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

Of Opie’s style, the more engaging characteristics are breadth, simplicity, and force; its defects are want of grace and variety of invention; and of elegance and refinement in expression aud execution. The objects of his choice were among the striking and terrible, rather than the agreeable and beautiful; and the materials he introduced were more accordant to his ideas of the picturesque than the proper. He frequently violated costume, not for want of knowledge, so much as from an insatiable desire of contrast; and sometimes from conveniency. His taste lay in the representation of natural objects with strong effect: he therefore made use of armour, or of draperies which he had in his study, and, like Rembrandt, adopted them as his antiques, and used them according as he felt they would best promote his immediate end. These defects are redeemed, to the well-informed eye, by the absolute truth of imitation in which they are wrought, by the expression of his heads, particularly of old men, or of strongly-marked characters, which are exceedingly impressive, by the energetic actions of his principal figures, by the broad and daring execution of his pencil, and by the magic force of his chiaro-scuro. In the latter point no artist ever excelled him. His figures project from the canvas in some of his best works and if seen under favourable circumstances, would be absolutely illusive . When the tide of historic commissions subsided, employed himself in representing scenes of common life, as well as in portraits. Cottage visits, an old soldier at an. ale-house door, fortune-tellers, and that class of materials which the Dutch and Flemish masters have recommended by high finish and convenient neatness of size, he painted upon a large scale. The reputation so justly due to his talents had now become steadily attached to him, and he had no longer to complain "of the unfeeling caprice of fashion, for he enjoyed an uninterrupted source of employment, in portraiture at least, till his death, and generally disposed of the fancy pictures with which he chose to intersperse his labours. These were very numerous, for he was exceedingly industrious, and his principal delight was in the practice of his profession.

Opie having been admitted an associate of the Royal Academy in 1786, and an academician in the year following, upon the dismissal of Mr. Barry from the body, aspired to the honour of being professor of painting, but resigned his pretensions in favour of Mr. Fuseli, who was chosen. When that gentleman was appointed to the station of keeper in 1805, he again advanced his claim, and vyas unanimously received. He had previously tried his power in literary composition, with no slight degree of success; first in the life of sir J. Reynolds, in Dr. Wolcot’s edition of Pilkington’s dictionary, and again in the publication of a plan for the formation of a national gallery, “tending at once to exalt the arts of his country and immortalize its glories.” He afterwards, in 1804, read two lectures on painting at the Royal Institution, which were fraught with instructions, and were received with applause; though it has been observed by a judicious critic, that the style in, which they were composed was “abrupt, crowded, and frequently unmethodical; rather rushing forward himself, than leading his auditors to the subject.” Nevertheless, his exertions on this occasion drew upon him respect, the more, perhaps, as he was not generally known to be a man fond of literature; and the world were the more surprised to hear refined sentiments in easy and even elegant language, from one who was not unfrequently represented as coarse and vulgar in mind and manner. In fact, Opie by no means merited such an unfavourable report; he was plain and unaffected, and spoke his mind freely; was manly and energetic, yielding little to folly or caprice, and by no means adapted to gratify the vain and ignorant; but he was not wilfully offensive, and condemned warmly those who were so.

He possessed a tenacious memory, and readily quoted in conversation the authors he had read, particularly the poets, and was a playful and entertaining companion when he found his company agreeable to him, capable of enjoying his humour, of benefiting by his information, or of eliciting reflection in his own mind; and it was seldom that a thinking man could be in his society without feeling roused by his energy.

Opitius’s last preferment was that of ecclesiastic counsellor to the court of Holstein. He died January 24, 1712, in his seventieth year. He was unquestionably one of the ablest and most industrious Oriental scholars of his time, as an enumeration of his works will show: I. “Atrium Lingua? Sancta;,” Hamburgh, 1671, 4to. 2. “Disputatio de Davidis et Salomonis Satellitio, Crethi et Plethi, ex libris Samuelis et Regum,” Jena, 1672, 4to. 3. “Synopsis Linguae Chaldaicae,” ibid. 1674, 4to. 4. “Atriuu Accentuationis S. Scriptures Veteris Test. Hebraicae,” ibid. 1674, 4to. 5. “Disputatio de usu Accentuationis geminge in gemina divisione Decalogi,” Kiel, 1677, 4to. Opitius, it must be observed, was a supporter of the antiquity and authority of the Hebrew accents. 6. “Syriasmus facilitati et integritati suae restitutus, v &c. Leipsic, 1678, 4to. 7.” CbaldaismusTargumico-Rabbinicus,“&c. Kiel, 1682, 4to. 8.” Novum Lexicon Hebneo-Chaldaeo-Biblicum,“Leipsic, 1692, 4to. 9.” Biblia parva Hebrseo-Latina,“Hamburgh, 1673, 12mo. 10.” Biblia Hebraica," Kiel, 1709, 4to. This edition had engaged his attention, more or less, for almost thirty years. Opitius published also some dissertations on subjects of divinity and Oriental criticism, of less note than the above, and it is no inconsiderable proof of the esteem in which he was held, that all the works we have enumerated went through several editions.

, in Latin Opitius, reckoned the father of German poetry, was born at Bunzlau, in Silesia, 1597. His parents had but a moderate fortune; but his father, observing his genius, educated him carefully in grammar, in which he soon made great proficiency: and, after some time, went to Breslaw for farther improvement, and thence to Francfort upon the Oder. He spent a year in that university, and then removed to Heidelberg, where fce studied with remarkable assiduity: but the fame of the celebrated Bernegger drew him, after some time, to Strasbourg and Bernegger was so struck with the learning and wit of Opits, that he pronounced he would one day become the Virgil of Germany. At length be returned, by the way of Tubingen, to Heidelberg; but, the plague beginning to appear in the Palatinate, this, together with the troubles in Bohemia, disposed our. student to travel with a Danish gentleman into the Low Countries; and thence he went to Holstein, where he wrote his books of “Constancy.” As soon as the troubles of Bohemia were a little calmed, he returned to his own country and, that he might not live in obscurity, he frequented the cour$. Bethlem Gabor, prince of Transilvania, having founded a school at Weissenberg, Opits was recommended by Gaspar Conrade, a famous physician and poet at Breslaw, to that prince, who appointed him the school-master or professor; and there he read lectures upon Horace and Seneca. ; Puring his residence in Transilvania, he inquired into the original of the Daci, and the Roman antiquities there. He made also exact researches after the ancient Roman inscriptions, which he sometimes recovered, and sent them to Gruter, Grotius, and Bernegger. Some time after his return home, he was meditating a journey to France, when a burgrave, who was in the emperor’s service, made him his secretary, in which office he contrived to keep up a regular correspondence with Grotius, Heinsius, Salmasius, Rigaltius, and other learned men; and his employer having not only consented to, but furnished him with all the necessaries for his journey to France, he became intimate with Grotius, who then resided at Paris, and in this journey also he collected a good number of manuscripts and curious medals.

, Julian the Apostate’s physician, was born either at Pergamus or Sardes, in the beginning of the fourth century. He first studied in the school of Zeno the Cyprian at Sardes; and then went to Alexandria in Egypt, where he finished his studies, and afterwards became an eminent professor there, about 150 years after the death of Galen, and was esteemed the greatest scholar and physician of his time.

, an illustrious father of the church, and a man of great parts and learning, was born at Alexandria in Egypt about the year 185; and afterwards obtained the surname of Adamantius, either because of that adamantine strength of mind which enabled him to go through so many vast works, or for that invincible firmness with which he resisted the sharpest persecutions. Porphyry represents him as having been born and educated a heathen; but JEusebius has clearly proved, that his parents were Christian. His father Leonides took him at first under his own management, and trained him at home for some time: he taught him languages and profane learning, but had a particular view to his understanding the Holy Scriptures; some portion of which he gave him to learn and repeat every day. The son’s inclination suited exactly with the father’s design, so far as that he pursued his studies with most extraordinary zeal and ardour: but being endued with a quick apprehension and a strong imagination, would not content himself with that sense which at first presented itself, but farther endeavoured to dive into mysterious and allegorical explications of the sacred books. This probably suggested to his father that he might fall into that mode of interpreting, which in fact, proved afterwards the source of all his errors, and he therefore cautiously advised him not to attempt to penetrate too far in the study of the Holy Scriptures, but to content himself with their most clear, obvious, and natural sense. But it appears that from a forward conceit of his talents, he was already deeply infected with that “furor allegoricus,” as a learned modern calls it; that rage of expounding the Scriptures allegorically, which grew afterwards to be even a distemper, and carried him to excesses which can never be excused.

After he had been some lime instructed by his father, other preceptors were sought out for him he had, for his master in philosophy, Ammonius, the famous Christian philosopher; and in divinity the no less famous Clement of Alexandria. From the former he imbibed that Platonic philosophy, with which he afterwards so miserably infected his Christianity, and gave birth to those many singular and heretical opinions which have distinguished him above all the primitive writers; but amidst these philosophical and theological pursuits, ' he found time to cultivate several arts and sciences: and so universal and powerful was his genius, that, as Jerom relates, he acquired very great skill and knowledge in geometry, arithmetic, music, grammar, rhetoric, &c. He was not above seventeen years of age when the persecution under the emperor Severus began at Alexandria in the year 202: and, his father being seized and imprisoned for his faith in Christ, Origen would also have offered himself to the persecutors, out of the great zeal he had to suffer martyrdom. This his mother resolutely opposed; but when he found he was detaiued against his will, he wrote a letter to his father to exhort him to martyrdom, in which he expresses himself thus: “Stand stedfast, my father, and let no regard to us alter your opinion, or shake your resolution;” for he had six sons besides Origen. Leonides, animated by his son, resolved to persist even to martyrdom, and was accordingly beheaded soon after: and though his family fell into extreme poverty, his goods being immediately confiscated, yet Origen, applying himself soon after entirely to human learning, by teaching grammar made a shift to maintain himself, his mother, and his brethren.

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

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

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.

These errors, and others connected with and flowing from these, together with that “furor allegoricus,” above mentioned, which pushed him on to turn even the whole law and gospel into allegory, are the foundation of all that enmity which has been conceived against Origen, and of all those anathemas with which he has been loaded. His damnation has been often decreed in form; and it has been deemed heretical even to suppose him saved. John Picus, earl of Mirandula, having published at Rome, among his 900 propositions, that it is more reasonable to believe Origen saved than damned, the masters in divinity censured him for it; asserting, that his proposition was rash, blameable, savouring of heresy, and contrary to the determination of the catholic church. This is what Picus himself relates in his “Apolog. c. 7.” Stephen Binct, a Jesuit, published a book at Paris in 1629, concerning the salvation of Origen, in which he took the affirmative side of the question, but not without diffidence and fear. This work is written in the form of a trial; witnesses are introduced, and depositions taken; and the cause is fullypleaded pro and con. The witnesses for Origen are Merlin, Erasmus, Genebrard, and Picus of Mirandula: after this, cardinal Baronius, in the name of Bellarmine, and of all who are against Origen, makes a speech to demand the condemnation of the accused; on whose crimes and heresies having expatiated, “Must I,” says he, “at last be reduced to such an extremity as to be obliged to open the gates of hell, in order to shew that Origen is there otherwise men will not believe it. Would it not be enough to have laid before you his crime, his unfortunate end, the sentence of his condemnation delivered by the emperors, by the popes, by the saints, by the fifth general council, not to mention others, and almost by the mouth of God himself? Yet, since there is no other method left but descending into hell, and shewing there that reprobrate, that damned Origen; come, gentlemen, I am determined to do it, in order to carry this matter to the highest degree of evidence: let us, in God’s name, go down into hell, to see whether he really be there or not, and to decide the question at once.” The seventh general council has quoted a book, and by quoting it “has declared it to be of sufficient authority, to furnish us with good and lawful proofs to support the determination of the council with regard to images. Why should not we, after the example of that council, make use of the same book to determine this controversy, which besides is already but too much cleared up and decided? It is said there, that a man, being in great perplexity about the salvation of Origen, after the fervent prayers of an holy old man, saw plainly, as it were, a kind of hell open; and looking in, observed the heresiarchs, who were all named to him, one after another, by their own names: and in the midst of them he saw Origen, who was there damned among the others, loaded with horror, flames, and confusion.”

In the mean time, this illustrious and excellent father, far from being universally condemned, has received the highest eloges from the best and greatest men among both ancients and moderns. JEusebius is upon all occasions his advocate, and therefore need not be particularly quoted. There was a time when Jerom himself spoke highly of him, and declared him to be persecuted, not for his errors, but his enviable superiority of talents; but Jerom afterwards changed his party, and abused him as heartily as he had here commended him; although even then he was obliged to acknowledge, that he had been a most extraordinary person from his infancy; “magnus vir ab infantia.” Erasmus had the profounclest veneration for Origen; and declares, that he learned more from one page of him than from ten of Augustin. Erasmus affirms also, that “in the Exposition of the Scriptures, allowing for some particular points of faith, he would prefer one Origen to ten Orthodox.” Mr. Daille“, in his” Treatise on the Fathers,“says, that” Origen alone, had we but his writings entire, would be able perhaps to give us more light and satisfaction in the business we are now upon, than all the rest. We have but very little of him left us, and the greatest part of that too, most miserably abused and corrupted; the most learned and almost innumerable writings of this great and incomparable person not being able to withstand the violence of time, nor the envy and malice of men, who have dealt much worse with him than so many ages and centuries of years that have passed from his time down to us." This corruption of his writings is a point, which his apologists have always insisted on strongly: Ruffinus particularly, in his defence against Jerom. Nay, Origen himself heavily complained of this usage in his life-time; uncertain, as it should seem, whether he was so served by the orthodox, with a view of being made more odious, or by the heretics, who were desirous to vent their heterodoxies under the great authority of his name.

When Orleannois was laid waste by the overflowing of the Loire in 1733, the duke, by his speedy help, saved a multitude of men who were perishing in the water, and furnished even the necessary grain for sowing the lands. It is universally known that, in 1739 and 1740, his liberality had no bounds but the people’s wants. He extended his alms not only to the poor catholics in Berlin, and throughout Silesia, but to those of the Indies and America. This great man also founded charity-schools in several places, and communities of men and women for the instruction of youth; a college at Versailles; a divinity chair in the Sorbonne, for explaining the Hebrew text of the holy scriptures. At Orleans he established foundations of midwives, and of surgeons for cutting for the stone. He purchased several very useful secrets, which he made public; and his gardens were filled with scarce and valuable simples from the most remote climates, for the relief of the sick. Anxious about. the public good to his last moments, he bequeathed to the seminary of the Trentetrois, a sum sufficient for the re-establishment of the scholarships; and from that time the young divines of this seminary have been taught Hebrew in the Sorbonne. These charitable occupations did not prevent his acquiring great learning. He applied with incredible success to the study of St. Thomas, Estius, the most valuable treatises in defence of religion, the fathers, the best ecclesiastical authors, the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Greek languages, that he might have the satisfaction of reading the hoi? scriptures in the original text. He also devoted some time to studying history, geography, botany, chemistry, natural philosophy, and painting. So rapid was his progress, that, in the last seven or eight years of his life, he cited texts of scripture almost always from memory, with the variations of the Hebrew, Greek, anoWulgate. The Greek fathers were as familiar to him as the Latin; and he explained with facility Plato’s Dialogues, and other profane authors. The duke of Orleans honoured the literati with his patronage, and encouraged them by his bounty, preferring those whose researches contributed to the glory of religion, or the public welfare. In the codicil of his* will., he leaves an annuity to the abb Frangois, and explains his motive in the following terms: “Being desirous to take upon myself to return the obligation which the public are under to S. abbe” Francois, author of a late work on the proofs of our religion, and to enable him to continue such useful labours, I give and bequeath to the foresaid S. Abbe Francois, five hundred livres annual-rent and annuity.“Ivlothwiths’tanding the immense sums which this prince spent, both in France and in foreign counrries, he discharged the accumulated debts of his own house,” restored its exhausted finances, and considerably increased its domains. Though humble and plain in his private life, he was grand and noble on public occasions. It is well known with how much magnificence he went into Alsace to espouse the queen in his majesty’s name; how liberal he was to the soldiers while colonel-general of the French infantry, and in what manner he celebrated the dauphin’s birth, the marriage of the duke of Chartres, &c. Gay and lively in conversation, he became serious the moment that any one began to talk to him on business. His austerities and application to study having brought on a long and painful illness, he waited for the approach of death with an incredible firmness and courage, speaking of it with the greatest tranquillity. He died February 4, 1752, aged forty-eight years and six months, universally regretted. He left many works in manuscript, principally literal translations, paraphrases, and commentaries on part of the Old Testament; a literal translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew, with a paraphrase, and notes; several dissertations against the Jews; a literal translation of St. Paul’s Epistles from the Greek, with a paraphrase, notes, and pious reflections, and several other curious treatises and dissertations on different subjects. His modesty would not permit him to print any of his writings he bequeathed them, with his library, to the Dominicans.

Mr. Or me was not known to be married, even to those who were most in his confidence; but in a letter from him to a particular friend, which, agreeably to the directions he left, was delivered according to its address, after his death, he acknowledges his marriage: and, in consequence of that acknowledgment, the court of directors settled a small annuity on his widow. He left no children.

Mr. Orme was somewhat above the middle stature, and his countenance expressed much shrewdness and intelligence. In his personal habits he seems not to have had any striking peculiarities. His general manner was sensible, easy, and polite. Of the qualities of his heart, those who knew him long and intimately thought very highly. He was zealous in the service of those whom he really loved: -but as it was not his custom to make professions of friendship, his acts sometimes surpassed expectations. His powers of conversation were very considerable; and such was the extent of his knowledge, the readiness of his thoughts, and the facility of his expression, that he generally illustrated, in a pleasing, often in a forcible, manner, whatever subject he talked on. Ancient literature was one of his favourite topics and he conversed on it with no common degree of learning and critical exactness, yet without any sort of pedantry or affectation. He loved to talk of music and painting, and was a good judge of both.

With respect to his intellectual character, it would appear, from his life as well as his writings, that the principal features were good sense, sagacity, and judgment. These qualities were assisted in their operation by an active spirit, a solicitous curiosity, and a cultivated taste. A mind thus constituted readily acquired that power of combining circumstances in lucid order, and of relating them with compressive force, which distioguishes the writings of Orme. Few historians have connected the events of their story with more perspicuity, or related them with more conciseness. If he is sometimes minute, he is never redundant, and never tedious. Every incident is so distinctly stated and clearly arranged; every new nation or individual is introduced with so compendious an explanation; all the observations arise from the facts with so much propriety, and are in themselves so forcible and just and the general style has so much simplicity and terseness that every reader of discernment and taste must feel a strong interest in perusing his history. It is not, indeed, illumined with philosophical views of society, or manners, or civil institutions, or arts, or commerce; nor is it adorned with any fine delineations of character; but it is, nevertheless, a work of great merit, and must continue to hold a high place in the second rank of historical compositions.

He was admitted of Emmanuel college, Cambridge, June 6, 1596, and in 1605 published, while a resident there, a small quarto entitled “The Picture of a Puritan, or a relation of the opinions, qualities, and practices of the Anabaptists in Germanic, and of the Puritans in England.” In this work he traces the affinities of the sects, and defends the protestant establishment of Elizabeth, in a series of dialogues, written with all the quaintness of the day, but uniformly displaying a vigorous understanding, and occasionally rising into a strain of 'considerable loftifiess. The work is replete with classical allusions, and his notes exhibit a deep knowledge of the fathers, schoolmen, and other abstruse writers.

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 famous Spanish Jew, was carefully educated in that religion by his parents, who were Jews, though they outwardly professed themselves Roman catholics; abstaining from the practice of Judaism in every thing, except only the observation of the fast of expiation, in the month Tisis, or September. Our author studied the scholastic philosophy as it was then taught in Spain, and became such an adept that he was made professor of metaphysics in the university of Salamanca: but, afterwards applying himself to the study of physic, he practised that art at Seville with success, till, being accused of Judaism, he was thrown into the inquisition, and suffered the most dreadful cruelties, in order to force him to confess. According to his own account, he was put into a dark dungeon, so straight, that he could scarce turn himself in it; and suffered so many hardships, that his brain began to be disturbed. He frequently asked himself, “Am I indeed that Don Balthasar Orobio, who walked freely about in Seville, who was entirely at ease, and had the blessings of a wife and children!” sometimes imagining that his past life was only a dream, and that the dungeon where he then lay was his true birth-place, and to all appearance would prove the place of his death. At other times, he used to form metaphysical arguments, and resolve them, acting the three different parts of opponent, respondent, and moderator, at the same time. In this whimsical way he diverted himself from time to time, but when examined by the inquisitors, constantly denied that he was a Jew. At length he was put to the torture, in the most cruel manner, yet without extorting any confession from him, and his tormentors, after three years’ confinement, finding themselves baffled by his perseverance, ordered his wounds to be cured, and so discharged him. As soon as he had got his liberty, he resolved to quit the Spanish dominions; and, going to France, was made professor of physic at Thoulouse. The theses, which he made as candidate for this place, were upon putrefaction and he maintained them with such a metaphysical subtlety as embarrassed all his competitors. He continued in this city some time, still outwardly professing the popish religion: but at last, growing weary of dissembling, he repaired to Amsterdam, where he was circumcised, took the name of Isaac, and professed Judaism; still continuing here also to practise physic, in which he was much esteemed. Upon the publication of Spinoza’s “Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,” he saw its fallacy, but did not think it worthy of an answer, until Bredenbergh, who had at one time written a confutation of it, published another treatise as objectionable as that of Spinosa’s. Orobio then took up his pen against both the authors, and published a piece to that purpose, entitled “Certamen philosophicum adversus J. B. principia,” 1684, 4to. But the dispute which he held with the celebrated Philip Limborch against the Christian religion (see Limborch), did him most credit, on the score of acuteness, moderation, and temper. The three papers which he wrote on the occasion were afterwards printed by his antagonist, in an account which he published of the controversy, under the title of “Arnica collatio cum Judæo, &c.” Orobio died in 1687.

, the most celebrated of all the Greeks in the fabulous ages, was distinguished as a teacher of religion and philosophy, and his name became as illustrious among the Greeks, as that of Zoroaster among the Persians, of Buddas among the Indians, or of Thoth, or Hermes, among the Egyptians. But it has happened to Orpheus, as to many other wise men of antiquity, that spurious writings have been ascribed to him, and modern tenets have been obtruded upon the world under the sanction of his name. It has even been questioned, whether Orpheus ever existed. Cicero asserts, on the authority of Aristotle, that there was no such person as the poet Orpheus. But no passage of tjiis kind is at present to be found in the works of Aristotle; and the opinion is contradicted by the general testimony of the ancients, who relate, that Orpheus was a native of Thrace, who flourished before the Trojan war, and passed the greater part of his life in Greece.

, or Ursatus, a celebrated antiquary, historian, grammarian, and poet, was born February 1, 1617, at Padua, of one of the most illustrious families in that city. He applied diligently to the study of antiquities and ancient inscriptions, which occasioned his taking several journies into different parts of Italy. When advanced in life, he was appointed to teach natural philosophy in the university of Padua, and acquitted himself with great success in that office. He died at Venice July 3, 1678. He was a member of the academy of the Ricovrati, and has left a great number of valuable works, some in Latin, others in Italian: the principal among the former are, “Sertum Philosophicum ex variis scientise naturaiis floribus consertum,” Padua, 1635, 4to. 2. “Monumenta Patavina,” Padua,“1652, folio. 3.” Commentarius de Dotis Romanorum,“Padua, 1672, folio, a useful work, and much esteemed. It has been inserted in torn. XI. of the” Thesaurus“of Groevius, and is printed separately, Paris, 1723, 12mo, and at the Hague, 1736. The following are his principal Italian works 4.” A Hist, of Padua, in two parts,“1678, folio. 5.” I Marmi eruditi,“1669, and 1719, 2 vols. 4to; a curious work, in two parts also. 6.” Chronologia di Reggimenti di Padoua;“revised, with notes, 1666, 4to. 7. Several” Lyric Poems,“1637, 12mo;” Comedies," andother poetical pieces, &c.

, an eminent cardinal, was born in 1692, in Tuscany. He entered the Dominican order, in which he taught theology, was afterwards master of the sacred palace, and honoured with the purple by Clement XIII. in 1759. He wrote “Infallabilitas act. Rom. Pont.” 1741, 3 vols. 4to; “An Ecclesiastical History of the first six ages of the Church,” 20 vols 4 to, or 8vo; the last volume was published in 1761, in which year he died. His history is useful as a collection of records and facts, but is too prolix for general reading.

Mr. Orton’s quitting his pastoral connection with the dissenters at Shrewsbury, was attended with unhappy consequences. A contest arose with respect to the choice of an assistant to Mr. Fownes, which, at length ended in a separation. The larger number of the society thought it their duty to provide themselves with another place of worship; and with these Mr. Orton concurred in opinion. He esteemed himself, says his biographer, bound to countenance them upon every principle of conscience, as a Christian, a Dissenter, a Minister, and a Friend to Liberty. Though Mr. Fownes continued at the old chapel, this circumstance did not occasion any diminution in the friendship and affection subsisting between him and Mr. Orton. One almost unavoidable effect of the division was, its being accompanied with a bad spirit, in several persons, on both sides of the question. The height to which the matter was carried, rendered Mr. Orton’s situation at Shrewsbury greatly uncomfortable, and materially affected his health. He found it necessary, therefore, to retire to another place; and at length, in 1766, he fixed at Kidderminster, to which he was principally led that he might have the advice of a very able and skilful physician (Dr. Johnstone, of Worcester), who always proved himself a faithful and tender friend. He continued at Kidderminster for the remainder of his clays; and although prevented, by the bad state of his health, from ever again appearing in the pulpit, he still retained the same zeal for promoting the great objects of the Christian religion. What he could not perform as a preacher, he was solicitous to effect as a practical writer. Previously to his resignation of the pastoral office his only publications were, his Funeral Sermon for Dr. Doddridge, printed in 1752; a Fast Sermon in 1756, occasioned by the earthquake at Lisbon; and “Three Discourses on Eternity, and the Importance and Advantage of looking at Eternal Things,” published in 1764. These three discourses have gone through six editions, and have been translated into Welch. Such was Mr. Orton’s ill state of health, together with his attention to the duties of his profession, that it was not till 1766 that he was enabled to give to the world his “Memoirs of the Life, Character, and Writings of Dr. Doddridge.” In 1769, he published a set of sermons, under the title of “Religious Exercises recommended: or, Discourses on the Heavenly State, considered under the Idea of a Sabbath.” In 1771, he published “Discourses to the Aged.” Our author’s next publication, which appeared in 1774, was entitled “Christian Zeal; or three Discourses on the Importance of seeking the Things of Christ more than our own.” These seem to have been intended to check the se!6sh and clamorous zeal which then appeared among the Dissenters for matters of a worldly kind, and to direct it to the support and advancement of real practical religion. In 1775, Mr. Orton committed to the press three farther Discourses, under the title of “Christian Worship,” which have been, translated into Welch. Two volumes of “Discourses on Practical Subjects” were the production of the next year. Mr. Orion’s last publication, which appeared in 1777, was entitled “Sacramental Meditations or, Devout Reflections on various Passages of Scripture, designed to assist Christians in their attendance on the Lord’s Supper, and their Improvement of it.” These meditations, which are fifty in number, are all founded on different texts of the Sacred Writings, and are, what the author himself used in the administration of the sacrament, according to the method observed among Dissenters from the Church of England.

After the publication of the “Sacramental Meditations” in 1777, Mr. Orton’s bad state of health no longer permitted him to instruct and edify the world fronvthe press. But he still continued to be useful by his pious example, his affectionate exhortations, and his correspondence with his intimate friends. The degree of doctor in divinity had been conferred upon him many years previously to his decease, but he would never permit himself to be addressed by that title, or prefix it to any of his writings. In the spring of the year 1783, Mr. Orton’s complaints; multiplied so fast upon him, that there was no prospect of his continuing much longer in life, and accordingly he died at Kidderminster, July 19, 1783, in the sixty-sixth year of his age. On the twenty-fifth of the same month, agreeably to his own request, he was buried in the chancel of St. Chad’s church, Shrewsbury.

On his return to Holland, he had no fixed settlement, dividing his time between Amsterdam, Utrecht, Leyden, and the Hague. In 1726, he determined to visit Italy, and after travelling through its principal cities, he went to Sicily, where he found ample gratification for his antiquarian taste. On his return he spent a winter at Rome, which he left in 1728, and made the tour of Germany, and other parts of Europe, where any thing curious or interesting; was to be found. Returning at length home, he hoped to sit down to the quiet enjoyment of his books; but the magistrates of Amsterdam, sensible how greatly his talents would extend the reputation of their school, offered him the professorship of history, rhetoric, and Greek, which he accepted, and entered upon the duties of his office May 22, 1730, with an inaugural dissertation on the agreement between commerce and the muses, “De felici Mercurii cum Musis contubernio.” Two years after, at the celebration of the centenary anniversary of the school, he delivered a harangue, including its foundation and progress, and commemorating the eminent men it had produced. In 1742, he resigned his professorship, that he might have more leisure for his critical inquiries, and to avail himself of the stores of knowledge accumulated during his travels, as well as to communicate them to others. He had indeed a singular pleasure in assisting the literary researches of his friends, and was a very considerable contributor of notes, various readings and collations to mdst-of the editions of the ancient authors printed in his time, to Josephus, Lucian, Libanius, Diodorus Siculus, Aristopbanes, Livy, Caesar, &c. &c. All these, as well as his own works, show a profound knowledge of the Greek language, and an intimate acquaintance with classical history and criticism.

He published, in 1750, in quarto, a new edition of “Chereas and Callirhoe;” and a new edition of the Greek Anthology was expected from him, for which he had some valuable materials, and one of Theocritus, perhaps also one of Catullus, Tibulius, and Propertius but all these undertakings were frustrated by the unexpected death of this labprious and acute critic, which took place Sept. 13, or 14, 1751. He left a son John, who was born in 1734. What D'Orville published is to be found in a collection, in imitation of one begun in England by Jortin, in 1731, under the title of “Observationes Miscellaneae,” a work of profound erudition, which he edited along with Burman, as far as Jo vols. 8vo; and after Burman’s death, D'Orville published four additional volumes, under the title of “Observationes Miscellaneae Novae,” the last of which was completed a few clays before his death. Of his dissertations inserted in these volumes, two have been greatly admired, “Exercitatio de inscriptionibus Deliacis,” and “Diatribe in Inscriptiones quasdam,” &c. Some years after his death, his travels and observations in Sicily were published by Peter Burman, the younger, under the title “Simula, quibus Siciliae veteris rudera, additis antiquitatum tabulis illustrantur,” &c. 1764, fol. His only other publication was a controversial pamphlet against Cornelius Pauw, Amst. 1737, 8vo, in which he retorts on that author for some of the severities he was too much accustomed to exercise upon his learned contemporaries. D'Orville had a brother Peter, who died in 1739. He wrote some elegant Latin poems, a collection of which was published at Amsterdam, in 1740.

, an English writer of considerable abilities, was born about 1589. He was descended from an ancient family, who had been long seated at Chicksand, near Shefford, in Bedfordshire, where his grandfather, and father, sir John Osborne, were men of fortune, and, according to Wood, puritans, who gave him what education he had at home, but never sent him to either school or university. This he appears to have afterwards much regretted, on comparing the advantages of public and private education. As soon, however, as he was of age, he commenced the life of a courtier, and being taken into the service of the Pembroke family, became master of the horse to William earl of Pembroke. Upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he sided with the parliament, but not in all their measures, nor all their principles; yet they conferred some public employments upon him; and, having married a sister of one of Oliver’s colonels, he was enabled to procure his son John a fellowship in All-souls’ college, Oxford, by the favour of the parliamentary visitors of that university, in 1648. After this he resided there himself, purposely to superintend his education; and also to print some books of his own composition. Accordingly, among others, he published there his “Advice to a Son,” the first part in 1656; which going through five editions within two years, he added a second, 1658, in 8vo. Though this had the usual fate of second parts, to be less relished than the first, yet both were eagerly bought and admired at Oxford, especially by the young students; which being observed by the “godly ministers,” as Wood calls them, they drew up a complaint against the said books, as instilling atheistical principles into the minds of the youth, and proposed to have them publicly burnt. Although this sentence was not carried into execution, there appeared so many objections to the volumes, that an order passed the 27th of July, 1658, forbidding all booksellers, or any other persons, to sell them. But our author did not long survive this order, dykig Feb. 11, 1659, aged about seventy. For the accusation of atheism there seems little foundation; but many of his sentiments are otherwise objectionable, and the quaintness of his style, and pedantry of his expression, have long ago consigned the work to oblivion. His other publications were, 1. “A seasonable Expostulation, with the Netherlands,” &c. 1652, 4to. 2. “Persuasive to mutual compliance under the present government.” 3. “Plea for a free State compared with Monarchy.” 4. “The private Christian’s non ultra,” &c. 1G56, 4to. 5. A volume in 8vo, containing, “The Turkish policy, &c. a Discourse upon Machiavel, &c. Observations upon the King of Sweden’s descent into Germany a Discourse upon Piso and Vindex, &c. a Discourse upon the greatness and corruption of the Court of Rome another upon the Election of Pope JLeo X. Political occasion for the defection from the Church of Rome a Discourse in vindication of Martin Luther.” Besides these were published, 1. “Historical Memoirs on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James.” 2. “A Miscellany of sundry Essays, &c. together with political deductions from the History of the Earl of Essex,” c. Other pieces have been ascribed to him on doubtful authority. A collection of his works was published in 1689, 8vo and again, 1722, in 2 vols. 12mo.

At the conference of Marpurg, in 1529, between Luther and the Swiss divines, and afterwards, he maintained the following doctrine, viz. that a man is justified formally, not by the faith and apprehension of the justice of Jesus Christ, or the imputation of our Saviour’s justice, according to the opinion of Luther and Calvin; but by the essential justice of God."

, a celebrated orator, born July 12, 1587, at Milan, taught the languages and belles lettres, became eminent for his eloquence, and was a long time professor of rhetoric at Padua, where he died July 24, 1631. He left several works in prose and verse: the principal are, 1. “Rornano-Graecia;” 2. “Tractatus de Sepuichris et Epitaphiis Ethnicorum et Christianorum;” 3. “Elogia Scriptorum illustrium” 4. “Orationes” 5, “Epistolarum Libri duo;” 6. Notes and corrections to the “History of the time of Frederic Barbarossa,” written by Morenas, in torn. III. of the Thesaurus Italiae, and to Albert Mussato’s “History of the Emperor Henry VII.” Venice, 1635, fol.; 7. A collection of authors of the history of Padua, &c. Tbeodatus Osius, his brother, also wrote various tracts. This family, which has produced many other distinguished men, boasted of having been eminent from the time of St. Ambrose; and that being driven from Milan for joining the Turriani against the Visconti, they were dispersed over several countries of Europe, even Poland, whither they followed queen Bona Sforza. From this branch, according to their account, descended cardinal Stanislaus Osius, or more properly Hozros, an account of whom may be found under the article Sosius.

, 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.

Father Tarquinio Galucci made his funeral oration, or panegyric; the sum of which is, that he united the most exact probity with the most consummate policy, and therefore was universally esteemed. He was a man, says Perrault, of an incredible penetration and he laid his measures with such true discernment, and executed them with such diligence, that it is scarce possible to mark a single false step in the numerous affairs which he negociated. Wicquefort, speaking of his abilities, observes, that he had given proofs of his skill in negociations in that which he transacted, with the grand duke of Tuscany, for the restitution of the island of If; in that with pope Clement VIII. in order to reconcile Henty IV. to the church of Rome; in that of the invalidity of the said king’s marriage with queen Margaret of Valois, which had been valid near thirty years; in that of the dispensation with regard to the marriage between Catharine of Bourbon, sister to Henry, with the duke of Bar, a papist, then a protestant; and in several other very important and delicate affairs. His dispatches, continues this writer, are as useful to an ambassador, who hopes to succeed in his employment, as the Bible and the “Corpus Juris” to such lawyers and divines as would succeed in their respective professions. These letters of our minister were first published under the title of “Lettres du Cardinal D'Ossat,” at Paris, 1624, folio, and have been enlarged and published at several times and places since. They were published at Paris in 1697, 4to, with his life, and notes by Amelot de la Houssaye ; and, lastly, in 1708, at Amsterdam, 12mo, five volumes. This is the best and most ample edition. Several of his original letters were formerly in Colbert’s library. In 1771, a life of him was published at Paris, in 2 vols. 12mo, which is said to be extremely partial to the character of the cardinal, but to contain much valuable information as to the history of the events in which he was concerned. 1

, a most celebrated Flemishpainter, was born at Lubeck in 1610, and was a disciple of Frank Hals, in company with Brouwer, with whom he contracted a close intimacy. In his choice of subjects he followed Teniers, and, as Fuseli says, may, more properly than any other Dutch, Flemish, or German artist, be said to have raised flowers from a dunghill. He has contented himself to trace the line which just discriminates the animal from the brute, and stamps his actors with instinct rather than with passions. He has personified the dregs of vulgarity without recommending them by the most evanescent feature of taste, and yet decoys our curiosity to dive with bim into the habitation of filth, beguiles our eye to dwell on the loathsome inmates and contents, and surprises our judgment into implicit admiration, by a truth of character, an energy of effect, a breadth and geniality of touch and finish, which leave no room for censure- If he is less silvery, less airy than Teniers, he is far more vigorous and gleaming; if his forms be more squat and brutal, they are less fantastic and more natural; if he group with less amenity, he far excels the Fleming in depth and real composition. His pictures, it is true, are not always of low subjects, but he seldom rises to any thing like gentility in character, and very seldom attempted it. His works are not numerous, and therefore very high-priced. He is also to be ranked among engravers; and Strutt enumerates fiftytwo etchings of various sizes, all from his own designs, and the greater part are justly held in estimation. He died in 1685, at the age of seventy-five. His younger brother, Isaac Van Ostade, was taught by him the art of painting, and imitated the style and taste of his instructor but he died young, and never arrived at any degree of skill in the art comparable to that of his brother. As, however, he wrought in the same manner, and upon the same kind of subjects, some of his original productions, and many of his copies from Adrian, are palmed upon amateurs as the works of the elder Ostade. But the disparity is easily discernible by the judicious, the touch is not so free, the colouring not so transparent; nor have they an equal warmth or force of effect, in comparison with each other.

, one of the most celebrated Swiss divines of the latter age, was born at Neufchatel, Nov. 25, 1663. He was the only son of John Rtfdolph Ostervald, minister of Neufchatel, Inhere the family of Ostervald had been settled for nearly three centuries, and had produced many persons eminent in the army and at the bar. His father determined to give him the best education, with a view to the ministry, should his inclination lead that way. Accordingly, in 1676, he took him to Zurich, to be instructed in the learned languages, and to learn German at the same time, under the care of professor John Henry Ott, who was his intimate friend. After a dilfgent application here for eighteen months, young Ostervald returned home in Oct. 1677, and continued his classical studies tinder Mr. D'Aubigne, principal of the college of Neufchatel. A year after he was sent to Saumur, where he maintained some learned theses with such ability, that the degree of master of arts was conferred upon him with every testimony of respect, although he had not yet reached his sixteenth year. In Sept. 1680, he took a voyage to Rochelle, where he was introduced to some eminent literary characters; and the following year, removed to Orleans, and began the study of divinity under the celebrated Pajou, which he continued afterwards under Mr. Allix, and the celebrated Claude, at Paris. His fellow student here was Mr. Charles Tribolet, his relation, and afterwards his colleague at Neufchatel; few friends, we are told, have been more closely connected, or more similar in sentiment on all occasions.

In 1700, the clergy of Neufchatel chose Mr. Ostervald for their dean, an annual office to which he was frequently re-elected, and held it at one time for three successive years. In 1700, also, the London society for the propagation of the Gospel chose him a member, and had before so far honoured him as to cause his “Abridgment of the Sacred History” prefixed to his Catechism, to be translated into Arabic, in order to be sent to the East Indies. The year that he was first chosen dean was distinguished by the introduction of a new version of the Psalms in the churches, and various regulations of great utility in the modes of theological study and discipline, in all which he took an active part. He began also from this time to give a complete course of instructions to divinity students, which he carried on for forty-five years with great success and approbation. Such indeed was the fame of his lectures, that some of his pupils, eager to diffuse their usefulness more extensively, published some part of them, without either his knowledge or consent. In this way his “Ethica Christiana” was published in Latin, at London, in 1727, and often reprinted both in Dutch and French. A “Compendium Theologiae,” and “Trait4 du Ministere Sacre,” were also published in the same manner. Against all these Ostervald advertised, that they were published without his knowledge, and that he would not be responsible for their errors. Even this, however, had very little effect on the sale, so highly was every thing valued of which he was the reputed author; and, after all, there were not any errors faund in them which could affect his reputation. The last mentioned treatise was published in English in 1781, by the rev. Thomas Stevens, who considered it as the most complete that had then appeared, under the title of “Lectures on the exercise of the Sacred Ministry.”

, a learned Swiss divine, was born in the canton of Zurich in 1617, where he was first educated, but in 1635 was sent to study at Lausanne, Geneva, and Groningen, and afterwards at Leyden and Amsterdam. After this he visited England and France; and upon his return to his native country, obtained the living of Dietlickon, which he held for twenty-five years. In 1651 he was nominated to the professorship of eloquence at Zurich in 1655, to that of Hebrew and in 1668, to that of ecclesiastical history. He died in 1682, leaving behind him several works which indicate great learning and acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. Of these which are written in Latin, the principal are, a treatise “On the Grandeur of the Church of Rome;” “Annals relating to the History of the Anabaptists;” “A Latin Discourse in favour of the Study of the Hebrew Language;” “A Latin Treatise oh” Alphabets, and the Manner of Writing in all Nations.“He had a son, John Baptist Ott, born in 1661, who acquired great celebrity by his knowledge of the oriental languages and antiquities. He was pastor of a church at Zollicken, and afterwards professor of Hebrew at Zurich. In 1715 he was promoted to the archdeaconry of the cathedral in that city. He was the author of several works of considerable reputation: as,” A Dissertation on Vows;“” A Letter on Samaritan Medals, addressed to Adrian Reland:“both these are written in the Latin language; a treatise in German,” On the manuscript and printed Versions of the Bible before the era of the reformation;“and” A Dissertation on certain Antiquities discovered at Klothen, in 1724." Thus far we learn from Moreri and the Dictionnaire Historique, but we suspect that this John Baptist was either the John Henry Ott, librarian to archbishop Wake, or his brother. Of this last we are told, that archbishop Wake had received many civilities from his father in the early part of his life, and recollecting this, and that he had many children, appointed his son John Henry, whom he found in England, to be Dr. Wilkins’s successor, as librarian at Lambeth. He also ordained him deacon and priest, and in. June 1721, collated him to the rectory of Blackmanston, Kent. Mr. Ott obtained other promotions, the last of which, in 1730, was a prebend of Peterborough. He continued librarian till archbishop Wake’s death, in 1737. The time of his own death we have not been able to ascertain.

, one of the first names in the English drama, was born at Trottin in Sussex, March 3, 1651— 2, the son of the rev. Humphrey Otway, rector of Woolbeding. From Winchester-school, where he was educated, he was entered, in 1669, a commoner of Christ-church, but left the university without a degree, whether for want of money, or from impatience of academical restraint, or mere eagerness to mingle with the world, is not known. The anonymous writer of his life in one of the editions of His works, reports that he removed from Oxford to St. John’s-college, Cambridge, the probability of which rests only on a copy of verses sent to him by Duke the poet, who was his intimate friend. At Cambridge, however, he could not have remained long, if ever he paid more than a visit to it, for he appeared in London in 1672 in the character of the king in Mrs. Behn’s “Forced Marriage,” and found himself unable to gain any reputation on the stage. If he ever went to Cambridge, it must have been after this period, for Duke himself was not entered of Trinity-college until 1675.

Dr. Johnson has endeavoured to account for his failure on the stage with more precision than perhaps was necessary, as the circumstance is far from being uncommon. This kind of inability, says that eminent critic, he shared with Shakspeare and Jonson, as he shared likewise some of their excellences. It seems reasonable to expect that a great dramatic poet should without difficulty become a great actor that he who can feel, could express that he who can excite passion, should exhibit with great readiness its external modes but since experience has fully proved, that of those powers, whatever be their affinity, one may be possessed in a great degree by him who has very little of the other; it must be allowed that they depend upon different faculties, or on different use of the same faculty that the actor must have a pliancy of mien, a flexibility of countenance, and a variety of tones, which the poet may be easily supposed to want; or that the attention of the poet and the player have been differently employed; the one has been considering thought, and the other action; one has watched the heart, and the other contemplated the face.

But, though Otway could not gain much notice as a player, he felt in himself such powers as might qualify him for a dramatic author; and his first attempt was on the higher species of the art. His tragedy of “Alcibiades” was acted at the Theatre-royal in 1675. The story is taken from Cornelius Nepos and Plutarch, but he departs from genuine history to accommodate the character of his hero to the effect he wished to produce. With Otway, Alcibiades chooses rather to lose his life than injure his defender king Agis, or abuse his bed. His “Don Carlos,” another tragedy in heroic verse, was performed in 1676. It is taken from a novel of the same name by S. Real, and from the Spanish chronicles in the life of Philip II.

It appears from a letter of Mr. Booth’s to Aaron Hill, that “Don Carlos” succeeded much better than either “Venice Preserved,” or “The Orphan,” and was infinitely more applauded and followed for many years. It is even asserted that it was played for thirty nights together; but this report, as Dr. Johnson observes, may be reasonably doubted, as so long a continuance of one play upon the stage is a very wide deviation from the practice of that time when the ardour for theatrical entertainments was not yet diffused through the whole people, and the audience, consisting nearly of the same persons, could be drawn together only by variety. This seems plausible, and Downes in his “Roscius Anglicanus,” informs us that it was acted only ten successive days, but adds that “it got more money than any preceding tragedy,” a circumstance alluded to by Rochester in the “Session of the Poets.”

In 1677 he produced “Titus and Berenice,” a translation, with some alterations from Racine, in three acts, and written in rhyme, and “The Cheats of Scapin,” a farce partly from Moliere, which were acted together with considerable success. The custom of annexing farces to plays was about this time introduced. These were followed in ]678, by his comedy of “Friendship in Fashion,' 7 which bad some success, but we know not whether the author was at this time in London. It is certain that in 1677, he went abroad; a circumstance which is thus introduced by Dr. Johnson:” Want of morals, or of decency, did not in those days exclude any man from the company of the wealthy and the gay, if he brought with him any powers of entertainment; and Otway is said to have been at this time a favourite companion of the dissolute wits. But as he who desires no virtue in his companion has no virtue in himself, those whom Otway frequented had no purpose of doing more for him than to pay his reckoning. They desired only to drink and laugh: their fondness was without benevolence, and their familiarity without friendship. Men of wit, says one of Otway’s biographers, received at that time no favour from the great but to share their riots “irom which they were dismissed again to their own narrovy circumstances. Thus they languished in poverty without the support of eminence.”

Some exception, however, must be made. The earl of Plymouth, one of king Charles’s natural sons, procured for him a cornet’s commission in some troops then (in 1677) sent into Flanders. But Otway did not prosper in his military character: for he soon left his commission behind him, whatever was the reason, and came back to London, where he resumed his dramatic labours. His next tragedy, “Caius Marius,” was acted in 1680, and had some success, probably from the author’s availing himself of the clamour about the popish plot, and artfully applying the dissentions of Marius and Scylla to the factious in the reign of Charles II. But a higher degree of fame awaited him from his admirable tragedy, “The Orphan,” which appeared the same year, “one of the few pieces,” says Dr. Johnson, “that keep possession of the stage, and has pleased for almost (more than) a century, through all the vicissitudes of dramatic fashion. Of this play nothing new can easily be said. It is a domestic tragedy drawn from middle life. Its whole power is upon the affections; for it is not written with much comprehension of thought, or elegance of expression.” On a tragedy that has produced such effects for so great a length of time, minute criticism would be but idly employed. In this, too, some political allusions have been conjectured, but to us they appear too obscure for application, and were they otherwise, cannot now be felt.

All this was performed before he was thirty-four years old; for he died April 14, 1685, “in a manner,” says Dr. Johnson, “which I am unwilling to mention. Having been compelled by his necessities to contract debts, and hunted, as is supposed, by the terriers of the law, he retired to a public-house (the Bull, according to Anthony Wooo 1 ), on Tower-hill, where he is said to have died of want; or, as it is related by one of his biographers^ by swallowing, after a long fast, a piece of bread which charity had supplied. He went out, as is reported, almost naked in the rage of hunger, and, finding a gentleman in a neighbouring coffee-house, asked him for a shilling. The gentleman gave him a guinea; and Otway going away bought a roll, and was choaked with the first mouthfuL All this, I hope, is not true; and there is this ground of better hope, that Pope, who lived near enough to be well informed, relates in Spence’s Memorials, that he died of a fever caught by violent pursuit of a thief that had robbed one of his friends. But that indigence, and its concomitants, sorrow and despondency, pressed hard upon him, has never been denied, whatever immediate cause might bring him to the grave.”

In one of the papers of Dr. Goldsmith’s “Bee,” we have an additional particular respecting Otway’s death, not wholly uninteresting. It is said that when he died he had about him the copy of a tragedy, which he had sold for a trifle to Bentley the bookseller; and this fact is confirmed by the following advertisement, which appeared in L'Estrange’s Observator for November 27, 1686, and for December 4. “Whereas Mr. Thomas Otway some time before his death, made four Acts of a Play, whoever can give notice in whose hands the copy lies, either to Mr. Thomas Betterton, or to Mr. William Smith, at the Theatre Royal, shall be well rewarded for his pains.” It does not appear that this play was ever discovered, but in 1719 a tragedy was printed, entitled “Heroic Friendship,” and attributed to him without any foundation. It never, however, was acted, or deserved to be acted.

When Otway first began to rise into reputation, Dryden spoke slightingly of his performances, but afterwards acknowledged their merit, though perhaps somewhat coldly. In his preface to Du Fresnoy, he says, “To express the passions which are seated in the heart by outward signs, is one great precept of the painter’s, and very difficult to perform. In poetry the very same passions and motions of the mind are to be expressed; and in this consists the principal difficulty, as well as the excellency of that art. This (says Du Fresnpy) is the gift of Jupiter; and to speak in the -ame heathen language, we call it the gift of our Apollo, not to be obtained by pains or study, if we are not born to it. For the motions which are studied, are never so natural as those which break out in the height of a real passion. Mr. Otway possessed this part as thoroughly as any of the ancients and moderns. I will not defend every thing in his * Venice Preserved;‘ but I must bear this testimony’to his memory, that the passions are truly touched in it, though perhaps there is somewhat to be desired both in the grounds of them, and in the height and elegance of expression. But nature is there, which is the greatest beauty.” This is high praise from Dryden, who could not but be conscious that Otway excelled him in the pathetic.

, a learned French monk, originally of a family of Rheims, was born at Mezieres, Feb. 11, 1638. His father was a weaver, and designed to breed him to his own business; but the son’s inclination leading him to literature, he retired in 1656, against the will of his parents, among the Premontres, passed his noviciate in the abbey of Verdun, and made his profession in November, 1658. He was afterwards sent into France, where he spent four years in the studies of philosophy and theology, with, however, very little assistance from his masters, who were very ignorant; he then applied himself particularly to ecclesiastical history, which was his favourite study. Thus employed, he remained in obscurity for twenty years, among those of his order, when his talents became known by one of those apparently accidental circumstances which give a turn to the lives of men. His superiors happened to place him in 1678, in the abbey of Bucilly, in Champagne, and Lewis XIV. on a journey in 1680, coming to this abbey, stopped to dine. It was usual for such a guest to receive the compliments of the society; and when Oudin found that all the monks were afraid to appear, in order to address his majesty, he undertook the task, and acquitted himself so well, that the king and court were surprized to find, in so savage and solitary a place, a person of so much address and good sense; and his majesty, greatly pleased with his reception, ordered the abbey a purse of fifty louis d'ors. Oudin’s abilities being thus discovered, he was sent in 1614, by Michael Colbert, the principal and reformergeneral of this order, to visit the abbeys and churches belonging to them, and to take from their archives whatsoever might be of use in his history. On this occasion he went to all the convents in the Netherlands, returned to France with a large collection of historical documents, and in 1685 wade the same researches in Lorrain, Burgundy, and Alsace. In 1688 he published “A Supplement of the Ecclesiastical Writers, omitted by Bellarmine,” a work which did him much honour, under the title “Supplementum de scriptoribus vel scriptis ecclesiasticis a Bellarmino omissis, ad annum 1460, vel ad artem typographical!! inventam.” He published afterwards a complete body of those works, with the title of “Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesias antiquis, illorumque scriptis, adhunc extantibus in celebrioribus Europae bibliothecis, a Bellarmino, Possevino, Phil. Labbeo, Gul, Caveo, Ellio, Du Pin,” &c. 3 vols. folio. This is his principal work; but if we may believe Le Clerc, our author did not understand either Greek or; Latin sufficient for it and it certainly abounds in errors, a great many of which, however, belong to the press.

In 1690 he quitted France and went to Leyden, where he embraced the Protestant religion, and was made underlibrarian of the university; and continued at Leyden till his death, which happened in Sept. 1717. He was the author, or rather collector of some other things, among which are, “Veterum aliquot Galliae & Belgiae scriptorum opuscula sacra,” Leyden, 1692; “Trias dissertationum Criticarum,” ibid. 1718.

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

, 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.

Notwithstanding all Oughtred’s mathematical merit, he was, in 1646, in danger of a sequestration by the committee for plundering ministers; in order to which, several articles were deposed and sworn against him; but, upon his day of hearing, William Lilly, the famous astrologer, applied to sir Bulstrode Whitelocke and all his old friends, who appeared so numerous in his behalf, that though the chairman and many other presbyterian members were active against him, yet he was cleared by the majority. This Lilly tells us himself, in the “History of his own Life,” where he styles Oughtred the most famous mathematician then of Europe. “The truth is,” continues this writer, “he had a considerable parsonage and that alone was enough to sequester any moderate judgment besides, he was also well known to affect his majesty.” His merit, however, appeared so much neglected, and his situation was made so uneasy at home, that his friends procured several invitations to him from abroad, to live either in Italy, France, or Holland, but he chose to encounter all his difficulties at Albury. Aubrey informs us that the grand duke invited him to Florence, and offered him 500l. a year, but he would not accept it because of his religion. From the same author we learn that he was thought a very indifferent preacher, so bent were his thoughts on mathematics; but, when he found himself in danger of being sequestered for a royalist, " he fell to the study of divinity, and preached (they sayd) admirably well, even in his old age.

Mr. Oughtred died June 30, 1660, aged eighty-six, and was buried at Albury church, in the chancel, but without any memorial. Collier, in his “Dictionary,” tells us that he died about the beginning of May 1660; for that, upon hearing the news of the vote at Westminster, which passed for the restoration of Charles II. he expired in a sudden extacy of joy. David Lloyd, in his “Memoirs,” has given the following short character of him: “that he was as facetious in Greek and Latin as solid in arithmetic, geometry, and the sphere of all measures, music, &c. exact in his style as in his judgment; handling his tube and other instruments at eighty as steadily as others did at thirty; owing this, as he said, to temperance and archery; principling his people with plain and solid truths, as he did the world with great and useful arts; advancing new inventions in all things but religion, which, in its old order and decency, he maintained secure in his privacy, prudence, meekness, simplicity, resolution, patience, and contentment. He had one son, whom he put an apprentice to a watchmaker, and wrote a book of instructions in that art for his use. This son, according to Aubrey, was so stupid or forgetful, that only twelve years after his fathers death, he could not tell where he lay. We are indebted, however, to Aubrey for some particulars of Oughtred which bring us a little closer to his domestic life.” He

whom he had nine sons (most lived to be men) and four daughters. None of his sons he could make any great scholars. He was a little man, had black hair and black eyes, with a great deal of spirit. His witt was always working. His eldest son Benjamin told me that his father did use to lye a bed till eleven or twelve o‘clock, with his doublet on, ever since he can remember. Studied late at night; went not to bed till 11 o’clock; had his tinder-box by him; and on the top of his bed-staffe he had his inkhorn fixt. He slept but little. Sometimes he went not to bed in two or three nights, and would not come down to meals till he had found out the qu&situm.

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

Although, according to Aubrey, he burnt “a world of papers” just before his death, yet it is certain that he also left behind him a great number of papers upon mathematical subjects; and, in most of his Greek and Latin mathematical books there were found notes in his own handwriting, with an abridgment of almost every proposition and demonstration in the margin, which came into the museum of the late William Jones, esq. F. R. S. father to sir William Jones. These books and manuscripts then passed into the hands of sir Charles Scarborough, the physician; the latter of which were carefully looked over, and all that were found fit for the press, printed at Oxford, 1676, under the title of “Opuscula Mathematica hactenus inedita.” This collection contains the following pieces: 1. “Institutiones mechanics.” 2. “De variis corporum generibus gravitate et magnitudine comparatis.” 3. “Automata.” 4. “Qusestiones Diophanti Alexandrini, libri tres.” 5. “De triangulis planis rectangulis.” 6. “t)e divisione superficiorum.” 7. “Musicae elemental 8.” De propugnaculornm munitionibus.“9.” Sectiones angulares.“In 1660, sir Jonas Moore annexed to his arithmetic, then printed in octavo, a treatise entitled” Conical sections; or, the several sections of a cone; being an analysis or methodical contraction of the two first books of Mydorgius, and whereby the nature of the parabola, hyperbola, and ellipsis, is very clearly laid down. Translated from the papers of the learned William Oughtred." Oughtred, says Dr. Hutton, though undoubtedly a very great mathematician, was yet far from having the happiest method of treating the subjects he wrote upon. His style and manner were very concise, obscure, and dry and his rules and precepts so involved in symbols and abbreviations, as rendered his mathematical writings very troublesome to read, and difficult to be understood.

, a learned professor of divinity of the university of Francfort on the Oder, was born at Dantzic, Oct.7, 1671. He was descended from the ancient and noble family of Oisel or Loisel, which made a great figure in Norman history; and one of his ancestors having come to England with William the Conqueror, his descendants were not extinct in the time of queen Elizabeth. Of this descent, however, our learned professor seldom was heard to boast. He had more pleasure in relating that his immediate ancestors were pious protestants, who, having escaped the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day in France, took refuge in Flanders; and that his great grandfather, who had lost his all on that occasion, began trade and acquired great property, of which he was again stript during the persecution under the duke of Alva, and obliged to fly to Leyden with three hundred families, who established the cloth manufactory there under his direction. One of his uncles was James Ousel or Loisel, already mentioned (see Oisel*), the editor of an excellent edition of the “Octavius” of Minutius Felix, with notes, printed at Leyden in 1652, 4to and 8vo, and reprinted in 1672. His father Michael Ousel was a merchant, who died when this his sou was very young, leaving him to the care of a step-mother, who paid every possible attention to his education.

After this course of study, he sought to enlarge his knowledge by a visit to England, and passed some time in the libraries of London and the universities, and in forming an acquaintance with the learned men of the time, and thence travelled through Germany to Dantzic. Not finding an agreeable prospect of a settlement in his native place, he determined to go to Holland, and, although his studies had hitherto been chiefly connected with theology, to study medicine, for which there were many precedents among his learned countrymen. He accordingly qualified himself for a degree in medicine, which he obtained at Franeker, and on this occasion maintained a very able thesis on the leprosy of the Hebrews. He re-assumed, however, his theological character, in consequence of the death of John Moller, minister of the German church at Leyden, in 1711, and executed the duties of that office with such reputation, that in 1717 the university of Francfort invited him to the professorship of divinity. This university, and particularly the body of the clergy, had been so much reduced by the disturbances arising out of the thirty years’ war, and the ravages of the plague, that it was at this time without any eminent teacher in that faculty. It was not supposed that the university of Leyden would have easily parted with him, but this they at last consented to, and as a mark of esteem conferred on him the degree of doctor in divinity. About two years after, he married a lady with whom he expected a long life of domestic happiness, but these hopes were disappointed by a complication of disorders, and particularly an asthma, which proved fatal to him, April 12, 1724, in the fifty-third year of his age. His constant preaching, from which he could not be persuaded to desist by any considerations of health, is supposed to have hastened his end. Even on his death-bed, while his colleague M. Claussen was repeating some passages, suitable to such an occasion, from the Latin or German Bible, Ousel could not help playing the critic, and making his remarks on the versions his friend used, and pointing out their agreement or disagreement with the original Hebrew or Greek, as calmty as if he had been seated in the professor’s chair.

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

His connection with Carr, now viscount Rochester, continued to be mutually agreeable until the latter engaged in an amour with the countess of Essex, the particulars of which reflect disgrace, not only on the parties immediately concerned, but on the reign in which such shameful transactions could be carried on with impunity. No sooner, says Hume, had James mounted the throne of England, than he remembered his friendship for the unfortunate families of Howard and Devereux, who had suffered for their attachment to the cause of Mary and to his own. Having restored young Essex to his blood and dignity, and conferred the.titles of Suffolk and Northampton on two brothers Of the house of Norfolk, he sought the farther pleasure of uniting those families by the marriage of the earl of Essex with lady Frances Howard, daughter of the earl of Suffolk. She was only thirteen, he fourteen years of age; and it was thought proper, till both should attain the age of puberty, that be should go abroad and pass some time in his travels. He returned into England after four years absence, and was pleased to find his countess in the full lustre of beauty, and possessed of the love and admiration of the whole court. But when he claimed the privileges of an husband, he met with nothing but symptoms of aversion and disgust; nor could his addresses, or the persuasions of her friends, overcome her obstinacy; and disgusted at last with her reiterated denials, he gave over the pursuit, and separating himself from her, thenceforth abandoned her to her own will, antS it is said that although he discovered her attachment to Rochester, he took little notice of it.

In the mean time, sir Thomas Overbury’s father came to town, and petitioned the king for his discharge. He likewise applied to Somerset, to whom several pressing letters were also written by sir Thomas himself; but all to no purpose. Sjr Thomas had no suspicion at first of the complicated villainy of Somerset in the affair of his refusing the embassy to Russia, nor that his imprisonment was his friend’s contrivance; but, discovering it at length by his delays to procure his liberty, he expostulated with him by letter in the severest manner, and even proceeded to threats. This terrified Somerset so much, that he charged the lieutenant of the Tower to look to Overbury well; for if ever he came out, it would be his ruin, or one of the two must die. During these delays many attempts were made to poison Overbury; none of which succeeded till a glyster was given him, Sept. the 14th, which, after operating in the most violent manner, put an end to his life, about five the next morning. His corpse, being exceedingly offensive, was interred about three the same day in the Tower chapel. Immediately after his death, some suspicion of the true cause of it was rumoured about; but the great persopages concerned prevailed so far as to make it be believed that he died of a disorder contracted before his imprisonment. The whole, however, was discovered about two years after, when the inferior agents were all apprehended, tried, and executed; but the earl of Somerset and his countess, although both tried and condemned, were pardoned by the king the following year, 1616, lest, as it has been said, he should make discoveries not very creditable to the private character of that monarch. The cpuntess died afterwards of a cancer, despised by all who knew her; and Somerset himself lived to share the just contempt of mankind.

Sir Thomas’s character is represented by Weldon in the following terms: “in this manner fell sir Thomas Oververbury, worthy of a longer life and a better fate; and, if I may compare private men with princes, like Germanicus Caesar; both by poison procured by the malice of a woman, both about the 33d year of their age, and both celebrated for their skill and judgment in poetry, their learning, and their wisdom. Overbury was a gentleman of an ancient family, but had some blemishes charged upon his character, either through a too great ambition, or the insolence of a haughty temper. After the return from his travels, the viscount Rochester embraced him with so entire a friendship, that, exercising by his majesty’s special favour the office of secretary provisionally, he not only communicated to sir Thomas the secrets, but many times gave him the packets and letters unopened, before they had been perused by the king himself: which, as it prevailed too much upon his early years, so as to make him, in the opinion or some, thought high and ambitious, yet, he was so far from violating his trust and confidence, that he remains now one example among others, who have suffered in their persons or their fortunes for a freedom of advice, which none but sincere friends will give, and many are such ill friends to themselves as not to receive.”

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.

Dying without issue, sir Thomas’s estate came to hi younger brother, whose son, sir Thomas Overbury, was also the author of some pieces. These are, I. “A true and perfect Account of the Examination, Trial, Condemnation, and Execution, of Joan Perry and her two sons, for the supposed Murder of William Harrison, written by way of letter to Thomas Shirley, M. D. in London, 1676,” 4to. This is one of the most remarkable incidents in story. Harrison was not really murdered, but conveyed away alive by a gang of Mohocks, and carried to Turkey; where, corning into the hands of a physician, he acquired some skill in that faculty; and at length, after many years absence, found means of getting away, and returned home, to the great astonishment of every body, since the sufferers for his supposed death had actually confessed the murder. 2. ' Queries proposed to the serious Consideration of those who impose upon others in things of divine and supernatural Revelation, and prosecute any upon the account of Religion with a desire of their candid and Christian Resolution thereof;“printed in 1677. In answer to which there came out the same year” AtaxiaD Obstaculum; an answer to certain queries, intituled, Queries proposed,“&c. Upon this, sir Thomas wrote a reply, entitled, 3.” Ratiocinium Vernaculum or, a Reply to Ataxiae Obstaculum," &c.

This happened about the fiftieth year of his age, when he incurred the displeasure of Augustus; and by him was banished to Tomi, or Tomos, a town in Scythia, near the Euxine sea, and not far from the mouths of the Danube. The cause of this has been variously represented. The pretence was, his writing loose verses, and corrupting the Roman youth but it is agreed on all hands, and is in effect owned by himself, that this was not the real cause of his exile and although he hints at the matter very obscurely, it may be conjectured that he had been a witness to some court intrigue, which it was dangerous to divulge, but which he probably had not kept secret. Whatever it was, it appears that the offence was thought unpardonable; nor could his most submissive importunities and flattering addresses, although often repeated, obtain his recall, or his removal to a more eligible situation. It seems allowed, that he shewed nothing of the philosopher in his exile; but, in hopes of pardon, was continually praising the emperor with such extravagance as bordered even upon idolatry; and, what was more singular, he made an idol of him literally, as soon as he heard of his death, by consecrating a chapel to him, where he went every morning to pay his devotions, and offer frankincense. He continued the same importunities towards his successor, but the court was as inexorable under Tiberius, and the unhappy Ovid died in the seventh or eighth year of his banishment, A. D. 17, and was buried at Tomos, where the people had shewn him every mark of respect, mourned publicly for him, and erected a stately monument to his memory.

, an eminent English physician, was born in the diocese of Worcester, and educated at Mertoncollege, Oxford, of which he became probationer-fellow in 1519. Having studied physic, he took his doctor’s degree in that faculty in 1527, and soon after was appointed physician to Henry VIII. and held the same office in the two succeeding reigns. In 1544 he was constituted a fellow of the college of physicians, and appears to have attained high consequence in his profession. He was a witness to the will of Henry VIII. who left him a legacy of 100l. It is reported that Edward VI. was brought into the world by Dr. Owen’s means, who performed the Caesarian operation on his mother, queen Jane Seymour. From this circumstance, whether truly or falsely related, we may conclude him to have been a practitioner in midwifery, as well as in physic. In the first year of queen Mary he was very instrumental in obtaining an act for the confirmation and enlargement of the powers granted to the college of physicians. Some time after, in the same reign, when a difference took place between the college of physicians and the university of Oxford, concerning the admission of an illiterate person to a degree, who was rejected by the college upon their examination; cardinal Pole, then chancellor of the university, was appealed to, and obliged the university to consult Dr. Owen and Dr. Thomas Huys, the queen’s physician, “de instituendis rationibus quibus Oxoniensis academia in admittendis Medicis uteretur.” An agreement was accordingly made, which the chancellor approved and ratified by his authority. Dr. Owen died Oct. 10, 1558, of an epidemic intermittent, and was buried in St. Stephen’s, Walbrook. Leland intimates that he had written several pieces on medical subjects, but none of them were preserved. Tanner mentions that he wrote a work entitled " A meet Diet for the new ague set forth by Mr. Dr. Owen, Lond. 1558, fol. In 1553, Edward VI. granted Durham-college, in Oxford, to our George Owen and William Martyn, which the following year they sold to sir Thomas Pope, who founded Trinity -college on the scite. Previous to this, Dr. Owen received a grant of Godstowe nunnery, with its adjoining estates, and this nunnery he converted into a dwelling-house with some alterations and improvements.

This learned divine published, 1. “Harmonia Trigonometrica, or A short treatise on Trigonometry,” 1748, 8vo. 2. “The intent and propriety of the Scripture Miracles considered and explained,” 1755, 8vo. 3. “Observations on the Four Gospels, tending chiefly to ascertain the times of their publication, and to illustrate the form and manner of their composition,” 1764, 8vo. 4. “Short directions to young Students in Divinity, and Candidates for Holy Orders,” 1766, 8vo. 5. “An Enquiry into the present state of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament,” 1769, 8vo. 6. “Thevintent and propriety of the Scripture Miracles considered and explained, in a series of Sermons preached at Bow, in 1769, 1770, and 1771, at Boyle’s Lecture,” 1773, 2 vols. 8vo. 7. “Crjtica Saera, or a short introduction to Hebrew Criticism,” 177$, 8vo. This was criticised in a work entitled “Critica Sacra examined, or an attempt to shew that a new method may be found to reconcile the seemingly glaring variations in parallel passages of Scripture, and that such variations are no proofs of corruptions,” &c. 1775, 8vo. 8. “Supplement to Critica Sacra; in which the principles of that treatise are fully confirmed, and the objections of Mr. Raphael Baruh are clearly answered,” 1775, 8vo. 9. “Collatio Codicis Cottoniani Geneseos cum editione Romana a viro clarissimo Joanne Ernesto Grabe jam olim facta, nunc demum summa curaedita, 1778,” 8vo. This ancient and beautiful ms. was said to have been brought into England in the reign of Henry VIII. by two Greek bishops. Queen Elizabeth made a present of it to sir John Fortescue, from whom it descended to the Cotton Library. Walton says, that there were five volumes of this ms. containing the whole Pentateuch, but that the four last came into the hands of a Frenchman, who never returned them to the owner. This valuable ms. was nearly destroyed by the fire which so greatly damaged the Cotton Library in 1731. 10. “Critical Disquisitions; containing some remarks, 1. on Masius’s edition of the Book of Joshua, and, 2. on Origen’s celebrated Hexapla,” 1784, 8vo. 11. “A brief account, historical and critical, of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. To which is added, A Dissertation on the comparative excellency of the Hebrew and Samaritan Pentateuch,” &c. 1787, 8vo. 12. “The Modes of Quotation used by the Evangelical writers explained and vindicated,” 1789, 4to.

, 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:

"Whether at Rome Peter e'er was or no,

Is much disputed 'still, I trow: But Simon’s being there, on neither side Was ever doubted or denied."

His epigrams first came out in the following order: I. *' Epigram, lib. 3 ad Mariam Nevill comitis Dorcestrise filiam dicati, 1606,“8vo, printed twice that year. 2.” Epigram, liber singularis, ad doctissimam heroinam D. Arabellam Stuart.“3.” Epigram, lib. 3. ad Hen. principem Cambriae duo; ad Carolum Ebor. unus.“4.” Epigram, ad tres Maecenates, libri tres, &c.“5.” Monastica quaedam Ethica et Politica veterum sapientium:“all which, coming out as successive additions to the several editions of the three first books, were at length published in one volume, 8vo and 12mo, both in England and foreign countries. A select number of them were translated inter English verse by John Vicars, usher of Christ church hospital, London, and published in 1619. Thomas Beck also, of the Inner Temple, gent, translated 600 of them into English verse, which were printed with Martial” deSpectaculis,“or the rarities to be seen in Rome, and with the select epigrams of sir Thomas More; to which is annexed a century of heroic epigrams, all published under the title of” Parnassi Puerperium," London, 1659, 8vo. Among Owen’s epigrams, however, there are very few that are genuine. The poignant, the lively, the unexpected turn of thought and expression, which has been regularly pursued and carried to a point, is scarcely to be found in his compositions. It is evident, says Granger, from the quick sale of his book, that epigrams could please at this time, without the seasoning of Attic salt. It is wonderful, however, what consequence the foreign critics, Borrichius, Lorenzo Crasso, Baillet, and others, attached to Owen’s epigrams; and so lately as 1794, Ilenouard printed an elegant edition of them at Paris, with some copies on vellum.

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

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.

Mr. Owen was admitted into orders about the time he took his master’s degree, but had as yet obtained no preferment. During his abode in London, however, he wrote his “Display of Arminianism,” which was published in 1642, and became so popular, as to procure him very general respect from the party that had now obtained the disposal of church-preferments. It is still indeed considered a very able performance, but at that time was thought particularly seasonable, Arminianism, and the steps archbishop Laud took to encourage such opinions, having engaged the attention of all who meditated the changes, or reformation in church and state, which afterwards followed. The effect of the publication to himself was immediate, and important. Already a committee had been formed “for purging the church of scandalous ministers;” and Mr. White, the chairman of this committee, sent a special messenger to Mr. Owen, to present him with the living of Fordham in Essex; which offer he the more cheerfully embraced, as it gave him an opportunity for the regular exercise of his ministry, and he went thither to the great satisfaction, not only of that parish, but of the country round. He continued at this place about a year and a half, where his preaching was so acceptable, that people resorted to his ministry from other parishes. Soon after he came to Fordham, he married a lady, whose name is supposed to have been Rooke, by whom he had several children, none of whom survived him. In 1644 he published his discourse, “Of the Duty of Pastors and People.”

Upon a report that the sequestered incumbent of Fordham was dead, the patron, who had no kindness for Mr. Owen, presented another to the living; on which the people at Coggeshall, a market-town about five miles from thence, earnestly invited him to be their minister; and the earl of Warwick, the patron, very readily gave him the living; and here he taught a more numerous congregation, seldom fewer than two thousand, consisting of persons generally sober, religious, and discreet, who contracted an uncommon and very steady regard for their pastor. Hitherto Mr. Owen had been a presbyterian in matters of church government; but after diligent inquiry into the nature of church government and discipline, he became convinced that the congregational way, or the mode of independency, was most agreeable to the rule of the New Testament; and he published his opinion, with the several reasons for it, in two quartos. Several ministers of the presbyterian denomination were dissatisfied with this change of Mr. Owen’s judgment, and particularly Mr. Gawdry reproached him very unhandsomely, to whom he returned, as he generally did, a much more civil answer. He had formed a church at Coggeshall upon these congregational principles, which continued long; but his reputation as a divine and preacher was not coofined to this spot. He was soon sent for to preach before the parliament: this sermon is entitled “A Vision of free Mercy, &c.” on Acts xvi. 11. April 29, 1646. He pleads for liberty of conscience and moderation towards men of different persuasions, &c. in an “Essay for the practice of Churchgovernment in the Country,” which he subjoins to that sermon. In 1643 he published his book, entitled “Salus electorum, sanguis Jesu:” or, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” He dedicated this book to Robert earl of Warwick, where he pays his tribute of thanks to his lordship for that privilege of opening the door for his preaching the gospel at Goggeshall; and in his preface to the reader he tells us, “That this performance was the result of more than seven years serious inquiry into the mind of God about these things, with a perusal of all which he could attain, that the wit of men in former or later days hath published in opposition to the truth.” He had indeed such an opinion of this work, that although generally modest in speaking of himself, he scrupled not to declare, that “He did not believe he should live to see a solid answer given to it.” During the siege of Colchester, he became acquainted with general Fairfax, who was quartered at Coggeshall for some days; and when Colchester surrendered, he preached a sermon on the day of thanksgiving, and another to the parliamentary committee that had been imprisoned by the enemy, but were now released. These two sermons are entitled “Ebenezer, a Memorial of the Deliverance of Essex County and Committee.” He was again required to preach before the House of Commons, Jan. 31, 1648-9, the very next day after the murder of king Charles: much was expected from this sermon, and an apology for the bloody deed of the preceding day would infallibly have led to preferment; but we are told “his discourse was so modest and inoffensive, that his friends could make no just exception, nor his enemies take an advantage of his words another day.” After this he frequently was appointed to preach before the parliament, and, on Feb. 1649, had Cromwell, for the first time, as one of his hearers, who was highly pleased with the discourse. Cromwell was at this time preparing to go to Ireland, and meeting with Mr. Owen a few days afterwards, at general Fairfax’s house, he came directly up to him, and laying his hand on his shoulder in a familiar way, said, “Sir, you are the person I must be acquainted with.” JMr. Owen modestly replied, “That will be more to my advantage than yours;” to which Cromwell rejoined, “We shall soon see that,” and taking him by the hand led him into lord Fairfax’s garden; and from this time contracted an intimate friendship with him, which continued to his death. He acquainted Mr. Owen with his intended expedition into Ireland, and desired his company there to reside in the college at Dublin; but he answered that the charge of the church at Coggeshall would not permit him to comply with his request. Cromwell, however, would have no denial, and after some altercation, told the congregation at Coggeshall, that their pastor must and should go. He did not, however, travel with the army, but arrived privately at Dublin, and took up his lodgings in the college. Here he frequently preached, and superintended the affairs of the college, for about half a year, when he obtained Cromwell’s leave to return to Coggeshall, where he was joyfully x received.

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

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.

Some other parts of his conduct savour more of the levelling spirit of the times; and as he had been disturbed in his youth by Laud’s regulations respecting the university habits, he determined to prohibit every mark of distinction of that kind; but it does not appear that he persisted in this determination, or that the university was so unanimous in supporting the measures of their new governors, as they had been when first visited. On the other hand many instances are on record, by which we learri that he patronized literary merit in young men of poor circumstances, with great liberality, and apparently without any consideration of their principles, maintaining many of diem at his own expence, or providing them with maintenance in college. On one occasion a poor scholar waited on him with a Latin letter, in which Dr. Owen perceiving considerable talent, asked him if he wrote it, and when he affirmed that he did, he said, “Well: go into the next room, and write another as good, and I will not be wanting to encourage you.” The young man having performed this to his satisfaction, he took him into his house as tutor to his children.

During his vice-chancellorship, he was a frequent preacher at St. Mary’s, and other places in the county, and published some of his numerous works, particularly in 1654, his “Saint’s Perseverance,” in answer to Goodwin’s “Redemption redeemed;” and in 1655, his “Vindiciæ Evangelicæ, or, the Mystery of the Gospel vindicated, and Socinianism examined,” against Biddle, who had published two Socinian Catechisms. In the preface to this work, which he wrote at the desire of the heads of houses and many other divines of Oxford, is a succinct and perspicuous history of Spcimanism from its first appearance. This was followed by his more popular treatise, often reprinted till this day, on Communion with God." In 1657 he was succeeded as vice-chancellor by Dr. Conant, and in 1659, as dean of Christ-church by Dr. Reynolds. For these changes his biographers no otherwise account than as parts of that general change which the restoration was about to effect. Dr. Owen, however, lost his vicechancellorship on the death of Oliver Cromwell, whose successor, Richard, appointed Dr. Conant. The latter was evidently an ejectment, and it is supposed the presbyterians had a hand in it.

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

On the death of the rev. Joseph Caryl, in 1673, Dr. Owen was invited to succeed him in the charge of a very numerous congregation in Leadenhall- street, and as he had already a charge of the sme kind, the congregations agreed to unite. In the following year he published “A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit;” in 1677, his “Doctrine of Justification by Faith;” and in 1679, his “Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ;” all which, at least the genuine editions of them, are still in considerable request. Dr. Owen was in most of his works rather prolix, which has given rise to abridgments of some of them, but as these are executed sometimes by men not exactly according in his principles, little reliance can be placed on their accuracy. In his own days, we are told that his works procured him. the admiration and friendship of many persons of rank, who took great delight in his conversation. Among these are enumerated the earl of Orrery, the earl ofAnglesea, lord Willoughby of Parham, lord Wharton, lord Berkley, sir John Trevor, one of the principal secretaries of state, &c. Even Charles II. and the duke of York paid particular respect to him. It is said that when he was at Tunbridge, drinking the waters, the duke sent for him to his tent, and entered into a long conversation on the subject of nonconformity. The king went yet farther; for, after his return to London, his majesty conversed with him for the space of two hours together, and after assuring him of his favour and respect, told him he might have access to his person as often as he pleased; said that he was sensible of the wrong he had done to the dissenters; declared himself a friend to liberty of conscience, and concluded all by giving Dr. Owen a thousand guineas to distribute among those who had suffered most by the late severities. Whether the professions of the king and the duke were sincere or not, or whether this was an act of policy, or an involuntary respect paid to the talents and amiable private character of Dr. Owen, it appears that he was not afterwards molested in the exercise of his ministry.

, a controversial writer against the Jesuits, was born in Merionethshire in 1572, and educated at Christ Church, Oxford, which he left without taking a degree, “having,” as Wood says, “some petty employment bestowed on him.” He afterwards went to the continent, and entered into the society of the Jesuits in Spain, but discovering that their conduct savoured more of worldly policy than true religion, he made use of the information he had picked up among them to expose their intrigues. With this view he published, 1. “The Running Register; recording a true relation of the state of the English colleges, seminaries, and cioysters of all forraigne parts. Together with a brief and compendious discourse of the lives, practices, couzenage, impostures and deceits of all our English monks, friars, Jesuits, and seminarie priests in general,” Lond. 1626. This curious book (of which some extracts are given in the “Restituta,” vol. I. p. 141) abounds with anecdotes of those English Roman catholics who had fled for refuge to the foreign seminaries. 2. “The unmasking of all popish monks, friars, and Jesuits; or, a treatise of their genealogy, beginnings, proceedings, and present state,” &c. ibid. 1628, 4to. 3. “Speculum Jesuiticum, or the Jesuit’s Looking-glass; wherein they may behold Ignatius (their patron) his progress, their own pilgrimage,” &c. ibid. 1629, 4to. To this is added a list of all their colleges, the number of their fellows, &c. This was reprinted in sir Edward Sandys’s “Europe Speculum.” Owen was living in 1629, as appears by the date of his work, but we have no information of what became of him afterwards.

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

, a writer, to whose industry, if not to his genius, the world was at one time thought indebted, received the first rudiments of his education from Mr. Shaw, an excellent grammarian, and master of the free-school at Ashby de la Zouch, in Leicestershire. He afterwards completed his grammatical studies under the rev. Mr. Mountford, of Christ’s Hospital, where, having attained considerable knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, it was the intention of his friends to have sent him to the university of Cambridge, with a view to his being admitted into holy orders. But Mr. Ozell, averse to the confinement of a college-life, and perhaps disinclined to the clerical profession, and desirous of being sooner settled in the world than the regular course of academical gradations would permit, solicited and obtained an employment in a public office of accounts; with a view to which, he had taken previous care to qualify himself, by a most perfect knowledge of arithmetic in all its branches, and a greater degree of excellence in writing all the necessary hands. Notwithstanding, however, this grave attention to business, he still retained an inclination for, and an attention to, even polite literature, that could scarcely have been expected; and, by entering into much conversation with foreigners abroad, and a close application to reading at home, he made himself master of most of the living languages, especially the French, Italian, and Spanish, from all which, as well as from the Latin and Greek, he has favoured the world with many translations. Among these are Don Quixote, Rabelais, Fenelon on Learning, Vertot’s “Revolutions of Rome,” Nicole’s “Logic,” The Life of Veronica of Milan,“besides some parts of Rapin, Boileau, &c. &c. The only one which seems rather useful is his” Common Prayer, and Common Sense, in several places of the Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, French, Latin, and Greek Translations of the English Liturgy. Being a specimen of the manifold omissions, &c. in all, or most of the said translations, some of which were printed at Oxford, and the rest at Cambridge,“Lond. 1722, 8vo. For this he tells us, in his foolish advertisement hereafter mentioned, the bench of bishops gave him a purse of guineas. Ozell’s plays, though all translations, are very numerous, there being included in them a complete English version of the dramatic pieces of that justly celebrated French writer Moliere besides some others from Corneille, Racine, &c. the titles of which are to be found in the” Biographia Dramatica."

Mr. Ozell had the good fortune to escape all those vicissitudes and anxieties in regard to pecuniary circumstances which too frequently attend on men of literary abilities; for, besides that he was, from his earliest setting out in life, constantly in possession of very good places, having been for some years auditor-general of the city and bridge accounts, and, to the time of his decease, auditor of the accounts of St. Paul’s cathedral and St. Thomas’s Hospital, all of them posts of considerable emolument; a gentleman, who was a native of the same country with him, who had known him from a school-boy, and it is said lay under particular obligations to his family, dying when Mr. Ozell was in the very prime of life, left him such a fortune as would have been a competent support for him if he should at any time have chosen to retire from business entirely, which, however, it does not appear he ever did. He died Oct. 15, 1743, and was buried in the vault of a church belonging to the parish of St. Mary Aldermanbury; but in what year he was born, and consequently his age at the time of his death, are particulars that we do not find on record. Mr. Ozell was a man of application, but of no ta’ste or genius, yet acquired some reputation for his numerous translations, and would have deserved more had he confined his labours to serious works, where a reader may be content with a literal meaning; but it was his misfortune to undertake works of humour and fancy, which were qualities he seemed not to possess himself, and therefore could not do justice to in others. Moliere, particularly, is an author of that superior genius, that it would require abilities almost equal to his own to translate him in such a manner as to give him, in the clothing of our own language, the air and manner of a native.

, or in Latin Pavius, a physician and anatomist, born at Amsterdam in 1564, was educated in medical studies at Leyden, whence he proceeded to Paris for farther improvement. He afterwards spent some time in Denmark, and at Rostock, where he received the degree of doctor in 1587, and at Padua. On his return to Leyden, he was appointed professor of medicine in 15S9, in which office he acquired the approbation and esteem both of the public and his colleagues, and died universally regretted, in August 1617, at the age of fifty-four. Anatomy and botany were the departments which he most ardently cultivated; and he was the founder of the botanic garden of Leyden. His works are, 1. “Tractatus de Exercitiis, Lacticim'is, et Bellariis.” Rost. 2. “Notse in Galen urn, de cibis boni et mali succi,” ibid. These two pieces appear to. have been his inaugural exercises. 3. “Hortus publi-, cus Academiae Lugduno-Batavae, ejus Ichnographia, descriptio, usus, &c.” Lugd. Bat. 1601. 4. “Primitioe Anatomicae de humani corporis Ossibus,” ibid. 1615. 5. “Succenturiatus Anatomicus, continens Commentaria in Hip-. pocratem de Capitis Vulneribus. Additae sunt Anuotationes in aliquot Capita Librioctavi C. Celsi,” ibid. 1616. 6. “Notae et Commentarii in Epitomen Anatomicum Aridresa Vesalii, ibid, 1616. To these we may add some works which appeared after his death. 7.” De Valvula Intestini Epistolaa du33.“Oppenheim, 1619, together with the first century of the Epistles of Fabric-ills Hildanus. 3.” De Peste Tractatus, cum Henrici Florentii additamentis.“Lug. Bat. 1636. 9.” Anatomicae Observationes selectiores.“Hafniae, 1657, inserted in the third and fourth centuries of the anatomical and medical histories of T. Bartholin. He also left in ms. a” Methodus Anatomica," which was in the library of M. de Vick of Amsterdam.

, a poet and orator, was born in the fourth century, at Drepanum in Aquitania, but, according to others, at Bourdeaux; or, according to Sidonius, at Agen. He discovered a remarkable taste for poetry from his youth; and Ausonius informs us, wrote love verses. Ausonius adds, that he was equal to Catullus, and surpassed all the Latin poets, except Virgil. Ausonius probably thought all this; for he certainly had a very high opinion of him, dedicated some of his own works to him, and paid the greatest deference to his judgment. Pacatus was sent to Rome in the year 388, to congratulate Theodosius the Great on his victory over the tyrant Maximus; and on this occasion he delivered a panegyric on the emperor in the senate house, for which he was rewarded, in the year 390, with theproconsulship of a province in Africa, and, in the year 393, with the office of superintendant of the imperial domain. We have no farther particulars of his life. None of his poems are extant, and the only proof of his talents to which we can appeal is his panegyric on Theodosius, the second part of which is the most interesting, and gives some curious historical facts. In style and manner he is thought to resemble Seneca or Pliny rather than Cicero. The best edition is that by Arntzenius, Amst. 1753, 4to.

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

On his return to. England, he was sent for to court, probably in consequence of the character given of him by his deceased patron, cardinal Bambridge; and became such a favourite with Henry VIII. that he appointed him, as some say, secretary of state, which Mr. Lodge doubts; but it seems certain, that he either held that, or the office of private secretary, or some confidential situation, under Henry, who employed him in affairs of high political importance. In 1515, he was sent to the court of Vienna, where the object of his embassy was to engage the emperor Maximilian to dispossess the French king Francis 1. of the duchy of Milan, his royal master being alarmed at the progress of the French arms in Italy. Pace succeeded in his negociation, so far as to persuade the emperor to undertake this expedition; and he also engaged some of the Swiss cantons to furnish him with troops; but the scheme was ultimately so unsuccessful that Maximilian was obliged to make peace with France. Pace, however, profited so much by his acquaintance with this emperor, as to acquire a/very useful knowledge of his character; and when he afterwards offered to resign his crown in favour of Henry VIII. he was enabled to give his sovereign the best advice, and to assure him, that Maximilian had no other design, by this apparently liberal offer, than to obtain another subsidy, and that, in other respects, very little credit was due to his word. In this opinion cardinal Wolsey, at home, seems to have concurred.

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

The literary establishments which had been formed by him in that place, did not then require so much of his attention and care, as to prevent him from indulging himself in other pursuits. He therefore conceived the plan of a general biography of the grand masters of the order of Malta. In 1749, when he published, at Naples, the series of medals concerning the government of Malta, he had received from the grand master, Pinto, the place of historiographer of the order; but his uninterrupted labours in other pursuits had prevented him, for nearly thirty years, from directing his attention to that great object, the most interesting, perhaps, in the religious and military history of the middle ages. At last he devoted to it some of his latter years, and, in 1780, published from the unrivalled press of Bodoni, of Parma, his “Memorie de Gran Maestri,” &c. or “Memoirs of the Grand Masters of the Holy Military Order of Jerusalem,” in 3 vols. 4to. This publication contains only the history of the first century of the order, and consequently, not more than the lives of its founder and of the first ten grand masters. It would have been continued, if the author had not, soon after its appearance, fallen into that languor, which generally attends long labours and old age, and which accompanied him till his death, which took place on the 2d of February 1785, in the 75th year of his age.

In 1585 he accepted the offer of the law professorship at Heidelberg, which he held lor ten years, and then removed to Sedan, where he taught logic for some time; but the war which took place induced him to return again to Geneva, and thence to Nismes, where he was appointed principal of the college. His next settlement, which he hoped would have been final, was at Montpellier, where he was made regius professor of law, and where he certainly acquired a high reputation, and brought together from all parts a numerous concourse of students, among whom was the celebrated Peiresc, who induced him to return to the Roman catholic religion. After various changes of place, however, he fixed at last at Valence in Dauphinl, where he died in 1635, at the age of eightyfive. His principal works were, 1. “Corpus Juris Civilis,” Geneva, 1580, fol. 2. “Consuetudines Feudorum,” ibid. 1580, fol. 3. “Justiniani Imperatoris institutionum Libri quatuor,” &c. ibid. fol. 4. “Aristotelis Organum, hoc est libri omnes ad logicam pertimntes, Gr. et Lat.” Morgiis, 1584, 8vo, reprinted in 1592, and at Francfort in 1598, which is the best edition of what is reckoned a very valuable translation of the Aristotelian logic. 5. “Sapientissimi Curopalatae de officialibus Palatii Constantinopolitani, et officiis magnae ecclesiae libellus, Or et Lat.” Htidelberg, 1588, 8vo. This was published by Codinus. Pacius only supplied the ms. from his library 6. “Aristotelis naturalis auscultationis libri octo.” Gr. and Lat. Francfort, 1596, 8vo. 7. “Aristotelis de anima libri tres, Gr. et Lat.” ibid. 1596, 8vo. 8. “Aristotelis de Ccelo libri quatuor,” &c. Gr. et Lat. ibid. 1601, 8vo. 9. “Doctrina Peripatetica tomi tres,” Aureliae Allobrogum (Geneva) 1606, 4to. Niceron enumerates various other works which he published, some of a temporary kind, and some compiled for the use of students; but the above appear to have contributed most to the reputation he enjoyed.

, an English poetical and miscellaneous writer, the son of John Pack, of Stoke- Ash, in Suffolk, who, in 1697 was high sheriff of that county, was born about 1680. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, whence, at the age of sixteen, he removed to St. John’s college, Oxford, and remained there two years, at the end of which his father entered him of the Middle Temple, intending him for the profession of the law. His proficiency, as a law student, must have appeared in a very favourable light to the benchers of this honourable society, as he was at eight terms standing admitted barrister, when he was not much above twenty years of age. But habits of study and application to business not agreeing either with his health or inclination, he went into the army, and his first command, which he obtained in March 1705, was that of a company of foot. He served afterwards abroad under general Stanhope, and the duke of Argyle, who for his distinguished bravery promoted him to the rank of major, and ever after honoured him with his patronage and friendship. Some of the best of major Pack’s effusions were in celebration of his grace’s character, at a time when there was a jealousy between him and the du.ke of Marlborough. The major died at Aberdeen in Sept. 1728, where his regiment happened then to be quartered. He published first a miscellany of poems in 1718, dedicated to colonel Stanhope, which sold rapidly, and when it came to a second edition was enlarged by some prose pieces. In 1719 he published the “Life of Pomponius Atticus,” with remarks addressed to the duke of Aygyle; in 1720, “Religion and Philosophy, a Tale;” and in 1725, a “New Collection” of poetical miscellanies, to which he prefixed the “Lives of Miltiades and Cymon,” from Cornelius Nepos. His “Whole Works” were afterwards collected and published in one vol. 8vo, 1729. In all he discovers considerable taste, vivacity, and learning. His connections, as well as his principles, appear to have been of the superior cast.

, an eminent French mathematician, was born at Avignon, in Provence, March 3, 1604, and entered the army at fourteen, for which he had been educated with extraordinary care. Ir> 1620 he was engaged at the siege of Caen, in the battle of the bridge of Ce, and other exploits, in which he signalized himself, and acquired a reputation above his years. He was present, in 1G21, at the siege of St. John d'Angeli, as also at that of Clerac and Montauban, where he lost his left eye by a musket-shot. At this siege he had another loss, which he felt with no less sensibility, viz. that of the constable of Luynes, who died there of a scarlet fever. The constable was a near relation to him, and had been his patron at court. He did not, however, sink under his misfortune, but on the contrary seemed to acquire fresh energy from the reflection that he must now trust solely to himself. Accordingly, there was after this time, no siege, battle, or any other occasion, in which he did not signalize himself by some effort of courage and conduct. At the passage of the Alps, and the barricade of Suza, he put himself at the head of the forlorn hope, consisting of the bravest youths among the guards; and undertook to arrive the first at the attack by a private way which was extremely dangerous; but, having gained the top of a very steep mountain, he cried out to his followers, “See the way to glory!” and sliding down the mountain, his companions followed him, and coming first to the attack, as they wished to do, immediately began a furious assault; and when the army came up to their support, forced the barricades. He had afterwards the pleasure of standing on the left hand of the king when his majesty related this heroic action to the duke of Savoy, with extraordinary commendations, in the presence of a very full court. When the king laid siege to Nancy in 1633, our hero had the honour to attend his sovereign in drawing the lines and forts of circumvallation. In 1642 his majesty sent him to the service in Portugal, in the post of field-marshal; but that year he had the misfortune to lose his eye-sight.

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

, or rather Paget (Eusebius), a Puritan divine, was born at Cranford in Northamptonshire, about 1542, and at the age of twelve years came to Oxford, where he was first choirister, and afterwards student of Christ Church. He made, according to Wood, a considerable progress in logic and philosophy, but, although a noted sophister, left the university without taking a degree. As Wood passes immediately to his being presented to the rectory of St. Anne’s, Aldersgate-street, that biographer seems to have known nothing of the intermediate events. On his leaving Oxford, he became vicar of Oundle, and rector of 'Langton in his native county, where, in 1573, he was first prosecuted for nonconformity. He was afterwards preferred to the rectory of Kilkhampton in Cornwall, and although he had acquainted both his patron and ordinary that there were some things in the book of Common Prayer with which he could not comply, and they had promised, that if he would accept the cure, he should not be molested on that account, yet a prosecution was commenced against him, which ended in his losing all his preferments, and even a school which he attempted to establish for his maintenance. This appeared particularly hard in his case, as, according to every authority, he was “a learned, peaceable, and good divine, who had formerly complied with the customs and devotions of the church, and had been indefatigable in the ministry.” He appears to haye remained some years under ecclesiastical censure; but at last, in September 1604, was promoted to the rectory of St. Anne and St. Agnes, Aldersgate-street, which he held till his death in May 1617, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. His remains were interred in this church. An account of his prosecution may be seen in the Harleian Mss. 813, fol. 14, b. and an abridgment of it in Neal’s “History of the Puritans.” He was the author of a sermon “on Tithes” another “of Election” a Latin “Catechism,” Lond. 1591, 8vo a translation of Calvin’s “Harmony of the Gospels,” ibid. 1584, 4to; and “The History of the Bible, briefly collected, by way of question and answer.” It does not appear when this first appeared, but it was afterwards printed at the end of several of the old editions of the Bible.

He had a son Ephraim, who was born in 1575, and educated also at Christ Church, where he became so uncommon a proficient in languages, that at the age of twenty-six, he is said to have understood and written fifteen or sixteen, ancient and modern. His only preferment was to the church of St. Edmund the King, Lombard-street, London, from which he uas driven by the usurping party, for his loyalty. In religious sentiments he does not appear to have differed from his father; but he adhered to the king and constitution, which was then an unpardonable crime. He retired to Deptford in Kent, where he died in April 1647, aged seventy-two. In addition to the other causes of his sufferings, he wrote much against the Independents, baptists, and other sectaries, as appears by his “Iferesiography” yet, in 1645, two years before his death, he united with his brethren in London, in petitioning parliament for the establishment of the Presbyterian discipline, which he thought better than none. He wrote some books that are still valued as curiosities, particularly his “Christianographia, or a description of the multitudes and sundry sorts of Christians in theworld, not subject to the pope,” &c. Lond. 1635, 4to, often reprinted, with (in some of the editions) a “Treatise of the religion of the ancient Christians in Britany;” and his " Hasresiographia, or a description of the Heresies of later times,' 7 ibid. 1645, &c. 4to. Of this there have been at least four editions,

, an Italian of great skill in Oriental languages and biblical learning, was born at Lucca in 1466, and afterwards became an ecclesiastic of the order of St. Dominic, and resided for the greater part of his life at Lyons. He was deeply and accurately skilled in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, and Arabic tongues, but especially in the Hebrew. In the course of his studies he was led to conceive that the Vulgate translation of the Scriptures was either not by Jerome, or greatly corrupted; and he therefore undertook to make a new one, following Jerom only where he conceived that his version corresponded with the original. This design, so very soon after the restoration of letters, is calculated to give us a very high opinion of Pagninus’s courage and learning, and appeared in so favourable a light to pope Leo X. that he promised to furnish him with all necessary expences for completing the work; and he was likewise encouraged in his labours by the succeeding popes, Hadrian VI. and Clement VII. who licensed the printing of it. It appears, by a letter of Picus Mirandula to Pagninus, that he had spent twenty-five years upon this translation. It is the first modern translation of the Bible from the Hebrew text; and the Jews who read it affirmed, that it agreed entirely with the Hebrew, and was as faithful, and more exact than the ancient translations. The great fault of Pagninus was, that he adhered too closely and servilely to the original text; and this scrupulous attachment made his translation, says father Simon, “obscure, barbarous, and full of solecisms. He imagined, that, to make a faithful translation of the Scriptures, it was necessary to follow exactly the letter, according to the strictness of grammar. This, however, is quite contrary to his pretended exactness, because two languages seldom agree in their ways of speaking; and therefore, instead of expressing the original in its proper purity, he defaces and robs it of its ornaments.” Father Simon, nevertheless, allows the great abilities and learning of Pagninus; and all the later commentators and translators of the Scriptures have agreed in giving him his just commendation. Huetius, though he seems to think father Simon’s criticism of him well grounded, yet makes no scruple to propose his manner as a model for all translators of the sacred books: “Scripture interpretandae rationibus utile nobis exemplar proposuit Sancius Pagninus.”

, a French Protestant divine, was born in 1626, and studied, with great success and approbation, at Saumur; after which he became minister of a place called Marchenoir in the province of Dunois. He was an able advocate against the popish party, as appears by his best work, against father Nicole, entitled “Examen du Livre qui porte pour titre, Prejugez legitimes centre les Calvinistes,” 2 vols. 1673, 12mo. Mosheim therefore very improperly places him in the class of those who explained the doctrines of Christianity in such a manner as to diminish the difference between the doctrines of the reformed and papal churches; since this work shews that few men. wrote at that time with more learning, zeal, and judgment against popery. Pajon, however, created some disturbance in the church, and became very unpopular, by explaining certain doctrines, concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the Arminian way, and had a controversy with Jurieu on this subject. The consequence was, that Pajon, who had been elected professor of divinity at Saumur, found it necessary to resign that office after which he resided at Orleans, as pastor, and died there Sept. 27, 1685, in the sixtieth year of his age. He left a great many works in manuscript; none of which have been printed, owing partly to his unpopularity, but, perhaps, principally to his two sons becoming Roman Catholics. A full account of his opinions may be seen in Mosheim, or in the first of our authorities.

, Count d'Ansembray, a French nobleman, was born at Paris in 1678. During his education he discovered an inclination for mathematical pursuits, and was instructed in the philosophy of Des Cartes. After this he increased his knowledge by an acquaintance with Huygens, Ruysh, Boerhaave, and other eminent men of the time. On his return from his travels he was appointed director-general of the posts in France; but, coming into possession of a country-seat at Bercy, by the death of his father, he collected a museum there furnished with philosophical and mechanical instruments, and machines of every description, which attracted the attention of the learned, and was visited by Peter the Great, the emperor of Germany, and other princes. In the Transactions of the Academy of Sciences, of which he was a member, there are several of his papers; among which is a description of an “Instrument for the Measurement of Liquids” of“An Areometer, or Wind Gage” and of a “Machine for beating regular Time in Music.” He died in 1753, bequeathing his valuable museum to the academy.

He had long cherished in his mind a most cordial hatred against his native country, and was now prepared in some measure for that systematic attack on her happiness which he carried on, at intervals, during the remainder of his life. Being released, in November 1789, from a sponging-house where he was confined for debt, he beheld with delight the proceedings of the French, and hastened to that country, but made no long stay at this time; and finding, on his return to London in 1790, Mr. Burke’s celebrated work on the French revolution, he produced, within a tew months, the first part of his “Rights of Man,” and in 17.')2, the second part. Had these been left to the natural demand of the public, it is probable they might have passed unnoticed by government, but the industry with which they were circulated by the democratic societies of that period, among the lower classes of society, betrayed intentions which it would have been criminal to overlook; and prosecutions were accordingly instituted against the author and publishers. The author made his escape to France, and never returned to this country more. His inveteracy against her establishments, however, continued unabated, and perhaps was aggravated by the verdict which expelled him from the only nation where he wished to propagate his disorganizing doctrines, and where he had at that time many abettors. When the proceedings of the latter had roused the loyal part of the nation to address the throne in behalf of our constitution, Paine published “A Letter to the Addressers,” the object of which was to procure a national convention in contempt of the parliament. This likewise was circulated by his partizans with no small industry. In the mean time, although ignorant of the French language, he was chosen a member of the French convention, and in consistency with his avowed malignity, gave his vote for a declaration of war against Great Britain. His adopted country, however, was not very grateful for his services, for when Robespierre gained the ascendancy, he sent Paine, with that mad enthusiast Anacharsis Cloots, to prison at the Luxemburgb, and Paine narrowly escaped being guillotined, amidst the hundreds who then underwent that fate, or were murdered in other ways.

In Oct. 1802, accordingly, he arrived at Baltimore, under the protection of the president Jefferson, but was no longer an object of curiosity, unless among the lower classes of emigrants from England, Scotland, or Ireland. With them, it appears, “he drank grog in the tap-room, morning, noon, and night, admired and praised, strutting and staggering about, showing himself to all, and shaking hands with all; but the leaders of the party to which he had attached himself paid him no attention.” He had brought with him to America a woman, named madame Bonneviile, whom he had seduced from her husband, with her two sons; and whom he seems to have treated with the utmost meanness and tyranny. By what charms he had seduced this lady, we are not told. He was now sixty-five years old, diseased in body from habitual drunkenness, and gross in manners. It would be too disgusting to follow, his biographer in his description of the personal vices of this man. It may suffice that he appeared for many months before his death to be sunk to the lowest state of brutality.

The closing scene of his life, as related by his medical attendant, Dr. Manley, is too instryctive and admonitory to be omitted. “During the latter part of his life,” says this physician, “though his conversation was equivocal, his conduct was singular. He would not be left alone night or day. He not only required to have some person with him, but he must see that he or she was there, and would not allow his curtain to be closed at any time; and if, as it would sometimes unavoidably happen, he was left alone, he would scream and holla, until some person came to him. When relief from pain would admit, he seemed thoughtful and contemplative, his eyes being generally closed, and his hands folded upon his breast, although he never slept without the assistance of an anodyne. There was something remarkable in his conduct about this period (which comprises about two weeks immediately preceding his death), particularly when we reflect, that Thomas Paine was author of the” Age of Reason." He would call out during his paroxysms of distress, without intermission, ‘ O Lord help -me, God help me, Jesus Christ help me, O Lord help me,’ &c. repeating the same expression without any the least var ation, in a tone of voice that would alarm the house. It was this conduct which induced me to think that he had abandoned his former opinions; and I was more inclined to that belief, when I understood from his nurse (who is a very serious, and, I believe, pious woman,) that he would occasionally inquire, when he saw her engaged with a book, what she was reading, and being answered, and at the same time asked whether she should read aloud, he assented, and would appear to give particular attention. The book she usually read was * Hobart’s Companion for the Altar/

"Mr. Paine, your opinions, by a large portion of the community, have been treated with deference you have never been in the habit of mixing in your conversation words of course: you have never indulged in the practice of profane swearing: you must be sensible that we are acquainted with your religious opinions as they are given to the world. What must we think of your present conduct? Why do you call upon Jesus Christ to help you? Do you believe that he can help you? Do you believe in the divinity of Jesns Christ? Come now, answer me honestly; I want an answer as from the lips of a dying man, for I verily believe that you will not live twenty-four hours/ I waited some time at the end of every question; he did not answer, but ceased to exclaim in the above manner. Again I addressed him c Mr. Paine, you have not answered my questions; will you answer them Allow me to ask again, do you believe or let me qualify the question, do you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God‘ After a pause of some minutes, he answered, ’ I have no wish to believe on that subject.' I then left him, and know not whether he afterwards spoke to any person, on any subject, though he lived, as I before observed, till the morning of the 8th.

“Such conduct, under usual circumstances, I conceive absolutely unaccountable, though with diffidence I would remark, riot so much so in the present instance; for though the first necessary and general result of conviction be a sincere wish to atone for evil committed, yet it may be a question worthy of able consideration whether excessive pride of opinion, consummate vanity, and inordinate self-love, might not prevent or retard that otherwise natural consequence?”

In perusing a man’s writings, a picture of the author himself is sometimes insensibly drawn in the imagination of the reader. By the perusal of the works of Thomas Paine, a most disgusting idea is presented to our thoughts both of the man and his manners. This idea is completely verified by the account which Mr. Cheetham has given us of his person and deportment. The paintings of Zeuxis attained a sort of ideal perfection by combining the scattered excellencies of the human countenance to conceive the countenance, or the mind, of Mr. Thomas Paine, now that death has withdrawn the living model, we must condense into an imaginary focus all the offensiveness and malignity that are dispersed throughout actual existence. Mr. Cheetham seems to have no hostility towards the man, and to be disposed to draw no inferences against him but what fairly arise from the facts. We may add too, that his facts appear to be collected from very credible sources of intelligence; from persons with whom Paine passed great part of his existence; and who, though not appearing to have much intercourse together, agree in the substance of their communications on this subject.

, a celebrated grammarian at Rome, in the reign of Tiberius, was born of a slave at Vicenza. It is said he was first brought up in a mechanical business, but while attending his master’s son to school, he discovered so much taste for learning, and made so much progress in it, that he was thought worthy of his freedom, and became a teacher or preceptor at Rome. With his learning he joined an excellent memory, and a ready elocution; and made extempore verses, then a very popular qualification. With all this merit, his manners were very dissolute, and he was so arrogant as to assert, that learning was born when he was born, and would die when he died; and that Virgil had inserted his name in his “Eclogues” by a certain prophetic spirit; for that he, Palaemon, would infallibly become one day sole judge and arbiter of all poetry. He was excessively prodigal and lavish, and continually poor, notwithstanding the great sums he gained by teaching, and the profit he made, both by cultivating his lands, and in, the way of traffic. There is an “Ars Grammatica” ascribed to him in the edition of the “Grammatici Antiqui,” and separately printed; and a work “De Ponderibus et Mensuris,” which is more doubtful.

was a Greek philosopher, of whom a treatise in explication of ancient fables has been several times reprinted in Greek and Latin; the best edition is that of Fischer, Lips. 1761. But little is known of him, and there are several ancient writers of this name; one an Athenian, placed by the poets before the time of Homer; one a native of Puros, who lived under Artaxerxes Mnemon; and one, a grammarian and philosopher, born at Athens or in Egypt, posterior to Aristotle. Which of these is author of the work already noticed, is not at all certain.

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

, seigneur de Bigot, a French poet, was born in May 1650, at Toulouse, of a noble family. He was a member of the academy of the Jeux Floraux, became chief magistrate of Toulouse in 1675, when scarcely twenty-five years of age and was made head of the consistory 1684, in which othce he acquitted himself with great integrity. He went to Rome two years after, and at length to Paris, in which city he chiefly resided from that time, and where M. de Vendome fixed him in his service in 1691, as one of his secretaries. He died October 23, 1721, at Paris, aged 71, leaving some “Comedies,” and a small collection of miscellaneous “Poems,” most of them addressed to M. de Vendome. M. Palaprat wrote for the stage with his friend Brueis, and their works have been collected in five small volumes 12mo, of which his is the least part. His style is gay and lively, but he discovers little genius or fancy, and he seems to have been indebted for his literary reputation to his private character, which was that of a man of great candour and simplicity.

But his career was disturbed by a quarrel he had with one of his colleagues, who was enraged to see his own reputation eclipsed by the superior lustre of Palearius. We are not told the particular point upon which the contest commenced; but it is certain that our professor was defended by Peter Aretin, who, perhaps more to revenge his own cause, or gratify a detracting humour, than from any respect for Palearius, composed, against his envious rival, an Italian comedy or farce, which was acted upon the stage at Venice; and so poignant was the ridicule, that the subject of it thought proper to quit Sienna, and retire to Lucca. Hither he was followed some time after, though with much reluctance, by Palearius, concerning which we have the following account: Anthony Bellantes, a nobleman of Sienna, being impeached of several misdemeanors, employed Palearius to plead his cause, who made so excellent a speech before the senate of that city in his defence, that he was acquitted and dismissed; but, the same nobleman having some time after accused certain monks of robbing his grandmother, employed his advocate again to support the charge. The monks accused, making oath of their innocence, were cleared by the court, but were incensed at the prosecution, and aspersed Palearius both in their sermons, and on all other occasions, as an impious wretch, unfit to be harboured in a Christian country. They also declared him a heretic, because he disapproved several superstitious practices; neither did they approve of the book he had written on the “Death of Christ.” Palearius, however, defended himself with so much strength of reason and eloquence, that the accusations were dropped. Yet finding himself still exposed to vexatious persecutions, he thought proper to accept of an invitation to teach polite literature at Lucca.

The rest of his masses appeared in the following order; Lib. iii. Romas per Valerium Doricum, 1570, in folio, Ven. 1599; Lib. iv. Venet. per Ang. Gardanum, 1582, quarto; Lib. v. Romae, 1590; Lib. vi. Ven. 1596; Lib. vii. 1594; Lib. viii. and ix. Ven. 1599; Lib. x. and xi. Ven, 1600; and lib. xii. without date, or name of the printer. Besides this regular order of publication, these masses were reprinted in different forms and collections, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in most of the principal cities of Italy. The next division of Palestrina’s works consists of Motets for five, six, seven, and eight voices, five books, at Rome and Venice, 1569, 1588, 1589, 1596, and 1601. Motets for four voices, lib. i. Romae, 1590; Lib. ii. Venet. 1604; Two books of Offertorij, a 5 and a 6 voc. Romge, 1593; Lamentationi, a 4 voc. Romae, 1588; Hymns for five voices, Ven. 1598; Litanie, a 4, Ven. 1600; Magnificat, 8 tomum. Romae, 191; Madrigali Spirituali, two books, Rome and Venice, 1594.

To the above ample list of the works of this great and fertile composer, are to be added “La Cantica di Salomone,” a 5; two other books of “Magnificats,” a 4, 5, and 6 voc. One of “Lamentationi,” a 5; and another of secular Madrigals. These have been printed in miscellaneous publications after the author’s death and there still remain in the papal chapel, inedited, another mass, with his “Missa Defunctorum,” and upwards of twenty motets, chiefly for eight voices, a due cori. Nothing more interesting remains to be related of Palestrina, than that most of his admirable productions still subsist. Few of his admirers are indeed possessed of the first editions, or of all his works complete, in printer manuscript; yet curious and diligent collectors in Italy can still, with little difficulty, furnish themselves with a considerable number of these models of counterpoint and ecclesiastical gravity. The best church compositions since his time have been proverbially called alia Palestrina.

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

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

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

In private life, Dr. Paley is said to have had nothing of the philosopher. He entered into little amusements with a degree of ardour which formed a singular contrast with the superiority of his mind. He was fond of company, which he had extraordinary powers of entertaining; nor was he at any time more happy, than when communicating the pleasure he could give by exerting his talents of wit and humour. No man was ever more beloved by his particular friends, or returned their affection with greater sincerity and ardour. That such a man, and such a writer, should not have been promoted to the bench of bishops, has been considered as not very creditable to the times in which we live. It is generally understood that Mr. Pitt recommended him to his majesty some years ago for a vacant bishopric, and that an opposition was made from a very high quarter of the church, which rendered the recommendation ineffectual. If this be true, it is a striking proof of Mr. Pitt’s liberality; for, according to his biographer, Dr. Paley frequently indulged in sarcastic and disrespectful notice of that celebrated statesman. What truth may be in this, or what justice in the complaints of his friends, we shall not inquire. Judging from his writings, we should be inclined to regret, with them, that he had not higher preferment; but, contemplating his character, as given in the “Memoirs of William Paley, D. D. by George Wilson Meadley,” we must rather wonder that he had so much. It will, however, be universally acknowledged, that no author ever wrote more pleasingly on the subjects he has treated than Dr. Paley. The force and terseness of his expressions are not less admirable than the strength of his conceptions; and there is both in his language and his notions a peculiarity of manner, stamped by the vigour of his mind, which will perpetuate the reputation of his works.

, an ingenious artist, was born at Agen in France, about 1524. He was brought up as a common labourer, and was also employed in surveying. Though destitute of education, he was a very accurate observer of nature; and in the course of his surveys, he conceived the notion that France had been formerly covered by the sea, and propagated his opinion at Paris, against a host of opponents, with the greatest boldness. It was considered as a species of heresy. For several years after, he employed himself in trying different experiments, in order to discover the method of painting in enamel. But some person presenting him with a beautiful cup of that kind of stone-ware called by the French faience, because it was first manufactured in a city of Italy called Faenza, the sight of this cup inflamed him with an insurmountable desire to discover the method of applying enamel to stoneware. At this time he was ignorant of even the first rudiments of the art of pottery, nor was there any person within, his reach from whom he could procure information. His experiments were, therefore, unsuccessful, and he wasted his whole fortune, and even injured his health, without gaining his object. Still he gave it up only for a time, and when a few years of industry and frugality had put it in his power, he returned to his project with more ardour than ever. The same fatigues, the same sacrifices, the same expences Were incurred a second time, but the result was different. He discovered, one after another, the whole series of operations, and ascertained the method of applying enamel to stone-ware, and of making earthenware superior to the best of the Italian manufacture. He was now treated with respect, and considered as a man of genius. The court of France took him under its protection, and enabled him to establish a manufactory, where the manufacture of the species of stone-ware which he had invented was brought to a state of perfection. The only improvement which was made upon it afterwards in France, was the application of different colours upon the enamel, and imitating the paintings which had been executed long before on porcelain vessels. This improvement scarcely dates farther back than thirty or forty years. It was first put in practice by Joseph Hanon, a native of Strasbourg, and was suggested by a German, who sold to Hanon the method of composing the colours applied upon the porcelain of Saxony. These vessels were soon after superseded by the Queen’s ware of the celebrated Wedgewood, which both in cheapness, beauty, and elegance of form, far surpassed any thing of the kind that had appeared in Europe.

, known also by the name of James de Teramo, from the city where he was born in 1349, chose the ecclesiastical profession, was successively archbishop of Tarento, Florence, and Spoletto, had the administration of the duchy for pope Alexander V. and John XXIII. and was sent as legate into Poland in 1417, where he died the same year. He wrote some forgotten works enumerated by Marchand, but is most known by his religious romance, entitled “J. de Teramo compendium perbreve, consolatio Peccatorum nuncupatum, et apud nonnullos Belial vocitatum; id est, Processus Luciferi contra Jesum,” Ausb. 1472, fol. but it seems doubtful whether the first edition is not in German, and published without a date. Mr. Dibdin has amply described both in the “Bibliotheca Spenceriana,” and Marchand has discussed the history of the work at great length. It was reprinted several times since in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and in a collection entitled “Processus juris joco-serii,” Hanovise, 1611, 8vo, which contains likewise “the Process of Sataii against the Virgin,” by Barthole, and “Les Arrets d'Amour.” Peter Farget, an Augustine, has translated “Belial’s trial” into French, Lyons, 1485, 4to, printed often since, in the same form. It has also been published under the name of James d'Ancharano; and has in one form or other been translated into most of the European languages.

, a celebrated Italian architect, was born in 1518 at Vicenza in Lombardy. As soon as he had learned the principles of art from Trissino, the celebrated poet, who was his townsman, he went to Rome, and applying himself with great diligence to study the ancient monuments, he entered into the spirit of their architects, and formed his taste upon them. On his return he was employed to construct various edifices, and obtained great reputation throughout Italy, which abounds in monuments of his skill, particularly the palace Foscari, at Venice, and the Olympic theatre at Vicenza, where he died in 1580. He excelled likewise in the theory of his art, as appears by his publications, which are still in the highest reputation. His first was his treatise on architecture, “I quattro libri dell' Architettura,” Venice, 1570. This has been often reprinted, and our country has the merit of a very splendid edition, published at London in 1715, in English, Italian, and French, 2 or 3 vols. fol. This edition, published by Leoni, is enriched with the most valuable of the notes which Inigo Jones wrote on his copy of the original, now in the library of Worcester college, Oxford. A French edition of the London one was published by Nic. du Bois, at the Hague in 1726, 2 vols. fol.; and in 1740, one much enlarged in Italian and French, at Venice, 5 vols. fol. This has been more recently followed by Scamozzi’s fine edition in Italian and French, printed at Vicenza, 1776—83, 4 vols. fol. In 1730, our countryman, lord Burlington, printed an elegant work, entitled “Fabriche antiche designate da Andrea Palladio, e date in luce da Riccardo Conte de Burlington,” fol. This collection of Palladio' s designs is very scarce, as the noble editor printed only a limited number of copies for his friends. Palladio also composed a small work, entitled “Le Antichita di Roma,” not printed till after his death. He illustrated Caesar’s “Commentaries,” by annexing to Badelli’s translation of that work, a preface on the military system of the Romans, with copper-plates, designed, for the most part, by his two sons, Leonida and Orazio, who both died soon after. Palladio was modest in regard to his own merit, but he was the friend to all men of talents; his memory is highly honoured by the votaries of the fine arts; and the simplicity and purity of his taste have given, him the appellation of the Raphael of architects.

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

In July 1760 he went to Leyden, and studied under Albinus, Gaubius, and Muschenbroeck; and in December touk his doctor’s degree, on which occasion his inaugural dissertation had for its subject his dissertation on worms, with new experiments. During his stay at Leyden, natural history became his predominant passion. He employed all the time he could steal from his professional studies in visiting the public and private cabinets of natural history, with which Leyden abounded, and was particularly charmed with the collection of Gronovius, which he repeatedly examined. Having visited the principal cities of Holland, her arrived at London, in July 1761. The principal intention of his journey to England was to improve his knowledge in medicine and surgery, and to inspect the hospitals. He was now, however, so much absorbed in his passion for natural history, that he neglected every other pursuit, and gave himself totally up to this favourite branch of science. At this juncture, his zeal was so ardent, that after having passed the day in curiously examining the various collections in natural history, and perusing the principal books he could procure on that subject, he would frequently employ the greater part of the night, and occasionally even whole nights together, whenever he met with new publications that either awakened his curiosity or interested his researches. With a view of extending his information in this department, he took several journeys to the sea-coasts, and particularly in Sussex.

Previously to his commencing practice, his father sent him to Hanover for the purpose of procuring the post of surgeon in the allied army; but as, upon his arrival in that city, in the month of July, peace was on the point of being concluded, he returned to Berlin, where he passed a year, chiefly in preparing materials for a “Fauna Insectorum Marchica,” or a description of the insects in the march of Brandenburg. Having at length prevailed upon his father to let him settle in Holland, he took up his residence at the Hague, and his reputation as a man of science was, by this time, so well established, that he was, the same year, elected fellow of the Royal Society of London; and in the following year member of the Academic des Curieux de la Nature; to both of which societies he had previously sent very interesting and ingenious papers.

At length, in June 1768, he quitted Petersburg, in company with Messrs. Falk, Lepekin, and Guldenstadt, as his associates; passed through Moscow, Vlodimir, Kasimof, Murom, Arsamas, to Casan; and having examined great part of that province, wintered at Simbirsk. From thence he departed, in March of the following year; and penetrated through Samara and Orenburg, as far as Gurief, a small Russian fortress, situated at the mouth of the river Yaik or Ural. There he examined the confines of Kalmuc Tartary, and the neighbouring shores of the Caspian, and returning through the province of Orenburg, passed the second winter at Ufa. After several expeditions in the adjacent parts of that province, he left Ufa on the I 6th of May 1770; prosecuted his route through the Uralian mountains to Catharinenburgh; visited the mines of that district; proceeded to Tcheliabinsk, a small fortress in the government of Orenburg; and in December made an excursion as far as Tobolsk. The next year he was employed in traversing the Altai mountains, and in tracing the course of the Irtish up to Omsk and Koly van; where having inspected the celebrated silver mines, he made for Tomsk, and finished that year’s expedition at Krasnoyarsk, a town upon the Yenisei. In that place, situated only in 56 north latitude, the cold was so intense, that the learned professor was witness to the natural freezing of quicksilver; which curious phenomenon he has minutely described. From Krasnoyarsk he issued on the 7th of March, 177-2; and proceeded by Irkutsk, and across the lake Baikal, to Udinsk, Selenginsk, and Kiakta, where the trade between Russia and China is principally carried on. Having penetrated into that part of Dauria which is situated in the south-easternmost part of Siberia, he journeyed between the rivers Ingoda and Argoon, at no great distance from the Amoor; thence tracing the lines which separate the Kussian empire from the Mongui hordes dependent upon China, he returned to Selenginsk, and again wintered at Krasnoyarsk. In the summer of 1773 he visited Tara, Y r aitsk, and Astracan, and concluded his route for that year at Tzaritzin, a town upon the Volga; from whence he continued his journey in the ensuing spring; and arrived at Petersburg on the 30th of July, 1774, after an absence of six years.

In the same year in which Dr. Pallas printed his “Elenchus Zoophytorum,” he also published a treatise under the title of “Miscellanea Zoologica quibus novae imprimis atque obscurae animalium species describuntur, et observationibus iconibusque illustrantur.” This work is in a great measure incorporated into a subsequent publication made the next year on his return to Berlin, entitled “Spicilegia Zoologica,” and was continued in numbers, or fasciculi, till 1780. The works of count Buffon, the illustrious French zoologist, amply attest the labours of Pallas; and our countryman Mr. Pennant makes frequent acknowledgments of his obligations to the same source, particularly for his history of quadrupeds and arctic zoology. In June 1777, the learned professor read before the academy of Petersburgh, in a meeting at which the king of Sweden was present, a dissertation on the formation of mountains, and the changes which this globe has undergone, more particularly as it appears in the Russian empire. This treatise appeared so curious to Mr. Tooke, who was also, as a member of the academy, present at that sitting, that he has given 3 translation of it in his “Russia Illustrata.” In 1778 the doctor published “Novae species quadrupedum e Gliriumordine,” describing numbers of the rat genus and their anatomy. In 1781 he brought out “Enumeratio plantarum quae in horto Procopii & Demidof Moscua vigent,” or catalogue of the plants in M Demidofs gardens at Moscow. His newnorthern collections on various subjects in geography, natural history, and agriculture, came forth the same year; to which were afterwards added two more volumes. In 1782 he put forth two fasciculi or numbers of “Icones insectarum prsesertim Russiae Siberieeque peculiarium.” In 1784 he published the first number of his “Flora Russica;” a splendid work, executed at the empress Catharine’s expence. About this period her majesty conceived the idea of collecting from all quarters of the globe a universal vocabulary, the superintendance whereof she committed to our author, which necessarily for a time retarded his zoological researches. Exclusive of these separate publications, he printed in the acts of the imperial academy of sciences, various zoological and botanical dissertations.

, one of the wits of Italy, the son of Jerome Pallavicino, was born at Placentia about 1615, or from that to 1620. Less from inclination, than from some family reasons, he entered the congregation of the regular canons of Latran, and took the habit, with the name of Mark Anthony, in their house at Milan. After commencing his studies here with much success, he went to Padua for further proficiency. He then settled at Venice, where he was chosen a member of the academy of the Incogniti. Here he became captivated by a courtezan, whoso charms proved irresistible; and, in order to have the lull enjoyment of them without restraint, he obtained leave from his general to make the tour of France, but in fact continued privately at Venice, while he had the art to impose upon his friends, by sending them frequently, in letters, feigned accounts of his travels through France. He afterwards went to Germany, about 1639, with duke Amalfi in the character of his chaplain. During this residence in Germany, which lasted about sixteen months, he addicted himself to every species of debauchery; and having a turn for satire, employed his pen in repeated attacks on the court of Rome in general, and on the Barbarini family in particular. The chief vehicle of his satire was a publication called “The Courier robbed of his mail,” and this as well as his other works contained so many just censures of the abuses of the court of Rome, that he might have been ranked among those honourable men who had contributed to enlighten his countrymen, had he not been as remarkable for his indecencies, which were so gross that many of his works were obliged to be published under concealed names. His personal attacks on the pope, and the Barbarini family, naturally roused their indignation; and after much search for him, one Charles Morfu, a Frenchman of a vile character, engaged to ensnare him, and having insinuated himself into his friendship, at length exhorted him to go with him to France. He flattered him with the extraordinary encouragement which was given to men of letters by cardinal Richelieu; and, to deceive him the more, even produced feigned letters from the cardinal, inviting our author to France, and expressing a desire he had to establish in Paris an academy for the Italian tongue, under the direction of Pallavicino. Pallavicino, young, thoughtless, and desperate, and now fascinated by the prospect of gain, left Venice much against the advice of his friends, and went first to Bergamo, where he spent a few days with some of his relations, who entertained his betrayer. They then set out for Geneva, to the great satisfaction of our author, who proposed to get some of his works printed there, which he had not been able to do in Italy. But Morfu, instead of conducting him to Paris, took the road to Avignon; where, crossing the bridge of Soraces, in the county of Venaissin (in the pope’s territories), they were seized by officers on pretence of carrying contraband goods, and confined. Morfu was soon discharged, and liberally rewarded; but Pallavicini, being carried to Avignon, was thrown into prison; and, after being kept there for some months, was brought to trial, and was beheaded in 1643 or 1644. Those who are desirous of farther information respecting this young man’s unfortunate history, may be amply gratified in the prolix: articles drawn up by Bayle, and particularly Marclmnd. His works were first published collectively at Venice, in 1655, 4 vols. 12mo. This edition, according to Marchand, contains only such of his works as had been permitted to beprinted in his life-time. Those which had been prohibited were afterwards printed in 2 vols. 12 mo, at Villafranca, a fictitious name for Geneva, 1660. Among these is a piece called “II divortio Celeste,” which some deny to be his. It is a very coarse satire on the abuses of the Romish church, and was translated and published in English in 1679, under the title of “Ciirist divorced from the church of Rome because of their lewdness,” Lond. 8vo.

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

, was of the same family with the preceding cardinal, and merits a brief notice here, as being in some degree connected with our history, although the figure he makes in it has not been thought the most reputable. The family of Pallavicino, or, as sometimes spelt, Palavicini, is one of the most noble and ancient in Italy, and its branches have extended to Rome, Genoa, and Lombardy. Many of them appear to have attained the highest ranks in church, state, and commerce. Sir Horatio, the subject of this article, belonged to the Genoese branch, and was born in that city, but leaving Italy, went to reside in the Low Countries, whence, after marrying two wives, one a person of low birth, whom he did not acknowledge, and the other a lady of distinction, he came over to England, with a recommendation to queen Mary, probably from a relation, one Rango Pallavicino, who belonged to Edward Vlth’s household. Mary, who had then restored the Roman catholic religion, appointed Horatio collector of the papal taxes to be gathered in this kingdom; but at her death, having a large sum of money in his hands, he abjured the religion of Rome, and thought it no harm to keep the money. This transaction, however, does not appear to have much injured his character, or perhaps time had effaced the remembrance of it, for in 1586 queen Elizabeth gave him a. patent of denization, and in the following year honoured him with knighthood. He appears to have been a man of courage, and warmly espoused the interests of the nation at a most critical period. In 1588 he fitted out and commanded a ship against the Spanish armada, and must have rendered himself conspicuous on that occasion, as his portrait is given in the tapestry in the House of Lords, among the patriots and skilful commanders who assisted in defeating that memorable attack on the liberty of England. The queen also employed him in negociations with the German princes, and in raising loans, by which he very opportunely assisted her, and improved his own fortune. He died immensely rich, July 6, 1600, and was buried in the church of Baberham, in Cambridgeshire, near which, at Little Shelford, he had built a seat, in the Italian style, with piazzas. He had likewise two considerable manors in Essex, and provbably. landed property in other counties. His widow, about a year after his death, married sir Oliver Cromwell, K. B. and his only daughter, Baptina, was married to Henry Cromwell, esq. son to this sir Oliver, who was uncle to the usurper. He left three sons, but the family is now unknown in England.

, an eminent artist, born at Serinalto, in the territory of Bergamo, about the middle of the sixteenth century, was a disciple of Titian. He emulated his master’s manner, but, according to Fuseli, was more anxious to attain the colour and breadth of Giorgioni. This appears chiefly in his “St. Barbara.” His colouring had extraordinary strength and brightness, and his pictures are wrought to great perfection, yet with freedom, and without the appearance of labour. Vasari describes, with great fervour, a composition of the elder Palma, at Venice, representing the ship in whicii the body of St. Mark was brought from Alexandria to Venice. “In that grand design,” he says, “the vessel was struggling against the fury or an impetuous tempest, and is expressed with the utmost judgment; the distress of the mariners, the violent bursting of the waves against the sides of the ship, the horrid gloom, only enlivened with flashes of lightning, and every part of the scene filled with images of terror, are so strong, so lively, and naturally represented, that it seems impossible for the power of colour or pencil to rise to a higher pitch of truth and perfection; and that performance very deservedly gained him the highest applause.” Notwithstanding this deserved praise, his pictures in general are not correct in design, and his latter works did not maintain his early reputation. He died, according to Vasari, at the age of forty-eight, but in what year is not absolutely known, although some fix it in 1588.

, an Italian chronicler, was born in 1405, at Florence; and after being educated under the best masters, arrived at high political rank in the republic, was frequently employed on embassies, and was promoted to the great dignity of gonfalonier. He died in 1475. He compiled a general “Chronicle” from the creation to his own time; of which a part only has been published, including the events from the year 447 to 1449. The first edition was published, at the end of Eusebius’ Chronicle, without date or place, but, as supposed, at Milan iti 1475, 4to. It was reprinted at Venice in 1483, 4to. It was continued to the year 1482, by Matthias Palmieri, who, although almost of the same names, was neither his relation nor countryman. This Matthias was a native of Pisa, was apostolical secretary, and accounted a very able Greek and Latin scholar. He died in his sixtieth year, in 1483.

Besides his “Chronicle,” Matthew, or Matteo, Palmieri wrote in Latin the life of Nicolas Acciajuoli, grandseneschal of the kingdom of Naples, which is printed in the thirteenth volume of Muratori’s “Script. Rer. Ital.;” a work on the taking of Pisa by the Florentines, “De captivitate Pisarum,” printed in Muratori’s nineteenth volume, and, in Italian, “Libro della vita civile,” written in the form of dialogues, and printed at Florence in 1529, 8vo. It was translated into French by Claude des Hosiers, Paris, 1557, 5vo. Palmieri was also a poet. He composed in the terza rima, in imitation of Dante, a philosophical, or rather a theological, poem, which had great celebrity in his day: its title was “Citta di Vita,” and was divided into three books, and an hundred chapters. But having advanced, among other singular opinions, that human souls were formerly those angels who remained neuter during the rebellion in heaven against their Creator, and were sent to the world below as a punishment, the Inquisition, after his death, ordered his poem to be burnt, although it had never been published, but read in manuscript. Some assert, that he was burnt along with his poem but Apostolo Zeno has proved that he died peaceably in 1475, and was honoured with a public funeral, by order of the state of Florence, that Rinuccini pronounced his funeral oration, and that, during the ceremony, his poem was laid on his breast, as his highest honour.

, a Spanish painter and writer on the art, was born at Bujalance, and studied at Cordova in grammar, philosophy, theology, and jurisprudence. The elements of art he acquired of Don Juan de Valdes Leal; and to acquaint himself with tht? style of different schools, went, in company of Don Juan de Alfaro, in 1678, to Madrid. Here the friendship of Carrenno procuring him the commission of painting the gallery del Cierzo, he pleased the king and the minister, and in 1688 he was made painter to the king. He was now overwhelmed with commissions, for many of which, notwithstanding the most surprising activity, he could furnish only the designs; their ultimate finish was left to the hand of his pupil Dionysius Vidal hut whatever was designed and terminated by himself, in fresco or in oil, possesses invention, design, and colour, in the essential; and what taste and science could add, in the ornamental parts. His style was certainly more adapted to the demands of the epoch in which he lived, than to those of the preceding one, and probably would not have obtained from Murillo the praises lavished on it by Luca Giordano; but of the machinists, who surrounded him, he was, perhaps, the least debauched by manner.

, a polite scholar, who flourished in the reigns of Henry VII. and VIII. was a native of London, and educated there in grammar. He afterwards studied logic and philosophy at Cambridge, at which university he resided till he had attained the degree of bachelor of arts; after which he went to Paris, where he spent several years in the study of philosophical and other learning, took the degree of master of arts, and acquired such excellence in the French tongue, that, in 1514, when a treaty of marriage was negotiated between Louis XII. kinpr of France, and the princess Mary, sister of king Henry VIII. of England, Mr. Palsgrave was chosen to be her tutor in that language. But Louis XII. dying almost immediately after his marriage, Palsgrave attended his fair pupil back to England, where he taught the French language to many of the young nobility, and was appointed by the king one of his chaplains in ordinary. He is said also to have obtained some church preferments, but we know only of the prebend of Portpoole, in the church of St. Paul’s, which was bestowed upon him in April 1514, and the living of St. Dunstan’s in the East, given to him by archbishop Cranmer in 1553. In 1531, he settled at Oxford for some time, and the next year was incorporated master of arts in that university, as he had before been in that of Paris; and a few days after was admitted to the degree of bachelor of divinity. At this time he was highly esteemed for his learning; and was the first author who reduced the French tongue under grammatical rules, or that had attempted to fix it to any kind of standard. This he executed with great ingenuity and success, in a large work which he published in that language at London, entitled “L'Eclaircissement de la Language Fran9ois,” containing three books, in a thick folio, 1530, to which he has prefixed a large introduction in English. This work is now extremely scarce. In the dedication he says that he had written two books on the subject before; one dedicated to his pupil Mary, the other to Charles Brandon duke of Suffolk. He made a literal translation into English of a Latin comedy called “Acolastus,” written by Fullonius, and published it in 1540. He is said also to have written some “Epistles.”

When Mr. Palsgrave was born, or to what age he lived, are particulars which we have not been able to trace; yet his death probably happened before September 1554, as in that month Edmond Brygotte, S. T. P. was collated to the prebend of Portpoole “per mortem Joh. Pallgrave.”

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

, a learned scholar of the sixteenth century, was born at Verona in 1529. He discovered an attachment to history and antiquities in his earliest years, and entered into the order of the Augustins. As soon as he had made profession, the general of his order sent him to Rome to complete his studies, and in 1553 he was appointed to instruct the novices. He then taught scholastic theology at Florence for some time, but his chief residence was at Rome, where he was patronized by cardinal Marcello Cervini, afterwards pope Marcel 1 us II. From thence he passed into the court of cardinal Alexander Farnese, with whom he travelled into Sicily in 1568, where he died in his thirty-ninth year. One of his first labours was an edition of the “Fasti Consulares,” first brought to light by Sigonius, which he published, illustrated with notes, at Venice in 1557. He published treatises also, “De Antiquis Romanorum Nominibus;” “De Principibus Romanis;” “De Republica;” “De Triumphis et Ludis Circensibus;” and “Topographia Romae.” These valuable works are founded in a great measure upon ancient inscriptions, of which he had collected and copied nearly three thousand. Some time after, this collection, which had come into the hands of cardinal Savelli, disappeared, and Maffei is of opinion that the collection published at Antwerp by Martin Sanctius, in 1588, and which served as a foundation for Gruterus’s great work, was in reality that of Panvinius. Panvinius was also a profound investigator of sacred or Christian antiquities, as appears by his works, “. De Ritu sepeliendi mortuos apud veteres Christianos” “De antiquo Ritu baptizandi Catechumenos;” “DePrimatu Pein;” “Chronicon Ecclesiasticum;” “De Episcopatibus Titulis, et Diaconis Cardinalium” “Annotationes et Supplementa ad Platinam de Vitis Pontificnm;” “De Septem pnrcipuis Urbis Romse Basilicis;” “De Bibliotheca Vaticana.” He had undertaken a general ecclesiastical history, for which he collected matter sufficient to fill six large -manuscript volumes, which are preserved in the Vatican. He wrote a chronicle of his own order, and a history of his native city, Verona, including an account of its antiquities, printed many years after his death.

, an eminent bibliographer, was born at Sulzbach in the Upper Palatinate, March 16, 1729, and having been educated for the church, took his doctor’s degree in divinity and philosophy, and became pastor of the cathedral church of St. Sebaldus at Nuremberg, where he died in 1805. No farther particulars have yet reached us of this learned and laborious writer, who has long been known here by his “Annales Typographiei, ab artis inventæ origine ad annum M. D. post Maittairii, Denisii, aliorumque doctissimorum virorum curas in ordinem redacti, emendati et aucti,” Nuremberg, 1793—1803, 11 vols. 4to. This is unquestionably a work of the very first importance to bibliographers, and is thought to exceed Maittaire’s in clearness of arrangement and accuracy. It comes down, beyond his original intention, to 1536; but is not quite complete without another work of his printed in German, “Annals of ancient German Literature, or an account of books printed in Germany frpm the invention of the art to 1520,” Nuremberg, 1788, 4to. His other works, also unfortunately in German, are an “Account of the most ancient German Bibles, printed in the fifteenth century, which are in the library at Nuremberg,” 1777, 4to; “History of Bibles printed at Nuremberg, from the invention of the Art,” Nuremberg, 1778, 4to. And a “History of early Printing at Nuremberg to the year 1500,” ibid. 1789, 4to.

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

, an ingenious physician, the son of Nicholas Papin, also a physician, was born at Blois. He took the degree of doctor, and travelled to England, where he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, in December 1680. He passed the following year in London, and published in English an account of a machine which he had invented, and which still bears his name: this was “The New Digester, or Engine for the softening of Bones,” 1681, 4to. It soon appeared in French, with the title of “La Maniere d'amollir les Os, et de faire cuire toutes sortes des Viandes en peu de terns et a peu de fraix,” Paris, 1682. The machine consists of a very strong metal boiler, with an air-tight cover screwed down with great force; hence the contained matter, being incapable of escaping either by evaporation or by bursting the machine, may be heated to a degree far beyond that of boiling water, so as to dissolve the gluten of bones and cartilages. He afterwards improved this digester, and it has since been much employed in chemical and philosophical experiments. He assisted Boyle in various experiments, of which an account is given in the history of the Royal Society. Papin was a protestant, and being therefore prevented from returning home by the revocation of the edict of Nantes, he took up his residence at Marpurg, where he taught the mathematics, and published a “Fasciculus Dissertationum dequibusdam Machinis Physicis,” 1696, 12mo; and in 1707 he published at Francfort an account of a machine which he had invented for raising water by the action of fire, entitled “Ars nova ad aquam ignis adminiculo efficacissime elevandam.”

, a celebrated Roman lawyer, born in the year 175, was advocate of the treasury or exchequer, and afterwards pretorian prefect under the emperor Severus, about the year 194. This emperor had so high an opinion of his worth, that at his death he recommended his sons Caracalla and Geta to his care: but the first, having murdered his brother, enjoined Papinian to compose a discourse, to excuse that barbarity to the senate and people. Papinian could not be prevailed on to comply with this: but on the contrary answered boldly, that it was easier to commit a parricide than to excuse it; and to accuse an innocent person, after taking away his life, was a second parricide. Caracalla was so much enraged at this answer, that he ordered Papinian to be beheaded, which sentence was executed in the year 212, when he was in his thirtyseventh year, and his body was dragged through the streets of Rome. He had a great number of disciples, and composed several works among those, twenty-seven books of “Questions in the Law” nineteen books of “Responses or Opinions” two of “Definitions” two others upon “Adultery” and a single book upon the “Laws of Ediles.” His reputation was so great, that he is called “the honour of jurisprudence, and the treasure of the laws.”

, a very eminent Greek of Alexandria, flourished, according to Suidas, under the emperor Theodosius the Great, from the year 379 to* 395, and acquired deserved fame as a consummate mathematician. Many of his works are lost, or at least have not yet been discovered. Suidas and Vossius mention as the principal of them, his “Mathematical Collections,” in 8 books, of which the first and part of the second are lost; a “Commentary upon Ptolomy’s Almagest;” an “Universal Chorography;” “A Description of the Rivers of Libya;” a treatise or' “Military Engines;” “Commentaries upon Aristarchus of Samos, concerning the Magnitude and Distance of the Sun and Moon,” &c. Of these, there have been published, “The Mathematical Collections,” in a Latin translation, with a large commentary, by Commandine, in 1588, folio; reprinted in 1660. In 1644, Mersenne exhibited an abridgment of them in his <c Synopsis JVIathematica,“in 4to, containing only such propositions as could be understood without figure*. In 1655, Meibomius gave some of the Lemmata of the seventh book, in his” Dialogue upon Proportions.“In 1688, Dr. Wallis printed the last twelve propositions of the second book, at the end of his” Aristarchus Samius.“In 1703, Dr. David Gregory gave part of the preface of the seventh book, in the Prolegomena to his Euclid. And in 1706, Dr. Halley exhibited that preface entire, in the beginning of his” Apollonius." Dr. Ilutton, in his Dictionary, has given an excellent analysis of the “Mathematical Collections.”

, an Italian comic writer, born at Placentia, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, was an author of some eminence in his time. His comedies have a certain character of originality, which still, in some degree, supports their credit. They are six in number, five in prose, and one in verse. The best edition is that printed at Venice, in 1560, in two small volumes, duodecimo. There is a volume of letters by him, entitled “Lettere Amorose di M. Girolamo Parabosco,” printed also at Venice in 154-5. These were republished in 1548, “con alcune Novelle e Rime” and there is a volume of “Rime” alone, printed by Giolito at Venice, in 1547, 8vo. He composed also, novels in the style of Boccacio and Bandelli, which were published at Venice in 1552, under the title of “I Diporti di M. Girolamo Parabosco,” and reprinted in 1558, 1564, 1586, and 1598, and lately inserted in the collection entitled “Novelliero Italiano,” 1791, 26 vols. 8vo, with the imprint of Londra for Livorno. The work consists of three days, or “Giornate;” the first and second of which comprise sixteen tales, and four curious questions. The third contains several “Motti,” or bon-mots, with a few madrigals, and other short poems. There is also a volume by him entitled “Oracolo,” the oracle, published at Venice, in 1551, in 4to. In this the author gives answers to twelve questions proposed in the beginning of the book; which answers are given and varied according to some rules laid down in the preface. It appears that Parabosco lived chiefly, if not entirely, at Venice, as all his books were published there. His “Diporti,” or Sports, open with a panegyric upon that city.

, a man of a strange and paradoxical genius, and classed by Brucker among the Theosophists, was born, as is generally supposed (for his birth-place is a disputed matter), at Einfidlen near Zurick, in 1493. His family name, which was Bombastus, he afterwards changed, according to the custom of the age, into Paracelsus. His father, who was a physician, instructed him in that science, but, as it would appear, in nothing else, for he was almost totally ignorant of the learned languages. So earnest was he, however, to penetrate into the mysteries of nature, that, neglecting books, he undertook long and hazardous journeys through Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Hungary, Moscovy, and probably several parts of Asia and Africa. He not only visited literary and learned men, but frequented the workshops of mechanics, descended into mines, and thought no place mean or hazardous, if it afforded him an opportunity of increasing his knowledge of nature. He also consulted barber-surgeons, monks, conjurors, old women, quacks of every description, and every person who pretended to be possessed of any secret art, particularly such as were skilled in metallurgy. Being in this manner a self-taught philosopher and physician, he despised the medical writings of the ancients, and boasted that the whole contents of his library would not amount to six folios. He appears indeed to have written more than he ever read. His quackery consisted in certain new and secret medicines procured from metallic substances by the chemical art, which he administered with such wonderful success, that he rose to the summit of popular fame, and even obtained the professorship of medicine at Bail. One of his nostrums he called Azoth, which he said was the philosopher’s stone, the medical panacea, and his disciples extolled it as the tincture of life, given through the divine favour to man in these last days. But while his irregular practice, and arrogant invectives against other physicians, created him many enemies, his rewards were by no means adequate to his vanity and ambition; and he met frequently with mortifications, one of which determined him to leave Basil. A wealthy canon who happened to fall sick at that place, offered him a hundred florins to cure his disease, which Paracelsus easily effected with three pills of opium, one of his most powerful medicines. The canon, restored to health so soon, and apparently by such slight means, refused to stand to his engagement. Paracelsus brought the matter before the magistrate, who decreed him only the usual fee. Inflamed with violent indignation at the contempt which was thus thrown upon his art, he railed at the canon, the magistrate, and the whole city, and leaving Basil, withdrew into Alsace, whither his medical fame and success followed him. After two years, during which time he practised medicine in the principal families of the country, about the year 1530 he removed into Switzerland, where he conversed with Bullinger and other divines. From this time, he seems for many years to have roved through various parts of Germany and Bohemia. At last, in the year 1541, he died in the hospital of St. Sebastian, in Saltsburg.

Different and even contradictory judgments have been formed by the learned concerning Paracelsus. His admirers and followers have celebrated him as a perfect master of all philosophical and medical mysteries, have called him the medical Luther, and have even been weak enough to believe that he was possessed of the grand secret of converting inferior metals into gold. But others, and particularly some of his contemporaries, have charged his whole medical practice with ignorance, imposture, and impudence. J. Crato, in an epistle to Zwinger, attests, that in Bohemia his medicines, even when they performed an apparent cure, left his patients in such a state, that they soon after died of palsies or epilepsies. Erastus, who was for two years one of his pupils, wrote an entire book to detect his impostures. We have mentioned his want of education, and it is even asserted, that he was so imperfect a master of his vernacular tongue, that he was obliged to have his German writings corrected by another hand. His adversaries also charge him with the most contemptible arrogance, the most vulgar scurrility, the grossest intemperance, and the most detestable impiety. Still it appears, that with all these defects, by the mere help of physical knowledge and the chemical arts, he obtained an uncommon share of medical fame; while to support his credit with the ignorant, he pretended to an intercourse with invisible spirits, and to divine illuminations.

With regard to his system of chemistry, in which his real merit lies, the fundamental doctrines of it resolved every thing into three elements, salt, sulphur, and mercury, and were for a long time received, although in fact they were borrowed from his predecessor, Basil Valentine. His medical skill consisted principally in the bold administration of some powerful remedies, which had been heretofore thought too dangerous to be used, particularly opium, a drug with which, it is obvious, he would be able in many instances to afford great and speedy relief; but with which also few permanent cures could be effected, and much mischief would necessarily be produced, when it was misapplied. Antimony and mercury were also medicines which he liberally prescribed, and he used various preparations of them of the most active kind. He deserves the praise, however, of having been one of the first to employ mercury for the cure of the venereal disease, and of course he must have been successful in a degree, to which none of his contemporaries, who did not resort to that remedy, could attain. From his total ignorance of anatomy and rational physiology, his inability from want of literature to investigate the doctrines of the ancients, which he nevertheless boldly impugned, and his employment of a barbarous jargon, as well as his infatuated notions of magic, astrology, geomancy, and all the other branches of mystical imposture, he is, as a theorist, beneath contempt. We shall not pretend, therefore, to enter into any detail of the unintelligible jargon and absurd hypotheses which he employed, or to enumerate the immense farrago of treatises, which made their appearance under his name after his death, the notices of which occupy above nine quarto pages in the Bibliotheca of Haller: for the first we are unable to comprehend, and the latter would be a waste of time. The most complete edition is that of Geneva, 1658, 3 vols. folio.

, or rather Deparcieux (Anthony), an able mathematician, was born in 1703, at a hamlet near Nismes, of industrious but poor parents, who were unable to give him education; he soon, however, found a patron, who placed him in the college at Lyons, where he made astonishing progress in mathematics. On his arrival at Paris, he was obliged to accept of humble employment from the mathematical instrument makers, until his works brought him into notice. These were, 1. “Table astronomiques,” 1740, 4to. 2. “Traite” de trigonometric rectiligne et spherique, avec un trait6 de gnomonique et des tables de logarithmes,“1741, 4to. 3.” Essai sur les probabilites de la dnre de la vie humame,“1746, 4to. 4.” Reponse aux objections contrtr ce livre,“1746, 4to. 5.” Additions a I'essai, c.“1760, 4to. 6.” Memoires sur la possibility et la facilit^ d‘amener aiipres de PEstrapade, a Paris, les eaux de la riviere d’Yvette,“1763, 4to, reprinted, with additions, in 1777. It was always Deparcieux’s object to turn his knowledge of mathematics to practical purposes, and in the memoirs of the academy of sciences are many excellent papers which he contributed with this view. He also introduced some ingenious improvements in machinery. He was censor- royal and member of the academy of sciences at Paris, and of those of Berlin, Stockholm, Metz, Lyons, and Montpelher. He died at Paris Sept. 2, 1768, aged sixty-five. He had a nephew of the same name, born in 1753, who was educated at the college of Navarre at Paris, where he studied mathematics and philosophy, and at the age of twentyfour gave public lectures. In 177y he began a course of experimental philosophy, in the military school of Brienne; after which, he occupied the philosophical professorship at the Lyceum in Paris, where he died June 23, 1799, in a state bordering on indigence. He wrote a” Traité elementaire de Mathematiques,“for the use of students; ”Traite* des annuites, ou des rentes a terme,“1781, 4to” Dissertation snr le moyen d‘elever l’eau par la rotation d'une curde verticale sans fin,“Amst. 1782, 8vo” Dissertation sur ies globes areostatiques,“Paris, 1783, 8vo. He left also some unfinished works; and a” Cours complet de physique et de chimie," was in the press when he died.

, a French surgeon of eminence, was born at Laval, in the district of the Maine, in 1509. He commenced the study of his profession early in life, and practised it with great zeal both in hospitals and in the army; and when his reputation was at its height, he was appointed surgeon in ordinary to king Henry II. in 1552; and he held the same office under the succeeding kings, Francis II. Charles IX. and Henry III. To Charles IX. especially he is said to have on one occasion conferred great professional benefits, when some formidable symptoms had been produced by the accidental wound of a tendon in venesection, which he speedily removed. His services appear to have been amply acknowledged by the king; who spared him in the horrible massacre of St. Bartholomew’s, although a protestant. “Of all those,”' says the duke of Sully, <c who were about the person of this prince (Charles IX.) none possessed so great a share of his confidence as Ambrose Pare“, his surgeon. This man, though a Huguenot, lived with him in so great a degree of familiarity, that, on the day of the massacre, Charles telling him, the time was now come when the whole kingdom would be catholics; he replied, without being alarmed, * By the light of God, sire, I cannot believe that you have forgot your promise never to command me to do four things namely, to enter into my mother’s womb, to be present in the day of battie, to quit your service, or to go to mass.‘ The king soon after took him aside, and disclosed to him freely the trouble of his soul: * Ambrose,’ said he, * I know not what has happened to me these two or three days past, but I feel my mind and body as much at enmity with each other, as if I was seized with a fever; sleeping or waking, the murdered Huguenots seem ever present to my eyes, with ghastly faces, and weltering in blood. I wish the innocent and helpless had been spared!' The order which was published the following day, forbidding the continuance of the massacre, was in consequence of this conversation.” Pare", after having been long esteemed as the first surgeon of his time, and beloved for his private virtues, died Dec. 20, 1590, at the age of eighty-one; and as he was buried in the church of St. Andrew, Eloy would from that circumstance infer that he died a Roman catholic, of which we have no proof.

At length his friends sent for him to Paris, to study the law; and, in obedience to them he went through a course in that faculty, but this was no sooner finished, than, his passion for mathematics returning, he shut himself up in the college of Dormans, and, with an allowance of less than 200 livres a year, he lived content in this retreat, which he never left but to go to the royal college, in order to hear the lectures of M. de la Hire, or M. de Sauveur. As soon as he found himself able enough to teach others, he took pupils; and, fortification being a part of mathematics which the war had rendered very necessary, he turned his attention to that branch; but after some time began to entertain scruples about teaching what he knew only in books, having never examined a fortification elsewhere, and communicating these scruples to M. Sauveur, that friend recommended him to the marquis d'Aligre, who happened at that time to want a mathematician in his suite. Parent accordingly made two campaigns with the marquis, and instructed himself thoroughly by viewing fortified places, of which he drew a number of plans, though hq had never received any instruction in that branch. From this time he assiduously cultivated natural philosophy, and the mathematics in all its branches, both speculative and practical; to which he joined anatomy, botany, and chemistry, and never appears to have been satisfied while there was any thing to learn. M. de Billettes being admitted into the academy of sciences at Paris in 1699, with the title of their mechanician, nominated for his eleve or disciple, Parent, who excelled chiefly in that branch. It was soon found in this society, that he engaged in all the various subjects which were brought before them, but often with an eagerness and impetuosity, and an impatience of contradiction, which involved him in unpleasant disputes with the members, who, on their parts, exerted a pettish fastidiousness in examining his papers. He was in particular charged with obscurity in his productions; and indeed the fault was so notorious, that he perceived it himself, and could not avoid correcting it.

The king having, by a regulation in 1716, suppressed the class of eleves of the academy, which seemed to put too great an inequality betwixt the members, Parent was made a joint or assistant member for geometry \ but he enjoyed this promotion only a short time, being taken off by the small-pox the same year, aged fifty. He was author of a work entitled “Elements of Mechanics and Natural Philosophy;” “Mathematical and Physical Researches,” a sort of journal, which first appeared in 1705, and which in 1712 was greatly enlarged, and published in three vols. 4to; and “A treatise on Arithmetic.” Besides these, he was the author of a great number of papers in the different French “Journals,” and in the volumes of the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences,” from 1700 to 1714, and he left behind him in manuscript many works of considerable research: among these were some complete treatises on divers branches of mathematics, and a work containing proofs of the divinity of Jesus Christ, in four parts.

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

In 1591, he was made first professor in his college; in 1592, counsellor to the ecclesiastical senate; and in 1593, was admitted doctor of divinity in the most solemn manner. He had already held several disputes against the writers of the Augsburg Confession, but that of 1596 was the most considerable, in which he had to defend Caivin against the imputation of favouring Judaism, in his Commentaries upon several parts of Scripture. In 1595, he was promoted to the chair of divinity professor lor the Old Testament in his university; by which he was eased of the great fatigue he had undergone for fourteen years, in governing the youth who were educated at the college of Wisdom. Tossanus, professor of divinity for the New Testament, dying in 1602, Pareus succeeded to that chair, and a few years after he bought a house in the suburbs of Hei(lelburg, and built in the garden an apartment for his library, which he called his “Pareanum.” In this ru- took great delight, and the whole house went uitfrw;irds by that name, the elector having, out of respect to him, honouivd it with several privileges and immunities. At the same time, his reputation spreading itself every where, brought young students to him from the remotest parts of Hungary and Poland. In 1617 an evangelical jubilee was instituted in memory of the church’s deliverance from popery an hundred years before, when Luther began to preach. The solemnity lasted three days, during which orations, disputations, poems, and sermons, were delivered on the occasion. Pareus also published some pieces on the subject, which drew upon him the resentment of the Jesuits of Mentz; and a controversy took place between them. The following year, 1618, at the instance of the States General, he was pressed to go to the synod of Dort, but excused himself on account of age and infirmities. After this time he enjoyed but little tranquillity. The apprehensions he had of the ruin which his patron the elector Palatine would bring upon himself by accepting the crown of Bohemia, obliged him to change his habitation. He appears to have terrified himself with a thousand petty alarms, real or imaginary, and therefore his friends, in order to relieve him from this timidity of disposition, advised him to take refuge in the town of Anweil, in the dutchy of DeuxPonts, near Landau, at which he arrived in Oct. 1621. He left that place, however, some months after, and went to Neustadt, where his courage reviving, he determined to return to Heidelberg, wishing to pass his last moments at his beloved Pareanum, and be buried near the professors of the university. His wish was accordingly fulfilled; for he died at Pareanum June 15, 1622, and was interred with all the funeral honours which the universities in Germany usually bestow on their members.

, son of the preceding, one of the most laborious grammarians that Germany ever produced, was born at Hembach, May 24, 1576. He began his studies at Neustadt, continued them at Heidelberg, and afterwards visited some of the foreign universities, at the expence of the elector Palatine, where he was always courteously received, not only on account of his own merit, but his father’s high reputation. Among others, he received great civilities from Isaac Casaubon at Paris. In 1612, he was made rector of the college of Neustadt, which post he held till the place was taken by the Spaniards in 1622, when he was ordered by those new masters to leave the country immediately, at which time his library was also plundered by the soldiers. He published several books on- grammatical subjects, and was remarkably fond of Plautus. This drew him into a dispute with John Gruter, professor at Heidelberg, in 1620, which was carried to such a height, that neither the desolation which ruined both their universities and their libraries, and reduced their persons to the greatest extremities, nor even their banishment, proved sufficient to restrain their animosity, or incline them to the forbearance of mutual sufferers. Philip also undertook the cause of his late father against Owen, mentioned in the last article, whom he answered in a piece entitled “Anti-Owenus,” &c. He was principal of several colleges, as he was of that at Hanau in 1645. The dedication of his father’s exegetical works shews him to be living in 1647, and Saxius conjectures that he died the following year. The same writer informs us that his first publication was “Castigationes in brevem et maledicam admonitionem Joannis Magiri Jesuitae predicantis apud Nemetes Spirantes,” Heidelberg, 1608, 8vo. This refers to a controversy which his father had with Magirus, the Jesuit. He wrote also some commentaries upon the “Holy Scriptures,” and other theological works. He published “Plautus,” in 1609, with notes; also a “Lexicon Plautinum,” in 1614; st Analecta Plautina,“in 1617; a treatise” De imitatione Tereiuiana, ubi Plautum imitatus est,“1617; a second edition of” Plautus,“in 1619, and of the” Analecta Plautina,“in 1620, and again in 1623. H also published a third edition of his” Plautus“in 1641. The” Prolegomena“which it contains of that poet’s life, the character of his versification, and the nature of his comedy, have been prefixed entire to the Delphin edition. He published his answer to Gruter in 1620, with this title,” Provocatio ad senatum criticum pro Plauto et electis Plautinis“and more of this angry controversy may be seen in the long preface prefixed to his” Analecta Plautina.“He also published” Calligraphia Romana, sive Thesaurus phrasium linguae Latinos,“in 1620; and” Electa Symmachiana, Lexicon Symmachianum, Calligraphia Synimachiana,“in 1617, 8vo: to which we may add his father’s life,” Narratio de curriculo vitce et obitu D. Parei," 1633, 8vo.

, son of the preceding, trod in the steps of his father, applied himself vigorously to the study of the classics, and published several laborious pieces; for which he was obliged to Vossius, who had a great respect for him, and made it his business to procure booksellers who would print his works. He was unfortunately killed, in 1635, by a gang of highwaymen, or, as others say, by some soldiers at the siege of Keiserslauteren. He was a considerable master of Greek. His publications are, 1. “The Poem of Musseus upon the Loves of Hero and Leander, with notes,” 1627. 2. “Mellificium Atticum,” a thick 4to, being a collection of sentences extracted from Greek authors, which he dedicated to the university of Oxford. 3. MeduHa Historise Ecclesiastics,“in 1631; to which he added” Notes.“4. An edition of Lucretius, Francfort, 1631, 8vo. 5.” Historia Bavarico-Palatina,“1633. 6.” Spicilegium subsecivum," or notes upon Quintilian, published in an edition of that author at London, in 1641, 8vo.

, an English historian, was a Benedictine monk of the congregation of Clugny, in the monastery of St. Alban’s, the habit of which order he took in 1217. He was an universal scholar; understood, and had a good taste both in painting and architecture. He was also a mathematician, a poet, an orator, a divine, an historian, and a man of distinguished probity. Such rare accomplishments and qualities as these, did not fail to place him very high in the esteem of his contemporaries; and he was frequently employed in reforming some monasteries, visiting others, and establishing the monastic discipline in all. He reproved vice without distinction of persons, and did not even spare the English court itself; at the same time he shewed a hearty affection for his country in maintaining its privileges against the encroachments of the pope. Of this we have a clear, though unwilling, evidence in Baronius, who observes, that this author remonstrated with too sharp and bitter a spirit against the court of Rome; and that, except in this particular only, his history was an incomparable work. He died at St. Alban’s in 1259. His principal work, entitled “Historia Major,” consists of two parts: The first, from the creation of the world to William the Conqueror; the second, from that king’s reign to 1250. He carried on this history afterwards to the year of his death in 1259. Rishanger, a monk of the monastery of St. Alban’s, continued it to 1272 or 1273, the year of the death of Henry III. It was first printed at London in 1571, and reprinted 1640, 1684, fol. besides several foreign editions. There are various ms copies in our public libraries, particularly one which he presented to Henry III. and which is now in the British Museum. From Jiis Mss. have also been published “Vitas duorum Offarum, Merciae regum, S, Albani fundatorum” <c Gesta viginti duo abbatum S. Albani“”Additamenta chronicorum ad historian) majorern,“all which accompany the editions of his” Historia Major“printed in 1640 -and 1684. Among his unpublished Mss. are an epitome of his” Historia Major," and a history from Adam to the conquest, principally from Matthew of Westminster. This is in the library of Bene't college, Cambridge. The titles of some other works, but of doubtful authority, may be seen in Bale and Pits.

Parker (Henry) Lord Morley, a nobleman of literary taste in the reign of Henry VIII. was the son and heir of sir William Parker, knight, by Alice, sister and heir of Henry Lovel, and daughter of William Lovel, a younger son of William lord Lovel of Tichmersh, by Alianore, daughter and heir of Robert Morley, lord Morley, who died 21 Henry Vlth. He was educated at Oxford, but at what college, or at what time, does not appear. After leaving the university, he retired to his estate in Northamptonshire, and in the 21st year of the reign of Henry VIII. was summoned to parliament by the title of lord Morley. He was one of the barons, who, in the year following, signed the memorable declaration to pope Clement Vji. threatening him with the loss of his supremacy in England, unless he consented to the king’s divorce, but he still remained a bigoted adherent to the popish religion. In the 25th of the same reign, having a dispute for precedence with lord Dacre of Gillesland, his pretensions were confirmed by parliament. Anthony Wood says, that “his younger years were adorned with all kind of superficial learning, especially with dramatic poetry, and his elder with that which was divine.” Wood adds, that he was living, “an ancient man, and in esteem among the nobility, in the latter end of Henry VIII.” But from his epitaph, which is inserted in Collins’s Peerage, it appears that he died in Nov. 1556, aged eighty. His great grandson, Edward lord Morley, who married Elizabeth, sole daughter and heir of William Stanley, lord Montegle, had issue Mary, who by her husband Thomas Habington, of Henlip in Worcestershire, was mother of William Habington the poet, and was supposed to have been the person who wrote to her brother William, lord Morley and Montegle, the famous letter of warning respecting the gun-powder plot.

Phillips says that our lord Morley was sent by Henry VIII. with the garter to the archduke of Austria. Of his works, nothing has been published but “A Declaration of the 94th Psalm,” printed by T* Berthelet in 1539. The rest, which remain in ms. in the king’s library, and whose titles are given in Casley’s catalogue, are translations from catholic writers, three or four lives from Plutarch, and Tully’s Dream of Scipio. Waldron, in his “Literary Museum,” has given a specimen of one of lord Morley’s translations from Boccaccio. Lord Morley is also said to have written several tragedies and comedies, whose very titles are lost, and which, as Mr. Warton thinks, were nothing more than grave mysteries and moralities, which probably would not have been lost had they deserved to live. “Certain Rhimes,” and the “Lives of Sectaries,” are mentioned as his, but of them nothing is now known, ex cept some lines which may be seen in our authorities.

, the second protestant archbishop of Canterbury, a very learned prelate, and a great benefactor to the literature of his country, was born in the parish of St. Saviour’s, Norwich, Aug. 6, 1504. He was of ancient and reputable families both by the father’s and mother’s side. His father dying when he was only twelve years of age, the care of his education devolved on his mother, who appears to have spared no pains in procuring him the best tutors in such learning as might qualify him for the university, to which he was removed in September 1521. He was entered of Corpus Christi or Bene't college, Cambridge, and was at first maintained at his mother’s expense, but in six months after admittance that expense was in some measure relieved, by his being chosen, a scholar of the house, called a bible clerk. In 1524 he took his degree of bachelor of arts, and in 1526 was made subdeacon, under the titles of Barnwell, and the chapel in Norwich fields. While at college, he had for his contemporaries Bacon and Cecil, Bradford and Ridley, afterwards men of great eminence in state and church, and the two latter distinguished sufferers for the sake of religion.

In 1552 the king presented him to the canonry and prebend of Covingham, in the church of Lincoln, where he was soon after elected dean, upon Dr. Taylor’s promotion to that see. He had before been nominated to the mastership of Trinity-college, probably on the death of Dr. Redman in 1551, but this did not take effect. It is also said that he declined a bishopric in this reign. On the accession of queen Mary, however, the scene was changed, and he, with all the married clergy who would not part with their wives, and conform to those superstitious rites and ceremonies they had so lately rejected, were stript of their preferments. He bore this reverse of fortune with pious resignation. “After my deprivation” (he says, in his private journal) “I lived so joyful before God in my conscience, and so neither ashamed nor dejected, that the most sweet leisure for study, to which the good providence of God has now recalled me, gave me much greater and more solid pleasures, than that former busy and dangerous kind of life ever afforded me. What will hereafter befall me, I know not; but to God, who takes care of all, and who will one day reveal the hidden things of men’s hearts, I commend myself wholly, and my pious and most chaste wife, with my two most dear little sons.” It appears also by a ms. in the college, quoted by Strype, that Dr. Parker “lurked secretly in those years (the reign of queen Mary) within the house of one of his friends, leading a poor life, without any men’s aid or succour; and yet so well contented with his lot, that in that pleasant rest, and leisure for his studies, he would never, in respect of himself, have desired any other kind of life, the extreme fear of danger only excepted. And therein he lived as all other good men then did. His wife he would not be divorced from, or put her away all this evil time (as he might, if he would, in those days, which so rigorously required it), being a woman very chaste, and of a very virtuous behaviour, and behaving herself with all due reverence toward her husband.”

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

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

In 1561, archbishop Parker and some of the other prelates made an application to the queen against the use of images, to which her majesty still discovered a very great inclination, and it may be inferred that they induced her to change her opinion on this matter, from the anecdote given in our account of dean Nowell, who incurred her displeasure by only presenting her with a prayer-book, illustrated with engravings. In other respects she adhered to many of her father’s notions, and when about this time she took a journey into Essex and Suffolk, she expressed great displeasure at finding so many of the clergy married, and at observing so many women and children in cathedrals and colleges. She had, indeed, so strong an aversion to matrimony in the clergy, that it was owing to Cecil’s courage and dexterity, as appears by a letter of his to Parker, that she did not absolutely prohibit the marriage of all ecclesiastics. He was, however, obliged to consent to an injunction, “that no head or member of any college or cathedral, should bring a wife, or any other woman, into the precincts of it, to abide in the same, on pain of forfeiture of all ecclesiastical promotions.” Archbishop Parker took the liberty to remonstrate with the queen against this order, and on this interview she treated the institution of matrimony with contempt, declared to him that she repented her making any of them bishops, and wished it had been otherwise; nay, threatened him with injunctions of another nature, which his grace understood to be in favour of the old religion. In his letter to Cecil on this occasion, he assures him that the bishops have all of them great reason to be dissatisfied with the queen; that he repents his having engaged in the station in which he was; and that the reception which he had from her majesty the day before, had quite indisposed him for all other business, and he could only mourn to God in the bitterness of his soul; but if she went on to force the clergy to any compliance, they must obey God rather than men, and that many of them had conscience and courage enough to sacrifice their lives in defence of their religion.

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

It might have been expected that these ordinances would have pleased the queen, as being in conformity with her wishes, and, in fact, in answer to her orders; but the opponents of the habits, who began to be called Puritans, applied to their friends at court, and especially to her great favourite Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, who prevailed so far with her majesty, that all her former resolution disappeared, and she refused to sanction the ordinances with her authority, telling the archbishop, that the oath of canonical obedience was sufficient to bind the inferior clergy to their duty, without the interposition of the crown. The archbishop, hurt at such capricious conduct, and at being placed in such a situation between the court and the church, told Cecil, that if the ministry persisted in their indifference, he would “no more strive against the stream, fume or chide who would;” and it is most probable his remonstrances prevailed, for the above ordinances were a few days after published, under the name of Advertisements; and he then proceeded upon them with that zeal which procured him from one party the reproach of being a persecutor, and from the other the honour of being a firm friend and supporter of the church-establishment. The particular steps he took, the trials he instituted, and the punishments he inflicted, are detailed at length by Strype and other church-historians; but on the merit of his conduct there is great diversity of opinion. It has been said, both in excuse and in reproach of his measures, that he was too subservient to the queen. To us it appears, that he took as much liberty in advising the queen, and in contending with her humours, as any prelate or statesman of her reign, and that what he did to promote uniformity in the church arose from a sincere, however mistaken opinion, that uniformity was necessary to the advancement of the reformation, and in itself practicable. All that is wrong in this opinion must be referred to the times in which he lived, when no man conceived that an established church could flourish if surrounded by sectaries, and when toleration was not at all understood in its present sense.

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

It seems probable therefore that Parker planned this work, and supplied his assistants with materials from his own collections respecting ecclesiastical antiquities. It was printed probably at Lambeth, where the archbishop had an establishment of printers, engravers, and illuminators, in a folio volume, in 1572. The number of copies printed appears to have been very small, some think not more than four or five, for private distribution; but this must be a mistake; for Dr. Drake mentions his having consulted twenty-one copies, most of which, he adds, were imperfect. The copies extant, however, in a perfect state, are very few: Strype mentions only five, and one of these, which he calls the choicest of all, belonged to archbishop Sancroft, came afterwards into the hands of Mr. Wharton, and appears to be the one now at Lambeth. There is a very fine copy in the British Museum, bound in green velvet embroidered, which appears to have been the presentation-copy to queen Elizabeth. A bad edition of the work was published at Hanover in 1605; and a very elegant one by Dr. Drake in 1729, folio. In 1574, a short life of archbishop Parker was published abroad, most probably by one of his enemies among the puritans, under the title “The Life of the 70 Archbishopp of Canterbury, presently settinge. Englished, and to be added to the 69 lately sett forth in Latin. This number of seventy is so complete a number as it is great pitie ther should be one more: but that as Augustin was the first, so Matthew might be the last.” Of this scurrilous publication an account may be seen in the “Restituta,” vol. I.

To the university of Cambridge, and particularly to his own college, he was a most munificent benefactor, founding, at his own expence, many fellowships and scholarships. He was also the founder of the first Society of Antiquaries, over which he presided during his life, and in this office was succeeded by archbishop Whitgift. He had the taste and spirit of an antiquary from his earliest years, and employed his interest, when he rose in the world, as well as his fortune, in accumulating collections, or transcripts of manuscripts, from the dissolved monasteries. In his library is a letter from the privy-council, dated July 1568, signifying the queen’s pleasure, that the archbishop, or his deputies, should be permitted to peruse all the records of the suppressed houses. The greatest favour, therefore, which he conferred on literature, was the invaluable collection of Mss. and printed books which he gave to his college, and which is there still preserved. Fuller styled this collection “the Sun of English Antiquity, before it was eclipsed by that of sir Robert Cotton,” and justly, as it contained more materials, relating to the civil and ecclesiastical history of this kingdom, than had ever been collected. The manuscripts are of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. Some are as old as the tenth, ninth, and eighth. They relate to the writings of the fathers and school-divinity, to civil and ecclesiastical matters, to the concerns of various religious houses, of the university, &c. Many of them are in the old Saxon character, and they are all well described in Nasmith’s Catalogue. A copy of his will is preserved in the College-library, as are two pictures of him in oil, with a beautiful one in water-colours, taken in the seventieth year of his age, at the end of the college-statutes. His only surviving son, John, was knighted in 1603, and died in 1618, but there is nothing remarkable in his history; and the family is now thought to be extinct.

, a man of some learning, and no contemptible writer, but of despicable character, was born in Sept. 1640, at Northampton, where his father, John Parker, then practised the law. John had been bred to that profession in one of the Temples at London, and inclining to the parliament against the king, was preferred to be a member of the high court of justice in 1649, in which office he gave sentence against the three lords, Capel, Holland, and Hamilton, who were beheaded. During Oliver’s usurpation he was made an assistant committeeman for his county. In 1650, be published a book in defence of the new government, as a commonwealth, without a king or house of lords, entitled “The Government of the People of England, precedent and present,” with an emblematical engraved title-page. In June 1655, when Cromwell was declared protector, he was appointed one of the commissioners for removing obstructions at Worcesterhouse, in the Strand, near London, and was sworn serjeant at law next day. In Jan. 1659, he was appointed by the rump-parliament one of the barons of the exchequer; but, upon a complaint against him, was soon after displaced. His character, however, appears to have been such, that he was again made regularly serjeant at law, by the recommendation of chancellor Hyde, at the first call after the return of Charles II.

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

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

His character was now become contemptible, and his authority in his diocese so very insignificant, that when he assembled his clergy and desired them to subscribe an “Address of Thanks to the king for his declaration of Liberty of Conscience,” they rejected it with such unanimity, that he got but one clergyman to concur with him in it. The last effort he made to serve the court was his publishing “Reasons for abrogating the Test” and this produced a controversy, in which he was completely foiled, his character despised, and his spirit broken. He died unlamented at Magdalen college, May 20, 1687, and was buried in the outer chapel. He was a man of learning, and in some instances an acute writer. Of that character MarvelPs wit cannot deprive him. But it may be allowed, with Burnet, that he was a man of no judgment, and of as little virtue; and as to religion, rather impious; that he was covetous and ambitious, and seemed to have no other sense ofreligion but as a political interest, and a subject of party and faction. He seldom came to prayers, or to any exercises of devotion; and was so lifted up with pride that he grew insufferable to all that came near him.

It must have been as the last effort of a desperate cause when he sent a “Discourse” to James, persuading him to embrace the protestant religion, with a “Letter” to the same purpose, which was printed at London in 1690, 4to. His works have but few readers at this day; and Swift observes, that “MarvelPs remarks on Parker continued to be read when the book which occasioned them was long ago sunk.” He left a son of his own name, who was an excellent scholar, and a man of singular modesty. He never took the oaths after the revolution. He married a bookseller’s daughter at Oxford, where he resided with a numerous family of children to support which he published some books, particularly, 1 “An English Translation of Tully de finibus, 1702,” 8vo, in the preface to which he has some animadversions upon Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding. 2. “An abridgment of the Ecclesiastic Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozornen, and Theotloret,” 1729. He also published a Latin manuscript of his father, containing the history of his own time, under this title, “Reverendi admodum in Christo patris Samuelis Parkeri episcopi de rebus sui temporis commentariorum libri quatuor,” 1726, 8vo, of which,' two English translations were afterwards published, one by the rev. Thomas Newlin, fellow of Magdalen college. But Mr. Parker’s last and greatest work was entitled “Bibliotheca Biblica,” printed at Oxford in 5 vols. 4to, the first of which appeared in two parts in 1720, and the fifth in 1735, with an account of the other writings of the author, and some particulars of his life, drawn up by Dr. Thomas Haywood, of St. John’s college, to whom were attributed most of the dissertations in the work. He describes it as “being a new Comment upon the five Books of Moses, extracted from the ancient fathers, and the most famous critics both ancient and modern, with occasional annotations or dissertations upon particular difficulties, as they were often called for.” Mr. Parker died July 14, 1730, in his fiftieth year, leaving a widow and children. The metrical paraphrase of Leviticus xi. 13, &c. in vol. Hi. was written by Mr. Warton, of Magdalen college, father to the late learned brothers, Joseph and Thomas Warton; and the “Fragment of Hyppolitus, taken out of two Arabic Mss. in the Bodleian,” in the fourth vol. was translated by the late Dr. Hunt. Mr. Parker never was in orders, as he could not reconcile his mind to the new government; but he associated much and was highly respected by many divines, particularly nonjurors, as Dr. Hickes, Mr. Collier, Mr. Dodwell, Mr. Leslie, Mr. Nelson, and Dr. Grabe, whose liberality lessened the difficulties which a very large family occasioned. He appears to have had a place in the Bodleian library, as Mr. Wheatly, in a letter to Dr. Rawlinson, dated Dec. 1739, says, “Sam. Parker’s son I had heard before was apprenticed to Mr. Clements: but the account you give me of his extraordinary proficiency is new. If it be true also, I hope some generous patron of learning will recall him from the bookseller’s shop, and place him in his father’s seat, the Bodleian library.” This son, Sackville Parker, was afterwards for many years an eminent bookseller at Oxford, and one of the four Octogenarian booksellers, who died in 1795 and 1796, namely, James Fletcher, at eighty-six; Sackville Parker, at eightynine; Stephen Fletcher, at eighty -two, and Daniel Prince, at eighty-five. They were all born at Oxford, except James Fletcher. The present worthy bookseller, Mr. Joseph Parker, is nephew and successor to Mr. Sackville Parker.

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

Mr. Parkhurst died at Epsom in Surrey, March 21, 1797. He was a man of very extraordinary independency of mind and firmness of principle. In early life, along with many other men of distinguished learning, it was objected to him that he was a Hutchinsonian; and this has been given as a reason for his want of preferment. A better reason, however, may be found in the circumstances of his acquisition of property, which rendered him independent, and his love of retirement, which was uniform. He always gave less of his time to the ordinary interruptions of life than is common. In an hospitable, friendly, and pleasant neighbourhood, he visited little, alleging that such a course of life neither suited his temper, his health, or his studies. Such a man was not likely to crowd the levee of a patron. Yet he was of sociable manners; and his conversation always instructive, often delightful; for his stores of knowledge were so large, that he has often been called a walking library. Like many other men of infirm and sickly frames, he was occasionally irritable and quick, warm and earnest in his resentments, though never unforgiving. Few men, upon the whole, have passed through a long life more at peace with their neighbours, more respected by men of learning, more beloved by their friends, or more honoured by their family.

, one of our early law-writers, was born of a genteel family, and educated at Oxford, but left it without a degree, and became a student of the Inner Temple, where, Wood says, he made wonderful proficiency in the common law. After being called to the bar, he became eminent in his profession, and had great practice as a chamber-counsel. Whether he was ever a reader of his inn, or a bencher, seems doubtful, tie died, according to Pits, in 1544, but according to Bale, in 1545, and is supposed to have been buried in the Temple church. He wrote, in Norman French (but Wood gives the title in Latin), “Perutilis Tractatus; sive explanatio quorundam capitulorum valde necessaria,” Lond. 1530, a work which must have answered its character of " valde necessaria,' 7 as it was reprinted in 1532, 1541, 1545, 1567, 1597, 1601, and 1639. There were also two English translations, of 1642 and 1657, all in 8vo.

His first publication was his “Paradisi in Sole Paradisus terrestris, or a choice Garden of all sorts of Rarest Flowers, &c.; to which is annexed a Kitchen Garden,” &c. This was printed at London, anno 1629, in a folio of 612 pages. A second edition, “much corrected and enlarged,” appeared in 1656, after the decease of the author. Both editions are dedicated “to the Queen’s most excellent Majesty,” which could hardly have been, as Dr. Pulteney supposed, queen Elizabeth; but rather the queen of Charles I.; and it is to the honour of those who edited the new impression, in 1656, that this dedication was not then suppressed. About a thousand plants, either species or varieties, are described in this book, of which 780 are figured, in wood cuts, partly copied from Clusius and Lobel, partly original, but all of them coarse and stiff, though sometimes expressive. Numerous remarks are interspersed, respecting the botanical history or medical virtues of the plants, as well as their culture; but the latter subject is, for the most part, given in the introductory chapters, which display no small degree of intelligence and experience. This book affords a very correct and pleasing idea of the gardens of our ancestors, at the time it was written -, and has been considered, by the learned authors of the Hortus Kewensis," unequivocal authority as to the time when any particular species was introduced or cultivated among us. Though our kitchen-gardens had not arrived at such perfection as they attained in king William’s days, and have since preserved, there is reason to think the science of horticulture declined considerably after the time of Parkinson, previous to its restoration at the end of the seventeenth century. It is no small praise to Parkinson’s work, that the late Mr. Curtis held it in particular estimation, always citing it in his Magazine with peculiar pleasure and respect.

In 1640 our author published his principal work, the “Theatrum Botanicum, or Theatre of Plants, or an Herbal of large extent;” &c. a ponderous folio of 1746 pages, with innumerable wooden cuts. This work and the Herbal of Gerarde were the two main pillars of botany in England till the time of Ray; one or other, or both, being the inexhaustible resource of all who had any love for plants, or any interest in inquiring into their qualities. Of these two writers it is justly observed that Parkinson was by far the most original and the most copious, but his cuts being of vastly inferior merit to those admirable ones prepared for Conrad Gesner, with which Gerarde had the means of adorning his publication, the latter has greatly prevailed in popularity, as a book of reference. It is indeed chiefly for the figures that we now cite these works. Nice distinctions of species, or any discrimination between species and varieties, are not to be expected; still less, any ideas of classification or scientific arrangement, worthy a moment’s consideration or comparison. It is not to be wondered at if these great works contain some hundreds of repetitions, when we consider how obscurely many plants had been described, or even figured, by previous authors; insomuch that it was in many cases next to impossible to discover whether a given plant had been described before. Parkinson, however, is entitled to superior praise on this head, having taken all possible pains to avoid such mistakes, by his deep study of synonyms. Some papers of Lobel are said to have fallen into the hands of Parkinson, after the death of the former, which proved of use to his undertaking; but it does not appear that he implicitly confided in such, any more than in previously printed authorities, without a due investigation, and therefore they became in some measure his own.

The time of Parkinson’s decease is not known, but he appears to have been living when his Herbal was published, in 1640, at which period he was, if Dr. Pulteney’s date of his birth be correct, seventy-three years old. Nothing is recorded of his family. Some copies of his “Paradisus” have an engraved portrait of the author, done in his sixtysecond year and there is a small oval one in the title-page of his “Herbal, or Theatrum Botanicum.”

, a philosopher of the Eleatic sect, flourished about the sixty-ninth olympiad, or 504 B. C. Some have supposed he was a pupil of Anaximander. He was, however, at first a man of property and consequence in civil life, until Diochetas, a Pythagorean, introduced him into the recesses of philosophy. Cebes, in his allegorical table, speaks of Parmenides as an eminent pattern of virtue. He wrote the doctrines of his school in verses, of which a few fragments still remain in the collection “Poesis Philosophica,” by Henry Stephens, Paris, 1573, but insufficient to explain his system of philosophy. Plato, in the dialogue which bears the name of Parmenides, professes to represent his tenets, but confounds them with his own. From the scattered reports of the ancients, Brucker has compiled the following Abstract of the philosophy of Parmenides.

Philosophy is two-fold, that which follows the report of the senses, and that which is according to reason and truth. The former treaty of the appearances of sensible objects, the latter considers the abstract nature of things, and inquires into the constitution of the universe. Abstract philosophy teaches that from nothing nothing can proceed. The universe is one, immoveable, immutable, eternal, and of a spherical form. Whatever is not comprehended in the universe, has no real existence. Nothing in nature is either produced or destroyed, but merely appears to be so to the senses. Physical philosophy teaches that the principles of things are heat and cold, or fire and earth, of which the former is the efficient, the latter the material cause; that the earth is spherical, and placed in the center, being exactly balanced by its distance from the heavens, so that there is no cause why it should move one way rather than another; that the first men were produced from mud, by the action of heat upon cold; that the frame of the world is liable to decay, but the universe itself remains the same; and that the chief seat of the soul is the heart. Brucker adds, that there is a near resemblance between the metaphysical doctrine of Parmenides and Xenophanes, but that Parmenides adhered more strictly to the Pythagorean doctrine. Telesius revived the doctrine of Parmenides in the sixteenth century.

, a French author and poet, whose works are now scarce, as well as obsolete, was originally a merchant at Dieppe, where he was born in 1494, and became famous by means of his voyages, and his taste for the sciences. He died in the island of Sumatra, A. D. 1530, being then only thirty-six. The collection of his verses in 4to, printed in 1536, is entitled “Description nouvelle des Dignites de ce Monde, et de la Dignite de l'homme,” composee en rithme Franchise et en maniere d‘exhortation, par Jean Parmentier: avec plusieur chants Royaulx, et une Moralite a l’Honneur de la Vierge, mise par personaiges; plus la deploration sur la mort dudit Parmentier et son frere, composee par Pierre Crignon.“This book is very rare. Crignon, who published it, was Parmentier' s particular friend, and thus speaks of him” From the year 1522, he had applied to the practice of cosmography, on the great fluctuations of the sea he became very profound in astrology he composed several maps, spherical and plain, which have been used with success in navigation. He was a man worthy to be known by all the learned; and capable, if he had lived, of doing honour to his country by great enterprises. He was the first pilot who conducted vessels to the Brasils, and the first Frenchman who discovered the Indies, as far as the island Samothra or Sumatra, named Taprobane by the ancients. He reckoned also upon going to the Moluccas; and he has told me several times, that when he should return to France, his intention was to seek a passage to the North, and to make discoveries from thence to the South.“Another work by him is entitled” Moralites tres-excellens en Thonneur de la benoiste Vierge Marie; mise en rime Franchise et en personnaiges, par Jehan Parmentier,“Paris, 1531,4to, black letter. This also is extremely scarce, but is reprinted in the” Description nouvelle," &C.

Parmigiano was a learned designer; to his depth in design we must ascribe that freedom of execution, those decided strokes of his pencil, which Albano calls divine, and which add grace to the finish of his pictures; they have not, indeed, all equal “impasto” of colour, nor equal effect, though some, for the amore with which they are conducted, have been ascribed to Correggio such is the Cupid scooping his bow, with the two infants at his feet, one laughing, the other crying, of which there are several repetitions. We see indeed, some of the pictures of Parmigiano so often repeated, that though we may grant them the respect due to age, we can scarcely allow them all the praise of originality. Such is, among his lesser works, the picture of the Madonna with the Infant, St. John and St. Catherine, and the head of St. Zaccharia, or some other sainted elder, in the fore-ground; its duplicates are nearly spread over every gallery of Italy. His altar-pieces are not numerous, and the most valued of them is perhaps that of St. Marguerita, in Bologna, a composition rich in figures, contemplated with admiration, and studied by the Caracci; Guido even preferred it to the St. Cecilia of Raphael. The last of his works is the “Moses breaking the Tables,” at Parma, in which, says sir Joshua Reynolds, we are at a loss which to admire most, the correctness of drawing, or the grandeur of the conception. The etchings of Parmigiano, models of freedom, taste, and delicacy, are universally known.

He had by this time given some occasional specimens of his poetical talent, but his ruling passion led him to the enjoyments of social life, and the company of men of wit a id learning; and as this was a taste he could gratify at home but in a very small degree, he contrived many excursions to London, where he became a favourite. From some letters published by his biographer, Dr. Goldsmith, we learn that he was admired for his talents as a companion, and his good nature as a man; but with all this, it is acknowledged, that his temper was unequal, and that he was always too much elevated, or too much depressed. It is added, indeed, that he was sensible of this; but his attempts to remove his spleen were rather singular. Goldsmith tells us, that, when under its influence, he would fly with all expedition to the remote parts of Ireland, and there make out a gloomy kind of satisfaction in giving hideous descriptions of the solitude to which he retired. Having tried this imaginary remedy for some time, he used to collect his revenues, and set out again for England to enjoy the conversation of his friends, lord Oxford, Swift, Pope, Arbuthnot, and Gay. With Pope he had a more than usual share of intimacy. Pope highly respected him, and they exchanged opinions on each other’s productions with freedom and candour. He afforded Pope some assistance in his translation of Homer, and wrote the life prefixed to it; but Parnell was a very bad prose-writer, and Pope had more trouble in correcting this life than it would have cost, him to 'write it. Being intimate with all the Scriblerustribe, he contributed the “Origin of the Sciences:” and also wrote the “Life of Zoilus,” as a satire on Dennis and Theobald, with whom the club had long been at variance. To the Spectator and Guardian he contributed a few papers of very considerable merit, in the form of “Visions.”

Having been warmly recommended by Swift to archbishop King, this prelate gave him a prebend in 1713, and in May 1716, presented him to the vicarage of Finglass, in the diocese of Dublin, worth 400l. a-year. “Such notice,” says Dr. Johnson, “from such a man, inclines me to believe, that the vice of which he has been accused was not gross, or not notorious.” But he enjoyed these preferments little more than a year, for in July 1717 he died at Chester, on his way to Ireland, in his thirty-eighth year. Dying without male issue, his estate, but considerably embarrassed by his imprudence, devolved to his nephew, sir John Parnell, bart. one of the justices of the King’s-bt-nch in Ireland, and father to the Irish chancellor of the Exchequer, sir John Parnell, who died in 1801. justly founded, are, his “Rise of Woman;” the “Fairy Tale;” the “Hymn to Contentment;” “Health;” the “Vigil of Venus” the “Night-piece on Death” the <c Allegory on Man,“and” The Hermit.“These have been respectively criticised by his biographers Goldsmith and Johnson, and have stood the test of nearly a century.” His praise,“says Dr. Johnson,” must be derived from the easy sweetness of his diction,; in his verses there is more happiness than pains: he is sprightly without effort, and always delights, though he never ravishes: every thing is proper, yet every thing seems casual."

, an English divine, was the son of Richard Parr, likewise a divine, and was born at Fermoy, in the county of Cork, where, we presume, his father was beneficed, in 1617; and this singularity is recorded of his birth, that his mother was then fifty-five years of age. He was educated in grammar at a country school, under the care of some popish priests, who were at that time the only schoolmasters for the Latin-tongue. In 1635, he was sent to England, and entered as a servitor of Exeter college, Oxford, where his merit procured him the patronage of Dr. Piideaux, the rector, by whose interest, as soon as he had taken his bachelor’s degree in arts, in 1641, he was chosen chaplain-fellow of the college. He found here another liberal patron and instructor in the celebrated archbishop Usher, who, in 1643, retired to this college from the tumult then prevailing through the nation and observing the talents of Mr. Parr as a preacher, made him his chaplain; and, about the end of that year, took him with him to Glamorganshire. On his return with this prelate, he obtained the vicarage of Ryegate in Surrey, on the presentation of Mr. Roger James, gent, son of sir Roger James, knight, whose sister he married, a widow lady of considerable property. In doctrinal points he appears to have concurred with the assembly of divines, who were mostly Calvinists; but it seems doubtful whether he ever took the Covenant. In 1649, he resigned his fellowship of Exeter college, and continued chaplain to archbishop Usher, while that prelate lived. In 1653, he was instituted to the living of Camberweli in Surrey, and appears to have been some time rector of Bermondsey, where his signature occurs in the register of 1676, and he is thought to have resigned it in 1682. At the Restoration he was created D. D. and had the deanery of Armagh, and an Irish bishopric, offered to him, both which he refused; but accepted a canonry of Armagh. He remained vicar of Camberweli almost thirty-eight years, and was greatly beloved and followed. Wood, in his quaint way says, “He was so constant and ready a preacher at Camberweli, that his preaching being generally approved, he broke two conventicles thereby in his neighbourhood that is to say, that by his out- vying the Presbyterians and Independents in his extemporarian preaching, their auditors would leave them, and flock to Mr. Parr.” All who speak of him indeed concur in what is inscribed on his monument, that <c he was in preaching, constant in life, exemplary in piety and charity, most eminent a lover of peace and hospitality and, in fine, a true disciple of Jesus Christ.“He died at Camberweli Novembers, 1691, and was buried in the church-yard, where the above monument was erected to his memory. His wife died before him. Dr. Parr wrote” Christian Reformation: being an earnest persuasion to the speedy practice of it: proposed to all, but especially designed for the serious consideration of his dear kindred and countrymen of the county of Cork in Ireland, and the people of Ryegate and Camberweli in Surrey,“Lond. 1660, 8vo. He published also three occasional sermons; but the most valuable present he made to the publick was his” Life of Archbishop Usher," prefixed to that prelate’s Letters, printed in folio, 1686. It is the most ample account we have of Usher; and few men could have enjoyed better opportunities of knowing his real character. Wood mentions Dr. Thomas Marshall’s intention of enlarging this, as noticed in oiir account or' him.

, a celebrated painter of Ephesus, or, according to others, of Athens, flourished in the time of Socrates, as we learn from Xenophon, who has introduced him in a dialogue, discoursing with that philosopher. He was one of the most excellent painters of his time. Pliny tells us, that it was he who first gave symmetry and just proportions in the art; that he also was the first who knew how to express the truth of character, and the different airs of the face; that he found out a beautiful disposition of the hair, and heightened the grace of the visage. It was allowed even by the masters in the art, that he bore away from all others the glory of succeeding in the outline, in which consists the grand secret of painting. But the same author observes, that Parrhasius became insupportable by his pride; and affected to wear a crown of gold upon his head, and to carry in his hand a baton, studded with nails of the same metal. It is said that, though Parrhasius was excelled by Timanthes, yet he excelled Zeuxis. Among his pictures was a celebrated one of Theseus; and another representing Meleager, Hercules, and Perseus, in a groupe together; as also Æneas, with Castor and Pollux in a third. But of him, or his pictures, the accounts handed down to us are extremely imperfect, and little to be relied on in forming a just estimate of his merit.

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

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

We shall close this article with an extract from Dr. Maty’s eulogium: “The surprising variety of branches which Dr. Parsons embraced, and the several living as well as dead languages he had a knowledge of, qualified him abundantly for the place of assistant secretary for foreign correspondences, which the council of the royal society bestowed upon him about 1750. He acquitted himself to the utmost of his power of the functions of this place, till a few years before his death, when he resigned in favour of his friend, who now gratefully pays this last tribute to his memory. Dr. Parsons joined to his academical honours those which the royal college of physicians of London bestowed upon him, by admitting him, after due examination, licentiate, on the first day of April, 1751. The diffusive spirit of our friend was only equalled by his desire of information. To both these principles he owed the intimacies which he formed with some of the greatest men of his time. The names of Folkes, Hales, Mead, Stukeley, Needham, Baker, Collinson, and Garden, may be mentioned on this occasion; and many more might be added. Weekly meetings were formed, where the earliest intelligence was received and communicated of any discovery both here and abroad; and new trials were made, to bring to the test of experience the reality or usefulness of these discoveries. Here it was that the microscopical animals found in several infusions were first produced; the propagation of several insects by section ascertained; the constancy of nature amidst these wonderful changes established. His ‘ Remains of Japhet, being historical inquiries into the affinity and origin of the European Languages,’ is a most laborious performance, tending to prove the antiquity of the first inhabitants of these islands, as being originally descended from Gomer and Magog, above 1000 years before Christ, their primitive and still subsisting language, and its affinity with some others. It cannot be denied that there is much ingenuity as well true learning in this work, which helps conviction, and often supplies the want of it. But we cannot help thinking that our friend’s warm feelings now and then mislead his judgment, and that some at least of his conjectures, rest' ing upon partial traditions, and poetical scraps of Irish filids and Welsh bards, are less satisfactory than his tables of affinity between the several northern languages, as deduced from one common stock. Literature, however, is much obliged to him for having in this, as well as in many of his other works, opened a new field of observations and discoveries. In enumerating our learned friend’s dissertations, we find ourselves at a loss whether we should follow the order of subjects, or of time; neither is it easy to account for their surprising variety and quick succession. The truth is, that his eagerness after knowledge was such, as to embrace almost with equal facility all its branches, and with equal zeal to ascertain the merit of inventions, and ascribe to their respective, and sometimes unknown, authors, the glory of the discovery. Many operations which the ancients have transmitted to us, havebeen thought fabulous, merely from our ignorance of the art by which they were performed. Thus the burning of the ships of the Romans at a considerable distance, during the siege of Syracuse, by Archimedes, would, perhaps, still continue to be exploded, had not the celebrated M. Buffon in France shewn the possibility of it, by presenting and describing a model of a speculum, or rather assemblage of mirrors, by which he could set fire at the distance of several hundred feet. Inthe contriving, indeed, though not in the executing of such an apparatus, he had in some measure been forestalled by a writer now very little known or read. This Dr. Parsons proved in a- very satisfactory manner; and he had the pleasure to find the French philosopher did not refuse to the Jesuit his share in the invention, and was not at all offended by the liberty he had taken. Another French discovery, I mean a new kind of painting fathered upon the ancients, was reduced to its real value, in a paper which shewed ouv author was possessed of a good taste for the fine arts: and I am informed that his skill in music was by no means inferior, and that his favourite amusement was the flute. Richly, it appears from these performances, did our author merit the honour of being a member of the antiquarian society, which long ago had associated him to its labours. To another society, founded upon the great principles of humanity, patriotism, and natural emulation, he undoubtedly was greatly useful. He assisted at most of their general meetings and committees and was for many years chairman to that of agriculture always equally ready to point out and to promote useful improvements, and to oppose the interested views of fraud and ignorance, so inseparable from very extensive associations. No sooner was this society formed, than Dr. Parsons became a member of it. Intimately convinced of the nobleness of its views, though from his station in life little concerned in its success, he grudged neither attendance nor expence. Neither ambitious of taking the lead, nor fond of opposition, he joined in any measure he thought right; and submitted cheerfully to the sentiments of the majority, though against his own private opinion. The just ideas he had of the dignity of our profession, as well as of the common links which ought to unite all its members, notwithstanding the differences of country, religion, or places of education, made him bear impatiently the shackles laid upon a great number of respectable practitioners; he wished, fondly wished, to see these broken; not with a view of empty honour and dangerous power, but as the only means observing mankind more effectually, checking the progress of designing men and illiterate practitioners, and diffusing through the whole body a spirit of emulation. Though by frequent disappointments he foresaw, as well as we, the little chance of a speedy redress, he nobly persisted in the attempt; and, had he lived to the final event, would undoubtedly, like Cato, still have preferred the conquered cause to that supported by the gods. Afier having tried to retire from business and from London, for the sake of his health, and having disposed of most of his books with that view, he found it inconsistent with his happiness to forsake all the advantages which a long residence in the capital, and the many connexions he had formed, had rendered habitual to him. He therefore returned to his old house, and died in it, after a short illness, April 4, 1770. The style of our friend’s compositions was sufficiently clear in description, though in argument not so close as could have been wished. Full of Lis ideas, he did not always so dispose and connect them together as to produce in the minds of his readers that conviction which was in his own. He too much despised those additional graces which command attention when joined to learning, observation, and sound reasoning. Let us hope that his example and spirit will animate all his colleagues; and that those practitioners who are in the same circumstances will be induced to join their brethren, sure to find amongst them those great blessings of life, freedom, equality, information, and friendship. As long as these great principles shall subsist in this society, and I tVust they will outlast the longest liver, there is no doubt but the members will meet with the reward honest men are ambitious of, the approbation of their conscience, the esteem of the virtuous, the remembrance of posterity.”

, another learned and amiable physician, though less known as an author, the son of major Parsons, of the dragoons, was horn in Yorkshire, in 1742. He was educated at Westminster school, whence in 17:. 9 he was elected to a studentship in Christ Church, Oxford. Having made choice of medicine as a profession, he prosecuted the study of it with uncommon assiduity, not only at Oxford, but also at London and Edinburgh. But while he bestowed much attention on every branch of medical knowledge, he at first showed a particular predilection for natural history and botany, and in the latter branch made a very distinguished figure during his stay at Edinburgh. In 1766 he had the honour of obtaining the prize medal given by Dr. Hope for the most extensive and elegant hortus siccus, and the same year took his degree of M. A. This, however, was only a prelude to more distinguished honours. In 1769, when he took his degree of M. B. he was appointed to the anatomy lecture at Oxford, and was also the first reader in anatomy at Christ Church, on the institution of John Freind and Matthew Lee, M. D. and students of that house. In consequence of this appointment, his attention, it may naturally be supposed, was more particularly directed to anatomy, and under his direction a very commodious anatomical theatre was built; and for the instruction of his pupils he provided a set of anatomical preparations, which for neatness and elegance have seldom been surpassed. From the time of his appointment he read two courses of anatomical lectures every year; and although they were calculated rather for the general philosopher than the medical practitioner, yet they were not only highly instructive to all his audience, but afforded incontestable evidence of his genius and abilities. He was soon after elected one of the physicians to the Radcliffe infirmary, and in June 1772 proceeded M. D. He had a considerable share also of private practice, and from his attention and success his reputation with the public kept pace with the esteem in which he was held by the university. In 1780 he was elected the first clinical professor on the foundation instituted in 1772 by George Henry, earl of Lichfield, late chancellor of the university. In this department also he read lectures during the winter months with much credit to himself. But it is not improbable that the various active employments in which he was engaged, and which necessarily exposed him to fatigue and danger, had some share in overthrowing a constitution naturally strong. He was not, however, cut off by any tedious or painful ailment, but died of a fever April 3, 1785, in the forty-fourth year of his age, and was buried in the north transept of the cathedral, where four of his children were buried before him.

, an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was born at Dedham, in Essex, in 1729. His family was ancient, and settled at Hadleigh, in Suffolk, as early as the reign of HenryV1I. where some of their descendants still reside. He lost his father when veryyoung, and owed the care of his education to his maternal uncle, the rev. Thomas Smythies, master of the grammar school at Lavenham, in Suffolk, with whom he continued till he went to Cambridge, where he was entered of Sidney Sussex college, and took his degrees there of B. A. in 1752, and M. A. in 1776. After he had taken orders he was appointed to the free school of Oakham in Rutlandshire, and remained there till 1761, when he was presented to the school and curacy of Wye by Daniel earl of Winchelsea and Nottingham. In the sedulous discharge of the twofold duties of this preferment he was engaged upwards of half a century, and was distinguished by his urbanity, diligence, and classical talents, nor was he less esteemed in his clerical character. He was also presented to the rectory of Eastwell, in 1767, by the same patron, and to the small rectory of Snave in 1776, by archbishop Cornwallis, who enhanced the value of this preferment by a very kind letter, in which his grace testified his high respect for the character and talents of the new incumbent. Mr. Parsons was the author of several publications, among which were, The nine first papers in the second volume of the “Student,” published in 1750; “On advertising for Curates;” a paper in The World; “The inefficacy of Satire, a poem,” 176G, 4to; “Newmarket, or an Essay on the Turf,” 1774, 2 vols.; “Astronomic Doubts, a pamphlet,” 1774; “A volume of Essays,” 1775; “Dialogues of the Dead with the Living,” 1782; “Simplicity,” a poem, 1784; and “Monuments and Painted Glass in upwards of 100 churches, chiefly in the eastern part of Kent,” 1794, 4to. This work, which is interspersed with judicious remarks and interesting anecdotes by the compiler, is become scarce, owing to the fire in Mr. Nichols’s premises, but is highly valuable to the antiquary and lover of such researches. Mr. Parsons also established a Sunday school at Wye; and recommended and contributed much to their establishment in the county of Kent by a sermon and some letters which he published on this occasion. The last years of his life were passed in great retirement; alternately engaged in the discharge of his ministerial functions, and in literary pursuits and correspondence, which, however, were interrupted by the loss of his sight about a year before his death, and at the same time by a very painful disorder. He bore these trials with exemplary patience and resignation. It was his frequent practice, when on his bed, and free from the more excruciating pains of his disorder, to compose moral, lively, and religious pieces, which he afterwards dictated to a faithful amanuensis, who wrote them down. He died at Wye, June 12, 1812, in the eighty-third year of his age.

, in both which ways he wrote his name, a celebrated English Jesuit, was the son of a blacksmith, at Nether Stowey, near Bridgewater in Somersetshire, where he was born in 1546; and, appearing to be a boy of extraordinary parts, was taught Latin by the vicar of the parish, who conceived a. great affection for him t, and contributed to his support at Oxford, where he was admitted of Baliol college in 1563. In the university he became so remarkable, as an acute disputant in scholastic exercises, then much in vogue, that, having taken his first degree in arts in 1568, he was the same year made probationer fellow of his college. He soon after became the most famous tutor in the society, and when he entered into orders, was made socius sacerdos, or chaplain fellow. In 1572 he proceeded M. A. was bursar that year, and the next dean of the college; but it is said that being charged by the society with incontinency, and embezzling the college-money, to avoid the shame of a formal expulsion, he was permitted, out of respect to his learning, to resign, which he did in Feb. 1574, obtaining leave to keep his chamber and pupils as long as he pleased, and to have his commons also till the ensuing Easter. These last circumstances have induced some writers to think that it was merely a change of religious principles which occasioned his resignation.

He was indeed in all respects qualified to make a figure in this society, being, according to Camden, fierce, turbulent, and bold; and he soon answered every expectation his new friends could entertain. Having completed the course of his studies, he became one of the principal penitentiaries; and was in such credit with the pope in 157D, that he obtained a grant from his holiness to change an hospital at Rome, founded in queen Mary’s time, into a college or seminary for the English, by the name of “ Collegium de urbe,” dedicated to the Holy Trinity and St. Thomas (a Becket), where the students were obliged to take the following oath: “I. N. N. considering with howgreat benefits God hath blessed me, &c. do promise, by God’s assistance, to enter into holy orders as soon as I shall be fit, and to return to England to convert my countrymen there, whenever it shall please the superior of this house to command me.” He had no sooner seen this college established, and his friend father Allen chosen, by his recommendation, rector of it, than he was appointed to go as superior missionary to England, in order to promote the Romish religion in that kingdom, being the first ever appointed on such a business. Edmund Campian was joined with him, and other assistants, in this arduous province; and they managed matters so artfully, that, notwithstanding the time of their departure from Rome, and the whole route of their journey, and even their portraits had been sent to England before them, yet they found means by disguise to escape the strictest search that was made, and arrived safe in London.

Here they hired a large house, in the name of lord Paget; and, meeting the heads of their party, communicated to them a faculty they brought from the pope, Gregory XIII. dispensing with the Romanists for obeying queen Elizabeth; notwithstanding the bull which had been published by his predecessor Pius V. absolving the queen’s subjects from their oath of allegiance, and pronouncing an anathema against all that should obey her. They then dispersed themselves into different parts of the kingdom; the mid-land counties being chosen by Parsons, that he might be near enough to London, to be ready upon all emergencies. Carnpian went into the North, where they had the least success. The harvest was greatest in Wales. Parsons travelled about the country to gentlemen’s houses, disguised either in the habit of a soldier, a gentleman, a minister, or an apparitor; and applied himself to the work with so much diligence, that, by the help of his associates, he entirely put an end to the custom, that had till then prevailed among the papists, of frequenting the protestant churches, and joining in the service. And notwithstanding the opposition made by a more moderate class of papists, who denied the pope’s deposing power, and some of whom even took the oath of allegiance, yet, if we may believe himself, he had paved the way for a general insurrection before Christmas. But all his desperate designs were defeated by the vigilance of lord Burleigh; and Campian being discovered, imprisoned, and afterwards executed, Parsons, who was then in Kent, found it necessary to revisit the continent, and went to Rouen in Normandy. He had contrived privately to print several books for the promotion of his cuuse, while he was in England: and now being more at ease, he composed others, which he likewise procured to be dispersed very liberally. In 1583, he returned to Rome, being succeeded in his office of superior to the English mission by a person named Heyward. The management of that mission, however, was left to him by Aquaviva, the general of the order; and he was appointed prefect of it in 1592. In the interim, having procured for the English seminary before mentioned, at Rome, a power of choosing an English rector in 1586, he was himself elected into that office the following year.

The death of his friend cardinal Allen, however, in 1594, diverted his attention for a while from these weighty public affairs, to the objects of his private ambition. As it was chiefly by his interest, that the cardinal had obtained the purple (see Alan or Allen, William), he conceived great hopes of succeeding him in it. The dignity was worth his utmost endeavours, and he spared no pains to compass it. Among other efforts he employed some Jesuits to obtain in Flanders a petition to the king of Spain, in his favour, subscribed by great numbers of the lowest of the people, as well as those of superior rank. He applied also to that monarch by John Piragues, one of his prime confidents, but received no answer; and then went himself to Rome in 1596, under pretence of settling some disputes, that had arisen in the English college there during his absence. He had the year before been complimented, in a letter from some of the principal persons of his order there, on the assured prospect of success; and upon his arrival was visited, among others of the highest rank, by cardinal Bellarmin, who encouraged him to wait upon the pope. At this interview he entertained the pontiff with an artful account of the reports that were spread all over Flanders, and even at Rome, of his holiness’ s design to confer the purple upon him, and that the king of Spain had written to his holiness upon the occasion. Father More, who furnishes these particulars, tells us further, that Parsons made a modest speech, as usual on such occasions, intimating that he feared he was unworthy of so high an honour: but he was much mortified when the pope, Clement VIII. who was more in the secret than he supposed, assured him, that he had heard nothing from the Spaniards upon any such subject; that idle reports were not to be minded; that he was very well satisfied with his services, and exhorted him to continue in the same course. The truth appeared to be, that the pope having received many complaints of him from the secular clergy, instead of bringing him into the sacred college, had some thoughts of stripping him of the posts he already possessed. Disappointed in this attempt, and threatened with such disgrace, Parsons withdrew on pretence of health to Naples, and did not return to Rome till after the death of Clement in 1606.

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

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

Pascal was but about thirty years of age when these letters were published; yet he was extremely infirm, and his disorders increasing soon after so much, that he conceived liis end fast approaching, he gave up all farther thoughts of literary composition. He resolved to spend the remainder of his days in retirement and pious meditation; and with this view he broke off all his former connections, changed his habitation, and spoke to no one, not even to his own servants, and hardly ever even admitted them into his room. He made his own bed, brought his dinner from the kitchen, and carried back the plates and dishes in the evening; so thrt he employed his servants only to cook for him, to go to town, and to do such other things as he could not absolutely do himself. In his chamber nothing was to be seen but two or three chairs, a table, a bed, and a few books. It had no kind of ornament whatever; he had neither a carpet on the floor, nor curtains to his bed. But this did not prevent him from sometimes receiving visits; and when his friends appeared surprised to see him thus without furniture, he replied, that he had what was necessary, and that any thing else would be a superfluity, unworthy of a wise man. He employed his time in prayer, and in reading the Scriptures; writing down such thoughts as this exercise inspired. Though his continual infirmities obliged him to use very delicate food, and though his servants employed the utmost care to provide only what was excellent, he never relished what he ate, and seemed quite indifferent whether they brought him good or bad. His indifference in this respect was so great, that though his taste was not vitiated, he forbad any sauce or ragout to be made for him which might excite his appetite.

Though Pascal had now given up intense, study, and though he lived in the most temperate manner, his health continued to decline rapidly; and his disorders had so enfeebled his organs, that his reason became in some measure affected. He always imagined that he saw a deep abyss on one side of him, and he never would sit down till a chair was placed there, to secure him from the danger which he apprehended. At another time he pretended that he had a kind of vision or ecstasy; a memorandum of which he preserved during the remainder of his life in a bit of paper, put between the cloth and the lining of his coat, and which he always carried about him. Some of the Jesuits reproached him with insanity; but his disorder had nothing more in it than a fever, or a vertigo. During the last years of his life, indeed, he became very superstitious, and exhibited a melancholy example of human infirmity in that respect. In company Pascal was distinguished by his amiable behaviour, by his easy, agreeable, and instructive conversation, and by great modesty. He possessed a natural kind of eloquence, which was in a manner irresistible. The arguments he employed, for the most part produced the effect which he proposed; and though his abilities entitled him to assume an air of superiority, he never displayed that haughty and imperious tone, which may often be observed in men of shining talents. Toward the close of hii life, he employed himself wholly in pious and moral reflections, writing down those which he judged worthy of being preserved. The first piece of paper he could find was employed for this purpo.se; and he commonly put down only a few words of each sentence, as he wrote them merely for his own use. The bits of paper upon which he had written these thoughts, were found, after his death, filed upon different pieces of string, without any order or connection; and being copied exactly as they were written, they were afterwards arranged and published.

Pascal died at Paris, August 19, 1662, aged thirty-nine. He had been some time about a work against atheists and infidels; but he did not live long enough to digest the materials he had collected. What was found among his papers was published under the title “Pense*es,” or Thoughts upon Religion, and other subjects; and has been much admired. After his death appeared also two other little tracts; one of which is entitled “The Equilibrium of Fluids;” and the other “The Weight of the mass of Air.”

The works of Pascal were collected in five volumes octavo, and published at Paris in 1779. This edition of Pascal’s works may be considered as the first published; at least the greater part of thern were not before collected into one body; and some of them had remained only in manuscript. For this collection the public were indebted to the abbot Bossut, and Pascal deserved to have such an editor. “This extraordinary man,” says he, “inherited from nature all the powers of genius. He was a geometrician of the first rank, a profound reasoner, and a sublime and elegant writer. If we reflect, that in a very short life, oppressed by continual infirmities, he invented a curious arithmetical machine, the elements of the calculation of cnances, and a method of resolving various problems respecting the cycloid; that he fixed in an irrevocable manner the wavering opinions of the learned respecting the weight of the air; that he wrote one of the completest works which exist in the French language; and that in his thoughts there are passages, the depth and beauty of which are incomparablewe shall be induced to believe, that a greater genius never existed in any age or nation. All those who had occasion to frequent his company in the ordinary commerce of the world, acknowledged his superiority; but it excited no envy against him, as he was never fqnd of shewing it. His conversation instructed, without making those who heard him sensible of their own inferiority; and he was remarkably indulgent towards the faults of others. It may be easily seen by his Provincial Letters, and by some of his other works, that he was born with a great fund of humour, which his infirmities could never entirely destroy. In company, he readily indulged in that harmless and delicate raillery which never gives offence, and which greaily tends to enliven conversation; but its principal object generally was of a moral nature. For example, ridiculing those authors who say,” my book, my commentary, my history; they would do better,“added he,” to say our book, our commentary, our history; since there are in them much more of other people’s than their own."

After a few weeks stay at this university, he arrived in England; and, bringing proper testimonials with him to Oxford, was incorporated M. A. there, in June 1624. Here he began to teach Hebrew and the mathematics privately, but at the end of the year took a tour into France with some gentlemen of Germany; and spending the winter at Paris, attended the lectures of Gabriel Sionita, regius professor of Syriac and Arabic: who, having left off reading in public some years for want of auditors, was prevailed upon by Pasor to resume those exercises in his own house. Having much improved himself under this excellent master, he returned to Oxford in 1625, and had chambers in Exeter college, in which he preferred residing, notwithstanding the plague had dispersed the students, rather than go to Ireland with archbishop Usher, who offered him his table and a handsome pension. As soon as the infection ceased, he had some pupils, either in divinity or the oriental tongues; and in the latter he was tutor to the celebrated Pococke. Afterwards, upon his petition, he was appointed to read public lectures in Arabic, Chaldee, and Syriac, twice a week in term time, in the divinity-school; for which he was handsomely rewarded. He held this temporary professorship for about three years from Oct. 1626, during which time he also delivered a Hebrew lecture in Now college. In 1629 he accepted an invitation to be professor of moral philosophy at Groningen; and, upon the death of Muller, the mathematical professor, six years after, Pasor succeeded to that chair; but when, in 1645, he was raised to that of divinity, of which faculty he was then created doctor, he resigned his mathematical professorship, retaining that of moral philosophy. All these favours induced him to remain at Groningen, where he died Jan. 28, 1658.

, the chief of a family of engravers, and likewise a man of letters, was a native of Utrecht, but we have no account of his education, or dates either of birth or death. It appears that he applied himself very early in life to the study of the arts, and particularly delighted in drawing and designing from the works of the most eminent artists his contemporaries. He was sent by prince Maurice to teach drawing in an academy at Paris. At what time he came to England is not very clear none of his works done here are dated, says Vertue, later than 1635. From the paucity of English heads engraved by Crispin, and other circumstances, lord Orford seems inclined to doubt whether he ever was in England, and thinks it not improbable that drawings were sent to him from this country, as we know was the case afterwards with Houbraken, when he was employed on the “Illustrious Heads.”