive usefulness, translated into English, by Thomas Norton, of whom we have lately taken notice, and into Greek by the Dean’s nephew, Whitaker, but the Greek translation of the larger, which was first printed (along with the Latin) did not appear until 1573, and that of the smaller in 1575. His biographer gives some account of a third Catechism, attributed to Nowell, but its history seems involved in some obscurity. There seems reason to think that this was, in whole or in part, what is now called “The Church Catechism.” Nowell’s other catechisms were in such request as to go through a great many impressions, and long continued to be used in schools, and the use of them appears to have been frequently enjoined by the founders of schools, and mentioned expressly in the statutes drawn up for such seminaries. What public authority and private influence could do, was not wanting to recommend these catechisms as the foundation of religious knowledge. In fact, the church catechism, the homilies, and Nowell’s catechisms, appear to have long been the standard books, which were quoted as authorities for all that the church of England believed and taught; and Nowell’s were within these few years reprinted in the “Enchiridion Theologicum,” by Dr. Randolph, late bishop of London, and by Dr. Cleaver, late bishop of St. Asaph.

, so called from the village of Ockham in Surrey, where he was born, was, according to Wood, a fellow of Merton college, Oxford, in the thirteenth century, and was a renowned teacher of the scholastic doctrines at that university. He had the offer of the archdeaconry of Stow in the diocese of Lincoln in January 1300, but refused it. In 1302 he was collated by bishop D'Alderby to the prebend of Bedford major in that church; and having thought proper to accept the archdeaconry on a second offer, was collated to it May 15, 1305, but seems to have vacated it about the latter end of 1319. He was a pupil of Duns Scotus, and was little inferior to his master in subtlety. The school of the Scotists had, till his time, followed the popular opinion of the realists; but Occam, probably from an ambition of becoming the head of a separate body, revived the opinions of the nominalists, and formed a sect under the name of Occamists, which vehemently opposed the Scotists, upon the abstract questions concerning universals, which had been formerly introduced by Rosceline.

In 1547 he was invited, together with Peter Martyr, into England by abp. Cranmer, to have their joint assistance in carrying on the reformation. They arrived in December that year; and, repairing to Lambeth, were kindly received by Cranmer. They were entertained there for some time along with Bucer, Fagius, and others; and Ochinus, as well as Martyr, was made a prebendary of Canterbury. He laboured heartily in the business of the Reformation; and his dialogue, upon the unjust usurped primacy of the bishop of Rome, was translated into Latin by Ponet, bishop of Winchester, and published in 1549. But, upon the death of Edward VI. being forced, as well as Martyr, to leave England, he retired to Strasburg with that friend, where they arrived in 1553. In his absence he was, among other persons who had preferments in Canterbury, declared contumacious. From Strasburg he went to Basil, and was called thence, in 1555, to Zurich, to be minister of an Italian church which was forming there. This church consisted of some refugees from Locarno, one of the four bailiwics which the Switzers possess in Italy, who were hindered from the public exercise of the reformed religion by the opposition of the popish cantons. Ochinus made no difficulty to subscribe the articles of faith agreed upon by the church of Zurich, and governed this Italian church till 1563; when he was banished thence by the magistrates of the town, on account of some dialogues he published, in which he maintained the doctrine of polygamy. He is said to have been prompted to this by the infidelity of his wife. From Zurich, he went to Basil; but, not being suffered to stay there, he fled in great distress into Moravia, where he fell in with the Socinians, and joined them. Stanislaus Lubienietski, the great patron of this sect, gives the following account of his last days, in his “Hist. Reformat. Polori.” Ochinus, says he, retired into Moravia, and into Poland, and even there he was not out of the reach of Calvin’s letters. He returned into Moravia, after king Sigismund’s edict; who, in!564, punished with banishment all those that were called Tritheists, Atheists, &c. Some gentlemen endeavoured to keep him in Poland; but he answered, that men must obey the magistrates, and that he would obey them, even were he to die among the wolves in the woods. During his travels, he fell sick of the plague at Pincksow, and received there all possible offices of kindness from one of the brethren, named Philippovius. His daughter and two sons, whom he carried along with him, died of the plague; but he had buried his wife before he had left Zurich. As for himself, he continued his journey to Moravia, and within three weeks died at Slakow, in 1564, aged 77. His character is variously represented by different authors, and certainly appears not to have been very consistent. Bayle observes, that the confession he made publicly, on the change of his religion, is remarkable. He acknowledged, in a preface, that, if he could have continued, without danger of his life, to preach the truth, after the manner he had preached it for some years, he would never have laid down the habit of his order; but, as he did not find within himself that courage which is requisite to undergo martyrdom, he took sanctuary in England, where he probably might have remained in reputation, had not the reformation been disturbed on the accession of Mary. Abroad, after he had given offence to the Catvinists, the Socinians afforded him some protection for a while, but even to them he became obnoxious, and at last sunk into a species of heresy which the boasted charity of Socinianism itself could not tolerate. They class him, however, among their writers, as appears by Sandius’s “Bibl. Anti-trinitariorum.” His writings are rather numerous than bulky. Besides the “Dialogues,” there are “Italian Sermons,” in 4 vols. printed 1543; an “Italian. Letter to the Lords of Sienna, containing an Account of his Faith and Doctrine;” another, “Letter to Mutio of Justinopolis, containing the reason of his departure from Italy;” “Sermons upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians,” in Italian; “An Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in Italian; “Apologues against the abuses, errors, &c. of the Papal Synagogue, their Priests, Monks, &c.” in Italian, and translated into Latin by Castalio as were his “Dialogues,” &c. &c. which last, it may be mentioned, were answered by Beza.

, an eminent Orientalist, and professor of Arabic in Cambridge, was of a gentleman’s family, at Great Ellingham in Norfolk, where his father lived; but was accidentally born at Exeter in 1678. After a proper foundation laid in school-learning, he was sent, in 1693, to Queen’s college in Cambridge, where he soon distinguished himself by great quickness of parts as well as intense application to literature; to the Oriental languages more particularly, for his uncommon skill in which he afterwards became famous. He took, at the usual time, the degrees in arts, and that of bachelor in divinity. Having taken orders also, he was, in 1705, through the interest of Simon Patrick, bishop of Ely, presented by Jesus college, in Cambridge, to the vicarage of Swavesey, in that county; and, in 1711, chosen Arabic professor of the university. These preferments he held to the day of his death, which happened at Swavesey, Aug. 9, 1720, immaturely to himself, but more so to his family.

Ockley had the culture of Oriental learning very much at heart; and the several publications which he made were intended solely to promote it. In 1706, he printed, at Cambridge, an useful little book, entitled, “Introductio ad Linguas Orientales, in qua iis discendis via munitur, et earum usus ostenditur. Accedit index auctorum, tarn illorum, quorum in hoc libello mentio fit, quam aliorum, qui harum rerum studiosis usui esse possint.” Prefixed is a dedication to his friend the bishop of Ely, and a preface, addressed to the Juventus Academica, whom he labours to excite by various arguments to the pursuit of Oriental learning; assuring them in general, that no man ever was, or ever will be, truly great in divinity, without at least some portion of skill in it: “Orientalia studia, sine quorum aliquali saltern peritia nemo unquam in theologia vere magnus evasit, imo nunquam evasurus est.” There is a chapter in this work, relating to the celebrated controversy between Buxtorf and Capellus, upon the antiquity of the Hebrew points, where Ockley professes to think with Buxtorf, who contended for it: but he afterwards changed his opinion, and went over to Capellus, although he had not any opportunity of publicly declaring it. And indeed it is plain, from his manner of closing that chapter upon the points, that he was then far enough from having any settled persuasion about them “his in praesentia assentior; nolo tamen aliquid temere affirmare, quod, si posthac sententiam meam mutare mihi visum fuerit, nollem ut quispiam ea quse hie scripsi mihi exprobret.”

, the second abbot of Clugni in France, illustrious for his learning and piety, and certainly as learned and pious as the ignorance and superstition of the times would permit, was born at Tours in 879. He was educated by Foluques, count of Anjou, and became a canon of St. Martin, at Tours, at nineteen years of age, after which he went to Paris, and was the disciple of St. Remy of Auxerre. He was fond of solitude, and took the monk’s habit in the convent of Beaume, in the diocese of Besangon. After which, he became prior and abbot of St. Clugni, in 927, where he introduced a new discipline, or set of ceremonies of a severe and rigorous kind, which, however, with the sanctity of his life contributed greatly to increase the congregation of Clugni; and such was the influence of his personal character, that popes, bishops, and secular princes, usually chose him for the arbitrator of their disputes, and the order or discipline of Clugni attained a very high degree of eminence and authority. He died about 943. He applied himself to study as well as to the aggrandizing of his order; but his original works are filled with the grossest superstitions. While he was canon, he abridged the “Morals of St. Gregory,” and the “Hymns in honour of St. Martin.” While a simple monk, he composed three books of “The Priesthood;” and another upon the “Prophecy of Jeremy,” dedicated to Turpion bishop of Limoges, which bore the title of “Collations or Conferences, or Occupations.” After he became abbot, he wrote the “Life of St. Gerard,” and of “St. Martial of Limoges,” and several sermons, and a “Panegyric upon St. Benedict.” All these are prinfed in the.“Bibliotheque of Clugni,” together with some “Hymns upon the Sacrament,” and “The Magdelain;” but the “History of St. Martyn’s Translation” is improperly ascribed to him. It appears also that he understood music; and besides some hymns, chaunts, and anthems, still preserved in the Romish church, there are two copies of a ms tract on music, of his writing, in the royal library of Paris, and one in Bene't college, Cambridge. This is noticed by Dr. Burney in his History of Music.

, an ancient Greek commentator on the Scriptures, was bishop of Trica in Thessaly in the tenth century, but of his personal history nothing is known. His commentaries upon the Acts of the Apostles, and the fourteen epistles of St. Paul, and the seven Catholic episties, contain, besides his own remarks and notes, a cornpilation of the notes and observations of Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, Theodoret, and others. He is thought also to have written a commentary upon the four gospels, but this is not now extant. The works of Oecumenius were first published in Greek at Verona in 1532, and in Greek and Latin at Paris in 1631, in two volumes folio. To the second volume of the Paris edition is added the “Commentary” of Arethas upon the book of Revelation.

, an English divine, was born at Manchester, in 1716, and was educated at the free-school there. In 1733 he was admitted a poor scholar of King’s college, Cambridge, whence he removed for a Manchester exhibition to St. John’s in 1736. In the following year he took the degree of B. A. and in 1739 was elected fellow. He was ordained deacon at Chester in 1740; and in the following year he took his degree of M. A. and was ordained priest by the bishop of Lincoln. In 1744 he was elected master of the free-school at Halifax in Yorkshire. In 1753 he resigned his school, and went to reside at Cambridge; and at the ensuing commencement he took the degree of D. D. The late duke of Newcastle, who was chancellor of the university, having been present at the exercise he performed for the degree, was so much satisfied with it, that he soon after presented him with the vicarage of Damerham in Wiltshire, which was tenable with his fellowship. In 1764, Dr. Ogden was appointed Woodwardian professor. In June 1766 he was presented to the rectory of Lawford in Essex, and in the following month to that of Stansfield in Suffolk. He died March 23, 1778, in the sixty-second year of his age, and was buried in St. Sepulchre’s church, Cambridge, of which he had the cure, and where he preached most of his published sermons. In common life there was a real or apparent rusticity attending Dr. Ogden’s address, which disgusted those who were strangers to his character; but this prejudice soon wore off, as the intimacy with him increased; and, notwithstanding the sternness, and even ferocity, he would sometimes throw into his countenance, he was in truth one oC the most humane and tender-hearted men ever known. To his relations who wanted his assistance, he was remarkably kind in his life, and in the legacies he left them at his death. His father and mother, who both lived to an exceeding old age, owed almost their whole support to his piety. During the latter part of Dr. Ogden’s life he laboured under much ill health. About a year before he died he was seized with a paralytic fit as he was stepping into his chariot, and was judged to be in immediate and extreme danger, but he sustained this shock with cheerfulness, and calmly gave the necessary orders on the event of his dissolution. Such is the character given of Dr. Ogden by his learned friend Dr. (afterwards bishop) Halifax, Originally prefixed to an edition of his “Sermons, with a Vindication of his Writings against some late Objections,” 1780, 2 vols. 8vo. It seems to be fully confirmed by the testimony of two Cambridge gentlemen of very opposite sentiments, Mr. Cole, to whom we are so often indebted for memoranda of the eminent men of that university, and Mr. Gilbert Wakefield. The latter, who heard Dr. Ogden preach most of the discourses since published, says that “his person, manner, and character of composition, were exactly suited to each other. He exhibited a large Black, scowling, grisly figure, a ponderous body with a lowering visage, embrowned by the horrors of a sable perriwig. His voice was growling and morose; and his sentences desultory, tart, and snappish.” Mr. Wakefield adds that his “uncivilized appearance, and bluntness of demeanour, were the grand obstacles to his elevation in the church.” The duke of Newcastle would have brought him to court to prefer him; but found, as he expressed it, that the doctor was not a producible man. In all these particulars Mr. Cole agrees, as in some other singularities. Mr. Cole informs us that Dr. Ogden’s father had been in the army, and when he retired lived at Mansfield, where he married. Some time before his death he went to Mansfield, and put up, a monument to his father, in gratitude for having given him a good education, as he expressed it, and left the bulk of his fortune to the family into which his father married. His Arabic books he left to Mr, Craven, of St. John’s, the Arabic professor, who very disinterestedly refused the residuary legateeship, which Dr. Ogden had long designed for him. Dr. Ogden’s reputation as a divine rests on two small volumes of sermons, collected by Dr. Halifax, whose “Vindication” of them, above mentioned, respects the remarks of Mr. Mainwaring, in a “Dissertation” on the composition of sermons, prefixed to his own sermons, 1780, 8vo. Dr. Halifax’s vindication is warm, zealous, and friendly, like his character of Dr. Ogden, but not altogether satisfactory as to the principal objections to the style of his author; and even if allowed to be elegant, Dr. Ogden’s sermons are of very slight texture, and rather hortatory than instructive or doctrinal.

, a learned, but somewhat enthusiastic divine, was born in 1718, and educated at the Charter-house, and at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. 1739. At this time he appears to have conceived those notions which interrupted his regular ad*­vancement, and was ordained deacon in the Moravian church. He afterwards offered himself as a candidate for priest’s orders in the church of England; but, when the bishop intimated the invalidity of his first orders, Mr. Okely would not be ordained priest on such terms, and therefore adhered, through life, to the Moravian congregations, and was highly esteemed by the few who lived in communion with him, on account of his piety, benign temper, and liberal sentiments. He died at Bedford May 9, 1794, in his seventy-sixth year. The peculiar turn of his mind may be understood from the titles of his publications: 1. A translation from the High Dutch, of “Twenty-one Discourses, or Dissertations, upon the Augsburgh Confession, which is also the Brethren’s Confession of Faith, delivered by the ordinary of the Brethren’s Churches before the seminary,” &c. 1754, 8vo. 2. “Psalmorum aliquot Davidis Metaphrasis Graeca Joannis Serrani,” &c. 1770, 12mo. 3. “The Nature and Necessity of the new creature in Christ, stated and described, according to the heart’s experience and true practice, by Johanna Eleanora de Mellari translated from the German,” 1772, 8vo, 4, “The divine visions of John Englebrecht,” 1781, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “A faithful Narrative of God’s gracious dealings with Kiel,” 1781, 8vo. 6. “A Display of God’s Wonders, done upon the person, &c. of John Englebrecht,” &c. 1781. 7. “The indispensable necessity of Faith, in order to the pleasing God being the^ substance of a discourse preached at Eydon in Northamptonshire,” 1781, 8vo.

, a learned prelate, was born at Hermanstadt, in 1493. After various preferments, he was nominated by Ferdinand, king of Hungary, bishop of Zagrat, and chancellor of the kingdom. He was afterwards elevated to the see of Agria, and being present at the famous siege of that town by the Turks in 1552, he contributed greatly to the spirited and successful defence made by the inhabitants. In 1553 he was appointed archbishop of Strigonia, and held two national councils at Tyrnau, the acts of which were printed at Vienna in 1560, and was instrumental in founding the first Jesuits’ college in Hungary $rt Tyrnau. In 1562 he was created palatine of the kingdom, in which quality he crowned Maximilian as king of Hungary. He died at Tyrnau in 1568; leaving behind him, as monuments of his industry and learning, “A Chronicle of his own Times:” “A History of Attila,” Presb. 1538, and “A Description of Hungary.” His life is given in father Muszka’s history of the Palatines of Hungary, printed in 1752, folio.

, an English prelate, and an eminent benefactor to Corpus college, Oxford, is supposed to have been born at Manchester, or more probably at Oldham, near Manchester. He was educated at Oxford, whence, after remaining some time, he removed to Cambridge, completed his studies, and took the degree of D. D. In 1493, Margaret countess of Richmond, whose chaplain he was, presented him to the rectory of Swinshead in Lincolnshire, and in July 1494, to the valuable living of Cheshunt, of which he was the last rector, as it was appropriated shortly after to the convent of Westminster. In the same year we find him prebendary of Collwich in the church of Lichfield, and of Freeford in that church in 1501. In 1497, he was prebendary of Leighton-Bosard in the church of Lincoln, and in 1499 prebendary of South Cave in York. In 1504, he was, by the interest of his patroness the countess of Richmond, advanced to the see of Exeter, in which he sat till his death, June 15, 1519. He is said not to have been a man of profound learning, but a great encourager of it. Wood says that he had an intention of joining with bishop Smyth in the foundation of Brazen-^nose college, but mentions no authority, yet since his arms were displayed in the windows of the original library of that college, there can be no doubt that he contributed to finish or furnish the room. His principal benefactions, however, were bestowed on the contemporary foundation of Corpus Christi college. The design of Fox, the founder of Corpus, originally went no farther than to found a college for a warden, and a certain number of monks and secular scholars belonging to the priory of St. Swithin in Winchester; but our prelate induced him to enlarge his plan to one of more usefulness and durability. He is said to have addressed Fox thus: “What, my lord, shall we build houses, and provide livelihoods for a company of monks, whose end and fall we ourselves may live to see! No, no: it is more meet a great deal that we should have care to provide for, the increase of learning, and for such as who by their learning shall do good to the church and commonwealth.” This wise and liberal advice being taken, Oldham became the second great benefactor to Corpus, by contributing six thousand marks, besides lands. He also founded the grammar-school of Manchester, still a flourishing seminary, and connected with the three colleges of Corpus and Brazen-nose in Oxford, and St. John’s in Cambridge,

, a writer well known in the reigns of queen Anne and George I. but of whom little is remembered, unless the titles of some few of his literary productions. One of his names took the degree of M. A. at Hart-hall, Oxford, in 1670. He was one of the original authors of “The Examiner,” and continued to write in that paper as long as it was kept up. He published, “A Vindication of the Bishop of Exeter” (Dr. Blackall), against Mr. Hoadly. 2. A volume called “State Tracts” and another called “State and Miscellany Poems, by the author of the Examiner,” 1715, 8vo. He translated, 3. The “Odes, Epodes, and Carmen Seculare, of Horace;” wrote, 4. The “Life of Edmund Smith,” prefixed to his works, 1719; and, 5. “Timothy and Philatheus, in which the principles and projects of a late whimsical book, entitled The Rights of the Christian Church, &c. are fairly stated and answered in their kind, &c. By a Layman,” 1709, 1710, 3 vols. 8vo. This is the work to which Pope makes Lintot the bookseller allude, in their pleasant dialogue on a journey to Oxford, and which perhaps may also convey one of Pope’s delicate sneers at Oldisworth’s poetry . He also published a translation of “The Accomplished Senator,” from the Latin of Gozliski, bishop of Posnia, 1733, 4to. In the preface to this work he defends his own character as a writer for the prerogative and the ministry, and boldly asserts his independence, while he admits that he wrote under the earl of Oxford. He insinuates that some things have been published under his name, in which he had no hand, and probably the above-mentioned “State and Miscellany Poems” were of that number. His attachment to the Stuart family occasioned a report that he was killed at the battle of Preston in 1715; but it is certain that he survived this engagement many years, and died Sept. 15, 1734.

Mr. Oldmixon, though rigid to others, is far from unblameable himself, in the very particulars concerning which he is so free in his accusations, and that sometimes even without the least regard to truth; one remarkable instance of this kind was his infamous attempt to charge three eminent persons with interpolation in Lord Clarendon’s “History.” This, however, was fully and satisfactorily disproved by bp. Atterbury, the only survivor of them; and the pretended interpolation, after a space of almost ninety years, was produced in his lordship’s own hand-writing. Yet, notwithstanding Oldmixon’s indignation against this pretended crime, it is a fact that when employed by bishop Kennet in publishing the historians in his “Collection,” he made no scruple to pervert “Daniel’s Chronicle” in numberless places, which renders Rennet’s first edition of little value. His principal works were, the “History of the Stuarts,” folio, and “the Critical History of England;” besides which he wrote, 1. “Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to the Earl of Oxford about the English Language,” 1712, 8vo. 2. “A volume of Poems,” 1714. 3. “The Life of Arthur Maynwaring, esq.” whose “Posthumous Works” were collected by Mr. Oldmixon in 1715, and whom he had considerably assisted in “The Medley.” 4. “The Life of Queen Anne.” 5. “A Review of Dr. Grey’s Defence of our ancient and modern Historians.” He wrote also a tragedy, an opera, and two pastorals; and his name is to one of Curll’s infamous publications, called “Court tales, or a History of the Amours of the present Nobility,” of which a second edition was published in 1731.

O'Leary (Arthur), a Roman Catholic clergyman, was a native of Ireland, whence, when young, he embarked for France; studied at the college of St. Malo, in Briianny, and at length entered into the Franciscan order of Capuchins. He then acted, for some time, as chaplain to the English prisoners during the seven years war, for which he received a small pension from the Frenrh government, which he retained till the French revolution. Having obtained permission to go to Ireland, he obtained, by his talents, the notice and recompence of the Irish government; and took an early opportunity of shewing the superiority of his courage and genius, by principally attacking the heterodox doctrines of Michael Servetus, revived at that time hy a Dr. Blair, of the city of Cork. After this, in 1782, when there was a disposition to relax the rigour of the penal laws against the Roman Catholics, and establish a sort of test-oath, he published a tract entitled “Loyalty asserted, or the Test- Oath vindicated,” in which, in opposition to most of his brethren, he endeavoured to prove that the Roman Catholics of Ireland might, consistently with their religion, swear that the pope possessed there no temporal authority, which was the chief point on which the oath hinged; and in other respects he evinced his loyalty, and his desire to restrain the impetuous bigotry of his brethren. His other productions were of a various and miscellaneous nature; and several effusions are supposed to have come from his pen which he did not think it necessary or perhaps prudent to acknowledge. He was a man singularly gifted with natural humour, and possessed great acquirements. He wrote on polemical subjects without acrimony, and on politics with a spirit of conciliation. Peace indeed seems to have been much his object. Some years ago, when a considerable number of nocturnal insurgents, of the Romish persuasion, committed great excesses in the county of Cork, particularly towards the tithe- proctors of the protestant clergy, he rendered himself extremely useful, by his various literary addresses to the deluded people, in bringing them to a proper sense of their error and insubordination. This laudable conduct did not escape the attention of the Irish government; and induced them, when he quitted Ireland, to recommend him to men of power in this country. For many years he resided in London, as principal of the Roman Catholic chapel in Soho-square, where he was highly esteemed by people of his religion. In his private character he was always cheerful, gay, sparkling with wit, and full of anecdote. He died at an advanced age in January, 1802, and was interred in St. Pancras church-yard. His works are, 1. “Several Addresses to the Catholics of Ireland.” 2. “Remarks on Mr. Wesley’s Defence of the Protestant Association.” 3. “Defence of his conduct in the affair of the insurrection in Munster,” 1787. 4. “Review of the important Controversy between Dr. Carrol and the rev. Messrs. Wharton and Hopkins.” 5. “Fast sermon at St. Patrick’s chapel, Soho, March 8, 1797.” 6. A Collection of his Miscellaneous Tracts, in 1 vol. 8vo. 7. “A Defence of the Conduct and Writings of the rev. Arthur O'Leary, &c. written by himself, in answer to the illgrounded insinuations of the right rev. Dr. Woodward, bishop of Cloyne,” 1788, 8vo. The bishop, in his controversy with Mr. O'Leary, acknowledges that he represents matters strongly and eloquently, and that, “Shakspeare like, he is well acquainted with the avenues to the human heart;” and Mr. Wesley calls him an “arch and lively writer.” His style was certainly voluble, bold, and figurative but deficient in grace, manliness, perspicuity, and sometimes grammar; but he was distinguished as a friend to freedom, liberality, and toleration and was highly complimented on this account by Messrs. Grattan, Flood, and other members of the Irish parliament, in their public speeches.

, M. A. president of Clare r haH in Cambridge, and vicar of Great Gransden in Huntingdonshire, was born at Thorp, near Wakefield in Yorkshire (of which place his father was vicar), and was proctor of the university in 1635. On the breaking out of the rebellion, he was very active in collecting the university-plate, and was intrusted in conveying it to the king at Nottingham in August, 1642; but for this, and other acts of loyalty, he was turned out of his fellowship by the earl of Manchester, April 8, 1644, and forced to quit his vicarage. After having suffered much during the usurpation, he was, in 1660, restored both to his fellowship and vicarage; and Sept. 4, that year, installed prebendary of Worcester; and bishop Gunning (to whom he had formerly been tutor), collated him to the archdeaconry of Ely, Nov. 8, into which he was inducted, by proxy, Nov. 17, 1679. This dignity, however, after a little more than a year’s possession, he voluntarily resigned, not thinking himself, in his great humility, sufficient to discharge the duty of it. He was a Jearned man, and no less eminent for his piety and charities. He published “Dr. Jackson’s works,” and Mr. Herbert’s “Country Parson,” to each of which he prefixed a preface. He dred Feb. 20, 1C 86, and was interred in Great Gransden church, where is an inscription to his memory, recording his various charities.

After the death of Koribut, Olzoffski had a principal share in procuring the election of John Sobieski, who made him archbishop of Guesne, and primate of the kingdom; and he would have obtained a cardinal’s hat, if he had not publicly declared against it. However, he had not been long possessed of the primacy before his right to it was disputed by the bishop of Cracow; who laid claim also to other prerogatives of the see of Guesne, and pretended to make the obsequies of the Polish monarchs. On this Olzoffski published a piece in defence of the rights and privileges of his archbishopric. He also some time afterwards published another piece, but without putting his name to it, entitled “Singularia Juris Patronatus R. Poloniae,” in support of the king of Poland’s right of nomination to the abbeys. In 1678, going by the king’s command to Dantzic, in order to compose certain disputes between the senate and people of that city, he was seized with a disorder which carried him off in three days, aged about 60. He was particularly distinguished by eloquence, and love for his country and his death was lamented throughout all' the palatinates.

, bishop of Melevia, a town of Numidia in Africa, flourished in the fourth century, under the empire of Valentinian and Valens. He wrote his very able and judicious treatise on the schism of the Donatists about the year 370, against Parmenian, bishop of that sect. We know nothing of the particulars of his life. He is commended by Austin, Jerom, and Fulgentius. In Jerom’s time his work was divided into six books, to which a seventh was subjoined, from the additions which Optatus had made to his other books. This author has been published several times: the last, in 1700, by Dupin, who has settled the text from four manuscripts. He has also put short notes, with various readings, at the bottom of the page; and at the end inserted the notes of Badoubin, Casaubon, Barthius, and other former editors, together with a collection of all the acts of councils and episcopal conferences, letters of bishops, edicts of emperors, proconsular acts, and acts of martyrs, which any way regard the history of the Donatists, disposed in a chronological order, from the first rise of the sect to the time of Gregory the Great. There is also a preface, containing an account of the writings of Optatus, with their several editions; and two dissertations, one containing the “History of the Donatists,” and the other upon “The sacred Geography of Africa.” This is the best edition of Optatus, whose work shews him to have been a man of parts, improved by study, and had he chosen a more useful subject, would have probably appeared to greater advantage among the writers of his age.

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, and grand master of the college de Navarre in the fourteenth century, was a native of Caen, and preceptor to Charles V. who made him bishop of Lisieux in 1377. He died in 1382. His principal works are, 1. “A Discourse on the Disorders of the Court of Rome.” 2. An excellent treatise “De Communicatione Idiomatum.” 3. A tract on coinage, in the library of the Fathers. 4. A learned and curious treatise “De Antichristo,” printed ift torn. IX. of P. Martenne’s “Amplissima Collectio,” &c. A French translation of the Bible is also attributed to him, but equally so to Raoul de Presle, and to Guyars des Moulins. He translated into French, by order of Charles V. Aristotle’s books “de Ccelo” and “de Mundo,” his “Ethics” and “Politics” and also Petrarch “dei Rimedi dell‘una et l’Altra Fortuna.”

While he followed this profession, the chair of the school at Alexandria becoming vacant by the retreat of Clement, and by the flight of all those who were dispersed by the persecution, some of the heathens, who were willing to be converted, made their application to him, though he was not then above eighteen years of age: and at length, the reputation and number of his converts increasing every day, Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, confirmed him in the employment of catechist, or professor of sacred learning, in that church. He then left off teaching grammar, and sold all his books of profane learning; contenting himself with a small daily allowance of four oboli, which were allowed him by the person who bought them. He now likewise began to lead a most strict and severe life, which contributed no less than his learning to draw a great number of disciples about him; although a violent persecution was then begun at Alexandria under the government of Lsetus, and was continued with equal fury under that of Aquila his successor. Several of his disciples suffered martyrdom there, and he himself was exposed to the rage of the heathens, when he went, as he constantly did, to the assistance and encouragement of the martyrs. He then practised all kind of austerities, and carried the doctrine of mortification so far as even to commit an unnatural act upon his person, taking, contrary to his usual practice, the following text literally, “There be some who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” but he lived to be convinced of his error, and afterwards condemned it.

It was about this time, in the beginning of Caracalla’s reign, that he went to Rome, under the pontificate of Zepherinus; and began that great celebrated work, called the “Tetrapla.” This was a Bible, in which, by the side of the Hebrew text, he had transcribed in different columns four translations, distinguished by verses; namely, the translation of the Seventy, that of Aquila, that of Symmachus, and that of Theodotion. He afterwards added two other versions, without any author’s name, and a seventh upon the Psalms only, which he found at Jericho: and these versions, with the Hebrew, which is written in Greek as well as Hebrew characters, make up what is called Origen’s “Hexapla,” which was the first attempt to compile those Polyglots to which the Christian world has been so much indebted. He had frequent occasion afterwards to leave Alexandria, first in consequence of the invitation of an Arabian prince to come and instruct him. A little while after, the city of Alexandria being miserably harassed by the emperor Caracalla for some affront put upon him, he retired into Palestine; and, settling in the city of Caesarea, the bishops of that province desired him, though he was not yet a priest, to expound the Scriptures publicly in that church, and to instruct the people in their presence; with which request he complied. But whether his bishop Demetrius secretly envied him this honour, or was really persuaded that they had violated the rules of the church, he wrote to these prelates, and told them, “it was a thing unheard of, and had never been practised till then, that laymen should preach in the presence of bishops:” to which Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus wrote back that “this had been often practised.” Demetrius, however, ordered Origen home, who obeyed, and betook himself to his first employment. Some time after, he was again diverted from it by order of the princess Mammira, who invited him to Antioch, that she might see and discourse with him: but he shortly returned to Alexandria, where he continued till the year 228. He then went again to Csesarea about some ecclesiastical affairs; and, as he passed through Palestine, was ordained priest by Alexander and Theoctistus. This ordination of Origen by foreign bishops so extremely incensed his diocesan Demetrius, that from this time his conduct towards Origen was marked by the most determined enmity. However, Origen returned to Alexandria, where he continued, as he had long ago begun, to write “Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures;” and he then published five books of “Commentaries upon St. John’s Gospel,” eight upon “Genesis,” “Commentaries upon the first 23 Psalms,” and upon the “Lamentations of Jeremiah” his books “De Principiis,” and his “Stromata;”

All this while the bishop of Alexandria continued to persecute him as fiercely as ever. The truth is, Demetrius had long conceived envy and ill-will against him, on account of his shining merit and extensive reputation, and took this opportunity of giving it full vent. He wrote letters every where against him; he reproached him with the violence he had committed on his person, which he had formerly extolled as flowing from the greatest prudence, zeal, and piety; and in a council which he assembled in the year 231, it was ordained that Origen should not desist only from teaching, but even quit the city. Banished thus from Alexaiidria, he retired to Caesarea, his ordinary place of refuge; where he was kindly received by Theoctistus, bishop of that city, and by Alexander bishop of Jerusalem, who undertook to defend him, and commissioned him to expound the Scriptures publicly, hearing hiiii all the while as if he had been their master. The encouragement he received at Csesarea, seems to have exasperated Demetrius still more; who, not satisfied with the first judgment given against Origen, accused him in a council of the bishops of Egypt; and having caused him to be deposed, and even excommunicated, according to Jerom, wrote at the same time to all parts against him, to procure his being expelled the catholic church. However, the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia, who were particularly acquainted with his high merit, and many of them very intimate with him, determined to support him to the utmost, and encouraged by their zeal and friendship, he continued to explain the Scriptures at Caesarea with great reputation, both in the life- time and after the death of Demetrius, who did not live long after he had condemned Origen. All sorts of persons, not only from that province, but even from remote countries, came to be his disciples; the most famous of which were, Gregory, surnamed afterwards Thaumaturgus, and his brother Athenodorus. But though, after Demetrius’s death the persecution he had raised against Origen abated a little, yet Origen was always considered by the Egyptians as an excommunicated person; and the sentence given against him by Demetrius continued under his successors, Heraclas and Dionysius, although the former had been his disciple, and the latter had a great regard for him.

After the death of Alexander Severus, under whose reign all this happened, his successor Maximinus stirred up a persecution against the church in the year 235. Origen concealed himself during this persecution, and retired for some time to Athens, where he went on with his “Commentaries upon the Scriptures.” Under the reign of GorUianus, which began in the year 238, Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, fell into a very gross error, affirming, that our Lord had no existence before his incarnation;' upon which, some bishops gathering themselves together, caused Origen to come thither also; who convinced him of his error so effectually, that the bishop not only publicly acknowledged it, but ever after retained a kindness for Origen. Afterwards he was called, under the reign of Philip, to another assembly of bishops, which was held against some Arabians, who maintained that the souls of men died and were raised again with their bodies. He was then about sixty years old, yet pursued his studies with his usual vigour; and not only composed several books, but preached almost daily to the people, and for the most part without any preparation at all, yet his discourses were so highly esteemed, that they were taken down from his mouth, and afterwards published. Under the persecution of Decius, he suffered with great constancy for the faith. He was seized, put into prison, loaded with irons, had his feet in the stocks for several days, where they were cruelly extended beyond their natural dimensions. He was threatened to be burned alive, racked with various tortures; but he bore all with resolution and firmness. Being released from prison, he held several conferences, and behaved in every respect like a confessor of Jesus Christ; and lastty, after having laboured so much, and suffered with such credit and glory, he died at Tyre, in the reign of Gallus, aged sixty-nine, according to Eusebius.

We will conclude our account of this eminent father with what a learned and candid critic of our own has delivered concerning him. Origen, says Jortin, “was very learned and ingenious, and indefatigably industrious. His whole life, from his early years, was spent in examining, teaching, and explaining, the scriptures; to which he joined the study of philosophy, and all polite literature. He was humble, modest, and patient under great injuries and cruel treatment, which he received from Christians and Pagans: for, though he ever had a considerable number of friends and admirers, on account of his amiable qualities and accomplishments, he was persecuted and calumniated by men, who had neither his learning nor his virtue, degraded from the order of presbyters, driven from his home, and excommunicated by one Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, who envied him, says Eusebius, for the reputation which he had gained. His inquisitive genius, and his mixing philosophy with Christianity, led him, perhaps, into some learned singularities and ingenious reveries; but he was by temper far from dogmatizing in such points, from fomenting schisms, and setting up himself for the head of a party. He lived in times when Christians were not so shackled with systems and determinations as they were afterwards, nor so much exposed to disingenuous and illiberal objections; and had more liberty to pursue their inquiries, and to speak their mind. He was ever extremely sober and exemplary, practising what 'he preached to others; and he lived and died poor, and destitute even of common conveniences.” It may be necessary to add, that there was a sect of ancient heretics, who resembled, and even surpassed, the abominations of the Gnostics: they were called Origenians, but appear to have derived their name from some person totally distinct from the preceding Origen, whose followers were called Origenists.

, a celebrated bishop of Salisbury, in the eleventh century, was born of a noble family in Normandy. He possessed great learning, joined to great prudence, and accompanied with talents for military affairs; and his life, says Butler, was that of a saint, in all the difficult states of a courtier, soldier, and magistrate. In his early years he succeeded his father in the earldom of Séez, but distributed the greatest part of his revenues to the church and poor, and followed William the Conqueror into England in 1066. This prince rewarded Osmund by making him earl of Dorset, then chancellor, and afterwards bishop of Salisbury. With a view of pleasing the king, he was weak enough to desert the cause of Anselm, his archbishop; but, repenting almost immediately, he requested absolution from him, and obtained it. He built, or rather completed, the first cathedral of Salisbury, begun by his predecessor, and dedicated it in 1092; and it being destroyed by lightning, he rebuilt it in 1099, and furnished it with a library. To regulate the divine service, he compiled for his church the breviary, missal, and ritual, since called “The Use of Sarum,” which was afterwards adopted in most dioceses in England, until queen Mary’s time, when several of the clergy obtained particular licences to say the Roman breviary, but many of them were printed even in her reign. The first Salisbury missal is dated 1494, and was printed abroad. The last was printed at London in 1557. Osmund died Dec. 3, 1099. In 1457, his remains were removed to our lady’s chapel in the present cathedral, where they are covered with a marble slab, with only the inscription of the year 1099. His sumptuous shrine was destroyed in the reign of Henry VIII.

Mr. Ostervald had a considerable hand in the new liturgy which was introduced in the beginning of the last century in the churches of Neufchatel and Vallagin, btit this was not printed until 1713, soon after which an English translation appeared. Before tbis, in 1699, his first avowed publication appeared, under the title of “Traite des Sources de la Corruption,” which was also translated into English, and is one of the “Tracts” published by Dr. Watson, the present bishop of Llandaff, in 1782. The principal opponent Ostervald met with was Philip Naude, the mathematical professor at Berlin, who objected that in a treatise on the sources of the corruptions that exist in the world, he had kept too much out of sight that great source, the fall of man. Ostervald’s next publication was his celebrated “Catechism,” already mentioned, which no sooner appeared than it was translated into various languages, but not received among the divines of his own country without considerable opposition. The clergy of the canton of Berne, in particular, drew up their sentiments on it, accusing the author of omitting many doctrines which they thought essential in a work of this description. "To this an answer was also drawn up, which may be seen in our authority, but is too uninteresting at this time to be extracted. The objections of the divines of Berne seem to hinge chiefly on tbis, that Ostervald’s catechism is more moral than evangelical. Their opposition, however, does not seem to have lessened its popularity; and his biographer mentions the high respect which many eminent divines of the church of Rome entertained for it and its author, particularly Fenelon, Colbert, and Bignon.

In 1703 Ostervald went to Zurich with his son John Rodolphus, whom he placed for education under his friend Mr. Ott; from Zurich he went to Basil to visit his friend Werenfels, and other learned men of that place; and to Geneva, where he saw for the last time his friends Tronchin, Pictet, and Turretin. In all these places he preached to crowded audiences, attracted by the reputation of his talents for the pulpit. These were afterwards (in 1707) admired by an audience of royal and noble personages drawn to Neufcliatel to settle the sovereignty of that state, in consequence of the death of the duchess de Nemours. The decision was in favour of the king of Prussia, before whom he preached with such eloquence on the duties of subjects to their sovereign, that his majesty requested his sermons might be printed; but this was declined on the part of Ostervald. This year, however, he published his “Traite contre PImpurite,” which was translated into English, under the title of “A Discourse against the sin of Uncleaiiness,” and went through many editions both in English, French, and German. In 1708 he again, accompanied by Werenfels, went to Geneva, where they lodged with their friend Alphonsus Turretin the younger in this journey he fell in with the son of bishop Burnet. In November of next year he had the satisfaction to see his eldest son appointed pastor at Basil.

, so called, because he was bishop of that diocese in the twelfth century, was son of Leopold, marquis of Austria, and Agnes, daughter of the emperor Henry IV. He studied in the university at Paris, and retiring afterwards to the Cistertian monastery of Morimond in Burgundy, became abbot there. In 1138, he was made bishop of Frisingen, accompanied the emperor Conrad to the Holy Land, and died at Morimond, September 21, 1158, leaving a “Chronicle” in seven books, from the creation to. 1146. This work, which is principally to be consulted for the history of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, was continued to 1210, by Otho de St. Blaise. Otho of Frisingen, who was an able Aristotelian, also wrote a treatise on the end of the world, and on Anti-Christ, and two books of the “Life of the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa.” Each of these works may be found in the collections by Pistorius, Muratori, &c. and also separately.

, a learned French Jesuit, was born November 1, 1673, at Vignory, in Champagne. He was carefully educated at Langres, by an uncle, who was an ecclesiastic, and began his noviciate among the Jesuits in 1691, His uncle bequeathed him an annuity of 400 livres on condition of his residing either at Paris or Dijon. Accordingly he settled at Dijon, where he taught rhetoric fifteen years, and theology fifteen years more, with great applause. Besides Greek and Latin, he understood Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and English, and had particularly studied antiquities, both sacred and profane. Father Oudin undertook to write commentaries on the whole Bible, but could not finish them, being employed by father Francis Retz, general of his order, in a general history, or Bibliotheque of authors belonging to the Jesuits. This important work had been begun by father Ribadeneira, and carried on to 1618. Alegambe continued it to 1643, and Sotwel to 1673. Other Jesuits were afterwards successively employed to carry it on; but as they had published nothing, and only collected some undigested materials, it was thought that father Oudin would acquit himself better in the undertaking. The learned Jesuit did indeed apply himself to it with indefatigable ardour during the rest of his life, and drew up 1928 articles, but they still remain in ms. He died at Dijon, of a dropsy in his breast, April 28, 1752, aged seventy-nine. The principal among his printed works are, 1. An excellent little poem in Latin, which he wrote at the age of twenty-two, entitled “Somnia,” 8vo and 12mo; and some other poems in the same language, most of which are in “Poemata Didascalica,” 3 vols. 12mo; 2. Harangues in Latin, and several Dissertations on different literary subjects, printed in the abbe le Boeuf 's “Dissertations,” 3 vols. 12mo; 3. Some of the Lives of learned men in* Niceron’s “Memoires;” 4. A Memoir, 4to, “in answer to the Ordinance of M. the bishop of Auxerre,” September 18, 1725, against some propositions dictated by father le Moyne, a Jesuit; 5. “A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” 1743, 12mo, in Latin; 6. An edition of “Publius Syrus,” with notes, Dijon, 1734, 8vo, &C.

At length, having received holy orders from Dr. Bilson, bishop of Winchester, he was, in Feb. 1605, instituted to the vicarage of Shalford, in Surrey, which he resigned on being presented in 1610 to the rectory of Albury, near Guilford, to which he now repaired, and continued his mathematical pursuits, as he had done in college, without neglecting the duties of his office. Still, however, the mathematical sciences were the darling object of his life, and what he called “the more than Elysian Fields,” and in which he became so eminent, that his house, we are told, was continually filled with ydtmg gentlemen, who came thither for instruction. Among these Aubrey mentions Seth Ward, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, sir Jonas Moore, sir Charles Scarborough, and sir Christopher Wren. He taught them all gratis, and although Mr. Ward remained half a year in his house, he would accept of no remuneration for his board. Lord Napier, in 1614, publishing at Edinburgh his “Mirifici Logarithmorum canonis descriptio, ejusqtie usus in utraque trigonometria, &c.” it immediately fell into the hands of Mr. Briggs, then geometry-reader of Gresham college, in London; and that gentleman, forming a design to perfect lord Napier’s plan, consulted Oughtred upon it who probably wrote his “Treatise of Trigonometry” about the same time, since it is evidently formed upon the plan of lord Napier’s “Canon.” In prosecuting the same subject, he invented, not many years after, an instrument called “The Circles of Proportion,” which was published with the horizontal instrument mentioned above. All such questions in arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and navigation, as depended upon simple and compound proportion, might be wrought by it; and it was the first sliding rule that was projected for those uses, as well as that of gauging. Mr. Oughtred, however, modestly disclaimed any extraordinary merit in it, and next to lord Napier and Mr. Briggs, expressly gives the honour of the invention to Mr. Edmund Gunter.

In 1631, our author published, in a small octavo, “Arithmetics in numeris et speciebus institutio, quae turn logisticae turn analytics, atque totius mathematics clavis est.” About 1628, the earl of Arundel living then at West-Horsely, though he afterwards bought a house at Albury, sent for Oughtred to instruct his son lord William Howard in the mathematics; and this “Clavis” was first drawn up for the use of the young nobleman. In this little manual, although intended for a beginner, were found so many excellent theorems, several of which were entirely new, both in algebra and geometry, that it was universally esteemed, both at home and abroad, as a surprizingly-rich cabinet of mathematical treasures; and the general plan of it has been since followed by the very best authors upon the subject by sir Isaac Newton, in his “Arithmetica Universalis,” and in Mr. Maclaurin’s “Algebra,” printed 1748. There is in it, particularly, an. easy and general rule for the solution of quadratic equations, which is so complete as not to admit of being farther perfected; for which reason it has been transcribed, without any alteration, into the elementary treatises of algebra ever since, It is no wonder, therefore, that the “Clavis” became the standard -book with tutors for instructing their pupils in the universities, especially at Cambridge, where it was first introduced by Seth Ward, afterwards bishop of Salisbury. It underwent several editions, to which the author subjoined other things.

“He was more famous abroad for his learning, and more esteemed than at home. Several great mathematicians came over into England on purpose to be acquainted with him. His country neighbours (though they understood not his worth) knew that there must be extraordinary worth in him, that he was so visited by foreigners.” “When Seth Ward, M. A. and Charles Scarborough, M. D. came, as in a pilgrimage, to see and admire him, they lay at the inue at Sheeres (the next parish); Mr. Oughtred had against their coming prepared a good dinner, and also he had dressed himselfe thus; an old red russet cloak, cassock that had been black in days of yore, girt with an old leather girdle, an old-fashioned russet hat, that had been a bever tempore R. Eliz. When learned foreigners came and saw how privately he lived, they did admire and bless themselves, that a person of so much worth and learning should not be better provided for.” Aubrey seems to confirm the report that he was not uninfected with astrological delusions. We more admire his mathematical enthusiasm. “He has told bishop Ward, and Mr. Elias Ashmole (who was his neighbour) ‘on this spot of ground, or leaning against this oak, or that ash, the solution of such or such a problem came into my head, as if infused by a divine genius, after I had thought of it without success for a year, two, or three.’” “His wife was a penurious woman, and would not allow him to burn candle after supper, by which means many a good notion is lost, and many a problem unsolved; so that Mr. Henshaw (one of his scholars) when he was there, bought candle, which was a great comfort to the old man.”

, an English bishop, and styled by Camden a “prodigious learned man,” was born in 1559, and, after a proper foundation in grammar-learning, at Hadley school, was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge, and became a scholar there: but, afterwards removing to Trinity-college, was chosen fellow of that society. In 1596 he was appointed regius professor of divinity, when he took the degree of D. D. and, about the same time, was elected master of Catharine-hall in the same university. In 1601 he had the honour to succeed the celebrated Dr. Alexander Nowell in the deanry of St. Paul’s, London, by the recommendation of his patron sir Fulk Greville, and queen Elizabeth; and, in the beginning of James’s reign, he was chosen prolocutor of the lower house of convocation. In 1612 he was appointed one of the first governors of the Charter-house hospital, then just founded by Thomas Sutton, esq. In April 1614, he was made bishop of Litchfield and Coventry; and, in 1618, translated to Norwich, where he died May 12, 1619. He was buried in that cathedral, where he lay unnoticed till some time after the restoration of Charles II. when Cosin, bishop of Durham, who had been his secretary, erected a monument in 1669, with a Latin inscription, in which he is declared to be, “Vir undequaque doctissimus, et omui enconiio major.” Wood observes, that he had the character of being the best scholastic divine in the English nation; and Cosin, who perhaps may be thought to rival him in that branch of learning, calls himself his scholar, and expressly declares that he derived all his knowledge from him. He is allso celebrated by Smith, for his distinguished wisdom, erudition, and piety. In the controversy, which in his time divided the reformed churches, concerning predestination and grace, he held a middle opinion, inclining rather to Arminianism , and seems to have paved the way for the reception of that doctrine in England, where it was generally embraced a few years afterwards, chiefly by the authority and influence of archbishop Laud. Overall had a particular friendship with Gerard Vosius and Grotius; and was much grieved to see the love of peace, and the projects of this last great man to obtain it, so ill requited. He laboured heartily himself to compose the differences in Holland, relative to the Quinquarticular controversy; as appears in part by his letters to the two learned correspondents just mentioned, some of which are printed in the “Præstantium et eruditorum virorum epistolæ ecclesiasticæ et theologicæ,” published by Limborch and Hartsoeker, as an historical defence of Arminianism.

But our bishop is known in England chiefly by his “Convocation-Book,” of which Burnet gives the following account: “There was a book drawn up by bishop Overall, four-score years ago, concerning government, in which its being of a divine institution was positively asserted. It was read in convocation, and passed by that body, in order to the publishing of it; in opposition to the principles laid down in the famous book of Parsons the Jesuit, published under the name of” Doleman.“But king James did not like a convocation entering into such a theory of politics, so he wrote a long letter to Abbot, who was afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, but was then in the lower-house. By it he desired that no further progress should be made in that matter, and that this book might not be offered to him for his assent; there that matter slept. But Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, had got Overall’s own book into his hands; so, in the beginning of this (K. William’s) reign, he resolved to publish it, as an authentic declaration that the Church of England had made in this matter; and it was published, as well as licensed, by him a very few days before he came under suspension, for not taking the oaths (October 1689). But there was a paragraph or two in it that they had not considered, which was plainly calculated to justify the owning the United Provinces to be a lawful government; for it was there laid down, that when a change of government was brought to a thorough settlement, it was then to be owned and submitted to as a work of the providence of God; and part of king James’s letter to Abbot related to this.” But what gave this book much consequence on its revival was, that the celebrated Dr. Sherlock acknowledged that he became reconciled to take the oaths to the new government, at the revolution, by the doctrines above-mentioned in Overall’s work.

Another matter in which Dr. Overall’s opinion appears to have had great weight, in his life-time and afterwards, was the question of hypothetical ordination. One great obstacle to the reconciliation of the dissenters was, that the Church of England denied the validity of presbyterian ordinations, and required re-ordination. Bishop Overall, and after him, the celebrated Tillotson, endeavoured to meet this difficulty by a small alteration in the words of ordination, as, “If thou beest not already ordained, I ordain thee,” &c.

Bishop Montague of Norwich, who was a great admirer of bishop Overall, very frequently and confidently affirmed that Vossius’s Pelagian history was compiled out of bishop Overall’s collections. Overall also is named among the translators of the Bible; and Mr. Churton notices the share he had in the church catechism, of which he is universally said to have written what regards the sacraments.

, a learned English divine, was the son of a gentleman of good estate, whose house was situated at the foot of Mount Cad da- reddris, near Dolgelly, in the county of Merioneth, and was born in 1716. He was educated at Ruthen school, Denbighshire, and in 1735 entered of Jesus-college, Oxford, where he took his degrees in arts. The natural bent of his inclination led him to mathematical studies, which he pursued with great ardour and perseverance during the first part of his residence at the university. Intending, however, to follow the profession of physic, he proceeded to the degree of B. M. the 17th Oct. 1746, and finally became D.M. March 29, 1753, He practised for three years, but seems to have changed his purpose, and being admitted into orders, accepted of a curacy in Gloucestershire. He was chaplain to sir Matthew Featherstonehaugh, by whom he was presented to the living of Terling, in Essex, which he resigned in 1760, upon obtaining the rectory of St. Olave, Hart-street. In 1775 he received from Dr. Barrington, now bishop of Durham, then canon residentiary of St. Paul’s, the living of Edmonton. On the 3d of September 1760, he married miss Mary Butts, daughter of the bishop of Ely; and after a long and lingering illness, died the 14th October, 1795, leaving one son, the rev. Henry Butts Owen, to whom he had some years resigned the living of St. Olave’s, and four daughters.

This he printed, among others, in 1606, at London; and the book, coming into the inquisitor’s hands at Rome, was put into the “Index Expurgatorius” on which the uncle struck him out of his will, and resolved to take no more notice of him. He often, however, experienced the kindness of his relation and countryman Williams, bishop of Lincoln, and lord keeper of the great seal, who contributed to support him several years during his life; and, after his death, which happened in 1622, erected a monument to his memory, with his bust in brass, crowned with laurel, on the pillar next to the consistory stairs at St. Paul’s cathedral, London, where he was interred. Under the bust was an epigram, intimating that his person was little as well as his fortune, and both less than his fame.

, the most eminent and learned of the nonconformist divines, was descended of an ancient and reputable family in Wales. He was the second son of Henry Owen, first a schoolmaster at Stokenchurch, and afterwards vicar of Stadham in Oxfordshire (who was reputed a puritan), and was born at Stadham in 1616. He was sent to a school at Oxford, kept by Mr. Edward Sylvester, in All Saints’ parish; and in his twelfth year was admitted of Queen’s college, where Thomas, afterwards bishop Barlow, was his tutor. Here he took his degrees in arts, that of master in 1636, at which time Anthony Wood does not omit to inform us that he took the oaths of allegiance, &c. During his residence at college, he pursued his various studies with incredible diligence, allowing himself for several years, not above four hours’ sleep in a night; yet he did not neglect useful exercise, and for the sake of his health sometimes partook of the recreations usual among his fellows, such as leaping, throwing the bar, ringing of bells, &c. To this diligence in study he allows that he was prompted by an early ambition to raise himself to such eminence in church or state as might be practicable, without at this time feeling any extraordinary predilection for either. He confessed that he was of an aspiring mind, affected popular applause, and was desirous of honour and preferment, and he paid the age the compliment to think that superiority of learning was the readiest way to obtain these objects. He likewise goes so far as to allow that at this time he felt no concern for the honour of God, or for serving his country unless in subserviency to his own interest; but, whatever were his motives, it is certain that he became at college a very distinguished scholar.

In Sept. 1650, Cromwell required Mr. Owen to go with him to Scotland and when he found him averse to another absence from his flock at Coggeshall, he procured an order of parliament, which could not be disobeyed. He remained at Edinburgh about half a year, and returning to Coggeshall, expected, as his biographers say, to have passed the remainder of his days there. But the general reputation he had acquired, and his favouritism with Cromwell, pointed him out for a higher station, that of dean of Christ church, in room of Dr. Reynolds, afterwards bishop of Norwich, who had been placed in this office by the authority of the parliamentary visitors. Mr. Owen appears to have owed his promotion to the parliament itself, as appears by the following document “The House, taking into consideration the worth and usefulness of Mr. John Owen, student of QueenVcollege, M. A. has ordered that he be settled in the deanry of Christ-church, Oxford, in the room of,” &c. This was the first intimation Mr. Owen had of his appointment; but he afterwards received a letter from the principal students of the college, signifying their great satisfaction, and a commission from Cromwell, who was at this time chancellor of the university, to act as vicechancellor. Accordingly he went to Oxfprd in 1651, and on Sept. 26 of the following year, was admitted vicechancellor. About the same time he took his degree of D. D. His rise seems calculated to have gratified the ambition he acknowledged in his youthful days, for he had not been above twelve or fourteen years absent from Oxford, and was now only in his thirty-sixth year.

Bishop Burnet relates an extraordinary anecdote relative to the death of Cromwell. He tells us, that Tillotson, happening to be at Whitehall on a fast-day of the household, about a week after, went out of curiosity into the presence-chamber, where the solemnity was kept; and saw there on one side of the table the new protector, with the rest of his family and, on the other, six preachers, among whom were Dr. Owen, Dr. Goodwin, Mr. Caryl, and Mr. Sterry, with whose sallies of enthusiasm Tillotson was much disgusted, God being in a manner reproached with the late protector’s services, and challenged for taking him away so soon. Goodwin, who had pretended to assure them in a prayer, a few minutes before he expired, that he was not to die, had now the confidence to say to God, “Thou hast deceived us, and we are deceived.” And Sterry, praying for Richard, used words next -to blasphemy, “Make him the brightness of the father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” No particular expression of Owen, however, is recorded; and therefore the fact does not particularly attach to him, but is rather generally illustrative of the enthusiasm of the party.

The short time he remained at Oxford, he preached at St. Peter’s in the East, to a crowded congregation who regretted his being now excluded from St. Mary’s; and after leaving Oxford, he retired to Stadham, where he had purchased an estate. According to Baxter, he is supposed to have had a particular hand in restoring the members of the old parliament, who compelled Richard Cromwell to resign; but this seems a disputable point. We are more certain that at the meeting of his brethren at the Savoy in 1658, he took an active part, and had a principal hand in drawing up the confession of faith of what were called the congregational churches. On the restoration of Charles II. he was not in possession of any church preferment, but had formed a congregation at Stadham, where he continued to preach for some time until he settled in London. Here he contracted an acquaintance with some of the most eminent persons in church and state, and might have risen to considerable preferment had he chosen to conform. In 1661 he published a learned and elaborate work, “De natura, ortu, progressu, et studio veras Theoiogiae,” 4to. The following year, one John Vincent Lane, a Franciscan friar, published a work called “Fiat Lux,” in which, under the pretence of recommending moderation and charity, he endeavoured to draw over his readers to the church of Rome, as the only infallible cure of all religious animosities. Two editions of this work were printed before it fell under Dr. Owen’s notice; but it was, at length, sent to him by a person of distinction, with a request that he would write a reply to it. This he readily undertook, and, in the same year, published his “Animadversions on Fiat Lux. By a Protestant.” This produced an answer from Lane, and another tract from Owen, entitled “A Vindication of Animadversions on Fiat Lux;” but there was some difficulty in obtaining a licence for this last book, when the bishops who were appointed by act of parliament the principal licensers of divinity-books had examined it: they made two objections against it. 1. That upon all occasions when he mentions the evangelists and apostles, even St. Peter himself, he left out the title of saint. 2. That he endeavours to prove that it could not be determined that St. Peter was ever at Rome. To the first the doctor replied, that the title of evangelist, or apostle, by which the scripture names them, was much more glorious than that of saint; for in that name all the people of God were alike honoured; yet to please them he yielded to that addition; but as to the other objections, he would by no means consent to any alteration, unless they could prove him to be mistaken in his assertion, and rather chose his book should never see the light than to expunge what he had written upon that subject; and in all probability it would not have been printed, had not sir Edward Nicholas, one of his majesty’s principal secretaries of state, who was informed of the matter, written to the bishop of London to license it notwithstanding this objection. This book recommended him to the esteem of the lord chancellor Hyde, who, by sirBulstrode Whitlocke, sent for him, and acknowledged the service of his late books against Fiat Lux; assuring him that he had deserved the best of any English protestant of late years; and that for these performances the church was bound to own and advance him; and at the same time he offered him preferment if he would accept it: the chancellor moreover told him there was one thing he much wondered at, that he being so learned a man, and so well acquainted with church history, should embrace that novel opinion of independency, for which, in his judgment, so little could be said. The doctor replied, that indeed he had spent some part of his time in reading over the history of the church, and made this offer to his lordship, if he pleased, to prove that this. was that way of government which was practised in the church for several hundred years after Christ, against any bishop he should think fit to bring to a disputation with him upon this subject. “Say you so” said the chancellor, “then I am much mistaken.” Other conversation passed between them, particularly about liberty of conscience The lord chancellor asked him what he would desire With respect *tb liberty and forbearance in the matters of religion. To which the doctor replied, “That the liberty he desired was for protestants, who assented to the doctrine of the church of England.” This was afterwards misrepresented, as if he meant to exclude all others from the exercise of their religion, which he often declared was not his meaning.

Notwithstanding the abilities he had displayed in this controversy, as he would not conform, he became liable to the same interruptions as his brethren in the exercise of his preaching, and on this account began to entertain serious thoughts of leaving his native country, and had actually made preparations to go to New England, where he had the offer of the place of president of Harvard college, but he was prevented by express orders from the king. During the plague, however, in 1665, and the great fire of London in 1666, when the laws against nonconformists were somewhat relaxed, he enjoyed frequent opportunities of preaching in London and elsewhere but when the laws began again to be put in force, he had recourse to his pen, and in 1668 published his “Exposition of the CXXX Psalm,” and in the same year, his “Exposition upon the Epistle to the Hebrews,” an elaborate work, which he completed in 1684, in 4 vols, folio. This is usually reckoned his capital work, and although not uncommon at the present time, sells at a very high price. It alone affords a sufficient proof of the extent of his theological learning. At the end of 1669, when Mr. Samuel (afterwards bishop) Parker, published his “Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity, and the power of the civil Magistrate in matters of Religion,” Dr. Owen answered it in a work called “Truth and Innocence vindicated.” In 1670, while the act against conventicles was revived in parliament, he was advised to draw up some reasons against it, which were laid before the Lords, but without effect.

, a learned English divine, was born in Derbyshire in 1625, and in 1641 was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1645, and according to his epitaph, seems to have been fellow of that college, as he was afterwards of Christ’s. In this last he took the degree of M. A. in 1649, and that of D. D. in 1660. His first preferment was in Lincolnshire, and he appears to have succeeded Dr. Josias Shute in the rectory of St. Mary Woolnoth, which he resigned in 1666. On July 30, 1669, he was installed archdeacon of Leicester, to which he was collated by Dr. William Fuller, bishop of Lincoln. In July 1670 he was also installed prebendary of Westminster, and was some time rector or minister of St. Margaret’s, Westminster. He died August 23, 1679, aged fifty-four, and was interred in Westminster abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory, with a Latin inscription. In this he is recorded as “a complete divine in all respects, a nervous and accurate writer, and an excellent and constant preacher.” It is also noticed that intense application to study brought on the stone, which at last proved fatal to him. He was an accomplished scholar in the Oriental languages, as appears by his excellent work “De Sacrifices,” Loud. 1677. This is divided into two books: in the first he treats of the origin of sacrifices; the places for sacrificing, and the tabernacle and temple of the Jews. His object is to defend the doctrine of vicarious punishment, and of piacular or expiatory sacrifices, in opposition to the Socinian notions. In the second book he treats of the priesthood of Christ; proves that Christ is a priest properly so called; that his sacrifice is an expiatory sacrifice, which takes away the sins of mankind; that his death is a vicarious punishment, or, that he suffered for, and in the stead of, sinful men, &c. &c. Some of his sermons having been surreptitiously printed, his relations selected twenty from his Mss. which were published by Dr. James Gardiner, afterwards bishop of Lincoln. Of these a second edition appeared in 1697, 8vo, with a preface by the editor, in which he gives a high character of Dr. Ovvtram. Baxter also speaks highly of him, Peck has published, in his “Desiderata,” a fragment of one of Dr. Owtram’s sermons.

, a learned Englishman, was born about 1432, at or near Winchester, as is generally supposed, and was educated at the charge of Thomas Langton, bishop of that diocese, who employed him, while a youth, as his amanuensis. The bishop, pleased with his proficiency, and particularly delighted with his early turn for music, which he thought an earnest of greater attainments, bestowed a pension on him sufficient to defray the expences of his education at Padua, at that time one of the most flourishing universities in Europe. Accordingly he studied there for some time, and met with Cuthbert Tonstall, afterwards bishop of Durham, and William Latimer, whom he called his preceptors. On his return, he studied for some time at Queen’s-college, Oxford, of which his patron Langton had been provost; and was soon after taken into the service of Dr. Christopher Bambridge, who succeeded Langton in the office of provost, and became afterwards a cardinal. He attended him to Rome, about the beginning of the sixteenth' century, and continued there until the cardinal’s death in 1514. He appears, before this, to have entered into holy orders, for in the beginning of this year, and while abroad, he was made prebendary of Bugthorp, in the church of York, in the room of Wolsey, afterwards the celebrated cardinal; and in May of the same year, was promoted to the archdeaconry of Dorset, on the resignation of his friend Langton, at which time, as Willis supposes, he resigned the prebend of Bugthorp.

On the death of pope Leo X. when cardinal Wolsey’s ambition aimed at the papal throne, he sent Pace to Rome to promote his interest; but before his arrival there, Adrian, bishop of Tortosa, had been chosen: and on his death, in 1523, Pace was again employed to negotiate for Wolsey, but with no better success, Clement VII. being elected. He obtained, however, from the pope, an enlargement of Wolsey’s powers as legate, which the latter was at this time desirous to obtain. Pace was soon afterwards sent on an embassy to Venice, where he carried with him the. learned Lupset as his secretary. Wood declares that on this occasion “it is hard to say whether he procured more commendation or admiration among the Venetians; both for the dexterity of his wit, and especially for his singular promptness in the Italian tongue; wherein he seemed nothing inferior, neither to P. Vannes here in England, the king’s secretary for the Italian tongue, nor yet to any other, which were the best for that tongue in all Venice.”

He wrote, 1. “De fructu qui ex doctrina percipitur liber.” Basil, 1517, dedicated to Dr. Colet. This was written by our author at Constance, while he was ambassador in Helvetia; but, inveighing much against drunkenness as a great obstacle to the attaining of knowledge, the people there supposing him to reflect upon them, wrote a sharp answer to it, and even Erasmus calls it an indiscreet performance; in which Pace had, between jest and earnest, represented him as a beggar, and a beggar hated by the clergy. He bids sir Thomas More exhort Pace, since he had so little judgment, rather to confine himself to the translation of Greek writers, than to venture upon works of his own, and to publish such mean and contemptible stuff. (Erasm. epist. 275, and Ep. 287). 2. “Oratio nuperrime composita de fcedere percusso inter Henricum Angliae regem, et Francorum reg. Christianiss. in aede Pauli Lond. habita,” 1518. 3. “Epistolse ad Erasmum,” &c. 1520. These Epistles are part of the “Epistolae aliquot eruditorum virorum.” 4. “Exemplum literarum ad regem Hen. VIII. an. 1526,” inserted in a piece entitled, “Syntagma de Hebraeorum codicum interpretatione,” by Robert Wakefield. Pace also wrote a book against the unlawful ness of the king’s marriage with Katharine, in 1527, and made several translations: among others, one from English into Latin, “Bishop Fisher’s Sermon,” preached at London on the day upon which the writings of M. Luther were publicly burnt, Camb. 1521, and a translation from Greek into Latin of Plutarch’s piece, “De commodo ex inimicis capiendo.”

Dr. Page was thought well versed in the Greek fathers, an able disputant, and a good preacher. He wrote “A Treatise of justification of Bowing at the name of Jesus, by way of answer to an appendix against it,” Oxford, 1631, 4to; and an “Examination of such considerable reasons as are made by Mr. Prynne in a reply to Mr. Widdowes concerning the same argument,” printed with the former. The fate of this publication was somewhat singular. The point in dispute was at this time eagerly contested. Archbishop Abbot did not think it of sufficient importance to be allowed to disturb the peace of the church, and, by his secretary, advised Dr. Page to withdraw his work from the press, if already in it. Laud, on the contrary, who was then bishop of London, ordered it to be printed, viewing the question as,a matter of importance, it being a defence of a canon of the church; and it accordingly appeared. Dr. Page was also the author of “Certain animadversions upon some passages in a Tract concerning Schism and Schismatics,” by Mr. Hales of Eton, Oxon. 1642, 4to; “The Peace Maker, or a brief motive to unity and charity in Religion,' 1 Loud. 1652, I6mo; a single sermon, and a translation of Thomas a Kempis, 1639, 12mo, with a large epistle to the reader. Wood mentions” Jus Fratrum, or the Law of Brethren," but is doubtful whether this belongs to our Dr. Page, or to Dr. Samuel Page, vicar of Deptford, who died in 1630, and was the author of some pious tracts. It belongs, however, to neither, but to a John Page, probably a lawyer, as the subject is the power 6f parents in disposing of their estates to their children.

, natural son of James de Palafox, marquis de Hariza, in the kingdom of Arragon, was born in 1600. His mother, it is said, attempted to drown him at his birth, but one of his father’s vassals drew him out of the water, and took care of him till the age at which he was acknowledged by his parents. Philip IV. appointed Palafox member of the council of war; then that of the Indies. Having afterwards chosen the ecclesiastical profession, he was made bishop of Los Angelos, “Angelopolis,” in New Spain, in 1639, with the title of visitor of the courts of chancery and courts of audience, and judge of the administration of the three viceroys of the Indies. Palafox employed his authority in softening the servitude of the Indians, checking robbery in the higher ranks, and vice in the lower. He had also great contentions with the Jesuits concerning episcopal rights. He was made bishop of Osina or Osma, in Old Castille, in 1653, which diocese he governed with much prudence and regularity, and died, in great reputation for sanctity, September 30, 1659, aged 59. This prelate left some religious books, of which the principal are, “Homilies on the Passion of Christ,” translated into French by Amelot de la Houssaye, 16to; several tracts on the “Spiritual Life,” translated by the abbé le Roi; “The Shepherd of Christmas-night,” &c. but he is best known by his “History of the Siege of Fontarabia;” and “History of the Conquest of China by the Tartars,” 8vo. There is a collection of his works printed at Madrid in 13 vols. fol. 1762, and a life by Dinouart in French, 1767, 8vo.

, a learned Italian cardinal, descended from an illustrious family, was born at Bologna, Oct. 4, 1524. He was intended for the profession of the civil and canon law, in which some of his family had acquired fame, and he made great progress in that and other studies. His talents very early procured him a canonry of Bologna; after which he was appointed professor of civil law, and obtained the title of the new Alciatus from his emulating the judgment and taste of that learned writer. Some business requiring his presence at Rome, he was appointed by ca'rdinal Alexander Farnese, who had been his fellow-student at Bologna, and who was then perpetual legate of Avignon, governor of Vaisson, in the county of Venaissin, but hearing of the death of his mother, he made that a pretence for declining the office, and therefore returned to his professorship at Bologna. The Farnese family were, however, determined to serve him in spite of his modesty, and in 1557 obtained for him the post of auditor of the rota. When Pope Pius IV. opened the council of Trent, Paleotti was made proctor and counsellor to his legates, who, in truth, did nothing of importance without his advice. Of this council Paleotti wrote a history, which still remains in ms. and of which Pallavicini is said to have availed himself in his history. After this council broke up he resumed his functions at Rome, where in 1565 he was raised to the dignity of the purple by Pius IV. and by Pius V. he was created bishop of Bologna, but the see upon this occasion was erected into an archbishopric to do honour both to Paleotti and his native country. Being a conscientious man, he was always so assiduous in the duties of his diocese, that it was with the greatest reluctance the popes summoned him to attend the consistories and other business at Rome. He died at Rome, July 23, 1597, aged seventy-three. He was author of several works of considerable merit, on subjects in antiquities, jurisprudence, and morals. Of these the most considerable are the following: “Archiepiscopale Bonnoniense” “De imagiriibus Sacris, et Profanis,” 1582, 4to, in Italian; and in Latin, 1594; “De Sacri Consistorii Consultationibus” “De Nothis, Spuriisque Filiis,” Francfort, 1573, 8vo; “De Bono Senectutis” Pastoral Letters, &c.

Having received deacon’s orders, he became curate to Dr. Hinchliffe, then vicar of Greenwich, and afterwards bishop of Peterborough; and when he left the academy above-mentioned, continued to officiate in the church. In June 1766 he was elected a fellow on the foundation of Christ’s college, and at the ensuing commencement took his degree of M. A. He did not, however, return to his residence in college until Oct. 1767, when he engaged in the business of private tuition, which was soon followed by his appointment to the office of one of the college tutors. On the 21st of December 1767, he was ordained a priest by bishop Terrick.

In 1776, a new edition of bishop Law’s “Reflections on the Life and Character of Christ,” originally published in the “Consideration on the Theory of Religion,” was given in a separate form at Cambridge, for the use of the students. To this treatise some brief “Observations on the character and example of Christ” were added, with an “Appendix on the Morality of the Gospel” both from Mr. Paley’s pen. From a passage in this little essay it appears, that his theory of morals was not then altogether firmly fixed on the basis which supports it now.

While at Appleby, he published a small volume selected from the Book of Common Prayer, and the writings of some eminent divines, entitled “The Clergyman’s Comr panion in visiting the Sick.” This useful work at first appeared without his name, but it has passed through nine editions, and is now printed among his works. In June 1780, he was collated to the fourth prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Carlisle, and thus became coadjutor in the chapter to his friend Mr. Law, who was now archdeacon; but in 1782, upon Dr. Law’s being created an Irish bishop, Mr. Paley was made archdeacon of the diocese, and in 1785, he succeeded Dr. Burn, author of “The Justice of Peace,” in the chancellorship. For these different preferments he was indebted either to the venerable bishop of Carlisle, Dr. Law, or to the dean and chapter of the cathedral church. While his residence was divided between Carlisle and Dalston, Mr. Paley engaged in the composition of his celebrated work, “The Elements of Moral and Political Philosophy;” but hesitated long as to the publication, imagining there would be but fewreaders for such a work; and he was the more determined on this point after he had entered on the married state, thinking it a duty that he owed his family to avoid risking any extraordinary expense. To remove this last objection, Dr. John Law presented a living then in his gift to Mr. Paley, on the promise that he would consider it as a compensation for the hazard of printing, and he immediately set about preparing his work for the press, which appeared in 1785, in quarto. Of a work * so generally known and admired, and so extensively circulated, it would be unnecessary to say much. Although the many editions which came rapidly from the press stamped no ordinary merit on it, yet some of his friends appear to have not been completely gratified. They expected, that from his intimacy with Jebb, and the latitudinarian party at Cambridge, he would have brought forward those sentiments which Jebb in vain endeavoured to disseminate while at the university; and they were surprized to find that his reasoning on subscription to articles of religion, and on the British constitution, in which he not only disputes the expediency of reform in the House of Commons, but vindicates the influence of the crown in that branch of parliament, was diametrically opposite to their opinions and wishes.

under the title of “The Principles of the attention of the readers of Paley. Moral Philosophy investigated.” His Sunday afternoons. There is no part of his character more justly entitled to respect than the active and zealous discharge of his professional duties, and his even enlarging them, as in this instance, when he thought it would be for the benefit of his flock. While officiating as examining chaplain to the bishop of Carlisle, he caused a new edition to be published of Collyer’s “Sacred Interpreter,” a work which he recommended to candidates for deacon’s orders. In 1788, he joined to his other meritorious labours, an effort in favour of the abolition of the slave trade, and corresponded with Mr. Clarkson and the committee whose endeavours have been since crowned with success.

On the death of the venerable bishop of Carlisle in 1787, Mr. Paley drew up a short memoir of him. (See Law, Edmund). His next work places him in a high rank among the advocates for the truth and authenticity of the Christian Scriptures. It is entitled “Horae Paulina; or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul evinced, by a comparison of the Epistles which bear his name with the Acts of the Apostles, and with one another,” which he dedicated to his friend Dr. John Law, at that time bishop of Killala. The principal object of this work is to shew, that by a comparison of several indirect allusions and references in the Acts and Epistles, independently of all collateral testimony, their undesigned coincidence affords the strongest proof of their genuineness, and of the reality of the transactions to which they relate. Instead of requiring the truth of any part of the apostolic history to be taken for granted, he leaves the reader at liberty to suppose the writings to have been lately discovered, and to have come to our hands destitute of any extrinsic or collateral evidence whatever. The design was original, and the execution admirable. Soon after he compiled a small work, entitled “The Young Christian instructed in Reading, and the Principles of Religion.” This having brought upon him a charge of plagiarism, he defended himself in a good-humoured letter in the Gentleman’s Magazine. Previously to the appearance of these works he was offered by Dr. Yorke, bishop of Ely, the mastership of Jesus college, Cambridge, which, after due deliberation, he declined. In May 1792, he was instituted to the vicarage of Addingham, near Great SaJ-j kcld, on the presentation of the dean and chapter of Carlisle. During the political ferment excited by the French, revolution, he published “Reasons for Contentment, addressed to the labouring classes,” and the chapter in his “Moral Philosophy,” on the British Constitution. In 1793, he vacated Dalston, on being collated by the bishop of Carlisle (Dr. Vernon) to the vicarage of Stanwix. His biographer informs us that, " beiug afterwards asked, by a clerical friend, why he quitted Dalston, he answered with a frankness peculiar to him, for he knew no deceit, 'Why, Sir, I had two or three reasons for taking Stanwix in exchange: first, it saved me double house-keeping, as Stanwix was within a twenty minutes walk of my house in Carlisle: secondly, it was fifty pounds a -year more in value: and, thirdly, I began to find my stock of sermons coming over again too fastV

In 1794, he published “A View of the Evidences of Christianity, in three parts: I. Of the direct historical Evidence of Christianity, and wherein it is distinguished from the Evidence alleged for other Miracles. II. Of the Auxiliary Evidences of Christianity; and, III. A brief Consideration of some popular Objections.” This work was first published in three volumes, 12mo, but in a few months it was republished in two volumes, 8vo, and has been continued in this form through many successive editions. It is perhaps the most complete summary of the evidences of our holy religion that has ever appeared. In August of the same year the bishop of London, Dr. Porteus, instituted him to the prebend of St. Pancras, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, and in a very short time he was promoted to the subdeanery of Lincoln, a preferment of 700l. per annum, by Dr. Pretyman, bishop of that diocese. In January 1795, he proceeded to Cambridge to take his degree of D. D.; and before he left that place, he was surprized by a letter from the bishop of Durham, Dr. Barrington, with whom he had not the smallest acquaintance, offering him the valuable rectory of Bishop-Wear-*­mouth, estimated at twelve hundred pounds a-year. When he waited on his new patron to express his gratitude, his lordship instantly interrupted his acknowledgments: “Not a word,” said he, “you cannot have greater pleasure in, accepting the living of Bishop-Wearmouth, than I have in offering it to you.” After reading himself in, as a prebendary, at St. Paul’s cathedral, March 8th, Dr. Paley, for he now assumed that title, immediately proceeded to BishopWearmouth, took possession of his valuable cure, and then returned to Cambridge against the commencement, to complete the Doctor’s degree, and on Sunday July 5th, preached before the university his sermon “On the dangers incidental to the Clerical character.” He now resigned the prebend of Carlisle, and the living of Stanwix, and divided his residence principally between Lincoln and Bisbop-Wearmoutb, spending his summers at the latter, and his winters at the former of those places. He next undertook the composition of his last work,entitled “Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearances of Nature.” In this he proceeded very slowly, and was much interrupted by ill-health; but the work was published in the summer of 1802. It was dedicated to the bishop of Durham, for the purpose of making the most acceptable return he was able for a great and important benefit conferred upon him. In this work he has traced the marks of wisdom and design in various parts of the creation; but has dwelt principally on those which may be discovered in the constitution of the human body. It is replete with instruction, and from its style and manner peculiarly calculated to fix the reader’s attention.

, bishop of Helenopolis in Bithynia, and afterwards of Aspona, was by nation a Galatian, and born about the year 368 at Cappadocia. He became an anchoret in the mountain of Nebria in the year 388, and was made a bishop in the year 401. This prelate was a steady friend to St. John Chrysostom, whom he never forsook during the time of his persecution, nor even in his exile. He went to Rome, some time after the death of that saint; and at the request of Lausus, governor of Cappadocia, composed the history of the Anchorets, or Hermits, and entitled it “Lausiaca,” after the name of that lord, to whom he dedicated it in the year 420, when it was written; being then in the 20th year of his episcopacy, and 53d of his age. Palladius was accused of being an Origenist, because he does not speak very favourably of St. Jerome, and was intimately connected with Ruffinus; but perhaps no good proof can be drawn thence of his Origenism. He had been the disciple of Evagrias of Pontus, and was even suspected to adhere to the sentiments of Pelagius. He died in the fifth century, but what year is not known. His “History” was published in Greek by Meursius, at Amsterdam, in 1619, and in Latin in the “Bibliotheca Patrum” but he seems not to have been the writer of the “Life of St. John Chrysostom, in Greek and Latin, by M. Bigot,” printed in 1680.

, an eminent cardinal, was the son of the marquis Alexander Pallavicini and Frances Sforza, and born at Rome in 1607. Although the eldest son of his family, yet he chose the ecclesiastical life, and was very early made a bishop by pope Urban VIII. to whom his conduct was so acceptable, that he was appointed one of those prelates who assist in the assemblies called congregations at Rome. He was also received into the famous academy of the Humoristi, among whom he often sat in quality of president. He was likewise governor of Jesi, and afterwards of Orvietto and Camerino, under the above pontiff. But all these honours and preferments were insufficient to divert him from a design he had for some time formed of renouncing the world, and entering into the society of the Jesuits, where he was admitted in 1638. As soon as he had completed his noviciate he taught philosophy, and then theology. At length Innocent X. nominated him to examine into divers matters relating to the pontificate; and Alexander VII. created him a cardinal in 1657. This pope was an old friend of Pallavicino, who had been serviceable to him when he came to Rome with the name of Fabio Chigi. Pallavicino had even contributed to advance his temporal fortune, and had received him into the academy of the Humoristi; in gratitude for which, Chigi addressed to him some verses, printed in his book entitled “Philomathi Museb juveniles.” When Pallavicino obtained a place in the sacred college, he was also appointed at the same time examiner of the bishops; and he was afterwards a member of the congregation of the holy office, i. e. the inquisition, and of that of the council, &c. His promotion to the cardinalate wrought no change in his manner of life, which was devoted to study or to the duties of his office. He died in 1667, in his sixtieth year.

, a learned and pious divine, was the second son of sir Thomas Palmer, knt. of Wingham, in Kent, where he was born in 1601. He was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, but was afterwards chosen fellow of Queen’s. In 1626 archbishop Abbot licensed him to preach a lecture at St. Alphage’s church in Canterbury, every Sunday afternoon; but three years after, he was silenced, on a charge of nonconformity, for a time, but was again restored, the accusation being found trifling. Although a puritan, his character appeared so amiable that bishop Laud presented him in 1632 with the vicarage of Ashwell, in Hertfordshire, and when the unfortunate prelate was brought to his tri,.l, he cited this as an instance of his impartiality. At Ashwell Mr. Palmer became no less popular than he had been at Canterbury. In the same year he was chosen one of the preachers to the university of Cambridge, and afterwards one of the clerks in convocation. In 1643, when the depression of the hierarchy had made great progress, he was chosen one of the assembly of divines, in which he was distinguished for his moderation, and his aversion to the civil war. He preached also at various places in London until the following year, when the earl of Manchester appointed him master of Queen’s college, Cambridge. He preached several times before the parliament, and appears to have entered into their views in most respects, although his sermons were generally of the practical kind. He did not live, however, to see the issue of their proceedings, as he died in 1647, aged fortysix. Granger gives him the character of a man of uncommon learning, generosity, and politeness, and adds, that he spoke the French language with as much facility as his own. Clark enters more fully into his character as a divine. His works are not numerous. Some of his parliamentary sermons are in print, and he had a considerable share in the “Sabbatum Redivivum,” with Cawdry; but his principal work, entitled “Memorials of Godliness,” acquired great popularity. The thirteenth edition was printed in 1708, 12mo.

, a learned Fleming, was the son of Adolphus, counsellor of state to the emperor Charles V. and born at Bruges in 1536. He was educated at Louvain and Paris, and became afterwards a learned divine and critic. Obtaining a canonry in the church of Bruges, he collected a library, and formed a design of giving good editions of the fathers; but the civil wars obliged him to retire to St. Omer’s, of which place the bishop made him archdeacon. Some time after, Philip II. king of Spain named him to the provostship of St. Saviour at Utrecht, and after that to the bishopric of St. Omer’s: but, as he went to Brussels to take possession of it, he died at Mons in Huinault, in 1587. He is chiefly known for his critical labours upon “Tertullian and Cyprian;” of both which writers he published editions, and prefixed lives. “The commentaries of this author upon Tertullian,” says Dupin, “are both learned and useful but he digresses too much from his subject, and brings in things of no use to the understanding of his author:” and he passes much the same judgment of his labours upon Cyprian. All the later editors, however, of these two fathers have spoken well of Pamelius, and have transcribed his best notes into their editions.

, a Christian philosopher, of the Stoic sect, flourished in the second century. Some say he was born in Sicily, others at Alexandria, of Sicilian parents. He is said to have taught the Stoic philosophy in the reign of Commodus, from A. D. 180, in the school of Alexandria; where from the time of St. Mark, founder of that church, there had always been some divine who explained the Holy Scriptures. The Ethiopians having requested Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, to send a proper person to instruct them in the Christian religion, he sent Pantænus who gladly undertook the mission, and acquitted himself very worthily in it. It is said, that he found the Ethiopians already tinctured with the truth of Christian faith, which had been declared to them by St. Bartholomew; and that he saw the gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, which had been left there by that apostle. St. Jerome says, that Pantænus brought it away with him, and that it was still to be seen in his time in the Alexandrian library; but this story is not generally credited, since no good reason can be given, why St. Bartholomew should leave a Hebrew book with the Ethiopians. Pantænus, upon his return to Alexandria, continued to explain the sacred books under the reign of Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, and did great service to the church by his discourses. He composed some “Commentaries” upon the Bible, which are lost. Theodoret informs us that Pantænus first started the remark, which has been followed by many interpreters of the prophecies since, “That they are often expressed in indefinite terms, and that the present tense is frequently used both for the preterite and future tenses.” We may form a judgment of the manner in, which Pantænus explained the Scriptures, by that which Clemens Alexandria as, Origen, and all those have observed, who were trained up in the school of Alexandria. Their commentaries abound with allegories; they frequently leave the literal sense, and find almost every where some mystery or other; in the explaining of which, they usually shew more erudition than judgment. Mil ner observes, that the combination of Stoicism with Christianity must have very much debased the sacred truths; and we may be assured that those who were disposed to follow implicitly the dictates of such an instructor as Pantænus, must have been furnished by him with a clouded light of the gospel. Cave is of opinion that Pantænus’s death occurred in the year 213.

, bishop of Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia in Asia Minor, near to Laodicea, was the disciple of St. John the Evangelist, or of another of that name; but Irenaeus says positively, that he was the disciple of St. John the Evangelist; for Polycarp was his disciple, and he says, Papias was Polycarp’s companion. Papias wrote five books, entitled “The Expositions of the Discourses of the Lord;” of which there are only some fragments left in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius. He made way for the opinion several of the ancients held touching the temporal reign of Christ, who they supposed would come upon earth a thousand years before the day of judgment, to gather together the elect, after the resurrection, into the city of Jerusalem, and let them there enjoy all felicity during that period. Irenaeus, who was of the same judgment, relates a fragment he took out of Papias’s fourth book, where he endeavours to prove that opinion from a passage in Isaiah; and Eusebius, after having quoted a passage taken out of Papias’s Preface, adds, “That that author relates divers things which he pretended he had by unwritten tradition; such as were the last instructions of our Lord Christ, which are not set down by the Evangelists, and some other fabulous histories, amongst which number his opinion ought to be placed touching the personal return of Christ upon earth after the resurrection.” The occasion of his falling into that error,“says Eusebius again,” was his misunderstanding of the discourses and instructions of the Apostles, as not thinking that those expressions ought to bear a mystical sense; and that the Apostles used them only for illustration, for he was a man of a mean genius, as his books manifest, and yet several of the ancients, and, among the rest, Irenaeus, maintained their opinions on the authority ofPapias."

This work, as might be expected, exasperated the protestants against him; and to avoid their resentment, he crossed the water to England, in 1686, where James II. was endeavouring to re- establish popery. There he receive 1 deacon’s and priest’s orders, irom the hands of Turner, bishop of Ely; and, in 16S7, published a book against Jurieu, entitled “Theological Essays concerning Providence and Grace, &c.” This exasperated that minister so much, that when he knew Papin was attempting to obtain some employ as a professor in Germany, he dispersed letters every where in order to defeat his applications; and, though he procured a preacher’s place at Hamburgh, Jurieu found means to get him dismissed in a few months. About this time his “Faith reduced to just bounds” coming into the hands of Bayle, that writer added some pages to it, and printed it. These additions were ascribed by Jurieu to our author, who did not disavow the principal maxims laid down, which were condemned in the synod of Bois-le-duc in 1687. In the mean time, an offer being made him of a professor’s chair in the church of the French refugees at Dantzic, he accepted it: but it being afterwards proposed to him to conform to the synodical decrees of the Walloon churches in the United Provinces, and to subscribe them, he refused to comply; because there were some opinions asserted in those decrees which he could not assent to, particularly that doctrine which maintained that Christ died only for the elect. Those who had invited him to Dantzic, were highly offended at his refusal; and he was ordered to depart, as soon as he had completed the half year of his preaching, which had been contracted for. He was dismissed in 168^, and not long after embraced the Roman catholic religion; delivering his abjuration into the hands of Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, Nov. 15, 1690.

Upon this change, Jurieu wrote a pastoral letter to those of the reformed religion at Paris, Orleans, and Blois; in which he pretended that Papin had always looked upon all religions as indifferent, and in that spirit had returned to the Roman church. In answer to this letter, Papin drew up a treatise, “Of the Toleration of the Protestants, and of the Authority of the Church.” The piece, being approved by the bishop of Meaux, was printed in 1692: the author afterwards changed its title, which was a little equivocal, and made some additions to it; but, while he was employed in making collections to complete it farther, and finish other books upon the same subject, he died at Paris the 19th of June, 1709. His widow, who also embraced the Roman catholic religion, communicated these papers, which were made use of in a new edition printed at large in 1719, 12mo. M. Pajon of the Oratory, his relation, published all his “Theological Works,” 1723, 3 vols. 12mo they are all in French, and written with shrewdness and ability.

In the mean time, his master Schilling, not content with making him change his surname, made him also change his religious creed, that of the Lutheran church, with regard to the doctrine of the real presence, and effected the same change of sentiment throughout his school; but this was not at first attended with the happiest effects, as Schilling was expelled from the college, and Pareus’s father threatened to disinherit him; and it was not without the greatest difficulty, that he obtained his consent to go into the Palatinaie, notwithstanding he conciliated his father’s parsimony by assuring him that he would continue his studies there without any expence to his family. Having thus succeeded in his request, he followed his master Schilling, who had been invited by the elector Frederic III. to be principal of his new college at Amberg, and arrived there in 1566. Soon after he was sent, with ten of his school-fellows, to Heidelberg, where Zachary Ursinus was professor of divinity, and rector of the college of Wisdom. The university was at that time in a most flourishing condition, with regard to every one of the faculties; and Pareus had consequently every advantage that could be desired, and made very great proficiency, both in the learned languages and in philosophy and divinity. He was admitted into the ministry in 1571, and in May that year sent to exercise his function in a village called Schlettenbach, where very violent contests subsisted between the Protestants and Papists. The elector palatine, his patron, had asserted his claim by main force against the bishop of Spire, who maintained, that the right of nomination to the livings in the corporation of Alfestad was vested in his chapter. The elector allowed it, but with this reserve, that since he had the right of patronage, the nominators were obliged, by the peace of Passaw, to present pastors to him whose religion he approved. By virtue of this right, he established the reformed religion in that corporation, and sent Pareus to propagate it in the province of Schlettenbach, where, however, he met with many difficulties before he could exercise his ministry in peace. Before the end of the year he was called back to teach the third class at Heidelberg, and acquitted himself so well, that in two years’ time he was promoted to the second class; but he did not hold this above six months, being made principal pastor of Hemsbach, in the diocese of Worms. Here he met with a people more ready to receive the doctrines of the Reformation than those of Schlettenbach, and who cheerfully consented to destroy the images in the church, and other remains of former superstition. A few months after his arrival he married the sister of John Stibelius, minister of Hippenheim; and the nuptials being solemnized Jan. the 5th, 1574, publicly in the church of Hemsbach, excited no little curiosity and surprize among the people, to whom the marriage of a clergyman was a new thing. They were, however, easily reconciled to the practice, when they came to know what St. Paul teaches concerning the marriage of a bishop in his epistles to Timothy and Titus. Yet such was the unhappy state of this country, rent by continual contests about religion, that no sooner was Popery, the common enemy, rooted out, than new disturbances arose, between the Lutherans and Calvinists. After the death of the elector Frederic III. in 1577, his son Louis, a very zealous Lutheran, established every where in his dominions ministers of that persuas.nn, to the exclusion of the Sarramentariane, or Calvinists, by which measure Pareus lost his living at Hemsbach, and retired into the territories of prince John of Casimir, the elector’s brother. He was now chosen minister at Ogersheim, near Frankenthal, where he continued three years, and then removed to Winzingen, near Neustadt, at which last place prince Casimir, in 1578, had founded a school, and settled there all the professors that had been driven from Heidelberg. This rendered Winzingen much more agreeable, as well as advantageous; and, upon the death of the elector Louis, in 1583, the guardianship of his son, together with the administration of the palatinate, devolved upon prince Casimir, who restored the Calvinist ministers, and Pareus obtained the second chair in the college of Wisdom at Heideiberg, in Sept. 1584. He commenced author two years afterwards, by printing his “Method of the Ubiijuitarian controversy;” “Methodus Ubiquitariae coniroversise.” He also printed an edition of the “German Bible,” with notes, at Neustadt, in 1589, which occasioned a warm controversy between him and James Andreas, an eminent Lutheran divine of Tubingen.

, usually called the Abbe Paris, would not have deserved notice here unless for certain impostures connected with his name, in which, however, he had no hand. He was born at Paris, and was the eldest son of a counsellor to the parliament, whom he was to have succeeded in that office; but he preferred the ecclesiastical profession; and, when his parents were dead, resigned the whole inheritance to his brother, only reserving to himself the right of applying for necessaries. He was a man, says the abb UAvocat, of the most devout temper, and who to great candour of mind joined great gentleness of manners. He catechized, during some time, in the parish of St. Come; undertook the direction of the clergy, and held conferences with them. Cardinal de Noailles, to whose cause he was attached, wanted to make him curate of that parish, but found many obstacles to his plan; and M. Paris, after different asylums, where he had lived extremely retired, confined himself in a house in the fauxbourg St. Marcoul, where, sequestered from the world, he devoted himself wholly to prayer, to the practice of the most rigorous penitence, and to labouring with his hands, having for that purpose learnt to weave stockings. He was one of those who opposed the bull Unigenitus, and was desirous also to be an author, and wrote “Explications of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” to the “Galatians,” and “An Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews;” but acquired no reputation by these. He died May I, 1727, at Paris, aged thirty-seven, and was interred in the little church-yard belonging to St. Medard’s parish. Though M. Paris had been useless to the Jansenists while alive, they thought proper to employ him in working miracles after his death; and stories were invented of miraculous cures performed at his tomb, which induced thousands to flock thither, where they practised grimaces and convulsions in so ridiculous and disorderly a manner, that the court was at last forced to put a stop to this delusion, by ordering the church-yard to be walled up, January 27, 1732. Some time before, several curates solicited M. de Vintimille, archbishop of Paris, by two requests, to make judicial inquiry into the principal miracles attributed to M. Paris; and that prelate appointed commissioners who easily detected the impostnre, which would not deserve a place here had it not served Hume and some other deists with an argument against the real miracles of the gospel, the fallacy of which argument has been demonstrated with great acuteness by the late bishop Douglas, in his “Criterion.”

In the same year, 1545, the society presented him to the rectory of Land-Beach; but to his great mortification, he was obliged to resign his beloved college of Stoke in 1547, although he laboured as much as possible to prevent its dissolution. To preserve, however, as far as he could, the memory of its founder Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, he brought away with him his arms painted on glass, and placed them in a window of the master’s lodge; and secured the books of history and antiquities, which made part of that invaluable collection with which he afterwards enriched his college. The same year, and in the forty-third of his age, he married Margaret the daughter of Robert Harlstone, gent. of Mattishall in Norfolk, and sister of Simon Harlstone, who had lived some time at Mendlesham in Suffolk, where he was distinguished for his piety and sufferings in the reign of queen Mary. Dr. Parker had been attached to this lady for about seven years, but they were prevented from marrying by the statute of Henry VIII. which made the marriage of the clergy felony. Mr. Masters conjectures that it was about this time he drew up, in his defence, a short treatise still preserved in the college library “De conjugio Sacerdotum,” and another against alienation of the revenues of the church, which Strype has printed in his Appendix, No. VII. It is also probable that, on the increase of his family, he added the long gallery to the master’s lodge. The lady he married proved a most affectionate wife, and had so much sweetness of temper and amiable disposition, that bishop Ridley is said to have asked, “If Mrs. Parker had a sister?” intimating that he would have been glad to have married one who came near her in excellence of character.

It may seem extraordinary that one who had so early imbibed the sentiments of the reformers, and had adhered to them so constantly, should have escaped the vigilance of the persecutors; and it is certain that strict search was sometimes made for him, and that on one occasion, when obliged to make his escape on a sudden, he got a fall from his horse, by which he was so much hurt, that he never recovered it. Yet either from the remissness of his enemies, or the kindness of his friends, he was enabled to secrete himself, and notwithstanding the danger he was in, he employed his time in study. Among other things, it was during this alarming interval, that he wrote or rather enlarged a treatise, supposed to be drawn up by bishop Ponet, in defence of priests’ marriages, against a book of Dr. Martin’s, which he caused to be printed, but without his name, in 1562. The title was “A Defence of Priests’ Marriages, established by the Imperial laws of the realm of England; against a civilian, naming himself Thomas Martin, doctor of the civil laws,” &c. This work is noticed in our account of Dr. Martin, and a full account of it is given by Strype, p. 504. Dr. Parker also employed some part of his time in translating the book of Psalms into various and elegant English metre, which was likewise afterwards printed, but in what year is uncertain, unless in 1567, as minuted with a pen in the copy which is in the college library. This book, which Strype says he never could get a sight of, is divided into three quinquagenes with the argument of each psalm in metre placed before it, and a suitable collect full of devotion and piety at the end. Some copies of verses, and transcripts from the fathers and others on the use of the psalms are prefixed to it, with a table dividing them into Prophetici, Eruditorii, Consolatorii, &c. and at the end are added the eight several tunes, with alphabetical tables to the whole.

On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he left his retreat in Norfolk, and being on a visit to his friends at Cambridge, was sent for up to town by his old acquaintance and contemporaries at the university, sir Nicholas Bacon, now lord-keeper of the great seal, and sir William Cecil, secretary of state, who well knew his worth. But he was now become enamoured of retirement, and suspecting they designed him for some high dignity in the church, of which however no intimation had yet been given, he wrote them many letters, setting forth his own inabilities and infirmities, and telling the lord-keeper in confidence, “he would much rather end his days upon some such small preferment as the mastership of his college, a living of twenty nobles per ann. at most, than to dwell in the deanry of Lincoln, which is 200 at the least.” These statesmen, however, still considered him as in every respect the best fitted for the archbishopric of Canterbury; and the reluctance he showed to accept it, and the letters he wrote both to them and the queen, only served to convince all parties that they had made a proper choice. He was accordingly consecrated on Dec. 17, 1559, in Lambeth chapel, by William Barlow, late bishop of Bath and Wells, and then elect of Chichester; John Story, late bishop of Chichester, and then elect of Hereford; Miles Coverdale, bishop of Exeter, and John Hodgkin, suffragan bishop of Bedford. An original instrument of the rites and ceremonies used on this occcasion, corresponding exactly with the archbishop’s register, is still carefully preserved in Bene't college library, and proved of great service, when the papists, some years after, invented a story that Parker was consecrated at the Nag’s head inn, or tavern, in Cheapside. That this was a mere fable has been sufficiently shown by many authors, and is acknowledged even by catholic writers. Being thus constituted primate and metropolitan, Dr. Parker endeavoured to fill the vacant sees with men of learning and piety, who were well affected to the reformation; and soon after his own consecration, he consecrated in his chapel at Lambeth, Grindal, bishop of London; Cox, bishop of Ely; Sandys, bishop of Worcester; Jewell, bishop of Salisbury; and several others. The subsequent history of archbishop Parker is that of the church of England. He had assisted at her foundation, and for the remainder of his life had a principal hand in the superstructure. Referring, however, to ecclesiastic history, and particularly to Strype’s invaluable volume, for the full details of the archbishop’s conduct, we shall confine ourselves to a few of the most prominent of those measures in which he was personally concerned. Soon after his consecration he received a letter from the celebrated Calvin, in which that reformer said that “he rejoiced in the happiness of England, and that God had raised up so gracious a queen, to be instrumental in propagating the true faith of Jesus Christ, by restoring the gospel, and expelling idolatry, together with the bishop of Rome’s usurped power.” And then in order to unite protestants together, as he had attempted before in king Edward’s reign, he intreated the archbishop to prevail with her majesty, to summon a general assembly of all the protestant clergy, wheresoever dispersed; and that a set form and method (namely of public service, and government of the church) might be established , not only within her dominions, but also among all the reformed and evangelical churches abroad. Parker communicated this letter to the queen’s council, and they took it into consideration, and desired the archbishop to return thanks to Calvin; and to signify that they thought his proposals very fair and desireable, but as to church-government, to inform him, that the church of England would adhere to the episcopal form. The death of Calvin prevented any farther intercourse on this subject, but Strype has brought sufficient evidence that Calvin was not absolutely averse to episcopacy, and that he was as zealous for uniformity as our archbishop, who has been so much reproached for his endeavours to promote it.

In 1560, Parker wrote a letter to the queen, with the concurrence of the bishops of London and Ely, exhorting her majesty to marry, which it is well known she declined. He also visited several dioceses, in some of which he found the churches miserably supplied with preachers. The bishop of Ely certified, that of 152 livings in his diocese, fifty-two only were duly served; and that there were thirty-four benefices vacant, thirteen that had neither rectors nor vicars, and fifty-seven that were enjoyed by non-­residents. This was not owing to the popish clergy being deprived of their benefices, for the number so deprived did not exceed two hundred in the whole kingdom; but the truth was, that at the conclusion of Mary’s reign the great bulk of the clergy were grossly ignorant, and it was long before the universities were encouraged to furnish a series of learned divines.

But, whatever our archbishop might suffer from the despotic caprices of the queen, he had yet more trouble with the dissentions which appeared in the church itself, and never ceased to prevail, in a greater or less degree, until the whole fabric was overturned in the reign of Charles I. These first appeared in the opposition given to the ecclesiastic habits by a considerable number of divines, and those men of worth and piety, who seemed to be of opinion that popery might consist in dress as well as doctrine. By virtue of the clause in the act of uniformity, which gave the queen a power of adding any other rites and ceremonies she pleased, she set forth injunctions ordering that the clergy should wear seemly garments, square caps, and copes, which had been laid aside in the reign of king Edward. Many conformed to these in every circumstance, but others refused the cap and surplice, considering them as relics of popery, and therefore both superstitious and sinful. The queen, enraged at this opposition, which was favoured even by some of her courtiers, wrote a letter to the two archbishops, reflecting with some acrimony on it, as the effect of remissness in the bishops; and requiring them to confer with her ecclesiastical commissioners, that an exact order and uniformity might be maintained in all external rites and ceremonies; and that none hereafter should be admitted to any ecclesiastical preferment, but those who were disposed to obedience in this respect. Archbishop Parker, accordingly, with the assistance of several of his brethren, drew up ordinances for the due order in preaching and administering the sacraments, and for the apparel of persons ecclesiastical. According to these, the preachers were directed to study edification, and to manage controversy with sobriety; exhorting the people to frequent the communion, and to obey the laws, and the queen’s injunctions. All the licences for preaching were declared void and of no effect, but were to be renewed to such as their bishops thought worthy of the office; and such as preached unsound doctrine were to be denounced to the bishop, and not contradicted in the church. These who had licences were to preach once in three months; and those who were unlicensed, were to read homilies. In administering the sacrament, the principal minister was to wear a cope, but at all other prayers only the surplice; in cathedrals they were to wear hoods, and preach in them; the sacrament was to be received by every body kneeling; every minister saying the public prayers, or administering the sacraments, was to wear a surplice with sleeves; and every parish was to provide a communion-table, and to have the ten commandments set on the east wall above it. The bishops were to give notice when any persons were to be ordained, and none were to be ordained without degrees. Then followed some rules about wearing apparel, caps, and gowns; to all which was added, a form of subscription to be required of all who were admitted to any office in the church; that they would not preach without licence, that they would read the Scriptures intelligibly, that they would keep a register-book, that they would use such apparel in service-time especially as was appointed, that they would keep peace and quiet in their parishes, that they would read some of the Bible daily, and in conclusion, that they would observe uniformity, and conform to all the laws and orders already established for that purpose; and to use no sort of trade, if their living amounted to twenty nobles.

Concerning his learning and zeal for the promotion of learning, there is no difference of opinion. His skill in ancient liturgies was such, that he was one of the first selected to draw up the Book of Common Prayer; and when he came to be placed at the head of the church, he laboured much to engage the bishops, and other learned men, in the revisal and correction of the former translations of the Bible. This was at length undertaken and carried on under his direction and inspection, who assigned particular portions to each of his assistants, which he afterwards perused and corrected, and spared no pains in getting it completed. It was first published in 1568, and has usually been called the “Bishop’s Bible,” and ran its course with the Geneva translation, until the present version was executed, in the reign of king James. He also published a "Saxon homily on the Sacrament,“translated out of Latin into that language, by Ælfric a learned abbot of St. Alban’s, about 900 years before; with two epistles of the same, in which is not the least mention of the doctrine of transubstantiation. He was the editor also of editions of the histories of Matthew of Westminster and Matthew of Paris, and of various other works, enumerated by Tanner; some of which were either composed by him, or printed at his expence. The work on which he is thought to have spent most time was that” De Antiquitate Britanniæ Ecclesiæ;“but his share in this is a disputed point among antiquaries. In his letter to the lord treasurer, to whom he presented a copy, he speaks of it as his own collection, which had been the employment of his leisure hours. Dr. Drake likewise, in the preface to his edition of it, quotes a letter of the archbishop’s in the college-library, in which he expressly styles it,” My book of Canterbury Predecessors;“and archbishop Bramhall was of opinion, that the conclusion of the preface proved Parker himself to have been the author. But notwithstanding these testimonies, the matter is doubtful. Selden was the first who called it in question, although without giving his reasons; and sir Henry Spelman considered Dr. Ackworth to have been either the author or collector of the work. Archbishop Usher thinks that Ackworth wrote only the first part, concerning the British antiquities; and he, Selden, and Wharton, ascribe the lives of the archbishops to Josselyn, and make Parker little more than the director or encourager of the whole. And this certainly seems to be confirmed by the copy now in the Lambethlibrary. This copy, which originally belonged to that library, but was missing from the year 1720, was replaced in 1757 by Dr. Trevor, bishop of Durham, who found it in the Sunderland-library. This, which Dr. Ducarel thought the only perfect one existing, contains many manuscript papers, letters, and notes, respecting archbishop Parker and the see of Canterbury; and, among these, some proofs that Ackworth and Josselyn had a considerable share in the composition of the work. At the beginning of St. Augustine’s life we find this note:” These 24 pages of St. Augustine’s life were thus begun by George Acworth Dr. of laws, at the appointment of Matthew Parker Abp.of Cant, and the lives of all the archbishops should have in this course been perfected—(some words not intelligible)—but deth prevented it.“This Dr. Ackworth, as we have mentioned in our account of him (vol. I.) was alive in 1576, but how long after is not known, but as this is a year after our prelate’s death, there seems some difficulty in understanding the latter part of this note, without adopting archbishop Usher’s opinion above mentioned. We also find in the Lambeth copy, on the title-page of the history, the following note:” This Historie was collected and penned by John Josselyn, one of the sons of sir Thomas Josselyn, knight, by the appointment and oversight of Matthew Parker archbishop of Cant. the said John being entertained in the said archb. house, as one of his antiquaries, to whom, besides the allowance afforded to him in his howse, he gave to hym the parsonage of Hollinborn in Kent," &c.

In 1665 he was elected a fellow of the royal society, and published about the same time some physico-theological essays, in Latin, with the title “Tentamina Physico-Theologica de Deo; sive Theologia Scholastica, ad normarn novae et reformats philosophise concinnata,” Lond. 1665, 4to. This he dedicated to archbishop Sheldon. The work was attacked by N. Fairfax, M. D. in a treatise with the whimsical title of “The Bulk and Selvedge of the World.” In 1666 he published “A free and impartial Censure of the Platonic Philosophy;” and shortly after “An account of the nature and extent of the Divine Dominion and Goodness, especially as they refer to the Origenian hypothesis concerning the pre-existence of souls, together with a special account of the vanity and groundlessness of the hypothesis itself,” Oxon. 166o, 4to. About Michaelmas, 1667, archbishop Sheldon appointed him one of his chaplains, a proof that at this time he was in estimation; and this seems to have led the way to higher preferment. He now left Oxford, and resided at Lambeth, under the eye of his patron; who, in June 1670, collated him to the archdeaconry of Canterbury, in the room of Dr. Sancroft, afterwards archbishop. On Nov. 26, the same year, having accompanied William prince of Orange on his visit to Cambridge, he bad the degree of D. D. conferred upon him. On Nov. 18, 1672, he was installed prebendary of Canterbury and had the rectories of Ickham and Chartham, in Kent, conferred upon him by the archbishop about the same time. About this time he published some of those writings against the presbyterians which involved him in a controversy. The first of these was his “Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity, wherein the authority of the civil magistrate over the consciences of subjects in matters of external religion is asserted.” This was first answered by the anonymous author of “Insolence and Impudence triumphant,” &c. 1669; and by Dr. John Owen, in “Truth and Innocence vindicated.” He then published “A Defence and Continuation of Ecclesiastical Polity (against Dr. Owen),” Lond. 1671, 8vo “Toleration discussed,” &c. 1670, 4to “A Discourse in Vindication of bishop Bramhall and the Church of England, from the fanatic charge of Popery,” &c. This was prefixed to a “Treatise” of the said bishop, written in his own defence, 1672, 8vo. A humourous censure of this piece being published by Andrew Marvell, entitled '< The Rehearsal Transprosed,“&c. our author, in the same humourous taste, wrote” A Reproof to the Rehearsal Transprosed,“1673, 8vo. Wood, however, observes, that,” finding himself beaten in this cudgelling way, his high spirit was abated for ever after, and though Marvell replied to his ‘ Reproof,’ yet he judged it more prudent to lay down the cudgels. It put him upon a more sober, serious, and moderate way of writing.“(See Marvell.) Parker’s last publication in this controversy was” A free and impartial Inquiry into the causes of that very great esteem and honour the Nonconformist Ministers are in with their followers,“1673, 8vo. In 1678 he published his” Disputationes de Deo et providentia divina,“&c. 4to, which is highly commended by Dr. Henry More in the general preface to his works. This was followed by other works, entitled” Demonstration of the divine authority of the Law of Nature, and of the Christian Religion,“1681, 4to” The Case of the Church of England briefly stated in the three first and fundamental principles of a Christian Church. I. The Obligation of Christianity by Divine Right. II. The Jurisdiction of the Church by Divine Right. III. The institution of Episcopal Superiority by Divine Right,“London, 8vo;” An account of the Government of the Christian Church, in the first six hundred years; particularly shewing, I. The Apostolical practice of Diocesan and Metropolitical Episcopacy. II. The usurpation of patriarchal and papal authority. III. The war of two hundred years between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, of universal supremacy,“London, 1683, 8vo;” Religion and Loyalty, or, a demonstration of the power of the Christian Church within itself, supremacy of sovereign powers over it, and duty of passive obedience and nonresistance to all their commands, exemplified out of records,“&c. 8vo and the year following, the second part of the same work, containing” the history of the concurrence of the imperial and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Government of the Church, from the beginning of the reign of Jovian to the end of Justinian," 1685, 8vo.

Having now openly rejected the church of England, which he had sacrificed to his ambition, he became one of the Romish mercenaries, prostituting his pen in defence of transubstantiation, and the worship of saints and images. The papists, it is certain, made sure of him as a proselyte; one of whom, in a letter from Liege, informs his correspondent that he even proposed in council, whether it was not expedient that at least one college in Oxford should be allowed to be catholics, that they might not be forced to be at such charges by going beyond the seas to study. In the same spirit, having invited two popish noblemen, with a third of the church of England, to an entertainment, he drank the king’s health, wishing a happy success to all his affairs; adding, that the religion of the protestants in England seemed to him to be in no better a condition than Buda was before it was taken, and that they were next to Atheists who defended that faith. So very notorious was his conduct, that the more prudent and artful of the popish party condemned it. Father Peter, a Jesuit, and privy-counsellor to king James, in a letter to father la Chaise, confessor to Louis XIV. uses these expressions: “The bishop of Oxford has not yet declared himself openly; the great obstacle is his wife, whom he cannot rid himself of; his design being to continue a bishop, and only change communion, as it is not doubted but the king will permit, and our holy father confirm; though I don't see how he can be farther useful to us in the religion he is in, because he is suspected, and of no esteem among the heretics of the English church; nor do I see that the example of his conversion is like to draw many others after him, because he declared himself so suddenly. If he had believed my counsel, which was to temporize for some longer time, he would have done better; but it is his temper, or rather zeal, that hurried him on to it.” These two letters were first printed in a “Third Collection of Papers relating to the present juncture of affairs in England,” &c. \6S9 9 4to, and have been since inserted in Echard’s and Rapin’s histories.

, an eminent prelate of the sixteenth century, was born at Guild ford, in Surrey, in 1511, and was the son of Mr. George Parkhurst of that place. He was educated there in the grammar school adjoining to Magdalen college gate, under Thomas Robertson, a very famous teacher. He was elected fellow of Merton college in 1529, and three years after, proceeding in arts, entered into holy orders. Anthony Wood says that he was at this time better esteemed for poetry and oratory than divinity. Yet we find him recorded in the life of Jewell, as the tutor of that excellent prelate, who entered of Merton college in 1535, and as “prudently instilling, together with his other learning, those excellent principles into this young gentleman, which afterwards made him the darling and wonder of his age.” Among other useful employments, we find him collating Coverdale and Tindal’s translations of the Bible along with his pupil, of whom he conceived a very high opinion, and on one occasion exclaimed “Surely Paul’s Cross will one day ring of this boy,” a prophecy which was remarkably fulfilled in Jewell’s celebrated sermon there in 1560. Parkhurst, it is true, was a poet and an orator, but he had very early examined the controversy that was about to end in the reformation, and imbibed the spirit of the latter. In 1548, according to a ms note of Baker, he was presented by Thomas lord Seymour to the rich benefice of Bishop’s Cleve in Gloucestershire, which he held three years in commendam, and where he did much good by his hospitality and charity; but the author of Jewell’s life says that he held this living in 1544, and when in that year Jewell commenced master of arts, he bore the charges of it. Nor, says Jewell’s biographer, “was this the only instance wherein he (Jewell) did partake of this good man’s bounty, for he was wont twice or thrice in a year to invite him to his house, and not dismiss him without presents, money, and other things that were necessary for the carrying on his studies. And one time above the rest, coming into his chamber in the morning, when he was to go back to the university, he seized upon his and his companions purses, saying, What mo'ney, I wonder, have these miserable, and beggardly Oxfordians? And finding them pityfully lean and empty, stuffed them with money, till they became both fat and weighty.”

Strype, on the authority of his contemporary Becan, who knew him well, gives him this character: “He was naturally somewhat hasty; but soon appeased again. He would speak his mind freely, and fear none in a good cause. A true friend, and easily reconciled to any against whom he had taken a displeasure. He appointed in his diocese (that was large) for the better oversight thereof, ten commissaries, to whom he, as occasion served, sent instructions for the regulation and order of his see. He could have been willing to allow a liberty of officiating in the church, to such as could not conform to some of the ceremonies of it, looking upon them as indifferent matters; but upon command from above, he readily obeyed his prince’s and metropolitan’s authority. He was a friend to prophesies; that is, to the meetings of the ministers in several appointed parish churches in his diocese, as in St. Edmund’s Bury, &c. to confer together about the interpretation and sense of the scriptures. But the queen forbidding it, upon some abuses thereof, the archbishop signified to him her will, and he in obedience sent to his archdeacons and commissaries, to have them forborn for the future.” “As for his life and conversation, it was such as might be counted a mirror of virtue; wherein appeared nothing but what was good and godly; an example to the flock in righteousness, in faith, in love, in peace, in word, in purity. He preached diligently, and exhorted the people that came to him. He was a learned man, as well in respect of human learning, as divine, well seen iti the sacred Scriptures; an earnest protestant, and lover of sincere religion; an excellent bishop, a faithful pastor, and a worthy example to -all spiritual ministers in his diocese, both for doctrine, life, and hospitality.” This character is confirmed by Bale, in the dedication to Parkhurst, of his “Reliques of Rome,” printed in 1563.

His works have not much connexion with his profession, all, except his letters, being Latin poetry on sundry occasions. He was indeed one of the translators of the Bishops’ Bible, of which his share was the Apocrypha from the book of Wisdom to the end; but he is best known to the curious by his “Ludicra, sive Epigrammata juvenilia.” In T572 he sent a copy of these to his old and dear friend Dr. Wilson, master of St. Catherine’s, as a new-year’s gift, and styled them his “good, godly, and pleasant epigrams;” and they were in the following year printed by Day, in a small 4to volume. Why Anthony Wood should give the report that these epigrams were as indecent as Martial’s, when he adds at the same time that “he cannot perceive it,” seems unaccountable; but even Blomefield has adopted this false accusation. Many of them appear to have been first printed at Zurich in 1558, where they were written, and republished now. Among the commendatory verses is a copy by dean Nowell, to whom two of the epigrams are addressed, and who was not likely to have commended indecencies, if we could suppose our pious prelate capable of publishing such. “His epigrams,” says archdeacon Churton, “affording notices of persons and things not elsewhere easily found, are on the Grecian rather than the Roman model, not sparkling with wit, but grave and didactic.” The other works attributed to bishop Parkhurst are, 1. “Epigrammata in mortem duorum fratrum Suffolciensium, Caroli et Henrici Brandon,” Lond. 1552, 4to. These were the sons of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, and died of the sweating-sickness. 2. “Epigrammata seria,” ibid. 1560, which seem to be a part of his larger collection; and some of them had been long before published at Strasburgh, along with Shepreve’s “Summa et synopsis Nov. Test, distichis ducentis sexaginta comprehensa.” 3. “Vita Christi, carm. Lat. in lib. precum privat.” ibid. 1578. He also addressed Henry VIII. and queen Catherine in some complimentary verses, when they were about to visit Oxford in 1543; and there is an epitaph of his on queen Catherine in the chapel of Sudley-castle. Several of his letters have been published by Strype, and more in ms. are in the British Museum.

, a very pleasing English poet, was descended from an ancient family, settled for some centuries at Congleton, in Cheshire. His father, of the same name, wns attached to the republican party in the reign of Charles I.; and on the restoration found it convenient to go over to Ireland, carrying with him a large personal fortune, with which he purchased estates in that kingdom. These, with the lands he had in Cheshire, descended to the poet, who was horn in 1679, in Dublin. In this city he was educated, and entered of Trinity-college, Dublin, at the age of thirteen. He became M. A. in 1700, and in the same year was ordained deacon, although under the canonical age, by a dispensation from the primate. Three years after he was admitted into priest’s orders, and in 1705, Dr. Ashe, bishop of Clogher, conferred upon him the archdeaconry of Clogher. About the same time, he married miss Anne Minchin, an amiable lady, by whom he had two sons, who died young, and a daughter who long survived him.

, D. D. rector of Wichampton in Dorsetshire, and preacher at Market-Harborough in Leicestershire, for which latter county he was in the commission of the peace, was born in Bury-street, St. James’s, in 1722. He was admitted a scholar of Westminster in 1736, whence, in 1740, he was elected a student of Christchurch, Oxford, and took the degree of M. A. March 31, 1747 B. D. May 25, 1754; and D. D. July 8, 1757. He was a very learned divine; and an able, active, magistrate. He was appointed chaplain in 1750; preacher at Market-Harborough in Leicestershire in 1754; and in 1756 was presented by Richard Fleming, esq. to the rectory of Wichampton. He died at Market-Harborough, April 9, 1780. His publications were, 1. “The Christian Sabbath as old as the Creation,” 1753, 4to. 2. “The Scripture Account of the Lord’s Supper. The Substance of Three Sermons preached at Market-Harborough, in 1755, 1756,” 8vo. 3. “The Fig-tree dried up; or the Story of that remarkable Transaction as it is related by St. Mark considered in a new light explained and vindicated in a Letter to . . . . . . . . . esq.” 1758, 4to. 4. “A Defence of the Lord Bishop of London’s [Sherlock] Interpretation of the famous text in the book of Job, ‘ I know that my Redeemer liveth,’ against the Exceptions of the Bishop of Gloucester [Warburton], the Examiner of the Bishop of London’s Principles; with occasional Remarks on the argument of the Divine Legation, so far as this point is concerned with it,” 1760, 8vo. 5. “Dissertation on Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks,” 1762, 8vo. 6. “Remarks on Dr. Kennicott’s Letter,” &c. 1763, 8vo. 7. “The Case between Gerizirn and Ebal,” &c. 1764, 8vo. 8. “An Harmony of the Four Gospels, so far as relates to the History of our Saviour’s Resurrection, with a Commentary and Notes,” 1765, 4to. 9. “The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, in Matthew and Luke, explained; and ttie Jewish Objections removed,” 1771, 8vo. 10. Dr. Parry wrote one of the answers to Dr. Heathcote’s pamphlet 011 the Leicestershire election in 1775.

On his arrival in London, by the recommendation of his Paris friends, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Dr. Mead, sir Hans Sloane, and Dr. James Douglas. This great anatomist made use of his assistance, not only in his anatomical preparations, but also in his representations of morbid and other appearances, a list of several of which was in the hands of his friend Dr. Maty; who had prepared an eloge on Dr. Parsons, which was never used, but which, by the favour of Mrs. Parsons, Mr. Nichols has preserved at large. Though Dr. Parsons cultivated the several branches of the profession of physic, he was principally employed in midwifery. In 1738, by the interest of his friend Dr. Douglas, he was appointed physician to the public infirmary in St. Giles’s. In 1739 he married miss Elizabeth Reynolds, by whom he had two sons and a daughter, who all died young. Dr. Parsons resided for many years in Red Lion-square, where he frequently enjoyed the company and conversation of Dr. Stukeley, bishop Lyttleton, Mr. Henry Baker, Dr. Knight, and many other of the most distinguished members of the royal and antiquarian societies, and that of arts, manufactures, and commerce; giving weekly an elegant dinner to a large but select party. He enjoyed also the literary correspondence of D'Argenville, Button, Le Cat, Beccaria, Amb. Bertrand, Valltravers, Ascanius, Turberville Needham, Dr. Garden, and others of the most distinguished rank in science. As a practitioner he was judicious, careful, honest, and remarkably humane to the poor; as a friend, obliging and communicative; cheerful and decent in conversation; severe and strict in his morals, and attentive to fill with propriety all the various duties of life. In 1769, finding his health impaired, he proposed to retire from business and from London, and with that view disposed of a considerable number of his books and fossils, and went to Bristol. But he returned soon after to his old house, and died in it after a week’s illness, on the 4th of April, 1770, much lamented by his family and friends. By his last will, dated in October 1766, he gave his whole property to Mrs. Parsons; and, in case of her death before him, to miss Mary Reynolds, her only sister, “in recompence for her affectionate attention to him and to his wife, for a long course of years, in sickness and in health.” It was his particular request that he should not be buried till some change should appear in his corpse; a request which occasioned him to be kept unburied 17 days, and even then scarce the slightest alterution was perceivable. He was buried at Hen don, in a vault which he had caused to be built on the ground purchased on the death of his son James, where his tomb had a very commendatory inscription. A portrait of Dr. Parsons, by Mr. Wilson, is now in the British Museum; another, by Wells, left in the hands of his widow, who died in 1786; with a third unfinished; and one of his son James; also a family piece, in which the same son is introduced, with the doctor and his lady, accompanied by her sister. Among many other portraits, Mrs. Parsons had some that were very fine of the illustrious Harvey, of bishop Burnet, and of Dr. John Freind; a beautiful miniature of Dr. Stukeley; some good paintings, by her husband’s own hand, particularly the rhinoceros which he described in the “Philosophical Transactions.” She possessed also his Mss. and some capital printed books; a large folio volume entitled “Figure quaedam Miscellaneae qu0e ad rem Anatomicam Historiamque Naturalem spectant quas propria adumbravit manu Jacobus Parsons, M. D. S S. R. Ant.” &c. another, called “Drawings of curious Fossils, Shells,” &c. in Dr. Parsons’s Collection, drawn by himself;" &c. &c. Mrs. Parsons professed herself ready to give, on proper application, either to the royal or antiquarian society, a portrait of her husband, and a sum of money to found a lecture to perpetuate his memory, similar to that established by his friend Mr. Henry Baker.

His works are, 1. “A brief Discourse, containing the Reasons why Catholics refuse to go to Church,” with a Dedication to Queen Elizabeth, under the fictitious name of John Howlet, dated Dec. 15, 1530. 2. “Reasons for his coming into the Mission of England, &c.” by some ascribed to Campian. 3. “A brief Censure upon two Books, written against the Reasons and Proofs.” 4.“A Discovery of John Nichols, misreported a Jesuit” all written and printed while the author was in England. 5. “A Defence of the Censure given upon his two Books, &c.” 1583. 6. “De persecutione Anglicana epistola,” Rome and Ingolstadt, 1582. 7. “A Christian Directory,” 1583. 8. “A Second Part of a Christian Directory, &c.” 1591. These two parts being printed erroneously at London, Parsons published an edition of them under this title: “A Christian Directory, guiding men to their Salvation, &c. with m.my corrections and additions by the Author himself.” This book is really an excellent one, and was afterwards put into modern English by Dr. Stanhope, dean of Canterbury; in which form it has gone through eight or ten editions. 9. “Responsio ad Eliz. Reginse edictum contra Catholicos,” Romae, 1593, under the name of And. Philopater. 10. “A Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England, &c.” 1594, under the feigned name of Doleman. This piece was the production of cardinal Allen, Inglefield, and others, who furnished the materials, which Parsons, who had a happy talent this way, put into a proper method. Parsons’s style is among the best of the Elizabethan period. 11. “A temperate Wardword to the turbulent and seditious Watchword of sir Fr. Hastings, knight, 7 ' &c. 1599, under the same name. 12.” A Copy of a Letter written by a Master of Arts at Cambridge, &c.“published in 1583. This piece was commonly called” Father Parsons’s Green Coat,“being sent from abroad with the binding and leaves in that livery, but there seems reason to doubt whether this was his (see Ath. Ox. vol. II. new edit, note, p. 74). 13.” Apologetical Epistle to the Lords of her Majesty’s Privy Council, &c.“1601. 14.” Brief Apology, or Defence of the Catholic Ecclesiastical Hierarchy erected by pope Clement VIII. &c.“St. Omers, 1601. 15.” A Manifestation of the Folly and bad Spirit of secular Priests,“1602. 16.” A Decachordon often Quodlibetical Questions/' 1602. 17. “De Peregrinatione.” 18. “An Answer to O. E. whether Papists or Protestants be true Catholics,” 1603. 19. “A Treatise of the three Conversions of Paganism to the Christian Religion,” published (as are also the two following) under the name of N. D. (Nicholas Doleman), in 3 *6ls. 12mo, 1603, 1604. 20. “A Relation of a Trial made before the king of France in 1600, between the bishop of Evreux and the lord Plessis Mornay/' 1604. 21.” A Defence of the precedent Relation, &c.“22.” A Review of ten public Disputations^ &c. concerning the Sacrifices and Sacrament of the Altar,“1604. 23.” The Forerunner of Bell’s Downfall of Popery,“1605. 24.” An Answer to the fifth Part of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke, &c.“1606, 4to, published under the name of a Catholic Divine. 25.” De sacris alienis non adeundis, questiones duae,“1607. 26.” A Treatise tending to Mitigation towards Catholic subjects in England, against Thomas Morton (afterwards bishop of Durham),“1607. 27.” The Judgment of a Catholic Gentleman concerning king James’s Apology, &c.“1608. 28.” Sober Reckoning with Thomas Morton,“1609. 29.” A Discussion of Mr. Barlow’s Answer to the Judgment of a Catholic Englishman concerning the Oath of Allegiance,“1612. This book being left not quite finished at the author’s death, was afterwards completed and published by Thomas Fitzherbert. The following are also posthumous pieces: 30.” The Liturgy of the Sacrament of the Mass,“1620. 31.” A Memorial for Reformation, &c.“thought to be the same with” The High Court and Council of the Reformation,“finished after twenty years’ labour in 1596, but not published till after Parsons’s death; and republished from a copy presented to James II. with an introduction and some animadversions by Edward Gee, under the title of,” The Jesuits Memorial for the intended Reformation of the Church of England under their first Popish Prince,“1690, 8vo. 32. There is also ascribed to him,” A Declaration of the true Causes of the great Troubles pre-supposed to be intended against the Realm of England, &c. Seen and allowed, anno 1581.“33. Parsons also translated from the English into Spanish,” A Relation of certain Martyrs in England,“printed at Madrid 1590, 8vo.Several of his Mss. are preserved in Baliol college library, particularly a curious one entitled” Epitome controversiarum, hujus temporis."

Though Pascal had thus abstracted himself from the world, yet he could not forbear paying some attention to what was doing in it; and he even interested himself in the contest between the Jesuits and the Jansenists. Taking the side of the latter, he wrote his celebrated “Lettres Provinciates,” published in 1656, under the name of Louis de Montalte, making the former the subject of ridicule, *< These letters,“sVys Voltaire,” may be considered as a model of eloquence and humour. The best comedies of Moliere have not more wit than the fmt part of these letters; and the sublimity of the latter part of them is equal to any thing in Bossuet. It is true indeed that the Whole book was built upon a false foundation; for the extravagant notions of a few Spanish i.nd Henmh Jesuits were artfully ascribed to the whole society. Many absurdities might likewise have been discovered among the Dominican and Franciscan casuists; but this would not have answered the purpose; for the whole raillery was to be levelled only at the Jesuits. These letters were intended to prove, that the Jesuits had formed a design to corrupt mankind; a design which no sect or society ever had, or can have.“Here, however, Voltaire is not altogether correct; for the Jesuits cited by Pascal, were considered as oracles by their order; and the whole society always acted so systematically as a body, that the doctrines of one may be imputed to the rest, more fairly than in any other class of men. Voltaire calls Pascal the first of their satirists; for Despre*aux, says he, must be considered as only the second. In another place, speaking of this work of Pascal, he says, that” examples of all the various species of eloquence are to be found in it. Though it has now been written almost 100 years, yet not a single word occurs in it, savouring of that vicissitude to which living languages are so subject. Here then we are to fix the epoch when our language may be said to have assumed a settled form. The bishop of Lucon, son of the celebrated Bussy, told me, that asking one day the bishop of Meaux what work he would covet most to be the author of, supposing his own performances set aside, Bossu replied, ' The Provincial Letters’.“These letters were first published in 1607, 12 mo, an edition highly valued, and were afterwards translated into all languages, and printed over and over again. Some have said that there were decrees of formal condemnation against them; and also that Pascal himself, in his last illness, detested them, and repented of having been a Jansenist: but both these particulars are without foundation. It was supposed that father Daniel was the anonymous author of a piece against them, entitled” The Dialogues of Oleander and Eudoxus."

, a learned English prelate, successively bishop of Chichester and Ely, was born at Gainsborough in Lincolnshire, Sept. 8, 1626. His father was a mercer of good credit in that place, and sent him to a school, with a view to a learned education, which was kept by one Merry weather, a good Latin scholar, and the translator of sir Thomas Browne’s “Religio Medici.” In 1644, June 25, he was admitted as a sizar of Queen’s college, Cambridge, and was elected fellow March 1, 1648. He took the degree of B. A. in 1647; that of M. A. in 1651; and that of B. D. in 1658. Previous to this period he received holy orders from the celebrated Dr. Hall, bishop of Norwich, then ejected from his bishopric by the usurping powers, and living at Higham. This was probably about 1651, as in 1652 Mr. Patrick preached a sermon at the funeral of Mr. John Smith, of Queen’s college, who died Aug. 7, 1652, and was buried in the chapel of that college. He was soon after taken as chaplain into the family of sir Walter St. John of Battersea, who gave him that living in 1658. This vacated his fellowship, and the same year he took his degree of bachelor of divinity, and published his first work (if we except the funeral-sermon above mentioned), entitled “Mensa Mystica: or a Discourse concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; to which is added, a Discourse concerning Baptism,” Lond. 8vo. In the following year he published “The Heart’s Ease, or a remedy against all troubles; with a consolatory discourse, particularly directed to those who have lost their friends and dear relations,” ibid. 1659, 12mo; this went through many editions. In 1660 appeared “Jewish hypocrisy; a caveat to the present generation,” &c.

Such is the account given of this debate by Kennet in his “Complete History of England:” bishop Burnet’s account is somewhat different. He says, “That the king desired of the earl, he would suffer himself to be instructed in religion. He answered, he was fully satisfied about his religion; but, upon the king’s pressing it that he would hear his priests, he said he desired then to have some of the English clergy present, to which the king consented; only he excepted to Tillotson and Stillingfleet. Lord Rochester said he would take those who should happen to be in waiting; for the forms of the chapel were still kept up. And Drs. Patrick and Jane were the men.” “Patrick,” adds Burnet, “told me, that at the conference there was no occasion for them to say much. The priests began the attack. And when they had done, the earl said, if they had nothing stronger to urge, he would not trouble those learned gentlemen to say any thing; for he was sure he could answer all that he had heard. And so answered all with much heat and spirit, not without some scorn, saying, Were these grounds to persuade men to change their religion? This he urged over and over again with great vehemence. The king, seeing in what temper he was, broke off the conference, charging all that were present to say nothing of it.” The king had often taken pains to gain over Patrick, sent for him, treated him kindly, desired him to abate his zeal against his church, and quietly enjoy his own religion: but the dean replied, with proper courage, “That he could not give up a religion so well proved as that of the Protestants.” Conformably to this principle, he opposed the reading of his majesty’s declaration for liberty of conscience; and assisted Dr. Tenison in setting up a school at St. Martin’s, in opposition to the popish one, opened at the Savoy, in order to seduce the youth of the town into popery; and this was the origin of the ward and parish schools of London. He had also a great share in the comprehension projected by archbishop SanCroft, in order to bring over the dissenters, which, it is well known, was unsuccessful.

At the Revolution in 1688, great use was made of the dean, who was very active in settling the affairs of the church: he was called upon to preach before the prince and princess of Orange; and was soon after appointed one of the commissioners for the review of the liturgy. He was thought to have excellent talents for devotional composition, and his part now was to revise the collects of the whole year, in which he introduced some amendments and improvements of style. In October 1689, he was made bishop of Chichester; and employed, with others of the new bishops, to compose the disorders of the church of Ireland. In July 1691, he was translated to the see of Ely, in the room of Turner, who was deprived for refusing the oaths to government. Here he continued to perform all the offices of a good bishop, as well as a good man, which he had ever proved himself on all occasions. He died at Ely, May 31, 1707, aged eighty; and was interred in the cathedral, where a monument is erected to his memory, with an inscription said to have been written by Dr. Leng, afterwards bishop of Norwich.

Our prelate had a brother John Patrick, preacher at the Charter-house, according to Wharton, and one of the translators of Plutarch. Dr. Samuel Patrick, the editor of an edition of Ainsworth’s Dictionary was also at the Charterhouse, but whether a relation does not appear. Wharton also says he had a son, who wasted an estate left him by his father, and it was sold, after his death, “for debts and portions.” Mrs. Catherine Patrick, a maiden lady of eightytwo years old, said to be our prelate’s grand-daughter, died at Bury in 1792. Whiston speaks of a life of bishop Patrick, written by himself, which he had read, and which was in Dr. Knight’s hands, but where now, is not known.

, a learned Jew, born in that city, in 1353, embraced Christianity, and entered the ecclesiastical profession after his wife’s decease. He was appointed preceptor to John II. king of Castille; afterwards archdeacon of Trevigno, bishop of Carthagena, bishop of Burgos, and is said to have died patriarch of Aquileia, August 29, 1435, aged 82. He has left additions to Nicholas de Lyra’s “Postills;” a treatise, entitled “Scrutinium Scripturarum,” Mant. 1474, fol. reprinted several times; and other learned works, abounding, according to Dupin, in useful biblical criticism. His three sons were baptized with him, and recommended themselves by their merit. Alphonso was bishop of Burgos, and wrote an abridgment of the Spanish History, which is in the “Hi>pama illustrata,” 4 vols. fol. Gonsalvo, the second son, was bishop of Placentia; and Alvarez, the third, published a History of John II. king of Castille.

, so named from the place of his birth, flourished in the third century, and was among the first who entertained the opinions since known by the name of Socinian, or Unitarian. In the year 260 he was chosen bishop of Antioch, and having begun to preach against the divinity of Jesus Christ, he was admonished, in a council assembled at Antioch, in the year 264: but, in another, held in phe year 269 or 270, sentence of deposition was passed. To this he refused to submit, and was supported in his disobedience by Zenobia the consort of Odenatus, At length, when this queen was driven from Antioch, the emperor Aurelian expelled Paul in the year 272 or 273. Jt is not known what became of him afterwards; nor are any of his writings extant. His morals appear to have been as obnoxious as his doctrines. Dr. Lardner has en4eavoured to defend both, yet it appears evident that he hail the whole Christian world against him, and queen Zenobia only for him. His wealth, says Gibbon, was a sufficient evidence of his guilt, since it was neither derived from the inheritance of his fathers, nor acquired by the arts of honest industry. His followers were for a considerable time called Paulianists, but have since been known by many other names, according to the shades of difference in their opinions.

, an ecclesiastical writer of the fifth century, was descended from an illustrious family of Roman senators, and born at Bourdeaux about the year 253. He was directed in his studies by the famous Ausonius; and applied himself so earnestly to the best Latin authors, that he acquired a style not unlike theirs. He was advanced afterwards to the most considerable offices of the empire. Ausonius says, that Paulinus was consul with him; but his name not being found in the Fasti Consulares, it is probable he obtained that dignity only in the room of some other person, who died in the office, and perhaps in the year 378, after the death of Valens. He married Therasia, an opulent Spar nish lady, who proved instrumental in converting him to Christianity; and he was baptized in the year 389. He dwelt four years in Spain, where he embraced voluntary poverty; selling his goods by degrees, and giving them to the poor. The inhabitants of Barcelona, where he resided, conceived such an esteem for him, that they would have him ordained a priest to which, after a long resistance, he consented, upon condition that he should not be obliged to remain in Barcelona, because his design was to withdraw to Nola. This ordination was performed in the year 393, and the next year he left Spain to go into Italy. In his way he saw St. Ambrose at Florence, who shewed him marks of respect; and was kindly received at Rome both by the quality and the people: but the clergy there growing jealous of him, he left that city quickly, and went to Nola, where he dwelt in a country-house about half a league from the town. He lived there sixteen years with his wife Therasia, in the study and exercises of a monastic life; and then, in the year 409, was chosen and ordained bishop of Nola. The beginning of his episcopate was disturbed by the incursions of the Goths, who took that city; but the assault being over, he enjoyed it peaceably to his death, which happened in the year 431.

, bishop of St. Asaph, and Chichester, in the reign of Henry Vj. is supposed to have been born in Wales about 1390. He was educated in Oriel college, Oxford, of which he was chosen fellow in October 1417, in the room of Richard Garsdale, S. T. P. who was then elected provost of the college. Having studied with a view to the church, he was ordained deacon and priest in 1420 by Fleming, bishop of Lincoln. In 1425 he took his degree of bachelor of divinity, and about this time is supposed to have left the university. Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, was now protector of the kingdom, and being a great patron of learned men, invited Mr. Peacock to court, where he was enabled to make a very considerable figure by his talents. In 1431, he was elected master of the college of St. Spirit and St. Mary, founded by sir Richard Whittington; and with it was appointed to the rectory of St. Michael in Riola, now St. Michael Royal, situated in the street called Tower Royal in Viutry ward. This situation he resigned in 1444, on being promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph. To whom he owed this preferment seems uncertain, as his patron the duke of Gloucester was now declining in court interest, but perhaps the estimation he was held in at court may account for it. He now was honoured with the degree of D. D. at Oxford, in his absence, and without performing any exercises, an omission for which he was reproached afterwards by his enemies, although it was not then uncommon. In 1447 he preached a sermon at Paul’s cross, in which he maintained that bishops were not under obligation to preach or to take the cure of souls, and that their duties consist entirely in the various acts of church government. This doctrine was not very palatable even then, and he was under the necessity of explaining himself to the archbishop of Canterbury; but it showed, what appeared more clearly afterwards, that he was accustomed to think for himself, and to pay little deference to authority or custom.

In 1449, he was translated to the see of Chichester, and now began to give opinions which were ill suited to the times in which he lived. Although he had taken great pains both in his preaching and writings to defend the established church against the disciples of Wickliffe, now called Lollards, he gave it as his opinion, that the most probable means of reclaiming them was by allowing them the use of their reason, and not insisting on the infallibility of the church. The clergy, we may suppose, were not satisfied with such doctrine; and many of the learned men of the universities were so highly offended with it, and with his writing in the English language on subjects which ought to be concealed from the laity, that they at last prevailed with the archbishop of Canterbury to cite him. The archbishop accordingly issued his mandate, in Oct. 1457, ordering all persons to appear who had any thing to allege against the bishop of Chichester; and his books being found to contain various heretical opinions, he read a recantation, first in the archbishop’s court at Lambeth, and afterwards at St. Paul’s cross, where his books were burnt, as they also were at Oxford. He was likewise deprived of his bishopric, and confined in Thorney abbey, in Cambridgeshire, where it is supposed he died about 1460. His biographer has given an ample account of his writings, all of which remain in ms. except his “Treatise of Faith,” published by Wharton in 1688, 4to. He appears to have been a man of learning, and an acute reasoner. The opinions for which he suffered were not perhaps so decided as to procure him admittance to the list of reformers; but it is evident that he was one of the first who contended against the infallibility of the Romish church, and in favour of the holy scriptures being the principal guide. In 1744 the rev. John Lewis, of Margate, published “The Li/e” of this prelate, which, as he justly styles it, forms a “sequel to the Life” of Wickliff, and is an useful introduction to the history of the English reformation.

In 1717 Mr. Pearce was ordained a deacon by Dr. Fleetwood, bishop of Ely, and in the following year, priest, by the same prelate. It had always been his intention to devote himself to the church but, as he himself informs us, “he delayed to take orders till he was twenty-seven years of age; and, as he thought, had taken time to prepare himself, and to attain so much knowledge of that sacred office, as should be sufficient to answer all the good purposes for which it is designed.” In 1718 he went to reside as domestic chaplain with lord Parker, then lord Chancellor, who in 1719 gave him the rectory of Stapleford Abbots, in Essex, and in the following year that more valuable one of St. Bartholomew Exchange. When he attempted to return his thanks to the chancellor for this last preferment, his lordship said, “You are not to thank me so much as Dr. Bentley, for this benefice.” “How is that, my lord?” “Why,” added his lordship, “when I asked Dr. Bentley to make you a fellow of Trinity college, he consented so to do but on this condition, that I would promise to unmake you again as soon as it lay in my power; and now he, by having performed his promise, has bound me to give you this living.”

In 1748 dean Pearce was promoted to the see of Bangor, but the history of this and of his subsequent translation to Rochester, will be best related in his own words: “In the year 1746,” says he, " archbishop Potter being alone with dean Pearce one day at Lambeth, said to him, ‘ Why do you not try to engage your friend lord Bath * to get you made a bishop?’ * My lord,‘ said the dean, ’ I am extremely obliged to your grace for your good opinion of me, and for your kind intentions in my favour; but I have never spoken to him on that subject, nor ever thought of doing so, though I believe he would do what lies in his power; but I will tell your grace very frankly, that I have no thoughts of any bishopric. All that I have in view in this: I am now dean of Winchester; and that deanry is worth upwards of 600l. a year; my vicarage of S,t. Martin’s is about 500l. a year, and this last I should be glad of an opportunity of resigning, on account of the great trouble and little leisure which so large a parish gives me; but if I should out-live my father, who is upwards of eighty years

S‘. Martin’s church, and gradually in the heuie of lords as carl of Ba’.h, ld, I shall come to his estate, being his eldest son, which will enable me to resign my vicarage; and the profits of the deanry alone, with my father’s estate, will make me quite contented.' The archbishop smiled, and said, " Well, if you will not help yourself, your friends must do it for you.' Accordingly he spoke to the earl of Bath, and they two agreed to try what they could do to make the dean of Winchester a bishop.

"About a fortnight after this, the dean went up to his parish in Westminster; but in his way thither, lay one night at his father’s house, in Little Ealing, near Brentford; where, the next morning early, a letter was brought to him from the duke of Newcastle by one of his grace’s servants, signifying that his grace had his majesty’s order to make the dean of Winchester an offer of the bishopric of Bangor, and desiring to see him at the cockpit the next day at 12 o'clock. Accordingly he waited upon him, when, with many kind expressions to the dean, the duke signified the gracious offer of his majesty, which he had the order to make him. The dean asked his grace, whether he might be permitted to hold his deanry of Winchester in commendam with Bangor, to which the answer was, No; but that he might hold the vicarage of St. Martin’s with it. The dean said, that he was desirous to quit the living, which was troublesome to him, and would be more so as he was growing in years; but if that could not be indulged him, he rather chose to continue in his present situation. The duke used some arguments to persuade the dean to accept of the offer with a commendam to hold the living. He could not, however, prevail with the dean any farther, than that he would take three days’ time to consider of it. During that time, the dean had brought his father and lord Bath to consent, that he might decline to accept of that bishopric without their displeasure; but before the dean saw the duke a second time, lord Hardwicke, then chancellor, sent for him, and desired him to be, without fail, at his house, that evening. He went, and lord Hardwicke told him. that he found, by the duke of Newcastle, that he made difficulties about accepting the bishopric which was so graciously offered him. The dean gave his lordship an account of all that had passed between the duke and him; upon which his lordship used many arguments with the dean to induce him to accept the ofter, as intended. Among other things, he said, * If clergymen of learning and merit will not accept of the bishoprics, how can the ministers of state be blamed, if they are forced to fill them with others less deserving?‘ The dean was struck with that question, and had nothing ready in his thoughts to reply to it. He therefore promised lord Hardwicke to consent, the next day, when he was to see the duke of Newcastle. ’ Well then,‘ said lord Hardwicke, * when you consent, do it with a good grace.’ The dean promised to do that too; and accordingly he declared to the duke, the next day, his ready acceptance of his majesty’s offer, with such acknowledgments of the royal goodness as are proper on the occasion; and on Feb. 21, 1748, he was consecrated bishop of Bangor.

"In the year 1755, the bishop of Bangor being with archbishop Herring at Croydon, and walking with him in his garden, he said, ‘ My Lord, you know that the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Wilcocks, is very ill, and probably will not live long; will you accept of his bishopric and the deanry of Westminster, in exchange for yours of Bangor?’ The bishop excused himself, and told him plainly, that his father being dead, and his estate come to him, he had now nothing in view, but to beg his majesty’s leave to resign the see of Bangor, and to retire to a private life in the year 1757; that so long, he was contented to continue in the possession of the bishopric of Bangor; but that then he designed to try if he could obtain leave to resign, and live upon his private fortune. The archbishop replied, ‘ I doubt whether the king will grant it, or that it can be done.’ A second time, at another visit there, he mentioned the same thing, and a second time the bishop gave him the same answer. But in a short time after, upon another visit, when the archbishop mentioned it a third time, he added, ‘ My lord, if you will give me leave to try what I can do to procure you this exchange, I promise you not to take it amiss of you, if you refuse it, though I should obtain the offer for you.’ c This is very generous in your grace,‘ said the bishop, c and 1 cannot refuse to consent to what you propose to do.’

“Sometime after, in the same year (the bishop of Rochester declining very fast), the duke of Newcastle sent to the bishop of Bangor, and desired to see him the n x ext day. He went to him, and the duke informed him, that he was told, -that the chancellorship of Bangor was then vacant, and he pressed the bishop so much to bestow it upon one! whom he had to recommend, that the bishop consented to comply with his request. ‘ Well, my lord,’ said the duke, * now I have another favour to ask of you.‘ * Pray, my lord duke,’ said the bishop, e what is that?‘ c Why,’ said the duke, ‘ it is, that you will accept of the bishopric of Rochester, and deanry of Westminster, in exchange for Bangor, in case the present bishop of Rochester should die.’ * My lord,‘ said the bishop, ’ if I had thoughts of exchanging my bishopric, I should prefer what you mention before any other dignities.‘ ’ That is not,‘ said the duke, * an answer to my question: will you accept them in exchange, if they are offered to you?’ ‘ Your grace offers them to me,’ said the bishop, ‘ in so generous and friendly a manner, that 1 promise you to accept them.’ Here the Conversation ended; and Dr. Wilcocks dying in the beginning of the year 1756, the bishop of Bangor was promoted to the bishopric of Rochester and deanry of Westminster.” On the death of Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, lord Bath spoke to the bishop of Rochester, and offered to use his endeavours with his majesty for appointing him to succeed that eminent prelate; but Dr. Fearce told him, that from the earliest time that he could remember himself to have considered about bishoprics, he had determined nevefc to accept the bishopric of London, or the archbishopric of Canterbury, and he begged his lordship not to make any application in his behalf for the vacant see of London. Lord Bath repeated his offer on the death of Dr. Osbaldiston in 1763, but Dr. Pearce again declined the proposal, and was indeed so far from desiring a higher bishopric, that he now meditated the resignation of what he possessed. This is one of the most remarkable circumstances in the Jife of Dr. Pearce. Being now (1763) seventy-three years old, and finding himself less fit for the duties of bishop and dean, he informed his friend lord Bath of his intention to resign both, and to live in a retired manner upon his own private fortune; and after much discourse upon, the subject at different times, he prevailed upon his lordship at last to acquaint his majesty with his intention, and to desire, in the bishop’s name, the honour of a private audience from his majesty for that purpose. This being granted, Dr. Pearce stated his motives as he had done to lord Bath, adding that he was desirous to retire for the opportunity of spending more time in his devotions and studies; and that he was of the same way of thinking with a general officer of the emperor Charles V. who, when he desired a dismission from that monarch’s service, told him, ‘.’ Sir, every wise man would, at the latter end of life, wish to have an interval between the fatigues of business and eternity.“The bishop then shewed the king, in a written paper, instances of its having been done several times, and concluded with telling his majesty, that he did not expect or desire an immediate answer to his request, but rather that his majesty would first consult some pf his ministers as to the propriety and legality of it. This the king consented to do; and about two months after, he sent for the bishop and told him, that he had consulted with two of his lawyers, lord Mansfield and lord Northington, who saw no objection to the proposed resignation, and in consequence of their opinion, his majesty signified his own consent. The interference, however, of lord Bath, in requesting that his majesty would give the bishopric and deanry to Dr. Newton, then bishop of Bristol, alarmed the ministry, who thought that no dignities in the church should be obtained from the crown, but through their hands. Lord Northington suggested to his majesty some doubts on the subject, and represented that the bishops in general disliked the design; and at length Dr. Pearce was told by his majesty, that he must think 110 more about resigning Vtae bishopric but” that he would have all the merit of having done it." In 1768, however, he was permitted to resign his deanry, which was nearly double in. point of income to the bishopric which he was obliged to retain.

With respect to Dr. Pearce’s earnest desire of resigning his preferments, his biographer observes, that it gave occasion to much disquisition and conjecture. “As it could not be founded in avarice, it was sought in vanity; and Dr. Pearce was suspected as aspiring to the antiquated praise of contempt of wealth, and desire of retirement.” But his biographer, who had the best opportunities of judging, is of opinion, that his motives were what he publicly alleged, a desire of dismission from public cares, and of opportunity for more continued study. To a private friend the bishop declared that “as he never made a sinecure of his preferments, he was now tired of business, and being in his 74th year, he wished to resign while his faculties were entire, lest he might chance to outlive them, and the church suffer by his infirmities.”

Being now disengaged from his deanry, bishop Pearce seemed to consider himself as freed from half his burthen, and with such vigour as time had left him, and such alacrity as hope continued to supply, he prosecuted his episcopal functions and private studies. It redounds greatly to his honour, that in the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments, he never gave occasion to censure, except in the single instance of a young man*, on whom he bestowed the valuable rectory of Stone, in consideration of his being great grandson of his first patron, the earl of Macclesfield, whose favours, conferred forty years before, his gratitude did not suffer him to forget.

In 1773, by too much diligence in his office, bishop Pearce had exhausted his strength beyond recovery. Having confirmed at Greenwich, seven hundred persons, he found himself, the next day, unable to speak, and never regained his former readiness of utterance. This happened on the first of October, and from that time, he remained in a languishing state; his paralytic complaint increased, and at length his power of swallowing was almost lost. Being asked by one of his family, who constantly attended him, how he could live with so little nutriment, “I live,” said he, “upon the recollection of an innocent and well-spent life, which is my only sustenance.” After some months of lingering decay, he died at Little Ealing, June 29, 1774, aged eighty-four, and was buried by his wife in the church of Bromley in Kent, where a monument is erected to his memory with an epitaph written by himself, merely rehearsing the dates of his birth and death, and of his various preferments. A cenotaph was afterwards erected in Westminster-abbey, with a Latin inscription.

Bishop Pearce married, in Feb. 22, the daughter of Mr. Adams, an eminent distiller in Holborn, with a considerable fortune, and lived with her upwards of fifty-one years in the highest degree of connubial happiness. Their children all dying young, he made his brother William Pearce, esq. his heir and executor. He bequeathed his library to the dean and chapter of Westminster, except such books as they already had. His manuscripts, with the books not left to Westminster, and the copy-right of all his works, except the Longinus sold to Mr. Tonson, he gave to his chaplain, the rev. John Derby. Besides some legacies to individuals, and some to various public charities, he left a noble bequest of five thousand pounds Old South Sea Annuities, towards the better support of the twenty widows of clergymen, who are maintained in the college of Bromley, the funds of which had become too seamy for that kind of genteel provision intended by the founder, bishop Warner. Bishop Pearce’s benefaction raised the widow’s pensions to 30l. per ann. and the chaplain’s salary to 60l. His heir, William Pearce, esq. who died in 1782, left a reversionary legacy of 12,Ooo/. for the purpose of building ten houses for clergymen’s widows, in addition to bishop Warner’s college, and endowing them. This legacy falling in a few years ago, the houses were completed in 1802.

The diligence of bishop Pearce’s early studies, says his biographer, appeared by its effects; he was first known to the public by philological learning, which he continued to cultivate in his advanced age. Cicero “De Oratore” was published by him, when he was bachelor of arts, and Cicero “De Omciis, when he was dean of Wiucheste in 1745. The edition of Cicero undertaken by Olivet, produced a correspondence between him and Dr. Pearce, in which Olivet expresses, in terms of great respect, his esteem, of his learning, and his confidence in his criticism. But Dr. Pearce did not confine his attention to the learned languages: he was particularly studious of Milton’s poetry, and when Dr. Bentley published his imaginary emendations of the” Paradise Lost,“wrote in opposition to them a full vindication of the established text. This was published in 1733, 8vo, under the title of Review of the Text of Paradise Lost,” and is now become very scarce; but many, both of the conjectures and refutations, are preserved in bishop Newton’s edition.

In his parochial cure he was punctually diligent, and very seldom omitted to preach; but his sermons had not all the effect which he desired, for his voice was low and feeble, and could not reach the whole of a numerous congregation. Those whom it did reach were both pleased and edified with, the good sense and sound doctrine which he never failed to deliver. When advanced to the honours of episcopacy, he did not consider himself as placed in a state that allowed him any remission from the labours of his ministry. He was not hindered by the distance of Bangor from annually resorting to that diocese (one year only excepted), and discharging his episcopal duties there, tp 1753; after which, having suffered greatly from the fatigue of his last journey, he was advised by his physician and friend, Dr. Heberden, and prevailed upon, not to attempt another. When he accepted the bishopric of Bangor, he established in himself a resolution of conferring Welsh preferments or benefices only on Welshmen; and to this resolution he adhered, in defiance of influence or importunity. He twice gave away the deanry, and bestowed many benefices, but always chose for his patronage the natives of the country, whatever might be the murmurs of his relations, or the disappointment of his chaplains. The diocese of Rochester conjoined, as had been for some time usual, with tjie deanry of Westminster, afforded him a course of duty more commodious. He divided his timd between his public offices, and his solitary studies. He preached at Bromley or Ealing, and by many years labour in the explication of the New Testament, produced the “Commentary,” &c. which was offered to the public after his decease. It was bequeathed to the care of the rev. John Derby, his lordship’s chaplain, who published it in 1777, in 2 vols. 4to, underthe title of “A Commentary, with notes, on the Four Evangelists and the Acts of the Apostles, together with a new translation of St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, with a paraphrase and notes. To which are added other Theological pieces.” Prefixed is an elegant dedication to the king, in the name of the editor, but from the pen of Dr. Johnson; and a life written by the bishop himself, and connected in a regular narrative by paragraphs, evidently by Dr. Johnson’s pen. This life is highly interesting, and contains many curious particulars which we have been obliged to omit.

Dr. Pearce published in his life-time nine occasional sermons, a discourse against self-murder, which is now in the list of tracts distributed by the Society for promoting Christian knowledge; and soon after the publication of his “Commentary,” his editor gave the public a collee-r tion of the bishop’s “Sermons on various subjects,” 4 vols, 8vo. Besides what 'have been already specified, our author published in 1720, a pamphlet entitled “An Account of Trinity college, Cambridge;” and in 1722, “A Letter to the Clergy of the Church of England,” on occasion of the bishop of Rochester’s commitment to the Tower. He had also a short controversy with Dr. Middleton, against whom he published “Two Letters,” and fully convicted that writer of disingenuousness in quotation. His editor, Mr. Derby, who had married his neice, did not long suryive his benefactor, dying Oct. 8, 1778, only five days after the date of his dedication of the bishop’s “Sermons.”

, a very learned English bishop, was born Feb. 12, 1612, at Snoring in Norfolk; of which place his father was rector. In 1623 he was sent to Eton school; whence he was elected to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1632. He took the degree of B. A. in 1635, and that of master in 1639; in which year he resigned his fellowship of the college, and lived afterwards a fellow-commoner in it. The same year he entered into orders, and was collated to a prebend in the church of Sarum. In 1640 he was appointed chaplain to Finch, lord-keeper of the great seal; by whom in that year he was presented to the living of Torrington, in Suffolk. Upon the breaking out of the civil war he became chaplain to the lord Goring, whom he attended in the army, and afterwards to sir Robert Cook in London. In 1650 he was made minister of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, in London. In 1657 he and Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, had a dispute with two Roman catholics upon the subject of schism. This conference was managed iivwriting, and by mutual agreement nothing was to be made public without the consent of both parties; yet a partial account of it was published in 1658, by one of the Romish disputants, cum privilegw, at Paris, with this title, “Schism unmasked a late conference,” &c. In 1659 he published “An Exposition of the Creed,” at London, in 4to; dedicated to his parishioners of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, to whom the substance of that excellent work had betn preached several years before, and by whom he had been desired to nnake it public. This “Exposition,” which has gone through twelve or thirteen editions, is accounted one of the most finished pieces of theology in our language. It is itself a body of divinity, the style of which is just; the periods, for the most part, well turned the method very exact; and it is, upon the whole, free from those errors which are too often found in theological systems. There is a translation of it into Latin by a foreign divine, who styles himself “Simon Joannes Arnoldus, Ecclesiarum ballivise, sive praefecturae Sonnenburgensis Inspector;” and a very valuable and judicious abridgment was in 1810 published by the rev. Charles Burney, LL. D. F. R. S. In the same year (1659) bishop Pearson published “The Golden Remains of the ever-memorable Mr. John Hales, of Eton;” to which he wrote a preface, containing the character of that great man, with whom he had been acquainted for many years, drawn with great elegance and force. Soon after the restoration he was presented by Juxon, then bishop of London, to the rectory of St. Christopher’s, iri that city; created D. D. at Cambridge, in pursuance of the king’s letters mandatory; installed prebendary of Ely, archdeacon of Surrey, and made master of Jesus college, Cambridge; all before the end of 1660. March 25, 1661, he succeeded Dr. Lore in the Margaret professorship of that university; and, the first day of the ensuing year, was nominated one of the commissioners for the review of the liturgy in the conference at the Savoy, where the nonconformists allow he was the first of their opponents for candour and ability. In April 1662, he was admitted master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and, in August resigned his rectory of St. Christopher’s, and prebend of Sarum. In 1667 he was admitted a fellow of the royal society. Jn 1672 he published, at Cambridge, in 4to, “Vindiciae F.pistolarum S. Ignatii,” in answer to mons. Dailie; to which is subjoined, “Isaaci Vossii epistolas duæ adversus Davidem Blondellum.” Upon the death of Wilkins, bishop of Chester, Pearson was promoted to that see, to which he was consecrated Feb. 9, 1673. In 1684- his “Annales Cynrianici, sive tredecim annorum, quibus S. Cyprian, inter Christianos versatus est, historia chronologica,” was published at Oxford, with Fell’s edition. of that father’s works. Dr. Pearson was disabled from all public service by ill health, having entirely lost his memory, a considerable time before his death, which happened at Chester, July 16, 1686. Two years after, his posthumous works were published by Dodweli at London, “Cl. Jaannis Pearsoni Cestriensis nuper Episcopi opera posthuma, &c. &c.” There are extant two sermons published by him, 1. “No Necessity for a Reformation,' 7 1661, 4to. 2.” A Sermon preached before the King, on Eccles. vii. 14, published by his majesty’s special command," 1671, 4to. An anonymous writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine (1789 p. 493) speaks of some unpublished Mss. by bishop Pearson in his possession. His ms notes on Suidas are in. the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, and were used by Kuster in his edition.

Our prelate was reckoned an excellent preacher, very judicious and learned, particularly accurate and exact in chronology, and well versed in the fathers and the ecclesiastical historians. Dr. Bentley used to say that bishop Pearson’s “very dross was gold.” In bishop Burnet’s opinion he “was in all respects the greatest divine of his age.” Bishop Huet also, to whom he communicated various readings on some parts of Origen’s works, gives him a high character. But, as Burnet reminds us, he was an affecting instance “of what a great man can fall to; for his memory went from him so entirely, that he became a child some years before he died.” He had a younger brother Richard, professor of civil law in Gresham college, and under-keeper of the royal library at St. James’s, of whom Ward gives some account, but there is nothing very interesting in his history.

The first work discovered of his writing is “Το ὕϕος ἄγιον; or an Exercise on the Creation, and an Hymn to the Creator of the World; written in the express words of the Sacred Text; as an attempt to shew the Beauty and Sublimity of Holy Scripture,” 1716, 8vo. This was followed by a poem, entitled “Sighs on the Death of Queen Anne,” published in 1719; subjoined to which are three poems, viz, 1. “Paraphrase on part of the cxxxixth Psalm.” 2. “The Choice.” 3. “Verses to Lady Elizabeth Cecil, on her Birth-day, Nov. 23, 1717.” At the end of this work he mentions, as preparing for the press, “The History of the two last Months of King Charles I.” and solicits assistance; but this never was published. He also mentions a poem on Saul and Jonathan, not then published. During his residence at the university, and perhaps in the early part of it, he wrote a comedy called the “Humours of the University; or the Merry Wives of Cambridge.” The ms. of this comedy is now in the possession of Octavius Gilchrist, esq. of Stamford, who has obliged the editor with a transcript of the preface . In August 1719, he occurs curate of King’s Cliff, in Northamptonshire, and in 1721 he offered to the world proposals for printing the history and antiquities of his native town. In 1723, he obtained the rectory of Godeby Maureward, by purchase, from Samuel Lowe, esq. who at that time was lord of the manor, and patron of the advowson. In 1727, he drew up a poetical description of Belvoir and its neighbourhood, which is printed in Mr. Nichols’s History of Leicestershire; and in that year his first considerable work appeared, under the title of “Academia Tertia Anglicana; or, The Antiquarian Annals of Stanford, in Lincoln, Rutland, and Northampton Shires; containing the History of the University, Monasteries, Gilds, Churches, Chapels, Hospitals, and Schools there,” &c. ornamented with XLI plates; and inscribed to John duke of Rutland, in an elaborate dedication, which contains a tolerably complete history of the principal events of that illustrious family, from the founder of it at the Conquest. This publication was evidently hastened by “An Essay on the ancient and present State of Stamford, 1726,” 4to, by Francis Hargrave, who, in the preface to his pamphlet, mentions a difference which had arisen between him and Mr. Peck, because his publication forestalled that intended by the latter. Mr. Peck is also rather roughly treated, on account of a small work he had formerly printed, entitled “The History of the Stamford Bull-running.” In 1729, Jie printed a single sheet, containing, “Queries concerning the Natural History and Antiquities of Leicestershire and Rutland,” which were afterwards reprinted in 174O. He was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, March 9, 1732, and in that year he published the first volume of “Desiderata Curiosa; or, A Collection of divers scarce and curious Pieces, relating chiefly to matters of English History 5 consisting of choice Tracts, Memoirs, Letters, Wills, Epitaphs, &c. Transcribed, many of them, from the originals themselves, and the rest from divers ancient ms Copies, or the ms Collations of sundry famous Antiquaries, and other eminent Persons, both of the last and present age: the whole, as nearly as possible, digested into order of time, and illustrated with ample Notes, Contents, additional Discourses, and a complete Index.” This volume was dedicated to lord William Manners; and was followed, in 1735, by a second volume, dedicated to Dr. Reynolds, bishop of Lincoln. There being only 250 copies of these volumes printed, they soon became scarce and high-priced, and were reprinted in one volume, 4to, by subscription, by the late Mr. Thomas Evans, in 1779, without, however, any improvements, or any attempt, which might perhaps have been dangerous by an unskilful hand, at a better arrangement. In 1735, Mr. Peck printed, in a quarto pamphlet, “A complete Catalogue of all the Discourses written both for and against Popery, in the time of King James the Second; containing in the whole an account of four hundred and fifty-seven Books and Pamphlets, a great number of them not mentioned in the three former Catalogues; with references after each title, for the more speedy finding a further Account of the said Discourses and their Authors in sundry Writers, and an Alphabetical List of the Writers on each side.” In 1736, he obtained, by the favour of bishop Reynolds, the prebendal stall of Marston St. Lawrence, in the cathedral church of Lincoln. In 1739, he was the editor of “Nineteen Letters of the truly reverend and learned Henry Hammond, D. D. (author of the Annotations on the New Testament, &c.) written to Mi*. Peter Stainnough and Dr. Nathaniel Angelo, many of them on curious subjects,” &c. These were printed from the originals, communicated by Mr. Robert Marsden, archdeacon of Nottingham, and Mr. John Worthington. The next year, 1740, produced two volumes in quarto; one of them entitled “Memoirs of the life and actions of Oliver Cromwell, as delivered in three Panegyrics of him written in Latin; the first, as said, by Don Juan Roderiguez de Saa Meneses, Conde de Penguiao, the Portugal Ambassador; the second, as affirmed by a certain Jesuit, the lord ambassador’s Chaplain; yet both, it is thought, composed by Mr. John Milton (Latin Secretary to Oliver Cromwell), as was the third with an English version of each. The whole illustrated with a large Historical Preface many similar passages from the Paradise Lost, and other works of Mr. John Milton, and Notes from the best historians. To all which is added, a Collection of divers curious Historical Pieces relating to Cromwell, and a great number of other remarkable persons (after the manner of Desiderata Curiosa, vol. I. and II.)” The other, “New Memoirs of the Life and Poetical Works of Mr. John Milton; with, first, an Examination of Milton’s Style; and, secondly, Explanatory and Critical Notes on divers passages in Milton and Shakspeare, by the Editor. Thirdly, Baptistes; a sacred Dramatic Poem in Defence of Liberty, as written in Latin by Mr. George Buchanan, translated into English by Mr. John Milton, and first published in 1641, by order of the House of Commons. Fourthly, The Parallel) or archbishop Laud and cardinal Wolsey compared, a vision, by Milton. Fifthly, The Legend of sir Nicholas Throckmorton, knt. Chief Butler of England, who died of poison, anno 1570, an Historical Poem, by his nephew sir Thomas Throckmorton, knt. Sixth, Herod the Great, by the Editor. Seventh, The Resurrection, a Poem, in imitation of Milton, by a Friend. And eighth, a Discourse on the Harmony of the Spheres, by Milton; with Prefaces and Notes.” Of these his “Explanatory and Critical Notes on divers passages of Shakspeare” seem to prove that the mode of illustrating Shakspeare by extracts from contemporary writers, was not entirely reserved for the modern commentators on our illustrious bard, but had occurred to Mr. Peck. The worst circumstance respecting this volume is the portrait of Milton, engraved from a painting which Peck got from sir John Meres of KirkbyBeler in Leicestershire. He was not a little proud to possess this painting, which is certainly not genuine and what is worse, he appears to have known that it was not genuine. Having asked Vertue whether he thought it a picture of Milton, and Vertue peremptorily answering in the negative, Peck replied, “I'll have a scraping from it, however: and let posterity settle the difference.”

, an eminent and laborious antiquary, descended from an ancient family in Derbyshire, was the $on of Christopher Pegge, a woollen-draper, and was born at Chesterfield, Nov. 5, 1704. He was admitted a pensioner of St. John’s college, Cambridge, May 20, 1722, and in November was elected a scholar upon Lupton’s foundation. In Jan. 1725 he took his degree of B. A. and in March 1726 was elected to a fellowship, which he did not hold long, owing to a singular circumstance. His fellow competitor was Mr. Michael Burton, who had the superior right as being a-kin to the founder of the fellowship, but this claim was set aside, owing to his being deficient in literature. He now artfully applied to the college for a testimonial, that he might receive orders, and undertake some cure in the vicinity of Cambridge; and this being unadvisedly granted, he immediately appealed to the visitor (Dr. Thomas Greene, bishop of Ely), representing that, as the college had, by the testimonial, thought him qualified for ordination, it could not, injustice, deem him unworthy of becoming a fellow of the society. The consequence was, that the visitor found himself reluctantly obliged to eject Mr. Pegge, and Burton took possession of the fellowship. The visitor, however, recommended Mr. Pegge in such a manner to the master and seniors of the college, that he was from that time considered as an honorary member of the body of fellows (tanquam socins), and kept his seat at their table and in the chapel, being placed in the situation of a fellow-commoner. Feeling yet more the indignity of the trick played upon them by Burton, they chose Mr. Pegge to a Platt-fellowship in 1729.

Classical criticism being one of his earliest studies, it is thought that he had before this time meditated an edition of Xenophon’s “Cyropaedia” and “Anabasis,” from a collation of them with the Duport ms. in the library of Eton, to convince the world that he had not been unjustly preferred to Burton; but this undertaking was probably prevented by the appearance of Hutchinson’s edition. Having taken the degree of M. A. in July 1729, he was ordained deacon in December, and priest in February following, on both occasions by Dr. Baker, bishop of Norwich. His first clerical employment was as curate to the Rev. Dr. John Lynch, at Sandwich, in Kent. This he held from Lady Day 1730, to Midsummer 1731, when he removed to Bishopsbourne, another living belonging to Dr. Lynch, who at the end of the same year procured for him the living of Godmersham.

His independent publications on numismatical, antiquarian, and biographical subjects were also very numerous: 1. “A Series of Dissertations on some elegant and very raluable Anglo-Saxon Remains,” 1756, 4to. 2. “Memoirs of Roger de Weseham, dean of Lincoln, afterwards bishop of Lichfield, and the principal favourite of Robert Grossetete, bishop of Lincoln,” 1761, 4to. 3. “An Essay on the Coins of Cunobelin in an epistle to the right rev. bishop of Carlisle (Dr. Lyttelton), president of the society of antiquaries,” 1766, 4to. 4. “An assemblage of coins fabricated by authority of the archbishops of Canterbury. To which are subjoined two Dissertations,” 1772, 4to. 5. “Fitz-Stephen’s Description of the city of London,” &c. 1772, 4to. 6. “The Forme of Cury. A roll of ancient English cookery, compiled about the year 1390, temp. Rich. II. with a copious index and glossary, 7 ' 1780, 8vo. The original of this curious roll was the property of the late Gustavus Brander, esq. who presented it afterwards to the British Museum. Prefixed to this publication is his portrait, engraved at the expence of Mr. Brander. 7.” Annales Eliae de Trickenham, monachi ordinis Benedictini. Ex Bibliotheca Lamethana.“To which is added,” Compendium compertorum; ex bibliotheca ducis Devoniae,“1789, in 4to. Both parts of this publication contain copious annotations by the editor. The former was communicated by Mr. Nichols, to whom it is inscribed,” ad Johannem Nicolsium, celeberrimum typographum;“and the latter was published by permission of the duke of Devonshire, to whom it is dedicated. 8.” The Life of Robert Grossetete, the celebrated bishop of Lincoln,“1793, 4to. This has very justly been considered as the chef-d'oeuvre- of the author. Seldom has research into an obscure period been more successful. It is a valuable addition to our literary history. 9.” An historical account of Beauchief Abbey, in the county of Derby, from its first foundation to its final dissolution,“1801, 4to. 10.” Anonymiana; or Ten centuries of observations on various authors and subjects," 1809, 8vo, a very entertaining assemblage of judicious remarks and anecdotes. It is needless to add that these two last publications were posthumous.

Here they were well received by John bishop of Jerusalem, the enemy of St. Jerom, and well looked on by the better sort of people. Count Marcellinus, being desirous to know in what their doctrine, which was much talked of, consisted, applied to St. Augustin, bishop of Hippo, for information; and Pelagius, fearing to engage with so formidable an antagonist, wrote the bishop a letter full of protestations of the purity of his faith, and St. Augustin seems always unwilling to believe that Pelagius had fallen into error until the year 414, when Pelagius resolved to undertake his treatise of the natural strength of man, in. support of his doctrine of free-will; which, however, he still expressed in ambiguous terms, but not so as to deceive either Augustine or Jerome, who wrote against him. In Palestine, his doctrine was approved in a council held at Diospolis in the year 415, consisting of fourteen bishops. Theodore of Mopsuestia was one of Pelagius’ s most powerful friends in the east, a man of profound erudition and great reputation; who, though he wrote zealously against all heresies, fell into that of Pelagius, as also of Nestorius. On the other hand, the African bishops held a council, according to custom, in the year 416, at Carthage, and decided that Pelagius and Celestius ought to be anathematized, and communicated their judgment to the pope Innocent I. in order to join the authority of the see of Rome to their own, and, prompted by St. Augustine, refute in a summary way the chief errors imputed to Pelagius, and conclude thus: “Though Pelagius and Celestius disown this doctrine, and the writings produced against them, without its being possible to convict them of falsehood; nevertheless, we must anathematize in general whoever teacheth that human nature is capable of avoiding sin, and of fulfilling the commands of God; as he shews himself an enemy to his grace.” About the same time a council was held at Milevtim, composed of sixtyone bishops; who, after the example of that of Carthage, wrote to pope Innocent, desiring him to condemn this heresy, which took away the benefit of prayer from adults, and baptism from infants. Besides these two synodicai letters, another was written by St. Augustin, ju the name of himself and four more bishops; in which he explained the whole matter more at large, and desired the pope to order Pelagius to Rome, to examine him more minutely, and know what kind of grace it was that he acknowledged; or else to treat with him on that subject by letters, to the end that, if he acknowledged the grace which the church teachetb, he might be absolved without difficulty.

Celestius, upon his condemnation at Cartilage in the year 412, had indeed appealed to this pope but, instead of pursuing his appeal, he retired into Palestine. Pek gius, however, who had more art, did not despair of bringing Rome over to his interest, by flattering the bishop of that city, and accordingly drew up a confession of faith, and sent it to pope Innocent with a letter, which is now lost. Innocent was dead; and Zosimus had succeeded him, when this apology of Pelagius was brought to Rome. On the first notice of ttiis change, Celestius, who had been driven from Constantinople, hastened to the west, in hopes of securing the new pope’s favour, by making him his judge, and Zosimus, pleased to be appealed to in a cause that had been adjudged elsewhere, readily admitted Celestius to justify himself at Rome. He assembled his clergy in St. Clement’s church, where Celestius presented him a confession of faith; in which, having gone through all the articles of the Creed, from the Trinity to the resurfection of the dead, he said, “If any dispute has arisen on questions that do not concern the faith, I have not pretended to decide them, as the author of a new doctrine; but I offer to your examination, what I have from the source of the prophets and apostles; to the end that, if I have mistaken through ignorance, your judgment may correct and set me right.” On the subject of original sin, he continued, “We acknowledge that children ougtr to be baptized for the remission of sins, agreeably to the rule of the universal church, and the authority of the gospel; because the Lord hath declared, that the kingdom of heaven can be given to those only who have been baptized. But we do not pretend thence to establish the transmission of sin from parents to their children: that opinion is widely different from the catholic doctrines. For sin is not born with man; it is man who commits it after he is born: it does not proceed from nature, but from will. We therefore acknowledge the first, in order not to admit of several baptisms; and take this precaution, that we may not derogate from the Creator.” Celestius having confirmed by word of mouth, and several repeated declarations, what was contained in this writing, the pope asked him, whether he condemned all the errors that had been published under his name? Celestius answered, that he did condemn them in conformity with the sentence of pope Innocent, and promised to condemn whatever should be condemned by the holy see. On this Zosimus did not hesitate to condemn Heros and Lazarus, who had taken upon them, to be the chief prosecutors of the Pelagian doctrine. He deposed them from the episcopal office, and excommunicated them; after which he wrote to Aurelius, and the other bishops of Africa, acquainting them with what he had done, and at the same time sending them the acts of his synod.

Soon after this, Zosimus received a letter from Praylus, bishop of Jerusalem, successor to John, recommending to him Pelagius’s affair in affectionate terms. This letter was accompanied by another from Pelagius himself, together with the confession of faith before mentioned. In this letter Pelagius said, that his enemies wanted to asperse his character in two points: first, that he refused to baptize infants, and promised them the kingdom of heaven, without the redemption of Jesus Christ; secondly, that he reposed so much confidence in free-will, as to refuse the assistance of grace. He rejected the first of these errors, as manifestly contrary to the gospel; and upon the article of grace he said, “We have our free-will either to sin or not to sin, and in all good works it is ever aided by the divine assistance. We say, that all men have free-will, as well Christians as Jews and Gentiles: all of them have it by nature, but it is assisted by grace in none but Christians. In others this blessing of the creation is naked and unassisted. They shall be judged and condemned; because having free-will, by which they might arrive at faith, and merit the grace of God, they make an ill use of this liberty. The Christians will be rewarded; because they, by making a good use of their free-will, merit the grace of the Lord, and observe his commandments.” His confession of faith was like that of Celestius, On baptism he said, “We hold one single baptism, and we assert that it ought to be administered to children in the same form of words as to adults,” Touching grace he said, “We confess a freewill: at the same time holding, that we stand continually in need of God’s assistance; and that those are as well mistaken, who say with the Manichees, that man cannot avoid sinning, as those who say with Jovinian, that man cannot sin.” He concluded with these words: “Such, blessed pope, is the faith which we have learned in the catholic church, the faith which we have always held, and still continue in. If any thing contained therein shall not Jiave been explained clearly enough, or not with sufficient caution, we desire that you would correct it; you who )iold the faith, and the see of Peter. If you approve of my confession of faith, whoever pretends to attack it, will shew either his ignorance or his malice, or that he is not orthodox; but he will not prove me an heretic.”

For some time this defence answered its purpose, and Zosimus wrote a second letter to Aurelius, and to all the bishops of Africa, informing them that he was now satisfied with Pelagius and Celestius’ s confession of faith, and persuaded of their sincerity. Aurelius, however, and his brethren, were more surprised than daunted at this letter, and firmly maintained the judgment they had given, and which had been confirmed by Innocent I. At the head of their decrees they addressed a second letter to pope Zosimus, in these terms: “We have ordained, that the sentence given by the venerable bishop Innocent shall subsist, until they shall confess without equivocation, that the grace of Jesus Christ does assist us, not only to know, but also to do justice in every action; insomuch, that without it we can neither think, say, or do any thing whatever, that belongs to true piety.” They added, “That Celestius’ s having said in general terms, that he agreed with Innocent’s letters, was not satisfactory in regard to persons of inferior understandings; but that he ought to anathematize in clear terms all that was bad in his writings, lest many should believe that the apostolical see had approved his errors, rather than be persuaded that he had reformed them.” The bishop of Africa likewise reminded pope Zosimus oi his predecessor’s decision, relating to the council of Diospolis; shewed him the artifice made use of in the confession of faith which Pelagius had sent to Rome; and refuted after their manner the cavils of the heretics: and, as Zosimus had reprimanded them for having too easily given credit to the accusers of Celestius, they justified themselves at his expenee; by shewing, that he himself had been too precipitate io this affair. They also declared plainly, that this cause arising in Africa, and having been judged there, Celestius could have no right to appeal from thence, nor the pope to take cognizance of it: to which they added a protest, to prevent Zosimus from attempting to pronounce any sentence by default, in favour of Celestius and Pelagius.

Zosimus, either through a persuasion that these heretics had dealt insincerely with him, or finding it prudent to yield to the necessity of the occasion, upon the receipt of this letter, issued out a formal condemnation of the Pelagians, and applied also to Honorius, requesting him to cause all heretics to be driven out of Rome; in compliance with which, the emperor gave a rescript at Ravenna, April 418, directd to the pretorian prefect of Italy, who, in consequence, issued his ordinance jointly with the pretorian prefect of the east, and the prefect of Gaul, purporting, that all such as should be convicted of this error should suffer perpetual banishment, and that all their possessions should be confiscated. The pope also vigorously prosecuting hs design to extirpate the friends 01 Pelagius, caused all the bishops to be deposed who would not subscribe the condemnation of the new heresy, and drove them out of Italy by virtue of the laws of the empire. Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, likewise rejected their deputies. They were driven from Ephesus and Theodotus bishop of Antioch condemned them, and drove Pelagius thence, who was lately returned from Palestine, where he had taken refuge from the emperor’s rescript. We have no certain account of him after this; but there is reason to believe, that he returned to England, and spread his doctrine there; which induced the bishop of Gaul to send thither St. Germain of Auxerre, in order to refute it. However that be, it is certain that Pelagian heresy, as it is called, spread itself both in the east and west, and took so deep root, that it subsists to this day in different sects, who all go by the general name of Pelagians, except a more moderate part who are called Semi-Pelagians.

Mr. Pell’s eminence, however, in mathematical knowledge, was now so great, that he was thought worthy of a professor’s chair in that science; and, i.pon the vacancy of one at Amsterdam in 1639, sir William Bos -ell, the English resident with the States-general, used his interest, that he might succeed in that professorship; which was not filled up till above four years after, 1643, when Pell was chosen to it. The year following he published, in two pages 4to, “A Refutation of Longomontamis’s Discourse, De vera circuli mensura,” printed at Amsterdam in 1644. In June 1646, he was invited by the prince of Orange to be professor of philosophy and mathematics at Breda, in the college newly founded there by his highness, with the offer of a salary of 1000 guilders a year. This he accepted, but upon his removal to Breda, he found that he was rt quired to teach mathematics only. His “Idea Matheseos,” which he had addressed to Mr. Hartlib, who in 1639 had sent it to Des Cartes and Mersenne, was printed 1650 at London, 12mo, in English, with the title of “An Idea of Mathematics,” at the end of Mr. John Dury’s “Reformed Library-keeper.” On the death of the prince of Orange, in 1650, and the subsequent war between the English and Dutch, he left Breda, and returned to Eng land, in 1652; and, in 1654, was sent by Cromwell as his agent to the protestant cantons in Switzerland, his instructions being dated March 30th of that year. His first speech in Latin to the deputies of Zurich was on the 13th of June; and he continued in that city during most of his employment in Switzerland, in which he had afterwards the title of resident. Being recalled by Cromwell, he took his leave of the cantons in a Latin speech at Zuricu, the 23d of June, 1658; but returned to England so short a time before the usurper’s death, that he had no opportunity of an audience from him. Why Cromwell employed him does not appear, but it is thought that during his residence abroad, he contributed to the interests of Charles Ji. and the church of England; and it is certain that, after the restoration, he entered into holy orders, although at an unusually advanced period of life. He was ordained deacon March 31, 1661, and priest in June following, by Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln; and, on the 16th of that month, instituted to the rectory of Fobbing in Essex, given him by the king. On Dec. the 5th following, he brought into the upper house of convocation the calendar reformed by him, assisted by Sancroft, afterwards abp. of Canterbury. In 1663, he was presented by Sheldon, bishop of London, to the rectory of Laingdon in Essex; and, upon the promotion of that bishop to the see of Canterbury in the next month, became one of his grace’s domestic chaplains. He was then doctor of divinity, and expected, as Wood tells us, “to be made a dean; but being not a person of activity, as others who mind not learning are, could never rise higher than a rector.” The truth is, adds Wood, “he was a helpless man as to worldly affairs; and his tenants and relations dealt so unkindly by him, that they defrauded him of the profits of his rectory, and kept him so indigent, that he was in want of necessaries, even ink and paper, to his dying day.” He was for some time confined to the King’s-bench prison for debt; but, in March 1682, was invited by Dr. Whistler to live in the college of physicians. Here he continued till June following, when he was obliged, by his ill state of health, to remove to the house of a grandchild of his in St. Margaret’s church-yard, Westminster. From this too he was again removed, for we find that he died at the house (in Dyot street) of Mr. Cothorne, reader of the church of St. Giles’s in the Fields, Dec. the 12th, 1685, and was intecred by the charity of Busby, master of Westminster school, and Sharp, rector of, St. Giles’s, in the rector’s vault under that church. Besides what have been mentioned, Dr. Pell was the author of, 1. “An Exercitation concerning Easter,” 1644, in 4to. 2. “A Table of 10,000 square numbers,” &c. 1672, folio. 3. An Inaugural Oration at his entering upon the Professorship at Breda. 4. He made great alterations and additions to “Rhonius’s Algebra,” printed at London 1668, 4to, under the title of “An Introduction to Algebra; translated out of the High Dutch into English by Thomas Branker, much altered and augmented by D. P. (Dr. Pell).” Also a Table of odd numbers, less than 100,000, shewing those that are incomposite, &c. supputated by the same Thomas Branker. 5. His Controversy with Longomontanus concerning the Quadrature of the Circle, Amsterdam, 1646, 4to. He likewise wrote a Demonstration of the 2d and 10th books of Euclid; which piece was in ms. in the library of lord Brereton in Cheshire: as also'Arrhimedes’s Arenarins, and the greatest part of Diophantus’s six books of Arithmetic; of which author he was preparing, Aug. 1644, a new edition, with 2 corrected translation, and new illustrations. He designed likewise to publish an edition of Apollonius, but laid it aside, in May, 1645, at the desire of Golius, who was engaged in an edition of that author from an Arabic manuscript given him at Aleppo 18 years before. This appears from the letters of Dr. Pell to sir Charles Cavendish, in the Royal Society.

, a learned divine, was born, according to Fuller, in Sussex, but more probably at Egerton, in Kent, in 1591, and was educated at Magdalen college, Oxford, on one of the exhibitions of John Baker, of Mayfield, in Sussex, esq. Wood informs us that having completed his degree of bachelor by determination, in 1613, he removed to Magdalen-hall, where he became a noted reader and tutor, took the degree of M. A. entered into orders, was made divinity reader of that house, became a famous preacher, a well-studied artist, a skilful linguist, a good orator, an expert mathematician, and an ornament to the society. “All which accomplishments,” he adds, “were knit together in a body of about thirtytwo years of age, which had it lived to the age of man, might have proved a prodigy of learning.” As he was a zealous Calvinist, he may be ranked among the puritans, but he was not a nonconformist. He died while on a visit to his tutor, Richard Capel, who was at this time minister of Eastington, in Gloucestershire, in the thirty-second year of his age, April 14, 1623. His works, all of which were separately printed after his death, were collected in 1 vol. fol. in 1635, and reprinted four or five times; but this volume does not include his Latin works, “De formarum origine;” “De Sensibus internis,” and “Enchiridion Oratorium,” Bishop Wilkins includes Pemble’s Sermons in the list of the best of his age.

, a learned judge, was born in Moorfields, May 16, 1675, and, as the anonymous author of his life says, was baptised by the name of Thomas son of Thomas Pengelly; but others have supposed that he was a natural son of Richard Cromwell the protector, For this supposition we find no other foundation than that Cromwell, who lived very privately in the neighbourhood, had known Mr. Pengelly from his youth, afterwards kept up a friendship with him, and died at his seat at Cheshunt, in August 1712. Mr. Pengelly was brought up to the bar, and becoming eminent in his profession, was made a serjeant May 6, 1710; knighted May 1, 1719, and in June following appointed his majesty’s prime Serjeant at law, on the decease of sir Thomas Powis. He sat as member for Cockermouth, in Cumberland, in the parliaments called in 1714 and 1722. He was made chief baron of the exchequer Oct. 16, 1726, on the death of sir Jeffery Gilbert; and his conduct on the bench corresponded with the high reputation he had acquired at the bar. He died of an infectious fever, caught at Taunton assizes, April 14, 1730. He excelled in profound learning, spirit, justice, and generosity, and dared to offend the most powerful, if he thought their conduct reprehensible. He was a florid, yet convincing orator, an excellent judge, a pious Christian, and an accomplished, sprightly companion. By a humane codicil in his will, dated in 1729, he left a considerable part of his fortune to procure the discharge of persons confined for debt, which was accordingly done by his executor Mr. Webb. There is a copy of this will published in his life, but the name of his residuary legatee is for some reason omitted. The anonymous history of Oliver Cromwell, first printed in 1724, has been supposed to have been written by him, but this is doubtful. It has been also attributed to Dr. Gibson, bishop of London.

sion of popery and papists into all our Wilmot’s Life of bishop Hough. - The

, second son to the preceding, by his second lady, was born in Audley Square, Nov. 1, 1762. His infancy was spent at Charlton, the seat of his family, in Kent, where he went through the first rudidiments of learning, and also contracted an early attachment for the youngest daughter of the late Sir Thorn; Spencer Wilson, hart, who afterwards became his wife From Charlton he removed to Harrow, where he successfully prepared himself for the university. At the pro] age he entered of Trinity College, Cambridge, where th< present bishop of Bristol, Dr. William-Lort Mansell, his tutor. There unwearied application and splendid abilities led him to the highest academical honours. In 1782 he obtained the degree of master of arts, and on the 16th of December of the following year was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn; where, after performing the necessary studies, he was called to the bar in Hilary Term 1786. He commenced his professional career in the Court of King’s Bench, and accompanied the Judges through the Midland circuit. His chief opponents were then Mr. (now Sir S.) Romilly, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. serjeant Vaughan; and, notwithstanding a degree of modesty, which at that period almost amounted to timidity, he displayed encouraging promises of forensic excellence, on some of the first trials on which he was retained, particularly that of George Thomas, of Brackiey, Northamptonshire, for forgery. In this case he was retained for the prosecution; and had the honour of contending with Mr. Law, since Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough. This trial excited much public attention; and the ability evinced by Mr. Perceval increased the number of his clients. His advancement was now both regular and rapid. In Hilary term 1796, he obtained a silk gown, and became the leading counsel on the Midland circuit, not only in point of rank, but also, in quantity of business. He was soon after appointed counsel to the Admiralty; and the university of Cambridge acknowledged its sense of his merits by nominating him one of its two counsel. About this time, he had attracted the notice of an attentive observer and acute judge of men and talents, the late Mr. Pitt, by a pamphlet which he had written, to prove “that an impeachment of the House of Commons did not abate by a dissolution of parliament.” This work became the foundation of his intimacy with the premier, and his subsequent connexion with the government, and caused a sudden alteration in his prospects. His object now was to obtain a seat in parliament, where he might support those measures for which the situation of the country seemed to call, and a most favourable opportunity presented itself. His first cousin, lord Compton, succeeded to the earldom of Northampton in April 1796, on the demise of his maternal uncle, and consequently vacated his seat for the borough of that name. Mr. Perceval immediately offered himself to represent the vacant borough, and was too well known, and too universally esteemed, to meet with any opposition. He had been previously appointed deputy recorder; and so highly did his constituents approve of his political conduct and private worth, that they returned him to serve in three parliaments.

, a late learned prelate, a descendant of the ancient earls of Northumberland, was born at Bridgenorth in Shropshire, in 1728, and educated at Christ church, Oxford. In July 1753 he took the degree of M.A.; and in 1756 he was presented by that college to the vicarage of Easton Mauduit, in Northamptonshire, which he held with the rectory of Wilbye, in the same county, given him by the earl of Sussex. In 1761 he began his literary career, by publishing “Han Kiou Chouan,” a translation from the Chinese; which was followed, in 1762, by a collection of “Chinese Miscellanies,” and in 1763 by “Five Pieces of Runic Poetry,” translated from the Icelandic language. In 1764 he published a new version of the “Song of Solomon,” with a commentary and annotations. The year following he published the “Reliques of Antient English Poetry,” a work which constitutes an aera in the history of English literature in the eighteenth century. Perhaps the perusal of a folio volume of ancient manuscripts given to the bishop by a friend, in early life (from which he afterwards made large extracts in the “Reliques,”) led his mind to those studies in which he so eminently distinguished himself. It appears likewise that Shenstone encouraged him in publishing the “Reliques.” The same year he published “A Key to the New Testament,” a concise manual for Students of Sacred Literature, which has been adopted in the universities, and often reprinted. After the publication of the “Reliques,” he was invited by the late duke and duchess of Northumberland to reside with them as their domestic chaplain. In 1769 he published “A Sermon preached before the Sons of the Clergy at St. Paul’s.” In 1770 he conducted “The Northumberland Household Book” through the press; the same year he published “The Hermit of Wark worth,”' and a translation of Mallet’s “Northern Antiquities,” with notes. A second edition of the “Reliques of Ancient Poetry” was published in 1775, a third in 1794, and a fourth in 1814. In 1769 he was nominated chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; in 1778 he was promoted to the deanery of Carlisle; and in 1782 to the bishopric of Dromore in Ireland, where he constantly resided, promoting the instruction and comfort of the poor with unremitting attention, and superintending the sacred and civil interests of the diocese, with vigilance and assiduity; revered and beloved for his piety, liberality, benevolence, and hospitality, by persons of every rank and religious denomination. Under the loss of sight, of which he was gradually deprived some years before his death, he steadily maintained his habitual cheerfulness; and in his last painful illness he displayed such fortitude and strength of mind, such patience and resignation to the divine will, and expressed such heartfelt thankfulness for the goodness and mercy shewn to him in the course of a long and happy life, as were truly impressive and worthy of that pure Christian spirit, in him so eminently conspicuous. His only son died in 1783. Two daughters survive him; the eldest is married to Sarruiel Isted, esq. of Ecton, in Northamptonshire; and the youngest to the hon. and reV. Pierce Meade, archdeacon of Dromore. In 1777 the rev. John Bowie addressed a printed letter to Dr. Percy, announcing a new and classical edition of “Don Quixote.” In 1780 Mr. Nichols was indebted to him for many useful communications for the “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems.” When elevated to the mitre, Mr. Nichols was also under further obligations in the “History of Hinckley,” 1782. In 1786 the edition of the Tatler, in six volumes, small 8vo, was benefited by the hints suggested by bishop Percy to the rev. Dr. Calder, the learned and industrious annotator and editor of those volumes. The subsequent editions of the Spectator and Guardian were also improved by some of his lordship’s notes. Between 1760 and 1764, Dr. Percy had proceededvery far at the press with an admirable edition of “Surrey’s Poems,” and also with a good edition of the Works of Villiers duke of Buckingham; both which, from a variety of causes, remained many years unfinished in the warehouse of Mr. Tonson in the Savoy; but were resumed in 1795, and nearly brought to a conclusion, when the whole impression of both works was unfortunately consumed by the fire in Red Lion Passage in 1808. His lordship died at his episcopal palace, Dromore, on Sept. 30, 1811, in his eighty-third year. So much of his life had passed in the literary world, strictly so called, that authentic memoirs of his life would form an interesting addition to our literary history, but nothing has yet appeared from the parties most able to contribute such information. The preceding particulars we believe to be correct, as far as they go, but we cannot offer them as satisfactory.

, a celebrated archbishop of Paris, and master of the Sorbonne, was son of a steward of the household to cardinal Richelieu, who took care of his education. He distinguished himself as a student, was admitted doctor of the house and society of the Sorbonne, preached with great applause, and was appointed preceptor to Louis XIV. and afterwards bishop of Rhodes, but resigned this bishopric because he could not reside in his diocese. In 1664, M, de Perefixe was made archbishop of Paris; and, soon after, by the advice of father Annat, a Jesuit, published a mandate for the pure and simple signature of the formularyof Alexander VII. His distinction between divine faith and human faith, made much noise, and was attacked by the celebrated Nicole. His attempt also to make the nuns of Port-Royal sign the formulary, met with great resistance,which occasioned many publications against him but his natural disposition was extremely mild, and it was with the utmost reluctance that he forced himself to proceed against these celebrated nuns. He died December 31, 1670, at Paris. He had been admitted a member of the French academy in 1654. His works are, an excellent “Hist, of K. Henry IV.” Amst. 1661, 12mo. This and the edition of 1664 are scarce and in much request, but that of 1749 is more common. Some writers pretend that Mezerai was the real author of this history, and that M. de Perefixe only adopted it; but they bring no proofs of their assertion. He published also a book, entitled “Institutio Principis,” 1647, 16to, containing a collection of maxims relative to the duties of a king in his minority.

While here, he was not only esteemed the first preacher of his time, but one of the most laborious students, as indeed his works demonstrate. During the disputes between the church and the puritans, he sided with the latter in principle, but was averse to the extremes to which the conduct of many of his brethren led. Yet he appears to have been summoned more than once to give an account of his conduct, although in general dealt with as his piety, learning, and peaceable disposition merited. Granger says that he was deprived by archbishop Whitgift, Jbut we find no authority for this. He had been a great part of his life much afflicted with the stone, which at last shortened his days. He was only forty-four years of age when he died in 1602. His remains were interred in St. Andrew’s church with great solemnity, at the sole expence of Christ’s college, and his funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Montague (who was also one of his executors) afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, and of Winchester, who spoke highly of his learning, piety, labours, and usefulness. His works were collected and published in 1606, in 3 vols. fol. and are written in a better style than was usual in his time. They have been, however, far more admired abroad than at home. We know not of any of them reprinted in this country since their first appearance, but several of them have been translated into French, Dutch, and Spa-, nish. Bishop Hall said “he excelled in a distinct judgment, a rare dexterity in clearing the obscure subtleties of the schools, and in an easy explication of the most perplexed subjects.”

, better known by the name of cardinal de Granvelle, was born 1517, at Besançon, and was son of Nicholas Perrenot, seigneur de Granvelle, chancellor to the emperor Charles V. Born with an ambitious, intriguing, and firm temper, joined to great abilities, he speedily raised himself, was made canon and archdeacon of Besançon, then bishop of Arras, in which character he spoke very forcibly at the council of Trent when but twenty-four years of age, and afterwards served the emperor Charles V. in several embassies to France, England, and elsewhere. This prince had so particular an esteem for Granvelle, and such confidence in him, that on abdicating the empire, he recommended him to his son Philip II. who scarce ever took any step relative either to private or public affairs, without his advice and assistance. Granvelle was afterwards appointed the first archbishop of Malines, was made cardinal in 1561, by Pius IV. and at length counsellor to Margaret of Parma, governess of the Netherlands, where, according to Strada’s account, his ambition and cruelty occasioned part of the outrages which were committed. Philip II. recalled him a second time to court, and entrusted him with all the affairs of the Spanish monarchy. Cardinal de Granvelle died at Madrid September 21, 1586, aged seventy, after having been nominated to the archbishopric of Besançon. His Life, written by D. Prosper Levêque, a Benedictine, was printed at Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo. It is interesting, but the author is unpardonably partial, and conceals the cruelty, ambition, and other faults of this celebrated cardinal.

He recovered, however, from any loss of character which this affair might occasion, by abjuring the religion in which he had been educated. It is rather singular that he is said to have acquired a distaste of the prorestant religion by studying the “Suinma” of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the writings of St. Austin; but having by this or by some other means, reconciled his mind to the change of his religion, he displayed all the zeal of a new convert by labouring earnestly in the conversion of others, even before he had embraced the ecclesiastical function. By these arts, and his uncommon abilities, he acquired great influ*­ence, and was appointed to pronounce the funeral oration of Mary queen of Scots, in 1587; as he had done also that of the poet Ronsard, in 1586. He wrote, some time after, by order of the king, “A comparison of moral and theological virtues;” and two “Discourses,” one upon the soul, the other upon self-knowledge, which he pronounced before that prince. After the murder of Henry III. he retired to the house of cardinal de Bourbon, aud laboured more vigorously than ever in the conversion of the reformed. Among his converts was Henry Spondanus, afterwards bishop of Pamiez; as this prelate acknowledges, in his dedication to cardinal du Perron of his “Abridgment of Baronius’s Annals.” But his success with Henry IV. is supposed to redound most to the credit of his powers of persuasion. He went to wait on that prince with cardinal de Bourbon, at the siege of Rouen; and followed him at Nantes, where -he held a famous dispute with four protestant ministers. The king, afterwards resolving to have a conference about religion with the principal prelates of the kingdom, sent for Du Perron to assist in it; but, as he was yet only a layman, he nominated him to the bishopric of Evreux, that he might be capable of sitting in it. He came with the other prelates to St. Denis, and is said to have contributed more than any ether person to the change in Henry’s sentiments.

, a noted fanatic in the time of Charles I. was the son of a merchant at Fowey, in Cornwall, and was some time a member of Trinity college, in Cambridge, whence, it is said, he was expelled for irregular behaviour; but this expulsion must have taken place after he had taken both his degrees, that of A. B. in 1618, and of A. M. in 1622. He afterwards betook himself to the stage, where he acquired that gesticulation and buffoonery which he so often practised in the pulpit. He was admitted into holy orders by Dr. Mountaine, bishop of London, and was for a considerable time lecturer of St. Sepulchre’s, in that city; but, being prosecuted for criminal conversation with another man’s wife, he fled to Rotterdam, where he was pastor of the English church, together with the learned Dr. William Ames, who, it is probable, either did not know, or did not believe the report of his being prosecuted for adultery. He afterwards went to America, and after a residence of seven years, returned to England at a time when men of his character were sure of employment. He became, therefore, a violent declaimer against Charles I. and in favour of all the measures of the republican party; and Cromwell found him one of his most useful tools with the army and the lower classes of the people. When king Charles was brought to London for his trial, Hugh Peters, as sir William Warwick says, “was truly and really his gaoler.” Dr. Kennet informs us that he bore a colonel’s commission in the civil war; that he was vehement for the death of the king; that it was strongly suspected that he was one ef his masked executioners, and that one Hulet was the other. After the restoration he was executed with the other regicides. His character appears to have been in all respects unworthy of his religious profession; what can be alleged in his favour may be seen in our authorities.

, a celebrated Benedictine, of the congregation of St. Vannes, was born December 18, 1659, at St. Nicholas in Lorrain. He taught philosophy and theology in the abbey de St. Michael; was made abbot of Senones 1715, and bishop of Macra 1726. He died June 14, 1728, aged 69. The principal among his numerous works are, 3 vols. 8vo, of “Remarks on M. Dupin’s Ecclesiastical Library;” and “An Apology for M. Pascal’s Provincial Letters,” in seventeen letters. This work he afterwards disavowed in a letter to cardinal Corradini, dated September 30, 1726, where he declares that these seventeen letters have been rashly and falsely attributed to him; but l'Avocat says, that it is nevertheless certain that he wrote them. He wrote also a treatise “On the Pope’s Infallibility,” in favour of the Holy See, and against the liberties of the Gallican church, Luxemburg, 1724, 12mo; and a “Dissertation on the Council of Constance,” 1725, 12mo. He not only accepted the constitution “Unigenitus,” but wrote in its defence, and by that means gained the abbey of Senones, which the person to whom it bad lapsed disputed with him.

Petitot copied at Paris several portraits of Mignard and Le Brun; yet his talent was not only copying a portrait with an exact resemblance, but also designing a head most perfectly after nature. To this he also joined a softness and liveliness of colouring, which will never change, and will ever render his works valuable. He painted Louis XIV. Mary Anne of Austria his mother, and Mary Theresa his wife, several times. As he was a zealous protestant, and full of apprehensions at the revocation of the edict of Nantz in 1685, he demanded the king’s permission to retire to Geneva; who rinding him urgent, and fearing he should escape, cruelly caused him to be arrested, and sent to Fort l'Evque, where the bishop of Meaux was appointed to instruct him. Yet neither the eloquence of Bossuet, nor the terrors of a dungeon, could prevail. He was not convinced, but the vexation and confinement threw him into a fever; of which the king being informed, ordered him to released. He no sooner found himself at liberty, than he escaped with his wife to Geneva, after a residence at Paris of thirty -six years. His children remaining in that city, and fearing the king’s resentment, threw. themselves on his mercy, and implored his protection. The king received them favourably, and told them he could forgive an old man the whim of desiring to be buried with his fathers .

, nephew of the preceding, and a celebrated doctor of the Sorbonne, was born Aug. 4, 1665, at Paris. He was appointed professor in the Sorbonne 1701; but, having signed the famous “Case of Conscience” the same year, with thirty-nine other doctors, he lost his professorship, and was banished to Beaune in 1703. Some time after this he retired into Holland with father Quesnel and M. Fouillon, but obtained leave to return to Paris in 1718, where the faculty of theology, and the house of Sorbonne, restored him to his privileges as doctor in June 1719. This, however, was of no avail, as the king annulled what had been done in his favour the July following. M. Petit-Pied became afterwards theologian to M. de Lorraine, bishop of Bayeux, which prelate dying June 9, 1728, he narrowly escaped being arrested, and retired again into Holland. In 1734, however, he was recalled; passed the remainder of life quietly at Paris, and died January 7, 1747, aged 82, leaving a large number of well-written works, the greatest part in French, the rest in Latin, in which he strongly opposes the constitution Unigenitus.

The pope’s court being then at Avignon, Petrarch, who had while at college contracted a strict intimacy with the bishop of Lombes, of the illustrious family of Colonna, and had passed a summer with him at his bishopric in Gascony, was afterwards kindly solicited to reside with him in the house of his brother, the cardinal Colonna, then at Avignon. This invitation he accepted. His shining talents, says his late apologist, joined to the most amiable manners, procured him the favour and esteem of many persons in power and eminent stations: and he found in the house of the cardinal an agreeable home, where he enjoyed the sweets of an affectionate society, with every convenience he could desire for the indulgence of his favourite studies.

, or as some say is the proper form, Favorinus (Varinus), who flourished in the 16th century, was born at Favera, near Camerino, a ducal town of Umbria, from which he is said to have taken his name. His real name was Guarino, which he changed to Varinus. He was a favourite disciple of the celebrated Angelo Politian, and John Lascaris, at Florence, and was patronized by Lorenzo the Magnificent. Having determined on an ecclesiastical life, he undertook the care of a congregation, and was appointed preceptor to John de Medici, afterwards pope Leo X. Favorinus was appointed keeper of the Medicean library in the year 1512, and in 1514 bishop of Nocera. He died in 1537. It was in 1523 that he published his Greek lexicon at Rome, one of the earliest modern lexicons of that language, and compiled, from Suidas, the Etymologicum Magnum, Phrynicus, Hesychius, Harpocration, and other ancient lexicons, published and unpublished and from the notes of Eustathius, and the scholiasts. It is written entirely in Greek, and is now superseded by other works of more popular use; though it may still be serviceable, in supplying various readings of Suidas and others, of which Favorinus probably consulted very ancient manuscripts. The best edition is that of Bartoli, Venice, 1712, folio.

Steele was also an admirer of Philips’s “Pastorals,” which had then obtained a great number of readers; and was about to form a critical comparison of Pope’s Pastorals with those of Philips, with a view of giving the preference to the latter. Pope, apprized of Steele’s design, and always jealous of his own reputation, contrived the most artful method to defeat it; vvhiqh was, by writing a paper for the Guardian, No. 40, after several others had been employed there on pastoral poetry, upon the merits. of Philips and himself; and so ordering it, as that himself was found the better versifier, while Philips was preferred as the best Arcadian. Upon the publication of this paper, the enemies of Pope exulted to see him placed below Philips in a species of poetry upon which he was supposed to value himself; but were extremely mortified soon after to find that Pope himself was the real author of the paper, and that the whole criticism was an irony. The next work Philips published, according to the common account, was “The Life of John Williams, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Bishop of Lincoln, and Archbishop of York, in the reigns of James and Charles I.” He is supposed to have undertaken this, for the sake of making known his political principles, which were those of the Whigs. But we doubt whether this, which was published in 1700, was not prior to the publication of his pastorals.

, the other nephew of Milton, appears to have been at first a warm adherent to his uncle’s political opinions, and published “Milton’s Defensio” in answer to the “Apologia pro rege, &c.” which was falsely ascribed to bishop Bramhall. His other publications imply some change of sentiment, particularly his “Satyr against Hypocrites,” published about the time of the restoration, and reprinted in 1671 and 1680, 4to. These other writings, according to Wood, are, 1. “Montelion; or the prophetic almanack for the year 1660,” 8vo. 2. “Maronides; or Virgil Travestie,” a burlesque on the 5th and 6th books of the Eneid,“1672 and 1673, 8vo, and reprinted together in 1678. 3.” Duellum Musicum,“printed with Locke’s” Present practice of Musick vindicated.“4.” Mercurius Verax; or the prisoner’s prognostications for the year 1675,“1675, 8vo. 5. A Continuation of Heath’s Chronicle, 1676, folio, a wonderful production from the author of” Miltoni Defensio.“6.” Dr. Oates’s Narrative of the Popish Plot vindicated,“1680, folio. 7.” Character of a Popish Successor,“the second part, 1681, folio, disowned by Elkanah Settle, author of the first part. 8.” Speculum Crape-Gownorum; or, an old Looking-glass for the young academics new foiPd, &c.“9.” Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxon his celebrated reasons for abrogating the test, and notion of idolatry, answered by Sam. archdeacon of Canterbury,“1688, 4to. In Wood we have no account of his death, but he adds that he was” a man of very loose principles, atheistical, forsakes his wife and children, makes no provision for them." He appears, indeed, from his publications, to have reflected very little credit on his family.

, sometimes called Phillip Morgan, a native of Monmouthshire, entered a student at Oxford about 1533. Being admitted to the degree of B. A. in 1537, he distinguished himself so much by a talent for disputing, then in high vogue, that he was called Morgan the sophister. Afterwards proceeding M. A. he was chosen a fellow of Oriel college, and entered into orders. In 1546 he was chosen principal of St. Mary-hall, and was in such reputation with the popish party, that he was one of the three selected to dispute with Peter Martyr on the sacrament. His share was published in 1549, under the title “Disputatio de sacramento Eucharistiae in univ. Oxon. habita, contra D. Pet. Martyr. 13 Mali, 1549.” We hear nothing of him during the reign of Edward VI.; but in that of queen Mary, he was appointed chanter of St. David’s. Being deprived of this by queen Elizabeth, he went abroad, and after a journey to Rome with Allen (afterwards the cardinal), he joined with him in 1568 in establishing the English college at Doway, and was the first who contributed pecuniary aid to that institution. Wood places his death at 1577, but the records of Doway college inform us that he died there in 1570, and left his property for the purchase of a house and garden for the English missionaries. A very scarce work, entitled “A Defence of the Honour of queen Mary of Scotland, with a declaration of her right, title, and interest, in the crown of England,” (London, 1569, Liege, 1571, 8vo), was attributed to him; but Camden and others assure us that it was written, as we have noticed in his life, by John Leslie, bishop of Ross. The only other treatise, therefore, we can ascribe to him with certainty, is that written in answer to Knox’s “First Blast of the Trumpet” and entitled “A Treatise shewing, the Regiment (government) of Women is conformable to the law of God and Nature,” Liege, 1571, 8vo.

, an ancient Greek author, who wrote the life of Apollonius Tyanensis, and some other works still extant, was either of Athens, or Lemnos, and educated in the schools of the Sophists. He lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, from the years 193 to 212, and becoming known afterwards to Julia Augusta, the consort of Severus, he was one of those learned men whom this philosophic empress had continually about her, and it was by her command, that he wrote the “Life of Apoilonius Tyanensis.” Suidas and Hesychius say, that he taught rhetoric, first at Athens, and then at Rome, from the reign of Severus to that of Philippus, who obtained the empire in the year 244. This “Life of Apollonius” is his most celebrated work, as far as celebrity can depend oh imposture, of which it contains abundant proofs. We have already, in our account of Apollonius, noticed its being refuted by Dupin, as a collection of fables, either invented or embellished by himself; but some of the most judicious strictures on Philostratus with which we are acquainted, may be found in bishop Douglas’s Criterion from p. 50, edit. 1807. The works of Philostratus, however, originally published separately, have been thought not unworthy the attention of critics of the first class. Graevius had a design of giving a correct edition of them, as appears from the preface of Meric Casaubon, to a dissertation upon an intended edition of Homer, printed at London in 1658, 8vo. So had Bentley, who designed to add a new Latin version of his notes: and Fabricius says, that he saw the first sheet of Bentley’s edition printed at Leipsic in 1691. Both these designs being given up, a correct and beautiful edition, was published at Leipsic, in 1709, in folio, by Olearius. At the end of Apollonius’s “Life,” are ninety-five “Letters,” which go under his name, but bear all the marks of forgery. The “Lives of the Sophists,” which make part of Philostratus’ s works, contain many things, which are to be met with no where else; and his “Icones,” or images, are elegant descriptions and illustrations of some ancient paintings, and other particulars relating to the fine arts: to which Olearius has subjoined the description of some statues by Callistratus. The volume concludes with a collection of Philostratus’s “Letters:” but some of these, though it is not easy to determine which, were written by a nephew to the principal Philostratus, of the same name; as were also the last eighteen, in the book of images. This is the reason, why the title of Olearius’s edition runs, not “Philostrati,” but “Philostratorum qua? supersunt omnia.”

In 1541 his fellowship became void, /probably by his setting out on his travels through Italy. He returned in the beginning of king Edward’s reign, and was collated to the archdeaconry of Winchester by Dr. Ponet, or Poynet, the first protestant bishop of that see. He was not unknown to Gardiner, Ponet’s predecessor, who had often forbidden his preaching in king Henry’s reign, and on one occasion cited him to his house, before certain justices, and called him rogue. Catching hold of this abusive epithet, Philpot said, “Do you keep a privy sessions in your own house for me, and call me rogue, whose father is a knight, and may spend a thousand pounds within one mile of your nose? And he that can spend ten pounds by the year, as I can, I thank God, is no vagabond.”

While archdeacon of Winchester he was a frequent preacher, and active in promoting the reformed religion in the county of Hampshire; and considering the doctrine of the Trinity as of fundamental importance, was a decided enemy both in word and writing to the Arian opinions which appeared first in that reign. He and Ridley were reckoned two of the most learned men of their time, yet Philpot‘ s zeal was sometimes too ardent for the prudent discharge of his duty, and the tract he wrote against the Arians has the air of a coarse invective in the title of it. On the accession of queen Mary he disdained to temporize, or conceal his sentiments, but publicly wept in the first convocation held in her reign, when he saw it composed of men who were determined to restore popery. He wrote a report of this convocation, which fell into bishop Bonner’ s hands among other of Philpot' s books, which Bonner had seized. It was not long, therefore, before he was apprehended, and after various examinations before Bonner, and a most cruel and rigorous imprisonment of eighteen months, was condemned to be burnt in Smithfield. This was accordingly executed December 18, 1555, and was suffered by the martyr with the greatest constancy. He wrote “Epistolue Hebraicæ” and “De proprietate linguarum,” which are supposed to be in manuscript; “An Apology for Spitting upon an Arian, with an invective against the Arians,” &c. Lond. 1559, 8vo and 4to; “Supplication to king Philip and queen Mary;” “Letters to lady Vane;” “Letters to the Christian Congregation, that they abstain from Mass;” “Exhortation to his Sister;” and “Oration.” These are all printed by Fox, except the last, which is in the Bodleian. He also wrote translations of “Calvin’s Homilies” “Chrysostome against Heresies;” and Crelius Secundus Curio’s “Defence of the old and ancient anthority of Christ’s Church:” and his account of the convocation above mentioned, or what appears to be so, under the title of “Vera Expositio Disputationis institute mandate D. Mame reginae Ang. &c. in Synodo Ecclesiastico, Londini, in comitiis regni ad 18 Oct. anno 1553;” printed in Latin, at Rome, 1554, and in English at Basil.

, a famous heretic of the fourth century, known in church history as the chief of a sect called Photinians, was a native of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, and bishop of Sirmium, or Sirmich, the chief city of Illyricum. He had been the disciple of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. He spoke with ease, and his eloquence gained him great power over his people after he was consecrated bishop; but his life was corrupted, and his doctrine soon became so too. He espoused the same opinions with Paul of Samosata, and wrote with great obstinacy against the divinity of Jesus Christ, for which in the year 345 he was condemned by the council of Antioch; in the year 374, by the council of Milan. However, he still maintained his see till he was deposed by the council of Sirmich, A. D. 251, and by the emperor sent into banishment, where he spent the remainder of his life, during which time he composed a piece against all heresies in general, with an intent to establish his own. He wrote in Greek and Latin. The emperor Julian sent him a letter, commending him for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Photinus died A. D. 375 (377, Cave), in Galatia, whither he had been banished. This heresy was, amongst many others, anathematized in the council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. It afterwards was revived by Socinus.

Photius’s “Nomocanon” is another proof of his great abilities. It is a collection digested in an excellent method, and brought under fourteen different titles, of the canons of the councils, and of the canonical epistles, and of the emperor’s laws relating to ecclesiastical matters. Balsamon has written commentaries on this work; and with these it appeared in public, by the care of M. Justel, being printed at Paris with a Latin version in 1615, 4to. There are also 253 “Letters of Photius,” which shew the same strength of judgment and depth of learning as are to be seen in his other works. They were published in 1651, folio, with a Latin version and notes, by Richard Montague, bishop of Norwich, from a manuscript in the Bodleian library. There are ether small pieces of Photius that have been printed, and not a few still extant in manuscript only. The most remarkable is a very considerable fragment of a Greek lexicon, in which the greater part of the alphabet is complete. The various M8S of this Lexicon, in different libraries on the continent, are mere transcripts from each other, and originally from one, venerable for its antiquity, which was formerly in the possession of the celebrated Thomas Gale, and which is now deposited in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge. This ms. which is on parchment, bears such evident marks of antiquity, that it may not unreasonably be supposed to have been a transcript from the author’s copy. It is written in various hands. The compendia, which are used in some parls of it, are extremely difficult to decipher, though, on the whole, they are less so than the contractions which occur in many Mss. and particularly those in the library of St. Germain. A copy of this Lexicon, at Florence, was transcribed about the end of the sixteenth century, by Richard Thomson, of Oxford, who probably intended to publish it. (See Scahger Epist. p. 503, printed 1715.) Professor Porson had transcribed and corrected this valuable Lexicon for the press, and after it had been consumed by fire, he began the task afresh, and such were his incredible industry and patience, that he completed another transcript in his own exquisite hand-writing. Mr. Person’s copy of the Codex Galeanus is said to be among the papers of that incomparable scholar, which are preserved by the learned society of which he was long a distinguished ornament. But whilst the publication of it was anxiously expected and delayed, an edition appeared at Leipsic in 1808, by Godfrey Hermann, from two Mss., both of them extremely inaccurate.

, an eminent musician, born in 1728, at Bari, in the kingdom of Naples, may be ranked among the most fertile, spirited, and original composers that the Neapolitan school has produced. His father designed him for the church, and made him study for that intent; but, for fear of his neglecting serious business for amusement, he would not let him learn music. The young man, however, having an invincible passion for that art, never saw an instrument, especially a harpsichord, without emotion, and practised in secret the opera airs which he had heard, and which he retained with surprising accuracy. His father having carried him, one day, to the bishop of Bari, he amused himself in the room, where he was left alone, with a harpsichord which he found there, thinking he could be heard by no one; but the prelate, in the next apartment, having heard him, condescended to go to the harpsichord, and obliged him to repeat many of the airs which he had been playing; and was so pleased with his performance, that he persuaded his father to send him to the conservatorio of St. Onofrio, at Naples, of which the celebrated Leo was then the principal master.

, a learned and pious English prelate, was the third son of Richard Pilkington of Riving-­ton, in the county of Lancaster, esq. as appears by the pedigree of the family in the Harleian collection of manuscripts in the British Museum. He was born at Rivington in 1520, and was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he is said to have taken the degree of D. D. but Mr. Baker and Mr. Cole are of opinion he proceeded only B. D. In 1558, however, he was made master of that college, and was one of the revivers of the Greek tongue in the university. Strype says that he was presented by Edward VI. to the vicarage of Kendal in Westmoreland. Tie was obliged to leave the country during the Marian persecution, and abroad he appears to have associated with the Geneva reformers, and imbibed their opinions as to externals. When he returned, he was made bishop of Durham by queen Elizabeth, Feb. 1560-1, a proof that he must have been distinguished for learning and abilities, as he appears always to have been for piety. In 1562 he is said to have been queen’s reader of divinity lectures. For this, Mr- Baker allows that he was well qualified, for besides that he bore a part in the disputation at the visitation of Cambridge, under king Edward, while Bucer was at Cambridge, he voluntarily read in public upon the Acts of the Apostles, and acquitted himself learnedly and piously.

During this prelate’s time, not only the cause of religion, but also political matters, called the queen’s attention towards Scotland, and the borders were frequently the scene of military operations. During these commotions, the queen having seized the earl of Westmoreland’s estates within the bishopric of Durham, our prelate instituted his suit, in which it was determined, that “where he hath jura regalia (regal rights) he shall have forfeiture of high treason.” This being a case, says the historian of Durham, after the statute for restoring liberties to the crown, is materially worth the reader’s attention. By an act of Parliament, made in the 13th year of Elizabeth, 1570,c. 16. “The convictions, outlawries, and attainders of Charles Earl of. Westmoreland, and fifty -seven others, attainted of treason, for open rebellion in the north parts, were confirmed;” and it was enacted, “That the queen, her heirs, and successors, should have, Jor that time, all the lands and goods which any of the said persons attainted within the bishopric of Durham had, against the bishop and his successors, though be claimeth jura regalia, and challenged! all the said forfeitures in right of his church.” So that the see was deprived of the greatest acquisition it had been entitled to for many centuries. Fuller says, that the reason for parliament taking the forfeited estates from the bishopric of Durham, was the great expence sustained by the state in defending the bishop’s family, and his see, in that rebellion. It is certain that he being the first protestant bishop that held the see of Durham, was obliged to keep out of the way of the insurgents, to whom a man of his principles must have been particularly obnoxious. Another reason assigned, that the bishop gave ten thousand pounds with one of his daughters in marriage, appears to have less foundation. Ten thousand pounds was sufficient for the dowry of a princess, and queen Elizabeth is said to have been olfended that a subject should bestow such a sum. Fuller, who has been quoted on this subject, has not been quoted fairly: he gives the story, but in his index calls it false, and refers to another part of his history, where we are told that the bishop gave only four thousand pounds with his daughter. There is some probability, however, that the revenues of Durham, augmented as they must have been by these forfeited estates, became an object of jealousy with the crown.

The year 1564 was remarkable for a contest about the ecclesiastical habits, and about various irregularities which had taken place in the service of the church. Bishop Pilkington, who had adopted the notions of the Geneva reformers on such subjects, entertained some scruples in his own mind about the habits, and particularly disliked the cap and surplice, though not so as to refuse to wear them. He was, however, very averse to forcing compliance upon others; and when he observed that this matter was about to be urged by the court, he wrote a long and earnest letter, dated from Auckland, Get 25, 1564, to the earl of Leicester, entreating him to use his interest to oppose it, and at the same time justified his own practice as we'aring the habits for the sake of peace, but not forcing others whose consciences prevented their compliance. In all other respects our prelate was a true friend to church and state, as appears by many of his writings, and was very assiduous in ecclesiastical duties.

, a celebrated Dominican of the seventeenth century, was a native of Calabria. Having acquired a knowledge of the Eastern languages, he was employed in the missions to the East, resided for a considerable time in Armenia, where he gained several converts, particularly the patriarch, by whom he had at first been opposed. He went also into Georgia, and Persia, and afterwards into Poland, as nuncio from pope Urban VIIL to appease the troubles which the Armenians, who were very numerous there, occasioned by their disputes. Having re-united all parties, and embarked for Italy, he was taken in his voyage by some corsairs, and carried to Tunis; but his ransom being paid, he went to Home, and having given an account of his mission, received the most public marks of esteem from the pope, who sent him back to the East, where, in 1655, he was made bishop of Nacksivan, in Armenia. After governing this church nine years, he returned to his native country, was entrusted with the church of Bisignano, in Calabria, where he died three years after, in 1667. Rewrote several controversial and theological works; two dictionaries, one, “Latin and Persian;” the other, “Armenian and Latin;” “An Armenian Grammar” and “A Directory” all of which have been esteemed of great utility.

, an English biographer, was born at Alton, in Hampshire, in 1560 and at eleven, sent to Wykeham’s school near Winchester. He was elected thence probationer fellow of New college in Oxford, at eighteen; but, in less than two years, left the kingdom as a voluntary Romish exile, and went to Douay, where he was kindly received by Dr. Thomas Stapleton, who gave him advice relating to his studies. Pursuant to this, he passed from Douay to Rheims and, after one year spent in the English college there, was sent to the English college at Rome, where he studied seven years, and was then ordained priest. Returning to Rheims about 1589, he held the office of professor of rhetoric and Greek for two years. Towards the latter end of 151*0, being appointed governor to a young nobleman, he travelled with him into Lorraine; and, at Pont-a-Mousson, he took the degree of master of arts, and soon after that of bachelor of divinity. Next, going into Upper Germany, he resided a year and a half at Triers; and afterwards removed to Ingolstadt in Bavaria, where he resided three years, and took the degree of doctor of divinity. After having travelled through Italy as well as Germany, and made himself master of the languages of both countries, he went back to Lorraine; where, being much noticed by Charles cardinal of Lorraine, he was preferred by him to a canonry of Verdun. When he had passed two years there, Antonia, daughter to the duke of Lorraine, who was married to the duke of Cleves, invited him to be her confessor; and, that he might be the more serviceable to her, he learned the French language with so much success, that he often preached in it. In her service he continued twelve years; during which time he studied the histories of England, ecclesiastical and civil, whence he made large collections and observations concerning the most illustrious personages. On the death of the duchess of Cleves he returned a third time to Lorraine, where, by the favour of John bishop of Toul, formerly his scholar, he was promoted to the deanery of Liverdun, a city of Lorraine, which was of considerable value. This, with a canonry and an officialship of the same church, he held to the day of his death, which happened at Liverdun in 1616. He published three treatises: “De Legibus,” Triers, 1592; “De Beatitudine,” Ingolst. 1595; “De Peregrinatione,” Dusseld. 1604.

He did not, however, live to witness that glorious and wonderful termination which was at last brought about by a continuance of the same system he all along pursued, and which finally ended in the conquest of France, the annihilation of her armies, and the banishment of her ruler. The last event of importance in Mr. Pitt’s life-time was the fatal battle of Austerlitz, and he was at this time in a state of health ill calculated to meet this stroke. He had, from an early period of life, given indications of inheriting his father’s gouty constitution, with his talents, and it had been thought necessary to make the liberal use of wine a part of his ordinary regimen, a stimulant which, added to the cares and exertions of office during his long and momentous administration, brought on a premature exhaustion of the vital powers. In December 1805, he was recommended to go to Bath, but the change afforded him no permanent relief. On the 11th of January he returned to his seat at Putney, in so debilitated a state, as to require four days for the performance of the journey. The physicians, even yet, saw no danger, and they said there was no disease, but great weakness, in consequence of an attack of the gout. On the following Sunday he appeared better, and entered upon some points of public business with his colleagues in office: the subject was supposed to relate to the dissolution of the new confederacy, by the peace of Presburgh, which greatly agitated him. On the 17th, at a consultation of his physicians, it was agreed, that though it was not advisable he should attend to business for the next two months, yet there was hope he would be able to take a part in the House of Commons in the course of the winter. On the 20th, however, he grew much worse, and his medical friends now saw that he was in the most imminent danger, and that, probably, he had not many hours to live. The bishop of Lincoln, who never left him during his illness, informed him of the opinion now entertained by sir Walter Farquhar, and requested to administer to him the consolations of religion. Mr. Pitt asked sir Walter, who stood near his bed, “How long do you think I have to live?” The physician answered that he could not say, at the same time he expressed a faint hope of his recovery. A half smile on the patient’s countenance shewed that he placed this language to its true account. In answer to the bishop’s request to pray with him, Mr. Pitt replied, “I fear I have, like too many other men, neglected prayer too much, to have any ground for hope that it can be efficacious on a death-bed—but,” making an effort to rise as he spoke, “I throw myself entirely on the mercy of God.” The bishop then read the prayers, and Mr. Pitt appeared to join in them with a calm and humble piety. He desired that the arrangement of his papers and the settlement of his affairs might be left to his brother and the bishop of Lincoln. Adverting to his nieces, the daughters of earl Stanhope by his elder sister, for whom he had manifested the sincerest affection, he said, “I could wish a thousand or fifteen hundred a-year to be given them; if the public should think my long services deserving of it.” He expressed also much anxiety respecting major Stanhope, that youthful hero, who fell a sacrifice to his valour at Corunna, in company with his friend and patron, general sir John Moore, and his brother, who was also at Corunna at the same time, and who has been engaged in all the great battles in the peninsula, and more than once severely wounded in his country’s service. Mr. Pitt died about four o'clock in the morning of the 23d of January 1806, in the 47th year of his age. A public funeral was decreed to his honour by parliament, and 40,000l. to pay those debts which he had incurred in his country’s service. Public monuments have been since erected to his memory in Westminster-Abbey, in the Guildhall of the city of London, and by many public bodies in different parts of the kingdom.