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

, or Meton, a celebrated mathematician of Athens, who flourished 432 B. C. was the son of Pausanias. He observed, in the first year of the 87th olympiad, the solstice at Athens, and published his cycle of 19 years, by which he endeavoured to adjust the course of the sun and moon, and to make the solar and lunar years begin at the same point of time. This is called the Metonic period, or cycle. It is also called the golden number, from its great use in the calendar. Meton was living about the year 412 B. C. for when the Athenian fleet was sent to Sicily, he escaped from being embarked on that disastrous expedition by counterfeiting an appearance of idiotism.

, of Constantinople, was one of the most learned Grecians in the fourteenth century. He held considerable offices under the emperor Andronicus the Elder, but in the reign of his successor, was banished, and his goods confiscated. He was afterwards recalled, and died in 1332, in a monastery which he had founded. He was called a living Library, from his great erudition; and left several valuable works, the principal among which are, “An Abridgement of the Roman History, from Julius Caesar to Constantine the Great,” 1628, 4to “The Sacred History,” in two books,“translated by Herve, Paris, 1555, 4to” The History of Constantinople“and” A Paraphrase on Aristotle’s Physics.“In 1790, was published” Specimina operum Theod. Metochitae, cum praefatione et nods primum vulgata ab Jano Bloch," Haunise, in 8vo.

, a learned Dutchman, was born in 1579 at Losdun, a town near the Hague, where his father was minister. At six years of age his father began to teach him the elements of the Latin language; and the year after sent him to a school at the Hague, where he continued four years. He was then removed to Leyden, and made so great a progress in literature, that at twelve he could write with fluency in Latin. He advanced with no less rapidity in the Greek language, for which he conceived a particular fondness; insomuch that at thirteen he made Greek verses, and at sixteen wrote a “Commentary upon Lycophron,” the most obscure of all the Greek authors. When he had finished the course of his studies, and gained the reputation of a person from whom much might be expected, the famous John Barnevelt intrusted him with the education of his children; and he attended them ten years, at home and in their travels. This gave him an opportunity of seeing almost all the courts in Europe, of visiting the learned in their several countries, and of examining the best libraries. As he passed through Orleans, in 1608, he was made doctor of law. Upon his return to Holland, the curators of the academy of Leyden appointed him, in 1610, professor of history, and afterward of Greek; and the year following, the States of Holland chose him for their historiographer. In 1612 he married a lady of an ancient and good family, by whom he had a son, called after his own name, who died in the flower of his age, yet not till he had given specimens of his uncommon learning, by several publications.

, a Flemish historian of some note, was born near Bailieul in Flanders, Jan. 7, 14yi, whence he is sometimes called Baliolanus. He became an ecclesiastic, and finally rector of Blackenbergh, but had undertaken the education of youth as an additional source of support. He died Feb. 5, 1552. His principal productions are, 1. “Annales rerum Flandricarum,” folio, published at Antwerp, in 1561. These annals are carried as far as 1477, and have been esteemed, not only for their matter, but for ease and purity of style. 2. “Flandricarum rerutn decas,” printed at Bruges, in 1531, 4to.

In 1649, he was admitted a member of the French academy, in the room of Voiture; and, in 1675, chosen perpetual secretary of that academy. Besides the works abovementioned, he wrote a “Continuation of the general history of the Turks,” in which he is thought not to have succeeded “L'Origine des Francois,” printed at Amsterdam, in 1682 “Les Vanites de la Cour,” translated from the Latin of Johannes Sarisburiensis, in 1640; andaFrench translation of “Grotius de Veritate Christianse Religionis,” in 1644. He died July 10, 1633, aged seventy-three. He was, according to Larroque, a man who was subject to strange humours. He was extremely negligent in his person, and so careless in his dress, that he had more the appearance of a beggar than a gentleman. He was actually seized one morning by the archers des pauvres, or parish officers; with which mistake he was highly diverted, and told them, that “he was not able to walk on foot, but that, as soon as a new wheel was put to his chariot, he would attend them wherever they thought proper.” He used to study and write by candle-light, even at noon-day in summer; and always waited upon his company to the door with a candle in his hand. He had a brother, father Eudes, a man of great simplicity and piety, whom he insidiously drew in to treat of very delicate points before the queen ­mother, regent of the kingdom, who was of the Medici family; and to lay down some things relating to government and the finances, which could not fail of displeasing that princess; and must have occasioned great trouble to father Eudes, if the goodness of the queen had not excused the indiscretion of the preacher. But of all his humours, none lessened him more in the opinion of the public, than the unaccountable fondness he conceived for a man who kept a public house at Chapellein, called Le Faucheur. He was so taken with this man’s frankness and pleasantry, that he used to spend whole days with him, notwithstanding the admonition of his friends to the contrary; and not only kept up an intimate friendship with him during his life, but made him sole legatee at his death. With regard to religion, he affected Pyrrhonism; which, however, was not, it seems, so much in his heart as in his mouth. This appeared from his last sickness; for, having sent for those friends who had been the most usual witnesses of his licentious talk about religion, he made a sort of recantation, which he concluded by desiring them “to forget what he might formerly have said-upon the subject of religion, and to remember, that Mezerai dying, was a better believer than Mezerai in health.” These particulars are to be found in his life by M. Larroque: but the abbe Olivet tells us, that he “was surprised, upon reading this life, to find Mezerai’s character drawn in such disadvantageous colours.” Mezerai was certainly a man of many singularities, and though agreeable when he pleased in his conversation, yejfc full of whim, and not without ill-nature. It was a constant way with him, when candidates offered themselves for vacant places in the academy, to throw in a black ball instead of a white one: and when his friends asked him the reason of this unkind procedure, he answered, “that it was to leave to posterity a monument of the liberty of the elections in the academy.” As an historian, he is valued very highly and deservedly for his integrity and faithfulness, in relating facts as he found them; but for this solely: for as to his style, it is neither accurate nor elegant, although he had been a member of the French academy long before he wrote his “Abridgment.”

, an Italian botanist of great celebrity, particularly in what is now called the cryptogamic department, was born at Florence, December 11, 1679. His parents were indigent, and took but little care of his education. He is said, nevertheless, to have been destined to the occupation of a bookseller, but an insatiable thirst after natural knowledge over-ruled all other objects, and his good character, and distinguished ardour, soon procured him the notice and favour of the marquis Cosmo da Castiglione, in whose family a taste for botany has been almost hereditary, and for whom Micheli in his early youth made a collection of Umbelliferous plants, which even then proved his accuracy and discernment. This gentleman introduced him to the celebrated count Lawrence Magalotti, by whom he was presented to his sovereign, the grand duke Cosmo III. The “Institutiones Itei Herbanae” of Tournefort had just appeared at Paris; and the first pledge of the grand duke’s favour, was a present of that book, which to Micheli, who had hitherto found the want of some systematic guide, was a most important and welcome acquisition. He speedily adopted the tone of his leader, with respect to generic distinctions and definitions, and improved upon him in a more frequent adaptation of original specific ones.

Soon after the publication of the “Lusiad,” he returned to London, and was advised by some who probably in this instance consulted his fame less than his immediate interest, to write a tragedy, The story of his tragedy, which was entitled “The Siege of Marseilles,” was taken from the French history in the reign of Francis I. When completed, his friends recommended it to Garrick, wbo allowed its general merit, but complained of the want of stage effect, and recommended him to take the advice of Dr. Warton. This able critic was accordingly called in, with his brother Thomas, and with Home the author of “Douglas.” In compliance with their opinion, Mickle made great alterations, and Thomas Warton earnestly recommended the tragedy to Garrick, but in vain; and Mickle, his biographers inform us, was so incensed at this, that he resolved to appeal to the judgment of the public by printing it.

In Oct. 1717, when George the First visited the university of Cambridge, Middleton was created, with several others, a doctor of divinity by mandate; and was the person who gave the first cause of that famous proceeding against Dr. Bentley, which so much occupied the attention of the nation. Although we have given an ample account of this in the life of Bentley, some repetition seems here necessary to explain the part Dr. Middleton was pleased to take in the prosecution of that celebrated scholar. Bentley, whose office it was to perform the ceremony called Creation, made a new and extraordinary demand of four guineas from each of the doctors, on pretence of a fee due to him as divinity-professor, over and above a broad piece, which had by custom been allowed as a present on this occasion. After a warm dispute, many of the doctors, and Middleton among the rest, consented to pay the fee in question, upon condition that the money should be restored if it were not afterwards determined to be his right. But although the decision was against Bentley, he kept the money, and Middleton commenced an action against him for the recovery of his share of it. Bentley behaving with contumacy, and with contempt to the authority of the university, was at. first suspended from his degrees, and then degraded. He then petitioned the king for relief from that sentence: which induced Middleton, by the advice of friends, to publish, in the course of the year 1719, the four following pieces: 1. “A full and impartial Account of all the late Proceedings in the University of Cambridge, against Dr. Bentley.” 2. “A Second Part of the full and impartial Account, &c.” 3. “Some Remarks upon a Pamphlet, entitled The Case of Dr. Bentley farther stated and vindicated, &c.” The author of the piece here remarked, was the well-known Dr. Sykes, whom Dr. Middleton treats here with great contempt, but afterwards changed his opinion of him, and in his “Vindication of the Free Enquiry into the Miraculous Powers,” published after his death, he appeals to Dr. Sykes’s authority, and calls him “a very learned and judicious writer.” The last tract is entitled, 4. “A true Account of the present State of Trinity-college in Cambridge, under the oppressive Government of their Master Richard Bentley, late D. D.” This, which relates only to the quarrel betwixt him and his college, is employed in exposing his misdemeanors in the administration of college affairs, in order to take off a suspicion which many then had, that the proceedings of the university against Dr. Bentley did not flow so much from any real demerit in the man, as from a certain spirit of resentment and opposition, to the court, the great promoter and manager of whose interest he was thought to be there: for, it must be remembered that, in that part of his life, Dr. Middleton was a strong tory; though like other of his contemporaries in the university, he afterwards became a very zealous whig.

About the beginning of 1730, was published Tindal’s famous book called “Christianity as old as the Creation:” the design of which was to destroy revelation, and to establish natural religion in its stead. Many writers entered into controversy againsMt, and, among the rest, the wellknown Waterland, who published a “Vindication of Scripture,” &c. Middleton, not lik.ng his manner of vindicating Scripture, addressed, 11. “A letter to him, containing some remarks on it, together with the sketch, or plan, of another answer to TindaPs book,” 1731. Two things, we are told, contributed to make this performance obnoxious to the clergy; first, the popular character of Waterland, who was then at the head of the champions for orthodoxy, yet whom Middleton, instead of reverencing, had ventured to treat with the utmost contempt and severity; secondly, the very free things that himself had asserted, and especially his manner of saying them. His name was not put to the tract, n'or was it known for some time who was the author of it. While Waterland continued to publish more parts of “Scripture vindicated,” &c. Pearce, bishop of Rochester, took up the contest in his behalf; which drew from Middleton, 12. “A Defence of the Letter to Dr. Waterland against the false and frivolous Cavils of the Author of the Reply,” 1731. Pearce replied to this “Defence,” and treated him, as he had done before, as an infidel, or enemy to Christianity in disguise; who, under the pretext of defence, meant nothing less than subversion. Middleton was now known to be the author of the letter; and he was very near being stripped of his degrees, and of all his connections with the university. But this was deferred, upon a promise that he would make all reasonable satisfaction, and explain himself in such a manner, as, if possible, to remove every objection. This he* attempted to do in, 13. “Some Remarks on Dr. Pearce’s second Reply, &c. wherein the author’s sentiments, as to all the principal points in dispute, are fully and clearly explained in the manner that had been promised,” 1732: and he at least effected so much by this piece, that he was suffered to be quiet, and to remain in statu quo; though his character as a divine ever after lay under suspicion, and he was reproached by some of the more zealous clergy, by Venn in particular, with downright apostacy. There was also published, in 1733, an anonymous pamphlet, entitled, “Observations addressed to the author of the Letter, to Dr. Waterland” which was written by Dr. Williams, public orator of the university and to which Middleton replied in, 14. “Some remarks,” &c. The purpose of Williams was to prove Middleton an infidel that his letter ought to be burnt, and himself banished and he then presses him to confess and recant in form.“But,” says Middleton, “I have nothing to recant on the occasion nothing to confess, but the same four articles that I have already confessed first, that the Jews borrowed some of their customs from Egypt secondly, that the Egyptians were possessed of arts and learning in Moses’s time; thirdly, that the primitive writers, in vindicating Scripture, found it necessary sometimes to recur to allegory; fourthly, that the Scriptures are not of absolute and universal inspiration. These are the only crimes that I have been guilty of against religion: and by reducing the controversy to these four heads, and declaring my whole meaning to be comprised in diem, I did in reality recant every thing else, that through heat or inadvertency had dropped from me; every thing that could be construed to a sense hurtful to Christianity.”

In 1711, came out his great work, 17. “The History of the Life of M. Tullius Cicero,” in 2 vols. 4to. This is injdeed a valuable work, both as to matter and manner, written generally, although not unexceptionably, in a correct and elegant style, and abounds in instruction and entertainment. Yet his partiality to Cicero forms a considerable objection to his veracity as a biographer. He has laboured every where to cast a shade over his failings, to give the strongest colouring to his virtues, and out of a good character to draw a perfect one; which, though Cicero was undoubtedly a great man, could not be applicable even to him. Perhaps, however, as a history of the times, it is yet more valuable than considered only as a life of Cicero. It was published by subscription, and dedicated to lord Hervey, who was much the author’s friend, and promised him a great number of subscribers. “His subscription,” he tells us, “was like to be of the charitable kind, and Tully to be the portion of two young nieces” (for he had no child living by any of his wives) “who were then in the house with him, left by an unfortunate brother, who had nothing else to leave.” The subscription must have been very great, which not only enabled him to portion these two nieces, but, as his biographers inform us, to purchase a small estate at Hildersham, about six miles from Cambridge, where he had an opportunity of gratifying his taste, by converting a rude farm into an elegant habitation, and where, from that time, he commonly passed the summer season. While engaged on his “Cicero,” he was called to London to receive the mastership of the Charter-house, having the interest of sir Robert Walpole, and some other great persons; but he found that the duke of Newcastle had been more successful, in procuring it for Mr. Mann. Why the duke opposed Dr. Middleton we know not; as in 1737 we find him strenuously recommending his proposals for the Life of Cicero, and soliciting subscriptions.

The same year came out a publication which laid the foundation of another controversy with the clergy, called, 21. “An introductory Discourse to a larger Work, designed hereafter to be published, concerning the miraculous powers which are supposed to have subsisted in the Christian church from the earliest ages, through several successive centuries; tending to shew, that we have no sufficient reason to believe, upon the authority of the primitive fathers, that any such powers were continued to the church after the days of the apostles. With a Postscript, containing some Remarks on an archidiaconal charge, delivered last summer by the Rev. Dr. Chapman, to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Sudbury.” This undertaking justly alarmed the clergy, and all friends to religion, since it was impossible to succeed, without entirely destroying the reputation of the fathers; and many were also of opinion, that the miracles of the three first centuries could not be rejected as forgeries and impostures, without tainting in some degree the credit of the Scripture miracles. They thought too, that even the canon of Scripture must not be a little affected, if the fathers, on whose credit the authenticity of its books in Some measure depends, were so utterly despised. The “Introductory Discourse” was therefore immediately attacked by two celebrated controversial writers, Dr. Stebbing and Dr. Chapman; the former endeavouring chiefly to shew, that Dr. Middleton’s scheme was inseparably connected with the fall of Christianity; while the latter laboured to support the authority of the fathers. This attack Middleton endeavoured to repel by, 22. “Some remarks on both their performances,” 1748; and, in December the same year, he published his larger work, with this title, 23. “A free inquiry into the Miraculous powers which are supposed to have subsisted in. the Christian church from the earliest ages, through several successive centuries.” Innumerable answerers now appeared against him; two of whom, namely, Dodwell and Church, distinguished themselves with so much zeal and ability, that they were complimented by the university of Oxford with the degree of doctor in divinity.

, a public-spirited man, and a great benefactor to the city of London, by bringing in thither the New River, was a native of Denbigh in North Wales, and a citizen tind goldsmith of London. This city not being sufficiently supplied with water, three acts of parliament were obtained for that purpose; one in queen Elizabeth’s, and two in king James the First’s reign; granting the citizens of London full power to bring a river from any part of Middlesex and Hertfordshire. The project, after much calculation, w r as laid aside as impracticable, till sir Hugh Middleton undertook it: in consideration of which, the city conferred on him and his heirs, April 1, 1606, the full right and power of the act of parliament; granted unto them in that behalf. Having therefore taken an exact survey of all springs and rivers in Middlesex and Hertfordshire, he made choice of two springs, one in the parish of Am well near Hertford, the other near Ware, both about twenty miles from London; and, having united their streams, conveyed them to the city with very great labour and expence. The work was begun Feb. 20, 1608, and carried on through various soils, some oozy and muddy, others extremely hard and rocky. Many bridges in the mean time were built over his New River; and many drains were made to carry off land-springs and commonsewers, sometimes over and sometimes under it. Besides these necessary difficulties, he had, as may easily be imagined, many others to struggle with; as the malice and derision of the vulgar and envious, the many hindrances and complaints of persons through whose grounds the channel was to be cut, &c. When he had brought the water into the neighbourhood of Enfield, almost his whole fortune was spent upon which he applied to the lord mayor and commonalty of London but they refusing to interest themselves in the affair, he applied next to king James. The king, willing to encourage that noble work, did, by indenture under the great seal, dated May 2, 1612, between him and Mr. Middleton, covenant to pay half the expence of the whole work, past and to come; and thus the design was happily effected, and the water brought into the cistern at Islington on Michaelmas-day, 1613. Like all other projectors, sir Hugh greatly impaired his fortune by this stupendous work: for though king James had borne so great a part of the expence, and did afterwards, in 1619, grant his letters-patent to sir Hugh Middleton, and others, incorporating them by the name of “The Governors and Company of ttfe New River, brought from Chadwell and Am well to London” impowering them to choose a governor, deputy-governor, and treasurer, to grant leases, &c. yet the profit it brought in at first was very inconsiderable. There was no dividend made among the proprietors till the year 1633, when III. 195. Id. was divided upon ea^h share. The second dividend amounted only to 3l. 4s. 2d. and instead of a third dividend, a call being expected, king Charles I. who was in possession of the royal moiety aforesaid, re-conveyed it again to sir Hugh, by a deed under the great seal, Nov. 18, 1636; in consideration of sir Hugh’s securing to his majesty and his successors a fee-farm rent of 500l. per annum, out of the profits of the company, clear of all reprises. Sir Hugh charged that sum upon the holders of the king’s shares. He was at last under the necessity of engaging in the business of a surveyor, or what is now denominated a civil engineer, and in that capacity rendered essential services to his country, by various schemes of mining, draining, &c. In 1622 he was created a baronet, and he died in the year 1631; since which, the value of the shares in this New River, as it is still called, advanced so much as to create large fortunes to thje heirs of the original holders. A hundred pounds share, some years since, sold as high as fifteen thousand pounds. Of late, however, there have been several acts of parliament passed in favour of other projects, which have reduced the value of the New River shares full one half. It is the fashion now to decry the company as extravagant in their charges for supplies of water; but it should be remembered, that the shares of this corporation, like those of other commercial companies, are perpetually changing their masters; and it is probable that the majority of share-holders, when their value was even at the highest, had paid their full price, so as to gain only a maderate interest upon their purchase money.

, called Old Francis Miens, one of the most remarkable disciples of Gerard Dow, was born at Leyden, in 1635. He imitated his. master with great diligence, and has been thought in some respects to surpass him. Minute accuracy, in copying common objects on a small scale, was the excellence of this artist, with the same sweetness of colouring, and transparence that marks the paintings of Dow. In design he has been thought more comprehensive and delicate than his master, his touch more animated, with greater freshness and force in his pictures. His manner of painting silks, velvets, stuffs, or carpets, was so studiously exact, that the differences of their construction are clearly visible in his representations. His pictures are scarce, and generally bear a very high price. His own valuation of his time was a ducat an hour: and for one picture of a lady fainting, with a physician attending her, and applying remedies, he was paid at that ratio, so large a sum as fifteen hundred florins. The grand duke of Tuscany is said to have offered 3000 for it, but was refused. One of the most beautiful of the works of Francis Mieris, in this country, where they are not very common, is in the possession of Mr. P. H. Hope, and is known by the appellation of the “Shrimp Man.” Mieris died in 1681, at the age of forty-six. He left two sons, John and William, who were both eminent painters. John, however, died young; William is the subject of the ensuing article.

, called the Young Mieris, was born at Leyden in 1662, and during the life of his father made a remarkable progress under his instructions. When he lost this aid, which was at the age of nineteen, he turned his attention to nature, and attained still higher excellence by an exact imitation of his models. He painted history occasionally, and sometimes animals, and even landscapes; and modelled in clay and wax with so much skill, as to deserve the name of an excellent sculptor. In the delicate finishing of his works he copied his father, and also in the lustre, harmony, and truth of his paintings; altogether, however, they are not quite equal to those of the elder Mieris. He died in 1747, at the age of eighty-five. He left a son named Francis, who is called the Young Francis Mieris, to distinguish him from his grandfather. He painted jn the same style, but was inferior to his father and grandfather; yet there is no doubt that his pictures are often sold in collections under the name of one of the former.

, a poetical writer of no very honourable reputation, was the son of a nonconformist minister, of both his names, a native of Loughborough in Leicestershire, who was ejected from the living of Wroxhal in Warwickshire. He died in 1667. Of his son, little seems to be known unless that he was educated at Pembroke hall, Cambridge, where he is said to have taken his master’s degree, but we do not find him in the list of graduates of either university. Mr. Malone thinks he was beneficed at Yarmouth, from whence he dates his correspondence about 1690. We are more certain that he was instituted to the living of St. Ethelburga within Bishopsgate, London, in 1704, and long before that, in 1688, was chosen lecturer of Shoreditch. Dryden, whom he was weak enough to think he rivalled, says in the preface to his “Fables,” that Milbourne was turned out of his benefice for writing libels on his parishioners. This must have been his Yarmouth benefice, if he had one, for he retained the rectory of St. Ethelburga, and the lectureship of Shoreditch, to his death, which happened April 15, 1720. As an author he was known by a “Poetical Translation of Psalms,” 1698, of a volume called “Notes on Dryden’s Virgil,” 1698 of “Tom of Bedlam’s Answer to Hoadly,” &c. He is frequently coupled with Blackmore, by Dryden, in his poems, and by Pope in “The Art of Criticism;” and is mentioned in “The Dunciad.” He published thirtyone single “Sermons,” between 1692 and 1720; a book against the Socinians, 1692, 12mo; and “A Vindication of the Church of England,” 1726, 2 vols. 8vo. A whimsical copy of Latin verses, by Luke Milbourne, B, A. is in the “Lacrymse Cantabrigienses, 1670,” on the death of Henrietta duchess of Orleans. Dr. Johnson, in the Life of Dryden, speaking of that poet’s translation of Virgil, says, “Milbourne, indeed, a clergyman, attacked it (Dryden’s Virgil), but his outrages seem to be the ebullitions of a mind agitated by stronger resentment than bad poetry can excite, and previously resolved not to be pleased. His criticism extends only to the preface, pasturals, and georgtcks; and, as he professes to give this antagonist an opportunity of reprisal, he has added his own version of the first and fourth pastorals, and the first georgic.” Malone conjectures that Melbourne’s enmity to Dryden originally arose from Dryden’s having taken his work out of his hands as he once projected a translation of Virgil, and published a version of the first Æneid. As he had Dryden and his friends, and Pope and his friends against him, we cannot expect a very favourable account either of his talents or morals. Once only we find him respectfully mentioned, by Dr. Walker, who thanks him for several valuable communications relative to the sequestered divines.

Of this edition of the Greek Testament, Michaelis remarks, that “the infancy of criticism ends with the edition of Gregory, and the age of manhood commences with that of Mill.” This work is undoubtedly one of the most magnificent publications that ever appeared, and ranks next to that of Wetstein, in importance and utility. It was published only fourteen days before his death, and had been the labour of thirty years. He undertook it by the advice of Dr. John Fell, bishop of Oxford; and the impression was begun at his lordship’s charge, in his printing-house near the theatre. But after the bishop’s death his executors were not willing to proceed; and therefore Dr. Mill, perhaps hurt at this refusal, and willing to shew his superior liberality, refunded the sums which trie bishop had paid, and finished the impression at his own expence. The expectations of the learned, foreigners as well as English, were raised very high in consequence of Dr. Mill’s character, and were not disappointed. It was, however, atacked at length by the learned Dr. Daniel Whitby, in his “Examen variantium lectionum Johannis Milli, S. T. P. &c. in 1710, or, an examination of the various readings of Dr. John Mill upon the New Testament; in which it is shewn, I. That the foundations of these various readings are altogether uncertain, and unfit to subvert the present reading of the text. II. That those various readings, which are of any moment, and alter the sense of the text, are very few; and that in all these cases the reading of the text may be defended. III. That the various readings of lesser moment, which are considered at large, are such as will not warrant us to recede from the vulgarly received reading. IV. That Dr. Mill, in collecting these various readings, hath often acted disingenuously; that he abounds in false citations, and frequently contradicts himself.” The various readings which Mill had collected, amounted, as it was supposed, to above 30,000; and this alarmed Dr. Whitby, who thought that the text was thus made precarious, and a handle given to the free-thinkers; and it is certain that Collins, in his “Discourse upon Free-thinking,” urges a passage out of this book of Whitby’s, to shew that Mill’s various readings of the New Testament must render the text itself doubtful. But to this objection Bentley, in his Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, has given a full and decisive answer, the substance of which will bear transcription “The 30,000 various lections then,” says Bentley, “are allowed and confessed and if more copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what is the inference from this? why one Gregory, here quoted, infers, that no profane author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time, as the New Testament has done. Now if this shall be found utterly false, and if the scriptural text has no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from the nature of things, and what are common, and in equal proportion, in all classics whatever, I hope this panic will be removed, and the text be thought as firm as before. If,” says he, “there had been but one ms. of the Greek Testament at the restoration of learning about two centuries ago, then we had had no various readings at all. And would the text be in a better condition then, than now we have 30,000 So far from that, that in the best single copy extant we should have had hundreds of faults, and some omissions irreparable: besides that the suspicions of fraud and foul play would have been increased immensely. It is good, therefore, to have more anchors than one; and another ms. to join with the first, would give more authority, as well as security. Now chuse that second where you will, there shall be a thousand variations from the first; and yet half or more of the faults shall still remain in them both. A third, therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable that, by a joint and mutual help, all the faults may be mended some copy preserving the true reading in one place, and some in another. And yet the more copies you call to assistance, the more do the various readings multiply upon you: every copy having its peculiar slips, though in a principal passage or two it do singular service. And this is a fact, not only in the New Testament, but in all ancient books whatever. It is a good providence, and a great blessing,” continues he, “that so many Mss. of the New Testament are still among us; some procured from Egypt, otheri from Asia, others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of the places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate, that there could be no collusion, no altering or interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them. In profane authors, as they are called, whereof one ms. only had the luck to be preserved, as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, these books still are, and are like to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them, made by skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author. It is plain, therefore, to me, that your learned Whitbyus, in his invective against my dead friend, was suddenly surprised with a panic; and under his deep concern for the text, did not reflect at all, what that word really means. The present text was first settled almost 200 years ago out of several Mss. by Robert Stephens, a printer and bookseller at Paris; whose beautiful, and, generally speaking, accurate edition, has been ever since counted the standard, and followed by all the rest. Now this specific text, in your doctor’s notion, seems taken for the sacred original in every word and syllable; and if the conceit is but spread and propagated, within a few years that printer’s infallibility will be as zealously maintained as an evangelist’s or apostle’s. Dr. Mill, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this text fixed by a printer is sometimes, by the various readings, rendered uncertain; nay, is proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the sacred writer does not now, since the originals have been so long lost, lie in any single ms. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst ms. now extant: nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; chuse as aukwardly as you can, chuse the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings. But the lesser matters of diction, and among several synonymous expressions, the very words of the writer must be found out by the same industry and sagacity that is used in other books; must not be risked upon the credit of any particular ms. or edition; but be sought, acknowledged, and challenged wherever they are met with. Not frighted therefore with the present 30,000, I for my part, and, as I believe, many others, would not lament, if out of the old manuscripts yet untouched, 10,000 more were faithfully collected; some of which without question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact; though of no consequence to the main of religion, nay, perhaps, wholly synonymous in the view of common readers, t and quite insensible in any modern version,” p. 88, &c.

, professor of law in the university of Glasgow, was born in 1735, in the parish of Shotts, in Lanerkshire. He received his grammar-education at the school of Hamilton, whence he was removed, at the age of eleven, to the university of Glasgow. He was designed for the church, but having early conceived a dislike to that profession, and turned his attention to the study of the law, he was invited by lord Kames to reside in his family, and to superintend, in the quality of preceptor, the education of his son, Mr. George Drummond Home. Lord Kames found in young Millar a congenial ardour of intellect, a mind turned to philosophical speculation, a considerable fund of reading, and what above all things he delighted in, a talent for supporting a metaphysical argument in conversation, with much ingenuity and vivacity. The tutor of the son, therefore, became the companion of the father: and the two years before Millar was called to the bar, were spent, with great improvement on his part, in acquiring those enlarged views of the union of law with philosophy, which he afterwards displayed with uncommon ability in his academical lectures on jurisprudence. At this period he contracted an acquaintance with David Hume, to whose metaphysical opinions he became a convert, though he materially differed from him upon political topics. In 1760 Mr. Millar began to practise at the bar, and was regarded as a rising young lawyer, when he thought proper to become a candidate for the vacant professorship of law at Glasgow, and supported by the recommendation of lord Kames and Dr. Adam Smith, he was appointed in 1761, and immediately began to execute its duties. The reputation of the university, as a school of jurisprudence, rose from that acquisition, and although, says lord Woodhouselee, the republican prejudices of Mr. Millar gave his lectures on politics and government a character justly considered as repugnant to the well-attempered frame and equal balance of our improved constitution; there were few who attended those lectures without at least an increase of knowledge. He lectured in English, and spoke fluently with the assistance of mere notes only. By this method his lectures were rendered full of variety and animation, and at the conclusion of each he was accustomed to explain the difficulties and objections that had presented themselves to his pupils, in a free and familiar conversation. In 1771, he published a treatise on “The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks, 17 in which he shews himself a disciple of the school of Montesquieu, and deals much in that sort of speculation which Mr. Dugald Stewart, in his Life of Smith, called theoretical or conjectural history. This work however was well received by the public, and has gone through several editions. His inquiries into the English government, which made an important part of his lectures, together with a zealous attachment to what he thought the genuine principles of liberty, produced in 1787 the first volume of an” Historical View of the English Government," in which he traces the progressive changes in the property, the state of the people, and the government of England, from the settlement of the Saxons to the accession of the house of Stuart. In this work we observe the same spirit of system, and the same partiality to hypothetical reasoning, as in the former: though resting, as may be supposed, on a more solid foundation of facts: and the less dangerous in its tendency, as being every where capable of scrutiny from actual history. It is impossible, however, to peruse this, or his other works, without meeting with much valuable information, and facts placed in those new lights which excite inquiry, and ultimately promote truth. Mr. Millar’s researches were by no means confined to politics, law, or metaphysics. His acquaintance with the works of imagination, both ancient and modern, was also very extensive, and his criticisms were at once ingenious and solid, resulting from an acute understanding and a correct taste. He died May 30, 1801, at the age of sixty-nine, leaving behind him several manuscripts, from which, in 1803, were printed, in two volumes, his posthumous works, consisting of an historical view of the English government from the accession of the house of Stuart, and some separate dissertations connected with the subject.

, a political and dramatic writer, the son of a clergyman who possessed two livings of considerable value in Dorsetshire, was born in 1703, and received his education at Wadham college, in Oxford. His natural genius and turn for satire led him, by way of relaxation from his more serious studies, to apply some portion of his time to the Muses; and, during his residence at the university, he composed great part of a comedy, called the “Humours of Oxford;” some of the characters in which being either designed for, or bearing a strong resemblance to, persons resident in Oxford, gave considerable umbrage, created the author many enemies, and probably laid the foundation of the greatest part of his misfortunes through life. On quitting the university, he entered into holy orders, and obtained immediately the lectureship of Trinity Chapel in Conduit-street, and was appointed preacher at the private chapel at Roehampton in Surrey.

The emoluments of his preferment, however, being not very considerable, he was encouraged, by the success of his first play, above mentioned, to have recourse to dramatic writing. This step being thought inconsistent with his profession, produced some warm remonstrances from a prelate on whom he relied for preferment, and who, finding him resolute, withdrew his patronage. Our author greatly aggravated his offence afterwards by publishing a ridiculous character, in a poem, which was universally considered as intended for the bishop. He then proceeded with his dramatic productions, and was very successful, until he happened to offend certain play-house critics, who from that time regularly attended the theatre to oppose any production known to be his, and finally drove him from the stage. About this time he had strong temptations to employ his pen in the whig interest; but, being in principle a high church-man, he withstood these, although the calls of a family were particularly urgent, and all hopes of advancement in the church at an end. At length, however, the valuable living of Upcerne was given him by Mr. Carey of Dorsetshire, and his prospects otherwise began to brighten, when he died April 23, 1744, at his lodgings in Cheyne-walk, Chelsea, before he had received a twelvemonth’s revenue from his new benefice, or had it in his power to make any provision for his family. As a dramatic writer, Baker thinks he has a right to stand in a very estimable light; yet the plays he enumerates are now entirelyforgotten. Besides these, he wrote several political pamphlets, particularly one called “Are these things so” which was much noticed. He was author also of a poem called “Harlequin Horace,” a satire, occasioned by some ill treatment he had received from Mr. Rich, the manager of Covent- Garden theatre; and was likewise concerned, together with Mr. Henry Baker, F. R. S. in a complete translation of the comedies of Moliere, primed together with the original French, and published by Mr. Watts. After his death was published by subscription a volume of his “Sermons,” the profits of which his widow applied to the satisfaction of his creditors, and the payment of his debts; an act of juctice by which t>he left herself and family almost destitute of the common necessaries of life.

His works are, 1. “Conjectanea in Isaiam ix. 1, 2. Item in parallela quaedam veteris ac novi testament), in quibus versionibus LXX interpretum cum textu Hebræo conciiiatio,” &c. Lond. 1673, 4to. Dr. Castel, the Arabian professor, called this “a most excellent essay, wherein the author shewed incredible reading and diligence, in perusing so many copies, versions, and various lections, with the best interpreters of sacred writ.” 2. “A collection of the Church History of Palestine, from the birth of Christ, to the beginning of the empire of Diocletian,” Lond. 1688, 4to. 3. “A short Dissertation concerning the four last Kings of Judah,” Lond. 1689, 4to. This was occasioned by Joseph Scaliger’s “Judicium de Thesi Chronologica,” &c. 4. “De Nethinim sive Nethinaeis, &c. et de iis qui se Corban Deo nominabant, disputatiuncula, adversus Steuch. Eugubinum, Card. Baronium,” &c. Camb. 1690, 4to. 5. “An Answer to the vindication of a Letter from a person of quality in the North, concerning the profession of John, late bishop of Chichester,” Lond. 1690, 4to. 6. “A Defence of the Profession of John (Lake) lord bishop of Chichester, made upon his death-bed, concerning passive obedience, and the new oaths; with some passages of his lordship’s life,” Lond. 1690, 4to. 7. “A Defence of archbishop Usher against Dr. Cary and Dr. Is. Vossius, with an Introduction concerning the uncertainty of Chronology, and an Appendix touching the signification of the words, &c. as also the men of the great Synagogue,” Camb. 1694, 8vo. 8. “A Discourse of Conscience, &c. with reflexions upon the author of Christianity not mysterious,” &c. Lond. 1697, 8vo. 9. “A View of the Dissertation upon the epistles of Phalaris, Themistocles, &c. lately published by the rev. Dr. Bentley. Also, of the examination of that Dissertation by the hon. Mr. Boyle,” ibid. 1698, 8vo. 10. “A brief Examination of some passages in the Chronological part of a Letter written to Dr. Sherlock, in his vindication. In a letter to a friend.” 11. “A further Examination of the Chronological part of that Letter. In a second letter to a friend.” 12. “An Account of Mr. Locke’s religion, out of his own writings, and in his own words: together with observations, and a two-fold appendix,” Lond. 1700, 8vo. 13. “Animadversions upon Mons. Le Clerc’s Rejections upon our Saviour and his Apostles, &c. primitive fathers, &c.” Camb. 1702. He left also several manuscripts enumerated in our principal authority, on subjects of chronology, biblical criticism, &c.

About the time that the town of Reading was taken by the earl of Essex, Milton’s father came to reside in his house, and his school increased. In 1643, his domestic comfort was disturbed by an incident which he had hoped would have rather promoted it. This was his marriage to Mary, the daughter of Richard Powell, esq. a magistrate in Oxfordshire, and a loyalist. The lady was brought to London, but did not remain above a month with her husband, when under pretence of a visit to her relations, she wholly absented herself, and resisted his utmost and repeated importunities to return. His biographers inform us that the lady had been accustomed to the jovial hospitality of the loyalists at her father’s house, and that after a month’s experience of her new life, she began to sigh for the gaieties she had left, &c. Whether this will sufficiently account for her conduct, our readers may consider. Milton, however, appears to have felt the indignity, and determined to repudiate her for disobedience; and finding no court of law able to assist him, published some treatises to justify his intentions; such as “The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce;” “The Judgment of Martin Bucer, concerning Divorce,” &c. In these he argued the point with great ingenuity, but made few converts, and the principal notice taken of these writings came in a very unfortunate shape. The Westminster assembly of divines procured that the author should be called before the House of Lords, who did not, however, institute any process on the matter; but in consequence of this attack, the presbyterian party forfeited his favour, and he ever after treated them with contempt.

The immediate cause, however, of the interruption given to his “History,” was his being appointed Latin secretary to the new council of state, which was to supply all the offices of royalty. He had scarcely accepted this appointment, when his employers called upon him to answer the famous book entitled “Icon Basihk^, or the portraiture of his cacred majesty in his solitudes and sufferings.” This was then understood to be the production of Charles I. and was published unquestionably with the view to exhibit him to the people in a more favourable light than he had been represented by those who brought him to the block. It probably too was -beginning to produce that effect, as the government thought it necessary to employ the talents of Milton to answer it, which he did in a work entitled “Iconoclastes,” or Image-breaker, In this he follows the common opinion, that the king was the writer, although he sometimes seems to admit of doubts, and makes his answer a. sort of review and vindication of all the proceedings against the court. This has been praised as one of the ablest of all Milton’s political tracts, while it is at the same time confessed that it did not in the least diminish the popularity of the “Icon,” of which 48,500 are said to have been sold, and whether it was the production of the king or of bishop Gauden, it must have harmonized with the feelings and sentiments of a great proportion of the public. The story of Milton’s inserting a prayer taken from Sidney’s “Arcadia,” and imputing the use of it to the king as a crime, appears to have no foundation; but we know not how to vindicate this and other petty objections to the king’s character, from the charge of personal animosity.

In the July preceding- his death, Milton had requested the attendance of his brother Christopher, and in his presence made a disposition of his property by a formal declaration of his will. This mode of testament, which is called nuncupative, was set aside, on a suit instituted by his daughters. By this nuncupative will he had given all his property to his widow, assigning nothing to his daughters but their mother’s portion, which had not yet been paid. On this account* and from exacting from his children some irksome services, such as reading to him in languages which they did not understand, a necessity resulting from his blindness and his indigence, he has been branded as an unkind father. But the nuncupative will, discovered some years since, shews him to have been amiable, and injured in that private scene, in which alone he has generally been considered as liable to censure, or rather, perhaps, as not entitled to affection. In this will, published by Mr. Warton, and in the papers connected with it, we find the venerable parent complaining of “unkind children,” as he calls them, for leaving and neglecting him because he was blind; and we see him compelled, by their injurious conduct, to appeal against them even to his servants. By the deposition of one of those servants, it is certain, that his complaints were not extorted by slight wrongs, or uttered by capricious passion on trivial provocations: that his children, with the exception of the youngest, would occasionally sell his books to the dunghill women, as the witness calls them. That these daughters were capable of combining with the maid-servant, and of advising her to cheat her master, and their father, in her marketings; and that one of them, Mary, on being told that her father was married, replied, “that was no news 1; but if she could hear of his death, that would be something.”

Milton was in youth so eminently beautiful that he was called the lady of his college. His hair, which was of a light brown, parted at the foretop, and hung down upon his shoulders, according to the picture which he has given of Adam. He was rather below the middle size, but vigorous and active, fond of manly sports, and even skilful in the exercise of the sword. His domestic habits, as far as they are known, were those of a severe student. He was remarkably temperate both in eating and drinking. In his youth, as we have noticed, he studied late at night; but afterwards changed his hours, and became a very early riser. The course of his day was best known after he lost his sight. When he first rose, he heard a chapter in the Hebrew Bible, and then studied till twelve; then took some exercise for an hour then dined, then played on the organ, and sung or heard another sing studied to the hour of six, and entertained his visitors till eight then supped, and after a pipe of tobacco and a glass of water went to bed. To his personal character there seems to have been little to object. He was unfortunate in his family, but no part of the blame rested with him. His temper, conduct, morals, benevolence, were all such as ought to have procured him respect. His religion has been a fertile subject of contest among his biographers. He is said to have been in early life a Calvinist, and when he began to hate the presbyterians, to have leaned towards Arminianism. Whatever were his opinions, no sect could boast of his countenance; for after leaving the church he never joined in public worship with any of them.

, a physician of Augsburg, of the chemical sect, lived in the early part of the seventeenth century. He was eminent as a military physician, in which capacity he served several campaigns, and also rose to high reputation and practice in the courts of Vienna and Munich, where he was consulted by the principal nobility. He published the result of his experience relative to the diseases of armies, in the German language; and this work was translated into Latin, with the title of “Medicina Militaris, seu, Liber Castrensis, euporista et facilè parabilia Medicamenta continens,” Vienna, 1620, 8vo. This work was several times reprinted, and was also translated into English in 1674. He was likewise author of the following works “De Pestilentia Liber unus,” ibid. 1608 “Albedarium Marocostinum,” ibid. 1616, and afterwards republished “De Calcantho, seu Vitriolo, ejusque qualitate, virtute, et viribus,” 1617 “Threnodia Medica, seu, Planctus Medicinæ lugentis,” 1619. His chemical reputation is evinced by the connection of his name in the shops, even at this day, with the neutral salt, the acetate of ammonia, which is called Mindererus’ spirit.

, knight of the bath, and a distinguished ambassador at the court of Berlin, was the only child of the rev. William Mitchell, formerly of Aberdeen, but then one of the ministers of St. Giles’s, commonly called the high church of Edinburgh. The time of his birth is not specified, but he is said to have been married in 1715, when very young, to a lady who died four years after in child-birth, and whose loss he felt with so much acuteness, as to be obliged to discontinue the study of the law, for which his father had designed him, and divert his grief by travelling, amusements, &c. This mode of life is said to have been the original cause of an extensive acquaintance with the principal noblemen and gentlemen in North Britain, by whom he was esteemed for sense, spirit, and intelligent conversation. Though his progress in the sciences was but small, yet no person had a greater regard for men of learning, and he particularly cultivated the acquaintance of the clergy, and professors of the university of Edinburgh. About 1736 he appears to have paid considerable attention to mathematics under the direction of the celebrated Maclaurin; and soon after began, his political career, as secretary to the marquis of Tweedale, who Wc-s appointed minister for the affuirs of Scotland in 1741. He became also acquainted with the earl of Stair, and it was owing to his application to that nobleman that Dr. (afterwards sir John) Pringle, was in 1742 appointed physician to the British ambassador at the Hague.

, warden of All Souls college, Oxford, was born in 1578 in Dorsetshire, and educated first at Brasenose college, whence in 1599 he was elected a fellow of All Souls, befng then four years standing in the degree of B. A. Afterwards he took his master’s degree, and entered into holy orders. He hecame domestic chaplain to archbishop Abbot, and in Dec. 1610 was instituted to the rectory of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, which he resigned in December following. In 1611 he was made rector of St. Michael, Crooked-lane, but resigned it in June 1614, in consequence of having been in April preceding, elected warden of All Souls, on which occasion he took his degree of D. D. He held afterwards the rectory of Monks Risborow, in the county of Buckingham, and of Newington, near Dorchester, in Oxfordshire. He was one of the king' commissioners in ecclesiastical affairs, and died July 5, 1618, in the fortieth year of his age. Wood seems to insinuate that his death was hastened by the treatment his work received. This was a folio published at London in 1616, containing a Latin translation of the Liturgy, Catechisms, 39 articles, ordination book, and doctrinal points extracted from the homilies, to which he added, also in Latin, a treatise “de politia ecclesiae Anglicanac.” The design of this publication was to recommend the formularies and doctrines of the Church of England to foreign nations; but, according to Wood, there was such a leaning towards “Calvin’s Platform,” that the work was not only called in, but ordered to be publicly burnt. Heylin, who speaks highly of the author’s character and good intentions, thinks that the true cause of this work being so disgraced was, that in translating the 20th article, he omitted the first clause concerning the power of the church to decree rites and ceremonies, &c. His treatise “De Politia” was reprinted at London in 1683, 8vo, but the former edition we conceive is of rare occurrence, as we do not find it in the Bodleian or Museum catalogues.

, an eminent painter, was, according to some, born at Coldra, and to others, at Lugano, 1609. He was at first the disciple of Gesari d'Arpino, but formed a style of his own, selected from the principles of Albani and Guercino. He never indeed arrived at the grace of the former, but he excelled him in vigour of tint, in variety of invention, in spirited and resolute execution. He had studied colour with intense application at Venice, and excelled in fresco and in oil. Of the many pictures with which he enriched the churches and palaces of Rome, that of Joseph recognised by his brothers, on the Quirinal, is considered as the most eminent. If Mola possessed a considerable talent for history, he was a genius in landscape: his landscape every where exhibits in the most varied combination, and with the most vigorous touch, the sublime scenery of the territory in which he Was born. His predilection for landscape was such, that in his historic subjects it may often be doubted which is the principal, the actors or the scene; a fault which may be sometimes imputed to Titian himself. In many of Mola’s gallery-pictures, the figures have been ascribed to Albano. He reared three disciples, Antonio Gherardi of Rieti, who after his death entered the school of Cortona, and distinguished himself more by facility than elegance of execution Gia. Batista Boncuore of Rome, a painter at all times of great effect, though often somewhat heavy and Giovanni Bonati of Ferrara, called Giovannino del Pio, from the protection of that cardinal, who painted three altar-pieces of consideration at Rome, but died young. Mola died in 1665, aged fifty-six. He had a brother, John Baptist, who was born in 1620, and also learned the art of painting in the school of Albani. He proved a very good painter in history, as well as in landscape; but was far inferior to his brother, in style, dignity, taste, and colouring. In his manner he had more resemblance to the style of Albani, than to that of his brother; yet his figures are rather hard and dry, and want the mellowness of the master. However, there are four of his pictures in the Palazzo Salviati, at Rome, which are universally taken for the hand of Albani.

, viscount Molesworth of Swordes in Ireland, an eminent statesman and polite writer, was descended from a family, anciently seated in the counties of Northampton and Bedford in England; but his father having served in the civil wars in Ireland, settled afterwards in Dublin, where he became an eminent merchant, and died in 1656, leaving his wife pregnant with this only child, who raised his family to the honours they now enjoy. He was born in Dec. at Dublin, and bred in the college there; and engaged early in a marriage with a sister of Richard earl of Bellamont, who brought him a daughter in 1677. When the prince of Orange entered England in 1688, he distinguished himself by an early and zealous appearance for the revolution, which rendered him so obnoxious to king James, that he was attainted, and his estate sequestered by that king’s parliament, May 2, 1689. But when king William was settled on the throne, he called this sufferer, for whom he had a particular esteem, into his privy council; and, in 1692, sent him envoy extraordinary to the court of Denmark. Here he resided above three years, till, some particulars in his conduct disobliging his Danish majesty, he was forbidden the court. Pretending business in Flanders, he retired thither without any audience of leave, and came from thence home: where he was no sooner arrived, than he drew up “An Account of Denmark;” in which he represented the government of that country as arbitrary and tyrannical. This piece was greatly resented by prince George of Denmark, consort to the princess, afterwards queen Anne; and Scheel, the Danish envoy, first presented a memorial to king William, complaining of it, and then furnished materials for an answer, which was executed by Dr. William King. From King’s account it appears, that Molesworth’s offence in Denmark was, his boldly pretending to some privileges, which, by the custom of the country, are denied to every body but the king; as travelling the king’s road, and hunting the king’s game: which being done, as is represented, in defiance of opposition, occasioned the rupture between the envoy and that count. If this allegation have any truth, the fault lay certainly altogether on the side "of Molesworth whose disregard of the customs: of the country to which he was sent, cannot be defended.

, the celebrated comic writer of France, whose original name was Pocquelin, was born at Paris about 1620. He was both son and grandson to valets de chambres on one side, and tapissiers on the other, to Louis XIII. and was designed for the latter business, that of a domestic upholsterer, whose duty was to take care of the furniture of the royal apartments. But the grandfather being very fond of the boy, and at the same time a great lover of plays, used to take him often with him to the hotel de Bourgogne; which presently roused up Moliere’s natural genius and taste for dramatic representations, and created in him such a disgust to his intended employment, that at last his father consented to let him study under the Jesuits, at the college of Clermont. During the five years that he resided here, he made a rapid progress in the study of philosophy and polite literature, and, if we mistake not, acquired even now much insight into the varieties of human character. He had here also an opportunity of contracting an intimate friendship with Chapelle, Bernier, and Cyrano. Chapelle, with whom Bernier was an associate in his studies, had the famous Gassendi for his tutor, who willingly admitted Moliere to his lectures, as he afterwards also admitted Cyrano. When Louis XIII. went to Narbonne, in 1641, his studies were interrupted: for his infirm father, not being able to attend the court, Moliere was obliged to go there to supply his place. This, however, he quitted on his fathers death; and his passion for the stage, which had induced him first to study, revived more strongly than ever. Some have said, that he for a time studied the law, and was admitted an advocate. This seems doubtful, but, if true, he soon yielded to those more lively pursuits which made him the restorer of comedy in France, and the coadjutor of Corneille, who had rescued the tragic Muse from barbarism. The taste, indeed, for the drama, was much improved in France, after cardinal de Richelieu granted a peculiar protection to dramatic poets. Many little societies now made it a diversion to act plays in their own houses; in one of which, known by the name of “The illustrious Theatre,” Moliere entered himself; and it was then, in conformity to the example of the actors of that time, that he changed his name of Pocquelin for that of Moliere, which he retained ever after. What became of him from 1648 to 1652 we know not, this interval being the time of the civil wars, which caused disturbances in Paris; but it is probable, that he was employed in composing some of those pieces which were afterwards exhibited to the public. La Bejart, an actress of Champagne, waiting, as well as he, for a favourable time to display her talents, Moliere was particularly kind to her; and as their interests became mutual, they formed a company together, and went to Lyons in 1653, where Moliere produced his first play, called “L'Etourdi,” or the Blunderer, and appeared in the double character of author and actor. I his drew almo_st all the spectators from the other company of comedians, which was settled in that town; some of which company joined with Moliere, and followed him to Beziers in Languedoc, where he offered his services to the prince of Co'nti, who gladly accepted them, as he had known him at college, and was among the first to predict his brilliant career on the stage. He now received him as a friend; and not satisfied with confiding to him the management of the entertainments which he gave, he offered to make him his secretary, which the latter declined, saying, “I am a tolerable author, but I should make a very bad secretary.” About the latter end of 1657, Moliere departed with his company for Grenoble, and continued there during the carnival of 1658. After this he went and settled at Rouen, where he staid all the summer; and having made some journeys to Paris privately, he had the good fortune to please the king’s brother, who, granting him his protection, and making his company his own, introduced him in that quality to the king and queen-mother. That company began to appear before their majesties and the whole court, in Oct. 1658, upon a stage erected on purpose, in the hall of the guards of the Old Louvre; and “were so well approved, that his majesty gave orders for their settlement at Paris. The hall of the Petit Bourbon was granted them, to act by turns with the Italian players. In 1663, Moliere obtained a pension of a thousand livres: and, in 1665, his company was altogether in his majesty’s service. He continued all the remaining part of his life to give new plays, which were very much and very justly applauded: and if we consider the number of works which he composed in about the space of twenty years, while he was himself all the while an actor, and interrupted, as he must be, by perpetual avocations of one kind or other, we cannot fail to admire the quickness, as well as fertility of his genius; and we shall rather be apt to think with Boileau,” that rhime came to him,“than give credit to some others, who say he” wrote very slowly."

, born of a noble family at Cuenca, entered the Jesuits’ order, 1553, at the age of eighteen, and taught theology with reputation during twenty years in the university of Ebora. He died October 12, 1660, at Madrid, aged sixty-five. His principal works are, Commentaries on the first part of the Summary of St. Thomas, in Latin, a large treatise “De Justitia et Jure,” a book on “The Concordance of Grace and Free-will,” printed at Lisbon, 1588, 4to, in Latin, which ought to have at the end an appendix, printed in 1589. It is an apology from Molina against those who called some propositions in his book heretical, and this last work was what divided the Dominicans and the Jesuits into Thomists, and Molinists, and raised the famous disputes about grace and predestination. Molina’s object was to shew that the operations of divine grace were entirely consistent with the freedom of human will; and he introduced a new kind of hypothesis to remove the difficulties attending the doctrines of predestination and liberty, and to reconcile the jarring opinions of Augustinians, Thomists, Semi- Pelagians, and other contentious divines. Molina affirmed, that the decree of predestination to eternal glory was founded upon a previous knowledge and consideration of the merits of the elect; that the grace from whose operation these merits are derived, is not efficacious by its own intrinsic power only, but also by the consent of our own will, and because it is administered in those circumstances, in which the Deity, by that branch of his knowledge which is called scientia media, foresees that it will be efficacious. The kind of prescience, denominated in the schools scientia media, is that foreknowledge of future contingents, that arises from an acquaintance with the nature and faculties of rational beings, of the circumstances in which they shall be placed, of the objects that shall be presented to them, and of the influence which these circumstances and objects must have on their actions.

, descended from a very good family in the kingdom of Ireland, was born in the city of Dublin, and received part of his education at Trinity college there, of which he afterwards became a fellow. At his first coming to England he entered himself of the Middle Temple, and was supposed to have had a very considerable hand in the writing of a periodical paper, called “Fog’s Journal,” and afterwards to have been the principal writer of another well-known paper, entitled “Common Sense.” All these papers give testimony of strong' abilities, great depth of understanding, and clearness of reasoning. Dr. King was a considerable writer in the latter, as were lords Chesterfield and Lyttelton. Our author had large offers made him to write in defence of sir Robert Walpole, but these he rejected: notwithstanding which, at the great change in the ministry in 1742, he was entirely neglected, as well as his fellow-labourer Amherst, who conducted “The Craftsman.” Mr. Molloy, however, having married a lady of fortune, was in circumstances which enabled him to treat the ingratitude of his patriotic friends with the contempt it deserved. He lived many years after this period, dying so lately as July 16, 1767. He was buried at Edmonton, July 20. He also wrote three dramatic pieces, 1. “Perplexed Couple,” 1715, 12mo. 2. “The Coquet,” 1718, 8vo. 3. “Half-pay Officers,” 1720, 12mo. None of which met with any very extraordinary success.

Pieces." It was printed on copper- was published, plates, and collected from a larger well as by the strength of his parts; and, having made a remarkable progress in academical learning, and particularly in the new philosophy, as it was then called, he proceeded at the regular time to his bachelor of arts degree. After four years spent in this university, he came to London, and was admitted into the Middle Temple in June 1675. He staid there three years, and applied himself to the study of the laws of his country, as much as was necessary for one who was not designed for the profession of the law; but the bent of his genius, as well as inclination, lying strongly to philosophy and mathematics, he spent the greatest part of his time in these inquiries, which, from the extraordinary advances newly made by the Royal Society, were then chiefly in vogue.

Before he left Chester, he lost his lady, who died soon after she had brought him a son. Illness had deprived her of her eye-sight twelve years before, that is, soon after she was married; from which time she had been very sickly, and afflicted with extreme pains of the head. As soon as the public tranquillity was settled in his native country, he returned home; and, upon the convening of a new parliament in 1692, was chosen one of the representatives for the city of Dublin. In the next parliament, in 1695, he was chosen to represent the university there, and continued to do so to the end of his life; that learned body having, before the end of the first session of the former, conferred on him the degree of doctor of laws. He was likewise nominated, by the lord-lieutenant, one of the commissioners for the forfeited estates, to which employment was annexed a salary of five hundred pounds a-year; but looking upon it as an invidious office, and not being a lover of money, he declined it. In 1698, he published “The Case of Ireland stated, in relation to its being bound by Acts of Parliament made imEngland” in which he is supposed to have delivered all, or most, that can be said upon this subject, with great clearness and strength of reasoning. This piece (a second edition of which, with additions and emendations, was printed in 1720, 8vo,) was answered by John Gary, merchant of Bristol, in a book called, “A Vindication of the Parliament of England, &c.” dedicated to the lord-chancellor Somers, and by Atwood, a lawyer. Of these Nicolson remarks that “the merchant argues like a counsellor at law, and the barrister strings his small wares together like a shop-keeper.” What occasioned Molyneux to write the above tract, was his conceiving the Irish woollen manufactory to be oppressed by the English government; on which account he could not forbear asserting his country’s independency. He had given Mr. Locke a hint of his thoughts upon this subject, before it was quite ready for the press, and desired his sentiments upon the fundamental principle on which his argument was grounded; in answer to which that gentleman, intimating that the business was of too large an extent for the subject of a letter, proposed to talk the matter over with him in England. This, together with a purpose which Molyneux had long formed, of paying that great man , whom he had never yet seen, a visit, prevailed with him to cross the water once more, although he was in a very infirm state of health, in July this year, 1698; and he remained in England till the middle of September. But the pleasure of this long-wished-for interview, which he intended to have repeated the following spring, seems to have been purchased at the expence of his life; for, shortly after, he was seized with a severe fit of his constitutional distemper, the stone, which occasioned such retchings as broke a blood-vessel, and two days after put a period to his life. He died October 11, 1698, and was buried at Sr. Audoen’s church, Dublin, where there is a monument and Latin inscription to his memory. Besides the “Sciotbericum telescopicum,” and the “Dioptrica nova,” already mentioned, he published the following pieces in the “Philosophical Transactions.” 1. “Why four convexglasses in a telescope shew objects erect,” No. 53. 2. “Description of Lough Neagh, in Ireland,” No. 158. 3. “On the Connaught worm,” No. 168. -4. “Description of a new hygrometer,” No. 172. 5. “On the cause of winds and the change of weather, c.” No. 177. 6. “Why bodies dissolved swim in menstrua specifically lighter than themselves,” No. 181. 7. “On the Tides,” No. 184. 8. “Observations of Eclipses.” No. 164 185. 9. “Why celestial objects appear greatest near the horizon.” No. 187. 10. “On the errors of Surveyors, arising from the variation of the Magnetic-needle,” No. 230.

, great grandson of the preceding, and a major-general in the army, was born about 1728, and was the son of John Monckton, the first viscount Galway, and baron of Killard, by his wife the lady Elizabeth Manners, daughter to John second duke of Rutland. He was sent with a detachment to Nova Scotia in 1755, and served under general Wolfe against Quebec. He dislodged a body of the enemy from the point of Levi, and formed a plan for landing the troops near the heights of Abraham, and assisted in the execution for conducting the right wing at the oattle of Quebec, where he was dangerously wounded. He received the thanks of the House of Commons, and afterwards went to New York, where he recovered of his wounds. He was also at the taking of Martinico, and was sometime governor of Portsmouth, where Fort Monckton was so called in honour of him. He died in 1782, leaving the character of a brave, judicious, and humane officer. In his account of the taking of Martinico in 1762, he mentions an attack made by the French troops from Morne Gamier on some of our posts, in which they were repulsed, and such was the ardour of our troops, that they passed the ravine with the enemy, seized their batteries, and took post there. It is also said that on this occasion the English party had no colours with them when they took possession of the batteries, and supplied the want of them by a shirt and a red waistcoat. From the many instances which have been given of General Monckton’s liberality, the following may be selected as deserving to be remembered. When the troops were sent to Martinico, general Amherst took away the usual allowance of baugh and forage- money. General Monckton, knowing the difficulties which subaltern officers have to struggle with in the best situation, felt for their distress, and in some degree to make it up to them, ordered the negroes which were taken, to be sold, and the money divided among the subalterns. On finding that it would not produce them five pounds a-piece, he said he could not offer a gentleman a less sum, and made up the deficiency, which was about 500l. out of his own pocket. He kept a constant table of forty covers for the army, and ordered that the subalterns chiefly should be invited, saying, he had been one himself; and if there was a place vacant, he used to reprimand his aid-de-camp.

, duke of Albemarle, memorable for having been the principal instrument in the restoration of Charles II. to his crown and kingdoms, was descended from a very ancient family, and born at Potheridge, in Devonshire, Dec. 6, 1608. He was a younger son; and, n provision being expected from his father, sir Thomas Monk, whose fortune was reduced, he dedicated himself to arms from his youth. He entered in 1625, when not quite seventeen, as a volunteer under sir Richard Grenville, then, at Plymouth, and just setting out under lord Wimbledon on the expedition against Spain. The year after he obtained a pair of colours, in the expedition to the isle of Rhee; whence returning in 1628, he served the following year as ensign in the Low Countries, where he was promoted to the rank of captain. In this station he was present in several sieges and battles; and having, in ten years service, made himself absolute master of the military art, he returned to his native country on the breaking out of the war between Charles I. and his Scotish subjects. His reputation, supported by proper recommendations, procured him the rank of lieutenant-colonel, in which post he served in both the king’s northern expeditions; and was afterwards a colonel, when the Irish rebellion took place. In the suppression of this he did such considerable service, that the lords justices appointed him governor of Dublin but the parliament intervening, that authority was vested in another. Soon after, on his signing a truce with the rebels, by the king’s order, September 1643, he returned with his regiment to England; but, on his arrival at Bristol, was met by orders both from Ireland and Oxford, directing the governor of that place to secure him. The governor, however, believing the suspicions conceived against him groundless, suffered him to proceed to Oxford on his bare parole; and there he so fully justified himself to lord Digby, then secretary of state, that he was by that nobleman introduced to the king; but his regiment was given to colonel Warren, who had been his major. As some amends for this, the king made him major-general in the Irish brigade, then employed in the siege of Nantwich, in Cheshire; at which place he arrived just soon enough to share in the unfortunate surprisal of that whole brigade by sir Thomas Fairfax. He was sent to Hull, and thence conveyed in a short time to the Tower of London, where he remained in close confinement till Nov. 13, 1646; and then, as the only means to be set at liberty, he took the covenant, engaged with the parliament, and agreed to accept a command under them in the Irish service. Some have charged him with ingratitude for thus deserting the king, who had been very kind to him during his confinement, and in particular had sent him from Oxford 100l. which was a great sum for his majesty, then much distressed. It has, however, been pleaded in his favour, that he never listened to any terms made him by the parliamentarians while the king had an army on foot. Whatever strength may he in this apology, it is certain that when his majesty was in the hands of his enemies, he readily accepted of a colonel’s commission; and, as he had been engaged against the Irish rebels before, he thought it consistent with the duty he owed, and which he had hitherto inviolably maintained to the king, to oppose them again. He set out for Ireland, Jan. 28, 1646-7, but returned in April on account of some impediments. Soon after, he had the command in chief of all the parliament’s forces in the north of Ireland conferred upon him; upon which he went again, and for the following two years performed several exploits worthy of an able and experienced soldier. Then he was called to account for having treated with the Irish rebels; and summoned to appear before the parliament, who, after hearing him at the bar of the house, passed this vote, Aug. 10, 1649, “That they did disapprove of what major-general Monk had done, in concluding a peace with the grand and bloody Irish rebel, Owen Roe O'Neal, and did abhor the having any thing to do with him therein; yet are easily persuaded, that the making the same by the said major-general was, in his judgment, most for the advantage of the English interest in that nation; and, that he shall not be further questioned for the same in time to come.” This vote highly offended the major-general, though not so much as some passages in the House, reflecting on his honour and fidelity. He was, perhaps, the more offended at this treatment, as he was not employed in the reduction of Ireland under Oliver Cromwell; who, all accounts agree, received considerable advantage from this very treaty with O‘Neal. Monk’s friends endeavoured to clear his reputation his reasons for agreeing with O’Neal were also printed yet nothing could wipe off the stain of treating with Irish rebels, till it was forgotten in his future fortune.

About this time his elder brother died without issue male; and the family estate by entail devolving upon him, he repaired it from the ruinous condition in which his father and brother had left it. He had scarce settled his private affairs, when he was called to serve against the Scots (who had proclaimed Charles II.) under Oliver Cromwell; by whom he was made lieutenant-general of the artillery, and had a regiment given him. His services were now so important, that Cromwell left him commander in chief in Scotland, when he returned to England to pursue Charles II. In 1652, he was seized with a violent fit of illness, which obliged him to go to Bath for the recovery of his health: after which, he set out again for Scotland, was one of the commissioners for uniting that kingdom with the new-erected commonwealth, and, having successfully concluded it, returned to London. The Dutch war having now been carried on for some months, lieutenant-general Monk was joined with the admirals Blake and Dean in the command at sea; in which service, June 2, 1653, he contributed greatly by his courage and conduct to the defeat of the Dutch fleet. Monk and Dean were on board the same ship; and, Dean being killed the first broadside, Monk threw his cloak over the body, and gave orders for continuing the fight, without suffering the enemy to know that we had lost one of our admirals. Cromwell, in the mean time, was paving his way to the supreme command, which, Dec. 16, 1653, he obtained, under the title of protector; and, in this capacity, soon concluded a peace with the Dutch. Monk remonstrated warmly against the terms of this peace; and his remonstrances were well received by Oliver’s own parliament. Monk also, on his return home, was treated so respectfully by them, that Oliver is said to have grown jealous of him, as if he had been inclined to another interest, but, receiving satisfaction from the general on that head, he not only took him into favour, but, on the breaking out of fresh troubles in Scotland, sent him there as commander in chief. He set out in April 1654, and finished the war by August; when he returned from the Highlands, and fixed his abode at Dalkeith, a seat belonging to the countess of Buccleugh, within five miles of Edinburgh: and here he resided during the remaining time that he stayed in Scotland, which was five years, amusing himself with rural pleasures, and beloved by the people, though his government was more arbitrary than any they had experienced. He exercised this government as one of the protector’s council of state in Scotland, whose commission bore date in June 1655. Cromwell, however, could not help distrusting him at times, on account of his popularity; nor was this distrust entirely without the appearance of foundation. It is certain the fcing entertained good hopes of him, and to that purpose sent to him the following letter from Colen, Aug. 12, 1655.

However, Monk made no scruple of discovering every step taken by the cavaliers which came to his knowledge, even to the sending the protector this letter; and joined in promoting addresses to him from the army, one of which was received by the protector March 19, 1657, in which year Monk received a summons to Oliver’s house of lords. Upon the death of Oliver, Monk joined in an address to the new protector Richard, whose power, nevertheless, he foresaw would be but short-lived; it having been his opinion, that Oliver, had he lived much longer, would scarce have been able to preserve himself in his station. And indeed Cromwell himself began to be apprehensive of that great alteration which happened after his death, and fearful that the general was deeply engaged in those measures which procured it; if we may judge from a letter written by him to general Monk a little before, to which was added the following remarkable postscript: “There be that tell me, that there is a certain cunning fellow in Scotland, called George Monk, who is said to lie in wait there to introduce Charles Stuart; I pray you, use your diligence to apprehend him, and send him up to me.” It belongs to history to relate all the steps which led to the restoration of Charles II. and which were ably conducted by Monk. Immediately after that event, he was loaded with pensions and honours; was made knight of the garter, one of the privycouncil, master of the horse, a gentleman of the bedehamber, first lord-commissioner of the treasury; and soon after created a peer, being made baron Monk of Potheridge, Beauchamp, and Tees, earl of Torrington, and duke of Albemarle, with a grant of 7000Z. per annum, estate of inheritance, besides other pensions. He received a very peculiar acknowledgment of regard on being thus called to the peerage; almost the whole house of commons attending him to the very door of the house of lords, while he behaved with great moderation, silence, and humility. This behaviour was really to be admired in a man, who, by his personal merit, had raised himself within the reach of a crown, which he had the prudence, or the virtue, to wave: yet he preserved it to the end of his life: insomuch, that the king, who used to call him his political father, said, very highly to his honour, “the duke of Albemarle demeaned himself in such a manner to the prince he had obliged, as never to seem to overvalue the services of general Monk.*‘ During tRe remainder of his life he was consulted and employed upon all great occasions by the king, and a.t the same time appears to have been esteemed and beloved by his fellow-subjects. In 1664, on the breaking out of the first Dutch war, he was, by the duke of York, who commanded the fleet, intrusted with the care of the admiralty: and, the plague breaking out the same year in London, he was intrusted likewise, with the care of the city by the king, who retired to Oxford. He was, at the latter end of the year, appointed joint-admiral of the fleet with prince Rupert, and distinguished himself with great bravery against the Dutch. In September 1666, the fire of London occasioned the Duke of Albemarle to be recalled from the fleet, to assist in quieting the minds of the people; who expressed their affection and esteem for him, by crying out publicly, as he passed through the ruine’d streets, that,” if his grace had been there, the city had not been burned." The many hardships and fatigues he had undergone in a military life began to shake his constitution somewhat early; so that about his 60th year he was attacked with a dropsy; which, being too much neglected, perhaps on account of his having been hitherto remarkably healthy, advanced very rapidly, and put a period to his life, Jan. 3, 1669-7O, when he was entering his 62d year. He died in the esteem of his sovereign, and his brother the duke of York, as appears not only from the high posts he enjoyed, and. the great trust reposed in him by both, but also from the tender concern shewn by them, in a constant inquiry after his state during his last illness, and the public' and princely paid to his memory after his decease; for, his funeral was honoured with all imaginable pomp and solemnity, and his ashes admitted to mingle with those of the royal blood; he being interred, April 4, 1670, in Henry the Vllth’s chapel at Westminster, after his corpse had lain in state many weeks at Somerset-house.

This extraordinary man was an author: a light in which he is by no means generally known, and yet in which he did not want merit. After his death, was published, by authority, a treatise which he composed while a prisoner in the Tower: it is called, “Observations upon military and political Affairs, written by the honourable George Duke of Albemarle,” &c. London, 1671, small folio. Besides a dedication to Charles II. signed John Heath, the editor, it contains thirty chapters of martial rules, interspersed with political observations, and is in reality a kind of military grammar. We have, besides, “The Speech of general Monk in the House of Commons, concerning the settling the conduct of the Armies of Three Nations, for the Safety thereof;” another delivered at Whitehall, Feb. 21, 1659, to the members of parliament, at their meeting before the re-admission of their formerly-secluded members and “Letters relating to the Restoration,” London, 1714-15.

Notwithstanding his long and faithful services, he had the misfortune to fall into disgrace; and, through the resentment of some powerful courtiers, was imprisoned in the Tower in 1616: but, after having been examined by the chief justice Coke and secretary Winwood, he was discharged. He wrote a vindication of his conduct, entitled “Concerning the insolences of the Dutch, and a Justification of sir William Monson” and directed it to the lord chancellor Ellesmere, and sir Francis Bacon, attorneygeneral and counsellor. His zeal against the Dutch, and his promoting an inquiry into the state of the navy, contrary to the inclination of the earl of Nottingham, then lord high admiral, seems to have been the occasion of his troubles. He had also the misfortune to bring upon himself a general and popular odium, in retaking lady Arabella Steuart, after her escape out of England in June 1611, though it was acting agreeably to his orders and duty. This lady was confined to the Tower for her marriage with William Seymour, esq. as was pretended; but the true cause of her confinement was, her being too high allied, and having a title or claim to the crown of England. Sir William, however, soon recovered his credit at court: for, in 1617, he was called before the privy council, to give his opinion, how the pirates of Algiers might be suppressed, and the town attacked. He shewed the impossibility of taking Algiers, and was against the expedition; notwithstanding which, it was rashly undertaken by Villiers duke of Buckingham. He was also against two other undertakings, as ill-managed, in 1625 and 162$, namely, the expeditions to Cadiz and the isle of Rhee. He was not employed in these actions, because he objected to the minister’s measures; but, in 1635, it being found necessary to equip a large fleet, in order to break a confederacy that was forming between the French and the Dutch, he was appointed vice-admiral in that armament, and performed liis duty with great honour and bravery. After that he was employed no more, but spent the remainder of his days in peace and privacy, at ins seat at Kinnersley in Surrey, where he digested and finished his “Naval Tracts,” published in Churchill’s “Collection of Voyages.” He died there, Feb. 1642-3, in his seventy-third year, and left a numerous posterity, the ancestors of the present noble family of Monson, baron Monson of Burton, in the county of Lincoln.

Monstrelet’s work, of which there are folio editions, the first without date, the others 1518, 3 vols. 1572, &c. is called “Chronicles,” but deserves rather to be classed as history, all the characteristics of historical writing being found in it notwithstanding its imperfections and omissions. He traces events to their source, developes the causes, illustrates them with the minutest details; and bestows the utmost attention in producing his authorities from edicts, declarations, &c. His narrative begins on Easter Day in 1400, where that of Froissart ends, and extends to the death of the duke of Burgundy in 1467, but the last thirteen years were written by an unknown author, and it has since been continued by other hands to 1516. After the example of Froissart, he does not confine himself to events that passed in France; he embraces, with almost equal detail, the most remarkable circumstances which happened during his time in Flanders, England, Scotland, and Ireland. But it becomes unnecessary here to expatiate on the particular merits of this work, as they are now known to the English public by the excellent translation lately published by Thomas Johnes, esq. at the Hafod press, in 1810, and which, with his preceding English edition of Froissart, is justly entitled to form a part in every useful library. From the biographical preface to Mr. Johnes’s Monstrelet, we have gleaned the above particulars.

In this year, 1691, he was made one of the commissioners of the treasury, and called to the privy council; and in 1694 was appointed second commissioner and chancellor of the exchequer, and under-treasurer. In 1695, he entered into the design of re-coining all the current money of the nation; which, though great difficulties attended it, he completed in the space of two years. In 1696, he projected the scheme for a general fund, which gave rise to the sinking fund, afterwards established by sir Robert Walpole. The same year, he found out a method to raise the sinking credit of the Bank of England; and, in 1697, he provided against the mischiefs from the scarcity of money, by raising, for the service of the government, above two millions in exchequer-notes; on which occasion he was sometimes called the British Machiavel. Before the end of this session of parliament, it was resolved by the House of Commons, that “Charles Montague, esq. chancellor of the exchequer, for his good services to the government, did deserve his majesty’s favour.” This vote, when we consider that the public affairs called for the skill of the ablest statesmen, and that he was at this time not more than thirty-six years of age, may be admitted as a proof of the high esteem entertained of his abilities.

Lord Orford, who has given this nobleman a place iri his “Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors,” mentions of his writing, “A Letter to Secretary Thurloe,” in the first volume of “Thurloe’s State-papers;” -“Several Letters during his Embassy to Spain,” published with “Arlington’s Letters;” and “Original Letters and Negotiations of Sir Richard Fanshaw, the Earl of Sandwich, the Earl of Sunderland, and Sir William Godolphin, wherein divers matters between the three Crowns of England, Spain, and Portugal, from 1603 to 1678, are set in a clear light,” in 2 vols. 8vo. He was also the author of a singular translation, called “The Art of Metals, in which is declared, the manner of their Generation, and the Concomitants of them, in two books, written in Spanish by Albaro Alonzo Barba, M. A. curate of St. Bernard’s parish, in the imperial city of Potosi, in the kingdom of Peru, in the West Indies, in. 1640; translated in 1669, by the right honourable Edward earl of Sandwich,” 1674, a small 8vo. A short preface of the editor says “The original was regarded in Spain and the West Indies as an inestimable jewel but that, falling int the earl’s hands, he enriched our language with it, being content that all our lord the king’s people should be philosophers.” There are also some astronomical observations of his in No. 21 of the Philosophical Transactions.

The year following her death, appeared “Letters of Lady M y W y M” in 3 vols. 12mo, of which publication Mr. Dallaway has given a very curious history. By this it appears that after lady Mary had collected copies of the letters which she had written during Mr. Wortley’s embassy, she transcribed them in two small quarto volumes, and upon her return to England in 1761, gave them to Mr. Sowden, a clergyman at Rotterdam, to be disposed of as he thought proper. After her death, the late earl of Bute purchased them of Mr. Sowden, but they were scarcely landed in England when the above mentioned edition was published. On farther application to Mr. Sowden, it could only be gathered that two English gentlemen once called on him to see the letters, and contrived, during his being called away, to go off with them, although they returned them next morning with many apologies. Whoever will look at the three 12mo volumes, may perceive that with the help of a few amanuenses, there was sufficient time to transcribe them during this interval. Cleland was the editor of the publication, and probably one of the “gentlemen” concerned in the trick of obtaining the copies. The appearance of these letters, however, excited universal attention, nor on a re-perusal of them at this improved period of female literature, can any thing be deducted from Dr. Smollett’s opinion in the “Critical Review,” of which he was then conductor. “The publication of these letters will be an immortal monument to the memory of lady M. W. M. and will shew, as long as the English language endures, the sprightliness of her wit, the solidity of her judgment, the elegance of her taste, and the excellence of her real character. These letters are so bewitchingly entertaining, that we defy the most phlegmatic man on earth to read one without going through with them, or after finishing the third volume, not to wish there were twenty more of them.” Other critics were not so enraptured, and seemed to doubt their authenticity, which, however, is now placed beyond all question by the following- publication, “The Works of the right hon. lady M. W. M. including her correspondence, poems, and essays, published by permission (of the Earl of Bute) from her genuine papers,” London, 1803, 5 vols. 12mo, with Memoirs of her Life by Mr. Dallaway, drawn up with much taste and delicacy, and to which we are indebted for the preceding sketch. This edition, besides her poems, and a few miscellaneous essays, contains a great number of letters never before printed, perhaps of equal importance with those which have long been before the world, as they appear not to have been intended for publication, which the others certainly were, and we have in these new letters a more exact delineation of her character in advanced life. This if it be not always pleasing, will afford many instructive lessons. Her poetry, without being of the superior kind, is yet entitled to high praise, and had she cultivated the acquaintance of the muses with more earnestness, and had not disdained the scrupulous labour by which some of her contemporaries acquired fame, it is probable she might have attained a higher rank. She certainly was a woman of extraordinary talents, and acquired the honours of literary reputation at a time when they were not bestowed on the undeserving. It is, however, incumbent upon us to add, that the moral tendency of her letters may be justly questioned; many of the descriptions of Eastern luxuries and beauty are such as cannot be tolerated in an age of decency, and a prudent guardian will hesitate long before he can admit the letters from Constantinople among books fit for the perusal of the young. Her amiable relative, the late Mrs. Montague, represents Lady Mary as one who “neither thinks, speaks, acts, or dresses like any body;” and many traits qf her moral conduct were also, it is to be hoped, exclusively her own.

She had early distinguished herself as an author first by “Three Dialogues of the Dead,” published along with lord Lyttelton’s afterwards by her classical and elegant “Essay on the Genius and Writings of Shakspeare,” ia which she amply vindicated our great poet from the gross, illiberal, and ignorant abuse, thrown out against him by Voltaire. This is indeed a wonderful performance, as all, who will examine it impartially, must admit. It is a ridiculous supposition that she was assisted by her husband, whose talent lay in mathematical pursuits, which indeed absorbed the whole of his attention. Many years after she bad received the approbation of all persons of critical taste on this performance, it fell into the hands of Cowper the poet, who, on reading it, says to his correspondent, “I no longer wonder that Mrs. Montague stands at the head of all that is called learned, and that every critic veils his bonnet to her superior judgment:” “The learning, the good sense, the sound judgment, and the wit displayed in it, fully justify, not only my compliment, but all compliments that either have been already paid to her talents, or shall be paid hereafter.”

, an eminent French, writer, was born at the castle of Montaigne, in the Perigord, Feb. 8, 1533. His father, seigneur of Montaigne, and mayor of Bourdeaux, bestowed particular attention on his education, perceiving in him early proofs of talents that would one day reward his care. His mode of teaching him languages is mentioned as somewhat singular at that time, although it has since been frequently practised. He provided him with a German attendant, who did not know French, and who was enjoined to speak to him in Latin, and in consequence young Montaigne is said to have been a master of that language at the age of six years. He was taught Greek also as a sort of diversion, and because his father had heard that the brains of children may be injured by being roused too suddenly out of sleep, he caused him to be awakened every morning by soft music. All this care he repaid by the most tender veneration for the memory of his father. Filial piety, indeed, is said to have been one of the most remarkable traits of his character, and he sometimes displayed it rather in a singular manner. When on horseback he constantly wore a cloak which had belonged to his father, not, as he said, for convenience, but for the pleasure it gave him. “II me semble m'envelopper de lui,” “I seem to be wrapped up in my father;” and this, which from any other wit would have been called the personification of a pun, was considered in Montaigne as a sublime expression of filial piety.

, an ancient heresiarch. among the Christians, founded a new sect in the second century of the church, which were called Montanists. They had also the name of Phrygians and Cataphrygians, because Montanus was either born, or at least first known, at Ardaba, a village of Mysia, which was situated upon the borders of Phrygia. Here he set up for a prophet, although it seems he had but lately embraced Christianity: but it is said that he had an immoderate desire to obtain a first place in the church, and that he thought this the most likely means of raising himself. In this assumed character he affected to appear inspired with the Holy Spirit, and to be seized and agitated with divine ecstacies; and, under these disguises he uttered prophecies, in which he laid down doctrines, and established rites and ceremonies, entirely new. This wild behaviour was attended with its natural consequences and effects upon the multitude some affirming him to be a true prophet others, that he was possessed with an evil spirit. To carry on his delusion the better, Montanus associated to himself Priscilla and Maximiila, two wealthy ladies, who acted the part “of prophetesses” and, it> by the power of whose geld,“as Jerome tells us,” he first seduced many churches, and then corrupted them with his abominable errors." He seems to have made Pepuza, a tawn in Phrygia, the place of his first residence; and he artfully called it Jerusalem, because he knew the charm there was in that name, and what a powerful temptation it would be in drawing from all parts the weaker and more credulous Christians. Here he employed himself in delivering obscure and enigmatical sayings, under the name of prophecies; and made no small advantage of his followers, who brought great sums of money and valuable presents, by way of offerings. Some of these prophecies of Montanus and his women are preserved by Epiphanius, in which they affected to consider themselves only as mere machines and organs, through which God spake unto his people.

Besides the works already mentioned, Montesquieu wrote others of less reputation, but which might have conferred celebrity on a tvriter of inferior merit. The most remarkable of them is the “Temple of Gnidus,” which was published soon after the “Persian Letters.” Montesquieu, says D'Alembert, after having been Horace, Theophrastus, and Lucian, in those, was Ovid and Anacreon in this new essay. In this he professes to describe the delicacy and simplicity of pastoral love, such as it is in an inexperienced heart, not yet corrupted with the commerce of the world and this he has painted in a sort of poem in prose for, such we may reasonably call a piece so full of images and descriptions as the “Temple of Gnidus.” Its voluptuous style at first made it be read with avidity, but it is now considered as unworthy of the author. Besides this, there is a small piece, called “Lysimachus,” and another, still smaller, " On Taste;' 1 but this is indeed only a fragment. Several of his works have been translated at different times into English, but are not now much read in this country. In France, however, he is still considered as one of their standard authors, and within these few years, several splendid editions of his collected works have been published both in 4to and 8vo, with additions from the author’s manuscripts.

, a Scotch historian, was born at Salmonet, between Airth and Grange, on the suuch-side of the Firth-of-Forth, whence he was called abroad Salmonettus Scoto-Britannus. Of his life we fcave been able to discover very few particulars. The tradition is, that he was obliged to leave Scotland upon his being suspected of adultery with the wife of sir James Hamilton of Preston-field. Monteith appears to have been a chaplain of cardinal de Retz, who also made him a canon of Notre Dame, and encouraged him in writing his history. See Joli, Memoires, torn. Ij. page 86, where he is called “homme scavant & de merite.” Cardinal de Retz also mentions him, vol. III. p. 323. His brother was lieutenant-colonel of Douglas’s regiment (the royal), and killed in Alsace. In the privilege for printing Monteith’s History, granted the 13th of September 1660, to Jaques St. Clair. de Roselin, he is styled “le defunct St. Montet” In the title-page he is called Messire. This work embraces the period of Scotch history from the coronation of Charles I. to the conclusion of the rebellion. In his preface he professes the utmost impartiality, and as far as we have been able to look into the work, he appears to have treated the history of those tumultuous times with much candour. His leaning is of course to the regal side of the question. In 17.35 a translation of this work, which was originally published in French, and was become very rare, was executed at London in one vol. fol. by J. Ogilvie, under the title of a “History of the Troubles of Great Britain.” The author was held in high esteem by Menage, who wrote two Latin epigrams in his praise. The time of his death we have not been able to discover. He must be distinguished from a Robert Monteith, the compiler of a scarce and valuable collection of all the epitaphs of Scotland, published in 1704, 8vo, under the title of “An Theater of Mortality.”

In 1715 appeared his “Bibliotheca Cosliniana, olim Seguieriana, seu Mss. omnium Graecorum quae in ea conjinentur accurata descriptio,” Paris, folio. This contains a list of 400 Greek Mss. with the age of each, and often a specimen of the style, &c. In 1719, the year in which he was chosen a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, appeared his great work, and such as no nation had yet produced, entitled “L'Antiquite expliquee et representee en figures,” Paris, 5 vols. usually bound in 10; to which wa, added in 1724, a supplement, in 5 vob. the whole illustrated by a vast number of elegant, accurate, and expensive engravings, representing nearly 40,000 objects of antiquity, engraved from statues, medals, &c. in the various cabinets of Europe. In such a vast collection as this, it is as unnecessary to add that there are many errors, as it would be unjust to censure them with all the parade of criticism. In the case of a work which so many hundred recent scholars and antiquaries have quoted, and which laid the foundation for the improvements of later times, it would be fastidious to withhold the praises so justly due to the laborious author. Whole societies, indeed, would think much of their joint efforts, if they had accomplished a similar undertaking. It remains to be noticed, however, that the first edition of the above dates, is the most valuable. That reprinted in 1722 with the supplement of 1757 is by no means of equal reputation. Some copies made up from the edition in 10 vols. of 1719, and the supplement of 1757, are also in little esteem. This was followed by another interesting work, which is now become scarce, “Les Monumens de la monarchic Francoise, avec les fig. de chaque regne, que Pinjure du temps a epargnees,” Paris, 1729 1733, 5 vols. folio. This collection, of which he published a prospectus in 1725, may be properly called “The Antiquities of France,” and includes all those classes, civil, ecclesiastical, warlike, manners, &c. which form a work of that title in modern language. His last, and not the least important of his works, was published in 1739, 2 vols. folio, under the title of “Bibliotheca bibliothecarum Mss. nova, ubi quae innumeris pcene manuscriptorum bibliothecis continentur ad quod vis litteraturx genus spectantia et notatu digna, describuntur, et indicantur.” Two years after the learned author died suddenly at the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, Dec. 21, 1741, at the advanced age of eighty-seven. Besides the works above mentioned, Montfaucon contributed many curious and valuable essays on subjects of antiquity, &c. to the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and other literary journals.

, born in 1686, at Paris, was the son of Guy Carre“, maitre des requetes. He was but twenty-five when he purchased a counsellor’s place in the parliament, and acquired some degree of credit in that situation by his wit and exterior accomplishments. He had, by his own account, given himself up to all manner of licentiousness, for which his conscience frequently checked him, and although he endeavoured to console himself with the principles of infidelity, his mind was still harassed, when accident or design led him to visit the tomb of M. Paris the deacon, September 7, 1731, with the crowd which, from various motives, were assembled there. If we may believe his own account, he went merely to scrutinize, with the utmost severity, the (pretended) miracles wrought there, but felt himself, as he says, suddenly struck and overwhelmed by a thousand rays of light, which illuminated him, and, from an infidel, he immediately became a Christian, but in truth was devoted from that moment to fanaticism, with the same violence and impetuosity of temper which had before led him into the most scandalous excesses. In 1732 he was involved in a quarrel which the parliament had with the court, and was, with others, banished to Auvergne. Here he formed a plan for collecting the proofs of the miracles wrought at the tomb of the abbe Paris, making them clear to demonstration, as he called it, and presenting them to the king. At his return to Paris, he prepared to put this plan in execution, went to Versailles, July 29, 1737, and presented the king with a quarto volume magnificently bound, which he accompanied with a speech. In consequence of this step Montgeron was sent to thebastile, then confined some months in a Benedictine abbey belonging to the diocese of Avignon, removed soon after to Viviers, and carried from thence to be shut up in the citadel of Valence, where he died in 1754, aged sixty-eight. The work which he presented to the king is entitled” La Verite des Miracles operes par l'Intercession de M. de Paris,“&c. 4to. This first volume by M. Montgeron has been followed by two more, and he is said also to have left a work in ms. against the incredulous, written while he was a prisoner. De Montgeron would, however, have scarcely deserved a place here, if bishop Douglas, in his” Criterion," had not bestowed so much pains on examining the pretended miracles which he records, and thus rendered his history an object of some curiosity.

, the inventor of air-balloons, was born at Aunonay, and was originally a paper-maker, and the first who made what is called vellumpaper. Whence he took the hint of the aerostatic balloons seems uncertain, but in 1782 he made his first experiment at Avignon, and after other trials, exhibited before the royal family on Sept. 19, 1783, a grand balloon, near sixty feet high and forty-three in diameter, which ascended with a cage containing a sheep, a cock, and a duck, and conveyed them through the air in safety to the distance of about 10,000 feet. This was followed by another machine of Montgolfier’s construction, with which a M. Pilatre de Rozier ascended. This daring adventurer lost his life afterwards along with his companion Romain, by the balloon catching fire, an event which did not prevent balloons from being introduced into this and other countries. After repeated trials, however, the utility of these expensive and hazardous machines seems doubtful, and for some years they have been of little use, except to fill the pockets of needy adventurers. Montgolfier was rewarded for the discovery by admission into the academy of sciences, the ribbon of St. Michael, and a pension. He died in 1799.

General Hutchinson had a considerable circuit to make to get to the ground where he was to make his attack, and the attack of the reserve was to be regulated by his. When he got to his ground, the position of the French was found to be so strongly defended by a numerous artillery, and covered besides by the guns on the fortified heights near Alexandria, that the attempt was given up, and as the army were in their present position exposed to the enemy’s cannon without being able to retaliate, a position on the height in the rear was marked out, to which the army fell back as the evening advanced. This severe action cost the British army 1300 in killed and wounded. The situation of the British army at this period was certainly a very critical one, as it was quite evident that government had been deceived in their estimate of the French forces. Sir Raiph, therefore, was well aware of the difficult task he had to perform. The camp of the British was about four or five miles from Alexandria. In front of the reserve, which, formed the right of the army, was a very extensive ancient ruin, which the French called Caesar’s camp; it was twenty or thirty yards retired from the right flank of the redoubt, and commanded the space between the redoubt and the sea. In this redoubt and ruin major-general Moore had posted the 28th and 58th regiments. On the 21st the attack was made by the French, who were driven back by his troops, but he received a shot in the leg. The result, however, was, that every attack the French made was repulsed with great slaughter. In the early part of the action, and in the dark, some confusion was unavoidable, but wherever the French appeared, the British went boldly up to them, even the cavalry breaking in had not in the least dismayed them. As the day broke, the foreign brU gaJe, under brigadier-general, afterwards sir John Stuart, who fought the battle of Maida, came to the second line to the support of the reserve, shared in the action, and behaved with great spirit. Day-light enabled major-general Moore to get the reserve into order, but there was a great want of ammunition. The guns could not be fired for a very considerable time, otherwise the French must have suffered much more severely, while retreating from their different unsuccessful attacks, than they did. The enemy’s artillery continued to gall the British severely with shot and shells, after the infantry and cavalry had been repulsed. The British could not return a shot. Had the French attacked again, the British had nothing but their bayonets, which they unquestionably would have used, as never was an army more determined to do their duty. But the enemy laad suffered so severely, that the men could not be got to make another attempt. They continued in front at a distant musket-shot, until the ammunition for the English guns was brought up to enable them to fire, when theyvery soon retreated. While the attacks were made on the British right, a column attacked the guards on the left of the reserve, but were repulsed with loss. The French general, Menou, had concentrated the greatest part of the force in Egypt for this attack; the prisoners stated his force in the field at about 13,000 men, of whom between three and four thousand were killed or wounded. The British army lost about 1300 men, of which upwards of 500 belonged to the reserve. This battle commenced at half past four in the morning, and terminated about nine. The French made three different attacks, with superior numbers, the advantage of cavalry, and a numerous and well-served artillery. The British infantry here gave a decided proof of their superior firmness and hardihood. Sir Ralph, who always exposed his person very much, in this last battle carried the practice perhaps farther than he bad e?er done before. Major-general Moore met hjnv early in the anion, close in the rear of the 42d, without any of the officeFS of his family; and afterwards, when the French cavalry charged the second time, and penetrated the 42d, major-general Moore saw him again and waved to him to retire, but he was instantly surrounded by the hussars; he received a cut from a sabre ou the breast, which penetrated his clothes and just grazed the flesh. He received a shot in the thigh, but remained in the field until the battle was over, when he was conveyed on board the Foudroyant. Major-general Moore, at the close of the action, had the horse killed under him that major Honeyroan had lent him. Wnen the battle was over, the wound in his leg became so stiff and painful, that as soon as he could get a hurse, he gave the command of the reserve to coloi ei Spencer, and retired with brigadier-general Oakes, who commanded the reserve under him, and who was wounded in the leg also, to their tents in the rear. Brigadier-general Oakes was wounded nearly at the same time, and in the same part of the leg that major-general Moore was, but they both continued to head the reserve until the battle was over. When the surgeon had dressed their wounds, finding that they must be some time incapable of action, they returned to the Diadem troop-ship. Sir Ralph Abercrombie died of his wound on board the Foudroyant on the 28th day of March, and the command devolved on major-general Hutchinson. It is unnecessary here to detail the operations in Egypt that followed the battle of the 2 1st, as major-general Moore was confined on hoard the Diadem with his wound until the I Oth of May, when he was removed to Rosetta for the benefit of a change of air. He suffered very severely the ball had passed between the two bones of his leg he endured a long confinement and much torment, from inflammation and surgical operations. When at length he could move on crutches, and was removed to Rosetta, where he got a house on the banks of the Nile, agreeably situated, he began to recover rapidly, and afterwards continued to serve in the army of Egypt until after the surrender of Alexandria, when he returned to England, where he received the honour of knighthood, and the order of the bath. On the renewal of the war, the talents and services of sir John Moore pointed him out as deserving of the most important command. It was not, however, until 1808 that he was appointed to the chief command of an army to be employed in Spain, and Gallicia or the borders of Leon were fixed upon as the place for assembling the troops. Sir John was ordered to send the cavalry by land, but it was left to his own discretion to transport the infantry and artillery either by sea or land. He was also assured, that 15,000 men were ordered to Corunna, and he was directed to give such orders to sir David Baird, their commander, as would most readily effect a junction of the whole force. Both, however, soon discovered that little reliance could be placed on the Spaniards; and they had not got far into the country before their hopes were completely disappointed. Sir John Moore soon began to anticipate the result which followed. In the mean time the French army had advanced, and taken possession of the city of Valladolid, which is but twenty leagues from Salamanca. Sir John had been positively informed that his entry into Spain would be covered by 60 or 70,000 men; and that Burgos was the city intended for the point of union for the different divisions of the British army. But already not only Burgos, but Valladolid, was in possession of the enemy; and he found himself with an advanced corps in an open town, at three marches distance only from the French army, without even a Spanish piquet to cover his front He had at this time only three brigades of infantry, without a gun, in Salamanca. The remainder, it is true, vyere moving up in succession, but the whole could not arrive in less than ten days. At this critical time the Spanish main armies, instead of being united either among themselves, or with the British, were divided from each other almost by the whole breadth of the peninsula. The fatal consequences of this want of union were but too soon made apparent; Blake was defeated, and a report reached sir David Baird that the French were advancing upon his division in two different directions, so as to threaten to surround him. He, consequently, prepared to retreat upon Corunna; but sir John Moore, having ascertained that the report was unfounded, ordered sir David to advance, in order, if possible, to form a junction with him. On the 28th of November he received information that there was now no army remaining, against which the whole French force might be directed, except the British; and it was in vain to expect that they, even if they had been united, could have resisted or checked the enemy. Sir John Moore, therefore, determined to fall back on Portugal, to hasten the junction of general Hope, who had gone towards Madrid, and he ordered sir David Baird to regain Corunna as expeditiously as possible; and when he had thus determined upon a retreat, he communicated his design to the general officers, who, with the exception of general Hope, seemed to doubt the wisdom of his decision; he would, however, have carried it into execution, if he had not been induced, by pressing solicitations, and representations of encouragement, to advance to Madrid, which he was told not only held out, but was capable of opposing the French for a considerable length of time. Sir John, therefore, anxious to meet the wishes of his troops, by leading them against the enemy, determined to attack Soult, the French general, who was posted at Saldanha, by which he thought he should draw off the French armies to the north of Spain, and thus afford an opportunity for the Spanish armies to rally and re-unite. Soult was probably posted in that spot with so small a body of men for the purpose of enticing the British army farther into Spain, while Bonaparte, in person, with his whole disposable force, endeavoured to place himself between the British army and the sea. At length the two armies met; and the superiority of the British cavalry was eminently displayed in a most brilliant and successful skirmish, in which 600 of the imperial guards of Bonaparte were driven off the field by half the number of British, Reaving 55 killed and wounded, and 70 prisoners, among whom was general Le Febre, the commander of the imperial guard.

, a learned Italian lady, was born at Ferrara, in 1526. Her father taught the belles lettres in several cities of Italy: and his reputation as a teacher advanced him to be preceptor to the young princes of Ferrara, sons of Alphonsus I. The uncommon parts and turn for literature which he discovered in his daughter, induced him to cultivate them; and she soon made a very extraordinary progress. The princess of Ferrara was at that time studying polite literature, and a companion in the same pursuit being thought expedient, Morata was called to court; where she was heard, by the astonished Italians, to declaim in Latin, to speak Greek, to explain the paradoxes of Cicero, and to answer any questions that were put to her. Her father dying, and her mother being an invalid, she was obliged to return home, in order to tuke upon her the administration of the family affairs, and the education of three sisters and a brother, all which sho conducted with judgment and success. But some have said that the immediate cause of her removal from court, was a dislike which the duchess of Ferrara had conceived against her, by the misrepresentations of some of the courtiers. In the mean time, a young Oerman, named Grunthlcrus, who had studied physic, and taken his doctor’s degree at Ferrara, fell in love with her, and married her. Upon this she went with her hushand to Germany, and took her little brother with her, whom she carefully instructed in the Latin and Greek languages. They arrived at Augsburg in 1548; and, after a short stay there, went to Schweinfurt in Franconia, but had not been long there, before Schweinfurt was besieged and burnt. They escaped, however, with their lives, but remained in great distress until the elector Palatine invited Grunthler to be professor of physic at Heidelburg. He entered upon this new office in 1554, and be'gan to enjoy some degree of repose; when illness, occasioned by the hardships they had undergone, seized upon Morata, and proved fatal Oct. 26, 1555, before she was quite twenty-nine years old. She died in the Protestant religion, which she embraced upon her coming to Germany, and to which she resolutely adhered. Her husband and brother did not long survive her, and were interred in the same grave in the church of St. Peter, where is a Latin epitaph to their memory.

, a preacher of some celebrity among the French protestants, was the son of a Scotchman, who was principal of the college at Castres in Languedoc, and born there in 1616. When he was about twenty, he was sent to Geneva to study divinity; and finding, upon his arrival, that the chair of the Greek professor was vacant, he became a candidate for it. and gained it against competitors greatly beyond himself in years. Having exercised this office for about three years, he succeeded Spanheim, who was called away to Leyden, in the functions of divinity-professor and minister of Geneva. As he was a favourite preacher, and a man of great learning, he appears to have excited the jealousy of a party which was formed against him at Geneva. He had, however, secured the good opinion of Salmasius, who procured him the divinity-professor’s place at Middlebourg, together with the parish-church, which occasioned him to depart from Geneva in 1649. The gentlemen of Amsterdam, at his arrival in Holland, offered him the professorship of history, which was become vacant by the death of Vossius; but, not being able to detach him from his engagements to the city of Middlebourg, they gave it to David Blondel, yet, upon a second offer, he accepted it about three years after. In 1654, he left his professorship of history for some time to take a journey into Italy; where it is said he was greatly noticed by the duke of Tuscany. During his stay in Italy, he wrote a beautiful poem upon the defeat of the Turkish fleet by the Venetians, and was honoured with a chain of gold by the republic of Venice. He returned to his charge; and, after some contests with the Walloon synods, went into France, to be ordained minister of the church of Paris. But here he met with many opponents, his character, as is said, being somewhat ambiguous both in regard to faith and morals. He succeeded, however, in being received minister of the church of Paris, although his reputation continued to be attacked by people of merit and consequence, who presented him again to the from whose censures he escaped with great difficulty, and had again to encounter in 1661. About this time he went to England, and on his return six months afterwards, the complaints against him were immediately renewed. He died at Paris, in the duchess of Rohan’s house, in September 1670.

The pretensions, which such authors as we have just mentioned, make of arriving at extraordinary degrees of illumination by their institutes, entirely captivated More’s fancy who pursued their method with great seriousness and intense application and, in three or four years, had reduced himself to so thin a state of body, and began to talk in such a manner of experiences and communications, as brought him into a suspicion of being touched with enthusiasm. Ib 1640, he composed his “Psycho-Zoia, or the Life of the Soul;” which, with an addition of other poems, he republished in 1647, 8vo, under the title of “Philosophical Poems,” and dedicated to his father. He takes notice, in his dedication, that his father used to read to his children on winter nights “Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” with which our author was highly delighted, and which, he says in the dedication, “first turned his ears to poetry.” In 1639, he had taken his master of arts’ degree; and, being chosen fellow of his college, became tutor to several persons of great quality. One of these was sir John Finch, whose sister lady Con way was an enthusiast of his own stamp, and became at length a quaker, although he laboured for many years to reclaim her. He still, however, had a great esteem for her and drew up some of his “Treatises” at her particular request and she, in return, left him a legacy of 400l. He composed others of his works at Ragley, the seat of her lord in Warwickshire, where, at intervals, he spent a considerable part of his time. He met here with two extraordinary persons, the famous Van Helmont, and the no less famous Valentine Greatrakes; for, it seems, lady Conway was frequently afflicted with violent pains in her head, and these two persons were called in, at different times, to try their powers upon her; and, at last, Van Helmont lived in the family. There was once a design of printing some remains of this lady after her death; and the preface was actually written by our author under the person of Van Helmont; in which disguise he draws her character with so much address, that we are told the most rigid quaker would see every thing he could wish in it, and yet the soberest Christian be entirely satisfied with it. It is printed at large in his life.

During the rebellion he was suffered to enjoy the studious retirement he had chosen, although he had made himself obnoxious, by constantly refusing to take the covenant. He saw and lamented the miseries of his country; but, in general, Archimedes like, he was so busy in his chamber as to mind very little what was doing without. He had a great esteem for Des Cartes, with whom he held a correspondence upon several points of his philosophy. He devoted his whole life to the writing of books; and it is certain, that his parts and learning were universally admired. On this account he was called into the Royal Society, with a view of giving reputation to it, before its establishment by the royal charter; for which purpose he was proposed as a candidate by Dr. Wilkins and Dr. Cudworth, June 4, 1661, and elected fellow soon after. His writings became so popular, that Mr. Chishull, an eminent bookseller, declared, that, for twenty years together, after the return of Charles II. the “Mystery of Godliness,” and Dr. More’s other works, ruled all the booksellers in Lon-. don; and a very remarkable testimony of their esteem was given by John Cockshuit of the Inner Temple, esq. who, I by his last will, left 300l. to have three of his principal I pieces translated into Latin. These were his “Mystery of Godliness,” “Mystery of Iniquity,” and his “Philosophical Collections.” This legacy induced our author to translate, together with these, the rest of his English works which he thought worth printing, into that language; and the whole collection was published in 1679, in three large volumes, folio. In undertaking the translation himself, his design was to appropriate Mr. Cock’shuitY legacy to the ifounding of three scholarships in Christ’s college; but as they could not be printed and published without consuming the greatest part of it, he made up this loss by other donations in his life-time, and by the perpetuity of the rectory of lngoldsby, which he left to the college by will. He died Sept. 1, 1687, in his seventy-third year and was buried in the chapel of his college, where lie also Mr. Mede and Dr. Cudworth, two other contemporary ornaments of that foundation.

, was the son of Arthur More, esq. one of the lords-commissioners of trade in the reign of queen Anne; and his mother was the daughter of Mr. Smyth, who left this, his grandson, an handsome estate, upon which account he obtained an act of parliament to change his name from More to Smyth; and, besides this estate, at the death of his grandfather, he had his place of pay-master to the band of gentlemen-pensioners, with his younger brother Arthur More, esq. He was bred at Worcester college, Oxford; and, while he was there, wrote a comedy, called “The Rival Modes.” This play was condemned in the acting, but he printed it in 1727, with the following motto, which the commentator on the Dunciad, by way of irony, calls modest: “Hie csestus artemque repono.” Being of a gay disposition, he insinuated himself into the favour of the duke of Wharton; and being also, like him, destitute of prudence, he joined with that nobleman in writing a paper, called “The Inquisitor;” which breathed so much the spirit of Jacobitism, that the publisher thought proper to sacrifice his profit to his safety, and discontinue it. By using too much freedom with Pope, he occasioned that poet to stigmatize him in his Dunciad:

, chancellor of England in the reign of Henry VIII. and one of the most illustrious characters of that period, was born in Milk-street, London, in 1480. He was the son of sir John More, knight, one of the judges of the king’s bench, and a man of great abilities and integrity. Sir John had also much of that pleasant wit, for which his son was afterwards so distinguished; and, as a specimen of it, Camden relates, that he would compare the danger in the choice of a wife to that of putting a man’s hand into a bag full of snakes, with only one eel in it; where he may, indeed, chance to light of the eel, but it is an hundred to one he is stung by a snake. It has been observed, however, that sir John ventured to put his hand three times into this bag, for he married three wives; nor was the sting so hurtful as to prevent his arriving at the age of ninety; and then he did not die of old age, but of a surfeit, occasioned by eating grapes. Sir Thomas was his son by his first wife, whose maiden name was Handcombe. He was educated in London, at a free-school of great repute at that time in Threadneedle-street, called St. Anthony’s, where archbishop Whitgift, and other eminent men, had been brought up; and here he made a progress in grammar-learning, suitable to his uncommon parts and application. He was afterwards placed in the family of cardinal Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, and chancellor of England: a method of education much practised in those times, but chiefly in the case of noblemen’s sons, with whom sir John More might be supposed to rank, from the high office he held. The cardinal was delighted with his ingenuous modesty, and with the vivacity and quickness of his wit, of which he gave surprising instances; one of which was, that while the players in Christmas holidays were acting there, he would sometimes suddenly step in among them, and, without any previous study, make a part of his own, to the great diversion of the audience. The cardinal indeed conceived so high an opinion of his favourite pupil, that he used frequently to say to those about him, that “More, whosoever should live to see it, would one day prove a marvellous man.”

At the age of twenty-one, he had a seat in parliament, and shewed great independence of spirit, in 1503, by opposing a subsidy demanded by Henry VII. with such strength of argument, that it was actually refused by the parliament: on this Mr. Tyler, one of the king’s privycouncil, went presently from the house, and told his majesty, that a beardless boy had defeated his intention. The king resented the matter so highly, that he would not be satisfied, till he had some way revenged it: but as the son, who had nothing, could lose nothing, he devised a causeless quarrel against the father; and, sending him to the Tower, kept him there till he had forced a fine of 100l. from him, for his pretended offence. It happened soon after, that More, coming on a suit to Fox, bishop of Winchester, one of the king’s privy-council, the bishop called him aside, and with much apparent kindness, promised, that if he would be ruled by him, he would not fail to restore him to the king’s favour. It was conjectured, perhaps unjustly, that Fox’s object was to draw from him some confession of his offence, so that the king might have an opportunity of gratifying his displeasure against him. More, however, if this really was the case, had too much prudence to be entrapped, and desired some time to consider the matter. This being granted, he obtained a conference with Mr. Whitford, his familiar friend, then chaplain to the bishop, and afterwards a monk of Sion, and related what the bishop proposed. Whitford dissuaded him from listening to the bishop’s motion: “for,” says he, “my lord and master, to serve the king’s turn, will not stick to consent to the death of his own father.” After receiving this opinion, which Fox does not seem to have deserved, More became so alarmed, as to have some thoughts of visiting the continent. With this view he studied the French tongue, and cultivated most of the liberal sciences, as music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and history; but the death of Henry VII. rendered the precaution unnecessary, and he again resumed his profession.

When admitted to the bar, he had read a public lecture, in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, upon St. Austin’s treatise “De civitate Dei,” in which, without attempting to discuss any points of divinity, he explained the precepts of moral philosophy, and cleared up difficulties in history, and that with such skill, eloquence, and ability, as to attract a large number of hearers among persons of note and learning; and Grocyn himself, who had been his master in Greek, also became one of his auditors. The reputation of this lecture, which appears to have been gratuitous, made him be appointed law-reader at FurnivaPs-inn, which place he held above three years. Some time after, the superstition which we lament in this illustrious man’s character, led him to take lodgings near the Charter-house, where he went through all the spiritual exercises of that society. He disciplined himself every Friday, and on high fasting days; he used also much fasting and watching, and often lay either upon the bare ground, or upon some bench, with a log under his head, and allowed himself but four or five hours’ sleep in the night. He was also a diligent attendant on the public preaching of dean Colet, whom he chose for his spiritual father, and once had a strong inclination to enter into the order of the Franciscans, as well as to take the priesthood. But rinding that all his austerities were of little avail in procuring him the gift of continence, he took Dr. Colet’s advice, and resolved to marry. Having some acquaintance with John Colt, esq. of Newhall in Essex, he now accepted an invitation to visit him. Mr. Colt had three accomplished and agreeable daughters, the eldest of whom Mr. More chose for a wife, although his inclination rather led him to the second, but he considered it “would be a grief and some blemish to the eldest,” should he act otherwise. Bringing his wife to town he took a house in Bucklersbury, and attended the business of his profession at his chambers in Lincoln’s inn, where he continued till he was called to the bench, and had read there twice. This was a very honourable post at that time: and some of these readings are quoted by lord Coke as uncontested authorities in the law. In the mean time he was appointed, in 1508, judge of the sheriff’s court in the city of London; made a justice of the peace; and became so eminent in the practice of the law, that there was scarcely a cause of importance tried at the bar in which he was not concerned. Sir Thomas told his son-in-law Roper, that be earned by his business at this time, with a good conscience, above 400l. a year, which is equal to six times that sum now. He was, however, uncommonly scrupulous in the causes he undertook. It was his constant method, before he took any cause in hand, to investigate the justice and equity of it; and if he thought it unjust, he refused it, at the same time endeavouring to reconcile the parties, and persuading them not to litigate the matter in dispute. Where not successful in this advice, he would direct his clients how to proceed in the least expensive and troublesome course. It may, indeed, be seen in his “Utopia,” that he satirizes the profession, as if he did not belong to it.

Amidst so much that is honourable to himself, honourable to his profession, and to the age in which he lived, we have yet to lament that the force of popish bigotry induced him to become a persecutor of the heretics, as they were called. One Frith had written against the corporeal presence: and on his not retracting, after More had answered him, he caused him to be burned. “James Bainton,” says Burnet, “a gentleman of the Temple, was taken to the lord chancellor’s house, where much pains was taken to persuade him to discover those who favoured the new opinions. But fair means not prevailing, More had him whipped in his presence, and after that sent to the Tower, where he looked on, and saw him put to the rack. He was burned in Smithfield.” Luther being asked whether sir Thomas More was executed for the gospel’s sake answered, “By no means, for he was a very notable tyrant. He was the king’s chiefest counsellor, a very learned and a very wise man. He shed the blood of many innocent Christians that confessed the gospel, and plagued and tormented them like an executioner.” Yet how discordant does More’s practice seem to be to his opinions. In his celebrated “Utopia” he lays it down as a maxim, that no one ought to be punished for his religion, and that every person might be of what religion he pleased .

As for sir Thomas’s daughters, the eldest of them, Margaret, was married to William Roper, esq. of Well-hall, in the parish of Eltham, in Kent; who wrote the “Life” of his father-in-law, which was published by Hearne at Oxford, in 1716, 8vo. She was a woman of great talents and amiable manners, and seems to have been to More what Tullia was to her father Cicero, his delight and comfort. The greatest care was taken of her education; and she became learned not only in the Greek and Latin tongues, but in music, arithmetic, and other sciences. She wrote two “Declamations” in English, which her father and she turned into Latin; and both so elegantly, that it was hard to determine which was best. She wrote also a treatise of the “Four last Things;” and, by her sagacity, corrected a corrupt place in “St. Cyprian,” reading “nervos sinceritatis,” for “nisi vos sinceritatis.” Erasmus wrote a letter to her, as to a woman famous not only for virtue and piety, but also for true and solid learning. Cardinal Pole was so affected with the elegance of her Latin style, that he could not at first believe what he read to be penned by a woman. This deservedly-illustrious lady died in 1544, and was buried at St. Dunstan’s church in Canterbury, with her father’s head in her arms, according to her desire; for she had found means to procure his head, after it had remained upon London-bridge fourteen days, and had carefully preserved it in a leaden box, till there was an opportunity of conveying it to Canterbury, to the burying-place of the Ropers in the church above mentioned. Of five children which she brought, there was a daughter Mary, as famous for parts and learning almost as herself. This Mary was one of the gentlewomen, as they were then called, of queen Mary’s privy chamber. She translated into English part of her grandfather’s “Exposition of the Passion of our Saviour;” and also “Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History” from the Greek into Latin; but this latter translation was never published, being anticipated by Christopherson’s Version.

, a French divine, and the first compiler of the “Great Historical Dictionary,” which still goes by his name, was born at Bargemont, a small village in Provence, in 1643. He was educated in classical learning at Draguignan, under the fathers of the Christian doctrine. He studied rhetoric in the college of Jesuits at Aix, where he also performed his course of philosophy; and thence removing to Lyons, studied divinity. When he was but eighteen, he composed a small allegorical work, entitled “Le pais d'Amour;” and, in 1666, a collection of French poems, which he called “Doux plaisirs de la Poesie:” to which works he put only the first letters of his name, L. M. He applied himself diligently to the Italian and Spanish languages; and this latter enabled him to translate Rodriguez’s treatise on Christian perfection. It was printed at Lyons in 1677, in 3 vols. 8vo, under the title, “Pratique de la Perfection Chrétienne & Religieuse, traduite de l’Espagnol d'Alphonse Rodriguez.” After he had taken orders, he preached on controversial points at Lyons for five years, with great success; and here formed the plan of his “Historical Dictionary,” the first edition of which appeared at Lyons in 1674. In this he professed to collect and digest into alphabetical order, whatever seemed to him curious in sacred and profane history, so that hence information might he had upon all kinds of subjects in a moment: and every body was amazed to see so laborious a work from so young a man.

, a learned critic, was born in 1531, at Paris. His taste for the belles lettres induced him to visit Italy, where Paul Manutius employed him in his printingoffice at Venice. He afterwards taught Greek and cosmography at Vicenza, but was called from 'thence by the duke of Ferrara, in 1555. Morin at length acquired the esteem of St. Charles Boromeo, and pope Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. engaged him in the edition of the Greek Bible of the LXX. 1587, the Latin translation is 1588, fol. and in the edition of the Vulgate, 1590, fol. He died in 1608. He was well acquainted with the belles lettres and languages, and has left among his works published by Quetif in 1675, an excellent treatise on the proper use of the sciences, of which Dupin has given a long analysis, as well as of his other works, and bestows great praise on his extensive knowledge of languages and ecclesiastical history.

, a learned French protestant, was the son of Isaac Morin, a merchant of Caen, and born in that city, Jan. 1, 1625. Losing his father at three years of age, his mother designed him for trade; but his taste for learning beginning to show itself very early, she determined to give him a liberal education. Accordingly he studied the classics and philosophy at Caeu, and then removed to Sedan, to study theology under Peter du Moulin, who conceived a great friendship for him. He afterwards pursued the same studies under Andrew Rivet, and made a great proficiency in the Oriental languages under Golius. Returning to his country in 164-9, he became a minister of two churches in the neighbourhood of Caen, where he was much distinguished by his uncommon parts and learning, and had several advantageous offers made him from other countries, but he preferred his own. In 1664, he was chosen minister of Caen; and his merits soon connected him in friendship with Huetius, Segrais, Bochart, and other learned townsmen. The revocation of the edict of Nantz, in 1685, obliging him to quit Caen, he retired with his wife and three children to Leyden, but soon after was called to Amsterdam, to be professor of the Oriental tongues in the university there; to which employment was joined, two years after, that of minister in ordinary. He died, after a long indisposition both of body and mind, May 5, 1700.

In 1669 he received his doctor’s degree from the university of Oxford, and was, Dec. 16, appointed botanical professor, or more properly, keeper of the physic garden, in consequence of which he gave a course of lectures there for some years*. He had been for some time meditating a great universal work on botany, and published an excellent specimen in 1672, containing a methodical arrangement of umbelliferous plants, in folio, accompanied with palates. He takes the leading characters of these plants from the seeds, but admits under the same denomination a tribe totally different, which is surely as great an error as any he had detected in the Bauhins. In 1674, he edited at Oxford a thin 4to, from the Mss. of Boccone, describing a number of new plants from Sicily, Malta, France, and Italy, witji 52 plates, which are in general very ex­* Wood tells us that “he made his week for five weeks space, not xvithout entrance on this lecture in the medi- a considerable auditory.” He is, howcine school, Sept. 2, 1670, and the 5th ever, improperly styled professor, as of the same mouth translated himself the professorship was not founded unto the physic garden, where he read ia til Sherard’s time, who appointed Dil-. the middle of it, with a table before lenius first professor on his foundahim, ou herbs and plants, thrice a lion in 1728. pressive, and many of the plants are no where else represented. His great work, “Plantarum historia universalis Oxoniensis,” appeared in 1680, fol. comprizing five sections of herbaceous plants, with numerous plates. This was called the second part of the work, the first, consisting or trees and shrubs, having been postponed, as the most easily to be finished at any time; but it never appeared . In 1699, long after the author’s death, Jacob Bobart published a second volume, called the third part, which concludes the system, as far as regards herbaceous plants. The editor of the volume, in which there are many inaccuracies, claims for the author great honour as the inventor of a system. The outlines, however, of Morison’s system are evidently to be traced in the work of Csesalpinus, published in 1583, and in that of Conrad Gesner, and it is the opinion of sir J. E. Smith, whom we principally follow, that where he deviates from these writers, he has injured his own system. This great work could scarcely have been published at the expence of a private individual, had he not been liberally assisted by the contributions of his opulent Oxford friends, who took a patriotic interest in the performance. The original specimens, such at least as refer to Bobart’s share of the undertaking, are still preserved, and serve to remove every difficulty in case of an incomplete description or figure. Such assistance is very requisite, as to the cryptogamic part of the work, though authors have much commended those plates.

Mr. Morland informs us that both before and after this publication, particularly from 164-1 to 1656, and some years after, he was admitted into the most intimate affairs of state, and had frequent opportunities of taking a clear view of the proceedings of Cromwell and his agents. Among other intrigues, he tells us that he was an eye and ear-witness of Dr. Hewit’s being trepanned to death by Thurloe and his agents. One Dr. Corker was sent by Thurloe to Dr. Hewit to advise him, and desire him, on behalf of the royalists, to send to Brussels for blank commissions from Charles II. and when the commissions arrived, was ordered to request that he might be employed to disperse part of them in several counties, and keep the rest by him. This done, Hewit was seized, and part of the commissions being found upon him, he was condemned and executed. But the most remarkable plot to which he was privy, was that usually called sir Richard Willis’s plot. The object of it was to entrap king Charles II. and his brothers to land somewhere in Sussex, under pretence of meeting with many supporters, and to put them to death the moment they landed. This plot is said to have formed the subject of a conversation between Cromwell, Thurloe, and Willis, at Thurloe’s office, and was overheard by Morland, who pretended to be asleep at his desk. In “Wel­* Note by Mr. Thomas Warton on Milton’s beautiful sonnet” On ths late Massacre in Piedmont.“Milton’s Poems, edit. 1785, p. 357. wood’s Memoirs,” it is said that when Cromwell discovered him, he drew his poinard, and would have dispatched him on the spot, if Thurloe had not, with great intreaties, prevailed on him to desist, assuring him that Morland had sat up two nights together, and was certainly asleep. Morland himself gives a somewhat different account of this plot than what appears in Echard, and is copied in the life of Thurloe in the Biog. Brit* but the chief circumstances are the same, and he was the means of discovering it to the king. It also appears to have alienated him from the party with which he had been connected, and from this time he endeavoured to promote the restoration by every means in his power, for which, in “Hollis’s Memoirs,” as may be expected in such a work, he is termed a “dextrous hypocrite*.”

Sk Samuel was twice married to his first wife, during the usurpation but at what precise time, does not appear. In her naturalization-bill, introduced into the House of Commons in 1662, she is called Susanne de Milleville, daughter of Daniel de Milleville, baron of Boessey, and of thq lady Katherine his wife, of Boessey in France. It is probable he married her when abroad. After her death, he was entrapped into a second marriage* with a woman who pretended to be an heiress of 20,000l. This, he says, proved his ruin. She was a woman of abandoned conduct, and probably impaired his property by extravagance; and although he was divorced from her, for adultery, in 1688, the rest of his history is but a melancholy detail of his various disappointments and distresses. In 1689, he wrote a long letter to archbishop Tenison, giving an account of his life, from which we have extracted many of the above particulars, and concluding with a declaration that his only wish was to retire and spend his life “in Christian solitude,” for which he begs the archbishop’s “helping hand to have his condition truly represented to his majesty.” Tenison probably did something for him, for we find a letter of thanks for “favours and acts of charity,” contained

In 1596 he published a piece entitled “The just Procedures of those of the Reformed Religion;” in which he removes the imputation of the present troubles and dissentions from the protestants, and throws the blame on those who injuriously denied them that liberty, which their great services had deserved. In 1598 he published his treatise “upon the Eucharist;” which occasioned the conference at Fontainbleau in 1600, between Du Perron, then bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and M. du Plessis; and raised his reputation and credit among the protestants to so great a height, that he was called by man)* “the Protestant Pope.” In 1607 he published a work entitled “The Mystery of Iniquity, or the History of the Papacy;” which was written, as most of his other works were, first in French, and then translated into Latin. Here he shews by what gradual progress the popes have risen to that ecclesiastical tyranny, which was foretold by the apostles; and what opposition from time to time all nations have given them. This seems to have been a work of prodigious labour; yet it is said, that he was not above nine months in composing it. About this time, also, he published “An Exhortation to the Jews concerning the Messiah,” in which he applies a great deal of Hebrew learning very judiciously; and for this he was complimented by the elder Buxtorf. There are several other lesser pieces of his writing; but his capital work, and for which he has been most distinguished, is his book “Upon the Truth of the Christian Religion;” in which he employs the weapons of reason and learning with great force and skill against Atheists, Epicureans, Heathens, Jews, Mahometans, and other Infidels, as he tells us in his title. This book was dedicated to Henry IV. while he was king of Navarre only, in 1582; and, the year after, was translated by himself into Latin. “As a Frenchman,” says he, in his preface tp the reader, “I have endeavoured to serve my own country first; and, as a Christian, the universal kingdom of Christ next.” Baillet observes, with justness, that “the Protestants of France had great reason to be proud of having such a man as Mornay du Plessis of their party; a gentleman, who, besides the nobleness of his birth, was distinguished by many fine qualities both natural and acquired.”

He had hitherto been a member of the society of artists of Great Britain, who exhibited at the room now called the Lyceum in the Strand, but, in the year 1779, without expectation or solicitation, he was, by the especial grant of his majesty, created a royal academician, but did not live to see the diploma for, on the 4th of February 1779, deeply regretted by all who had the honour and happiness of his friendship, after an illness of only twelve days, he died at his house in Norfolk-street. His fame has been thought to rest on his picture of king John granting Magna Charta to the Barons, Battle of Agincourt, Vortigern and Rowena, the Incantation, the Series of the Progress of Vice, and the Sir Arthegull from' Spenser. His favourite subjects were of the grotesque or horrible kind; incantations, monsters, or representations of banditti and soldiers in violent actions. The attempts at real character which he made (and of which he has left us etchings) from some of Shakspeare’s most celebrated heroes, are weak and untrue; they leave us nothing to regret in his not having indulged himself in more of the like kind, except for the freedom, with which they are executed. They were very highly extolled in his time, but the improvement in art and taste which the country has since experienced, has given us more accurate ideas of art, and more just discrimination between character and caricature.

Bishop Morton was of low stature, but of an excellent constitution, which he preserved to the last. Dr. Barwick represents him as a man of extensive learning, great piety, hospitality, and charity, and of great temperance and moderation in matters of controversy. He carried on an extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, and was himself distinguished for his liberal patronage of such. He was particularly the friend and patron of the celebrated Dr. Donne. On one occasion he gave Donne a sum of money, saying, “Here Mr. Donne, take this, gold is restorative:” Donne replied, “Sir, I doubt I shall never restore it back again.” Bishop Morton! s greatest blemish seems to have been his acceding to, or, in truth, in some measure drawing up, king James’s declaration, usually called the "Book of Sports/' allowing and enjoining public amusements on Sunday, by way of counteracting the endeavours of the popish party, who countenanced such amusements in order to draw the people from the church, By this declaration, the appearing at church was made a qualification for the sports, an absurdity so gross, as to be equalled only by the injustice of compelling clergymen to proclaim it in the pulpit. The readers will find this curious law in the note*, and we are sorry to add, on the

the temper of the people ia those parts Day“author, father Parsons having made a reply under the title of” A sober Reckoning with Mr. Tho. Morton,“printed in 160y, 4to; the latter wrote, 6.” The Encounter against Mr. Parsons,“Lond. 1609, 4to. 7.” An Answer to the scandalous Exceptions of Theophiltis Higgons,“London, 1609, 4to. 8.” A Catholike Appeale for Protestants out of the Confessions of the Romane Doctors, particularly answering the misnamed Catholike Apologie for the Romane Faith out of the Protestants, manifesting the antiquitie of our Religion, and satisfying all scrupulous objections, which have been urged against it,“Lond, 1610, fol. He was engaged in writing this work by archbishop Bancroft, as he observes in his dedication; and Dr. Thomas James took the pains to examine some of his quotations in the Bodleian library. It has never yet been answered. 9.” A Defence of the Innocencie of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England, viz. the Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. Divided into two parts. In the former whereof the generall arguments urged by the nonconformists, and in the latter part their particular accusations against these three ceremonies, are severally answered and refuted. Published by authority.“Second edit. London, 1619, in 4to. This was attacked by an anonymous author, generally supposed to be Mr. William Ames; which occasioned a Defence of it, written by Dr. John Burges of Sutton Colefield in Warwickshire, and printed at London in 1631, 4to, under the title of” An Answer to a Pamphlet entitled A Reply to Dr. Morton’s general Defence of three innocent Ceremonies.“10.” Causa Regia,“London, 1620, 4to, written against cardinal Be) tannin’s book,” De Officio Principis Christiani.“11.” The Grand Imposture of the now Church of Rome, concerning this Article of their Creed, The holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.“The second edition enlarged was printed at London in 1628, 4to. There was an answer published to this, under the name of J. S. and entitled” Anti-Mortonns.“12.” Of the Institution of the Sacrament, &c. by some called the Mass,“&c. Lond. 1631, reprinted with additions in 1635, folio. As some strictures were published on the first edition by a Romish author, under the name of an English baron, Dr. Morton replied in, 13.” A Discharge of five Imputations of Mis- allegations charged upon the bishop of Duresme by an English baron,“London, 1633, 8vo. 14.” Antidotum adversus Ecclesiae Romans de Merito ex: Condigno Venenum,“Cambridge, 1637, 4to. 15.” Replica sive Refutatio Confutationis C. R.“Lond. 1638, 4to. This is an answer to a piece published by C. R. who was supposed to be the bishop of Chakedon, against the first part of our author’s Catholic Apology. 16. A Sermon preached before the king at Newcastle, upon Rom. xiii. 1. Lond. 1639, 4to. 17.” De Eucharistia Controversiae Decisio,“Cambridge, 1640, 4to. 18.” A Sermon on the Resurrection,“preached at the Spittle in London April 26. Lond. 1641, 8vo. 1.9. A Sermon preached at St. Paul’s June 19, 1642, upon 1 Cor. xi. 16. and entitled” The Presentment of a Schismatic.!*,“” Lond. 1642, 4to. 20. “Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines,” &c. Oxford, 1644, 4to, published without his name or knowledge of it, and written in defence of episcopal government, and sent to archbishop Usher, who committed it to the press with some other excellent collections of his own upon the same subject. 21. “Ezekiel’s Wheels,” &c. Lond. 1653, in 8vo. The subject of this book is meditations upon God’s Providence. Besides these printed works, he left a considerable number of manuscripts, “some in my custody,” says Dr. Barwick, “which 1 found by him at his death; and some (that I hear of) in the hands of others: all of them once intended for the press, whereof some have lost their first perfection by the carelessness and negligence of some that should have kept them others want his last hand and eye to perfect them and others only a seasonable time to publish them. And he might and would have left many more, considering how vigorous his parts were even in his extreme old age, if the iniquity of the times had not deprived him of most of his notes and papers.” Among these unpublished Mss. were: 1. “Tractatus de externo Judice iniallibili ad Doctores Pontificios, imprimis vero ad Sacerdotes Wisbicenses.” 2. “Tractatus de Justificatione.” Two copies, both imperfect. 3. “Some Papers written upon the Controversy between bishop Montague and the Gagger.” 4. “A Latin edition of his book called the Grand Imposture.” Imperfect. 5. Another edition of both the parts of his book called “Apologia Catholica.” 6. “An Answer to J. S. his Anti-Mortonus.” Imperfect. 7. His treatise concerning Episcopacy above mentioned, revised and enlarged. 8. A treatise concerning Prayer in art tinknown tongue. 9. A Defence of Infants 1 Baptism against Mr. Tombes and others. 10. Several Sermons. II. “A Kelation of the Conference held at York by our author, with Mr. Young and Mr. Stillington; and a further confutation of R. G. in defence of the Articles of the church of England.” Almost the last act of his life was to procure from the few remaining bishops in England, a refutation of the fable of the Nag’s Head ordination, which was revived by some of the popish persuasion in 1658. What he procured on the subject was afterwards published by bishop Uramhai.

1538, 4to, in which he is very severe on Henry and his defender, and has much the best of the argument in his second and fourth chapters, which treat on tlje king’s divorce, and on the violent death of More, although his style is coarse. (See Cochlæus, where Morysin is improperly called D. D.) 2. “An exhortation to stir up Englishmen in defence of their country,” Lond.

, an illustrious German divine, was born at Lubeck, in 1695, of a noble family, which might seem to open to his ambition a fair path to civil promotion; but his zeal for the interests of religion, his thirst after knowledge, and particularly his taste for sacred literature, induced him to consecrate his talents to the service of the church. Where he was educated we have Dot learned; fcut he is said to have given early indications of a promising capacity, and of a strong desire of mental and literary improvement; and, when his parents proposed to him the choice of a profession, the church suggested itself to him as a proper department for the exercise of that zeal which disposed him to be useful to society. Being ordained a minister in the Lutheran church, he soon distinguished himself as an eloquent and useful preacher. His reputation in this character, however, was local and confined, but the fame of his literary ability diffused itself among all the nations of Christendom. The German universities loaded him with literary honours the king of Denmark invited him to settle at Copenhagen the duke of Brunswick called him thence to Helmstadt, where he filled the academical chair was honoured with the character of ecclesiastical counsellor to the court an,d presided over the seminaries of learning in the duchy of Wolfembuttle and the principality of Blakenburg. When a design was formed of giving an uncommon degree of lustre to the university of Gottingen, by filling it with men of the first rank in letters, king George II. considered Dr. Mosheim as worthy to appear at the head of it, in quality of chancellor; and he discharged the duties of that station with zeal and propriety, and his conduct gave general satisfaction. Here he died, universally lamented, in 1755. In depth of judgment, in extent of learning, in purity of taste, in the powers of eloquence, and in a laborious application to all the various branches of erudition and philosophy, he is said to have had very few superiors. His Latin translation of Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” enriched with large annotations, discovered a profound acquaintance with ancient learning and philosophy. His illustrations of the Scriptures, his labours in defence of Christianity, and the light he cast upon religion and philosophy, appear in many volumes of sacred and prophane literature. He wrote, in Latin, 1. “Observationes sacra?, et historico- critic^,” Amst. 1721, 8vo. 2. “Vindicise antiquae Cnristianorum discipline, adv. J, Tolandi Nazarenum,” Hamb. 1722, 8vo. 3, “De aetate apologetici Tertulliani et initio persecutionis Christianorum sub Severo, commentatio,” Helm. 1724, 4to. 4. “Gallus glorias J. Christi, Spiritusque Sancti obtrectator, publicae contemtioni expositus,” Helm. 1736, 4to. 5. “Historia Tartarorum ecclesiastica,” Helm. 1741, 4to. 6. “De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum commentarii,” ibid. 1753, 4to. 7. “Historia Mich. Served,” &c. But that by which he is best known in this country is his church-history. This was at first a small work, which appeared under the title of “Institutiones Historic Christiana?,” and passed through several editions. He was repeatedly urged by his learned friends to extend a work which they represented as too meagre for the importance of the subject. He acknowledged the objection, but alleged various avocations as an excuse for non-compliance. At length, however, he acceded to the wish of the public, and having employed two years in the augmentation and improvement of his history, he published it in 1755, before the end of which year he died. This was soon after translated into English by Dr. Maclaine, of whom we have recently given some account, and is now a standard book in our libraries. The best edition, as we have noticed in Maclaine’s article, is that of which Dr. Charles Coote was the editor and contimlator, in 1811, 6 vols. 8vo. This edition is also enriched by a masterly dissertation from the pen of Dr. Gteig, of Stirling, on the primitive form of the church, calculated to obviate certain prejudices which Mosheim had discovered in various parts of his otherwise Valuable history.

, an ingenious French writer, was born at Paris, Jan. 17, 1672. He was educated in a seminary of Jesuits, and afterwards entered on the study of the law, which he quitted for the stage, as in his opinion affording the more brilliant prospect. His first attempt, however, a comedy, miscarried, and he felt the disgrace so acutely as to throw himself into the celebrated monastery of La Trappe, where he fancied he could comply with its austerities; but after a few months he returned to the world, and produced some operas and pastorals, which had considerable success. His lyric efforts were particularly applauded, and he now published a volume of odes; but in these, says D'Alembert, “the images are scanty, the colouring feeble, and the harmony often neglected.” Dr. Warton had pronounced, long before, that these odes, although highly praised by Sanadon, and by Fontenelle, were fuller of delicate sentiment, and philosophical reflection, than of imagery, figures, and poetry. There are particular stanzas eminently good, but not one entire ode. So far the French and English critics seem to agree. We learn also, from D'Alembert, that La Motte’s odes were soon effaced by those of the celebrated Rousseau, who, with less wit, perhaps, than La Motte, had superior qualifications for the higher poetry. Yet, when these rivals became competitors for a seat in the academy in 1710, La Motte was preferred, from his having friends who loved him, while Rousseau, from his repulsive temper, did not possess one. La Motte succeeded Corneille in the academy, and, like him, was at this time nearly blind. He very ingeniously made use of this calamity, in his discourse at his reception, to interest his auditors. After having spoken of the merit of his predecessor, he proceeded “You have beheld him faithful to your duties till extreme old age, infirm as he was, and already deprived of sight. The mention of this circumstance makes rne feel the condition to which I am myself reduced. What age ravished from my predecessor, I have lost from my youth. I must, however, confess, that this privation of which I complain, will no longer serve me as an excuse for ignorance you, gentlemen, have restored me my sight you, by associating me with yourselves, have laid all books open to me; and, since I am able to hear you, I no longer envy the happiness of those who can read.” La Motte soon after became totally deprived of sight. He next ventured to appear on a theatre more worthy of a poet’s ambition, and produced the tragedy of the “Maccabees,” concealing his name. The critics found a great deal of merit in it while this concealment lasted and some went so far as to conceive it a posthumous work of Racine but when he discovered himself, they withdrew their praises, or changed them into censures; and the tragedy, being really of the mediocre kind, disappeared from the stage. It was followed by others, of which “Ines de Castro” obtained a permanent place on the stage, notwithstanding many attacks from wit, malice, and arrogance; all which he bore with good-humour. He was one day in a coffee-house, in the midst of a swarm of literary drones, who were abusing his work without knowing the author. He patiently heard them a long time in silence, and then called out to a friend who accompanied him, “Let us go and yawn at the fiftieth representation of this unfortunate piece.” At another time, when told of the numerous criticisms made on his tragedy, “It is true,” said he, “it has been much criticised, but with tears.”

Such was the versatility of la Motte’s genius, that he wrote charges for bishops; and though the secret was kept by both parties, his touch and manner betrayed him. He was also the author of several other writings, which his enemies would have treated with severity had they known the real father, but for which the supposed father received their profound homage. But while some prelates employed the pen of la Motte in the service of religion, by composing their charges, others accused him of being an unbeliever. Among his works has been printed “A Plan of Evidence for Religion,” which D'Alembert mentions with praise, and which was praised by much better judges of the subject. Satire only was the kind of composition in which la Motte did not exercise himself: and this his eulogist attributes to the mildness and honour of his character. It certainly was not from want of ability; and he was so frequently the object of satire, as to have sufficient provocation. This forbearance, however, and the general sweetness of his temper, gained him many partisans. No one more sincerely than he applauded the success even of his rivals; no one encouraged rising talents with more zeal and interest no one praised good works with more genuine satisfaction if he pointed out faults in them, it was not to enjoy the easy glory of mortifying another’s vanity it was with the feeling to which critics are strangers, and which common readers rarely entertain, that of being really concerned to find a blot It was therefore said of him, that “justice and justness” was his motto. Of both these qualities he exhibited a distinguished proof when he gave, as censor, his approbation to Voltaire’s first tragedy; for he did not hesitate to add to it, “that this work gave promise of a worthy successor on the theatre to Corneille and Racine.” Such candour and mildness were all he opposed, not only to literary insults, but to personal affronts. A young 1 man, upon whose foot he once happened to tread in a crowd, gave him a blow on the face. “Sir,” said la Motte to him, “you will be very sorry for what you have done: I am blind.” With the same patience he endured the painful infirmities under which he laboured, and which terminated his life on December 26, 1731. In 1754, a complete edition of all his works was published in eleven large volumes, 8vo, but such is the declension of his popularity that no edition has since been called for. La Harpe (in his “Lyceum”) says, that when he first entered life, la Motte had already descended into the class of authors who are never read but by men of letters, who must read everything. Some passages in his operas, a few strophes of his odes, and occasionally one of his fables, were quoted: and his tragedy of “Ines,” though held in no great value, retained its place on the stage. The harshness of his versification was admitted on all hands, and his paradoxes were never mentioned but in order to be ridiculed.

, an English dramatic writer, but in much greater eminence as an actor, was born in 1659, in Staffordshire. It is probable, that he went early upon the stage, as it is certain that he died young; and Jacob informs us, that, after his attaining a degree of excellence in his profession, he was entertained for some time in the family of the lord-chancellor JerTeries, “who,” says sir John Reresby, “at an entertainment of the lordmayor and court of aldermen, in the year 1685, called for Mr. Mountfort to divert the company (as his lordship was pleased to term it): he being an excellent mimic, my lord made him plead before him in a feigned cause, in which he aped all the great lawyers of the age in their tone of voice, and in their action and gesture of body, to the very great ridicule not only of the lawyers, but of the law itself; which, to me (says the historian) did not seem altogether prudent in a man of his lofty station in the law: diverting it certainly was; but prudent in the lord high-chancellor I shall never think it. 7 ' After the fall of Jefferies, our author again returned to the stage, in which profession he continued till his death, in 1,692. Gibber, in his” Apology,“says that he was tall, well made, fair, and of an agreeable aspect; his voice clear, full, and melodious; a most affecting lover in tragedy, and in comedy gave the truest life to the real character of a fine gentleman. In scenes of gaiety, he never broke into that respect that was due to the presence of equal or superior characters, though inferior actors played them, nor sought to acquire any advantage over other performers by finesse, or stage-tricks, but only by surpassing them in true and masterly touches of nature. He might perhaps have attained a higher degree of excellence and fame, had he not been untimely cut off, by the hands of an assassin, in the thirty-third year of his age. His death is tlius related. Lord Mohun, a man of loose morals, and of a turbulent and rancorous spirit, had, from a kind of sympathy of disposition, contracted the closest, intimacy with one captain Hill, a still more worthless character, who had long entertained a passion for that celebrated actress Mrs. Bracegirdle. This lady, however, had rejected him, with the contemptuous disdain which his character justly deserved; and this treatment, Hill’s vanity would not suffer him to attribute to any other cause than a pre-engagement in favour of some other lover. Mountfort’s agreeable person, his frequently performing the counter-parts in love scenes with Mrs. Bracegirdle, and the respect which he used always to pay her, induced captain Hill to fix on him, though a married man, as the supposed bar to his own success. Grown desperate then of succeeding by fair means, he determined to attempt force: and, communicating his design to lord Mohun, whose attachment to him was so great as to render him the accomplice in all his schemes, and the promoter even of his most criminal pleasures, they determined on a plan for carrying her away from the play-house; but, not finding her there, they got intelligence where she was to sup, and, having hired a number of soldiers and a coach for the purpose, waited near the door for her coming out; and, on her so doing, the ruffians actually seized her, and were going to force her into the coach; but her mother, and the gentleman whose house she came out of, interposing till farther assistance could come up, she was rescued from them, and safely escorted to her own house. Lord Mohun and captain Hill, however, enraged at their disappointment in this attempt, immediately resolved on one of another kind, and, with violent imprecations, openly vowed revenge on Mr. Mountfort. Mrs. Bracegirdle’s mother, and a gentleman, who were earwitnesses to their threats, immediately sent to inform Mrs. Mountfort of her husband’s danger, with their opinion that she should warn him of it, and advise him not to come home that night; but, unfortunately, no messenger Mrs. Mountfort sent was able to find him. In the mean time, his lordship and the captain paraded the streets with their swords drawn, till about midnight, when Mr. Mountfort, on his return home, was met and saluted in a friendly manner by lord Mohun; but, while that scandal to the rank and title which he bore was treacherously holding him in a conversation, the assassin Hill, being at his back, first gave him a desperate blow on the head with his left hand, and immediately afterwards, before Mr Mountfort had time to draw and stand on his defence, he, with the sword he held ready in his right, ran him through the body. This last circumstance Mr. Mountfort declared, as a dying man, to Mr. Bancroft, the surgeon who attended him. Hill immediately made his escape; but lord Mohun was seized, and stood his trial: but as it did not appear that he immediately assisted Hill in the perpetrating this assassination, and that, although lord Mohun had joined with the captain in his threats of revenge, yet the actual mention of murder could not be proved, his lordship was acquitted by his peers. He afterwards, however, himself lost his life in a duel with duke Hamilton, in which it has been hinted that some of the same kind of treachery, which he had been an abettor of in the above-mentioned affair, was put in practice against himself. Mr. Mountfort’s death happened in Norfolk-street in the Strand, in the winter of 1692. His body was interred in the churchyard of St. Clement Danes. He left behind him six dramatic pieces, which are enumerated in the” Biographia Dramatica."

, an English lawyer, and classical editor, the son of Richard Mounteney of Putney in Surrey, was born there in 1707, and educated at Eton school, whence he went, in 1725, to King’s college, Cambridge, and took his degrees of A. B. in 1729, and A. M. 1735, and obtained a fellowship. He then studied law in the Inner Temple, and became, in 1737, one of the barons of the exchequer in Ireland. In 1743 he distinguished himself in the famous trial between James Annesley, esq. and Richard earl of Anglesey. In 1759 he married the countess dowager of Mount Alexander, and died in 1768. To these scanty memoirs, we have only to add that, in 1731, he published the first edition of his “Select Orations” of Demosthenes, which has been often reprinted, but seldom with accuracy. The best part of the work is the critical observations upon the Ulpian commentary by Dr. Chapman, fellow of King’s college, Cambridge; and perhaps the most curious is his dedication to the deceased sir Robert Walpole, in the edition of 1748. It was to the Walpoles he owed his promotions. In 1748 he also published “Observations on the probable issue of the Congress,” 8vo, printed by Mr. Bowyer. Mounteney’s Demosthenes was long a favourite book with the university students to give up, as it is called, on their examinations, but at Oxford it has of late been rejected by the examiners, as an insufficient proof of classical proficiency.

, an ingenious and learned English writer, was son of sir Walter Moyle, and born in Cornwall in 1672. After he had made a considerable progress in school-learning, he was sent to Oxford; and thence removed to the Temple, where he applied himself chiefly to such parts of the law as led to the knowledge of our constitution and government; “for there was a drudgery,” says Mr. Hammond, “in what he called law-lucrative, which he could never submit to.” He came into the world with a firm zeal for the protestant settlement, and a great contempt of those who imagined that the liberty of our constitution and the reformation could subsist under a popish king; nor did he ever vary from these sentiments. From the Temple he removed to Covent- Garden, in order to be nearer the polite and entertaining part or the town and here it was, as Dryden observes in his “Life of Lucian,” that “the learning and judgment above his age, which every one discovered in Mr. Moyle, were proofs of those abilities he has shewn in his country’s service, when he was chosen to serve it in the senate, as his father sir Walter had done.”

He went again to Paris soon after his return from Italy. But on the death of his father in 1778, he was called to Salzburg, and appointed principal concert-master to the prince archbishop, in his stead; but he resigned this office in 1780, and went to Vienna, where he settled, and was admired and patronized by the court and city; and in 1788 he was appointed chapel-master to the emperor Joseph. His first opera at Vienna was the “Rape of the Seraglio,” in 1782, to German words. The second, “Le Nozze di Figaro,” in four acts. The third, the “Schauspiel Director,” or the Manager at the Playhouse, in 1786. “II Don Giovanni,” in 1787. “La Clemenza di Tito,” a serious opera. “Cori Fantutti,” comic. “Flauto Magico.” “Idomeneo,” a serious opera, &c. It was not till 1782 that he began to compose at Vienna for the national theatre; at first chiefly instrumental music; but on its being discovered how well he could write for the voice, he was engaged by the nobility and gentry first to compose comic operas, sometimes to German words, and sometimes to Italian. His serious operas, we believe, were all originally composed to Italian words. There is a chronological list of his latter vocal compositions till the year 1790 in Gerber’s Musical Lexicon.

Of his private character few particulars have been preserved: his temper was warm, but not hasty; and though. Fuller has accused him of using his scholars too harshly, we may make some allowance when we find he was educated under the same master with Ascham, Dr. Nicholas Udall, whose severity he perhaps imbibed. Like Ascham, he was fond of archery, a science once of national concern, and was a member of a society of archers, called Prince Arthur’s Knights, from that prince (brother of Henry VIII.), who was so fond of this amusement that his name became the proverbial appellation of an expert bowman. Mulcaster was an adherent of the reformed religion, a man of piety, and “a priest in his own house, as well as in the temple.” As a scholar he ranks high. His English productions boast an exuberance of expression not often found in the writers of his day; and his Latin works, not inelegant, were celebrated in their times. He enjoyed, likewise, very high reputation as a Greek and Oriental scholar, and on this last account was much esteemed by the celebrated Hugh Broughton.

, commonly called Regiomontanus, from his native place, Mons Regius, or Koningsberg, a town in Franconia, was born in 1436, and became the greatest astronomer and mathematician of his time. He was indeed a very prodigy for genius and learning. Having first acquired grammatical learning in his own country, he was admitted, while yet a boy, into the academy at Leipsic, where he formed a strong attachment to the mathematical sciences, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, &c. But not finding proper assistance in these studies at this place, he removed, at only fifteen years of age, to Vienna, to study under the famous Purbacb, the professor there, who read lectures in those sciences with the highest reputation. A strong and affectionate friendship soon took place between these two, and our author made such rapid improvement in the sciences, that he was able to be assisting to his master, and to become his companion in all his labours. In this manner they spent about ten years together, elucidating obscurities, observing the motions of the heavenly bodies, and comparing and correcting the tables of them, particularly those of Mars, which they found to disagree with the motions, sometimes as much as two degrees.

, a celebrated German enthusiast, called sometimes Moncerus and Monetardus, was born at Stollberg in the Hartz, towards the end of the fifteenth century. His father is said to have been executed for some crime, and on this account the son was thought desirous of taking his revenge on the government of Stollberg. He studied probably at Wirtemberg, and acquired that knowledge in divinity which Melancthon praises, and which appears in his writings. By his own account he taught, in early life, in the schools of Aschersleben and Halle in Saxony; and most probably he was then in orders. It is certain, however, that he soon became attached to the mystics, and entertained the wildest notions of fanaticism, which pleased the lower classes of the people, while he preached at Stollberg and Zwickau, where he was settled as a preacher in 1520. Here, while he was violent against popery, he was as little contented with the progress of Luther’s reformation; the church, he maintained, was but half reformed, and a new and pure church of the true sons of God remained to be established. About this time he connected himself with Nicholas Storck, a leader among the baptists, who pretended to have communications with the Almighty, and to hold greater purity of doctrine than the r^st of the party. Muncer was a convert to his notions, and became ardent in making proselytes. He maintained that for men to avoid vice, they must practise perpetual mortification. They must put on a grave countenance, speak but little, wear a plain garb, and be serious in their whole deportment. Such as prepared their hearts in this manner, might expect that the Supreme Being would direct all their steps, and by visible signs discover his will to them; if that illumination be at any time withheld, he says we may expostulate with the Almighty, and remind him of his promises. This expostulation will be acceptable to God, and will at last prevail on him to guide us with the same unerring hand which conducted the patriarchs of old. He also maintained, that all men were equal in the sight of God, and that, therefore, they ought to have all things in common, and should on no account exhibit any marks of subordination or pre-eminence. With these sentiments he endeavoured to establish in Alstadt a new kingdom upon earth, or a society of pious, holy, and awakened people. With these people he was accused, in 1524, of having plundered a church in a neighbouring village, burnt a chapel, and committed many other outrages; and as the affair made a great noise, he was cited to answer to the charges at Weimar; but finding that the utmost severity was to be used against him, he remained at Alstadt, where his companions were so riotous, that he was under the necessity of removing to a distance. After some little time he settled at Nuremberg, where he published a vehement censure upon Luther, which, with some irregularities, occasioned his expulsion by the government. Taking then a journey into Swabia, he found every where numerous and attentive hearers. His stay in Swabia gave rise to the report that he was the author of the famous twelve articles of the peasants; but his biographer endeavours to prove that he had no part in the insurrection which broke out in that part of the country. In the beginning of 1525, he returned back into Saxony, and was received with great favour by the citizens of Muhlhausen, and, against the consent of their council, appointed their preacher. Here his influence soon became predominant: the old council was entirely set aside, and a new one chosen: the monks were driven away, and their estates sequestered. Muncer himself was elected into the council, and proposed an equal communication of property, and similar reforms, agreeable to the taste of the people. The tumults in Swabia and Franconia were the signal ta Muncer to attempt the same in Thuringia. Churches, monasteries, castles, were plundered and the success attending these first attempts increased the popular fury and the monks, the nuns, and the nooility, were the particular objects of their resentment. It is unnecessary to repeat here the history of these troubles; suffice it, that Muncer was at last overpowered in 1526, and put to death. At his execution he is said to have shewn signs of penitence.

, an eminent German divine and mathematician, was born at Inghelheim in 1489; and, at fourteen commenced his studies at Heidelberg. Two years after, he entered the convent of the Cordeliers, where he laboured assiduously; yet did not content him self with the studies relating to his profession, but applied himself also to mathematics and cosmography. He was the first who published a “Chaldee Grammar and Lexicon;” and gave the world, a short time after, a “Talmudic Dictionary.” He went afterwards to Basil, and succeeded Pelicanus, of whom he had learned Hebrew, in the professorship of that language. He was one of the first who attached himself to Luther, but meddled little in the controversies of the age, employing his time and attention chiefly to the study of the Hebrew and other Oriental languages, mathematics, and natural philosophy. He published a great number^ of works on these subjects, of which the principal is a Latin version from the Hebrew of all the books of the Old Testament, with learned notes, printed at Basil in 1534 and 1546. This is thought more faithful than the versions of Pagninus and Arias Montanus; and his notes are generally approved, though he dwells a little too long upon the explications of the rabbins. For this version he was called the German Esdras, as he was the German Strabo for an “Universal Cosmography,” in six books, which he printed at Basil in 1550. He published also a treatise on dialling, in fol. 1536, in which is the foundation of the modern art of dialling a translation of Josephus into Latin “Tabulae novae ad geog. Ptolemaei,” “Rudimenta mathematica,” &c. He was a pacific, studious, retired man, and, Dupin allows, one of the most able men that embraced the reformed religion. For this reason Beza and Verheiden have placed him among the heroes of the reformation, although he wrote nothing expressly on the subject. He died at Basil, of the plague, May 23, 1552.

Among the many subjects which engaged the pen of this laborious writer, was that of religion, in which he was so unfortunate as to excite suspicions of his orthodoxy; but although this involved him in temporary controversies, it does not appear that he was brought into very serious trouble. Having thought it necessary to vindicate himself to pope Benedict IV. he appears to have succeeded, and was much esteemed by that pontiff. He was enabled by a course of temperance to enjoy good health to a very advanced period of life, and felt little decay until a few months before his death, Jan. 21, 1750, in his seventyeighth year. During the period of his authorship he enjoyed a most extensive reputation, principally as an antiquary, and carried on a correspondence with the most distinguished men of learning in Europe. He was also a member of many learned societies, and was chosen into our royal society as early as 1717. He has been called the Montfaucon of Italy, and ranks with that eminent antiquary, as having performed the most important services to the history of his country.

He now retired to Italy, and falling sick at a town in Lombardy, he applied to a physician, who, not understanding his case, called a consultation. As they did not know Muretus, and fancied him too ignorant to understand Latin, they consulted a long time in that language, upon the application of some medicine which was not in the way of regular practice; and agreed at last to try it upon Muretus, saying, “Faciamus periculum in corpore vili;” ;t Let us make an experiment upon this mean subject.“This threat is said to have so far effected a cure, that he paid his host, and set forwards on his journey, as soon as they were withdrawn. This story is told somewhat differently in the first volume of the” Menagiana.“He spent several years at Padua and Venice, and taught the youth in those cities. Joseph Scaliger says that the charge above-mentioned was renewed at Venice, but others caution us against Scaliger’s reports, who had a private pique against Muretus on the following account. Muretus had composed for his amusement some verses entitled” Attius et Trabeas;“which Scaliger supposing to be ancient, cited under the name of” Trabeas,“in his notes upon” Varro de Re Rustica;“but, finding afterwards that he had been imposed on, he removed them from the second edition of his” Varro;" and, to be revenged on Muretus, substituted in their place the following distich against him

Muretus was thirty-four, when the cardinal Hippolite d'Est called him to Rome, at the recommendation of the cardinal Francis de Tournon, and took him into his service: and from that time his conduct was such as to procure him universal regard. In 1562 he attended his patron, who was going to France in quality of a legate a latere; but did not return with him to Rome, being prevailed on to read public lectures at Paris upon Aristotle’s “Ethics;” which he did with singular applause to 1567. After that, he taught the civil law for four years, with a precision and elegance not common with the lawyers of his time. Joseph Scaliger assures us that he had taken the degrees in this faculty at Ascoli. It is related as a particularity in the life of Muretus, that when he first began to read law lectures at Thoulouse, he was so very indifferently qualified for the province he had undertaken, as to provoke the contempt and ridicule of his pupils, which be afterwards changed into admiration, by a very consummate knowledge in his profession. He spent the remainder of his life in teaching the belles-lettres, and explaining the Latin authors. In 1576 he entered into orders, was ordained priest, and devoted himself with zeal to all the exercises of piety. James Thomasius, in a preface to some works of Muretus, printed at Leipsic, says, that this learned man was a Jesuit at the latter end of his life; but for this there seems to be no foundation. He died at Paris, June 4, 1585, aged fifty-nine. He was made a citizen of Rome, (which title he has placed at the head of some of his pieces) probably by pope Gregory XIIL who esteemed him very highly, and conferred many favours on him.

He now determined to study the law; but on his first application to the society of the Middle-Temple, he had the mortification to be refused admission, on the ground of his having acted on the stage; but was soon after, in 1757, received as a member of Lincoln’s-Inn. In this year he was engaged in a weekly paper, called “The Test,” undertaken chiefly in favour of Mr. Fox, afterwards lord Holland, which ceased on the overthrow of the administration to which his lordship was attached. This paper was answered by Owen Ruffhead, in the “Contest.” During his study of the law, the stage was, either from inclination or necessity, his resource; and in the beginning of 1758, he produced the farce of “The Upholsterer,” which was very successful; and before the end of the same year he finished “The Orphan of China,” which is founded on a dramatic piece, translated from this Chinese language, in Du Halde’s “History of China.” The muse, as he says, “still keeping possession of him,” he produced, in 1760 the “Desert Island,” a dramatic poem; and his “Way to keep Him,” a comedy of three acts, afterwards enlarged to five acts, the most popular of all his dramatic compositions. This was followed by the comedy of “All in the Wrong,” “The Citizen,” and “The Old Maid;” all of which were successful, and still retain their rank among acting-pieces. Having finished his preparatory law-studies, he was called to the bar in Trinity-Term, 1762. About this time, he engaged again in political controversy, by writing “The Auditor,” a periodical paper, intended to counteract the influence of Wilkes’s “North-Briton;” but in this he was peculiarly unfortunate, neither pleasing the public, nor deriving much support from those on whose behalf he wrote. Wilkes and Churchill, who were associated in politics, contrived to throw a degree of ridicule on Murphy’s labours, which was fatal. Murphy appearing to his antagonists to meddle with subjects which he did not understand, they laid a trap to make him discover his want of geographical knowledge, by sending him a letter signed “Viator,” boasting of the vast acquisition, by lord Bute’s treaty of peace, of Florida to this country, and representing that country as peculiarly rich in fuel for domestic uses, &c. This Arthur accordingly inserted, with a remark that “he gave it exactly as he received it, in order to throw all the lights in his power upon the solid value of the advantages procured by the late negociation.” Wilkes immediately reprinted this letter in his “North Britain;” and the “Auditor” found it impossible to bear up against the satires levelled at him from all quarters.

On June 26, 1730, he took the degree of master of ar,ts, and soon after made a tour on the continent. On his return, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn; and, in due time, was called to the bar. Mr. Murray is among those rare instances of persons who very 'early attained to reputation and practice in the profession. His talent was for public speaking, which gave him a superiority that enabled him to rival and excel those who were far beyond him in knowledge and experience. A reputation early attained gives a character which it is very difficult for time to change or eradicate. Mr. Murray’s premature success created an early impression that he was more of a speaker than a lawyer; and, while he was readily acknowledged to excel both old and young, in the one qualification, the world were long unwilling to allow him an ascendancy in the other. His attachment to the belles lettres, and society with Mr. Pope and other wits of his time, gave countenance to the idea, that little time was left for Coke, Plowden, and the Year-hooks. But time and experience, as they improved Mr. Murray, gradually convinced the world, that his mind was equally made for jurisprudence or oratory.

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.”

In Jan. 1770 he was offered the great seal, which he declined; and it was put into commission again. In Hilary term, 1771, he declined the same offer, and it was delivered to Mr. Justice Bathurst. In 1770 an attack was made on this noble judicial character, both in the House of Lords and Commons. His direction to the jury, in the case of Woodfall, the printer, who was prosecuted for a libel, was called in question; but his lordship’s opinion, and that of the whole court, stood its ground. On Oct. 19, 1776, he was made an earl of Great Britain, by the title of earl of Mansfield, to him and his issue male; with remainder to Louisa viscountess Stormont, and to her heirs-male by David viscount Stormont, her husband.

A hill near the citadel of Athens was called Musæum, according to Pausamas, from Musæus, who used to retire thither to meditate, and compose his religious hymns, and at which place he was afterwards buried. The works which went under his name, like those of Orpheus, were by many attributed to Onomacritus. Nothing remains of this poet now, nor were any of his writings exta-nt in the time of Pansanias, except a hymn to Ceres, which he made for theLycomedes. There is another Musæus, called the grammarian, author of a Greek poem on “The Loves of Hero and Leander.” He is supposed to have lived as late as the fourth century, since he is not referred to by any of the older scholiasts, and some of his verses appear borrowed from the Dionysiacs of Nonnius. Nothing is known of him personally, yet his work is in a pure and elegant style, with much delicacy of sentiment. It has been frequently reprinted, both in collections and separately, and has been translated into various languages.

Being a man of very extensive learning, he composed, at his leisure-hours, several curious works, as, 1. “De Arthritide symptomatica Dissertatio, 1703,” 8vo. 2. “De Arthritide^anomala sive interna Dissertatio, 1707,” 8vo. Of these two books, one upon the regular, the other upon the irregular or inward gout, he gave an account in the “Philosophical Transactions.” 3. “Julii Vitalis Epitaphitim: cum Commentario, 1711,” 8vo, a work much praised by Mr. Moyle. 4. “De Legionibus Epistola.” This letter concerning the Roman legions was addressed to sir Hans Sloane. 5. “De Aquilis Romania Epistola, 1713,” 8vo, addressed to Gisbert Cuper, consul of Deventer, who had affirmed that the Roman eagles were of massy gold or silver; while Musgrave maintained, that they were only plated over, in which opinion he was joined by Moyle. 6. “Inscriptio Terraconensis; cum Commentario.” 7. “Geta Britannicus. Accedit Domus Severianae Synopsis chronologica; et de Icuncula quondam M. Regis jElfridi Dissertatio, 1715,” 8vo. That is, “Observations upon a fragment of an equestrian stone Statue, found near Bath, which Musgrave believes to have been set up in honour of Geta, after his arrival in Britain; together with a chronological Synopsis of the family of Severus; and a dissertation upon a piece of Saxon antiquity found at Athelney in Somersetshire, being king Alfred the Great’s Amulet.” 8. “Belgium Britannicum;” or, “An account of that part of South Britain which was anciently inhabited by a people called Belgae, and now comprehends Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Somersetshire,” 1719, 8vo. To this work is prefixed a dissertation, in which he endeavours to prove that Britain was formerly a peninsula, and joined to France about Calais. All the above tracts on antiquities were published together at Exeter, in 1720, 4 vols. 8vo. In 1776 a posthumous dissertation of his on the gout was published under the title of “De Arthritide primogenia et regulari,” 8vo. He had left the manuscript to his son William Musgrave, M. B. by whom it was committed to the press, but he dying when the work was nearly completed, the sheets remained in the warehouse of the Clarendon press until the above-mentioned period, when it was published by the author’s grandson, the late Dr. Samuel Musgrave, of Exeter, a gentleman once noted (about 1761) for his pretended political discoveries respecting the private history of the peace, and afterwards as a Greek scholar and critic. He studied at Leyden, where in 1762 he published “Exercitationum in Euripidem libri duo,” 8vo, and when he took his degree, “Apologia pro medicina Empirica,” 1763, 4to. After his return he practised physic at Exeter, and bestowed much time on collating various Mss. of Euripides, which collations, with his notes, were incorporated in an edition of that classic printed at Oxford in 1778, 4 vols. 8vo. Dr. Harwood gives a very unfavourable opinion of this edition, nor has it been in general much prized by foreign critics. Dr. Musgrave died July 3, 1782, greatly reduced in circumstances, and after his death was edited by Mr. Tyrwhitt, for the benefit of his family, “Two Dissertations,” on the Grecian mythology, and the chronology of the Olympiads.

, an Italian historian and poet, was born at Padua in 1261. When young he lost his father, and was left with a numerous family of brothers and sisters, whom he at first endeavoured to maintain by copying books for the scholars of the university. He was also permitted to attend the lectures there, and made very considerable progress in belles lettres and the law. Theiatterhe chose as the profession most likely to enable him to maintain his family, nor was he disappointed; and the very great ability he displayed at other times occasioned his being employed in political affairs. His talents in this respect were first called forth when Henry VII. made a descent on Italy; on which event he was five times se nt by the Paduans to that prince, who conceived a very high opinion of him. In his history we find the speeches he ma ie to Henry, and those he addressed to the senate of Padua. He also distinguished himself in the war which the Paduans carried on against Can Grande de la Scala, and when wounded and taken prisoner in 1314, Can Grande paid him the attention due to his merit, and restored him to liberty. The war raging more furiously, Mussato went first to Tuscany to negociate an alliance with the Tuscans and Paduans against Can Grande, but not succeeding, went next to Austria and Carint*hia, where he partially achieved his purpose, and at last, in 1324, had the honour of concluding a peace between Can Grande and his country.

, so called from the village of Nancel, his native place, between Noyon and Soissons, was born in 1539. He studied at the college de Presles at Paris, and was employed to teach Greek and Latin there when scarcely eighteen years of age, probably by the interest of Peter Ramus, principal of the college, who conceived very highly of his talents. He was afterwards proKssor in the university of Douay, where he made two pei.:ches “On the excellence and importance of the Greek Language.” Being invited to return to Paris, he was again professor in the college de Presles, and took a doctor’s degree in physic. He went afterwards to practise at Soissons; but principally at Tours, which he found an eligible situation. He was lastly appointed physician to the abbey of Fontevrauld, in 1587; and died there in 1610, leaving a son, who wrote some sacred tragedies. His principal works are, 1. “Stichologia Grseca Latinaque informanda et reformanda,” 8vo. In this work he endeavours to subject the French poetry to the rules of the Greek and Latin, for the purpose, as he says, of rendering it more difficult and less common; a whimsical project, which, it may be supposed, did not succeed. 2. A treatise “On the Plague,” 8vo. 3. “Tr. de Deo, de immortalitate animse contra Galenum, et de sede anima? in corpore,” 8vo. 4. “Declamationuin Liber, eas complectens orationes quas vel ipse juvenis habuit ad populum, vel per discipulos recitavit,” &c. 8vo. 5. “Petri Kami vita,” 8vo. This Life is curious and interesting, and the best of Nancel’s works.

, baron of Merchiston in Scotland, and the celebrated inventor of the Logarithms, was the eldest son of sir Archibald Napier of Merchiston, and born in 1550. After going through the ordinary course of education at the university of St. Andrew’s, he made the tour of France, Italy, and Germany. On his return he applied himself chiefly to the study of mathematics, to which he joined that of the Scriptures; and in both discovered the most extensive knowledge and profound penetration. His “Essay upon the book of the Apocalypse” indicates the most acute investigation; though time has discovered that his calculations concerning particular events had proceeded upon fallacious data. But what his fame now solely rests upon is his great and fortunate discovery of logarithms in trigonometry, by which the ease and expedition in calculation have so wonderfully assisted the science of astronomy and the arts of practical geometry and navigation. Napier, having much attachment to astronomy and spherical trigonometry, had occasion to make many numeral calculations of such triangles, with sines, tangents, &c. which being expressed in large numbers, occasioned a great deal of labour and trouble: To spare themselves part of this labour, Napier, and other authors about his time, endeavoured to find out certain short modes of calculation, as is evident from many of their writings. To this necessity, and these endeavours it is, that we owe several ingenious contrivances; particularly the computation by Napier’s Rods, or Bones, as they are called, and several other curious and short methods that are given in his “Rabdologia” and at length, after trials of many other means, the most complete one of logarithms, in the actual construction of a large table of numbers in arithmetical progression, adapted to a set of as many others in geometrical progression. The property of such numbers had been long known, viz. that the addition of the former answered to the multiplication of the latter, &c. but it wanted the necessity of such very troublesome calculations as those abovementioned, joined to an ardent disposition, to make such a use of that property. Perhaps also this disposition was urged into action by certain attempts of this kind which it seems were made elsewhere; such as the following, related by Wood 'in his “Athenae Oxonienses,” under the article Briggs, on the authority of Oughtred and Wingate, viz. “That one Dr. Craig, a Scotchman, coming out of Denmark into his own country, called upon John Neper baron of Marcheston near Edinburgh, and told him, among other discourses, of a new invention in Denmark, (by Longomontanus as ‘tis said) to save the tedious multiplication and division in astronomical calculations. Neper being solicitous to know farther of him concerning this matter, he could give no other account of it, than that it was by proportionable numbers. Which hint Neper taking, he desired him at his return to call upon him again. Craig, after some weeks had passed, did so, and Neper then shewed him a rude draught of that he called ’ Canon Mirabilis Logarithmorum.' Which draught, with some alterations, he printed in 1614; it came forthwith into the hands of our authorBriggs, and into thoseof William Oughtred, from whom the relation of this matter came.”

Whatever might be the inducement, however, Napier published his invention in 1614, under the title of “Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio,” &c. containing the construction and canon of his logarithms, which are those of the kind that is called hyperbolic. This work coming presently to the hands of Mr. Briggs, then Professor of Geometry at Gresham College in London, he immediately gave it the greatest encouragement, teaching the nature of the logarithms in his public lectures; and at the same time recommending a change in the scale of them, by which they might be advantageously altered to the kind which he afterwards computed himself, which are thence called Briggs’s Logarithms, and are those now in common use. Mr. Briggs also presently wrote to lord Napier upon this proposed change, and made journeys to Scotland the two following years, to visit Napier, and consult him about that alteration, before he set, about making it. Briggs, in a letter to archbishop Usher, March 10, 1615, writes thus: “Napier lord of Markinston, hath set my head and hands at work with his new and admirable logarithms. I hope to see him this summer, if it please God; for I never saw a book which pleased me better, and made me more wonder.” Briggs accordingly paid him the visit, and staid a month with him.

a very extraordinary personage, was born at Swansea, in Glamorganshire, Oct. 18, 1674. His father was a gentleman, whose principal income arose from a partnership in a glass-house: his mother was niece to colonel Poyer, who was killed by Oliver Cromwell, for defending Pembroke-castle against the rebels. He was educated at Carmarthen-school, and thence sent to Jesus college, Oxford, in order to prepare him for the study of the law. His father had strained his little income to give his son such an education; and from the boy’s natural vivacity, he hoped a recompence from his future preferment. In college, however, he soon shewed, that, though much might be expected from his genius, nothing could be hoped from his industry. The first method Nash took to distinguish himself at college was not by application to study, but by assiduity in intrigue. Our hero was quickly caught, and went through all the mazes and adventures of a college intrigue, before he was seventeen he offered marriage, the offer was accepted but, the affair coming to the knowledge of his tutors, his happiness, or perhaps misery, was prevented, and he was sent home from college, with necessary advice to him, and proper instructions to his father. He now purchased a pair of colours, commenced a professed admirer of the sex, and dressed to the very edge of his finances; but soon becoming disgusted with the life of a soldier, quitted the army, entered his name as a student in the Temple-books, and here went to the very summit of second-rate luxury. He spent some years about town, till at last, his genteel appearance, his constant civility, and still more his assiduity, gained him the acquaintance of several persons qualified to lead the fashion both by birth and fortune. He brought a person genteelly dressed to every assembly; he always made one of those who are called good company; and assurance gave him an air of elegance and ease.

In this situation things were when Nash first came into the city; and, hearing the threat of this physician, he humourously assured the people, that if they would give him leave, he would charm away the poison of the doctor’s toad, as they usually charmed the venom of the tarantula, by music. He therefore was immediately empowered to set up a band of music against the doctor’s reptile; the company very sensibly increased, Nash triumphed, and the sovereignty of the city was decreed to him by every rank of people. None could possibly conceive a person more fit to fill this employment than Nash: he had some wit, but it was of that sort which is rather happy than permanent. He was charitable himself, and generally shamed his betters into a similitude of sentiment, if they were not naturally so before. His first care, when made master of the ceremonies, or king of Bath, as it is called, was to promote a music subscription, of one guinea each, for a band, which was to consist of six performers, who were to receive a guinea a week each for their trouble. He allowed also two guineas a week for lighting and sweeping the rooms, for which he accounted to the subscribers by receipt. By his direction, one Thomas Harrison erected a handsome assembly-house for these purposes. A better band of music was also procured, and the former subscription of one guinea was raised to two. Harrison had three guineas a week for the room and candles, and the music two guineas a man. The money Nash received and accounted for with the utmost exactness and punctuality. The balls, by his direction, were to begin at six, and to end at eleven. Nor would he suffer them to continue a moment longer, lest invalids might commit irregularities, to counteract the benefit of the waters. The city of Bath, by such assiduity, soon became the theatre of summer amusements for all people of fashion; and the manner of spending the day there must amuse any but such as disease or spleen had made uneasy to themselves. In this manner every amusement soon improved under Nash’s administration. The magistrates of the city found that it was necessary and useful, and took every opportunity of paying the same respect to his fictitious royalty, that is generally extorted by real power. His equipage was sumptuous, and he used to travel to Tunbridge in a postchariot and six greys, with out-riders, footmen, French horns, and every other appendage of expensive parade. He always wore a white hat; and, to apologize for this singularity, said he did it purely to secure it from being stolen; his dress was tawdry, and not perfectly genteel; he might be considered as a beau of several generations; and, in his appearance, he, in some measure, mixed the fashions of a former age with those of his own. He perfectly understood elegant expence, and generally passed his time in the very best company, if persons of the first distinction deserve that title.

, a dramatic poet and satirist of queen Elizabeth’s reign, was born at the sea-port town of Leostoff, in Suffolk, probably about 1564, and was descended from a family whose residence was in Hertfordshire. He received his education at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. 1585. If we may judge from his pamphlet, entitled “Pierce Penniless,” which, though written with a considerable spirit, seems to breathe the sentiments of a man in the height of despair and rage against the world, it appears probable that he had met with many disappointments and much distress, which, from the character of his companion Robert Greene (see Greene), it is most likely arose from his own indiscretions; his “Pierce Penniless” might be no less a picture of himself, than the recantation pieces we have noticed in our account of Greene. It appears from a very scarce pamphlet, entitled “The Trimming of Tho. Nashe, gentleman, by the high tituled patron Don Richardo de Medico Campo, Barber Chirurgeon to Trinity college in Cambridge,” 1597, 4to, that Nash was, that year, in confinement on account of his having written a play, called, “The Isle of Dogs;” that while he was at Cambridge, he wrote part of a show, called “Terminus et noji Terminus,” for which the person, who was concerned with him in that composition, was expelled; that Nash left his college when he was seven years standing, and before he had taken his master’s degree, about 1587; and that after his arrival in London, he was often confined in different gaols.

He died either in 1600 or 1601; for he published one of his pamphlets in 1599, and he is spoken of as dead in an old comedy, called “The Return from Parnassus,” which was written in 1602. But before 1600, he seems to have altered the course of his life, and to have become a penitent. In a pamphlet, entitled “Christ’s Tears over Jerusalem,” printed before the end of the sixteenth century, he says, in a dedication to lady Elizabeth Gary, “A hundred unfortunate farewels to fantasticall satirisme. In those vaines heretofore I mis-spent my spirit, and prodigally conspired against good houres. Nothing is there now so much in my vowes as to be at peace with all men, and make submissive amends where I have most displeased. Again. To a little more wit have my increasing yeeres reclaimed mee then I had before: those that have beene perverted by any of my workes, let them reade this, and it shall thrice more benefit them. The autumne I imitate, in sheading my leaves with the trees, and so doth the peacock shead his taile,” &c.

While at Padua he lost his father, which obliged him to return to Paris to settle his affairs. In 1628, the faculty of medicine chose him to make the ordinary harangues at the admission of licentiates, which he performed entirely to their satisfaction. One of these, in Latin, on the origin and dignity of the medical school at Paris, was printed there in 1628, in octavo. He was then recommended by one of his friends to cardinal Bagni, who appointed him his librarian and Latin secretary. He took him also to Rome in 1631, and Naud had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with the celebrated Peiresc, as the cardinal travelled by the way of Beaugensier, on purpose to see his old friend, who complimented him very warmly on having acquired for a librarian a young man of Naude’s extensive knowledge of books. While on this journey, Naude went to Padua, where, in 1633, he received the degree of doctor of philosophy and medicine, in order to support the character of physician to Louis XIII. with which he had been honoured. On the death of cardinal Bagni, in 1640, he intended to return to France, but had so many liberal offers to remain in Italy, that he changed his mincl, and determined to attach himself to cardinal Barberini. There is much difference of dates amongst his biographers respecting his return from Paris. All we can decide is, that he acted there as librarian to cardinal Mazarine, and that he collected for him a library of 40,OO0 volumes, the greatest that had then appeared in France. But the cardinal died in 1642, and he consequently could not have long been in his service. Perhaps he was employed to make purchases for this library when in Italy, &c. The cardinal appears not to have rewarded him with much liberality, and in 1648 we find him complaining of being neglected. He had, however, a greater mortification to undergo in 1652, when this fine collection was sold by order of the parliament. He is said to have been greatly irritated on this occasion, and bought all the medical books it contained for 3500 livres Isaac Vossius now recommended him to Christina queen of Sweden, with whom he resided a few months as librarian, or rather to fill up that station in the absence of Vossius, who was at this time in disgrace. Isiaude, however, neither liked the employment nor the people, and took an early opportunity to give in his resignation; on which occasion the queen, and some other persons of rank, testified their regard for him by various presents. The fatigue of his journey on returning brought on a fever, which obliged him to stop at Abbeville, where he died July 29, 1653. Naude was a man of great learning, and in his private conduct, correct, prudent, and friendly. His sentiments, as we have noticed, were on some subjects, very liberal, but on others he deserves less praise. While he played the freethinker so far as to despise some parts of the belief of his church, he could gravely vindicate the massacres of St. Bartholomew, as a measure of political expedience. His works are very numerous. To the few already mentioned we may add, 1. “Le Marfore, ou Discours contre les libelles.” Paris, 1620, 8vo. 2. “Instruction & la France sur la verit de l'histoire des freres de la Rose-croix,” ibid. 1623, 8vo. The Rosecrucians he considers as impostors. 3. “Addition a Thistoire de Louis XI.” ibid. 1630. 4. “Consideration politique sur les coups d'Etat, par G. N. P.” Rome, (i. e. Paris), 1639, 4to. It is in this work he vindicates the massacre of St. Bartholomew; but he appears to have published it with great caution, and it is said that this first edition consisted of only twelve copies. It was, however, reprinted in 1667, 1673, and in 1752, 3 vols. 12mo, with notes and reflections by Louis du May. 5. “Bibliographia Politica,” Leyden, 1642, 16mo, a learned work, but not very correct. 6. “Hieronymi Cardani vita,” Paris, 1643, 8vo. 6. “Jugement de tout ce qui a ete imprim6 contre le cardinal Mazarin depuis Jan. 6, jusqu'au 1 Avril, 1649,” Paris, 1641, 4to. This curious work, which is of great rarity, is sometimes called “Mascurat,” and consists of a dialogue between St. Ange, a librarian, L e. Naude, and Mascurat, a printer, i. e. Camusat. 7. “Avis a Nosseigneurs du pariement sur la vente de la Bibliotheque du cardinal Mazarin,” 1G52, 4to. 8. “Nundaeana et Patiniana,” Paris, 1701, in which are many of his sentiments, and some particulars of his history.

In 1515, he was nominated by the senate of Venice historiographer of iiis native country, and was at that time deemed the most elegant Latin writer that Italy could boast. He appears however to have been so fastidious as to be rarely satisfied with any thing he wrote, and is supposed to have destroyed ten books of the history of Venice a few hours before his death. Many of his poems shared the same fate, either because they fell short of that standard of excellence which he had formed in his own mind, or had been composed after models which he deemed illchosen. If he could be thus severe to himself, we cannot wonder that he should be equally so to others. It is said, that he every year burnt a copy of Martial, as a corrupter of that pure taste which distinguished the writers of the Augustan age. Navagero’s Latin poems are how consequently few in number, but sufficient to justify the character bestowed by his countrymen, and the esteem in which they held him. They were printed in 1530, under the title “Andreas Naugerii Patricii Veneti Orationes duse, Carminaque nonnulla,” Venice, folio. Considerable additions were made by Vulpius, although improperly called “opera omnia;” and printed at Padua, in quarto, 1718.

, a remarkable person of the society called Quakers, was born at Ardsley, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire, about 1616. His father was a husbandman, who had some estate of his own, and gave to his son such an education as enabled him to express himself with facility in his native tongue. James married and settled in Wakefield parish about 1638; and, in 1641, became a private soldier in the parliament army, in which he was afterwards made a quarter-master under major-general Lambert, but quitted it, on account of sickness, in 1649. Being convinced of the doctrines of the people called Quakers, by the means of George Fox, in 1651, the next year he believed himself divinely required to. quit his relations and go into the West, not knowing what he was to do there; but when he came there he had it given him what to declare; and thus he continued, not knowing one day what he was to do the next; but relying on that divine aid which he believed himself to receive.

He was a man of excellent natural parts, and acquitted himself so well, both in word and writing, that many joined the society through his ministry. He came to London towards the beginning of 1655, in which city a meeting of Quakers had been established by the ministry of Edward Burrough and Francis Howgill, two eminent Quakers from Westmorland. Here Nayler preached with so much applause, that the distinction which he acquired occasioned his fall; for, some inconsiderate women setting him up in their esteem above Howgill and Burrough, went so far as to disturb them in their public preaching. These men giving to the women a deserved reproof, two of them complained of it to Nayler, who, although at the first he was backward to pass censure on his brethren, yet, at length, suffering himself to be wrought upon by the reiterated and passionate complaints of one Martha Simmons (the chief engine of the mischief), he became estranged from them, and gave ear to the flatteries of his unadvised adherents. In 1656, he suffered imprisonment at Exeter and about this time several deluded persons addressed him by letter in terms of great extravagance. He was called “the everlasting Son of Righteousness, Prince of Peace, the only begotten Son of God, the Fairest of Ten Thousand;” and during his confinement in Exeter gaol some women knelt before him and kissed his feet. About this time George Fox returning out of the West, where he had himself suffered a rigorous imprisonment, called on James Nayler in the prison at Exeter, and gave him some reproof for his defection and extravagance. This Nayler slighted, but nevertheless would have saluted Fox with a kiss; but George rejected his salutation, alleging that “he had turned against the power of God.”

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.

From his works he appears to have deserved the high character he enjoyed during his life-time, and which some critics of modern times have revived. He was one of the very few in those days who turned their thoughts to the history of literature. His first publication was “Erotema Grascae Linguae, cum proefatione Philippi Melanchthonis de utilitate Grsecae linguse,” Basil, 1553, and 1565, 8vo. In a subsequent edition Neander gives a list of the works he had published, or which he had projected, and among the latter was an universal history of authors, “Pandectae variorum auctorum et scriptorum.” From the sketch he had given of the proposed contents of this work, there is great reason to regret that he did not complete it; in the second edition of his “Erotemata” he has given a specimen of what he could have done, in a dissertation on ancient libraries, on books that are lost, and on the libraries of his own time which contained the most valuable Mss. and an account of the principal Greek and Latin authors, whose works have been published, with a minuteness of description which would have reflected credit on a modern bibliographer. The last edition of his “Erotemata” was edited at Leipsic in 1589, 8vo, by his disciple, John Volland. Neander’s other works are, 2. “Graecae Linguae Tabulae,” Basil, 1564, and Wittemberg, 1581, 8vo. 3. “Linguae Hebreae Erotemata, cum veterurn Rabbinorurn testimoniis de Christo, apophthegmatibus veterum Hebreeorum et notitia de Talmude, Cabbala, &c.” Basil, 1556, 8vo, often reprinted. The preface to this work is on the same plan with that to the “Erotemata Graecae Linguae,” containing notices of the most eminent Oriental scholars, the writings of the rabbins, the editions of the Bible, &c. 4. “Aristologia Pindarica Graeco-Latina, et Sententiae novem Lyricorum,” Basil, 1556, 8vo, with prolegomena on the life of Pindar, the Greek games, &c. 5. “Aristologia GraecoLatina Euripidis; argumenta quoque singulis tragcediis praemissa sunt,” ibid. 1559, 4to. 6. “Anthologicum Graeco-Latinum,” ibid. 1556, 8vo. This is a collection of sentences from Hesiod, Theognes, and other ancient poets, with three books of similar extracts from Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, &c. but is by no means, as some bibliographers have called it, a new edition of the Greek Anthology. 7. “Gnomonologia Graeco-Latina, sive insigniores sententiae philosophorum, poetarum, oratorum, et historicorum, ex magno Anthologio Joannis Stobaei excerptae, et in locos supra bis centum digests,” ibid. 1558, 8vo. 8. “Opus aureum et Scholasticum,” Leipsic, 1577, or, according to Fabricius, 1575, a collection somewhat like the former, but with some entire pieces, as the poem of Comthus on the rape of Helen, that of Tryphiodorus on the destruction of Troy, and three books of Quintus Calaber, which last are translated into Latin prose by Lawrence Rhodoman, one of Neander’s pupils. 9. “Sententiae Theologicae selectiores, Græco-Latinæ,” Basil, 1557, 8vo. 10. “Catechesis parva Martini Lutheri Graeco-Latina,” &c. ibid. 1564­and 1567, 8vo. 11. “Loci communes Philosophic! Graeci,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo, a work by Volland, above-mentioned, with notes by Neander. 12. “Gnomonologia Latina ex omnibus Latinis vetustis ac probatis autoribus, recentioribus etiam aliquot, in locos communes digesta,” Leipsic, 1581, and 1590, 8vo. 13. “Phraseologia Isocratis GraecoLatina,” Basil, 1558, 8vo. 14. “Joannis Vollandi de re Poetica Graecorum libri quatuor, e noutionibus et bibliotheca Mich. Neandri collecti,” Leipsic, 1582, 1592, ancl 1613, 8vo. 15. “Argonautica, Thebaica, Troica, Ilias parva; poematia Graeca anonymi (Laur. Rhodomani) primum edita cum argumentis a Mich. Neandro,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo. Some other works have been attributed to Neander, on less certain authority, which are mentioned by Fabricius and Baillet; and more ample information respecting him may probably be found in a work which we have not seen, a life of him by Volborth, in German, published at Gottingen in 1777. There flourished about the same time with our author, a physician of the same names, who was born in 1529, and died in 1581, whose forgotten works, however, cannot easily be mistaken for those of the learned Greek professor.

Mr. Needham’s papers inserted in the Philosophical Transactions were, 1. Account of chalky tubulous concretions, called Malm; vol.XLII. 2. Miscroscopical observations on Worms in Smutty Corn; vol. XLII. 3. Electrical Experiments lately made at Paris; vol. XLIV. 4. Account of M. Buffon’s Mirror, which burns at 66 feet; ibid. 5. Observations upon the generation, composition, and decomposition of Animal and Vegetable substances; vol. XLV. 6. On the Discovery of Asbestos in France; vol. LI. His works printed at Paris, in French, are, 1. “New Microscopical Discoveries,” 1745. 2. “The same enlarged,” 1750. 3. “On Microscopical, and the Generation of Organized Bodies,” 1769, 2 vols. Besides these he had a considerable share in the controversy that was carried on about sixty years ago at Paris and Rome respecting the origin of the Chinese. He had seen a famous bust at Turin, on the breast and forehead of which several characters were visible, which some antiquaries supposed to be Egyptian. Mr. Needham having compared them with the characters of a Chinese dictionary in the Vatican, printed at Pekin, in 26 vols, (entitled Ching Zu Tung) perceived a striking resemblance between the two. He drew from this resemblance an argument in favour of the opinion of the late De Guignes (see de Guignes), concerning the origin of the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Chinese, or rather concerning the descent of the latter from the former, and pronounced, without hesitation, that the bust was Egyptian. The process of this discovery, or rather opinion, he published in 1761, in a pamphlet entitled “De Inscriptione quadam Ægyptiaca Taurini inventa, et characteribus Ægyptiis olim et Sinis cornmunibus exarata; idolo cuidam antiquo in regia, universitate servato, ad utrasque academias, Londinensem et Fajrisiensem, rerum antiquarum investigation! praspositas, data Eptstola,” 8vo. Several others subscribed to this, opinion, but it is more generally thought that the conclusion respecting the descent of the Chinese from the Egyptians does not follow from the premises. The very candid and fair manner, however, in which Mr. Needham proceeded in his comparison of the characters on the bust tyith thos.e in the dictionary, was acknowledged in an attestation very honourable to his probity, signed by several of the, literati at Rome, and by two of our countrymen then resident there, sir Richard Lyttelton and the late duke of Grafton.

, an English political writer, and a model of political prostitutes, was born at Burford, in Oxfordshire, in August 1620. His mother was daughter to an inn-keeper at Burford, and Hftarried to Mr. Marchamont Needham, an Oxford student. He died in 1621, and Mrs. Marchamont, his mother, the next year re-married with Christopher Glynn, vicar of Burford;, and master of the free-school there. This gentleman, perceiving his step-son to have very pregnant parts, took him under his own tuition; and, at the age of fourteen, he was-sent to Alt-Souls college. Here, being made one of the choristers, he continued till 1637; when taking the degree of B. A. which was inconsistent with his chorister’s place, he retired to St. Mary’s Hall, and in 1640 became third under-master of Merchant Taylors’ School. This, however, he resigned in 1642, and his next employment was that of a writer to an attorney in Gray’s Inn, but this too he soon quitted, and commenced his political career in a weekly paper under the title of “Mercurius Britannicus,” on the side of parliament. This procured him popularity, apparently without respect, as he was familiarly known among the populace by the name of captain Needham, of Gray’s Inn. In this publication he pretended to communicate “the affairs of Great Britain, for the better information of the people.” It began about the middle of August 1643, and came out on Mondays in one sheet, to the“latter end of 1646, or beginning of 1647. Perhaps our author might take the Me from a tragicomedy called” Mercurius Britannicus, or the English Intelligencer," reprinted in 1641, in 4to, written by Richard Brathwayte.

Having now rendered himself obnoxious to the popular party, he found it necessary to leave London, and for a time lay concealed at the house of Dr. Peter Heylin, at Minster-Lovel, near Burford; till, at length being discovered, he was imprisoned in Newgate, and would probably have been executed, had not iLenthal, the speaker of the house of commons, who knew him and his relations well, and Bradshaw, president of the high court of justice,' obtained his pardon. Thinking his talents useful, and caring* little whom they employed, they made such promises as easily induced him to write on the side of the independents. Needham had no scruples as to principle, and after accepting their offers, immediately published a third weekly paper, called “Mercurius Politicus,” which came out every Wednesday, in two sheets, 4to, commencing with the 9th of June 1649, and ending with 6th of June 1650, which being Thursday, he began again with Number I. from Thursday, June 6, to Thursday, June 13, 1650, beginning, “Why should not the commonwealth have a fool, as well as the king had,” &c. This paper, which contained many discourses against monarchy, and in behalf of a free state, at least, before Cromwell was made protector, was carried on without any interruption till about the middle of April 1660, when it was prohibited by an order of the council of state, and Needham fled the kingdorn, justly dreading what never was inflicted on him; for after the restoration, by means of a hired courtier of as little principle as himself, he obtained his pardon under the great seal. After this he practised physic, chiefly among the dissenters, and contrived to support himself, and keep up his fame for scurrility by some controversies with the faculty, until his death, which happened suddenly in 1678. Needham’s character may be gathered from the preceding short account. He had natural parts, not much improved by education, and wrote in that coarse and vulgar style of obloquy, which was suited to his readers, and, as we have seen in our own times, will find readers enough to reward the grossest prostitution of talents. Besides the “Mercuries 7 ' already mentioned, he published a great number of other things, the titles of which are worth transcribing, as a specimen of the style in which political controversy was then carried on 1.” A Check to the Checker of Britannicus,“&c. 1624 2, A sharp libel against his Majesty’s late message for Peace, anno 1645 in answer to which was published” The Refusers of Peace inexcusable, by his Majesty’s command,“1645; one sheet 4to. 3.” A Hue and Cry after the King, written after the King’s Defeat at Naseby, in 1645.“4.” The Case of the Kingdom, stated according to the proper interests of the several parties engaged,“&e. 'the third edition in 1647. 5.” The Levellers levelled or the Independents’ Conspiracy to root out Monarchy, an interlude,“1647. 6.” A Plea for the King and Kingdom, by way of answer to a late Remonstrance of the Army,“1648. 7.” Digitus Dei; or God’s justice upon treachery and treason, exemplified in the Life and Death of the late James duke of Hamilton,“&c. 1649. 8. The year before came out a book entitled” The manifold Practices and Attempts of the Hamiltons, &c. to get the Crown of Scotland,“1648, probably written by Needham, as the whole of it is contained in the” Digitus Dei.“9.” The Public Intelligencer,“&c. these came out weekly on Monday, but contained mostly the same matter that was in the” Political Mercuries.“10.” The Case of the Commonwealth of England stated,“&c. 1649. 11.” Discourse of the excellency of a Free State above Kingly Government,“1650, published with the former, and reprinted in 1768, by Richard Baron, a politician of the republican stamp. 12.” An Appendix added out of Claudius Salmasius’s Defensio Regis, and Mr. Hobbes’s de corpore politico.“13.” Trial of Mr. John Goodwin, at the bar of religion and right reason,“&c. 1657. In reply to this, Goodwin took occasion, in a piece entitled” The Triumviri,“to characterize our author as having a foul mouth, which Satan hath opened, '&c. 1658. 15.” Interest will not lye, &c. in refutation of c The Interest of England stated,“1659. 14.” The moderate Informer, &c. communicating the most remarkable transactions, both civil and military, in the Commonwealth of England,“&c. It commences with the 12th of May 1659, but was not carried on above two or three weeks. Needham, it seems, was dismissed from his place of writing the weekly news, in the time of Richard, by the influence of the Presbyteriaus, and John Can put in his room; yet, in spite of opposition, he carried on the writing of his” Mercuries.“16.” News from Brussels, &c. in a Letter dated 10 March, 1659;“but said to be written by our author against Charles II. and his court, and conveyed to the press by Praise-God Barebones. It was answered about a week after, in” The late News, or Message from Brussels unmasked.“17.” A short History of the English Rebellion completed, inverse,“1661; a collection of all such verses as he had printed before each of his” Mercurii Pragmatici.“To it he prefixed” The true Character of a rigid Presbyter;“and added the coat of arms of sir John Presbyter: but the * character was pot of his writing. It was reprinted in 1680, 4to. 18.” Discourse concerning Schools and School-masters,“1663. 19.” MedelaMedicinae,“&c. 1665 answered by two doctors of that faculty, fellows of the college of physicians, viz. John Twisden, in his” Medicina veterum vindtcata,“&c. and Robert Sprackling, in his” Medela Ignorantiæ.“20.” An epistolary Discourse“before” Medicina Instaurata, &c. by Edward Bolnest, M. D.“1665. 21.” A Pacquet of Advices tfnd Animadversions, &c. occasioned by a Letter from a person of quality to his friend in the country, written* By lord Shaftesbury,“1676. 22.” A second Palcquet of Advices, &c. in answer to some Considerations upon the Question whether the Parliament b& dissolved by Hs Prorogation for Fifteen Months?“and another, entitled” The Long Parliament dissolved,“written by Denzil lord Holies, but owned by his chaplain, a nonconformist, named Carey, or Carew, who was comAvitted prisoner to the Tower of London in the beginning of February, 1676. 23.” A Letter frona a person newly chosen to sit in this Parliament, to a Bencher in the Temple,“&c. 24.” A Narrative of the cause and manner of the Imprisonment of the Lords now close prisoners in the Tower of London.“Needham is said to have been encouraged to write these two Pacquets by lord Danby. 25.” Christianissimus Christianandus or Reasons for the Reduction of France to d more Christian state in Europe,“1678. 26.” A Preface to `A new idea of the Practice of Physic, written by Francis de la Boe Sylvius,'" 1675.

, a celebrated painter of architecture, was born, as is supposed, at Antwerp, in 1570, and was a disciple of Henry Stenwyck. His favourite objects were views of the interior of churches, convents, splendid halls, &c. Of these he described the rich decorations, and every member of the architecture, with uncommon neatness of pencilling, but with such attention to the most minute parts, as must have required a vast deal of patience, and has indeed in some cases made them objects of wonder rather than of imitation. The columns, capitals, or the ornamental paiatings of the churches he represents, are all marked with the utmost precision, and finished with an exquisite touch, and a light clean pencil. It is said, however, that he sometimes took liberties with the originals by introducing objects that he thought improved them to the eye. Tins was making a pleasing picture, but was a violation of truth. As he designed figures but indifferently, other artists assisted him in these, particularly Velvet Breughel and Tenters. He died in 1651, aged eighty-one, leaving a son, called The Young, who painted the same subjects, but with inferior skill.

, one of the bravest, and the most successful navai commander that 'ever appeared in the world, the fourth son of the rev. Edmund Nelson, rector of Burnham- Thorpe, in the county of Norfolk, was born in the parsonage-house of that parish, September 29, 1758. His father’s progenitors were originally settled at Hilsborough, where, in addition to a small hereditary estate, they possessed the patronage of the living, which our hero’s grandfather enjoyed for several years. His father married, in May 1749, Catherine, daughter of Maurice Suckling, D. D. prebendary of Westminster, whose grandmother had been sister to sir Robert Walpole, earl of Orford. By this lady he had eight sons and three daughters. Horatio, so called after the late earl of Orford, was placed at the high-school of Norwich, whence he was removed to NorthWalsham, both within the precincts of his native county. In his twelfth year, the dispute having taken place between the courts of St. James’s and Madrid, relative to the possession of the Falkland Islands, an armament was immediately ordered, and captain Maurice Suckling, his maternal uncle, having obtained a ship, young Nelson was, at his own earnest request, placed on his quarter-deck as a midshipman, on board the Raisonable, of 64 guns. But in consequence of the dispute being terminated, and capt. Suckling being appointed to a guard-ship in the Medway, Nelson was sent a voyage to the West Indies, and on his return he was received by his uncle on board the Triumph, then lying at Chatham, in the month of July 1772. It was observed, however, that although his voyage to the East Indies had given him a good practical knowledge of seamanship, he had acquired an absolute horror of the royal navy and it was with some difficulty that captain Suckling was enabled to reconcile him to the service; but an inherent ardour, coupled with an unabating spirit of enterprize, and utter scorn of danger, made him at length ambitious to partake in every scene where knowledge was to be obtained or glory earned.

An opportunity of this kind soon presented itself, and appeared admirably calculated to satiate that romantic taste for adventure which, from the earliest periods of his life, seemed at once to fill and to agitate the bosom of our youthful hero. When captain Phipps, afterwards lord Mulgrave, sailed June 2d, 1773, towards the North Pole, on board the Racehorse, captain Lutwidge commanded another bomb-vessel called the Carcass, both of which had been fitted out on purpose to ascertain to what degree of latitude it was possible to penetrate. On board the latter of these vessels Mr. Nelson was admitted with great difficulty, and in consequence of his own pressing solicitation, in the humble capacity of a cockswain; for, in consequence of an order from the admiralty, boys were not permitted to be received on board.

In 1778 he was appointed to the Bristol, and rose by seniority to be first lieutenant. In the course of the succeeding year, (June 11, 1779,) he obtained the rank of post- captain, on which occasion he was appointed to the command of the Hinchinbroke. Having sailed in this vessel for the West Indies, he repaired to Port Royal in the island of Jamaica; and an attack upon that island being expected, on the part of count D'Estaing’s fleet and army, Nelson was intrusted, both by the admiral and general, with the command of the batteries at Port-Royal, the most; important post in the whole island. A plan was next formed for taking fort San Juan, on the river St. John, in the gulf of Mexico; and captain Nelson was appointed to the command of the naval department. His business was to have ended when he had convoyed the forces, about 500 men, from Jamaica to the Spanish main; but it was found, that not a man of the whole party had ever been up the rjver: he therefore, with his usual intrepidity, quitted his ship, and superintended the transporting of the troops, in boats, 100 miles up a river which, since the time of the Buccaneers, none but Spaniards had ever navigated. Of all the services in which he had been engaged, this was the most perilous. It was the latter end of the dry season: the river was low, full of shoals, and sandy beaches; and the men were often obliged to quit the boats, and drag them through shallow channels, in which the natives went before to explore. This labour, and that of forcing the rapids, w,ere chiefly sustained by the sailors, who, for seven or eight hours during the day, were exposed to a burning sun, and at night to heavy dews. On the 9th of April they arrived at a small island, called St. Bartholomew, which commanded the river in a rapid and difficult part, and was defended by a battery mounting nine or ten swivelsNelson, putting himself at the head of a few sailors, leaped on the beach, and captain Despard, since executed for high treason, having gallantly supported him, they defeated the Spaniards with their own guns. Two days afterwards, having come in, sight of the castle of San Juan, they began to besiege it on the 13th, and it surrendered on the 24th. But all that this victory procured them was a cessation from toil: no supplies were found, and the castle itself was worse than a prison. The hovels, which were used as an hospital, were surrounded with putrid hides; and when orders were obtained from the commander in chief to build one, the sickness arising from the climate had become so general, that there were no hands to work at it. The rains continued, with few intervals, from April to October, when they abandoned their conquest; and it was then reckoned that of 1800 who were sent to different posts upon this scheme, only 380 returned. Nelson narrowly escaped. His advice had been to carry the castle by assault; instead of which, eleven days were spent in the formalities of a siege. He returned before its surrender, exhausted with fatigue, and suffering under a dysentery, by which his health became visibly impaired; but he fortunately received an appointment to the Janus of 44 guns, in which he reached Jamaica in such a state of sickness, that although much was done to remove it, he was soon compelled to return to England, in the Lion, commanded by the hon. William Cornwallis, through whose attention a complete recovery was effected.

In April 1798, sir Horatio Nelson hoisted his flag in the Vanguard, and as soon as he had rejoined earl St. Vincent, he was dispatched to the Mediterranean, that he might ascertain the object of the great expedition fitting out at Toulon. He sailed with a small squadron from Gibraltar, on the 9th of May, to watch this armament. On the 22 d, a sudden storm in the gulph of Lyons carried away all the top-masts of the Vanguard; the fore-mast went into three pieces, and the bow-sprit was sprung. Captain (afterwards sir Alexander) Ball took the ship in tow, to carry her into St. Pietros, Sardinia. Nelson, apprehensive that this attempt might endanger both vessels, ordered him to cast off; but that excellent officer, possessing a spirit very like that of his commander, replied that he was confident he could save the Vanguard, and by God’s help he would do it. Previously to this, there had been a coolness between these brave seamen but from that moment, Nelson became fully sensibje of the extraordinary merit of captain Ball, and a sincere friendship subsisted between them during the remainder of their lives. Being compelled to refit, the delay enabled him to secure his junction with the reinforcement which lord St. Vincent had sent to join him, under commodore Trowbridge. That officer brought with him no instructions to Nelson, as to the course he was to steer, nor any positive account of the enemy’s destination every thing was left to his own judgment. The first news was, that they had surprised Malta. He formed a plan for attacking them while at Gozo; but on the 22d, intelligence reached him that they had left that island on the 16th, the day after their arrival. He then pursued them to Egypt, but he could not learn any thing of them during his voyage; and when he reached Alexandria, the enemy were not there. He then shaped his course for the coast of Caramania, and steered from thence along the southern side of Candia, carrying a press of sail both night and day, with a contrary wind. Irritated that they should have eluded his vigilance, the tediousness of the night made him impatient, and the officer of the watch was repeatedly called upon to declare the hour, and convince his admiral, who measured time by his own eagerness, that it was not yet break of day. “It would have been my delight,” said he, “to have tried Bonaparte on a wind.” Baffled in his pursuit, Nelson returned to Sicily, took in stores at Syracuse, and then made for the Morea. There, on the 28th of July, he learnt that the French had been seen about a month before, steering to the south-east from Candia. He resolved to return, and immediately, with every sail set, stood again for the coast of Egypt. On the 1st of August, they came in sight of Alexandria; and at four in the afternoon, captain Hood, in the Zealous, made signal for the French fleet. For several preceding days, the admiral had scarcely taken either food or sleep: he now ordered his dinner to be served, while preparations were making for battle; and when his officers rose from, table, and went to their separate stations, he said to them, “Before this time to-morrow I shall have gained a peerage or Westminster- abbey.” It has never been explained, why Bonaparte, having effected his landing, should not have ordered the fleet to return. It is, however, certain, that it was detained by his express command; though after the death of Brueys, he accused 4iim of having lingered there, contrary to his received orders. That admiral, not being able to enter the port of Alexandria, had moored his fleet in Aboukir bay, in a strong and compact line of battle; the headmost vessel being as close as possible to a shoal on the north-west, and the rest of the fleet forming a kind of curve along the line of deep water, so as not to be turned by any means on the south-west. The French admiral had the advantage of numbers in ships, in guns, and in men: he had thirteen ships of the line and four frigates, carrying 1196 guns, and 11,230 men; whereas the English had the same number of ships of the line, and one 50 gun ship, carrying 1012 guns, and 8068 men. They had, however, Nelson for chief-in-command, who, in all cases, was a mighty host in himself. During the whole cruize, it had been Nelson’s practice, whenever circumstances would admit of it, to have his captains on board the Vanguard, and fully explain to them his own ideas of the best modes of attack, whatever might be the situation of the enemy. His officers, therefore, were well acquainted with his principles of tactics and such was his confidence in their abilities and zeal, that the only plan arranged, in case they should find the French at anchor, was for the ships to form as most convenient for their mutual support, and to anchor by the stern. When he had fully explained his intended plan, captain Berry exclaimed with transport, “If we succeed, what will the world say” “There is no if.” replied the admiral “that we shall succeed is most certain: who may live to tell the story is a very different question.”

The position of the enemy presented the most formidable obstacles, but the admiral viewed these with the eye of a seaman determined on an attack; and it instantly struck him, that where there was room for an enemy’s ship to swing, there was room for one of ours to anchor. No further signal was necessary than those which had already been made. The admiral’s designs were as fully known to his whole squadron, as was his determination to conquer or perish in the attempt. The action commenced at sunset, at half past 6 o'clock, with an ardour that cannot be described. The Goliath, captain Foley, and the Zealous, captain Hood, received the first fire from the enemy. It was received with silence. On board every one of the British ships, the crew were employed aloft in furling sails, and below in tending the braces, and making ready for anchoring; a wretched sight for the French, who, with all their advantages, were on that element upon which escape was impossible. Their admiral, Brueys, was a brate and able man, yet he had, in a private letter, boasted that the English had* missed him, “because, not rinding themselves superior in numbers, they did not think it prudent to try their strength with him.” The moment was now come in which he was to be fatally undeceived. The shores of the bay of Aboukir were soon lined with spectators, who beheld the approach of the English, and the awful conflict of the hostile fleets, in silent astonishment. The two first ships of the French line were dismasted within a quarter of an hour after the action, and the others suffered so severely, that victory was even now regarded as certain. The third, the fourth, and the fifth, were taken possession^ of at half past eight. In the mean time, Nelson had received a severe wound on the head from a piece of iron, called a langridge shot; the skin of his forehead, being cut with it at right angles, hung down over his face. A great effusion of blood followed; but, as the surgeon pronounced there was no immediate danger, Nelson, who had retired to the cabin and was beginning to write his dispatches, appeared again on the quarter-deck, and the French ship the Orient being on fire, gave orders that boats should be sent to the relief of her men. Her commander Brueys was dead of his wounds, and the ship soon after blew up. The firing recommenced with the ships to the lee-ward of the centre, and continued until three in the morning. At day-break, the two rear-ships of the enemy were the only ships of the line that had their colours flying, and immediately stood out to sea, with two frigates The Zealous pursued, but as there was no other ship in a condition to support her, she was recalled. These, however, were all that escaped; and the victory was the most complete and glorious in the annals of naval history, uniting indeed, as was said in the House of Commons, all those qualities by which other victories had been most distinguished.

After the appointment of lord Keith to the command of the Mediterranean fleet, lord Nelson made preparations to return, and proceeding in company with sir William and lady Hamilton, to Trieste, he travelled through Germany to Hamburgh, every where received with distinguished honours. He embarked at Cuxhaven, and landed at Yarmouth on the sixth of November 1800, after an absence from his native country of three years. In the following January he received orders to embark again, and it was during this short interval that he formally separated from lady Nelson. Some of his last words to her were, “I call God to witness, that there is nothing in you, or your conduct, that I wish otherwise.” He was now raised to the rank of vice-admiral of the blue, and soon after hoisted his flag on board the San Josef of 112 guns, his own prize at the battle of cape St. Vincent. About this time the emperor Paul of Russia had renewed the northern confederacy, the express and avowed object of which was to set limits to the naval supremacy of England. A resolution being taken by the English cabinet to attempt its dissolution, a formidable fleet was fitted out for the North Seas, under sir Hyde Parker, in which lord Nelson consented to go second in command. Having shifted his flag to the St. George of 98 guns, he sailed with the fleet in the month of March, and on the 30th of that same month he led the way through the Sound, which was passed without any loss. But the battle of Copenhagen gave occasion for an equal display of lord Nelson’s talents as that of the Nile. The Danes were well prepared for defence. Upwards of two hundred pieces of cannon were mounted upon the crown batteries at the entrance of the harbour, and a line of twenty-five two-deckers, frigates, and floating batteries, was moored across its mouth. An attack being determined upon, the conduct of it was entrusted to lord Nelson; the action was fought on the second of April; Nelson had with him twelve ships of the line, with all the frigates and small craft, the remainder of the fleet was with the commander in chief, about four miles off. The combat which succeeded was one of the most terrible on record. Nelson himself said, that of all the engagements in which he had borne a part, it was the most terrible. It began at ten in the morning, and at one victory had not declared itself. A shot through the main-mast knocked a few splinters about the admiral “It is warm work,” said he, “and this may be the last day to any of us in a moment; but, mark you, I would not be elsewhere for thousands.” Just at this moment sir Hyde Parker made signal for the action to cease. It was reported to him, but he continued pacing the deck, and appeared to take no notice of it. The signal-lieutenant asked if he should repeat it. “No,” replied Nelson, “acknowledge it.” Presently he called to know if the signal for close action was still hoisted, and being answered in the affirmative, he said, “Mind you keep it so.” About two o'clock, great part of the Danish line had ceased to fire, and the victory was complete, yet it was difficult to take possession of the vanquished ships, on account of the fire from the shore, which was still kept up. At this critical period, with great presence of mind, he sent the following note to the crown prince of Denmark “Lord Nelson has directions to spare Denmark when no longer resisting but, if the firing is continued on the part of Denmark, lord Nelson must be obliged to set on fire all the floating-batteries he has taken, without having the power of saving the brave Danes who had defended them.” This immediately produced a treaty, which ended the dispute, and annihilated the northern confederacy. For this service lord Nelson was raised to the rank of a viscount. His last effort, in this war, was an attack on the preparations making at Boulogne, for the invasion of England; but, after the loss of many brave men on our side, the enterprize proved unsuccessful, from the situation of the harbour.

During the peace which followed, he retired to an estate lately purchased by himself, at Merton in Surrey; but no sooner was this short peace dissolved, than his lordship was called upon to take the command of the ships in the Mediterranean. He accordingly repaired thither, on board the Victory, May 20, 1303, and formed the blockade of Toulon with a powerful squadron. Notwithstanding all the vigilance employed, a fleet escaped out of this port on the 30th of March, 1805, and shortly after formed a junction with the Cadiz-squadron, sir John Orde being obliged to retire before such a superiority in point of numbers. The gallant Nelson no sooner received intelligence of this event, than he followed the enemy to the West-Indies; and such was the terror of his name, that they returned without effecting any thing worthy of mention, and got into port after running the gauntlet through sir Robert Calder’s squadron. The enemy having thus again eluded his pursuit, he returned almost inconsolable to England; and hearing that the French had joined the fleet from Ferrol, and had got safe to Cadiz, he again offered his services, which were readily accepted by the first lord of the admiralty, who gave him a list of the navy, and bade him choose his own officers. He accordingly reached Portsmouth, after an absence of only twenty-five days; and such was his impatience to be at the scene of action, that, although a strong wind blew against him, he worked down channel, and, after a rough passage, arrived off Cadiz, on his birth-day, Sept. 29, on which day the French admiral, Villeneuve, received orders to put to sea the first opportunity. In point of preparation the two fleets were supposed to be on an equality; but in respect to force, the French were the stronger in the proportion of nearly three to two, they having thirty-four ships of the line of 74 guns, and under lord Nelson there were but twenty-four of the same rank: in frigates they out-numbered him in a similar proportion. Early in the month of October, lord Nelson received information which led him to imagine the enemy would soon put to sea. He had already arranged a plan, according to which he determined to fight. He was aware of the mischief of too many signals, and was resolved never to distract the attention of his fleet on the day of action by a great number of them. On the 4th of October he assembled the admirals and captains of the fleet into the cabin of his ship, the Victory, and laid before them a new and simple mode of attack. Every man comprehended his method in a moment, and felt certain that it must succeed. It proved irresistible.

Some of the crew immediately bore the admiral to the cock-pit, and on his observing that the tiller ropes, which were shot away early in the action, had not been replaced, he calmly desired a midshipman to remind capt. Hardy of it, and to request that new ones might be immediately rove. He then covered his face and stars with his handkerchief, that he might be less observed by his men. Being placed on a pallet in the midshipman’s birth on the larboard side, Mr. Beatty, the surgeon, was called, and his lordship’s cloaths were taken off, that the direction of the ball might be the better ascertained. “You can be of no use to me, Beatty,” said lord Nelson, “go and attend those whose lives can be preserved.” When the surgeon had executed his melancholy office, had expressed the general feeling that prevailed on the occasion, and had again been urged by the admiral to go and attend to his duty, he reluctantly obeyed, but continued to return at intervals. As the blood flowed internally from the wound, the lower cavity of the body gradually filled: lord Nelson therefore constantly desired Mr. Burke to raise him, and complaining of an excessive thirst, was supplied by Mr. Scott (the chaplain) with lemonade. In this state of suffering, with nothing but havoc and death and misery around him, his mind continued intent on the great object that was always before him, his duty to his country: he therefore anxiously inquired for capt. Hardy, to know whether the annihilation of the enemy might be depended on; and it being upwards of an hour before that officer could leave the deck, lord Nelson suspected he was dead, and could not easily be persuaded that it was otherwise. The crew of the Victory were now heard to cheer, when lieutenant Pasco, who lay wounded near him, said that one of their opponents had struck. A gleam of joy lighted up the countenance of Nelson; and as the crew repeated their cheers, and marked the progress of his victory, his satisfaction visibly increased. Mr. Bulkley, the captain’s aid de camp, then came below, and in a low voice communicated to the surgeon the particular circumstances which had detained capt. Hardy. The excessive heat of the cockpit, from the numbers of the dead and wounded, increased the faintness of the dying admiral, and his sight became dim “Who brought the message?” said he feebly. “Bulkley, my lord.” “It is his voice,” said Nelson, “remember me, Bulkley, to your father.” Capt. Hardy soon afterwards came down from the deck, and anxiously strove to conceal the feelings with which he had been struggling. “How goes the day with us, Hardy?” “Ten ships, my lord, have struck.” “But none of ours, I hope.” “There is no fear, my dear lord, of that. Five of their van have tacked, and shewn an intention of bearing down upon us; but I have called some of our fresh ships round the Victory, and have no doubt of your complete success.” Captain Hardy then found himself unable any longer to suppress the yearnings of a brave and affectionate heart, and hurried away for a time to conceal the bitterness of his sorrow.

When the firing from the Victory had in some measure ceased, and the glorious result of the day was accomplished, capt. Hardy immediately visited the dying chief, and reported the entire number that had struck: “God be praised, Hardy I bring the fleet to an anchor.” Capt. Hardy was returning to the deck, when the admiral called him back, and begged him to come near. Lord Nelson then delivered his last injunctions, and desired that his body might be carried home to be buried, unless his sovereign should otherwise desire it, by the bones of his father and mother. He then took capt. Hardy by the hand, and observing, that he would most probably not see him again alive, the dying hero desired his brave associate to kiss him, that he might seal their long friendship with that affection which pledged sincerity in death. Capt. Hardy stood for a few minutes over the body of him he so truly regarded, in silent agony, and then kneeling down again, kissed his forehead. “Who is that?” said Nelson. “It is Hardy, my lord.” “God bless you, Hardy,” replied Nelson, feebly; and afterwards added, “I wish I had not left the deck, I shall soon be gone:” his voice then gradually became inarticulate, with an evident increase of pain; when, after a feeble struggle, these last words were distinctly heard, “I have done my duty, I praise God for it.” Having said this, he turned his face towards Mr. Burke, on whose arm he had been supported, and expired without a groan, Oct. 21, 1805, in the forty-seventh year of his age.

, 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.

We are informed, by Florentine historians, that this family had borne the highest posts of the state from the year 900, when it was raised, with five others, to the dignity of Famiglia Cavalleresca, by the famous Ugo, marquis of Tuscany. The education of Philip de Nerli was superintended by Benedetto, a disciple of Politian; and in his youth he formed an intimacy with the most distinguished scholars of Florence. In the beginning of duke Alexander’s government, in 1532, he was chosen among the first to be of the quarantotto, or forty-eight magistrates, who were afterwards called senators. He governed the chief cities of Tuscany, in quality of commissary, which title is bestowed only upon senators; and the opinion which Alexander entertained of his judgment, made him be always employed upon public affairs, and nothing important was transacted without his concurrence. From this intimacy with political events, we may suppose him enabled to transmit to posterity the secret springs which gave them birth. He was a great favourite, and nearly related to the family of Medicis, which created him some enemies. He died at Florence, Jan. 17, 1556. His “Commentari de Fatti Civili,” containing the affairs transacted in the city of Florence from 1215 to 1537, were printed in folio, at Augsburg, in 1728, by Settimanni. As the author every where betrays his partiality to the Medici, they may be advantageously compared with Nardi’s history of the same period, who was equally hostile to that family.

, 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.

In 1595, he was concerned in the controversy, which originated at Cambridge, from the public declaration of William Barret, fellow of Caius college, against the doctrine of predestination, and falling from grace. On these points the general persuasion being then favourable to the system of Calvin, Barret was called before some of the heads, and compelled to retract his opinions. The dispute, however, which was referred by both parties to archbishop Whitgift, occasioned the well-known conference of divines at Lambeth, where they agreed on certain propositions, in conformity to Calvin’s principles, commonly called the Lambeth articles. Dr. Nevil, and his brethren, soon after had to complain of Dr. Baro, lady Margaret’s professor of divinity, for maintaining some doctrines respecting universal salvation, diametrically opposite to those of the Lambeth articles in consequence of which he was removed from his station in the university. (See Baro).

By his munificence to Trinity-college, Dr. Nevile has secured to himself the gratitude and admiration of posterity. He expended more than 3000l. in rebuilding that fine quadrangle, which to this day retains the name of Nevil’s-eourt. He was also a contributor to the library of that college, and a benefactor to East-bridge hospital in his native city. He was not less a generous patron of many scholars who became the ornaments of the succeeding age. He was buried in Canterbury-cathedral, in the ancient chantry in the South aile, which he had fitted up as the burial-place of his family, and which was afterwards called NeviPs chapel. Here he placed a monument to the memory of his father, mother, and uncle; and another was erected to himself: but in 1787, when the cathedral was new paved, the chapel itself was removed, and the monuments, in taking down, almost entirely destroyed. The inscription to the dean only remains, and is placed between two mutilated figures of himself and his elder brother Alexander, in the chapel of the Virgin Mary.

, commonly known by his Latin name of Gul. Neubrigensis, an early English historian, was born at Bridlington in Yorkshire, in the first year of king Stephen’s reign, 1136, and educated in the abbey of Newborough, of which he became a member. Besides the name of Neubrigensis, which he derived from his abbey, we find him called Parvus, or “Little;” but whether this was a surname or nickname, is somewhat dubious. Tanner notices him under the name of Petyt; and Nicolson says, that his true surname was Little; and that he calls himself Petit, or Parvus. Hearne allows that others called him so but does not remember where he styles himself so. Mr. Denne thinks it remarkable, that with allusion to himself, he twice uses the word “Parvitas,” thereby insinuating how little qualified he was to discharge the office of a historiographer, or to hastily form a judgment of the actions of so great a man as Becket.

Shortly after his return in 1742, he was unanimously elected knight of the shire for the county of Middlesex; but, in the next parliament he was, on lord Cornbury’s being called up to the house of peers, elected in 1751 to succeed him as representative for the university of Oxford, an honour which few men knew better how to appreciate. In no place, and on no occasion, is the purity of election more sacredly guarded than in the choice of members to represent that university, where to make declarations, to canvass, to treat, or even to be seen within the limits of the university during a vacancy, would be, in any candidate, almost a forfeiture of favour. In the case of our worthy baronet, he remained ignorant of being proposed and elected, until he received a letter from the vicechancellor, Dr. Browne, master of University college, by one of the esquire beadles. In the same independent manner he was re-elected in 1754, 1761, 1768, and 1774, during which last year, he was in Italy. On the dissolution of parliament in 1780, being advanced in years, and desirous of repose, he solicited his dismission, retired from public life, and was succeeded by sir William Dolben. He died at his seat at Arbury, Nov. 25, 1806, in the eighty-seventh year of his age.

To the university of Oxford he was a steady friend and frequent benefactor. The admired cast of the Florentine boar in Queen’s college library, the Florentine museum, and other books in the library of University college, Piranesi’s works in the Bodleian, and those exquisite spe r cimens of ancient sculpture, the Candelabra in the Radciiffe library (which cost 1800/,) were some of his donations. In 1755 he was honoured by the countess dowager of Pomfret (who was aunt to the first lady Newdigate) with a commission to intimate to the university her ladyship’s intention of presenting them with what are now called the Arundelian marbles. In 1805 sir Roger made an offer to the university of the sum of 2000l. for the purpose of removing them to the Radcliffe library, but some unexpected difficulties were started at that time, which prevented the plan from being executed, although it is to be hoped, it is not finally abandoned. He gave also 1000l. to be vested in the public funds, in the name of the vice-chancellor and the master of University college, for the time being, in trust, part of it to go for art annual prize for English verses on ancient sculpture, painting, and architecture, and the remainder to accumulate as a fund towards the amendment of the lodgings of the master of University college. His charitable benefactions in the neighbourhood of his estate were extensive, and have proved highly advantageous, in ameliorating the state of the poor, and furnishing them with education and the means of industry. But we must refer. to our authority for these and other interesting particulars of this worthy baronet.

Here he soon gave proofs of a surprizing genius, and astonished his acquaintances by his mechanical contrivances. Instead of playing among other boys, he always busied himself in making curiosities, and models of wood of different kinds. For this purpose he got little saws, hatchets, hammers, and all sorts of tools, which he knew how to use with great dexterity. He even went so far as to make a wooden clock. A new windmill was set up about this time near Grantham in the way to Gunnerby. Young Newton’s imitating genius was excited, and by frequently prying into the fabric of it, as they were making it, he contrived to make a very perfect model, which was considered at least equal to the workmanship of the original, This sometimes he set upon the house-top where he lodged, and clothing it with sails, the wind readily turned it. He put a mouse into this machine, which he called his miller, and he contrived matters so that the mouse would turn round the mill whenever he thought proper. He used to joke too about the miller eating the corn that was put into the mill. Another of his contrivances was a water-clock, which he made out of a box that he begged from the Brother of his landlord’s wife. It was about four feet in height, and of a proportional breadth. There was a dial-plate at top with figures for the hours. The index was turned by a piece of wood which either fell or rose by water dropping. This stood in the room where he lay, and he took care every morning to supply it with its proper quantity of water.

These fancies sometimes engrossed so much of his thoughts that he was apt to neglect his book, and dull boys were now and then put over him in his form. But this made him redouble his pains to overtake them, and such was his capacity that he could soon do it, and outstrip them when he pleased: and this was taken notice of by his master. He used himself to relate that he was very negligent at school, and very low in it till the boy above him gave him a kick which put him to great pain. Not content with having threshed his adversary, Isaac could not rest till he had got before him in the school, and from that time he continued rising until he was head-boy. Still, no disappointments of the above kind could induce him to lay aside his mechanical inventions; but during holidays, and every moment allotted to play, he employed himself in knocking and hammering in his lodging-room, pursuing the strong bent of his inclination, not only in things serious, but in ludicrous contrivances, calculated to please his school-fellows as well as himself; as, for example, paper kites, which he first introduced at Grantham, and of which he took pains to find out their proper proportion and figures, and the proper place for fixing the string to them. He made lanterns of paper crimpled, which he used to go to school by in winter mornings with a candle, and he tied them to the tails of his kites in a dark night, which at first frightened the country people exceedingly, who took his candles for comets. He was no less diligent in observing the motion of the sun, especially in the yard of the house where he lived, against the wall and roof, wherein he drove pegs, to mark the hours and half hours made by the shade. These, by some years’ observation, he made so exact that any body knew what o'clock it was by Isaac’s dial, as they usually called it.

During all this time the mother of sir Isaac lived at North Witham, with her second husband; but, upon his death, she returned to Woolsthorpe, and in order to save expences as much as she could, she recalled her son from school, in order to make him serviceable at Woolsthorpe, in managing th farm and country business. Here he was employed in superintending the tillage, grazing, and harvest; and he was frequently sent on Saturdays to Grantham market, with com and other commodities to sell, and to carry home what necessaries were proper to he bought at a market town for a family; but, on account of his youth, his mother used to send a trusty old servant along with him, to put him in the way of business. Their inn was at the Saracen’s head, in West-gate, where, as soon as they had put up their horses, Isaac generally left the man to manage the marketing, and, retiring to Mr. Clark’s garret, where he used to lodge, entertained himself with a parcel of old books till it was time to go home again; or else he would stop by the way, between home and Grantham, and lie under a hedge studying, till the man went to town and did the business, and called upon him in his way back. When at home, if his mother ordered him into the fields to look after the sheep, the corn, or upon any other rural employment, it went on very heavily under his management. His chief delight was to sit under a tree with a book in his hands, or to busy himself with his knife in cutting wood for models of somewhat or other that struck his fancy, or he would get to a stream and make mill-wheels. This conduct of her son induced his mother to send him to Grantham school again for nine months; and then to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he was admitted June 3, 1660, and where he was soon noticed by Dr. Isaac Barrow, who perceived his talents, and contracted a great friendship for him. The progress of his studies here was of no common kind. He always informed himself beforehand of the books which his tutor intended to read, and when he came to the lectures he found he knew more of them than his tutor himself. The first books which he read for that purpose were Saunderson’s Logic, and Kepler’s Optics. A desire to know whether there was any thing in judicial astrology, first put him upon studying mathematics. He discovered the emptiness of that study as soon as he erected a figure; for which purpose he made use of two or three problems in Euclid, which he turned to by means of an index. He did not then read the rest, looking upon it as a book containing only plain and obvious things. This neglect of the ancient mathematicians, we are told by Dr. Pemberton, he afterwards regretted. The modern books which he read gave his mind, as he conceived, a wrong bias, vitiated his taste, and prevented him from attaining that elegance of demonstration which he admired in the ancients. The first mathematical book that he read was Des Cartes’s Geometry, and he made himself master of it by dint of genius and application, without going through the usual steps, or having the assistance of any person. His next book was the “Arithmetic of Infinites,” by Dr. Wallis. On these books he wrote comments as he read them, and reaped a rich harvest of discoveries, or more properly, indeed, made almost all his mathematical discoveries as he proceeded in their perusal.

In contemplating his genius, it becomes a doubt which of these endowments had the greatest share, sagacity, penetration, strength, or diligence; and, after all, the mark that seems most to distinguish it is, that he himself made the justest estimation of it, declaring, that, if he had done the world any service, it was due to nothing but industry and patient thought; that he kept the subject under consideration constantly before him, and waited till the first dawning opened gradually, by little and little, into a full and clear light. And hence no doubt arose that unusual kind of horror which he had for all disputes a steady unbroken attention, free from those frequent recoilings inseparably incident to others, was his peculiar felicity; he knew it, and he knew the value of it. No wonder then that controversy was looked on as his bane, when some objections, hastily made to his discoveries concerning light and colours, induced him to lay aside the design he had of publishing his optic lectures; we find him reflecting on that dispute, into which he was unavoidably drawn thereby, in these terms: “I blamed my own imprudence for parting with so real a blessing as my quiet to run after a shadow.” It is true, this shadow, as Fontenelle observes, did not escape him afterwards, nor did it cost him that quiet which he so much valued, but proved as much a real happiness to him as his quiet itself; yet this was a happiness of his own making; he took a resolution, from these disputes, not to publish any more about that theory, till he had put it above the reach of controversy, by the exactest experiments, and the strictest demonstrations; and, accordingly, it has never been called in question since.

Any investigation of his mathematical discoveries, or a laboured analysis of his philosophy, called, by way of distinction, the Newtonian, would be out of place in a work of this kind, and to be satisfactory would exceed all bounds. Dr. Keill said that if all philosophy and mathematics were considered as consisting of ten parts, nine of them would be found entirely of his discovery and invention. “Does Mr. Newton eat, drink, or sleep, like other men?” said the marquis de l'Hospital, one of the greatest mathematicians of the age, to the English who visited him. “I represent him to myself as a celestial genius entirely disengaged from matter.” Of his philosophy, properly so called, the great principle is the power of gravity: this had been hinted at by Kepler, but the glory of bringing it to a physical demonstration was reserved for Newton. It was first made public in 1686, but republished in 1713, with considerable improvements. Several other authors have since attempted to make it plainer, by setting aside many of the more sublime mathematical researches, and substituting either more obvious reasoning, or experiments, in lieu of them; particularly Whiston, in his “Prælect. Phys. Mathemat.;” S'Gravesande, in “Element, et Instit.” Dr. Pemberton, in his “View” and Maclaurin, in his excellent work, entitled “An Account of sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.” Notwithstanding the great merit of this philosophy, and the universal reception it has met with at home, it gained ground at its first publication but slowly abroad, and Cartesianism, Huygenianism, and Leibnitzianism, maintained their ground, till the force of truth prevailed. It is now, bowever, held in the utmost veneration both at home and abroad. The philosophy itself is laid down principally in the third book of the Principia. The two preceding books are taken up in preparing the way for it, and laying down such principles of mathematics as have the nearest relation to philosophy: such are the laws and conditions of powers. And these, to render them less dry and geometrical, the author illustrates by scholia in philosophy, relating chiefly to the density and resistance of bodies, the motion of iight and sounds, a vacuum, &c. In the third book he proceeds to the philosophy itself; and from the same principles deduces the structure of the universe, and the powers of gravity, by which bodies tend towards the sun and planets; and from these powers, the motion of planets, and comets, the theory of the moon, and the tides. This book, which he calls “De Mundi Systemate,” he tells us was first written in the popular way; but considering, that such as are unacquainted with the said principles would not conceive the force of the consequences, nor be induced to lay aside their ancient prejudices, he afterwards digested the sum of that book into propositions, in the mathematical manner; so as it might only come to be read by such as had first considered the principles; not that it is necessary a man should master them all; many of them, even the firstrate mathematicians, would find a difficulty in getting over. It is enough to have read the definitions, laws of motion, and the three first sections of the first book: after which the author himself directs us to pass on to the book “De Systemate Mundi.”

Dissatisfied with the hypothetical grounds on which former philosophers, particularly Des Cartes, had raised the structure of natural philosophy, Newton adopted the manner of philosophising introduced by lord Bacon, and determined to raise a system of natural philosophy on the basis of experiment. He laid it down as a fundamental rule, that nothing is to be assumed as a principle, which is not established by observation and experience, and that no hypothesis is to be admitted into physics, except as a question, the truth of which is to be examined by its agreement with appearances. “Whatever,” says he, “is not deduced from phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis: and hypotheses, whether physical or metaphysical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” In this philosophy, propositions are drawn from phenomena, and are ' rendered general by induction. This plan of philosophising he pursued in two different methods, the Analytic and the 8301thetic; collecting from certain phenomena the forces of nature, and the more simple laws of these forces; and then proceeding, on the foundation of these, to establish the rest. In explaining, for example, the system of the world, he first proves, from experience, that the power of gravitation belongs to all bodies then, assuming this as an established principle, he demonstrates, by mathematical reasoning, that the earth and sun, and all the planets, mutually attract each other, and that the smallest parts of matter in each have their several attractive forces, which are as their quantities of matter, and which, at different distances, are inversely as the squares of their distances. In investigating the theorems of the “Principia,” Newton made use of his own analytical method of fluxions; but, in explaining his system, he has 'followed the synthetic method of the ancients, and demonstrated the theorems geometrically. The following, we presume, is a correct list of the works of Newton, published before or after his death. 1. Several papers relating to his “Telescope,” and his “Theory of Light and Colours,” printed in the Philosophical Transactions, numbers 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85., 83, 96, 97, 110, 121, 123, 128; or vols. Vj, VII, VIII, IX, X, XL 2. “Optics, or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, and Inflections, and the Colours of Light,” 1704, 4to; a Latin translation by Dr. Clarke, 1706, 4 to.; and a French translation by Pet. Coste, Amst. 1729, 2 vols. 12mo; beside several English editions in 8vo. 3. “Optical Lectures,” 1728, 8vo; also in several Letters to Mr. Oldenburg, secretary of the Royal Society. 4. “Lectiones Opticse,” 1729, 4to. 5. “Naturalis Philosophise Principia Mathematica,” 1687, 4to; a second edition in 17 13, with a Preface, by Roger Cotes; the third edition in 1726, under the direction of Dr. Pemberton; an English translation, by Motte, 1729, 2 vols. 8vo, printed in several editions of his works, in different nations, particularly an edition, with a large Commentary, by the two learned Jesuits, Le Seur and Jacquier, in 4 vols. 4to, in 1739, 1740, and 1742. 6. “A System of the World,” translated from the Latin original, 1727, 8vo this was at first intended to make the third book of his Principia; an English translation by Motte, 1729, 8vo. 7. Several Letters to Mr. Flamsteed, Dr. Halley, and Mr. Oldenburg, 8. “A Paper concerning the Longitude,” drawn up by order of the House of Commons, ibid. 9. “Abrege de Chronologic,” &c. 1726, under the direction of the abbe Conti, together with some observations upon it. 10. “Remarks upon the Observations made upon a Chronological Index of Sir I. Newton,” &c. Philos. Trans, vol. XXXIII. See also the same, vol. XXXIV and XXXV, by Dr. Halley. 11. “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended,” &c. 1728, 4to. 12. “Arithmetica Universalis,” &c. under the inspection of Mr. Whiston, Cantab. 1707, 8vo. Printed, Dr. Hutton thinks, without the author’s consent, and even against his will: an offence which it seems was never forgiven. There are also English editions of the same, particularly one by Wilder, with a Commentary, in 1769, 2 vols. 8vo; and a Latin edition, with a Commentary, by Castilion, 2 vols. 4to, Amst. &c. 13. “Analysis per Quantitatum Series, Fluxiones, et Differentias, cum Enumeratione Linearum Tertii Ordinis,” 1711, 4to, under the inspection of W. Jones, eaq. f. ft. S.; the last tract had been published before, together with another on the Quadrature of Curves, by the method of fluxions, under the title of “Tractatus duo de Speciebus & Magnitudine Figurarum Curvilinearum,” subjoined to the first edition of his Optics in 1704; and other letters in the Appendix to Dr. Gregory’s Catoptrics, &c. 1735, 8vo; under this head may be ranked “Newtoni Genesis Curvarum per Umbras,” Leyden, 1740. 14. Several Letters relating to his Dispute with Leibnitz, upon his right to the invention of Fluxions printed in the “Commercium Epistolicum D. Johannis Collins & aliorum de Analyst Promota, jussu Societatis Regise editum,” 1712, 8vo. 15. Postscript and Letter of M. Leibnitz to the Abbe Conti, with Remarks, and a Letter of his own to that Abbe, 1717, 8vo. To which was added, Raphson’s History of Fluxions, as a Supplement. 16. “The Method of Fluxions, and Analysis by Infinite Series,” translated into English from the original Latin; to which is added, a Perpetual Commentary, by the translator Mr. John Colson, 1736, 4to. 17. “Several Miscellaneous Pieces, and Letters,” as follow L A Letter to Mr. Boyle upon the subject of the Philosopher’s Stone. Inserted in the General Dictionary, under the article Boyle, II. A Letter to Mr. Aston, containing directions for his travel?, ibid, under our author’s article; III. An English translation of a Latin Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews* Inserted among the miscellaneous works of Mr. John Greaves, vol. IL published by Dr. Thomas Birch, in 1737, 2 vols. 8vo. This Dissertation was found subjoined to a work of sir Isaac’s, not finished, entitled “Lexicon Propheticum;” IV. Four Letters from sir Isaac Newton to Dr. Bentley, containing some arguments in proof of a Deity, 1756, 8vo, very acutely reviewed by Dr. Johnson in the Literary Magazine, and afterwards inserted in his works V. Two Letters to Mr. Clarke, &c. iSi “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John,” 1733, 4to. 19. “I*. Newtoni Elementa Perspective Universalis,” 1746, 8vo. 20. “Tables for purchasing College Leases,” 1742, 12mo. 21. “Corollaries,” by Whiston. 22. A collection of several pieces of our author’s, under the following title, “Newtoni Is. Opuscula Mathematica Philos. & Philol. collegit J. Castilioneus,” Laus. 1744, 4to, 8 tomes. 23. “Two Treatises of the Quadrature^ Curves, and Analysis by Equations of an Infinite Number of Terms, explained: translated by John Stewart, with a large Commentary,” 1745, 4to. 24. “Description of an Instrument for observing the Moon’s Distance from the Fixed Stars at Sea,” Philos. Trans, vol. XLII. 25. Newton also published “Barrow’s Optical Lectures,” 1699, 4to; and “Bern. Varenii Geographia,” &c. 1681, 8vo. 26. The whole works of Newton, published by Dr. Horsley, 1779, 4to, in 5 volumes.

, D. D. founder of Hertford college, Oxford, was descended from a family that had long been of considerable repute, and of good fortune, but much injured during the civil wars. His father enjoyed a moderate estate at Lavendon Grange, in Bucks, (which is now in the family,) and lived in a house of lord Northampton’s in Yardlv-chase, where Dr. Newton is said to have been born about 1676. He was educated at Westminsterschool, and elected from that foundation in 1694 to a studentship of Christ-church, Oxford, where he executed the office of tutor very much to his own and the college’s honour and benefit. Here he became M. A. April 12, 1701; and B. D. March 18, 1707. He was inducted principal of Hart-hall, by Dr. Aldrich, in 1710, and took the degree of D. D. Dec. 7, that year. He was received into lord Pelham’s family, to superintend the education of the late duke of Newcastle, the minister, and his brother Mr. Pelham, who ever retained a most affectionate regard for him. Of this, however, he was long without any substantial proofs. Being a man of too independent and liberal principles ever to solicit a favour for himself, he was overlooked by these statesmen, till, in 1752, a short time before his death, when he was promoted to a canonry of Christ-church, which he held with his principalship of Hertford-college. He was honoured with the esteem of the late lord Granville, than whom none at that timfe a better judge of merit and men of learning. He was aU lowed to be as polite a scholar and as ingenious a writer as any of the age. In closeness of argument, and perspicuity and elegance of language, he had not his equal. Never was any private person employed in more trusts, or discharged them with greater integrity. He was a true friend to religion, the university, and the clergy; a man of exemplary piety, and extensive charity. No one man was called forth so often to preach, in the latter end of queen Anne’s time, and in the beginning of king George I. as Dr. Newton.

, a celebrated grammarian, poet, and physician, flourished in the 160th olympiad, about 140 B. C. in the reign of Attains; or, according to some, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphia. Suidas tells us, that he was the son of Xenophon of Colophon, a town in Ionia and observes, that, according to others, he was a native of Ætolia but, if we may believe Nicander himself, he was born in the neighbourhood of the temple of Apollo, at Claros, a little town in Ionia, near Colophon yet the name of his father was Damphæus. He was called an Ætolian, only because he lived many years in that country, and wrote a history of it. A great number of writings are ascribed to him, of which we have remaining only two: one entitled “Theriaca;” describing, in verse, the accidents which attend wounds made by venomoug beasts, with the proper remedies; the other, “Alexipharmaca” in which he treats of poisons and their antiuotes, or counter-poisons these are both excellent poems. Demetrius Phalereus, Theon, Plutarch, and Diphilus of Laodicea, wrote commentaries upon the first; and we have still extant very learned Greek “Scholia” upon both, the author of which is not known; though Vossius imagines they were made by Diphilus just mentioned. He wrote also “Ophiaca,” upon serpents; “Hyacinthia,' 1 a collection of remedies, and a commentary upon the” Prognostics of Hippocrates“in verse. The Scholiast of Nicander cites the two first of these, and Suidas mentions two others. Athenseus also cites, in several places, some poetical works of our author upon agriculture, called his” Georgics,“which were known likewise to Curio. Besides these he composed five books of” Metamorphoses,“some verses of which are copied by Tzetzes, and the” Metamorphoses“of Antonius Liberalis were apparently taken from those of Nicander. He composed also several historical works, among which” The History of Colophon,“his birth-place, is cited by Athenaeus we are told likewise of his history of Ætolia, Bœotia, and Thebes, and of” A History and description of Europe in general.“He was undoubtedly an author of merit, and deserves those eulogiums which are given of him in some epigrams in the” Anthologia.“This Nicander has been confounded with Nicander the grammarian of Thyatira, by Stephanus Byzantius: and Vossius, in giving the titles of the books written by both these Nicanders, does not distinguish them very clearly. Merian, in his essay on the influence of the sciences on poetry (in the Memoirs of the royal academy of Berlin for 1776), mentions Nicander to show the antipathy that there is between the language of poetry and the subjects which he treated. He considers Nicander as a therapeutic bard, who versified for the apothecaries, a grinder of anecdotes, who sung of scorpions, toads, and spiders. The” Theriaca“and” Alexipharmaca“are inserted in the Corp. Poet. Greec. Of separate editions, the best is that of Aldus, 1522; of the” Theriaca,“that of Bandini, 1764, 8yo, and of the” Alexipharmaca," that of Schneider, 1792, 8vo.

, whom Mr. Headley considers as a poet of great elegance and imagination, and one of the ornaments of the reign of Elizabeth, was born in London, of genteel parents, in 1584. In 1602 he entered a student of Magdalen college, Oxford, whence, after a short time, he removed to Magdalen hall, and took the degree of B. A. in 1606. After remaining at the university some years, and being esteemed among the most ingenious men of his day, according to Wood, he quitted Oxford for London, where he “obtained an employment suitable to his faculty.” What this employment was, we are left to conjecture. The time of his death is also uncertain, but he appears to have been alive at least in 1616, and was then but young. The most material of his works are his additions to “The Mirror for Magistrates,” a book most popular in its time (see Higgins), containing a series of pieces by Sackville, Baldwyne, Ferrers, Churchyard, Phayer, Higgins, Drayton. It was ultimately completed, and its contents new arranged by Nichols, whose supplement to the edition of 1610 is entitled “A Winter Night’s Vision,” To this likewise is improperly subjoined “England’s Eliza; or the victorious and triumphant reigneof that virgin Empress, &c. Elizabeth, queen of England,” &c. His other writings are, “The Cuckow, a Poem,” London, 1607; “Monodia, or Waltham’s complaint upon the death of the most vertuous and noble lady, late deceased, the lady Honor Hay,” ibid. 1615; a play called “TheTwynnes Tragedye” is attributed to him in the Biog. Dram.; but we can, on better authority, add “London’s Artillery, briefly containing the noble practice of that worthie Society,” &c. &c. 1616, 4to; “The Three Sisters’ Tears, shed at the late solernne Funerals of the royal Henry, prince of Wales,” &c. 1613, 4to; and “The Furies, with Vertue’s encomium, &c. in two books of epigrammes, satirical and encomiastic,” 1614, 8vo. Ample specimens of his poetry are given in Headley’s “Beauties,” and the “Bibliographer.”

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.

, 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.

His arduous application to polite literature enabled him to imitate the style of the best Latin authors, particularly that of Terence; but he is most admired as an elegant writer in his own language. In France he suffered much by undertaking the defence of Jansenius, whose opinions were condemned by the Sorbonne, the clergy of France, and indeed the whole church. His works are very numerous, consisting of not less than an hundred articles: the principal are, I.“Moral Essays,” 14 vols. 12mo, among which are three volumes of “Letters and Reflections on the Epistles and Gospels,” 5 vols, which joined to the “Theological Instructions on the Sacrament,” 2 vols, “on the Creed,” 2 vols.; “on the Lord’s Prayer,” 1 vol.; “on the Decalogue,” 2 vols. and the “Treatise on Prayer,” 2 vols, form the 23 volumes of what are called “Moral Essays.” 2. “Lettresimaginaires et visionaires,” 1667, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. The small “Perpetuity of the Faith,” with a defence of it. 4. The large “Perpetuity,” written in conjunction with M. Arnauld, 3 vols. 4to, but almost entirely by M. Nicole. 5. “Les Prejuges legitimes centre les Calvinistes,” 12mo. 6. “Tr. de PUnke* de l'Eglise,” against Jurieu. 7. “Les Pretendes Réformés convaincus de Schisme; Réfutation des principales erreurs des Quitistes.” Besides many other controversial pieces in defence of Jansenius and M. Arnauld, he published a selection of Latin epigrams, entitled “Epigrammaturn Delectus,” 1659, 12mo, and a Latin translation of the “Provincial Letters,” with notes, &c. under the assumed name of Wendrock. A history of the life and writings of M. Nicole was published in 1735, 12mo.

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.

, an eminent Russian prelate, was born in a village under the government of Nishnei Novogorod, in 1613. His parents were so obscure that neither their names nor stations are known. He was educated under the care of a monk in the convent of St. Macarius, and here he imbibed a strong and increasing prejudice in fa*­vour of the monastic life. In compliance, however, with the wishes of his family, he married, and was ordained a secular priest. The loss of his children by death disgusted him with the world, and he persuaded his wife to take the veil, whilst he became a monk. He retired into an island in the White Sea, and instituted a society in this solitude remarkable for its great austerities. He had not been in this place many years before he was made, after a series of ecclesiastical dignities, archbishop of Novogorod; and, finally, patriarch of Russia. He was not only eminent as a priest, but discovered the great and energetic talents of a statesman; and to them he fell a victim. In 1658 he was compelled to abdicate his dignity of patriarch, on which he returned to his cell, and lived over his former austerities; but his degradation did not satisfy the malice of his enemies, who procured his imprisonment. He obtained, after a number of years, his release, with permission to return to his favourite cell; but, whilst on the road to this spot, he expired in his 66th year, in 1681. Nicon did not spend his whole time in the performance of useless austerities, but occasionally employed himself in compiling a regular series of Russian annalists from Nestor, the earliest historian of that country, to the reign of Alexey Michaelovitch. This collection is sometimes called, from its author, “The Chronicle of Nicon,” and sometimes, from the place where it was begun and deposited, “The Chronicle of the Convent of Jerusalem.” It is considered as a work of authority.

, a learned Frenchman, was born at Nismes in the beginning of the sixteenth century. He came to Paris early in life, and acquired the esteem of the learned men of that time. He was also so favourably received at court, that in 1559 he was made master of requests in the lung’s household, and the same year was sent as ambassador to Portugal. Of the nature of his embassy, or his talents in executing its duties, we have no information; but he was the means while in that country of introducing the use of tobacco in Europe. Of this herb, then called Petun, he received some seeds from a Dutchman, who had them from Florida. It then became an object of cultivation or importation in France, and the name Nicotiana was given to it in honour of him. This, it has been observed by Dr. Johnson, is a proper compliment, for a plant is a monument of a more durable nature than a medal or an obelisk; and yet, he adds, “as a proof that even this is not always sufficient to transmit to futurity the name conjoined with them, the Nicotiana is now scarcely known by any other term than that of tobacco.”

In his external appearance, Nieuwland was not what might be called handsome, nor had he ever been at pains to acquire that ease of deportment which distinguishes those who have frequented polite company. His behaviour and conversation were, however, agreeable, because he could discourse with facility on so many subjects, and never wished to appear but under his real character. On the first view one might have discerned that he was a man of great modesty and the strictest morality. His father was a Lutheran, and his mother a Baptist; but he himself was a member of what is called the reformed church, i. e. a Calvinist, and always shewed the utmost respect to the Supreme Being, both by his words and actions. His attention appears to have been directed to three principal pursuits, which are seldom united; poetry, the pure mathematics, and natural philosophy. In the latter part of his life he added to these also astronomy. Among the poems which he published, his “Orion” alone has rendered his name immortal in Holland. Of the small essays which he published in his youth, the two following are particularly deserving of notice, 1. “A comparative view of the value of the different branches of science” and, 2. “The best means to render general, not learning, but soundness of judgment and good taste.”

The work for which he is chiefly entitled to notice, was his dictionary of the words that occur in Cicero, commonly called “Thesaurus Ciceronianus;” but the first edition was entitled “Observationes in Ciceronem,” 1535, 2 parts fol. It afterwards had the title of “Thesaurus,” and was repeatedly reprinted, and at last with such improvements as to make it a complete lexicon. There is one printed at Padua, as late as 1734, fol. The other most valued editions are the Aldine, 1570, 1576-, and 1591, and that by Gellarius, at Francfort, 1613. Henry Stephens and Vemeret have spoken harshly of this work, but without much injury to its fame. Nizolius was an enthusiastic admirer of the purity and eloquence of the style of Tully; and it was to promote a taste for correct and elegant literature, that he compiled this “Ciceronian Treasury.” By a natural association, he extended his attachment to Cicero from his language to his philosophy, and maintained a strenuous contest in favour of Cicero, with several learned men. In the course of the dispute he wrote a treatise “De veris Principiis et vera Ratione Philosophandi,” in Which he vehemently censured the followers of the Stagyrite, and particularly the scholastics, chiefly for the corruptions they had introduced into the Latin language, and the many ridiculous opinions which they held. Leibnitz was so struck with its solidity and elegance, that to expose the obstinacy of those who were zealously attached to Aristotle, he gave a new edition of it, with critical notes of his own, 1670, in 4to.

, one of the most indefatigable writers of his time, was born in 1643, at Troyes, of a good family. He soon made himself known in the literary world by ingenious pasquinades, and other jeux d'esprit. He was once attorney-general to the parliament of Metz but his bad conduct having involved him in difficulties, he was accused of drawing up false acts for his own advantage, confined at the Chatelet, and there sentenced to make amende honorable, and to be banished nine years. From this sentence he appealed, and being removed to the Conciergerie, became there the lover and advocate of Gabrielle Perreau, commonly called la belle Epiciere (the handsome grocer’s wife), whom her husband had shut up in that prison for her irregular conduct, and wrote several memoirs and other pieces in her favour, which were much read. Le Noble finding means to get out of the Conciergerie, 1695, lived a long time concealed with this woman, who had escaped from a convent to which she had been transferred, and had three children by her; but, being retaken, was condemned, notwithstanding his eloquent speech to his judges, while at the bar, March 24, 1698. The sentence passed upon him was for forgery, and condemned him to make an amende seche, privately, in the hall of the Chatelet, and to be banished for nine years. He left his prison four days after, and obtained a repeal of the sentence of banishment the next year, on condition that he should exercise no judicial office. His mistress was tried in May following, and le Noble was charged, by her sentence, with the three children, who were declared bastards. He died at Paris, January 31, 1711, aged 68, so poor, that the alms-house, in the parish of St. Severin, was obliged to bury him. His works have been printed at Paris, 19 vols. 12mo. The principal are, “Dialogues sur les affaires du Terns.” “Le Bouclier de la France, ou les Sentimens de Gerson et des Canonistes touchant les diflerends des Rois de France avec les Papes.” A prose “Translation of the Psalms.” “Relation de PEtat de Gnes.” Hist, de PEstablissement de la Republique d'Hollande.“This is little more than an extract from Grotius. He wrote also tales and fables; and romances, or historiettes, founded on facts;” L'Ecole du Monde,“4 vols. 12mo, consisting of twenty-four dialogues; and published a translation of the” Travels of Gemelli Carreri," Paris, 1727, 6 vols. 12mo.

, an heresiarch, who appeared in the third century, was a native of Smyrna, originally an obscure man, and of mean abilities. He affirmed, that the Supreme God, whom he called the Father, and considered as absolutely indivisible, united himself to the man Christ, whom he called the Son, and was born, and crucified with him. From this opinion, Noetus and his followers were tlistinguished by the title of Patripassians, i. e. persons who believed that the Supreme Father of the universe, and not any other divine person, had expiated the guilt of the human race. For these opinions he and his followers were expelled the church.

In 1542 he published a treatise on the twilight, which he dedicated to John III. king of Portugal; to which he added what Alhazen, an Arabian author, has composed on the same subject. In this work he describes the method or instrument erroneously called, from him, a Nonius. He corrected several mathematical mistakes of Orontius Finasus. But the most celebrated of all his works, or that at least he appeared most to value, was his “Treatise of Algebra,” which he had composed in Portuguese, but translated it into the Castilian tongue when he resolved upon making it public, which he thought would render his book more useful, as this language was more generally known than the Portuguese. The dedication to his former pupil, prince Henry, was dated from Lisbon, Dec. 1, 1564. This work contains 341 pages in the Antwerp edition of 1567, in 8vo. The catalogue of his works, chiefly in Latin, is as follows: 1. “De Arte Navigandi, libri duo,” 1530. 2. “De Crepusculis,” 1542. 3. “Annotationes in Aristotelem.” 4. “Problema Mechanicum de Motu Navigii ex Remis.” 5. “Annotationes in Planetarum Theorias Georgii Purbachii,” &c. 6. “Libro de Algebra en Arithmetica y Geometra,” 1564. We have said that his name was erroneously given to the method of graduation now generally used in the division of the scales of various instruments; for Vernier was the real inventor The method of Nonius, described in his treatise “De Crepusculis,” consists in describing within the same quadrant, 45 concentric circles, dividing the outermost into 90 equal parts, the next within into 89, the next into 88, and so on, till the innermost was divided into 46 only. By this means, in most observations, the plumb-line or index must cross one or other of those circles in or very near a point of division: whence by calculation the degrees and minutes of the arch might easily be obtained. This method is also described by him in his treatise “De Arte Navigandi,” where he imagines it was not unknown to Ptolomy. But as the degrees are thus divided unequally, and it is very difficult to attain exactness in the division, especially when the numbers, into which the arches are to be divided, are incomposite, of which there are no less than uine, the method of diagonals, first published by Thomas Digges, esq. in his treatise “Alae seu Scaloe Mathematicae,” printed at Lond. in 1573, and said to be invented by one Richard Chanseler, a very skilful artist, was substituted in its stead. However, Nonius’s method was improved at different times; but the admirable division now so much in use, is the most considerable improvement of it.

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.

, a learned English divine and Platonic philosopher, was born in 1657, at Collingborne-Kingston, in Wiltshire, of which place his father, Mr. John Norris, was then minister. After being educated in grammar, &c, at Winchester school, he was entered of Exeter college in Oxford in 1676; but was elected fellow of All Souls in 1680, soon after he had taken his degree of bachelor of arts. From his first application to philosophy, Plato became his favourite author; by degrees he grew deeply enamoured with beauties in that divine writer, as he thought him, and took an early occasion to communicate his ideal happiness to the public, by printing an English translation of a rhapsody entitled “Effigies Arnoris,” but which he called “The Picture of Love unveiled,” in 1682. He commenced master of arts in 1684, and the same year opened a correspondence with that learned mystic Dr. Henry More, of Christ’s college in Cambridge, and with those learned females, lady Masham, and Mrs. Astell.

His works were, 1. “The picture of Love unveiled,” already mentioned. 2. “Hierocles upon the golden verses of the Pythagoreans,” Oxford, 1682, 8vo. 3. “An idea of Happiness, in a letter to a friend, inquiring wherein the greatest happiness attainable by man in this life doth consist,” London, 1683, 4to. 4. “A Murnival of Knaves; or Whiggism plainly displayed and burlesqued out of countenance,” London, 1683, 4to. 5. “Tractatus adversus Reprobationis absolutae Decretum, nova methodo & snccinctissimo compendio adornatus, & in duos libros digestus,” London, 1683, 8vo. What follows in this treatise after the third chapter of the second book, is a declamation spoken in the public schools, commending the Roman senate for banishing all mathematicians out of their dominions. 6. “Poems and discourses occasionally written,” Lond. 1684, 8vo. 7. An 'English translation of the four last books of “The institution and life of Cyrus,” from Xenophon, Lond. 1685, 8vo. The four first books were translated by Mr. Francis Digby, of Queen’s college. 8.“A collection of Miscellanies, consisting of Poems, Essays, Discourses, and Letters occasionally written,” Oxford, 1637, 8vo. The fifth edition, carefully revised, corrected, and improved by the author, was printed at London, 1710, in 8vo. - This has been the most popular of all his works, and affords the picture of a truly amiable mind. 9. “The theory and regulation of Love, a moral essay,” Oxford, 1688, 8vo. 10. “Reason and Religion; or the grounds and measures of Devotion considered from the nature of God and the nature of man, in several contemplations. With exercises of devotion applied to every contemplation,” Lond. 1689, 8vo. 11. “Reflections upon the conduct of human life with reference to the study of learning and knowledge; in a letter to the excellent lady, the lady Mashana,” Lond. 1690, 8vo. To which is subjoined a “Visitation sermon on John xi. 15. preached at the Abbey Church at Bath, July the 30th, 1689. The” Reflections*' were reprinted with large additions, in 1691, 8vo. 12. “Christian blessedness; or discourses upon the Beatitudes of our Lord and Saviour 4 Jesus Christ,” Lond. 1690, 8vo; to which he subjoined, “Cursory reflections upon a book called e An Essay concerning Human Understanding.'” 13. “The charge of Schism continued; being a justification of the author of * Christian Blessedness,' for his charging the Separatists with Schism, notwithstanding the toleration. In a letter to a city friend,” Lond. 1691, 12mo. 14. “Practical discourses upon several divine subjects, vols. II. and III.” The third volume was printed in 1693, 8vo. 15. “Two treatises concerning the divine light. The first being an answer to a letter of a learned Quaker (Mr. Vickris), which he is pleased to call A just reprehension to John Morris for his unjust reflections on the Quakers in his book entitled Reflections upon the conduct of human life, &c. The second being a discourse concerning the grossness of the Quakers’ notion of the light within, with their confusion and inconsistency in explaining it,” Lond. 1692, 8vo. 16. “Spiritual counsel; or the father’s advice to his children,” Lond. 1694, 8vo; which was at first composed, as he observes in the Advertisement before it, for the use of his own children. 17. “Letters concerning the Love of God, between the author of the `Proposal to the Ladies,' and Mr. John Norris wherein his Jate discourse, shewing that it ought to be intire and exclusive of all other loves, is further cleared and justified,” Lorid. 1695, 8vo. The second edition, corrected by the authors, with some few things added, was printed at London, 1705, fcvo. The lady, whose letters are published in this collection, was Mrs. Astell. 18. “Practical Discourses; vol. IV.” Lond. 1698, 8vo. To which he subjoined “An Admonition concerning two late books, called ‘ A Discourse of the Love of God,’” &c. 19. “An Essay towards the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World; considering it absolutely in itself. Part I.” Lond. 1701, 8vo. “The Second Part, being the relative part of it; wherein the intelligible World is considered with relation to human understanding; whereof some account is here attempted and proposed,” was printed at London, 170*, 8vo. 20. “A Philosophical Discourse concerning the Natural Immortality of the Soul, wherein the great question of the Soul’s Immortality is endeavoured to be rightly stated and cleared,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. Mr. Dodweli returned an Answer to this piece, in the Appendix to his book entitled “The natural Mortality of the Human Souls clearly demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures, and the concurrent Testimonies of the Primitive Writers,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. 21. “A Treatise concerning Christian Prudence; or the Principles of Practical Wisdom fitted to the use of Human Life, designed for the better Regulation of it,” Lond. 1710, 8vo. 22. “A Practical Treatise concerning Humility; designed for the Furtherance and Improvement of that great Christian Virtue, both in the Minds and Lives of Men,” Lond. 8vo. There are some of his letters to Mrs. Thomas, in “Pylades and Corinna,” vol. II. p. 199.

, more familiarly known as Lord North, was the eldest son of Francis, first earl of Guilford, and was born April 13, 1732. He commenced his education at Eton school, and completed it at Trinity college, Oxford, of which his father had been a member, and which the family have generally preferred, from their relationship to the founder, sir Thomas Pope. At school and college, where he took both his degrees in arts (that of M. A. in March 1750) he obtained considerable reputation for his proficiency in classical literature; and was not less respected for the vivacity of his conversation, and his amiable temper, qualities which he displayed during life, and for which his family is still distinguished. He afterwards made what used to be called the grand tour, and applied with much assiduity to the acquisition of diplomatic knowledge. He also studied with great success the Germanic constitution, under the celebrated Mascow, one of the professors of Leipsic, whose lectures on the droit publique were at that time much frequented by young Englishmen of fortune and political ambition; and this mode of education being much a favourite with George II. courtiers thought it a compliment to his majesty to adopt his sentiments in this branch of their sons’ accomplishments. Celebrated, however, as professor Mascow once was, when we came to his name we were not able to discover any biographical memoir of him, or any information, unless that he outlived his faculties for some years, and died about 1760.

So remarkable a prediction not a little increased the credulity of the public, and he was honoured shortly after with a visit from Emanuel duke of Savoy, and the princess Margaret of France, his consort. Charles IX. coming to Salon, being eager to see him, Nostradamus complained of the little esteem his countrymen had for him, on which the monarch publicly declared, that he should hold the enemies of Nostradamus to be his enemies. In passing, not Jong after, through the city of Aries, he sent for Nostradamus, presented him with a purse of 200 crowns, together with a brevet, constituting him his physician in ordinary, with the same appointment as the rest. But our prophet enjoyed these honours only for the space of sixteen, months, for he died July 2, 1566, at Salon. Besides his “Centuries,” we have some other pieces of his composition, and his prophetical works have been translated into English. He left three sons and three daughters John, his second son, exercised with reputation the business of a proctor in the parliament of Provence: he wrote the “Lives of the ancient Provencal Poets, called Troubadours,” which was printed at Lyons in 1575, 8vo. Cæsar, the eldest son, was born at Salon in 1555, and died in 1629: he left a “Manuscript giving an Account ofthe most remarkable events in the History of Provence, from 1080 to 1494,” in which he inserted the lives of the poets of that country. These memoirs falling into the hands of his nephew Caesar Nostradamus, gentleman to the duke of Guise, he undertook to complete the work; and being encouraged by a present, of 3000 livres from the estates of the country, he carried the account up to the Celtic Gauls the impression was finished at Lyons, in 1614, and published under the title of “Chronique de l'Histoire de Provence,” The next son of Michel is said to have imitated his father, and ventured to predict, that Pouzin, which was then besieged; would be destroyed by fire. In order to prove the truth of his prophecy, he was seen, during the tumult, setting fire to all parts of the town; which so much enraged M. De Saint Luke, that he rode over him with his horse, and killed him. But this story has been justly called in question,

, or Novatus, a priest of the church of Carthage, flourished in the third century, and was the author of a remarkable schism called after his name, or rather after the name of his associate Novatian, who, however, is also called Novatus by many ancient writers. He is represented by the orthodox as a person scandalous and infamous for perfidy, adulation, arrogance, and so sordidly covetous, that he even suffered his own father to perish with hunger, and spared not to pillage the goods of the church, the poor, and the orphans. It was in order to escape the punishment due to these crimes, and to support himself by raising disturbances, that he resolved to form a schism; and to that end entered into a cabal with Felicissimus, an African priest, who opposed St. Cyprian Novatus was summoned to appear before the prelate in the year 249; but the persecution, begun by Decius the following year, obliging that saint to retire for his own safety, Novatus was delivered from the danger of that process; and, not long after associating himself with Felicissimws, then a deacon, with him maintained the doctrine, that the lapsed ought to be received into the communion of the church without any form of penitence. In the year 2.51, he went to Rome, about the time of the election of pope Cornelius. There he met with Novatian, a priest, who had acquired a reputation for eloquence, and presently formed an alliance with him; and, although their sentiments with regard to the lapsed were diametrically opposite, they agreed to publish the most atrocious calumnies against the Roman clergy, which they coloured over so artfully, that many were deceived and joined their party. This done, they procured a congregation consisting of three obscure, simple, and ignorant bishops; and, plying them well with wine, prevailed upon them to elect Novatian bisuop of Rome. After this irregular election, Novatian addressed letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage, to Fabiuu of Antioch, and to Dionysius of Alexandria; but St. Cyprian refused to open his letter, and excommunicated his deputies: he had likewise sent to Rome before, ia order to procure the abolition of the schism. Fabius made himself pleasant at Novatian’s expence; and Dionysius declared to him, that the best way of convincing the world, that his election was made against his consent, would be to quit the see, for the sake of peace. On the contrary, Novatian now maintained his principal doctrine, that such as had fallen into any sin after baptism ought not to be re*­ceived into the church by penance; and he was joined in the same by Novatus, although he had originally maintained the contrary while in Africa. Novatian had been a Pagan philosopher before his conversion to Christianity, and it does not appear that he and his party separated from the church, on any grounds of doctrine, but of discipline, and it is certain, from some writings of Novatian still extant, that he was sound in the doctrine of the Trinity. He lived to the time of Valerian, when he suffered martyrdom. He composed treatises upon the “Paschal Festival, or Easter,” of -the “Sabbath,” of “Circumcision,” of the “Supreme Pontiff,” of “Prayer,” of the “Jewish Meats,” and of “the Trinity.” It is highly probable, that the treatise upon the “Trinity,” and the book upon the “Jewish Meats,” inserted into the works of Tertullian, were written by Novatian, and they are well written. There is an edition of his works by Whiston, 1709; one by Welchman; and a third, of 1728, with notes, by Jackson. With respect to the followers of Novatian, at the first separation, they only refused communion with those who had fallen into idolatry: afterwards they went farther, and excluded, for ever, from their communion, all such as had committed crimes for which penance was required; and at last they took away from the church the power of the keys, of binding and loosing offenders, and rebaptised those who had been baptised by the church. This sect subsisted a long time both in the east and west; but chiefly became considerable in the east, where they had bishops, both in the great sees and the small ones, parish-churches, and a great number of followers. There were also Novatians in Africa in the time of St. Leo, and in the east some remains continued till the eighth century.

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.

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."

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.

In 1572 he completed the endowment at one and the same time, of a free- school at Middleton in Lancashire, and of thirteen scholarships in Brazen-nose college and as these benefactions were both of them established by royal patent (her majesty also of her free bounty encouraging and assisting him), he chose that the school should be called queen Elizabeth’s school, and the scholars queen Elizabeth’s scholars. This benefaction to the college was peculiarly seasonable, as in consequence of a severe plague at Oxford, in the preceding year, and for want of exhibitions to assist them in their studies, some of the scholars were compelled to go about requesting alms, having licence so to do, as an act of parliament required, under the common seal of the university. Nowell was at all times a zealous patron of learning, and was much looked up to in that character, as appears not only by his being frequently consulted on schemes for the promotion of liberal education, but also by the numerous dedications of learned books to him. Books that had a tendency to inculcate the principles of the reformation were also frequently published under the protection of his name, as one acknowledged “to be a learned and faithful preacher of God’s word, and an earnest furtherer of all godliness.” In 1580 the queen granted him a licence of non-residence for three months and fourteen days, that he might visit his scholars of Brasen-nose, and the school at Middleton, her majesty “having long, by sure proof, known his experience and skill in business, as well as earnest desire and constant solicitude for the training up of youth in learning and virtue.” It was indeed his great success as a preacher, and his eminence as an opponent of popery, that procured him the honour of having his works proscribed in the “Index librorum prohibitorum;” and his name, together with that of Fox, Fleetwood the recorder, and others; inserted at Rome in a “bede-roll,” or list of persons, that were to be dispatched, and the particular mode of their death, as by burning or hanging, pointed out. Campion, the great emissary from Rome, being apprehended, Nowell, and May dean of Windsor, held, in August 1581, a conference with him in the Tower, of which an account was afterwards published under the title of “A True Report of the disputation or rather private conference had in the Tower of London, with Ed. Campion Jesuite, &c.” Lond. 1583, 4 to. In 1588 Nowell quitted the prebend (Willand) he had so long held in St. Paul’s for another, that of Tottenham in the same church, and upon this occasion resigned his living of Hadham. In the following year the queen gave him the next presentation to a canonry of Windsor, “in consideration of his constant preaching of the word of God, during the space of almost forty years;” and because he had lately resigned the rectory of Hadham and prebend of Willand, as being, through age and imbecility of body, not equal to the duties of them; nor likely, on account of his extreme age and infirm health, long to enjoy either his present or any future preferment. He lived, however, to succeed to a canonry of Windsor in 1594. In 1595, on the death of Mr. Harris, the fourth principal of Brasennose college, Nowell was chosen to succeed him. This election of a man now on the verge of ninety was perhaps intended or accepted rather as a compliment, than with a view to the performance of much actual service, and ac-r cordingly he resigned it in a few months.

, one of the restorers of literature in Spain, flourished in the sixteenth century, and was born at Vailadolid, in Latin Pinciuniy whence he was sometimes called Pingianus. His father, of the illustrious family of Guzman, was superintendant of the finances, or treasurer to Ferdinand the catholic. As entitled by birth, he received, when of proper age, the honour of knighthood of St. Jago; but his earliest taste being decidedly for literature, he put himself under a regular course of instruction for that purpose, and having a particular desire to become acquainted with the Greek language, then little known in Spain, after some elementary instruction in grammar under Antonio Lebrixa, he went to Bologna, and applied with the greatest ardour to Greek and Latin under Jovian of Peloponesus, and Philip Beroaldus. Having learned what these celebrated masters were able to teach, he determined to improve himself by every means, and laid out large sums in the purchase of Greek books and Mss. with which he returned to Spain, and devoted the whole of his time and attention to the studies he had begun with so much success. He appears to have been first employed by cardinal Ximenes on his celebrated Polyglot, and executed the greater part of the Latin version. He then succeeded Demetrius Luca of Crete, as Greek professor in the university of Alcala, then founded by the cardinal; but some disputes which occurred in this university obliged him to seek a situation of more tranquillity. This he found at Salamanca, the most famous university of Spain, where he was appointed Greek professor, and also taught rhetoric, and lectured on Pliny’s natural history. Here he formed many distinguished scholars, acquired the esteem of the learned men of his time, and was for many years the great patron and teacher of classical studies. He assisted likewise in the correction and revision of some of the ancient authors. He died about the age of eighty, in 1553, according to Antonio, or 1552, according to Thuanus and others, bequeathing his valuable library to the university of Salamanca, and his other property to the poor. His private character appears to have been estimable; he kept a plain but hospitable table, at which he loved to see his friends and scholars, whom he delighted and edified by his conversation. Among his works are, 1. “Annotationes in Senecae Philosophi Opera,” Venice, 1536, which Lipsius calls a model of just criticism. 2. “Observationes in Pomponium Melam,” Salamanca, 1543, 8vo. 3. “Observationes in loca obscura et depravata Hist. Nat. C. Plinii, cum retractationibus quorundam locorum Geographiae Pomponii Melae, locisque aliis non paucis in diversis utriusque linguae authoribus castigatis et exposuis,” Antwerp,1547, fol. Antonio thinks there was a previous edition at Salamanca in 1544, as there certainly was a subsequent one at Francfort in 1596, fol. but Saxius calls the Antwerp edition an octavo. 3. “Glosa sobre las obras de Juan de Mena,” Saville, 1528, fol. and Toledo, 1547, fol. This^is a commentary in the Spanish language on the works of John de Mena, a poet of Cordova. 4. A collection of Spanish proverbs, beguti in his old age, and published under the title “Refranes, o Proverbios en Romance,” Salamanca, fol. 1555. Of this edition there is a copy in the British Museum with ms notes. It was reprinted at Madrid in 1619, 4to.

In 1643, he was appointed one of the assembly of divines, became a great champion of the Presbyterians, and a zealous assertor of the solemn league and covenant; and was sent, with Stephen Marshall, whose daughter he,had married, the same year, to procure the assistance of the Scotch, and join with them in their favourite covenant: and when r after his return, both houses of parliament took the covenant in St. Margaret’s church, Westminster, he was the person who read it from the pulpit, and preached a sermon in defence of it, shewing its warrant from scripture, and was rewarded for his good service with the rectory of Acton near London. He was also one of the committee who drew up the preface to the “Directory,” which was ordered to be substituted for the Book of Common Prayer; but, when the majority of the assembly of divines determined on establishing the Presbyterian form of churchgovernment, he dissented from them; and, closing with the Independents, when they became the reigning faction, paid his court to the grandees of the army, who often made use of his advice. In December 1647, he was sent by them, with Stephen Marshall, to the king, at Carisbrookcastle, in the Isle of Wight, in attendance upon the commissioners then appointed to carry the four dethroning votes , as they are now called for which service they were rewarded with no less than 500l. a-piece. About the same time also Nye was employed by the same masters to get subscriptions from the apprentices in London, &c. against a personal treaty with the king, while the citizens of that metropolis were petitioning, for one. In April of the next year, he was employed, as well as Marshall and Joseph Caryl, by the Independents, to invite the secluded members to sit in the house again; but without success. In 1653, he was appointed one of the triers for the approbation of public preachers; in which office he not only procured his son to be clerk, but, with the assistance of his father-in-law, obtained for himself the living of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, worth 400l. a-year. In 1654, he was joined with Dr. Lazarus Seaman, Samuel Clark, Richard Vines, Obadiah Sedgwick, Joseph Caryl, &c. as an assistant to the commissioners appointed by parliament to eject such as were then called scandalous and ignorant ministers and school-masters in the city of London. After Charles the Second’s restoration, in 1660, he was ejected from the living of St. Bartholomew, Exchange; and it was even debated by the healing parliament, for several hours together, whether he, John Goodwin, and Hugh Peters, should be excepted for life: but the result was, that if Philip Nye, clerk, should, after the 1 st of September, in the same year 1660, accept, or exercise, any office, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, he should, to all intents and purposes in law, stand as if he had been totally excepted for life.

Nyssenus, Gregory. See Gregory. Oates (Titus), a very singular character, who flourished in the seventeenth century, was born about 1619. He was the son of Samuel Gates, a popular preacher among the baptists, and a fierce bigot. His son was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, from whence he removed to Cambridge. When he left the university, he obtained orders in the church of England, though in his youth he had been a member of a baptist church in Virginia-street, Ratcliffe Highway, and even officiated some time as assistant to his father; he afterwards officiated as a curate in Kent and Sussex. In 1677, after residing some time in the duke of Norfolk’s family, he became a convert to the church of Rome, and entered himself a member of the society of Jesuits, with a view, as he professed, to betray them. Accordingly, he appeared as the chief informer in what was called the popish plot, or a plot, as he pretended to prove, that was promoted for the destruction of the protestant religion in England, by pope Innocent XL; cardinal Howard; John Paul de Oliva, general of the Jesuits at Rome; De Corduba, provincial of the Jesuits in New Castille; by the Jesuits and seminary priests in England; the lords Petre, Powis, Bellasis, Arundel of Wardour, Stafford, and other persons of quality, several of whom were tried and executed, chiefly on this man’s evidence; while public opinion was for a time very strongly in his favour. For this service he received a pension of 1200l. per annum, was lodged in Whitehall, and protected by the guards; but scarcely had king James ascended the throne, when he took ample revenge of the sufferings which his information had occasioned to the monarch’s friends: he was thrown into prison, and tried for perjury with respect to what he had asserted as to that plot. Being convicted, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory five times a year during his life, to be whipt from Aldgate to Newgate, and from thence to Tyburn; which sentence, says Neal, was exercised with a severity unknown to the English nation. “The impudence of the man,” says the historian Hume, “supported itself under the conviction; and his courage under the punishment. He made solemn appeals to heaven, and protestations of the veracity of his testimony. Though the whipping was so cruel that it was evidently the intention of the court to put him to death by that punishment, yet he was enabled by the care of his friends to recover, and he lived to king William’s reign, when a pension of 400l. a year was settled upon him. A considerable number of persons adhered to him in his distresses, and regarded him as a martyr to the protestant cause.” He was unquestionably a very infamous character, and those who regard the pretended popish plot as a mere fiction, say that he contrived it out of revenge to the Jesuits, who had expelled him from their body. After having left the whole body of dissenters for thirty years, he applied to be admitted again into the communion of the baptists, having first returned to the church of England, and continued a member of it sixteen years. In 1698, or 1699, he was restored to his place among the baptists, from whence he was excluded in a few months as a disorderly person and a hypocrite: he died in 1705. He is described by Granger as a man “of cunning, mere effrontery, and the most consummate falsehood.” And Hume describes him as “the most infamous of mankind that in early life he had been chaplain to colonel Pride was afterwards chaplain on board the fleet, whence he had been ignominiously dismissed on complaint of some unnatural practices; that he then became a convert to the Catholics; but that he afterwards boasted that his conversion was a mere pretence, in order to get into their secrets and to betray them.” It is certain that his character appears to have been always such as ought to have made his evidence be received with great caution; yet the success of his discoveries, and the credit given to him by the nation, by the parliament, by the courts of law, &c. and the favour to which he was restored after the revolution, are circumstances which require to be carefully weighed before we can pronounce the whole of his evidence a fiction, and all whom he accused innocent.

, 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.

He was styled by the pope “The invincible doctor;” by others “The venerable preceptor;” “The singular doctor;” and “The unparalleled doctor.” He was chosen minister provincial of the friars minors of England, and afterwards diffinitor of the whole order of St. Francis, and in that capacity was present at the general chapter held at Perusium in Tuscany in 1322, where the fathers declared their adherence to the decree of pope Nicholas III. maintaining the poverty of Christ and his apostles, and that they had “nihii propria.” This doctrine gave rise to that pleasant question called the bread of the Cordeliers; which consisted in determining, whether the dominion of things consumed in the using, such as bread and wine, belonged to them, or only the simple use of them, without the dominion? Their rule not permitting them to have any thing as property, pope Nicholas III. who had been of their order, devised a method to enrich them, without breaking their rule. To this end he made an ordinance, that they should have only the usufruct of the estates which should be given to them, and that the soil and fund of all such donations should belong to the church of Rome. By this means he put them into possession of an infinite number of estates in the name of the church of Rome: but, for that reason, pope Nicholas’s bull was revoked by John XXII. who condemned the use without the dominion, by his “Extravaganta ad Conditorem.” He also condemned, by another “Extravaganta cum inter,” the doctrine concerning the possession of estates by Christ and his apostles, Occam, however, persisted in defending his opinions, and so greatly offended the pope that he was obliged to fly from Avignon, in 1328, to Lewis of Bavaria, who assumed the title of emperor, and refusing the pope’s order to return, was excommunicated in 1329. Lewis, his protector, was under the same circumstance, aud Occam is reported to have said to him, “Oh emperor, defend me with your sword, and I will defend you with my pen.” He at last, it is said, returned to his duty, and was absolved. He died at Munich, the capital of Bavaria, and was buried in the convent of his order, as appears by the following inscription on his tomb in the choir, on the right hand of the altar; viz. “Anno Domini 1347, 7mo Aprilis obijt eximius Doctor Sacrae Theologise Fr. Gulielmus dictus Occham de Anglia.” He wrote a Commentary upon the Predicables of Porphyry, and the Categories of Aristotle, and many treatises in scholastic theology and ecclesiastical law; which, if they be admired for their ingenuity, must at the same time be censured for their extreme subtlety and obscurity. But whatever may be thought of these, he deserves praise for the courage with which he opposed the tyranny of the papal over the civil power, in his book “De Potestate Ecclesiastica et Seculare.” Of this, or a part of it, “A dialogue between a knight and a clerke, concerning the Power Spiritual and Temporal,” the reader will find an account in Oldys’s “Librarian,” p. 5. It was printed by Berthelet, with Henry VIII.'s privilege. Fox, in his Martyrology, says that Occam was “of a right sincere judgment, as the times would then either give or suffer.” He was the only schoolman whom Luther studied, or kept in his library.

, a celebrated Italian, was born at Sienna in 1487, and first took the habit of a Cordelier; but throwing it off in a short time, and returning into the world, applied himself to the study of physic, and acquired the esteem of cardinal Julius de Medici, afterwards pope Clement VII. At length, changing his mind again, he resumed his monk’s habit, and embraced, in 1534, the reformed sect of the Capuchins. He practised, with a most rigorous exactness, all the rules of this order; which, being then in its infancy, he contributed so much to improve and enlarge, that some writers have called him the founder of it. It is certain he was made vicar-general of it, and became in the highest degree eminent for his talents in the pulpit. He delivered his sermons with great eloquence, success, and applause. His extraordinary merit procured him the favour of pope Paul III. who, it is said, made him his father-confessor and preacher; and he was thus the favourite of both prince and people, when, falling into the company of one John Valdes, a Spaniard, who had imbibed Luther’s doctrine in Germany, he became a proselyte. He was then at Naples, and began to preach in favour of protestant doctrines with so much boldness, that he was summoned to appear at Rome, and was in his way thither, when he met at Florence Peter Martyr, with whom, it is probable, he had contracted an acquaintance at Naples. This friend persuaded him not to put himself into the pope’s power; and they both agreed to withdraw into some place of safety. Ochinus went first to Ferrara, where he disguised himself in the habit of a soldier; and, proceeding thence to Geneva, arrived thither in 1542, and married at Lucca, whence he went to Augsburg, and published some sermons.

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.

, or of Kent, so called because he was a native of that county in England, where he flourished in the twelfth century, was a Benedictine monk, of which order his learning and eloquence raised him to be prior and abbot, first of St. Saviour’s, and afterwards of Battleabbey. He died in March 1200. Thomas a Becket was his friend, and his panegyric was made by John of Salisbury. He composed several works, as “Commentaries upon the Pentateuch;” “Moral Reflections upon the Psalms, the Old Testament, and the Gospels;” a treatise entitled, “De onere Philistini;” another, “De raoribus ecclesiasticis” a third, “De vitiis & virtutibus animae,” &c. Besides these, a “Letter to a brother novitiate,” in the abbey of Igny, is printed by Mabillon in the first tome of “Analects;” and another “Letter to Philip earl of Flanders,” about 1171, upon the miracles of St. Thomas, is in the “Collectio amplissima veterum monumentorum,” p. 882, published by the fathers Martenne and Durand, Benedictines.

Here he translated “St. Chrysostom’s Commentaries upon Genesis” into Latin, and was made professor of divinity and city-preacher by the council; by whose consent he began the execution of his trust, with abolishing several usages of the Roman church. In particular, he commanded the sacrament of baptism to be administered in the mother-tongue, and that of the Lord’s supper to be received in both kinds, He taught that the mass was not a sacrifice for the living and the dead, or for those who were in purgatory, hut that perfect satisfaction was made for all believers by the passion and merits of Christ. He dissuaded them from the use of holy water, and other superstitious observances, and was thus employed when the dispute about the Eucharist commenced between Luther and Zuinglius. In that controversy, he strenuously defended the opinion of the lat.ter, in a piece entitled, “De vero intellectu verborum Domini, Hoc est corpus meum,” which did him great honour. But although he agreed with Zuinglius in the nature of the doctrine, he gave a different sense of our Lord’s words. Zuinglius placed the figure of these words, “This is my body,” in the verb is, which he held to be taken for signifies. Oecolampadius laid it upon the noun, body, and affirmed that the bread is called, the body, by a metonymy, which allows the name of the thing signified to be given to the sign. Such were the arguments by which transubstantiation was combated at that distant period. The Lutherans in Suabia and Bavaria, decried the doctrine of Oecolampadius in their sermons, which obliged him to dedicate a treatise upon the words of the institution of the Lord’s supper to them, printed at Strasburg in 1525. Whether this was a different work from the “De vero, &c.” or only a new edition, does not appear, as his biographers have not affixed dates to all hispublications. Erasmus, however, speaking of this book, says, “That it was written with so much skill, such good reasoning, and persuasive eloquence, that, if God should not interpose, even the elect might be seduced by it.” As soon as it appeared, the magistrates of Basil consulted two divines and two lawyers, to know whether the public sale of it might be permitted. Erasmus, who was one of these divines, says, “That, in giving his answer upon the point, he made no invectives against Oecolampadius” and so the book was allowed to be sold. The matter, however, did not rest so. The Lutherans answered our author’s book in another, entitled “Syngrarnma;” to which he replied in apiece called “Antisyngramnra.” In proceeding, he disputed publicly with Eckius at Baden, and entered also into another dispute afterwards at Berne.

, an eminent botanist, was born at Anspach, Feb. 3, 1728, and studied physic, but particularly botany, at Gottingen, under the celebrated Haller, through whose recommendation he was appointed professor of botany at Copenhagen. While in this station the “Flora Danica” was intrusted to him, of which he completed three volumes, containing 540 plates, when he resigned the chair, and the work was consigned to Muller, and afterwards to Vahl. He was induced, by the patronage of the unfortunate Struensee, to quit his situation and pursuits in 1773, Struensee having procured for him a considerable appointment in the college of finances, but on the death of his patron soon after, he left this place. He was afterwards appointed to the office of landvogt at Oldenburgh, which he retained until his death, Feb. 10, 1791. His other botanical publications are, “Elementa Botanica,” published at Copenhagen, in two parts, in 1764- and 1766; “Nomenclator Botanicus,” 1769; and “Enumeratio Plantarum Florae Danicge,” 1770. The Oedera, of Linnæus, was so called in honour of him.

, archbishop of Tuam, was otherwise called Maurice de Portu, from having been born near the port of Baltimore, in the county of Cork, though others say he was born at Down, or Galway. He was some time a student at Oxford, where he became a Franciscan. He afterwards travelled to Italy, and studied philosophy, and school-divinity at Padua. About 1480 he removed to Venice, where he was employed by Octavian, Scott, and Locatelli, as corrector of the press, which was then considered as an employment worthy of the greatest scholars. In 1506, after he had taken his degree of D. D. at Padua, pope Julius II. made him archbishop of Tuam in Ireland. In 1512 he assisted at the first two sessions of the Lateran council, and in the following year set out for Ireland, but died at Galway, May 25, 1513, where he landed, before he could take possession of his archbishopric. He was at this time not quite fifty years of age. He was buried in a church at Galway, where his humble monument is yet shown. He was a learned, pious, and amiable prelate, and held in such veneration by some authors, that they have given him the name of “Flos Mundi,” the flower of the world. His works are, 1. “Expositio in questiones dialecticas Divi Joan. Scoti in Isagogen Porphyrii,” Ferrara, 1499; Venice, 1512, fol. 2. “Commentaria doct. subtilis Joan. Scoti in XII. lib. metaphysics Aristotelis,” &c. Venet. 1507, fol. 3. “Epithemata in insigne formalitatum opus de mente doctoris subtilis,” &c. Venice, 1514, fol. This is what Possevin calls “Theorems for the explanation of the sense of Scotus.” 4. “Dictionarium sacra? scripturee,” &c. Venice, 1603, fol. which reaches no farther than the word extinguere, but there is said to be a complete ms. of it in the Bodleian, as far as the word zona. 5. “Enchiridion fidei,” 1509, 4to. &c. &c.

On the 5th May, 173^, Mr, Oglethorpe embarked again for Georgia, with 300 passengers. The colony continued to flourish under his direction, materials were provided for building a church, and a wharf for landing of goods, as also for finishing the fortifications, and clearing the roads. A town called New Ebenezer was erected by the German settlers, under the direction of Mr. Oglethorpe, who next visited the Scotch at Darien, and then went to the island of Saint Simon, which is in the mouth of the river Alatamaha, about thirteen miles long, and twenty leagues north of Saint Augustine. He also discovered Amelia islands, about 236 miles by water from the mouth of the Savannah river, and caused the town of Augusta to be built there.

When reprisals were known to have been published by his Britannic majesty against the king of Spain, a party of the garrison of St. Augustine came up, and surprised two highland ers upon the island of Amelia, cut off their heads, and mangled their bodies with great inhumanity. General Oglethorpe immediately went in pursuit of them, but, though he followed them by land and water above 10O miles in twenty-four hours, they escaped. He, however, by way of retaliation, passed the river St. Mattheo or St. John’s in Florida, drove in the guards of Spanish horse posted upon the river, and advanced as far as a place called the Cavallas; he also took other measures for reconnoitring the country, which he apprehended would be attended with advantage hereafter.

, called the good lord Cobham, the first author, as well as the first martyr, among our nobility, was born in the fourteenth century, in the reign of Edward III. He obtained his peerage by marrying the heiress of that lord Cobham, who, with so much virtue and patriotism opposed the tyranny of Richard IL and, with the estate and title of his father-in-law, seems also to have taken possession of his virtue and independent spirit. The famous statute against provisors was by his means revived, and guarded by severer penalties. He was one of the leaders in the reforming party, who drew up a number of articles against the corruptions which then prevailed among churchmen, and presented them, in the form of a remonstrance, to the Commons. He was at great expence in collecting and transcribing the works of Wickliff, which he dispersed among the people; and he maintained a great number of his disciples as itinerant preachers in many parts of the country. These things naturally awakened the resentment of the clergy against him. In the reign of Henry IV. he had the command of an English army in France, which was at that time a scene of great confusion, through the competition of the Orleanand Burgundian factions; and obliged the duke of Orleans to raise the siege of Paris. In the reign of Henry V. he was accused of heresy, and the growth of it was particularly attributed to his influence. The king, with whom lord Cobham was a domestic in his court, delayed the prosecution against him; and undertook to reason with him himself, and to reduce him from his errors. Lord Cobham’s answer is upon record. “I ever was,” said he, “a dutiful subject to your majesty, and ever will be. Next to God, I profess obedience to my king; but as to the spiritual dominion of the pope, I never could see on what foundation it is claimed, nor can I pay him any obedience. It is sure as God’s word is true, he is the great antichrist foretold in holy writ.” This answer so exceedingly shocked the king, that, turning away in visible displeasure, he withdrew his favour from him, and left him to the censures of the church. He was summoned to appear before the archbishop; and, not appearing, was pronounced contumacious, and excommunicated. In hopes to avoid the impending storm, he waited upon the king with a confession of nis faith in writing, in his hand; and, while he was in his presence, a person entered the chamber, cited him to appear before the archbishop, and he was immediately hurried to the Tower. He was soon after brought before the archbishop, and read his opinion of these articles, on which he supposed he was called in question, viz. the Lord’s supper, penance, images, and pilgrimages. Hewas told, that in some parts he had not been sufficiently explicit that on all these points holy church had determined by which determinations all Christians ought to abide and that these determinations should be given him as a direction of his faith; and in a few days he must appear again and give his opinion. At the time, he said among other things, “that he knew none holier than Christ and the apostles and that these determinations were surely none of theirs, as they were against scripture.” In conclusion, he was condemned as an heretic, and remanded to the Tower, from which place he escaped, and lay concealed in Wales. The clergy, with great zeal for the royal person, informed the king, then at Eltham, that 20,000 Lollards were assembled at St. Giles’s for his destruction, with lord Cobham at their head. This pretended conspiracy, though there were not above 100 persons found, and those poor Lollards assembled for devotion, was entirely credited by the king, and fully answered the designs of the clergy; but there is not the smallest authority for it, in any author of reputation. A bill of attainder passed against lord Cobham; a price of a thousand marks was set upon his head; and a perpetual exemption from taxes promised to any town that should secure him. After he had been four years in Wales, he was taken at last by the vigilance of his enemies, brought to London in triumph, and dragged to execution in St. Giles’s-fields. As a traitor, and a heretic, he was hung up in chains alive upon a gallows; and, fire being put under him, was burnt to death, in December, 1417.

, an English poet, was born Aug. 9, 1653, at Shipton, near Tedbury in Gloucestershire, where his father was a nonconformist minister, and had a congregation. He educated his son in grammar-learning, and afterwards sent him to Tedbury school, where he spent about two years. In June 1670, he was admitted of Edmund-hall, Oxford, where he was soon distinguished for a good Latinist, and made poetry and polite literature his chief study. In May 1674, he proceeded B. A. but soon after was called home, much against his inclination. He continued sometime with his father, still cultivating his muse: one of the first fruits of which was “A Pindaric Ode,” the next year, upon the death of his friend and constant companion, Mr. Charles Morvent. Shortly after this, he became usher to the free-school at Croydon in Surrey, yet found leisure to compose several copies of verses; some of which, being seen in ms. by the earls of Rochester and Dorset, sir Charles Sedley, and other wits of distinction, were so much admired, that they surprised him with an unexpected visit at Croydon. Mr. Shepherd (then master of the school) attributed the honour of this visit to himself; but they soon convinced him, that he was not the object of their curiosity. The visit, however, brought Oldham acquainted with other persons of wit and distinction, and probably by their means, he was, in 1678, removed from Croydon, and appointed tutor to the two grandsons of sir Edward Thurland, a judge, near Rygate in-' Surrey. He continued in this family till 1681; when, being out of employment, he passed some time in London among the wits, and was afterwards engaged as tutor to a son of sir William Hickes. This gentleman, living near London, was intimately acquainted with Dr. Richard Lower, an eminent physician there, and who encouraged Oldharn to study physic, in which he made some progress; but he had no relish for protracted study, and preferred the occasional exercise of his pen on temporaty subjects. f Having discharged his trust, in qualifying young Hickes for foreign travels, he declined, though earnestly pressed, to go abroad with him, and took leave of the family. With, a small sum of money which he had saved, he now hastened to London, where company seduced him into intemperance, yet in other respects he neither degraded nor disgraced his character. Before he had been long in the metropolis, he was found out by the noblemen who had visited him at Croydon, and who now brought him acquainted with Dryden, who highly esteemed him, conceived a very great opinion of his talents, and honoured his memory with some very pathetic and beautiful lines.

, 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.

Of the writings of Mr. Oldys, some of which were anonymous, the following account is probably very imperfect: I. In the British Museum is Oidys’s copy of “Langbaine’s _ Lives,” &c. not interleaved, but filled with notes written in the margin, and between the lines, in an extremely small hand. It came to the Museum as a part of the library of Dr. Birch, who bought it at an auction of Oidys’s books and papers for one guinea. Transcripts of this have been made by various literary gentlemen. 2. Mr. Gough, in the first volume of his “British Topography,” p. 567, tells us, that he had “been favoured, by George Steevens, esq. with the use of a thick folio of titles of books and pamphlets relative to London, and occasionally to Westminster and Middlesex, from 1521 to 1758, collected by the late Mr. Oldys, with many others added, as it seems, in another hand. Among them,” he adds, “are many purely historical, and many of too low a kind to rank under the head of topography or histpry. The rest, which are very numerous, I have inserted, marked O, with corrections, &c. of those I had myself collected. Mr. Steevens purchased this ms. of T. Davies, who bought Mr. Oidys’s library. It had been in the hands of Dr. Berkenhout, who had a design of publishing an English Topographer, and riiay possibly have inserted the articles in a different hand. It afterwards became the property of sir John Hawkins.” 3. “The British Librarian, exhibiting a compendious Review of all unpublished and valuable books, in all sciences,” which was printed without his name, in 1737, 8vo, and after having been long neglected and sold at a low price, is now valued as a work of such accuracy and utility deserves. 4, A “Life of sir Waiter Raleigh,” prefixed to his “History of the World,” in folio. 5. “Introduction to Hay ward’s British Muse (1738);” of which he says, “that the penurious publishers, to contract it within a sheet, left out a third part of the best matter in it, and made more faults than were in the original.” In this he was assisted by Dr. Campbell. 6. “His Observations on the Cure of William Taylor, the blind boy at Ightharn, in Kent, by John Taylor, jun. oculist, 1753,” 8vo. Thetide of the pamphlet here alluded to was, “Observations on the Cure of William Taylor, the blind Boy, of Ightham, in Kent, who, being born with cataracts in both eyes, was at eight years of age brought to sight on the 8th of October, 1751, by Mr. John Taylor, jun. oculist, in Hattongarden; containing his strange notions of objects upon the first enjoyment of his new sense; also, some attestations thereof; in a letter written by his father, Mr. William Taylor, farmer, in the same parish: interspersed with several curious examples, and remarks, historical and philosophical, thereupon. Dedicated to Dr. Monsey, physician to theRoyal hospital at Chelsea. Also, some address to the public, for a contribution towards the foundation of an hospital for the blind, already begun by some noble personages,” 8vo. 7. Various lives in the “Biographia Britannica,” with the signature G, the initial letter of Gray’sInn, where he formerly lived. He mentions, in his notes on Langbaine, his life of sir George Etherege, of Caxton, of Thomas May, and of Edward Alleyn, inserted in that work. He composed the “Life of Atherton;” which, if it ever deserved to have had a place in that work, ought not to have been removed from it any more than the “Life of Eugene Aram,” which is inserted in the second edition. That the publishers of the second edition meant no indignity to Oldys, by their leaving out his “Life of Atherton,” appears fram their having transcribed into their work a much superior quantity of his writings, consisting of notes and extracts from printed books, styled “Oldys’s Mss.” Of these papers no other account is given than that “they are a large and useful body of biographical materials;” but we may infer, from the known industry and narrow circumstances of the writer, that, if they had been in any degree prepared for public consideration, they would not have so long lain dormant. 8. At the importunity of Curll, he gave him a sketch of the life of Nell Gvvin, to help out his V History of the Stage.“9. He was concerned with Des Maizeaux in writing the” Life of Mr. Richard Carew,“the antiquary of Cornwall, in 1722. 10.” Observations, Historical and Critical, on the Catalogue of English Lives.“Whether this was ever printed we know not. 11.” Tables of the eminent persons celebrated by English Poets.“This he seems to quote in a manuscript note on Langbaine, but it does not appear to have been printed. 12. He mentions, ibidem, the first volume of his” Poetical Characteristics,“on which we may make the same remark. If these two works continued in ms. during his life-time, it is probable that they were not finished for publication, or that no bookseller would buy them. 13. O,idys seems to have been concerned likewise as a writer in the” General Dictionary,“for he mentions his having been the author of” The Life of sir-John Talbot,“in that work and in Birch’s Mss. is a receipt from him for \.L 5s. for writing the article of Fas tolf 14. He mentions likewise, in his notes on Langbaine, that he was the author of a pamphlet against Toland, called” No blind Guides.“15. He says, ibidem, that he communicated many things to Mrs. Cooper, which she published in her” Muse’s Library.“16. In 1746 was published, in 12mo,” health’s Improvement; or, Rules comprising the nature, method, and manner, of preparing foods used in this nation. Written by that ever famous Thomas Moffett, doctor in physic; corrected and enlarged by Christopher Bennet, doctor in physic, and fellow of the College of Physicians in London. To which is now prefixed, a short View of the Author’s Life and Writings, by Mr. Oldys; and an Introduction by R. James, M. D.“17. In the first volume of British Topography,” page 31, mention is made of a translation of “Gamden’s Britannia,” in 2 vols. 4to, “by W. O. esq.” which Mr. Gough, with great probability, ascribes to Mr. Oldys. 18. Among the Mss. in the British Museum, described in Mr. Ayscough’s Catalogue, we find p. 24, “Some Considerations upon the publication of sir Thomas Roe’s Epistolary Collections, supposed to be written by Mr. Oldys, and by him tendered to Sam. Boroughs, esq. with proposals, and some notes of Dr. Birch.” 19. In p. 736, “Memoirs of the family of Oldys.” 20. In p. 741, “Two small pocket books of short Biographical Anecdotes of many Persons,” and “some Fragments of Poetry,” perhaps collected by Mr. Oldys? 21. In p. 750, and p. 780, are two ms letters “of Mr. Oldys,” 1735 and 1751. 22. It is said, in a ms paper, by Dr. Dticarel, who knew him well, that Oldys had by him, at the time of his death, some collections towards a “Life of Shakspeare,” but not digested into any order, as he told the doctor a few days before he died. 23. On the same authority he is said to be a writer in, or the writer of, “The Scarborough Miscellany,” 1732, and 1734. 24. “The Universal Spectator,” of which he was some time the publisher, was a newspaper, a weekly journal, said; on the top of the paper, which appeared originally in single sheets, to be “by Henry Stonecastle, in Northumberland,” 1730 1732. It was afterwards collected into two volumes 8vo to which a third and fourth were added in 1747. In one of his Mss. we find the following wellturned anagram

, a person of whose history little is known, was a relation of the celebrated Calvin, and the first who translated the Bible into French, which he printed at Neufchatel, in 1535, fol. His translation is not very accurate, but it was improved in subsequent editions by Calvin, Beza, and others, and formed the foundation of what was called the Geneva translation. The edition of 1540, 4to, called “La Bible de l'Epee,” is very scarce, Olivetan died in 1538, in consequence, as some say, of having been poisoned at Rome.

, an eminent Polish divine, was descended from an ancient family in Prussia, and born about 1618. In the course of his studies, which were passed at Kalisch, he applied himself particularly to poetry; for which he had an early taste. After he had finished his courses of divinity and jurisprudence, he travelled to Italy; where he visited the best libraries, and took the degree of doctor of law at Rome. Thence he went to France, and was introduced at Paris to the princess Mary Louisa; who being about to marry Ladislaus IV. king of Poland, Olzoffski had the honour of attending her thither. On his arrival, the king offered him the secretary’s place; but he declined it, for the sake of following his studies. Shortly after he was made a canon of the cathedral church at Guesne, and chancellor to the archbishopric: in which post he managed all the affairs of that see, the archbishop being very old and infirm. After the death of this prelate, he was called to court, and made Latin secretary to his majesty; which place he filled with great reputation, being a complete master of that language. In the war between Poland and Sweden, he wrote a piece against that enemy to his country, entitled “Vindiciae Polonicae.” He attended at the election of Leopold to the imperial crown of Germany, in quality of ambassador to the king of Poland, and went afterwards in the same character to Vienna, to solicit the withdrawing of the imperial troops from the borders of the Polish territories. Immediately on his return he was invested with the high office of prebendary to the crown, and promoted to the bishopric of Culm. After the death of Ladislaus he fell into disgrace with the queen, because he opposed the design she had of setting a prince of France upon the throne of Poland however, this did not hinder him from being made vice-chancellor of the crown. He did all in his power to dissuade Casimir II. from renouncing the crown; and, after the resignation of that king, several competitors appearing to fill the vacancy, Olzoffski on the occasion published a piece, called “Censura,” &c. This was answered by another, entitled “Censura Censurse Candidatorum;” and the liberty which our vice-chancellor had taken in his “Censura” brought him into some danger. It was chiefly levelled against the young prince of Muscovy, who was one of the competitors, though no more than eight years of age; and the czar was highly incensed, and made loud complaints and menaces, unless satisfaction were given for the offence. Upon the election of Michel Koribut to the throne, Olzoffski was dispatched to Vienna, to negotiate a match between the new-elected king and one of the princesses of Austria; and, on his return from that embassy, was made grand chancellor of the crown. He did not approve the peace concluded with the Turks in 1676, and wrote to the grand vizir in terms of which the grand seignor complained to the king of Poland.

At length, in 1781, he came to London, still under the auspicies of Dr. Wolco't, whose powerful pen was not silent in his cause; and his works becoming the theme of fashionable conversation, he was soon employed to paint the portraits of persons of the highest distinction, who were caught by the novelty, and struck with the force of his representations. His talent, however, being more solid than showy, was not calculated to insure him long that exclusive favour which his outset had promised: without taste for elegance and fashionable airs, he could not often please the women; and the men, whom he could not supply with dignity or importance, soon became indifferent to one whom the women did no longer protect. Opie remained the painter of those only who sought characteristic resemblance, stern truth, and solidity of method. But his parts were not limited by portrait; he had Jong and often with felicity represented the incidents of rustic and common life, in picturesque groups; and the plans of historic painting, contrived by commerce at that period, called forth what was latent in him of historic power; the specimens which he had given in the Royal Exhibition were succeeded by a numerous series of religious and dramatic subjects, painted for the Boydell and Macklin galleries. By the establishment of the former, in 1786, Opie was first fully made known to the public, and the latent powers of his mind were called forth. For this gallery he painted five large pictures, of which the finest was from the Winter’s Tale; Leontes administering the oath to Antigenus to take charge of the child. But he produced, about the same time, a work of far more excellent quality in effect and colour, viz. the assassination of James I. of Scotland, now in the Common Council room at Guildhall, a work which, for hue and colour, challenges competition with the best, and is wrought with the greatest boldness and force.

, a learned cardinal, was born at Florence in 1577. He went to study at Rome, and resided in a small boarding-house in the city, where he experienced the same temptation as the patriarch Joseph did, and continued no less faithful to his duty. Cardinal Bellarmine being made acquainted with this young man’s virtues, placed him in a college for education. Oregius was afterwards employed by cardinal Barberini to examine Aristotle’s sentiments concerning the immortality of the soul, that the pope might prohibit the reading of lectures on this philosopher’s works, if it appeared that his writings were contrary to that fundamental article of religion. Oregius pronounced him innocent, and published on that subject, in 1631, his book entitled “Aristotelis vera de rationalis animifc immortalitate sententia,” 4to. Barberini at length becoming pope, by the name of Urban VIII. created him cardinal in 1634, and gave him the archbishopric of Benevento, where he died in 1635, aged fifty-eight. He left tracts “de Deo,” “de Trinitate,” “de Angelis,” de Opere sex dierum,“and other works printed at Rome, in 1637 and 1642, folio. Cardinal Bellarmine called Oregius his” Divine,“and pope Urban VIII. called him his” Bellarmine." A complete edition of this cardinal’s works was published by Nicholas Oregius, his nephew, in 1637, 1 vol. folio.

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;”

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.

Ecclesiastical history, as Fabricius observes, cannot furnish another instance of a man who has been so famous, through good report and ill report, as Origen. The quarrels and disputes which arose in the church after his death on account of his person and writings, are scarcely credible to any who have not examined the history of those times. The universal church was split into two parties; and these parties fought as furiously for and against Origen as if the Christian religion had itself been at stake. Huetius has employed the second book of his “Origeniana,” which consists of above 200 pages in folio, in pointing out and animadverting on such dogmas of this illustrious father as are either quite indefensible or exceptionable; and it is confessed by all, that he swerved egregiously from the orthodox faith. Cave has collected within a short compass the principal tenets which rendered him obnoxious; and thence we learn, that Origen was accused of maintaining different degrees of dignity among the persons of the Holy Trinity; as, that the Son was inferior to the Father, and the Holy Spirit inferior to both, in the same manner that rays emitted from the sun are inferior in dignity to the sun himself; that the death of Christ was advantageous, not to men only, but to angels, devils, nay, even to the stars and other insensible things, which he wildly supposed to be possessed of a rational soul, and therefore to be capable of sin; that all rational natures, whether devils, human souls, or any other, were created by God from eternity, and were originally pure intelligences, but afterwards, according to the various use of their free will, dispersed among the various orders of angels, men, or devils; that angels, and other supernatural beings, were clothed with subtle and ethereal bodies, which consisted of matter, although, in comparison of our grosser bodies, they may be called incorporeal and spiritual; that the souls of all rational beings, after putting off one state, pass into another, cither superior or inferior, according to their respective behaviour; and that thus, by a kind of perpetual transmigration, one and the same soul may successively, and even often, pass through all the orders of rational beings: that hence the souls of men were thrust into the prison of bodies for offences committed in some former state, and that, when loosed hence, they will become either angels or devils, as they shall have deserved; that, however, neither the punishment of men or devils, nor the joys of the saints, shall be eternal, but that all shall return to their original state of pure intelligences, then begin the same round again, and so on forever.

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.

The next year he published “The Picture of a Papist,” in the same style, deducing the superstitions of the Romish church from the rites of paganism. In this work he denies himself to be the author of a book called “The double Pp. or the picture of a traiterous Jesuit:” as also of some other things, which the papists had fathered upon him. The work is dedicated to Robert earl of Salisbury, chancellor of the university, and both were reprinted together in 1606, 8vo.

, a celebrated geographer, was descended from a family originally seated at Augsburg: but his grandfather William Ortelius settled, in 1460, at Antwerp, and dying there in 1511, left Leonard, the father of Abraham, who was born in that city April 1527. In the course of a learned education, he particularly distinguished himself in the languages and mathematics; and afterwards he became so famous for his knowledge in geography, that he was called the Ptolemy of his time. He travelled a great deal in England, Ireland, France, Italy, and Germany, suffering no curiosity to escape his inquiries. In England he became acquainted with Camden (see Camden). When he had finished his travels, he fixed at Antwerp, where he first published his “Theatrum orbis terrse.” This work procured him the honour of being appointed geographer to Philip II. of Spain; and he afterwards published the following pieces: “Thesaurus Geographicus;” “Deorum dearumque capita ex veteribus numismatibus;” “Aurei seculi imago, sive Gtrr manor urn veterum mores, vita, ritus, et religio;” “Itinerarium per nonnuJlas Belgiue partes.” He was possessed of many rarities, in antique statues, medals, and shells. The greatest men of that age were friends to him to his death, which happened in June 1598. Justus Lipsius wrote his epitaph; and several funeral eloges were made of him, which were published, under the title of “Lachrymae,” by Francis Svveerts, who annexed an account of his life. All his works are in Latin.

Besides these several publications, all of which appeared with his name, Mr. Orton, in 1770, was the author of two anonymous tracts, entitled “Diotrophes admonished,” and “Diotrophes re-adrnonished.” They were written in defence of his excellent friend, Dr. Adams, at that time vicar of St. Chad’s, Shrewsbury, who had been violently attacked by the writer of a piece, which made a considerable noise in its day, called “Pietas Oxoniensis.” There is one small publication by Mr. Orton, hitherto omitted, which was the earliest piece printed by him, having first appeared in 1749, and we apprehend without his name. The title of it is “A Summary of Doctrinal and Practical Religion, by way of question and answer; with an introduction, shewing the Importance and Advantage of a Religious Education.” So well has this tract been received, that it has gone through seven editions. In the course of his ministerial service, he delivered a short and plain exposition of the Old Testament, with devotional and practical reflections; which exposition and reflections have recently been published, from the author’s manuscripts, for the use of families, by the reverend Robert Gentleman, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, in six large volumes, octavo. The first volume appeared in 1788, and the last in 1791; but the work has not attained any great share of popularity. The other posthumous publication is, “Letters to a young Clergyman,” 1791, 2 vols. 12mo. Besides Mr. Orton’s publication of Dr. Doddridge’s hymns, and of the three last volumes of the Family Expositor, he printed, in 1764, a new edition of the life and death of the rev. Mr. Philip Henry, and prefixed to it an address to the descendants of that eminently pious and worthy divine.

, 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.

He is much commended for his piety and charity. He maintained several learned men in his palace, and at meals had some portion out of St. Barnard’s works read; after which all present were at liberty to propose any difficulties that occurred upon it. As a writer, Du Pin observes, that his diction is easy and elegant; for which reason he is called the Cicero of Portugal, as being a great imitator of Cicero, both in style, choice of subjects, and manner of treating them. His compositions are not intermixed with quotations, but consist of connected reasonings. He does not endeavour, in his “Commentaries” and “Paraphrases,” to explain the terms of the text, but to extend the sense of it, and shew its order and series fully, that young divines may improve their diction, and learn to write elegantly, both as Christian philosophers, orators, and divines. His works were collected and published at Rome, 1592, in 4 vols, folio, by Jerome Osorio his nephew, who prefixed his uncle’s life to the edition. The titles of his works are, “De nobilitate civili, et de nobilitate Christiana;” “De gloria,” printed with the foregoing. Some have thought this last to have been written by Cicero; and that Osorio found it, and published it as his own. “De regis institutione et disciplina;” “De rebus Emanuelis regis invictissimi virtute et auspicio gestis;” of which a new edition was published at Coimbra, 1791, 3 vols. 12mo. There is an English translation, 1752, 2 vols. 8vo. “De justitia caelesti, lib. x. ad Reginaldum Polum Cardinalem;” “De vera sapientia, lib. v. ad Gregorium XIII. P. M.;” besides paraphrases and commentaries upon several parts of scripture. He wrote a piece to exhort our queen Elizabeth to turn papist; which was answered by Walter Haddon, master of the requests to that queen.

About this time, his father’s health decaying, he sent for our student, who arrived at Neufchatel in April 1682. In July following his father died, after having the satisfaction to hear his son deliver two probation sermons the preceding month. Mr. Ostervald, who was still conscious that he had much to learn, went to Geneva in October of the same year, and became acquainted with the most eminent teachers there, particularly the divinity professor Tronchin, with whom he afterwards corresponded. On his return to Neufchatel in May 1683, he underwent the usual examinations, and received imposition of hands in July; but he afterwards used to regret that he had been thus honoured too early in life, for he was not yet quite twenty. The office of deacon of Neufchatel being vacant in 1686, Ostervald was appointed, and acquitted himself with great credit, in the instruction of youth, which was the principal duty he had to perform, and in the performance of it he composed his vety popular “Catechism.” In 1693 he preached a weekly lecture, and a vacancy happening in the church of Neufchatel, by the resignation of one of its ministers in 1699, Mr. Ostervald was chosen to succeed him. In the course of his very long ministry, he was greatly admired, and eminently useful as a preacher, and he never ceased to the last to bestow great pains on the composition of his sermons, although thqy recurred so frequently. About the end of the same year, 1699, he became intimate with the celebrated John Alphonsus Turretin, who paid him a visit at Neufchatel in September, and two years afterwards with the no less celebrated Samuel Werenfels; and the union of these three divines was usually called “The Triumvirate of Swiss theologians,” and lasted to their deaths.

, 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.

, an English divine, celebrated for his uncommon skill in the mathematics, was born at Eton, in Buckinghamshire, about 1573, or, according to Aubrey, March 5, 1574. His father was a scrivener there, and taught his son writing and arithmetic. He was afterwards bred a scholar upon the foundation of that school, and was elected thence, in 1592, to King’s college, in Cambridge; of which, after the regular time of probation, he was admitted perpetual fellow. He did not neglect the opportunity his education gave him, of improving himself in classical learning and philosophy, as appears from some of his works, written in very elegant Latin; but his genius leading him particularly to the mathematics, he applied himself chiefly to that study. He began at the fountain head, and read all the ancient authors in the science, as Euclid, Apollonius, Archimedes, Diophantus, &c. in perusing whose works, he did not content himself, as he tells us in the preface to his “Clavis,” with barely learning their positions, but was diligent in looking into the sagacity of their invention, and careful to comprehend the peculiar force and elegance of their demonstrations. After he had been at Cambridge about three years, he invented an easy method of geometrical dialling; which, though he did not publish it' till 164-7, was yet received with so much esteem, that Mr. (afterwards sir) Christopher Wren, then a gentleman-commoner of Wadham college, in Oxford, immediately translated it from the English into Latin. This treatise was added to the second edition of his “Clavis,” with this title, “A most easy way for the delineation of plain Sun-dials, only by Geometry,” &c. In 1599 he commenced M. A. having regularly taken his bachelor’s degree three years before. In 1600 he, projected an horizontal instrument for delineating dials upon any kind of plane, and for working most questions which could be performed by the, globe. It was contrived for his private use only, and though not executed so perfectly as if he had had access to better tools, yet he had such an opinion of it, that thirty years afterwards, he consented it should be made public; and it was accordingly published, together with his “Circles of Proportion,” in 1633, 4to, by William Forster, who had been taught the mathematics by Oughtred, but was then himself a teacher of that science. To some editions of this work is subjoined " The just apology of William Oughtred against the slanderous insinuations of Richard Delamain, in a pamphlet called * Grammelogia, or the Mathematical Ring,' in which the author claimed Oughtred’s invention. In the mean time his eager desire to promote the science of mathematics kept him twelve years at college, in which time, both by his example and instructions, he diffused a taste for mathematics throughout the university.

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.

Sir Thomas Overbury obtained considerable reputation as an author, both in prose and verse; but it is probable that his unhappy end, which long interested the compassion of the public, procured for his works some share of that popularity which they have not retained. They consist of “The Wife,” along poem, of which an elegant' modern critic gives the following character: “The sentiments, maxims, and observations, with which it abounds, are such as a considerable experience and a correct judgment on mankind alone could furnish. The topics of jealousy, and of the credit and behaviour of women, are treated with great truth, delicacy, and perspicuity. The nice distinctions of moral character, and the pattern of female excellence here drawn, contrasted as they were with the heinous and flagrant enormities of the countess of Essex, rendered this poem extremely popular, when its ingenious author was no more.” Nearly the same opinion may be given of the other principal part of his works, entitled “ Characters or witty Descriptions of the Properties of sundry Persons.” These are favourable specimens of his prose style, quaint and witty, somewhat in the mariner of Theophrastus, or rather of the sketches given in Butler’s posthumous works. He must have been a very attentive observer of character and manners, and had evidently a quick sense of the ridiculous. An edition of his works was published in 1632, 12mo, which is called the fifteenth, yet the last, printed in 1753, is called only the tenth probably by the editor’s not being acquainted with all the impressions it had undergone. There are a few articles in the prose" part of the volume which have been attributed to other authors.

, in Spanish Gonçalo Hermandez de Oviedo Y Valdes, a Spanish historian, was born at Madrid, about the year 1478. He was educated among the pages in the court of Ferdinand king of Arragon, and Isabella queen of Castile, and happened to be at Barcelona in 1493, when Columbus returned from his first voyage to the island Haiti, which he called Hispaniola, and which now is known by the name of St. Domingo. Curiosity led him to obtain from Columbus and his companions an account of what was most remarkable in their voyages; and the information he obtained, and the services he rendered Spain during the war of Naples, induced Ferdinand to send him to the Island of Haiti, as intendant and inspector-general of the trade of the new world. The ravages which the syphilis had made during that war, led him to inquire into the most efficacious remedies for this malady, which was supposed to have come from the West Indies. His inquiries were also extended to every thing which regards the natural history of these regions and on his return to Spain, he published “Summario de la Historia general y natural de les Indias Occidentales,” Toledo, 1526, which he dedicated to Charles V. He afterwards made some additions to this work, which he published under the tide of “La Historia general y natural de las Indias Occidentales,” Salamanca, 1535, fol. It was translated into Italian, and afterwards into French, Paris, 1556, fol. It is in this work that he attempts to prove that the syphilis is endemic in the island of Haiti, and that it was imported thence to Spain, and afterwards to Naples, which opinion Astruc advances in support of his own; but this, however, has been called in question. Oviedo is thought to have been the first who recommended the use of the wood of guiacum in the disorder, a remedy not now in any great estimation.

, in Latin called Audoenus, an English epigrammatist, was born at Armon, in Caernarvonshire; and being bred at Winchester-school, under Dr. Bilson, was chosen thence a scholar of New-college, in Oxford, of which he became probationer fellow in 1582, and actual fellow in 1584. He proceeded LL. B. in 1690, but quitting his fellowship the next year, taught school atTrylegh, near Monmouth; and about 1594 was chosen master of the free-school founded by Henry VIII. at Warwick. He generally laboured under necessitous circumstances, owing to indolence or imprudence. He had a rich uncle, upon whom lay his chief dependence, who was either a papist, or at least popishly inclined; yet, Owen’s genius being peculiarly turned for epigrams, he was not able to resist the charm of the following satirical distich upon that religion:

He remained here till the age of twenty-one, maintained chiefly by an uncle, a gentleman of a good estate in Wales, who having no children of his own, intended to have made him his heir, as his father had a large family. About this time, we are told by most of his biographers, archbishop Laud, who was also chancellor of Oxford, imposed several superstitious rites on the university, upon pain of expulsion, and that Mr. Owen had then received such light, that hifr conscience would not submit to these impositions; but what these impositions, or superstitious rites were, they have not informed us. It is probable they related to the academical habits, the wearing of which Laud enjoined very strictly, but which will scarcely now be thought of sufficient importance to trouble the conscience of any man. Mr. Owen, however, like many other good and wise men of his party, began with scruples on small matters, which obstinacy and perseverance magnified into objects of the most serious importance. That he was serious could not be doubted, for his hopes of rising could no longer be indulged; his friends, we are told, forsook him as one infected with puritanism, and he became so much the object of resentment from the Laudensian party, as they were called, that he was forced to leave college.

Granger remarks, that “Supposing it necessary for one of his persuasion to be placed at the head of the university, none was so proper as this person; who governed it several years with much prudence and moderation, when faction and animosity seemed to be a part of every religion.” It is certain that Dr. Owen’s administration was distinguished for moderation, arising doubtless from his natural temper; and that he was impartial in his patronage. At this time the presbyterians had considerably the ascendancy, and it was with such he most of all conversed in the university, and, in the disposition of several vacant livings, he generally gave them to presbyterians: nor was he ever wanting to oblige even the episcopal party, whom he suffered to meet quietly, about three hundred every Sunday, at the house of Dr. Willis, near Christ-church, where they celebrated divine service according to the liturgy of the church of England; and though he was often urged to it, yet he would never give them the least disturbance and if at any time they met with opposition or trouble on that account, it was from other hands, and always against his mind. In his office also of commissioner for ejecting “scandalous ministers,” as the royalists were generally called, he frequently took the part of men of merit, and particularly in the case of Dr. Edward Pococke. This moderation of temper in the exercise of power, gained him the love and respect of the most; yet we must observe also, that he would not suffer authority to be slighted, when there was occasion to assert it. At an act, when one of Trinity-college was Terrae-filius, before he began, the doctor stood up, and in Latin told him, he should have liberty to say what he pleased, provided he would avoid profaneness, obscenity, and personal reflections. The Terrse-filius began, and in a little time transgressed in all these particulars, and the doctor endeavoured to check him, but finding that he paid no attention to his remonstrances, he sent his beadles to pull him down, on which the scholars interposed, and would not suffer them to come near him. Dr. Owen then resolved to pull him down himself, and when his friends dissuaded him lest the scholars should do him some mischief, he exclaimed, “I will not see authority thus trampled on,” and actually seized on the offender and sent him to prison. Dr. Owen was never deficient in personal courage, for in 1654, having heard of some disturbances in Wiltshire, which threatened to reach Oxford, he ordered a troop of scholars to be raised and armed for the protection of the university; and Wood informs us that he often appeared at the head of them, well mounted, with a sword by his side and a case of pistols.