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

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

At Olney Mr. Newton became acquainted with two gentlemen whose friendship gave an important interest to his future life, the benevolent John Thornton, esq. and William Cowper, the celebrated poet. The farmer, conceiving a high idea of the integrity and usefulness of Mr. Newton in this parish, determined to allow him a certain sum (200l. a year) with which he wished him to keep open house for such as were worthy of entertainment, and to help the poor and needy. Mr. Newton reckoned that he had received of Mr. Thornton upwards of 3000l. in this way during his residence atOlney, a sum which, however great, will not surprize those who knew the extent of Mr. Thornton’s liberality. His intimacy with Cowper forms one of the most interesting periods of that poet’s life. To what is said in our account of Cowper (vol. X. p. 405, &c.) we have only to regret in this place that much information has been lost to the public by the suppression of Mr. Newton’s letters to his afflicted friend. These letters must have been in Cowper’s possession; but what became of them after his death has never been explained. Had they appeared, they probably would have established beyond all power of contradiction, that no part of Cowper’s deplorable melancholy was attributable to his connection with Mr. Newton, or with men of his principles. Mr. Newton was himself a man of remarkable cheerfulness of disposition, and had a particular talent in administering consolation to those whose uneasiness arose from religious affections, nor was he easily mistaken in separating real concern from affectation. It appears that Mr. Newton was once in possession of a life of Cowper, written by himself, at the calmest period of his life; some facts from this have been communicated to the public by his biographer, but more remains, which we have been told would have thrown additional light on Mr. Cowper’s remarkable history.

In 1779 Mr. Newton was removed from Olney to be rector of the united parishes of St. Mary Woolnoth and St. Mary Woolchurch Haw, Lombard-street, on the presentation of his steady friend Mr. Thornton, and continued his labours in this place during life. Few men had more the art of attracting friendship; and his congregation, which increased every day, became attached to him in a degree which time has not yet. abated. One trait in his character added much to his usefulness; his benevolence was most extensive; his house was open to the afflicted of every description; gratitude appears to have been his predominant virtue; he never for a moment forgot the wretched state from which Providence had raised him, and this thankfulness continually operated in endeavour! to relieve the wants of others. He never knew how to refuse applications from the distressed, and his sympathy often drew such nearer him than a man more studious of domestic quiet would have wished. However liberal in affording an asylum to poor persons of whom he had a good opinion, he was, like Dr. Johnson, often the only person in his house who exhibited a contented mind and a thankful heart. Among his other services of no small importance, was his kind patronage of young men intended for the church. Some of these he had frequently about him, and assisted them either from his own scanty means, or by recommending them to his opulent friends, with whom Mr. Newton’s recommendations were decisive. It may now be mentioned, that the world owes the character and services of the late Dr. Claudius Buchapan to Mr. Newton, as will appear more particularly when the life of that gentleman shall be exhibited to the world. The early part of it was almost as unpromising as that of Mr. Newton himself.

Mr. Newton died Dec. 31, 1807, and was buried in the rector’s vault of his church. His faculties experienced some decay during the last two or three years, but his conversation at times exhibited his usual powers, and that original turn of thinking and expression which, in his former days, rendered his company equally pleasant and edifying. In 1750 he married Mary, the daughter of Mr. George Cattet, of Chatham, in Kent, who died in 1790, but had no issue by her. His principal works, of which a complete edition was published soon after his death, consist of sermons, preached and published at various times; the narrative of his life, published in 1764; “Review of Ecclesiastical History,” on the plan which Mr. Milner afterwards pursued; “Hymns,” some of which are by Cowper; “Cardiphonia;” and the “Messiah,” a series of sermons on the words of the celebrated oratorio. His “Life” was written by the late rev. Richard Cecil, and is published in 12mo. To this we owe the above sketch.

, the most splendid genius that has yet adorned human nature, and by universal consent placed at the head of mathematics and of science, was born on Christmas-day, O. S. 1642, at Woolsthorpe, in the parish of Colsterworth, in the county of Lincoln. When born he was so little, that his mother used to say he might have been put into a quart mug, and so unlikely to live, that two women who were sent to lady Pakenham’s, at North Witham, for something for him, did not expect to find him alive at their return. He was born near three months after the death of his father, who was descended from the eldest branch of the family of sir John Newton, bart. and was lord of the manor of Woolsthorpe. The family came originally from Newton, in the county of Lancaster, from which, probably, they took their name. His mother was Hannah Ayscough, of an ancient and honourable family in the county of Lincoln. She was married a second time to the rev. Barnabas Smith, rector of North Witham, a rich old bachelor, and had by him a son and two daughters. Previously, however, to her marriage, she settled some land upon Isaac. He went to two little day-schools at Skillington and Stoke till he was twelve years old, when he was sent to the great school at Grantham, under Mr. Stokes, who had the character of being a very good schoolmaster. While at Grantham he boarded in the house of Mr. Clark, an apothecary, whose brother was at that time usher of the school.

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

His turn for drawing, which he acquired without any assistance, was equally remarkable with his mechanical inventions. He filled his whole room with pictures of his own making, copied partly from prints, and partly from the life. Among others were portraits of several of the kings, of Dr. Donne, and of Mr. Stokes, his schoolmaster. He informed Mr. Conduitt, his nephew, that he had also a facility in making verses. This is the more remarkable, as he had been heard to express a contempt for poetry. Hence it is probable, that the following lines, which he wrote under the portrait of Charles I. were of his own composition. They were given by Dr. Stukely, from Mrs, Vincent, who repeated them from memory:

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

In 1664 he bought a prism, as appears by some of his own accounts of expences at Cambridge, to try some experiments upon Des Cartes’s doctrine of colours, and soon satisfied himself that that philosopher’s hypothesis was destitute of foundation; and the further prosecution of the subject satisfied him respecting the real nature of light and colours. He soon after drew up an account of his doctrine, which was published in the Philosophical Transactions, and unfortunately gave origin to a controversy between him and some foreign opticians, which produced an unhappy effect on his mind, and prevented him from publishing his mathematical discoveries, as he had originally intended. He communicated them, however, to Dr. Barrow, who sent an account of them to Collins and Oldenburg, and by that means they came to be known to the members of the royal society. He laid the foundation of all his discoveries before he was twenty-four years of age.

In 1664 he took his bachelor’s degree, and in 1667 he was elected fellow of Trinity college. The following year he took his master’s degree, and in 1669 Dr. Barrow resigned his mathematical professorship to him. In 1671 he was elected fellow of the royal society. It has been asserted that at this time he was so poor that he was obliged to apply to the society for a dispensation from the usual contribution df a shilling a week, which all the fellows of the society regularly paid. But this, in the opinion of his excellent biographer, whom we principally follow, seems doubtful. Bis estates, for he had two, were worth about 80l. a year, which, added to his fellowship and professorship, mast have been sufficient for such a trifling expence. He had indeed his mother and her family to support, but when we consider the expence of living at this time, Mr. Newton, with about 200^ a year, his probable income, could not be reckoned a poor man. In 1675 he had a dispensation from king Charles II. to retain his fellowship without taking orders. In 1687 he was chosen one of the delegates to represent the university of Cambridge, before the high commission court, to answer far their refusing to admit father Francis master of arts upon king James’s mandamus, without his taking the oaths prescribed by the statutes; and was greatly instrumental in persuading his colleagues to persist in the maintenance of their rights and privileges. So strenuous indeed was the defence which he made, that James, infatuated as he was at this time, thought proper to drop his pretensions. In 1688 he was chosen by the university of Cambridge, member of the convention parliament, and was again chosen in 1701. In 1696, the earl of Halifax, at that time Mr. Montague, and chancellor of the exchequer, who was a great patron of the learned, wrote to him that he had prevailed on the king to make him warden of the mint, a place worth five or six hundred pounds a year, and which Mr. Montague stated would not require more attendance than he could spare. In this office he did signal service in the great re-coinage which took place soon after, and is said to have saved the nation 80,000l. In 1699 he was made master and worker of the mint, in which situation he continued until his death, and behaved himself with an universal character of integrity and disinterestedness. He had frequent opportunities of employing his skill in mathematics and chemistry, particularly in his “Table of Assay of Foreign Coins,” which is printed at the end of Dr. Arbuthnot’s book of coins.

While at the university, he spent the greatest part of his time in his closet, and when he was tired with the severer studies of philosophy, his relief and amusement was going to some other study, as history, chronology, divinity, chemistry; all which he examined with the greatest attention, as appears by the many papers which he left behind him on those subjects. After his coming to London , all the time he could spare from his business, and from the civilities of life, in which he was scrupulously exact and complaisant, was employed in the same way; and he was hardly ever alone without a pen in his hand, and a book before him: and in all the studies which he undertook, he had a perseverance and patience equal to his sagacity and invention. His niece, afterwards married to Mr. Conduitt, who succeeded him as master of the mint, lived with him about twenty years during his residence in London. He always lived in a very handsome, generous manner, though without ostentation or vanity always hospitable, and, upon proper occasions, he gave splendid entertainments. He was generous and charitable without bounds; and he used to say that they who gave away nothing till they died, never gave. This, perhaps, was one reason why he never made a will. Scarcely any man of his circumstances ever gave away so much during his own life-time, in alms, in encouraging ingenuity and learning, and to his relations nor, upon all occasions, showed a greater contempt of his own money, or a more scrupulous frugality of that which belonged to the public, or to any society he was entrusted for. He refused pensions and additional employments that were offered him; he was: highly honoured and respected in all reigns, and under all administrations, even by those whom he opposed y for in every situation he shewed an inflexible attachment to the cause of liberty, and to the constitution of Great Britain. George II. and queen Caroline shewed him particular marks of their favour and esteem, and often conversed with him for hours together. The queen in particular, used to take delight in his company, and was accustomed to congratulate herself that she lived in the same country, and at the same time, with so illustrious a person. Yet, notwithstanding the extraordinary honours that were paid him, he had so humble an opinion of himself, that he had no relish for the applause which he received. In Spence’s “Anecdotes” we are told, that when Ramsay was one day complimenting him on his discoveries in philosophy, he answered, “Alas! I am only like a child picking up pebbles on the shore of the great ocean of truth.” He was so little vain and desirous of glory from any of his works, that he would have let others run away with the credit of those inventions which have done so much honour to human nature, if his friends and countrymen had not been more jealous than he was of his own glory, and the honour of his country. He was exceedingly courteous and affable, even to the lowest, and never despised any man for want of capacity: but always expressed freely his resentment against immorality or impiety. He not only shewed a great and constant regard to religion in general, as well by an exemplary life, as in all his writings, but was also a firm believer in revealed religion, with one exception, an important one indeed, that his sentiments on the doctrine of the Trinity by no means coincided with what are generally held. He left many papers behind him on religious subjects, which Dr. Horsley, who examined them, declined publishing, probably on account of the opinions which we have just hinted. Sir Isaac had such a mildness of temper that a melancholy story would often draw tears from him, and he was exceedingly shocked at any act of cruelty to man or beast; mercy to both being the topic that he loved to dwell upon. An innate modesty and simplicity showed itself in all his actions and expressions. His whole life was one continued series of labour, patiejrce, charity, generosity, temperance, piety, goodness, and every other virtue, without a mixture of any known vice whatsoever.

Sir Isaac was remarkably liberal to all his relations, particularly to his mother’s family by Mr. Smith, giving to one 500l. to another an estate of 4000l. or thereabouts, to make up a loss occasioned by the imprudent marriage of one of them, and to prevent a lawsuit among themselves. This was done many years before his death. He had a half-sister, who had a daughter, to whom he gave the best of educations. This was “the famous witty Miss Barton,” who married Mr. Conduitt; sir Isaac bought an estate of 70l. or 80l. a-year, and gave it to their daughter Miss Conduitt, then very young, who was afterwards married to the eldest son of lord Lymington, from whom the present earl of Portsmouth is descended. He was equally kind to his mother’s relations, the Ayscoughs, some of whom had been imprudent, and needed his help. To one he gave 800l. to another 200l. and many other sums, and frequently became security for them. He is said never to have sold the copies of any of his works, but gave them freely to the booksellers. Mr. Seward appears therefore to have been greatly mistaken in imputing a desire of gain to sir Isaac because he had some concern in the SouthSea bubble, and lost, according to his niece’s report, 20,000l. Even this loss made no alteration in his liberality, and in point of fact, it appears that the greatest instances of his kindness to his relations and friends occurred after the year 1720. The John Newton above mentioned, who inherited his real estate, died in 1737, at the age of thirty. He is said to have been illiterate and intemperate. With him the family of Newton became extinct.

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

The first life of this illustrious man which appeared was drawn up by Fontenelle, from materials furnished by sir Isaac’s nephew, and published in the memoirs of the French Academy. Why none of his countrymen executed such an undertaking we shall not inquire. This, however, is the life from which all succeeding biographers have extracted their materials, and it formed the ground-work of the long, but somewhat confused account, that has hitherto appeared in this dictionary. But, like almost all the eloges, published in the memoirs of the French Academy, it seems better calculated to display the abilities, and answer the private views of FonteneUe, than to convey accurate information. Mr. Edmund Tumor has lately favoured the world with the original life of Newton, drawn tip by Mr. Conduitt, for the information of FonteneUe, and with a most interesting letter of Dr. Stukely on the same subject, from the Mss. in the possession of the earl of Portsmouth. But although Mr. Tumor’s “Collections for the Town and Soke of Grantham,” the work to which we allude, was published in 1806, Dr. Thomson was the first who availed himself of it, to enrich his valuable “History of the Royal Society.” In the preceding account, therefore, we have generally followed Dr. Thomson, who has unquestionably the merit of giving the public the most accurate and elegant account of the personal history of sir Isaac, a man, said Dr. Johnson, who, had he flourished in ancient Greece, would have been worshipped as a divinity.

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

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

Bp. Compton, who had a kind affection and just esteem for him, collated him to the rectory of Sudbury in Northamptonshire, where, during a residence of some years, he discharged the duties of his office with exemplary care and fidelity. Amongst other particulars, he read the eveningprayers of the liturgy at his church on the week-day evenings, at seven of the clock, hay-time and harvest excepted, for the benefit of such of his parishioners as could then assemble for public devotions. When he returned to Oxford, about 1724, he enjoined his respective curates successively, to keep up the same good rule; which they faithfully observed. He exerted also his best endeavours, from time to time, to prevail with the succeeding bishops of London (Gibson particularly) to bestow this rectory on his curate for the time being, and on each successively, and he would resign the charge; but these applications were without success. His lordship’s successor, Bp. Sherlock, however, readily consented to Dr. Newton’s proposal; and Mr. Saunders, one of his curates, accordingly succeeded the doctor in the rectory. Dr. Newton died at Lavendon Grange, April 21, 1753, aged about seventyseven.

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

About this time he was induced by Mrs. Anne Deanes Devenish, an acquaintance whose friendship proved afterwards of great importance to him, to superintend an edition of Mr. Jlowe’s works, who had been her first husband. This edition was executed at the request of the Prince of Wales, who was very partial to that poet, and who honoured Mrs. Devenish with his friendship; and it was the means of JMr. Newton’s being made known to his royal highness. Nor was this the only obligation he owed to the good services of Mrs. Devenish, as she first introduced him ito the acquaintance of Mr. Pulteney, who, when lord Bath, appointed him his chaplain. Mr. Newton, in his life, gives a curious detail of that famous political revolution which occasionedthe resignation of sir Robert Walpole. This he appears to have written at the time, and it is no small proof of the authenticity of the facts, that Mr. Coxe, in his excellent Life of sir R. Walpole, seems disposed to admit it. It is indeed written with every internal mark of candour and honesty.

In the spring of 1744, Mr. Newton, through the interest of his patron, the earl of Bath, was preferred to the rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, “so that,” as he observes, “he was forty years old before he obtained any living.” Upon this preferment, he quitted the chapel in Spring-garden. His fellowship also became vacant, and at the commencement in 1745 he took his degree of doctor in divinity. The rebellion in Scotland breaking out soon sifter, he was in all his sermons and discourses so strenuous in the cause of his king and country, that he received some threatening letters, which lord Bath advised him to lay before the secretary of state. One or two of his sermons upon this occasion he published by desire, as well as that which was preached on the 18th December, in the same year, before the House of Commons. In the beginning of the following spring, 1746, he was honoured with additional proofs of the friendship and confidence of the earl of Bath, being intrusted by his lordship with the relation of some secret transactions at court, of which an account may be seen in his life. The king requested that lord Bath would avenge his cause on his servants who had deserted him, by writing a full account of the whole transaction, which he appears to have shown to his chaplain. His majesty also desired it might be printed, at a convenient season; but it perished among the other papers which lord Bath burnt after his son’s death. In the spring 1747, Dr. Newton was chosen lecturer of St. George’s, Hanover- square, in the room of Dr. Savage, deceased. In the month of August following he married his first wife, Jane, the eldest daughter of the rev. Dr. Trebeck; with this lady he lived very happily near seven years. As they had no children, they boarded in the parsonage-house with Dr. Trebeck; Dr. Newton had the best apartment for his pictures, and by the good management of Mrs. Trebeck was freed from the care and trouble of house-keeping, to which he seems to have always had an aversion.

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

In 1756 he was appointed one of the king’s chaplains, and permitted at the same time by her royal highness the princess of Wales to retain that rank in her service; and he held both stations during the rest of that reign and the beginning of the next. In the spring 1757 he was made prebendary of Westminster, and at the same time subalmoner, by the interest of Dr. Gilbert, archbishop of York, who held the office of lord almoner, and who likewise conferred on him the precentorship of the church of York, one of the most valuablepieces of preferment belonging to it. His account of his second marriage, and the reasons which Jed to it, we shall give in his own words, principally for the outline he has drawn of a clergyman’s wife, which we liope will suit many of our female readers.

“As long as Dr. Trebeck lived, Dr. Newton continued to board in the family, from his old principle of avoiding ^s much as possible the trouble of housekeeping: but upon the death of Dr. Trebeck, which happened in 1759, and upon the breaking up of the family, he was under the necessity of looking out for a house, and for the present took one ready furnished in Mount-street. This naturally engaged him to think seriously again of matrimony; for he found his time and attention much divided even by the cares of his little family; the study of sacred and classic authors ill agreed with accounts of butchers’ and bakers’ bills, and by daily experience he was convinced more and more that it was not good for man to live alone without an help meet for him. And especially when he had some prospect of a bishopric, fresh difficulties and troubles opened to his view^ there would be two houses at least to i be furnished, there would be a greater number of servants to be taken, there would be a better table and public days to be kept; and he plainly foresaw that he must either fall a prey to servants, or must look out for some clever sensible woman to be his wife, who had some knowledge and experience of the world; who was capable of superintending and directing his affairs; who was a prudent manager and ceconomist, and could lay out his money to the best advantage; who, though she brought no fortune, yet might save one, and be a fortune in herself; who could supply his table handsomely, yet not expensively, and do the honours of it in a becoming manner; who had no more taste and love of pleasure than a reasonable woman should have; who would be happier in staying with her husband at home than in perpetually gadding abroad; who would be careful and tender of his health, and in short be a friend and companion at all hours.”

Such qualities, it appears, he found in Elizabeth, daughter of John lord viscount Lisburne, who was at this time the widow of the rev. Mr. Hand. They were married Sept. 5, 1761, and on the 18th of the same month, he kissed his majesty’s hand on his promotion to the bishopric of Bristol, and the residentiaryship of St. Paul’s. On this he resigned the prebend of Westminster, the precentorship of York, the lectureship of St. George’s, Hanover-square, and the office of sub-almoner, so that he was not upon the whole much a gainer by the exchange. In 1768, however, he was promoted to the deanery of St. Paul’s, and then resigned both the residentiaryship, and his living in the city, which latter he had held twenty-five years, and might still have held it, but, as he says, “he thought it not proper nor becoming his character and station to be so tenacious of pluralities.” His health now also began to decay, and he was frequently interrupted from the duties of his profession by violent fits of illness. For several of the last years of his life, his health would not permit him to attend the House of Lords: he never, indeed, was a constant attendant, unless debates of consequence were expected, and he never attempted to speak. Once, when strongly prompted by a desire to oppose the bill for the relief of the protestant dissenters, he committed his sentiments to the press, and caused a copy to be sent the day before the debate to every lord of parliament. It is in the appendix to his Life, along with a paper on the same subject which he printed in 1778. In 1780 also he published in the same manner, “A Letter to the new Parliament, with hints of some regulations which the Nation hopes and expects from them.” This he considered as the last duty that he should ever be able to pay to his country; nor did he long survive it. His faculties remained perfect to the last, but he suffered much by a complication of disorders and weaknesses, from which he was released on Feb. 14, 1782. He was interred in the vaults of St. Paul’s, immediately under the south aile, and it was the intention of his widow to erect a monument in the church to his memory; but on applying to the trustees of the fabric for their permission, she found that the introduction of monuments into the cathedral was not then agreeable to them. Bow church was then fixed upon, and a fine piece of monumental sculpture, by Banks, was accordingly erected in the chancel, near the south side of the communion table, with a prose inscription, and some lines in poetry by Mrs. Carter. 3 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1787, in 6 vols. 8vo, to which is prefixed “Some account of his life, and anecdotes of several of his friends, written by himself,” a narrative which well deserves to be printed separately, as containing much ecclesiastical and political information, and many striking traits of character. The contents of the volumes are: 1. “Dissertations on the Prophecies,” the only part of his works which has since been reprinted separately “Thirty: dissertations, chiefly on some parts of the Old Testament” “Nine occasional Sermons” “Five Charges” and “Sixty dissertations, chiefly on some parts of the New Testament.” These dissertations, although they can never obtain the popularity of his work on the prophecies, contain many ingenious and acute remarks, but in a few of them his opinions are not strictly in unison with those of the church, as he seems inclined to the doctrine of universal redemption, and in endeavouring to maintain this, perplexes himself, as others have done, on the awful subject of the decrees of God.

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

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

, a very eminent contributor to the restoration of literature, and founder of the library of St. Mark at Florence, was the son of Bartholomew Nicolas, a merchant of Florence, and was born in 1363. He was intended, and as some say, for a time engaged, in mercantile pursuits, but preferring the cultivation of the liberal arts, he placed himself, on the death of his father, under Marsigli, or Marsilius, a scholar of considerable fame. So ardent was his love of learning, that when he had attained a competent knowledge of the Latin language, he went to Padua, for the express purpose of transcribing the compositions of Petrarch. To this laborious task he was compelled, according to Tiraboschi, by the mediocrity of his fortune, which prevented his purchasing manuscripts of any great value. His fortune, however, such as it was, and his whole time, he devoted to the collection of manuscripts or making transcripts, and accumulated about eight hundred volumes of Greek, Roman, and oriental authors. What he copied, was executed with great accuracy, and he was one of the first who corrected the defects and arranged the text of the manuscripts which he had an opportunity of studying. His house was the constant resort of scholars and students, who had free access to his library, and to many of whom he was a liberal patron. Poggio Bracciolini valued him highly in this character, and on Niccoli’s death, Jan. 23, 1437, published a funeral oration, in which he celebrated his prudence, benevolence, fortitude, &c. He was not, however, without his faults, and had disgusted some eminent scholars of his time by his sarcastic wit and irritability of temper. By his will he directed that his library should be devoted to the use of the public, and appointed sixteen curators, among whom was Cosmo de Medici; but as he died in a state of insolvency, this legacy would have been lost, had not Cosmo offered to pay his debts on condition of obtaining a right to dispose of the books. This being agreed to, he deposjted them in the Dominican monastery of St. Mark at Florence. This collection was the foundation of another celebrated library in Florence, known by the name of the Bibliotheca Marciana, or library of St. Mark, which is yet open to the inspection of the learned, at the distance of three centuries. It does not appear that he was the author of any literary work, except a short treatise on the orthography of the Latin language, in which he attempted to settle various disputed points on this subject, by the authority of ancient inscriptions.

, a Greek historian, was born about the close of the thirteenth century, and flourished in the fourteenth, under the emperors Andronicus, John Palacologus, and John Cantacuzenus. He was a great favourite of the elder Andronicus, who made him librarian of the church of Constantinople, and sent him ambassador to the prince of Servia. He accompanied Andronicus in his misfortunes, and attended at his death; after which he repaired to the court of the younger Andronicus, where he appears to have been well received; and it is certain, that, by his influence over the Greeks, that church was prevailed on to reject any conference with the legates of pope John XXII. But, in the dispute which arose between Barlaam and Palamos, happening to take the part of the former, he maintained it so zealously in the council that was held at Constantinople in 1351, that he was cast into prison, and continued there till the return of John Palseologus, who released him; after which he held a disputation with Palamos, in the presence of that emperor. He compiled the Byzantine history in a barbarous style, and very inaccurately, from 1204, when Constantinople was taken by the French, to the death of Andronicus the younger, in 1341. Besides this work, he is the author of some others. His history, with a Latin translation by Jerome Wolf, was printed at Basil in 1562, and again at Geneva in 1615. We have also a new version of it, and a new edition more correct than any of the preceding, printed at the Louvre in 1702, by Boivin the younger, the French king’s librarian, 2 vols. fol. This edition contains, in the first volume, the thirty-eight books of Gregoras, which end with the year 1341; and in the second are the thirteen following, which contain a history of ten years. There are still fourteen remaining to be published; as also fourteen other pieces of Gregoras. Gregoras also wrote Scholia upon “Synesius de Insomniis,” published by Turnebus in 1553; the version of which, by John Pichon, is printed among the works of the same Synesius.

, a celebrated patriarch of Constantinople, of the ninth century, was distinguished for his zealous defence of the worship of images, against the emperor Leo the Armenian, who banished him in the year 815, to a monastery, where he died in the year 828, aged seventy. His works are, “An Abridgment of History,” from the death of the emperor Mauritius to Constantino Copronymus, printed at the Louvre, 1648, fol. It forms part of the Byzantine history, and has been translated into French by president Cousin. It is said to be accurate, but written in a dry and concise style. An “Abridgment of Chronography,” which is at the end of Syncellus; and several other works in Greek, which may be found in P. Labbe’s Councils, or the Library of the Fathers. Cardinal Baronius has inserted this patriarch’s “Confession of Faith” in torn. XI. of his Annals. He is supposed by Lardner and others, to have been the author of “The Stichometry,” a catalogue of the books of sacred scripture, which, ifof no other use, at least shews that the Jewish canon was generally esteemed sacred by Christians, and that the other books of the Old Testament, which are now deemed “Apocryphal,” were not of equal authority, though sometimes read in the churches, and quoted by Christian writers.

, a priest and monk of Mount Athos, flourished in the thirteenth century. He refused the patriarchate of Constantinople from his partiality to the Latin church, and being more inclined to peace than any of the Greeks of his time, la this spirit he composed two treatises concerning “The Procession of the Holy Ghost;” one addressed to James patriarch of Bulgaria, and the other to the emperor Theodore Lascaris, in both which he refutes those who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. These two tracts are printed in Greek and Latin, by Aliatius, who has also given us a letter, written by Blemmides on his expelling from the church of her convent the mistress of the emperor John Ducas. There are several other pieces of our author in the Vatican library.

, the son of Callistus Xanthopulus, a learned monk of Constantinople, is placed by Wharton at 1333, but by Lardner in 1325. He wrote in Greek an “Ecclesiastical History,” in twenty-three books, eighteen of which are still extant, containing the transactions of the church from the birth of Christ to the death of the emperor Phocas in the year 610. We have nothing left besides the arguments of the five other books, from the commencement of the reign of the emperor Heraclius to the end of that of Leo the philosopher, who died in the year 911. He dedicated this history to the emperor Andronicus Palseologus the elder: it was translated into Latin, by John Langius, and has gone through several editions, the best of which is that of Paris, in 1630. There is only one manuscript of this history, which was said to be formerly in the library of Matthias, king of Hungary, and now in that of Vienna. Nicephorus was no more than thirty years of age when he compiled it, and it is said to abound in fables, and therefore has been treated with contempt by Beza, and by Gesner. Some other pieces are ascribed to our author. Labbe, in his preliminary discourse prefixed to the “Byzantine Historians,” has given a catalogue of the emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople, composed by Nicephorus. His abridgment of the Bible in iambic verse was printed at Basil in 1536, and Dr. Hody has attributed to him a small piece which he published in Greek and Latin, during his controversy with Mr. Dodwell, under the title of “Anglicani Schismatis Redargutio.” His homilies on Mary Magdalen are also inserted in Bandini “Monumenta,” 1762, vol. III.

, an able mathematician, was born at Paris in 1613. Having finished his academical studies with the most promising success, he entered into the order of Minims, took the habit in 1632, and as usual, changed the name given him at his baptism for that of Francis, the name of his paternal uncle, who was also a Minim, or Franciscan. The inclination which he had for mathematics appeared early during his philosophical studies; and he devoted to this science all the time he could spare from his other employments, after he had completed his studies in theology. Ah the branches of the mathematics, however, did not equally engage his attention; he confined himself particularly to optics, and studied the rest only as they were subservient to his more favourite pursuit. He informs us in the preface to his “Thaumaturgus Opticus,” that he went twice to Rome; and that, on his return home, he was appointed teacher of theology. He was afterwards chosen to accompany father Francis de la Noue, vica^r-general of the order, in his visitation of the convents throughout all France. Amidst so many employments, it is wonderful that he found so much time to study, for his life was short, and must have been laborious. Being taken sick at Aix, in Provence, he died there, September 22, 1646, aged only thirty-three. He was an intimate acquaintance of Des Cartes, who had a high esteem for him, and presented him with his works. Niceron’s writings are, 1. “L'Interpretation des Chiffres, ou Regies pour bien entendre et expliquer facilement toutes sortes des Chiffres Simples,” &c. Paris, 1641, 8vo. This was only a translation oh the art of decyphering, written by Cospi in Italian, but is much improved by Niceron, who justly conceived it to be a work of utility. 2. “La Perspective curieuse, ou Magie artificielle des effets marveilleux de l'Optique, Catroptique, et Dioptrique,” intended as an introduction to his, 3. “Thaumaturgus Opticus: sive, Admiranda Optices, Catoptrices, et Dioptrices, Pars prima, &c.” 1646, fol. He intended to add two other parts, but was prevented by death.

, one of the most useful French biographers, was born at Paris, March 11, 1685. He was of an ancient and noble family, who were in very high repute about 1540. He studied with success in the Mazarine college at Paris, and afterwards at the college Du Plessis. He appears to have been of a serious turn of mind, and of great modesty, and from a dread of the snares to which he might be exposed in the world, de termined to quit it for a religious life. On this subject he consulted one of his uncles, who belonged to the order of Barnabite Jesuits. This uncle examined him; and, not diffident of his election, introduced him as a probationer to that society at Paris. He was received there in 1702, took the habit in 1703, and made his vows in 1704, at the age of nineteen. After he had professed himself, he was sent to Montargis, to study philosophy and theology, a course of both which he went through with credit, although he confesses that he never could relish the scholastic system then in vogue. His superiors then, satisfied with his proficiency and talents, sent him to Loches, in Touraine, to teach the classics and rhetoric. Here his devout behaviour and excellent conduct as a teacher, made him be thought worthy of the priesthood, which he received at Poitiers in 1708, and as he was not arrived at the age to assume this orders a dispensation, which his uncommon piety had merited, was obtained in his favour. The college of Montargis having recalled him, he was their professor of rhetoric during two years, and philosophy during four. In spite of all these avocations, he was humanely attentive to every call and work of charity, and to the instruction of his fellow-creatures, many of whom heard his excellent sermons, pure and unadorned in style, but valuable in matter, which he delivered not only from the pulpits of most of the churches within the province, but even from those of Paris. In 1716 his superiors invited him to that city, that he might have an opportunity of following, with the more convenience, those studies for which he always had expressed the greatest inclination. He not only understood the ancient, but almost all the modern languages; a circumstance of infinite advantage in the composition of those works which he has given to the public, and which he carried on with great assiduity to the time of his death, which happened after a short illness, July 8, 1738, at the age of fifty-three. His works are, 1. “Le Grand Fébrifuge; or, a dissertation to prove that common Water is the best remedy in Fevers, and even in the Plague; translated from the English of John Hancock, minister of St. Margaret’s, London, in 12mo.” This treatise made its appearance, amongst other pieces relating to this subject, in 1720; and was attended with a success which carried it through three editions; the last came out in 1730, in 2 vols. 12mo, entitled “A Treatise on common Water;” Paris, printed by Cavelier. 2. “The Voyages of John Ouvington to Surat, and divers parts of Asia and Africa; containing the History of the Revolution in the kingdom of Golconda, and some observations upon Silk- Worms,” Paris, 1725, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “The Conversion of England to Christianity, compared with its pretended Reformtion;” a work translated from the English, and written by an English catholic, Paris, 1729, 8vo. 4. “The Natural History of the Earth, translated from the English of Mr. Woodward, by Mons. Nogues, doctor in physic with an answer to the objections of doctor Camerarius containing, also, several letters written on the same subject, and a methodical distribution of Fossils, translated from the English, by Niceron,” Paris, 1735, 4to. 5. “Memoirs of Men illustrious in the republic of letters, with a critical Account of their Works. Paris,” 12uio. The first volume of this great work appeared in 1727; the others were given to the public in succession, as far as the thirty-ninth, which appeared in 1738. The fortieth volume was published after the death of the author, in 1739. Since that event three others were added, but in these are many articles of which Niceron was not the author. It is not easy to answer all the objections which may be offered to a work of this kind. The author himself, in one of his prefaces, informs us that some of his contemporaries wished for a chronological order; some for the order of the alphabet; some for classing the authors according to the sciences or their professions, and some according to the countries in which they were born. As his work, however, appeared periodically, he thought himself justified in giving the lives without any particular order, according as he was able to procure materials. That the French critics should dwell upon the unavoidable mistakes in a work of this magnitude, is rather surprizing, for they have produced no such collection since, and indeed Niceron has been the foundation, as far as he goes, of all the subsequent accounts of the same authors. Chaufepie only treats him with respect while he occasionally points out any error in point of date or fact.

pope, and the only pontiff of that name much deserving of notice, was originally named Thomas of Sarzana, and was born in 1398. He was the son of Barth. dei Parentucelli, a professor of arts and medicine in Pisa. His mother, Andreola, was a native of Sarzana, a small town on the borders of Tuscany, and the republic of Genoa, whence he derived his surname. In his seventh year his father died, and his mother marrying again, a man who had no affection for her offspring, his younger days were embittered by domestic neglect and harshness. He. obtained a friend, however, in cardinal Nicholas Albergati, who took him under his protection, and supplied him with whatever was necessary for pursuing his studies at the university of Bologna. At the age of twenty-four he enrolled himself in the priesthood, but continued to live in the family of his patron until the death of the latter, when his learning and virtues procured him another friend in the cardinal Gerard Andriani. By his means he was introduced to. the court of Eugenius IV. and employed in all the disputes between the Latins and Greeks at the councils ef Ferrara and Florence, for his admirable management of which he was rewarded in 1445 by the bishopric of Bologna. In 1446 he was promoted to the purple, and in March 1447 he was elevated to the papal throne, on which occasion he assumed the name of Nicholas V. The temporalties of the holy see being in a lamentable state of disorder, he had uncommon difficulties to struggle with, which, however, he encountered by a wise and temperate conduct. It was first his object to restore the finances, and to cultivate the arts of peace, which furnished him with the means of gratifying his passion for the encouragement of learning. Fostered by his patronage, the scholars of Italy no longer had reason to complain that they were doomed to obscurity and contempt. Nicholas invited to his court all those who were distinguished by their proficiency in ancient literature; and whilst he afforded them full scope for the exertion of their talents, he requited their labours by liberal remunerations. Poggio was one of those who experienced his kindest patronage.

In 1453 Nicholas received intelligence of the capture of Constantinople by Mahomet II. which some historians mention as the greatest affliction that befel the pope; but Gibbon, speaking on the subject, says, “Some states were too weak, and others too remote; by some the danger was considered as imaginary, by others as inevitable: the western princes were involved in their endless and domestic quarrels; and the Roman pontiff was exasperated by the falsehood or obstinacy of the Greeks. Instead of employing in their favour the arms and treasures of Italy, Nicholas V, had foretold their approaching ruin, and his honour seemed engaged in the accomplishment of his prophecy. Perhaps he was softened by the last extremity of their distress, but his compassion was tardy: his efforts were faint and unavailing; and Constantinople had fallen before the squadrons of Genoa and Venice could sail from their harbours.” From this time he spent the remainder of his pontificate in endeavours to allay the civil wars and commotions which took place in Italy, to reconcile the Christian princes who were then at war with one another, and to unite them in one league against the enemies of the Christian church. But all his efforts being unsuccessful, the disappointment is said to have hastened his death, which happened March 24, 1455. “The fame of Nicholas V.” says Gibbon, who seems to have formed a just estimate, of the character of this pontiff, " has not been adequate to his merits. From a plebeian origin, he raised himself by his virtue and learning; the character of the man prevailed over the interest of the pope; and he sharpened those weapons which were soon pointed against the Roman church. He had been the friend of the most eminent scholars of the age; he became their patron; and ‘such was the humility of his manners, that the change was scarcely discernible either to them or to himself. If he pressed the acceptance of a liberal gift, it was not as the measure of desert, but as the proof of benevolence; and when modest merit declined his bounty, ’ accept it,‘ he would say, with a consciousness of his own worth, ’ you will not always have a Nicholas among you.‘ The influence of the holy see pervaded Christendom; and he exerted that influence in the search, not of benefices, but of books. From the ruins of the Byzantine libraries, from the’darkcst monasteries of Germany and Britain, he collected the dusty manuscripts of the writers of antiquity; and wherever the original could not be removed, a faithful copy was transcribed, and transmitted for use. The Vatican, the old repository for bulls and legends, for superstition and forgery, was daily replenished with more precious furniture; and such was the industry of Nicholas, that in a reign of eight years he formed a library of 5000 volumes. To his munificence the Latin world was indebted for the versions of Xenophon, Diodorus, Polybius, Thucydides, Herodotus, and Appian; of Strabo’s Geography; of the Iliad; of the most valuable works of Plato and Aristotle; of Ptolemy and Theophrastus, and of the fathers of the Greek church.

In 1745 Dr. Nichols left Oxford finally, and was succeeded in his professorship by Dr. Lawrence. In 1748 he was appointed lecturer on surgery to the college, and began his course with a learned and elegant dissertation on the “Anima Medica,” which was published as a separate work in 1750. While he was proceeding with his course, however, he received what he considered an insult from the college, who chose a junior fellow as an elect, on the death of Dr. Coningham, in preference to him, without any apparent reason; and he indignantly resigned his lectureship, never afterwards attending the meetings of the fellows, except when matters of the utmost importance were in agitation. In 1751 he took some revenge in an anonymous pamphlet, entitled “The Petition of the unborn Babes to the Censors of the Royal College of Physicians in London,” in which Dr. Nesbitt, Dr. Maule, Dr. JBarrowby principally, and sir William Browne, yir Edward Hulse, and the Scots, were the objects of his satire.

On the death of sir Hans Sloane, in 1753, Dr. Nichols was appointed his successor as one of the king’s physicians an office which he held till the death of his majesty in 1760, when the most skilful were superseded to make way for one who, his biographer says, was not long before an army surgeon of the lowest order. On this occasion an offer of a pension was made to Dr. Nichols, which it was suggested he might have if he would ask for it, but he rejected it with disdain. In 1772 he published a second edition of his treatise “De Anima Medica,” to which was subjoined a dissertation “De Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Homine nato et non nato,” inscribed to his learned friend and coadjutor the late Dr. Lawrence.

"I was in hopes that her majesty would have bestowed the prebend of Westminster upon me, being the place where I live, and that I might be nearer to books, _to finish my work on the liturgy and articles, for which she was pleased to tell to me, with her own mouth, she would consider me. My good lord, I have taken more pains in this matter than any divine of our nation, whjch I hope may bespeak the favour of a church-of-England ministry. Therefore I most humbly beseech your lordship for your interest for the next prebend of that church (if this be disposed of) that shall be void; for if I had merited nothing, my circumstances want it. I am now forced on the drudgery of being the editor of Mr. Selden’s books, for a little money to buy other books to carry on my liturgical work. I have broken my constitution by the pains of making my collections myself throughout that large work, without the help of an amanuensis, which I am not in a condition to keep, though the disease of my stomach (being a continual cholic of late, attended by the rupture of a vein) might plead pity, and incline my superiors not to suffer me all my days to be a Gibeonite in the church without any regard or relief. Pray f my lord, represent my case to the queen; and I shall never be wanting to make my most ample acknowledgment for so great a favour. I could long since have made my way to preferment without taking all this pains, by a noisy cry for a party; but as this has been often the reproach, and once the ruin of our clergy, so I have always industriously avoided it, quietly doing what service I could to the church I was born in, and leaving the issue thereof to God’s Providence, and to the kind offices of some good man, who some time or other might befriend me in getting some little thing for me to make my circumstances easy, which is the occasion that your lordship has the trouble of this application, from,

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

, a learned doctor of the Sorbonne, and Dominican, was born in 1594, at Monza, a village in the diocese of Verdun, near Stenay. After taking a doctor’s degree in 1632, he taught theology in tl?e house of his order at Paris, for about twenty years. He was elected prior in 166 1, and died May 7, 1673, aged seventyeight. He was the editor of a good edition of the “Summary” of St. Thomas, with notes, and of all that doctor’s works, Lyons, 1660, 19 vols. fol. He also published five Dissertations on several points of ecclesiastical discipline, againstM.de Launoi, 12mo; “Judicium, seu censorium suffragium de propositions Antonii Arnaldi,” &c. 4to, which last he likewise published in French by the title of “Avis deliberatif,” &c. 4to. This relates to the much contested proposition of M. Arnauld, that “Grace failed in St. Peter,” and it was answered by M. Arnauld, Nicole, and de la Lane. He was the author of other works, in which are some singular opinions, but which are now of little consequence. He must, however, be distinguished from Philip Nicolai, a learned divine, who died in 1608, and from Melchior Nicolai, a celebrated professor of divinity at Tubingen, who died in 1659. Both these wrote commentaries and controversial treatises, noticed in “Freheri Theatrum,” and our other authorities.

, a native of Damascus, in Syria, who flourished in the time of Augustus, was a man of extensive learning, and an illustrious ornament of the Peripatetic school. Herod the Great made choice of him for his preceptor in philosophy; and when he sailed to Rome for the purpose of visiting the emperor, took him as his companion in the voyage. Afterwards that prince prosecuted historical learning under Nicolaus, who at his request undertook to write a Universal History, and being introduced by Herod to Augustus, he was admitted to his intimate friendship, and received from him many valuable tokens of regard. The integrity and generosity of his spirit, and the urbanity of his manners, obtained him universal respect. Nicolaus wrote several treatises on the philosophy of Aristotle; “A Dissertation on the manners of various Nations;” Memoirs of Augustus;“and his own” Life.“Of these some fragments are preserved by Valesius, and a complete edition was published in 1804, by J. C. Orellius, under the title” Nicolai Damasceni Historiarum excerpta et fragmenta qua; supersunt, Gr. Lat." 8vo.

, a very celebrated French mathematician, was born at Paris, December 23, 1683. His early attachment to the mathematics induced M. Montmortto take the charge of his education, and initiate him in the higher geometry. He first distinguished himself by detecting the fallacy of a pretended quadrature of the circle. A M. Mathulon was so confident that he had discovered this quadrature, as to deposit in the hands of a public notary at Lyons, the sum of 3000 livres, to be paid to any person who in the judgment of the academy of sciences, should demonstrate the falsity of his solution. M. Nicole having undertaken the task, the academy’s judgment was, that he had plainly proved that the rectilineal figure which Mathulon had given as equal to the circle, was not only unequal to it, but that it was even greater than the polygon of 32 sides circumscribed about the circle. It was the love of science, however, and not of money, which inspired Nicole on this occasion, for he presented the prize of 300O livres to the public hospital of Lyons. The academy named Nicole eleve-mechanician, March 12, 1707; adjunct in 1716, associate in 1718, and pensioner in 1724, which he continued till his death, which happened January 18, 1758, at seventy-five years of age.

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

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

, commonly known by the name of Nicolini, a great singer, and still greater actor, arrived in England in 1708, which, says Dr. Burney, forms an era in the annals of our lyric theatre; as he was the first vocal performer of the highest class from Italy that trod our stage, and promoted a taste both for fine singing and fine acting. He was a native of Naples; his voice was at first a soprano, but afterwards descended into a full and rich contralto. The first operas in which we have met with his name in Italy were “Tullo Ostilio,” and “Xerse,” two dramas composed by John Bononcini for Home, in 1694. In 1697 and 1698 we find him the principal singer in the Neapolitan operas; and in 1699 and 1700 again at Rome. From this period till his arrival in England, he sung at Venice, Milan, and other cities of Italy, where the musical drama was established. When he arrived in England, where geniuses of this description are always more fondly caressed than any where else, the opera prices were raised to 15s. for the boxes on the stage, half a guinea the pit and other boxes, and first gallery five shillings. Nicolini indeed appeared a phenomenon worthy of occupying the attention of the whole nation; not only sir Richard Steele celebrated the majesty of his appearance on the stage in the “Tatler;” but Mr. Addison, who on other occasions so justly ridiculed the absurdities of the Italian opera, celebrated the abilities of Nicolini as an actor in the Spectator, No. 13. In 1712 he went abroad, but returned to England, and in the year 1715 we find him performing in Handel’s opera of “Rinaldo,” and receiving his accustomed applause. According to the ideas which tradition gives us of the abilities of this performer, his part in “Rinaldo” must have drawn out all his powers both as a singer and actor. He continued here till 1717, when he returned to Italy for the last time; but continued in favour there as aa actor, after his vocal powers were faded, and a new style of singing was established for in 1723 we still find him at Rome with the Tesi, in Leo’s “Timocrate.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, an eminent Dutch philosopher and mathematician, was born Aug. 10, 1654, at Westgraafdyk in North Holland, of which place his father vvas minister. He discovered a turn for learning in his first infancy, and his father designed him for the ministry; but when he found him averse from this study, he suffered him to gratify his own taste. He then applied himself to logic, and the art of reasoning justly; in which he grounded himself upon the principles of Des Cartes, with whose philosophy he was greatly delighted. Thence he proceeded to the mathematics, where he made a great proficiency; and added so much to his stock of various knowledge, that he was accounted a good philosopher, a great mathematician, a celebrated physician, and an able and just magistrate. Although naturally of a grave and serious disposition, yet his engaging manner in conversation made him be equally admired as a companion and friend, and frequently drew over to his opinion those who, at first, differed very widely from him. Thus accomplished, he acquired great esteem and credit in the council of the town of Purmerende, where he resided; as he did also in the states of that province, who respected him the more, as he never interfered in any cabals or factions. His disposition inclined him to cultivate the sciences, rather than to obtain the honours of the government and he therefore contented himself with being counsellor and burgomaster of the town, without wishing for more bustling preferments, which might interfere with his studies, and draw him too much out of his library. He died May 30, 1718, in the sixty-third year of his age. His works are, 1. “Considerationes circa Analyseos ad Quantitates infinite parvas applicator principia,” &c. Amst. 1694, 8vo. 2. “Analysis infinitorum seu curvilineorum Proprietates ex Polygpnorum natura deductse,” ibid. 1695, 4to. 3. “Considerationes secundoe circa differentialis Principia r & Responsio ad Yirum nobilissimum G. G. Leibnitium,” ibid. 1696, 8vo. This piece was attacked by John Bernoulli and James Hermant, celebrated geometricians at Basil. 4. “A Treatise upon a New Use of the Tables of Sines and Tangents.” 5. “Le veritable Usage de la Contemplation de TUnivers, pour la conviction des Athees & des Incredules,” in Dutch. This is his most esteemed work; and went through four editions in three or four years. It was translated into English by Mr. John Chamberlaine, and printed three or four times under the title of the “Religious Philosopher,” &c. 3 vols. 8vo. This was, until within these forty years, a very popular book in this country. We have also, by our author, one letter to Bothnia of Burmania, upon the 27th article of his meteors, and a refutation of Spinosa, 1720, 4to, in the Dutch language.

, professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Leyden, was born at Diemermeer, a village near Amsterdam, Nov. 5, 1764. His father, by trade a carpenter, having a great fondness for books, and being tolerably well versed in the mathematics, instructed his son himself till he attained his eleventh year, who appears to have exhibited very extraordinary proofs of genius long before that time. When only three years old, his mother put into his hand some prints, which had fifty verses at the bottom of them by way of explanation. These verses she read aloud, without any intention that her son should learn them, but was much surprized some time after to hear him repeat the whole from memory, with the utmost correctness, on being only shown the prints. Before he was seven years old he had read more than fifty different books, and in such a manner that he could frequently repeat passages from them both in prose and in verse. When about the age of eight, Mr. Aenese of Amsterdam, one of the greatest calculators of the age, asked him if he could tell the solid contents of a wooden statue of Mercury which stood upon a piece of clock-work. “Yes,” replied young Nieuwland, “provided you give me a bit of the same wood of which the statue was made for I will cut a cubic inch out of it, and then compare it with the statue.” Poems which (says his eulogist) display the utmost liveliness of imagination, and which he composed in his tenth year, while walking or amusing himself near his father’s house, were received with admiration, and inserted in different poetical collections. Such an uncommon genius must soon burst through those obstacles which confine it. Bernardus and Jeronirao de Bosch, two opulent gentlemen of Amsterdam, became young Nieuwland’s patrons, and he was taken into the house of the former in his eleventh year, and received daily instruction from the latter for the space of four years. While in this situation he made considerable progress in the Latin and Greek languages, and studied philosophy and the mathematics under Wyttenbach. In 1733 he translated the two dissertations of his celebrated instructors Wyttenbach and de Bosch, on the opinions which the ancients entertained of the state of the soul after death, which had gained the prize of the Teylerian theological society. From September 1784 to 1785 he studied at Leyden, and afterwards applied with great diligence at Amsterdam to natural philosophy, and every branch of the mathematics, under the direction of professor Van Swinden. He had scarcely begun to turn his attention to chemistry, when he made himself master of Lavoisier’s theory, and could apply it to every phenomenon.

One of his great objects was to bring the pure mathematics nearer to perfection, and having turned his thoughts to the improvement of the methods of determining the latitude of a place at sea, he wrote, in 1789, a paper on the subject, and transmitted it to Lalande at Paris, who greatly approved of it, and after Major von Zach and Nieuwland had reconsidered the method, this paper was published by von Zach, with Nieuwland’s name, in the first supplement to Bode’s “Astronomical Almanack,” Berlin, 1793. This, however, was not the only service which Nieuwland endeavoured to render to astronomy. It had been observed by Newton, Euler, De la Place, and others, that the axes of the planets do not stand perpendicular, but inclined, to the plane of their orbits. Nieuwland attempted to account for this phenomenon, and his paper on the subject was printed, for the opinion of the learned, in the supplement to Bode’s “Almanack,” for the same year. His success in this, however, according to the biographer we follow, seems doubtful.

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

, one of the most learned authors of ancient Rome after Varro, flourished in the time of Cicero, was his fellow-student in philosophy and the counsellor with whom he advised in affairs of state; and, being praetor and senator, he assisted the orator in defeating the conspiracy of Catiline, and did him many services in the time of his adversity. Cicero acknowledged, that it was in concert with Nigidius, that he took those important measures which saved the commonwealth under his consulship: and, when Cicero went to his government of Cilicia, Nigidius, who was returning to Rome, after having exercised a public employment in Greece, waited for him at Ephesus; where these two friends had long philosophical conferences with Cratippus the Peripatetic. Nigidius was a professed advocate for the doctrine of Pythagoras. Cicero speaks of him as an accurate and penetrating inquirer into nature, and ascribes to him the revival of that philosophy, which formerly, for several ages, flourished in the Pythagorean schools, both in Italy and Sicily. He was a considerable proficient in mathematical and astronomical learning, and, after the example of his master, applied his knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. In civil affairs, he attached himself to the party of Pompey; and, upon Caesar’s accession to the supreme power, he was banished from Rome. After his time, the Pythagorean doctrine was much neglected; few persons being then able to decypher, with accuracy, the obscure dogmas of this mysterious sect. Of the impostures practised by Nigidius, there are some anecdotes told, but scarcely worth repeating. It has been thought, that these deceptions were the cause of his banishment; but this appears not to have been the case, nor did he dare to return to Rome after Julius Caesar had possessed himself of that city. He died 45 B. C. His works were entitled, “De Augurio private,” “De Animalibus,” “De Extis,” “De Vento;” and “De Diis.” He also wrote “Commentaries upon Grammar.” Fragments of these only remain, which were collected and published by James Rutgersius, who has also inserted among them the Greek translation of A Treatise of Nigidius," by John Laurentius of Philadelphia.

, a French academician and dramatic writer, was born at Paris in 1692. Being the nephew of a farmer-general, he might have acquired opulence, by so valuable a connection, but he preferred the study of polite literature. His first work was a criticism on the fables of La Motte, who was his friend, but who never objected to any liberties of that kind which his friends might take with him. When La Motte advanced his famous paradox on the in utility of versification in tragedy, &c. Nivelle joined la Faye as one of his opponents, and published an “Epitre a Clio,” 1733, 12mo, which was much admired, and in which he has taken considerable freedoms with La Motte. As a dramatic writer, Nivelle brought into fashion what the French call the comedies larmoy antes, or comedies in which there are more scenes of tenderness than of wit and humour. Of these his “Prejuge a la mode” “Ecole des Amis,” and “Melanide,” are still much admired in France as are his “Ecole des Meres,” and “La Gbuvernante,” although not received at first so favourably. He wrote many other dramatic pieces, with moderate success, which with his other works, were published at Paris, in 1762, 5 vols. 12mo. La Harpe ranks him among the authors who have done honour to the French theatre. He died May 14, 1754, in the sixty-second year of his age.

, was born at Paris, Dec. 16, 1716. After he had served in the army some time, he was appointed ambassador to Rome, then to Berlin, and lastly, in 1763, was entrusted with the important negociation of the definitive treaty of peace at London, where he was highly respected, as a prudent and enlightened minister, who united amenity of manners with the dignity of his station. After his return to Paris, he devoted himself entirely to letters, and by some publications he obtained an admission into the French academy, and that of inscriptions. This worthy and excellent man lived to be a sufferer from the revolution, and was committed to prison during the tyranny of Robespierre, in which he was forced to remain till 1796. He died Feb. 25, 1798, at the age of eighty-two. Of his works, his “Fables” have not been thought to preserve the reputation they had originally, when handed about in private. Many of them, however, equal any of the French productions of that class. An English translation, very ably executed, was published in 1799. The duke’s reflections on the genius of Horace, Boileau, and Rousseau, are highly esteemed; and his “Dialogues of the Dead,” “Moral Letters,” “Lives of the Troubadours,” &c. are distinguished proofs of an acute and well-cultivated mind. He was very conversant in English literature, and translated Pope’s “Essay on Man,” and Horace Walpole’s “Modern Gardening,” of which, in imitation of Walpole, he printed only a few copies for friends. Didot, while the author was alive, printed a fine edition of his works, in 1796, 8 vols. 8vo, the demand for which, according to Brunet, is not great.

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

As he considered that one principal branch of the episcopal province is to maintain sound doctrine, and to keep the flock committed to his care from being tainted with erroneous opinions, he vigorously opposed the growing errors of Quietism, which he had before condemned at Chalons; and now made it his business to root out of the capital of France. He proceeded against them, not only by judicial sentences, but likewise by instructions in his pastoral, charges. Among these he printed, in 1697, “A Pastoral Letter upon Christian Perfection, and the interior Life,” against the illusions of those mystics. At the same time, he testified an equal zeal against the errors of Jansenism; and in order to preserve his flock from that infection, he drew up a pastoral letter upon the questions then agitated concerning predestination and grace, cautioning them on one hand against the errors which were condemned by the popes, and explaining to them at large what was the rule of faith in relation to mysteries, according to the principles of St. Austin, and the fathers who embraced his doctrine.

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

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

He published, 1. “Joannis Damasceni libellus de his, qui in fide dormierunt, ex Gr. in Lat. versus,” Verona, 1532, 4to. 2. “Apostolicae Institutiones in parvum libellum collectse.” Venice, 1549, 4to. 3. “De Nili ipcremento dialogus,” ibid. 1552, 4to. This edition became so scarce that when Frederic Nogarola wished to publish a second, he could not find a single copy, and was therefore obliged to print from the author’s original manuscript. This second edition was printed at Milan, in 1626, 4to, under the title “Timotheus, sive de Nilo.” Timotheus is one of the four interlocutors in the dialogue. 4. “Platoni cæ Plutarchi questiones;” translated into Latin, with notes, Venice, 1552, 4to. 5. “Ocelli Lucani de universa natura libellus, L. N. interprete.” Venice, 1559, 4to, reprinted in octavo, at Heidelberg, 1598, and at Cambridge in 1671. Nogarola, however, was not the first who translated this author. There is a translation by Chretien, of 1541, and one by Bosch, of 1554. 6. “Epistola ad Adamum Fumenum canonicum Veronensem super viris illustribus genere Italis, qui Greece scripserunt.” This appeared first with his translation of Lucanus, and was reprinted in Gale’s “Opuscula,” 1671, and afterwards by Fabricius in his “Supplementa” to Vossius. 7. “Scholia ad Themistii Paraphrasim in Aristotelis Librum tertium de anima,” Venice, 1570, fol. with a translation. 8. “Disputatio super reginse Britannorum divortio,” 4to, Henry Vlll’s queen. ­Freher also mentions a work entitled “Oratio pro Vicentinis ad Maximilianum.”

, a French abbe, and member of most of the literary societies of Europe, was born at Pimpre“, in the district of Noyon, Nov. 19, 1700. Notwithstanding the obscurity in which his finances obliged him to live, he soon acquired fame as an experimental philosopher. M. Dufay associated him in his electrical researches; and M. de Reaumur assigned to him his laboratory and these gentlemen may be considered as his preceptors. M. Dufay took him along with him in a journey he made into England; and Nollet profited so well of this opportunity, as to institute a friendly and literary correspondence with some of the most celebrated men in this country. The king of Sardinia gave him an invitation to Turin, to perform a course of experimental philosophy to the duke of Savoy. From thence he travelled into Italy, where he collected some good observations concerning the natural history of the country. In France he was master of philosophy and natural history to the royal family; and professor royal of experimental philosophy to the college of Navarre, and to the schools of artillery and engineers. The academy of sciences appointed him adjunct-mechanician in 1739, associate i 1742, and pensioner in 1757. Nollet died the 24th of April, 1770, regretted by all his friends, but especially by his relations, whom he always succoured with an affectionate attention; but his fame, as an electrician, in which character he was best known, did not survive him long. His’ works are, 1.” Recueils de Lettres sur TElectricite;“1753, 3 vols. 12mo. '2.” Essai sur l'Electricite des corps;“1 vol. 12mo. 3. Recherches sur les causes particulieres des Phenomenes Electriques,” 1 vol. 12mo. 4. “L'Art des Experiences,” 1770, 3 vols. 12mo. In these are contained his theory on electricity, which he maintained with the most persevering obstinacy against all the arguments of his antagonists, who were perhaps all the eminent electrical philosophers of Europe. It is no easy matter to form a very adequate notion of this theory, which has been long since abandoned by every person. When an electric is excited, electricity flows to it from all quarters, and when thus effluent (as he termed it), it drives light bodies before it. Hence the reason why excited bodies attract. When the electricity is effluent, the light bodies are of course driven from the electric, which in that state appears to repel. He conceived every electric to be possessed of two different kinds of pores, one for the emission of the electric matter, and the other for its reception. Besides his papers in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences” from 1740 to 1767, we have in our “Philosophical Transactions,” the result of a great number of experiments, made by the abbe Nollet, on the eflect produced by electricity on the flowing of water through capillary tubes; on the evaporation of liquids; the transpiration of vegetables; and the respiration of animals. These last experiments have been often repeated since, but the results drawn by the abbe are not considered as established.

, an artist of Antwerp, came and settled in England when young, and studied under Tillemans, and afterwards copied Watteau, and Panini; conversations, landscapes, and children’s amusements, were his chief works. Lord Cobham, at Stowe, and the earl of Tilney, employed him at their mansions. He died Jan. 21, 1748, leaving a son, who has long enjoyed the well-earned reputation of an admirable statuary.

, a learned physician at Antwerp, who flourished in the seventeenth century, was the author of a curious treatise, entitled “Pieteticon, sive de Re cibaria;” containing several remarks illustrative of those passages in the Latin Roman poets, particularly Horace, Juvenal, and Persius, which relate to the luxury of the old Roman tables. It was published in 4to in 1646, at Antwerp. He renewed the opinion of the ancient physicians, who have written “De salubri Piscium alimento,” or the wholesomeness of a fish diet; and endeavoured to shew, that, according to them, fish is especially a proper aliment for sedentary persons, for the aged, sick, and such as are of a weak constitution, as it generates blood of a moderate consistence, which suits their habit. In this work Nonius complains of the Arabians, who, in translating the Greek physicians, have omitted all passages relating to fish; because the Arabs eat little of this kind of aliment, which in that hot and dry country is rarely to be met with. Nonius also printed a very large commentary in 1620, upon the Greek medals, and those of Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Tiberius, which had been engraved about fifty-five years before by Goltzius, and published in folio at that time by James de Bye, another celebrated engraver. Besides these, he wrote “Hispania; seu de Oppidis Fluminibusque Hispanise,” 1607, 8vo; “Icthyophagia, seu de Usu Piscium,” and “Epicaedium Justo Lipsio,” &c.

Nonius was the author of several ingenious works and inventions, and justly esteemed one of the most eminent mathematicians of his age. Concerning his “Art of Navigation,” father Dechaies says, “In the year 1530, Peter Nonius, a celebrated Portuguese mathematician, upon occasion of some doubts proposed to him by Martinus Alphonsus Sofa, wrote a treatise on Navigation, divided into two books; in the first he answers some of those doubts, and explains the nature of Loxodromic lines. In the second book he treats of rules and instruments proper for navigation, particularly sea- charts, and instruments serving to find the elevation of the pole” but says he is rather obscure in his manner of writing. Furetiere, in his Dictionary, takes notice that Peter Nonius was the first who, in 1530, invented the angles which the Loxodromic curves make with each meridian, calling them in his language Rhumbs, and which he calculated by spherical triangles. Stevinus acknowledges that Peter Nonius was scarce inferior to the very best mathematicians of the age. And Schottus says he explained a great many problems, and particularly the mechanical problem of Aristotle on the motion of vessels by oars. His Notes upon Purbach’s Theory of the Planets, are very much to be esteemed: he there explains several things, which had either not been noticed before, or not rightly understood.

, a Greek poet, surnamed Panoplites, from the place of his birth, was born at Panopolis, in Egypt, in the fifth century. He is the author of two works of a very different character; one a miscellany of heathen mythology and learning, in heroic verse, entitled “Dionysiacorum libri xlviii.” which was printed by Falkenburgh, from a ms. in the library of John Sambucb, at Antwerp, in 1569, 4to, and afterwards translated into Latin by Eiihard Lubin, professor at Rostock, who reprinted it at Hanover in 1610, with the notes of various persons, 8vo. There is also an edition printed at Eton, 1610, 4to. This is one of the most irregular poems extant, both with regard to the style, sentiments, method, and constitution: nothing is natural, nothing approaching to the purity of Homer; nothing of the free, easy manner, and beautiful simplicity, of the ancients. In short, this piece is as much beneath, as his other work, his “Paraphrasis,” is above, censure. In his paraphrase in Greek verse, upon the Gospel of St. John, the diction is perspicuous, neat, elegant, and proper for the subject. Hence he is styled by Isaac Casaubon “poeta eruditissimus.” Heinsius, indeed, reproaches him with leaning to Arianism but he appears to hold the same sentiments concerning the Trinity with Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom. The first edition of this piece is that of Aldus Manutius at Venice in 1501, 4to; it has since gone through several editions, the last of which, and the best, is that by Heinsius, Gr. and Lat. 1627, 8vo. His various readings, which are deemed important, have been selected by Mill, Bengelius, Wetstein, and Griesbach.

, a celebrated civilian, was born Sept. 4, 1647, at Nimeguen, where his father, Peter Noodt, held a law office in the corporation. He was first educated at the school at Nimeguen; and, having gone through the usual classes, removed, in 1663, to the university which then subsisted, although in a decayed state, in that city . Here he began his studies with history and polite literature under John Schulting, professor of eloquence and history. Besides these, he applied himself to philosophy and the mathematics, which he would have made his principal study, had he not been diverted by Mr. Arnauld Coerman, German counsellor of the duchy of Guelderland, &c. who prevailed upon him to apply himself to law, as likely to be of more advantage to himself and to the public. Complying with this advice he studied law three years under Peter de Greve; during which time he maintained two public theses with uncommon reputation. The second of these, “De acquirenda, et retinenda, et amittenda possessione,” which was of his own composition, he defended with such masterly knowledge, that the professor had not occasion to say a word throughout the whole disputation. As soon as he had completed his course of study here, he visited the other universities of Leyden, Utrecht, and shortly after Franeker, where he was created LL. D. in June 1669. He then returned to his own country, and entered upon the practice of his profession, in which he soon had an opportunity of acquiring fame by his defence of two criminals, who were accused of murder in 1671. Noodt appeared advocate for them, by the special appointment of the magistrates of Nimeguen; and he exerted himself so well in their behalf, that one of them was entirely acquitted, and the other only sentenced to banishment for two years. This cause established his reputation, and, the same year, he was elected professor of law in ordinary in the university of Nimeguen, although only in his twenty-fourth year.

He published a collection of his works in 1713, 4to, containing, 1. “Probabilia Juris,” in three books; the first of which was printed in 1674, and the other two in 1679, and again, altogether, in 1691. 2. “De civili Prudentia Oratio inauguralis, 1679.” 3. “De causis Corruptse Jurisprudentiae, Oratio inauguralis,” 1684. In this speech he opens his method of studying and explaining the Roman law. 4. Two tracts, one entitled “De Jurisdictione et Imperio” the other, “Ad Legem Aquileiam Liber singularis;” both subjoined to a new edition of his “Probabilia Juris,” 1691. 5.“De Fcenore et Usuris,” 1698. In this piece he shews that money lent out to usury is neither against the law of nature or nations. 6. “De Jur6 summi Imperii et Lege regia, Oratio habita,” 1698. 7. “Julius Paulus sive, de Partus Expositione et Nece apud veteres, Liber singularis,” 1699. 8. “Diocletianus et Maximianus; sive, de Transactione et Pactione Criminum,” 1704. 9. “De Religione ab Imperio Jure Gentium libera Oratio,” 1706. 10. “Observationum Libri duo,” 1706. 11. “De Forma emendandi doli mali in contrahendis negotiis admissi apud Veteres,” 1709. 12. Two treatises one, “de Usufructu;” the other, “de Pactis et Transactionibus,” &c. 1713. Another edition of his works was published in 1724, in 2 vols. folio; containing, besides those in the former edition, the following pieces: 1. “Commentaria in Pandectas, in 27 Libros,” 4 of which had been published in 1716. 2. “Arnica Responsio ad Difficultates in Julio Paulo, sive Libro de Partus Expositione, motas a, Viro amplissimo Van Bynkershoek,” 1722. Our author also wrote, in Flemish, “An Opinion upon a case relating to Matrimony,” which was translated into Latin by M. Alexander Arnold Pargenstecher, and printed in a treatise of that translator, entitled, “Imperius injuria vapulans.” A third edition of his works was published in 1735, 2 vols. fol. by Barbeyrac, with a life of the author, which Barbeyrac had originally published in 1731. There is also an edition printed at Naples in 1786,4 vols. 4to. Noodt is said to have been a man of great probity, and of a placid disposition. He was free from conceit and arrogance, and never engaged in any controversy except one with M. Bynkershoek, who complained that he had been a little too free in his expressions. The character of his genius is seen in his works; which shew that he quitted the common method of the civilians, treading in the steps of Cujacius, and introduced much of a liberal and philosophic spirit into the law, although perhaps with too great a tendency to theory, or to what is practicable only in theory. He lectured at all the academies to which he succeeded, on Grotius “De Jure Belli et Pads.”

, the biographer of Charles XII. of Sweden, was born at Stockholm in 1677. After entering the church, he was appointed an army chaplain, and accompanied the troops for some years. There is little else in the accounts of him that is interesting. Having had many opportunities of acquiring the necessary knowledge and information, he was selected to write the life of Charles XII, which was published at Stockholm in 1740, in 2 vols, folio, and afterwards translated into the German and French languages. The author of it died in 1744. Voltaire, who also wrote a life of Charles XII. speaks with little respect of Nordberg’s labours; and indeed the work seems rather a collection of useful materials than a well-digested narrative.

, an eminent geographer and traveller, was born at Gluckstadt in Holstein, Oct. 22, 1708. His father was a lieutenant-colonel of artillery, and himself was bred to arms. Being intended for the sea-service, he entered, in 1722, into the corps of cadets; a royal establishment, in which young men were instructed in the arts and sciences necessary to form good sea-officers. Here he is said to have made a great progress in the mathematics, ship-building, and drawing, especially in the last. He copied the works of the greatest masters in the art, to form his taste, and acquire their manner; but he took a particular pleasure in drawing from nature. The first person who noticed this rising genius, was M. de Lerche, knight of the order of the elephant, and grand master of the ceremonies. This gentleman put into his hands a collection of charts and topographical plans, belonging to the king, to be retouched and amended, in which Norden shewed great skill and care; but, considering his present employment as foreign to his profession, de Lerche, in 1732, presented him to the king, and procured him, not only leave, but a pension to enable him to travel: the king likewise made him, at the same time, second lieutenant. It was particularly recommended to him, to study the construction of ships, especially such gallies and rowing vessels as are used in the Mediterranean. Accordingly he set out for Holland, where he soon became acquainted with the admirers of antiquities and the polite arts, and with several distinguished artists, particularly De Reyter, who took great pleasure in teaching him to engrave. From Holland he went to Marseilles, and thence to Leghorn; staying in each place so long as to inform himself in every thing relating to the design of his voyage. At this last port he got models made of the different kinds of rowing vessels, which are still to be seen at the chamber of models at the Old Holm. In Italy, where he spent near three years in enlarging his knowledge, his great talents drew the attention of persons of distinction, and procured him an opportunity of seeing the cabinets of the curious, and of making his advantage of the great works of painting and sculpture, especially at Rome and Florence. At Florence he was made a member of the drawing academy, and while in this city he received an order from the king to go into Egypt.

Christian VI. was desirous of having a circumstantial account of a country so distant and so famous from an intelligent man, and one whose fidelity could not be questioned; and no one was thought more proper than Norden. He was then in the flower of his age, of great abilities, of a good taste, and of a courage that no danger or fatigue could dishearten; a skilful observer, a great designer, and a good mathematician: to all which qualities may be added an enthusiastic desire of examining, upon the spot, the wonders of Egypt, even prior to the order of his master. How he acquitted himself in this business appears amply from his “Travels in Egypt and Nubia.” In these countries he stayed about a year and, at his return, when the count of Danneskiold-Samsoe, who was at the head of the marine, presented him to his majesty, the king was much pleased with the masterly designs he had made of the objects in his travels, and desired he would draw up an account of his voyage, for the instruction of the curious and learned. At this time he was made captain-lieutenant, and soon after captain of the royal navy, and one of the commissioners for building ships.

When the war broke out between England and Spain, count Danneskiold-Samsoe proposed to the king, that several of his officers of his majesty’s navy should go as volunteers into the service of the powers at war; and chose Norden in particular, to accompany his own nephew, count Ulric Adolphus, then a captain of a man of war, in such expeditions as should be undertaken by the English. On their arrival in London, Norden, whose fame had preceded him, was received with distinguished favour; several of the most considerable men at court, and even the prince of Wales, hearing of the designs he made in Egypt, were curious to see them, and shewed him great kindness. The following summer, he accompanied the count on an expedition under sir John Norris; and, in 1740, he again went on-board the fleet destined to America, under the command of sir Chaloner Ogle, with a design to reinforce admiral Vernon. After this, Norden spent about one year in London in great esteem, and was admitted a member of the Royal Society. On this occasion he gave the public an idea of some ruins and colossal statues, entitled, tf Drawings of some Ruins and Colossal Statues, at Thebes of Egypt; with an account of the same, in a Letter to the Royal Society,“1741. This essay, with the plates belonging to it, heightened the desire which men of curiosity had before conceived of seeing that work entire, of which this made only a small part. About this time he found his health declining; and proposed to the count to take a tour to France, and to visit the coasts and ports of that kingdom, in hopes a change of climate might have been a means of recovering his health: but he died at Paris in 1742, much regretted as a person who had done honour to his country, and from whom the world had great expectations. His” Travels" were translated from the Danish into French by Des Roches de Parthenais, and published at Copenhagen in 1755, 2 vois. fol. This was followed by an English translation, both in fol. and 8vo, by Dr. Peter Templeman. This edition was decorated with the original plates, which are extremely numerous, and were procured by Mr. Lockyer Davis.

, an industrious topographer, classed by Wai pole and Strutt among engravers, seems to have been horn in Wiltshire about 1548, and admitted of Hartball, Oxford, in 1564. He proceeded A. M. in 1573. He bad patronage, but little else, from the great Burleigh; and in his old age obtained jointly with his son the place of surveyor to the prince of Wales. He lived in narrow circumstances at Fulham and Hendon, and died about 1626. Wood ascribes to him fifteen devotional pieces, though he doubts if they were really written by him, and Granger, who describes a print of him, thinks they must have been his father’s. As a topographer, however, we are more certain of his productions. He surveyed the county of Essex in 1584, and Hertfordsire and Middlesex in 1593; and besides these, he executed the maps of Cornwall, Hampshire, Surrey, and Sussex, all which, except those of Herts and Hants, were copied, with additions, into “Speed’s Theatre.” He was the first that inserted the roads. His map of Surrey was much larger and more exact than any of his others. Among his published works are, “England; an intended guyde for English travailers, &c.” Lond. 1625, 4to; “Speculum Britanniae, a topographical and historical description of Cornwall,” 1728, 4to. It was published from a very old ms. in the British Museum, Mss. Karl. 6252. Mr. Gough says that the better part of this most finished of Norden’s works is a mere transcript of Carew; from the other parts very little of moment is to be learned; and no stress is to be laid on his drawings. Norden wrote also an account of the estate of the dutchy of Cornwall, the right by which the duke holds his estates, and many of the customs of the manors; which was once deposited in the duchy office. Another of his publications, is “Speculum Britanniae, or an historical and chorographical description of Middlesex and Hertfordshire,” 1573, 4to, reprinted 1637. and 1723. The Middlesex part was the first of his labours there is a copy of it among the Harleian Mss. No. 570, supposed to be in Norden’s own writing, which differs from the printed books both in the arrangement and the additions made to it. The last of this kind was his “Speculum Brit, pars altera, or a delineation of Northamptonshire,” Lond. 1720, 8vo. This is the most superficial of all his surveys, except in a few towns; nor were the map and plans of Peterborough and Northampton referred to in it ever engraved. Norden was not only a practical surveyor, but wrote a good treatise on the subject, entitled “The Surveyor’s Dialogue, &c.” 1607, 4to. Of this an account, with extracts, is given in the Cens. Lit. vol. I. There are some Mss. by Norden in the British Museum and other public libraries.

, an ingenious artist, was the son of Robert Norgate, D. D. master of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, and in his youth shewed a great inclination to heraldry and limning, in both of which he became very eminent, but his talent in illuminating the initial letters of patents, was chiefly admired. His judgment in paintings also was considered very great, for which reason he was employed by the earl of Arundel, that celebrated collector of antiquities, to purchase pictures for him in Italy. Returning by Marseilles, and by some accident being disappointed of the remittances he expected, and totally unknown there, he was observed by a French gentleman, who, after inquiring into his circumstances, furnished him with the means of returning to his own country on foot. He was afterwards one of the clerks of the signet to ’Charles I. and as such attended his majesty to the North in 1640. He was also made Windsor herald for his great skill in heraldry, in which office he died, at the heralds’ college, Dec. 23, 1650, and was buried at St. Bennet’s, Paul’s Wharf, leaving the character of an honest, amiable, and accomplished man. Lloyd tells us that he left manuscripts to several of his friends to be published, but his intention in that point has not been executed. His letters, giving an account of the expedition against the Scotch in 1639, are among Dr. Birch’s “Historical Letters,” 3 vols. ms. in the British Museum, Ayscough’s catalogue. As an illuminator, the evidence of his abilities is a curious patent discovered some years ago. The late earl of Stirling received from a relation an old box of neglected writings, among which he found the original commission of Charles J. appointing his lordship’s predecessor, Alexander earl of Stirling, the celebrated poet, commander in chief of Nova Scotia, with the confirmation of the grant of that province made by James I. In the initial letter are the portraits of the king sitting on the throne, delivering the patent to the earl, and round the border representations in miniature of the customs, huntings, fishings, and productions, of the country, all in the highest preservation, and so admirably executed, that it was believed of the pencil of Vanclyck. But Mr. Walpole ascribes it to Norgate, who was allowed the best illuminator of that age.

, one of the most celebrated scholars of the seventeenth century, was born at Verona, Aug. 29, 1631. His baptismal name was Jerom, which he changed tO'Henry, when he entered the order of the Augustines. His family is said to have been originally of England, whence a branch passed into Ireland, and even to Cyprus. When this island was taken by the Turks, a James Noris, who had defended it as general of artillery, settled afterwards at Verona, and it is from this person that the subject of the present article descended. His father’s name was Alexander, and, according to Niceron, published several works, and among them a History of Germany. Maffei, however, attributes this work only to him, which is not a history of Germany, but of the German war from 1618 to the peace of Lubec, translated from the Italian by Alexander Noris. His son discovered, from his infancy, an excellent understanding, great vivacity, and a quick apprehension. His father, having instructed him in the rudiments of grammar, procured an able professor of Verona to be his preceptor. At fifteen, he was admitted a pensioner in the Jesuits’ college at Rimini, where he studied philosophy; after which, he applied himself to the writings of the fathers of the church, particularly those of St. Augustine; and, taking the habit in the convent of Augustine monks of Rimini, he so distinguished himself among that fraternity, that, as soon as he was out of his noviciate, the general of the order sent for him to Rome, in order to give him an opportunity of improving himself in the more solid branches of learning. Here he indulged his favourite propensity for study to the utmost, and spent whole days, and even nights, in the library of his order at Rome. His daily course of reading was fourteen hours, and this practice he continued till he became a cardinal. It, is easy to conceive that a student of such diligence, and whose memory and comprehension were equally great, must have accumulated a vast stock of knowledge. But for some time his reading was interrupted by the duties of a regent master being imposed on him, according to the usual practice; and we find that for some time he taught at Pesaro, and afterwards at Perugia, where he took his degree of doctor of divinity. Proceeding then to Padua, he applied himself to finish his “History of Pelagianism,” which he had begun at Rome, when he was no more than twentysix: and, having now completed his design, it was printed at Florence in 1673. The great duke of Tuscany invited him, the following year, to that city, made him his chaplain, and professor of ecclesiastical history in the university of Pisa, which the duke had founded with that view.

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

As to his character, he had a tincture of enthusiasm in his composition, which led him to imbibe the principles of the idealists in philosophy, and the mystics in theology; and the whole turn of his poetry shews that enthusiasm made him a poet. As an idealist, he opposed Locke, and adorned Malebranche’s opinion, of seeing all things in God, with all the advantages of style, and perspicuity of expression. A late writer who appears to have studied his works with almost the same enthusiasm that inspired them, says, that " in metaphysical acumen, in theological learning, and in purity of diction, Mr. Norris acknowledges no superior. Mr. Locke, the reputed discoverer of the true theory of the mind, does not rank higher in that peculiar branch of science than our penetrating divine; for if his reply to Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding be critically considered, it will be found to detect many fundamental errors in that celebrated treatise.

In much of this panegyric we cordially agree, but doubt whether the revival of Mr. Norris’s works would be benerjcial either to religion or philosophy. It cannot, however, be denied, that men of a similar cast of mind may be greatly benefited by some of his works; and we know that some of our most eminent divines have formed their theological studies upon them. Mr. Norris left a widow, two sons and a daughter. His eldest son was rector of Little Langford, and vicar of the two Chilterns, in Wiltshire. His second son, Thomas, was also a clergyman, and some time minister of Stroud, in Gloucestershire. They have both long been dead, as well as their mother, who died at the house of Mr. Bowyer, vicar of Martock, in Somersetshire, who married her daughter.

, who appears to be the first of this family entitled to notice in a work of this description, was born in 1581, and succeeded his grandfather Roger, second lord North, in 1600. From the biographer of the family, we learn that “he was a per on full of spirit and flame, yet after he had consumed the greatest part of his estate in the gallantries of king James’s court, or rather his son, prince Henry’s, retired, and lived more honourably in the country, upon what was left, than ever he had done before.” He is said, however, in another authority, to have carried into the country with him the dregs of an old courtier, and was capricious, violent, vindictive, tyrannical, and unprincipled. In 1645 he pears to have acted with the parliament, and was nominated by them to the administration of the admiralty, in conjunction with the great earls of Northumberland, Essex, Warwick, and others. He died Jan. 16, 1666, being then eighty-five years of age, and was buried at Kertling, or Cartlage. He lived to see his grandchildren almost all grown up, and Francis, the second of them, beginning to rise at the bar. He was the author of a miscellany in prose and verse, entitled “A Forest of Varieties, first part,” 1645 a second part had the title of “Exonerations” and a third part included “Privadoes, or Extravagants.” The whole were reprinted in 1659. The prose, says lord Orford, which is affected and obscure, with many quotations and allusions to Scripture and the classics, consists of essays, letters, characters in the manner of sir Thomas Overbury, and devout meditations on his misfortunes.' The verse, though not very poetic, is more natural. Sir E. Brydges, in his “Memoirs of the English Peerage, has given considerable extracts from this publication,” as it is by no means common, and as it lays open many traits of the noble author’s life and character, with much energy, feeling, ability, and eloquence." He appears likewise from these essays and letters to have been perfectly conscious of the errors of his early life, although he might not be able to conquer his temper in old age.

, lord Guilford, lord keeper of the great seal in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. was the second son of the preceding, and was born about 1640. He had his grammar learning, in which he was a great proficient, at Bury-school, whence he was admitted a fellowcommoner of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, in 1653. His conversation is said to have been remarkably agreeable and facetious, while his diligent advancement in his studies afforded him more solid claims on the esteem of the society. But, as he was originally designed for the law, after two or three years spent at the university, he was removed to the Middle Temple. Here he applied with great diligence to the main object, yet continued to improve himself in history, classics, and languages. He acquired French, Italian, Spanish, and Dutch, and became not only a good lawyer, but was esteemed very accomplished in mathematics, philosophy, and music. He used to say, that, if he had not diverted his attention by these studies, and by the practice of music particularly, he should never have been a lawyer. He used to spend much of his early vacations with his grandfather, who loved to hear him talk of philosophy, and the news of London. The biographer of the Norths informs us that he made him “play at backgammon, and fid lie, whenever he thought fit; and the course of life altogether was not displeasing to a young person, for here was fishing, billiards, hunting, visiting, and all the country amusements.”

On commencing business at the bar, the friendship and instructions of sir Jeffery Palmer, attorney-general, and the Hydes, greatly contributed to his proficiency, and advanced his practice. By means of the first named gentleman he had a favourable opportunity of shewing his abilities. The story of the five members in king Charles the First’s time, is well known, who, being prosecuted for the riot committed in the house of commons, in holding the speaker down in his chair, were convicted. After the restoration, the commons thought that the records of this conviction might be prejudicial to the privilege of that house, and ordered a writ of error to be brought; and Mr. Attorney was to find counsel to argue for the king, against the lord Hollis, who was one of the five, and first named in the record. Mr. Attorney being an assistant in the house of lords, could not argue, nor could he prevail upon any of the Serjeants, or other practisers to do it; for they said it was against the commons of England, and they durst not undertake it. At last he appointed Mr. North, "who prepared his argument, which was delivered at the bar of the house of lords; and though the commons carried the cause, yet his argument was approved, and particular notice was taken of his comely youth, and of his modest but forcible reasoning. The duke of York was pleased to inquire who that young gentleman was, who had argued so well; and prevailed with the king to encourage him by making him one of his counsel.

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

The death of king Charles involving him in much business, and his enemies Sunderland and Jefferies acquiring considerable influence in the new court, he took a resolution to quit the seal, and went to lord Rochester to intercede with his majesty to accept it. But that noble lord, who considered his opposition to the popish inclinations of the court as of great importance, diverted him from his purpose; but, as his health was visibly impaired, lord Rochester obtained of the king, that lord Guilford might retire with the seal into the country, with the proper officers attending, jn hopes that, by proper regimen and fresh air, he might recover his health against the winter. He died, however, Sept. 5, 1685, at his seat at Wroxton, near Ban bury. Burnet and Kennett have given no very favourable character of him; and the author of “The Lives of the Lords Chancellors” accuses him of yielding too much to court-measures. If we may credit his biographer, however, he appears to have exerted considerable independence of mind, and to have disapproved of many of the measures both of Charles II. and James; but such were his notions of loyalty, as to prevent him from an avowed opposition, even when he felt, and to his friends expressed, most disgust. While his private character was strictly virtuous and unexceptionable, he did not, according to his brother’s account, want zeal to promote the good of his country, which he thought would most effectually be done, by supporting the Church and Crown of England in all due and legal prerogatives and from these principles he never swerved. He wrote, 1. a An Alphabetical Index of Verbs Neuter,“printed with Lilly’s Grammar compiled while he was at Bury school. 2. A paper” on the Gravitation of Fluids considered in the Bladders of Fishes,“printed in Lowthorp’s Abridgment of the Philosophical Transactions, vol. II. p. 845. It appears that his lordship’s hint was approved, and pursued, by Mr. Boyle and Mr. Ray, whose papers on that subject are entered in the same collection. 3.” An Answer to a paper of Sir Samuel Moreland on his Static Barometer.“This was never published; but we may observe, to his honour, that it was through his means that barometers were first publicly sold in shops, which before were very rare. 4.” A Philosophical Essay on Music, 1677.“Dr. Burney says, that though some of the philosophy of this essay has been since found to be false, and the rest has been more clearly illustrated and explained, yet, considering the small progress which had been made in so obscure and subtil a subject as the propagation of sound, when this book was written, the experiments and conjectures must be allowed to have considerable merit. The Scheme, or Table of Pulses, at the beginning, shewing the coincidence of vibrations in musical concords, is new, and conveys a clear idea to the eye, of what the ratio of sounds, in numbers, only communicates to the intellect. These coincidences, upon which the degrees of perfection in concords depend, being too rapid for the sense of hearing to enable us to count, are here delineated in such a manner as explains the doctrine of vibrations even to a person that is deaf. This pamphlet, containing only 35 pages, was published without the name of the author; but afterwards acknowledged to have been the work of lord keeper North. His delineation of the harmonical vibration of strings seems to have been adopted by Euler, in his” Tentamen novae Theorise musicae.“The keeper was said, in our last edition, to have composed several concerto* in two and three parts; but no composition, in fewer than four or five parts, is ever honoured with the title of concerto; nor was this title given to instrumental music during the life of lord keeper North. Besides the above, we have from his pen some political essays and narratives, published in whole or part, in his Life by Roger North, and in his” Examen," lord Sommers’ tracts, &c.

, fourth son of Dudley lord North, and brother to the preceding lord Guilford, was born in London, Sept. 4, 1645. In his youth he was of a delicate constitution, and serious turn of mind, circumstances which are said to have determined his parents in the choice of the church as a profession. He received the first principles of education at Bury school, and afterwards, while at home, his father initiated him in logic and metaphysics. In 1661 he was admitted a fellow-commoner of Jesus college, Cambridge, but on the barony descending to his father, he appeared in the academic garb of a nobleman, although without varying from his plan of study, or the punctual obedience he gave to every part of college discipline. He is said to have been particularly attentive to the public exercises and lectures, but was one of the first who conceived that the latter mode of instruction was less useful since students had more easy access to books. The collection of these was one of his earliest passions, and we learn from his brother that he had the usual predilections of a collector for the best editions, fine printing, and elegant bindings, and bought many editions of the same author, and many copies of the same edition, and in this way soon became master of a very valuable library, particularly rich in Greek authors, that and the Hebrew being his favourite studies while at college. After taking his degree of B. A. he was admitted fellow of Jesus, Sept. 28, ie66, by the king’s mandate. He afterwards took his master’s degree, and was incorporated in the same at Oxford, June 15, 1669. In 1671 he was admitted to holy orders, and preached his first, or one of “his first sermons, before Charles II. at Newmarket, which was published the same year. About the same time he assisted Dr. Gale with the” Pythagorica Fragmenta,“published in that learned author’s” Opuscula," who handsomely acknowledges the favour in his preface.

In November 1672 he was elected Greek professor at Cambridge. Tr.e first church preferment he had was the sine-cure of Llandiuon -in Wales, given him by archbishop Sheldon; on this he quitted his fellowship, and procured himself to be admitted of Trinity college, for the sake of being more nearly connected with the master, Dr. Isaac Barrow, for whom he had the greatest esteem. About this time he was appointed clerk of the closet to Charles II. who also bestowed on him a prebend in Westminster in Jan. 1673 and on his majesty’s visit to Cambridge he was created D. D. out of respect to the duke of Lauderdale, whose chaplain he then was, and whose character his brother has very weakly endeavoured to defend Among his official duties, it is recorded that in 1676, Dr. North baptised Isabella, second daughter of James duke of York and Mary D'Este.

Some facts, however, may be added, which are admitted on all sides, and on which future information can throw very little new light. It may be added that lord North entered upon the war with America upon a principle recognized not only by the most decided majorities in parliament, but by the voice of the nation. To this last there was no exception but in the proceedings of a party in the metropolis, whose dissatisfaction arose from other causes, and who embraced this favourable opportunity to mix something national with the petty concerns of John Wilkes. On the other hand, no minister had ever to contend with so many difficulties; a question of right, which many disputed; the disaffection of the colonies, which was applauded and encouraged within his hearing in the house of commons; an army which, even if it had appeared at once in the field of battle, had to encounter physical difficulties; but which was sent out with hesitation, and in such divisions that the portion to be assisted was generally defeated before that which was to assist had arrived; a navy likewise incapable of coping with the numerous European enemies that combined against Great Britain, and as yet in the infancy only of that glory to which we have seen it arrive. Added to these, lord North had to contend in parliament with an opposition more ample in talents and personal consequence than perhaps ever appeared at one time, and with the uninterrupted hostility of the corporation of London to all his measures, and to the court itself. For such a force of opposition lord North was not in all respects qualified. Even Burke, whose irritating language during tfye American war seemed beyond all endurance, could allow, that “lord North wanted something of the vigilance and spirit of command that the time required.” Yet with all these discouragements, it was only the actual failure of the measures of subjugation that lessened his majorities, and turned the tide of popular sentiment. It was not conviction, but disappointment, which made the war obnoxious; and the “right of taxation,” the “ingratitude of the colonies,” “unconditional submission,” ana even the epithet “rebellion,” applied to their resistance, never ceased to be urged until repeated failures prescribed a different language, and made thousands question the principle as well as the policy of the war, who at its commencement did not entertain a doubt on the subject. It was now that the ministry of lord North was charged with misconduct and incapacity; and such misconduct and incapacity being but too obvious in the blunders of those who had to execute his orders, it was not wonderful that the supporters of the war should gradually desert the ministerial standard, and that ministers should sink under the accumulated weight of parliamentary and popular odium. After a few faint efforts, therefore, to which he seemed rather impelled than inclined, lord North gave in his resignation in March 1732. That he had lately acted under the influence to which we formerly alluded, seemed to he about this time more generally believed, for some of the last endeavours of the opposition to procure his dismissal, had the “influence of the crown” for their avowed object; and as they approached nearer the accomplishment of their wishes, their threats to bring this guilty minister to his trial became louder. When, however, he made way for his successors, they not only granted him fu-ll indemnity for the past, but at no great distance of time, associated with him in a new administration, a measure to which the public could never be reconciled. The coalition which placed lord North and Mr. Fox in the same cabinet was more repugnant to general feeling than any one, or perhaps the aggregate, of lord North’s measures, when in the plenitude of his power. When the voice of the nation, and the spirit of its sovereign, had dismissed this administration, lord North returned no more to power, and took 110 very active part in politics, except on two occasions, when he maintained the consistency of his former political life, by opposing the repeal of the test act, and a scheme for the reform of parliament. In 1790 he succeeded his father in the earldom, but survived him only two years, during which he had the misfortune to lose his sight. He passed his last days in the calmness and endearments of domestic privacy, to which his cheerful and benign temper m was peculiarly adapted. His lordship died August 5, 1792. He was at this time, ranger and warden of Busby Park; chancellor of the university of Oxford; a knight of the garter; lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Somerset; recorder of Gloucester and Taunton, one of the elder brethren of the Trinity-house; president of the Foundling-hospital and the Asylum, and governor of the Turkey company and Charter-house.

In March 1756, he married Anne, daughter and co-heir of George Speke, of White Lackington, in the county of Somerset, esq. by whom he had a numerous issue. He was succeeded in titles and estate by his eldest son, George Augustus, who dying without male issue in 1794, was succeeded by his brother Francis, present and fourth earl of Guilford. Of the talents of lord North, much was said during his administration, and it is perhaps his highest praise, that against such a force of opposition, he could act so well upon the defensive. With many personal defects, he contrived to exhibit a species of eloquence which seemed easy and habitual, and always commanded attention. On subjects of finance, his abilities were generally acknowledged^ he reasoned closely and he replied with candour and temper, not unfrequently, however, availing himself of his wit. But as an orator, there were men of far more brilliant talents opposed to him; and as a statesman in general, he cannot be compared to his successor Pitt. He perhaps approaches the nearest to sir Robert Walpole, and like him seldom displayed the commanding energies of mind, but was content to follow the track of official duties, and to defend individual measures, arising out of temporary necessities, without professing any general system applicable to all occasions. But whatever were the errors or defects in lord North’s public conduct,' there lies no impeachment on his integrity. He neither enriched himself nor his family, nor was he ever accused of turning ministerial information. or influence to the purposes of pecuniary emolument. To the last moment of his life, he reviewed his conduct and his principles with satisfaction, and professed his readiness to defend them against any inquiry that could be instituted. What such inquiry can produce, must be the subject of future discovery. All we know at present is, that the moment he resigned, his public accusers became silent.

In 1743 he was presented to the vicarage of Codicote, and in 1744 was appointed chaplain to lord Cathcart. In the same year he took his degree of M. A. and drew up a catalogue of Mr. West’s series of coins, intending a prefatory account of them, and a catalogue of Dr. Ducarel’s English coins. With this last gentleman he continued his correspondence in 1748 and 1749, copious extracts from which are given in our authority. In the spring of 1750 he made a tour into the West; and on his return communicated very freely to Dr. Ducarel his ideas of the proceedings respecting a charter, then in agitation at the Society of Antiquaries, and of which he appears to have entertained very groundless fears. By one of his letters, in August 1750, it appears that he had not enjoyed three days of good health for more than a year; and was then labouring under several bodily complaints, and apprehensive of an epilepsy. He continued, however, as often as he was able, to indulge in literary pursuits, and extend his researches into every matter of antiquity that engaged the attention of his contemporaries and correspondents. In 1751, the rev. Charles Clarke, of Baiiol college, Oxford, published “Some Conjectures relative to a very antient Piece of Money lately found at Eltham in Kent, endeavouring to restore it to the place it merits in the Cimeliarch of English Coins, and to prove it a coin of Richard the first king of England of that name. To which are added, some Remarks on a dissertation (lately published) on Oriuna the supposed wife of Carausius, and on the Roman coins there mentioned,” 1751, 4to. To this Mr. North published an answer, entitled “Remarks on some Conjectures, &c. shewing the improbability of the notion therein advanced, that the arguments produced in support of it are inconclusive or irrelative to the pointin question,” 1752, 4to. In this answer, which was the first piece published by any of the society after their incorporation, Mr. North considered at large the standard and purity of our most ancient English coins, the state of the mints, and the beginning of sterling, from the public records; and added to it, “An Epistolary Dissertation (addressed to Mr. Vertue) on some supposed Saxon gold coins; read before the Society of Antiquaries, Dec. 19, 1751.” No man could be better qualified for this task than Mr. North, who, by his intimacy with Mr. Holmes and Mr. Folkes (the latter of whom he mentions in the highest terms), became perfectly acquainted with the records and whole state and history of the English coinage. Mr. Charles Clarke, however, a member of the Society, announced a design of proving Mr. North wrong in his “Epistolary Dissertation” but luckily for himself, discovered that his own premises would not support any such conclusion, and therefore his publication never appeared.

In 1752 Mr. North had made a considerable progress in “Remarks on the Money of Henry III.” which had then engaged his attention for more than three years, and for which he had actually engraved two plates, and hoped to have it ready for publication in the ensuing winter; but nothing on the subject was found among his Mss. after his death. The plates, however, which were purchased at Dr. Lort’s sale by Mr. Gough, who worked off a few impressions for his friends, are now in the possession of the . rev. Rogers Ruding, F. S. A. vicar of Maldon in Surrey, from whom the public may soon expect a very elaborate work on English coinage. In 1752 Mr. North was involved in law suits with his parishioners, some of whom had not paid him for tithes or offerings for many years, and obliged him to take the harshest steps to obtain justice, which was the more hard upon him, as his living was a very small one. 6n this painful subject he had frequent occasion to consult with Dr. Ducarel, to whom he also this year addressed several letters relative to the proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries; and others respecting the tour which Dr. Ducarel made to Normandy, for the purpose of inspecting its antiquities. In this correspondence, much of which is inserted in Mr. Nichols’s valuable work, the reader will find many curious remarks on subjects of architecture, and on scarce books and coins. To such matters his whole attention was devoted, except in one instance, in which he appears to have been under the influence of a more tender passion, and addressed some lines entitled Welwyn Spaw," lamenting the cold disdain of some apparently real Celia. These are inserted in the Literary Magazine for 1755, p. 209; in which year also he drew up the catalogue of Dr. Mead’s coins for public sale; and in the following year meditated some account of the Cromwell family.

, a physician and celebrated astrologer, was born Dec. 14, 1503, at St. Remy, in the diocese of Avignon. His father was a notary public, and his grandfather a physician, who instructed him in the elements of the mathematics. He Afterwards completed his courses of humanity and philosophy at Avignon, and studied physic at Montpelier; but the plague raging in 1525, he became a travelling physician for five years, and undertook all such patients as were willing to put themselves under his care. After this fee returned to Montpelier, and was created doctor of his faculty in 1529, and then revisited the places where he had practised physic before. At Agen, he contracted an acquaintance with Julius Caesar Scaliger, which induced him to make some stay in that town, where he married; but upon the death of his wife, four years after, he went first to Marseilles, and then, in 154-4, to Salon, where he married a second time.

In 1546, Aix being afflicted with the plague, he went thither, at the solicitation of the inhabitants, and was of so great service, by a powder of his own invention, that the town gave him a considerable pension for several years after the contagion ceased. He appears to have been equally successful in 1547, when the city of Lyons, being visited with the same distemper, had recourse to him; but upon his return to Salon, found that his popularity had decreased. This occasioned his having more leisure to apply to his studies; and now he began to think himself inspired, and miraculously illuminated with a prospect into futurity, notions which he had partially entertained for some time. When these pretended illuminations discovered to him any future evenl, he entered it in writing, in prose, but he afterwards thought the sentences would savour more of a prophetic spirit, if they were expressed in verse. This opinion determined him to throw them all into quatrains, and he afterwards ranged them into centuries. When this was done, he resolved to print them, with a dedication addressed to his son Caesar, an infant only some months old, in the form of a letter, or preface. This first edition, which is included in seven centuries, was printed by Rigault at Lyons in 1568, 8vo. He prefixed his name in Latin, but gave to his son Caesar the name as it is pronounced, Notradame. This work was reprinted twice in the same year, and while some considered him as an impostor, there were others, and among them persons of considerable rank aud influence, who believed him to be really endued with the supernatural gift of prophecy. However, Henry II. and queen Catharine of Medicis, his mother, very graciously received him at court; and, besides other marks of respect paid to him, he received a present of 200 crowns. He was sent afterwards to Blois, to visit his majesty’s children there, and report what he should be able to discover concerning their destinies; and thence he returned to Salon loaded with honours and presents. Animated with this success, he augmented his work from 300 quatrains to the number of a complete miliiade, and published it with adedication to the king in 1558. That prince dying the next year of a wound which he received, as is well known, at a tournament, the book of our prophet was immediately consulted; and this unfortunate event was found in the 35th quatrain of the first century, in these lines:

, comptroller of the royal edifices of France, and an eminent planner of gardens, was born at Paris in 1613. We know little of him, except that he was brought up as a gardener under his father, until about 1653, when he was first employed by the superintendant Fouquet, to lay out the magnificent gardens of Vaux-le-Vicomte, celebrated by La Fontaine in his poems. In this work he was the creator of those porticoes, covered walks, grottoes, labyrinths, &c. which then were thought the greatest ornaments of gardens, and particularly gratified the taste of Louis XIV. who employed him in the decoration of his favourite residences at Versailles, Trianon, Fontainbleau, &c. Le Nostre went to Rome in 1678, and afterwards travelled through Italy; and it is said he found nothing in the most celebrated gardens equal to what he had himself executed. While at Rome, pope Innocent XI, was desirous of seeing le Notre, and gave him a long audience, at the conclusion of which the latter exclaimed, “I have now seen the two greatest men in the world your holiness, and the king, my master” “There is a great difference between them,” replied the pope “the king is a great and victorious prince, and I am a poor priest, servant of the servants of God.” Le Notre, delighted with this answer, and forgetting by whom it was made, clapped his hand on the pope’s shoulder, saying, “My reverend father, you are in good health, and will bury all the sacred college;” and Le Notre, more and more charmed with the sovereign pontiff’s kindness, and the particular esteem he expressed for the king, fell upon his neck, and embraced him. It was his custom thus to embrace all who praised Louis XIV.; and he embraced that prince himself every time he returned from the country. He was some time in England, and, probably on the invitation of Charles II. laid out St. James’s and Greenwich parks. In 1675, when he was again in France, his long services were rewarded by letters of noblesse, and the cross of St. Michael. The king would have given him a coat of arms, but he replied that he had one already, “consisting of three snails surmounted by a cabbage.” At the age of four-score he desired permission to retire, which the king granted him, on condition that he would sometimes come and see him. He died at Paris, in 1700, at the age of 87. He is said to have had a fine taste for the arts in general, especially for that of painting; and some pieces of his execution are mentioned as existing in the royal cabinet.

, surnamed Bras de Fer (Iron Arm), a celebrated warrior, was born in Bretany, in 1531, In his youth he served in Italy, and, returning to France, joined the Calvinists, and rendered them the most important services by his courage, prudence, and integrity. He took Orleans from the catholics, Sept. 28, 1567; commanded the rear at the battle of Jarnac in 1569, and made himself master of several strong places. His left arm being broken at the taking of Fontenay in Poitou, it was cut off at Rochelle, and he had an iron one made, which he used with great ease, and was from thence surnamed Bras de Fer. In 1578, La Noue engaged in the service of the Netherlands, gave them great assistance, and made count Egmont prisoner at the capture of Ninove; but was himself taken prisoner in 1580, and not exchanged for the count till 1585. La Noue continued to serve with great glory under king Henry IV. but was mortally wounded in the head, by a musket-ball, at the siege of Lambale in 1591, and died a few days after. He left “Discours Politiques,” Geneva, 1587, 4to. His son, Odet de la Noue, who died between 1611 and 1620, was author of some “Poesies Chretiennes,” Geneva, 1504, 8vo.

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

, an eminent English divine, and the last surviving father of the English Reformation, descended from an ancient family of Norman origin, was the son of John Nowejl, esq, of Read, in the parish of Whailey, a,nd county of Lancaster. This gentleman, who was twice married, had, by his first wife, Dowsabel, daughter of Robert Hesketh, esq. of Rufford, in Lancashire, an only son, Roger Noweli, whose issue male, in a direct line, enjoyed the family estates for more than two centuries. By his second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Kay of Rachdale, he had four sons, Alexander, the subject of this article, Laurence, Robert, and Nicholas; and several daughters. Alexander was born in 1507 or 1508, at Readhall, anciently Rivehead or Riverhead, a mansion on the Calder, a tributary branch of the Ribble. A view of this his birth-place, as it stood in 1750, is given in Mr. archdeacon Churton’s “Life of Alexander Noweli,” a work which has furnished the substance of this sketch.

He was educated at Middleton, about six miles from Manchester; but who was his preceptor there we have not learnt. That his elementary progress was rapid, we may reasonably presume, as he was deemed ripe for the university, where, however, early entrances were then more frequent, at the age of thirteen. Respecting this number a singular coincidence is mentioned, whether it were the result of choice, or of accident. He became a member of Brasen-nose college at the age of thirteen; he resided there thirteen years and he afterwards bestowed on the society thirteen scholarships. He is said to have been chamber-fellow with Fox, the martyrologist, and had perhaps the same tutor, Mr. John Hawarden, or Harding, who was afterwards principal of the college. We are assured that he was a public reader of logic in the university, and taught the famous book of Rodolphus Agricola, when he was in the twentieth year of his age. He was then (and there seem to be examples of the same delay at that time), only an undergraduate, and was not admitted B. A. until May 29, 1536, when he was of ten or twelve years standing. He was elected fellow, of the college shortly afterwar, is, and proceeded M. A. June 10, 1540.

He had directed his intent to the church ever since he was sixteen years old; but it is not known when or bv whom he was admitted into holy orders. When he left the university he came to London, and obtained the office of second master of Westminster-school, on the new foundation, appointed in 1543. While he filled this important post, he is said to have been diligent in teaching his pupils pure language and true religion: using for the former purpose Terence, and for the latter St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, in the original Greek. He appears to have been licensed as a preacher in 1550, but where he exercised his talent we are not particularly informed: except that he preached, during this reign, “in some of the notablest places and auditories df the realm.” The first production of his pen that we have met with was some lines in honour of the memory of Bucer, who died at Cambridge in 1551, which shew that he was of congenial sentiments on the subject of religion with that celebrated reformer; and the same year he held an interesting conference with Redmayne, master of Trinity college, Cambridge, then on his death-bed, respecting the principal articles which separated the English from the Romish church. In that year also he succeeded Redmayne as one of the prebendaries of Westminster.

In the first parliament of queen Mary, in 1553, Nowell was returned one of the burgesses for Loo, in Cornwall; but a committee being appointed to inquire into the validity of the return, they reported that *' Alexander Nowell being a prebendary of Westminster, and thereby having a voice in the convocation-house, cannot be a member of this house,“and a new writ was directed to” be issued accordingly. Nowell quietly submitted to this decision, although it was not correct as to the law; for none below the dignity of dean or archdeacon were bound to personal appearance in the convocation; but these were not times for men desirous of retaining peace and a good conscience, to insist rigidly on their right, against the prevailing party; and he soon afterwards found it necessary to join his countrymen who were exiles in Germany, from the persecuting spirit of popery. Of this event we are only told, that Bonner, having intended him as one of his victims, he was assisted in his escape by Francis Bowyer, at that time a merchant, and afterwards sheriff of London. In 1554, we find him at Strasburgh, with Jewell, Poinet, Grindal, Sandys, and other men of future eminence in the Reformed Church. In the unfortunate disputes which afterwards took place among these exiles, respecting church discipline, Nowell took a moderate part, sometimes, for the sake of peace, conceding to the presbyterian party: but at last, with equal wisdom and firmness, pressing unity in essentials, and’submission in smaller matters to authority duly appointed and legally exercised.

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

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

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

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

During the troubles in Mary’s days he was concealed for some time in the house of sir John Perrot, at Carewcastle in Pembrokeshire; but before the queen died, he went to his brother Alexander and the exiles in Germany. On his return he was made archdeacon of Derby and dean of Lichfield, in April 1559; had the prebend of Ferring in the cathedral of Chichester in August 1563, and of Ampleford in York in 1566, and the rectory of Haughton and Drayton Basset, in the county of Stafford. He died in or about the month of October, 1576. He was, as Wood justly observes, “a most diligent searcher into venerable antiquity.” He bad also this peculiar merit, that he revived and encouraged the neglected study of the Saxon language, so essential to the accurate knowledge of our legal antiquities, as well as to the elucidation of ecclesiastical and civil history. In these studies, while he resided, as is said, in the chambers of his brother Robert Nowell (the queen’s attorney- general of the court of wards), he had the celebrated William Lambarde for his pupil, who availed himself of his notes and assistance in composing his learned work on the ancient laws of England. He wrote a Saxon vocabulary or dictionary, still extant in manuscript, which he gave to his pupil Lambarde, from whom it passed to Somner, the learned antiquary of Canterbury, who made use of it in compiling his Saxon dictionary. It then came into the hands of Mr. Selden, and is now, with other books of that great man, printed and manuscript, reposited in the Bodleian library at Oxford. Mr. Thoresby, the historian of Leeds, had a quarto ms. entitled “Polychronicon,” a miscellaneous collection, as it seems, containing perambulations of forests and other matters, in the hand-writing of Lawrence Nowell, 1565. There are also “Collectanea” by him, relating chietiy to ecclesiastical affairs, in the Cotton library. He appears to have been in learning, piety, and meekness of spirit, the worthy brother of the dean of St. Paul’s.

, attorney-general in the reign of Charles I. the son of William Noy, of St. Burian, in Cornwall, gent, was born in 1577. In 1593 he was entered of Exeter-college, where he continued three years in close application to his studies. Thence he was removed to Lincoln’s- inn, to study the common law, in the knowledge of which he became very eminent. He was chosen to represent the borough of Helston in his own country, towards the end of James’s reign, in two parliaments; in both of which he shewed himself a professed enemy to the king’s prerogative. In 1625 he was elected a burgess for St. Ives, in which parliament, and another following, he continued in the same sentiments, until he was made attorney-general in 1631, which produced a total change in his views, and he became not only a supporter of the prerogative where it ought to be supported, but carried his notions of this power so far as to advise the measure of ship-money, a tax levied without consent of parliament. He was unquestionably a man of great abilities, but flattered so much upon that account, that Clarendon says he thought “he could not give a clearer testimony that his knowledge in the law was greater than all other men’s, than by making that law, which all other men believed not to” be so. So he moulded, framed, and pursued the odious and crying project of soap; and with his own hand drew and prepared the writ for ship-money; both which will be the lasting monuments of his fame. In a word,“adds this excellent historian,” he was an unanswerable instance, how necessary a good education and knowledge of men is to make a wise man, at least a man fit for business.“Noy, however, did not live to see the full effect of his measures. In 1634 his health was much impaired by the fatigue arising from his professional duties, and he retired to Tunbridge Wells, where he died in August, and was buried at New Brentford. His will, which is dated June 3, about a month or six weeks before his death, contains the following singular clause:” All the rest of my estate I leave to my son Edward (who is executor to this my will), to be squandered as he shall think fit I leave it him for that purpose, and I hope no better from him.“Steele, in the Tatler, No. 9, observes that this” generous disdain, and reflection upon how little he deserved from so excellent a father, reformed the young man, and made Edward from an arrant rake become a fine gentleman." No such effect however followed; and within two years he was killed in a duel.

Earl Nugent cultivated literature not unsuccessfully, had agreeable talents for poetry, but never rose to great eminence as a politician. Yet he was a steady friend to his country (Ireland), and always a powerful pleader for her interests. This he evinced rather whimsically on one occasion in 1775, by addressing “Verses to the Queen, with a New Year’s Gift of Irish Manufacture,” a 4to poem, accompanied by a present of Irish grogram. The wits of the time asserted that her majesty was graciously pleased to thank the noble author for both his pieces of stuff. Lord Orford says that Earl Nugent “was one of those men of parts whose dawn was the brightest moment of a long life; and who, though possessed of different talents, employed them in depreciating his own fame, and destroying all opinion of his judgment, except in the point of raising bimself to honours. He was first known by the noble ode on his own conversion from popery; yet, strong as was the energy and reasoning in it, his arguments operated but temporary conviction on himself, for he died a member of the church he had exposed so severely.” So much was this ode admired that, as he was known to associate with the wits of Pope’s circle, and those who adorned the court of Frederick prince of Wales, he was supposed to have been assisted by some of them; but for this there seems no reasonable ground. Many of his poetical productions are good, and he was certainly known to be capable of the best of them, while he could at the same time descend to the worst, inconscious of their inferiority. A volume of his poems was published anonymously by Dodsley, and entitled “Odes and Epistles,” Lond. 1739, 8vo, 2d. edit. This contains the ode above mentioned on his religion, which is addressed to William Pulteney, esq. There are also other pieces by him in Dodsley’s collection, and the *' New Foundling Hospital for Wit.“His” Verses to the Queen,“and his” Faith, a poem," were the only ones published separately, the latter in 1774, and the former in 1775. The latter was a strange attempt to overturn the Epicurean doctrine by that of the Trinity, and was certainly one of those productions by which, as lord Orford observes, he depreciated his own fame.

, a miscellaneous writer and translator of the last century, was a native of Ireland, who merits some notice, although we have not been able to recover many particulars of his history. He appears to have resided the greater part of his life in London, and employed his pen on various works for the booksellers, principally translations. In 1765 he received the degree of LL. D. from the university of Aberdeen. He died at his apartments in Gray’s Inn, April 27, 1772, with the character of a man of learning, industry, and contented temper. The first of his translations which we have met with, was that of Burlamaqui’s “Principles of Politic Law,” 1752, 8vo. This was followed by the abbe de Condillac’s “Essay on the origin of Human Knowledge,” 1756, 8vo. Macquer’s “Chronological abridgment of the Roman History,” 1759, 8vo; and Henault’s “Chronological abridgment of the History of France,” 1762, 2 vols. 8vo. In 1766 he travelled on the continent for the purpose of collecting materials for his “History of Vandalia,” which he completed in 3 vols. 4to, in 1776. This tour also occasioned his publishing “Travels through Germany,” &c. 2 vols. 8vo. We find him afterwards appearing as compiler or translator of a “Historyof France” “New Observations on Italy;” “The present state of Europe;” the “Life of Benv^nuto Cellini” Grossley’s “Tour to London” a French Dictionary, &c. &c. His translations were generally admired for elegance and accuracy; his principal faifure was in tjr^translation of Rousseau' “Emilius,” but it seems doubtful whether he translated this, or only permitted his name to be used.

This gentleman has often been confounded with Christopher Nugent, M. D. and F. R. S. who died Nov. 12, 1775, and whose daughter became the wife of the celebrated Edmund Burke. Sir John Hawkins says he was an ingenious, sensible, and learned man 1 of easy conversation, and elegant manners. Dr. Johnson had a high opinion of him, and always spoke of him in terms of great respect. We know of only one publication from his pen, which appeared ia 1753, an “Essay on the Hydrophobia.”

, a very ingenious man, was the son of Robert and Sarah Nutt, and born at Hinckley in September 1700. He was educated at the free grammar-school in that town, where he made a very considerable progress in learning; and at a proper age, was put apprentice to Mr. John Parr of Hinckley, an eminent apothecary; in, which station, by his diligence and industry, he gained great confidence and respect from his master and the whole family. After this, he attended the hospitals in London; and on his return to Hinckley, carried on for many years a considerable business with reputation and success. Some time about the middle of life he was chosen one of the surveyors of the highways for the parish, when he adopted a new method for improving the same, by turning over the roads the water that came from the town; which being considerably enriched by washing the streets and public sinks, what he could spare from the roads, or rather after it had done the business there, he conveyed upon the lands of those who approved of his proceedings. The consequence was, the land was greatly enriched. The effect of the water upon the road, in that part below the town that is now the Coventry turnpike-road, was, that it served like a boultingmill; the muddy foul parts upon the land being carried off, and the sandy, gravelly, and stony parts, remaining by their own gravity, were left firm; for the. road was sometimes wet, and sometimes dry, as he let it out of a reservoir for that purpose at pleasure. By this method it became good for saddle and pack-horses; the last of which were much used upon the roads at that time, the pit-coal from the Warwickshire mines being brought by them in considerable quantities. It was also much better for the draft horses; though when much used by these, especially in the coal business, the wheels of these carriages being at that time very narrow, and generally laying on great loads, were apt to disturb and cut the roads; for the materials used were commonly sand dug by the road side, which was done at a moderate expence. If upon this more gravelly or stony materials had been applied, there is no doubt, though the expence would have been greater, the road would have been much better. This, being a new way of proceeding, met with a difference of reception in the parish; and some enemies were ready on every occasion to insult and ridicule their surveyor. He spent much of his time in the valuation of land, and many persons entertained a good opinion of his abilities in this branch, particularly sir Dudley Ryder, when attorney-general, the ancestor of the present lord Harrowby.

, is the name of a family of painters, of whom Panfilo, the father, a Cremonese, was the favourite scholar of Trotti, and for some time the imitator of his style, but afterwards relinquished it for one more solid, though less alluring. Placentia and Milan possess his best works. He flourished about 1608. His eldest son, Charles Francis, was born in 1608, at Milan, and left the principles of G. C. Procaccino for the graces of Guido with a success that still insures him the name of the Lombard Guido. More choice than copious in composition, he forms his figures with grace and delicacy, and sweetly animates their countenances; hence his Madonnas always occupy a distinguished place in galleries. He died in. 1651. His younger brother, Joseph, who was born in 1619, with more fire and fancy, delighted in numerous composition, and sacrificed choice and delicacy to energy and effect. He painted much more than his brother, not only in Lombardy, but through theVenetian state and in various churches of Brescia. The large picture of a dead man resuscitated by S. Dominic, at Cremona, for expression and magnificence of arrangement, may be considered as one of his most powerful productions totally exempt from those symptoms of decay which disfigure or debilitate many of his later works; for he lived to a great age, and continued to paint till death surprised him in 1703.

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

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

, an eminent classical scholar, editor, and antiquary, the son of a schoolmaster of Strasburgh, was born in that city Aug. 7, 1735. He entered the university in 1750, and applied with great assiduity to the usual studies, but his particular attention was directed to the lectures of the celebrated Schcepflin, who was so well pleased with his ardour for instruction, that he permitted him the use of his excellent library, and his cabinet of antiquities, and there he imbibed that taste for investigating the monuments of ancient times, which, became the ruling passion of his life. In 1757 he afforded the first indication of this, by sustaining a thesis on the ancient rites in burial, “Dissertatio philologica de veterum ritu condiendi inortuos.” During three subsequent years he studied theology, but apparently rather as a philologer than a divine; and when Dr. Kennicott was endeavouring to procure the variations of the 'Hebrew text of the Old Testament from all Europe, Oberlin collated for him four manuscripts in the library of the university of Strasburgh, of which he afterwards, in his “Miscellanea Literaria Argentoratensia,” published a description with specimens. In 1755 he became assistant to his father in the school which he taught at Strasburgh, and afterwards succeeded him in that situation, but his ambition was a professorship in the university, which, however, notwithstanding his growing reputation, he did not obtain for many years.

To the works already mentioned, we may add his excellent editions of “Tacitus” and “Caesar’s Commentaries,” and his “Annals of the Life of John Guttemberg, the inventor of printing,” in which he endeavoured to obviate all the objections that had been brought against Schcepflin’s assertion that Guttemberg was the first who employed moveable types.

, a learned German, was descended from a family, which came originally from Schlestadt, and had been raised to nobility in the person of his great-grandfather by the emperor Rodolphus II. in 1604. Ulric was born, July 23, 1646, at Strasburg, where he had the first part of his education, and then proceeded to study the sciences at Montbelliard and Altorf. He inherited both the inclination and taste of his ancestors, who were all distinguished by the posts they held, either in the university, or in the senate of Strasburg. The study of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues was almost the first amusement of his infancy; and he learned, with equal facility, French, Spanish, and Italian. At fifteen^ he was so good a rhetorician, that he composed and pronounced a Latin speech in public, with universal applause. The method prescribed by his preceptors was, to suffer him to read only the ancient authors, and to derive the principles of eloquence from the purest sources, Demosthenes, Cicero, Quintilian, Longinus, &c. He also pursued the same plan, in his course of philosophy; Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras, being principally recommended to him. His general knowledge at length settled in jurisprudence and history: in both which he excelled, and filled the chairs of both in the university with great distinction, being admired, not more for the great extent of his knowledge, than for his perspicuity in communicating it. He gave an account of all ages as if he had lived in them; and of all laws as if he had been the maker of them. With all this, he spoke of such subjects as he knew best, like a man who sought rather to be informed than to decide. As soon as he had taken his licentiate’s degree, he resolved to travel for farther improvement. In this view, he went first to Vienna in Austria, with Mr. Kellerman, the Muscovite ambassador, and visited the libraries and learned men wherever he came. He commenced author at nineteen, when he published a kind of “Commentary upon Scipio’s Dream,” and “A Dissertation upon the Principles of Civil and Political Prude-nee.”

In the mean time, his growing reputation increased the number of his scholars from all parts of Germany, to whom he read lectures in law and history. This employment left him few spare moments to his own studies; and he never thought of offering anything to the public but from necessity, or in compliance with the intreaties of his friends. Having made great proficiency in the study of medals, there was presented to him a very curious one of Domitiai upon the reverse of which appeared a goddess, which he conjectured to be the figure of Isis; and on this occasion he published his “Conjectures,” in 1675, with the title of “Epistola de Nummo Domitiani Isiaco.” After this, he turned his thoughts to the “Augustan History,” and collected and arranged all its writers in a new edition, accompanied with important notes: accordingly, the piece appeared in print, under the title of “Prodromus rerum Alsaticarum,” in 1680. It was, indeed, only an introduction to a larger work which he was meditating upon Alsace, in order to discover the origin, limits, rights, customs, wars, revolutions, &c. of that country; but the multiplicity of his employments obliged him to lay this aside. He printed, however, some detached treatises, as that upon the right of bearing the standard of the empire, “De Vexillo Imperil” to which honour the republic of Strasburg claimed an equal share with the dukes of Wirtemberg, who were in possession of it. He published also another piece, concerning the treaties which the states and princes of the empire make in their own names, “De Imperil Germanic! ejusque Statuum fcederibus” and, lastly, one more upon the rights of war, and the guarantees of peace, “De jure belli, et sponsoribus pacis.”

Hitherto Obrecht had professed the Protestant religion; but the king of France having made himself master of Strasburg, he was induced, by the persuasions of the Jesuits, who were established at Strasburg by Lewis XIV. to abjure his religion in 1648, at Paris. Upon his return to Strasburg, he w resumed his profession in the law; and it was about this time that he wrote the notes which we see in some editions of Grotius, “De jure belli ac pacis.” In 1685, the king of France nominated him to preside, in his majesty’s name, in the senate of Strasburg, with the title of praetor-royal, in imitation of the old Romans; and from that time Obrecht applied himself entirely to public affairs. The judges of Strasburg, according to the principles of the reformed religion, were empowered to dissolve marriages in case of adultery, and to enable the injured party to marry again. In opposition to this custom, Obrecht translated, into the German tongue, St. Austin’s book of adulterous marriages; and obtained from the king a prohibition, upon pain of death, either to tolerate or solemnize the marriage, for the future, of any persons that were separated or divorced for adultery. This edict was made in 1687; and, in 1688, Obrecht translated into High Dutch the treatise of Father Dez Primier, rector of the Jesuits at Strasburg, entitled “The Re-union of the Protestants of the Church of Strasburg to the Catholic Church.”

Among his other publications, not hitherto mentioned, were, “Dissertatio de abdicatione Caroli V. imperatoris;” “De electione Imperatoris Romana Germanici;” “De imitate reipublicae in sacro Romano imperio;” “De Clenodiis S. Rom. Imperil;'” “De legibus agrariis Pop. Romani;” “De verae philosophise origine;” “De philosophia Celtica” “De extraordinariis populi Romani imperils” “De ratione belli” “Sacra Termini” De censu Augusti“” De legione fulminatrice M. Antonini PhiL Imperatoris.“All these were published together in 1676, 4to. To these we may add his edition of Grotius” De Jure Belli," fol. 1696, &c. He left a son, who, at the time of his father’s death, was twenty-six years of age, and succeeded him in the post of praetor-royal of Strasburg, by the appointment of the French king.

, a Latin author, who flourished, as is conjectured, a little before the time of the emperor Honorius, abqut the year 395, wrote a book “De Prodigiis,” whence he is thought to be a Pagan. This work, which was only a list of such prodigies as are inserted in Livy, ends about the year of Rome 743, where Livy ends his “Decads;” whose words Obsequens often borrows, as well as his credulity. We have only a part of the work, published by Aldus Manutius in 1508, of which, there are several editions. Conrad Lycosthenes made some additions to it, which were published with the text at Basil, in 1552: he marked his additions with asterisms but the whole was published the following year, without any distinctions, by John de Tournes. From that time the book of Obsequens, and the supplement, appeared as done by the same hand; till Shefter, in 1679, published an edition, in which he printed what was compiled by Obsequens in the Roman letter, and the supplement of Lycosthenes in Italic. The best editions are that fry Hearne in 1703, and that of Leyden, 1720, 8vo.

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

, one of a family' of physicians of considerable eminence, was born at Augsburgh, Oct. 17, 1524. When he had finished his medical studies under his father, a physician of Augsburgh, who died in 1572, and at the university, he soon became noted as a practitioner, and in 1564 was appointed inspector of the apothecaries, and perpetual vicar to the dean of the college of physicians. He died in 1605. He published a “Pharmacopoeia” in 1574, which continued to be reprinted as late as 1734; and “Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata a Pompeio M. ad Heraclium,” Strasburgh, 4to and folio. This is an excellent book of general reference, being a list of all the coins in every reign, digested into the years in which they were apparently struck. It was first printed in 1579, and again in 1600, which is the best edition. One afterwards published by Mezzabarba is not so highly valued, as this editor’s additions are of doubtful authority. Among Gesner’s letters is a learned “Epistola Graeca de Oxymeli helleborato, aiiisque ad rem medicam spectantibus,” written by Occo, who was an excellent Greek scholar.

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

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

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

I ago,* by Abu Jaafar Ebn Tophail:“translated from the Arabic, and illustrated with figures, 8vo. The design of the author, who was a Mahometan philosopher, is to shew, how human reason may, by observation and experience, arrive at the knowledge of natural things, and thence to supernatural, and particularly the knowledge of God and a future state: the design of the translator, to give those who might be unacquainted with it, a specimen of the genius of the Arabian philosophers, and to excite young scholars to the reading of eastern authors. This was the point our Rabbi had Constantly in view; and, therefore, in his” Oratio Inauguralis,“for the professorship, it was with no small pleasure, as we imagine, that he insisted upon the beauty, copiousness, and antiquity, of the Arabic tongue in particular, and upon the use of Oriental learning in general; and that he dwelt upon the praises of Erpenius, Golius, Pocock, Herbelot, and all who had any ways contributed to promote the study of it. In 1713, his name appeared to a little book, with this title,” An Account of South-West Barbary, containing what is most remarkable in the territories of the king of Fez and Morocco; written by a person who had been a slave there a considerable time, and published from his authentic manuscript: to which are added, two Letters; one from the present king of Morocco to colonel Kirk; the other to sir Cloudesly Shovell, with sir Cloudesly’s answer,“&c. 8vo. While we are enumerating these small publications of the professor, it will be but proper to mention two sermons one,” Upon the Dignity and Authority of the Christian Priesthood,“preached at Ormond chapel, London, in 1710; another,” Upon the Necessity of instructing Children in the Scriptures,“at St. Ives, in Huntingtonshire, 1713. To these we must add a new translation of the second” Apocryphal Book of Esdras,“from the Arabic version of it, as that which we have in our common Bibles is from the vulgar Latin, 1716. Mr. Whiston, we are told, was the person who employed him in this translation, upon a strong suspicion, that it must needs make for the Arian cause he was then reviving; and he, accordingly, published it in one of his volumes of” Primitive Christianity Revived.“Ockley, however, was firmly of opinion, that it could serve nothing at all to his purpose; as appears from a printed letter of his to Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Thirl by, in which are the following words:” You shall have my ' Esdras’ in a little time; 200 of which I reserved, when Mr. Whiston reprinted his, purely upon this account, because I was loth that any thing with my name to it should be extant only in his heretical volumes. I only stay, till the learned author of the c History of Montanism' has finished a dissertation which he has promised me to prefix to that book*.“A learned Letter of Ockley’s to Mr. W. Wotton is printed among the” Miscellaneous Tracts of Mr. Bowyer, 1784."

"People imagine, that it is only understanding Arabic, and then translating a book out of it, and there is an end of the story: but if ever learning revives among us, posterity will judge better. This work of mine (in another way) is almost of as different a nature from translating out of the Greek or Latin, as translating a Poet from one language to another is different from prose. One comfort I have, that the authors I arn concerned with are very good in their kind, and afford me plenty of materials, which will clear up a great many mistakes of modern travellers, who passing through the Eastern countries, without the necessary knowledge of the history and ancient customs of the Mahometans, pick up little pieces of tradition from the present inhabitants, and deliver them as obscurely as they receive them. One thing pleases me much, that we shall give a very particular account of Ali and Hosein, who are reckoned saints by the Persians, and whose names you must have met with both in Herbert and Tavernier; for the sake of whom there remains that implacable and irreconcileable hatred between the Turks and Persians to this very day, which you may look for in vain in all the English books that have hitherto appeared. It would be a great satisfaction to me, if the author I have were complete in all his volumes, that I might bring the history down five or six hundred years but, alas! of twelve that he wrote, we have but two at Oxford, which are large quartos, and from whence I take the chief of my materials.

“Walter, monk of Evesham, a man of a facetious wit, who applying himself to literature, lest he should sink under the lahour of the day, the watching at night, and continual observance of regular discipline, used at spare hours to divert himself with the decent and commendable diversion of music, to render himself the more cheerful for other duties.” This apology, however, for the time he bestowed on music, was needless; for it was, and is still, so much the business of a Romish priest, that to be ignorant of it disqualifies him for his profession. And at all times, where an ecclesiastic thought it necessary to trace the whole circle of the sciences, music having the second or third rank, could not be neglected. But what this author adds farther concerning Odington is still less defensible: “Whether,” says he, “this application to music drew him off from other studies I know not, but there appears no other work of his than a piece entitled ‘Of the Speculation of Music’.” Yet we are told by Pits, Bale, Tanner, Moreri, and all his biographers, that he wrote fc De Motibus Planetarum, et de Mutatione Aeris," as well as on other learned subjects. His treatise on music is preserved in the library of Bene't college, Cambridge, and is, in the opinion of Dr. Burney, so copious and complete, with respect to every part of music when it was written, that if all other musical tracts, from the time of Boethius to Franco and John Cotton, were lost, our knowledge would not be much diminished, if this ms. was accessible. The musical examples, adds Dr. Burney, as usual in old manuscripts, are incorrect, and frequently inexplicable, owing to the ignorance of music in the transcribers; but if this tract were corrected, and such of the examples as are recoverable, regulated, and restored, it would be the most ample, satisfactory, and valuable, which the middle ages can boast; as the curious inquirer into the state of music at this early period may discover in it not only what progress our countrymen had made in the art themselves, but he chief part of what was then known elsewhere.

He was afterwards invited to Basil in 1515, where his 6 erudition procured him so high a reputation, that they honoured him with the degree of D. D. About the same time Erasmus came to Basil to publish his annotations on the New Testament, and confesses that he profited by the assistance of Oecolampadius, who, when Erasmus’s work was finished, went to Augsburgh, but did not remain there long, for having conceived a favourable opinion of the reformation, partly to avoid the necessity of declaring his sentiments before they should be fully matured, and partly from theTlove of retirement and study, in 1520, when he was thirty-eight years old, he entered into a convent near Augsbourg. Here, in the first instance, he stipulated with the brethren to have liberty both for his faith and studies, and then informed Erasmus of his change of life. Erasmus, in his reply, wished his new situation might be answerable to his hopes, but was afraid he would find himself disappointed; and such indeed proved to be the case, when Oecolampadius began to speak his sentiments with freedom. He had not been there long, before he wrote a letter to a friend, in which he says, “I will now speak my mind freely of Martin (Luther), as I have often done before. I am so fully persuaded of the truth of several of his doctrines, that I should not be driven from my opinion, even though an angel of heaven should contradict it.” He proceeded even to publish a book on “Confession,” containing such doctrines as were not well relished by his fraternity; and he had not been among them much more than a year, when the stipulated liberty was denied him. Upon this, he quitted the convent , and arrived safe at Basil m 1522.

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

In 1528 he entered into the matrimonial state, and the same year entirely finished the reformation of the church at Basil ) as he did also, jointly with others, that of Ulm. In 1529, he assisted in the conference at Marspurg; and, returning thence to Basil, fell sick, and died, December 1, 1531, aged 49. His disorder was the plague; and, from the moment he was seized, he shewed sentiments of solid and consistent piety, in the presence of many ministers, who attended him at his dissolution. He was interred in the cathedral of Basil, where there is a monument to his memory. He died in poor circumstances, leaving a son and two daughters. His wife, who had been the widow of Cellarius, according to Hoffman’s account, was afterwards married to Wolfgangus Capito, and to Martin Bucer, all men of great eminence.

His writings evince a vast compass of learning. Among the principal are, “Annotations on many books of the Holy Scriptures.” His controversial treatises “on the real presence.” An exhortation to the reading of God’s word.“” Of the dignity of the Eucharist.' 1 “Of the joy of the Resurrection.” “A speech to the Senate of Basil.” t A Catechism.“” Annotations on Chrysostom.“” Enchiridion to the Greek tongue.“” Of Alms-deeds.“”Against Julian the Apostate.“” Of tnle faith in Christ.“”Of the praises of Cyprian.“” Of the life of Moses.“”Against usury" with many controversies against the Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anabaptists, who appeared in his time under Stork and Muncer, and created not only a controversy, but a rebellion attended with desolation and bloodshed. He published also a great many translations from the Fathers; and his own works, originally in Latin, were translated by his friends into German. He left several manuscripts behind him, which are probably in some of the German libraries. His exposition of Daniel, and two or three small tracts, were translated into English in the sixteenth century. He appears to have been held in high estimation even by some of his adversaries, as he had the proper temper as well as the abilities and zeal of a reformer.

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

About 1654 he learned the Greek tongue of one of his countrymen, David Whitford, or Whitfield, at that time usher to James Shirley, who then taught school in White Friers. This was a remarkable instance of indefatigable industry at his age; and he made the best use of his new acquisition, by translating into English verse “Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey” J *, in which, however, he was assisted by his friend Shirley. This was printed in a most pompous manner, with a dedication to Charles II. in 1660; and the same year he edited at Cambridge, with the assistance of Dr. John Worthington, and other learned men, a finer edition of the “English Bible” than had been extant before. This he adorned with chorographical and other sculptures, and presented a sumptuous copy of it to his majesty, on his first coming to the royal chapel at Whitehall, He presented another copy to the House of Commons, for which he received a gratuity of 50l. from that house; as he did also, not improbably, from the convocation, to whom he presented a petition, with the king’s recommendatory letters concerning the expence of printing the book. He also petitioned the House of Commons that his Bible “might be recommended to be made use of in all churches.” It was printed by Field.

In the same year (1661) he received orders from the commissioners for the solemnity of his majesty’s coronation, to conduct the poetical part, viz. the speeches, emblems, mottoes, and inscriptions upon which he drew up “The relation of his Majesty’s Entertainment, passing through the city of London to his Coronation with a description of the triumphal Arches and Solemnity” in ten sheets folio. This he also published, by his majesty’s command, in a large folio volume, on royal paper, with fine engravings, and speeches at large, in 1662; and it has been made use of in succeeding coronations. His interest was now so powerful with the king, that he obtained this year the patent for master of the revels in Ireland, against sir William Davenant, who was his competitor. This post carried him once more into that kingdom; and, his former theatre in Dublin being destroyed in the troubles, he built a new one, at the expence of 100O/. On his return to London he continued the employment of translating and composing books in poetry , till the fire of London in. 1666, in which his house in White Friers was consumed, and his whole fortune, except to the value of 5l. destroyed. He soon, however, procured his house to be re-built, set up a printing-house, was appointed his majesty’s cosmographer and geographic printer, and printed several great works, translated or collected by himself and his assistance t; all which were printed on imperial paper, adorned with maps and curious engravings, by Hollar and others, and were carried on by way of proposals and standing lotteries. The scheme of one of his lotteries, a very curious article, was lately published in the Gent. Mag. vol. LXXXIV. Part I. page 646. He died September 4, 1676, and was interred in St. Bride’s church, Fleet-street, leaving the character of a very industrious, enterprizing, and honest man.

In the month of November about 100 persons embarked at Gravesend on board the Anne of 200 tons, commanded by capt. Thomas, and with them Mr. Oglethorpe. They arrived at Carolina on the 15th January following, from whence they sailed to Port-Royal, and Mr. Oglethorpe went up the Savannah River, and pitched upon a convenient spot of ground to form a settlement. He then went to Charles-Town, to solicit assistance for his colony, in which he had success, and returned to Savannah, where he was met by the chiefs of the Lower Creek nation, who claimed from the Savannah river as far as St. Augustine, and up Flint river, which runs into the bay of Mexico. A treaty of alliance and commerce was made and signed with them. He also concluded a treaty with the two nations of the Cherokees and Chickesaws, relating to their part of the same province; and a provisional treaty with the governor of Augustine and general of Florida, relating to the boundaries between the English and the Spaniards, until the sentiments of the two crowns could be known. In 1734 he returned to England, and brought with him some of the Indian chiefs, particularly Tomo Chiqui and his family, who were graciously received by the king, well entertained by the trustees, and returned to their native country full of the utmost respect for their British friends and allies.

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

On his return to Frederica in January, he met captain, afterwards sir Peter, Warren, who was lately arrived with the Squirrel man of war. When their consultation was concluded, the captain went and cruised off the bay of St. Augustine, while the general with a detachment of troops on board of the boats, and some artillery, went up the lakes of Florida, and attacked and took the forts of Pickalata and St. Francis.

The first interruption this plan met with, was from the Bupineness of the Assembly of Carolina, who delayed the assistance they had promised, until the garrison of Angustine had received both men and provisions from the Havannah. This delay had almost occasioned the destruction of captain Warren, who, not knowing of the succours which the place had obtained, went and lay off it to prevent their coming in; but, in the dark of a calm night, was attacked by six half gallies, whom he engaged with great spirit; and in the end sunk one, and drove the rest into port. General Oglethorpe, disgusted at the inactivity of the people of Carolina, left Charles-town in order to make the best disposition he could amongst his own people: he crossed St. John’s river with a party of his regiment, and landed in Florida on the 10th of May. He immediately invested and took Fort Diego, about ‘three leagues from Augustine. Soon afterwards 400 men arrived from Carolina, but without any horse, rangers, negroes, or pioneers. About the same time came a body of Cherokee Indians, as also captain Dunbar, with a party of Chickesaws, and the rangers and highlanders from Georgia, under captain M’Intosh.

In the mean time, the commodore found that there was a battery upon the island of Anastasia, which defended the entry of the harbour. This obliged the general to march to the coast with a party of 200 men. He had before sent the highlanders, rangers, and a party of Indians under colonal Palmer, with orders to lie in the woods, near Augustine, and hinder the Spanish parties from coming out by land; but with positive orders not to come to any general action, nor lie two nights in the same place. The general then came up to the commodore, and held a consultation: a landing was determined to be attempted, and captain Warren, who on this occasion had a commission given him to command as lieutenant-colonel, offered his service. Anastasia was immediately attacked and taken; for it was soon found that the river which runs between that island and the castle, near which the town lay, was too wide to better in breach. It was then resolved to attempt to cross the river, and land near the town; but now the half-gallies were a floating battery, so that there was no possibility of landing without first taking or driving them away. This, however, the general offered to attempt with the boats of the squadron: but so many obstacles arose to impede the progress of the siege, that general Oglethorpe finally failed in his principal aim, although he succeeded in his other views,- which were to intimidate the Spaniards from invading Georgia and Carolina, They remained inactive within their own territories until 1742, when they collected a body of troops and entered Georgia, where they committed many ravages; but they were obliged to quit their enterprize with disgrace, by the bravery and conduct of general Oglethorpe.

, a learned civilian, was born at Dantzic May 4, 1631. His father originally intended him for commercial life, and sent him to Holland with that view; but as he betrayed a stronger inclination to study, and employed all his leisure hours in acquiring knowledge that could be of no use in trade, he was permitted to enter upon a regular course of academic instruction at Leyden. At this university, which he entered in 1650, he was enabled to profit by the instructions of those learned contemporaries, Salmasius, Daniel Heinsius, Boxhornius, Golius, &c. and he had not been here above two years before he published an excellent edition of Minutius Felix, in quarto, dedicated to Christina queen of Sweden. Both Niceron and Morhoff accuse him of plagiarism in this work; but Chaufepie defends him, and apparently with justice. Besides the belles-lettres, he studied law, both at Leyden and Utrecht, and took his doctor’s degree at the former in 1654. Next year he visited England and France, and meant to have proceeded to Italy; but hearing at Geneva that the plague raged there, he went a second time to England and France, and returned to Holland in 1657. He afterwards resided, partly at Utrecht, and partly at Leyden and the Hague, until 1667, when he was appointed professor of law at Grofiingen. The conformity of his ideas with those of Puffendorf occasioned a great intimacy between them. Oisel accumulated a large library, a catalogue of which was published about the time of his death, which happened June 20, 1686. His other works were principally an edition of Aulus Gellius, Leyden, 1666, 8vo, and a treatise entitled “Thesaurus selectorum numismatum antiquorum aere expressorum,” Amst. 1677, 4to, a curious and scarce performance; but originally suggested to him by some booksellers who had purchased the plates of a similar work in German by Joachim Oudaan, and requested Oisel to illustrate them in the Latin language. He had a nephew Philip Oisel, a divine, who published some works on the Hebrew accents and on. the Decalogue.

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

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

He wrote, “Twelve Conclusions addressed to the parliament of England.” At the end of the first book he wrote some monkish rhymes in Latin, which Bale has preserved, and which, he says, “were copyed out by dyverse men, and set upon theyr wyndowes, gates, and dores, which were then knowen for obstynate hypocrytes and fleshlye livers, which made the prelates madde.” Bale published “A brefe Chronycle concernynge the Examynacyon and death of the blessed martyr of Christ, syr Johan Oldecastell the lorde Cobham,” which was reprinted under the care of Mr. Lewis, of Margate, in 1729. His life has been since elegantly written by Mr. Gilpin. “Lord Cobham, says this biographer,” had been much conversant in the world; and had probably been engaged in the early part of his life, in the licence of it. His religion, however, put a thorough restraint upon a disposition naturally inclined to the allurements of pleasure. He was a man of a very high spirit, and warm temper; neither of which his sufferings could subdue. With very little temporizing he might have escaped the indignities he received from the clergy, who always considered him as an object beyond them; but the greatness of his soul could not brook concession. In all his examinations, and through the whole of his behaviour, we see an authority and dignity in his manner, which speak him the great man in all his afflictions. He was a person of uncommon parts, and very extensive talents; well qualified either for the cabinet or the field. In conversation he was remarkable for his ready and poignant wit. His acquirements were equal to his parts. No species of learning which was at that time in esteem had escaped his attention. It was his thirst of knowledge, indeed, which first brought him acquainted with the opinions of Wickliff.' The novelty of them engaged his curiosity. He examined them as a philosopher, and in the course of his examination became a Christian."

, who wrote his name sometimes Grubendol, reversing the letters, was a learned German, and born in 1626, in the duchy of Bremen, in the Lower Saxony, being descended from the counts of Oldenburg, in Westphalia, whence his name. During the long English parliament in Charles I.'s time, he was appointed consul for his countrymen, in which post he continued at London after the usurpation of Cromwell; but, being discharged from that employment, he was made tutor to the lord Henry Obrien, an Irish nobleman, whom he attended to the university of Oxford, and in 1656 entered himself a student, chiefly for the sake of admission to the Bodleian library. He was afterwards tutor to William lord Cavendish, and was acquainted with Milton, among whose “Epistolae familiares,” are four letters to Oldenburg. During his residence at Oxford he became also acquainted with the members of that little association which gave birth to the royal society; and, upon the foundation of this latter, he was elected fellow; and, when the society found it necessary to have two secretaries, he was chosen assistant to Dr. Wilkins. He applied himself with extraordinary diligence to the business of this office, and began the publication of the “Philosophical Transactions;” with No. 1. in 1664. In order to discharge this task with greater credit to himself and the society, he held a correspondence with more than seventy learned persons, and others, upon a vast variety of subjects, in different parts of the world. This fatigue would have been insupportable, had he not, as he told Dr. Lister, answered every letter the moment he received it, a rule which cannot be too warmly recommended, whether in cases of business, literature, or pleasure. Among Oldenburg’s correspondents may be mentioned the celebrated Robert Boyle, with whom he had a very intimate friendship; and he translated several of that gentleman’s works into Latin.

About 1674 he was drawn into a dispute with Mr. Robert Hooke; who complained, that the secretary had not done him justice in the “Transactions,” with respect to the invention of the spiral spring for pocket-watches. The contest was carried on with great warmth on both sides for two years, when it was determined, much to Oldenburg’s honour, by a delaration of the council of the royal society, Nov. 20, 1676, in these words: “Whereas the publisher of the Philosophical Transactions hath made complaint to the council of the royal society, of some passages in a late book of Mr. Hooke, entitled ‘ Lampas,’ c. and printed by the printer of the said society, reflecting on the integrity and faithfulness of the said publisher, in his management of the intelligence of the said society this council had thought fit to declare, in the behalf of the publisher aforesaid, that they knew nothing of the publication of the said book; and farther, that the said publisher hath carried himself faithfully and honestly in the management of the intelligence of the royal society, and given no just cause for such reflections.”

Mr. Oldenburg continued to publish the Transactions as before, to No. CXXXVI, June 25, 1677, after which the publication was discontinued till Jan. following; then resumed by his successor in the secretary’s office, Mr. Nehemiah Grew, who carried it on till Feb. 1678. Our author dying at his house at Charlton, near Greenwich, in Kent, in August that year, was interred there. Besides the works already mentioned, he translated into English, 1. “The Prodromus to a Dissertation by Nich. Steno, concerning Solids naturally contained within Solids,” &C.1671, 8vo. 2. “A genuine explication of the Book of Revelations,' 7 &c. 1671, 8vo, written by A. B. Piganius.” The Life of the Duchess of Mazarine," in 8vo, translated from the French. He left a son, named Rupert, from prince Rupert his godfather, and a daughter, named Sophia, by his wife, who was daughter and sole heir to the famous John Dury, a Scotch divine.

, an eminent professor of law and history at Geneva, died in that city in 1678, leaving a great number of valuable works, some of them published under feigned names, particularly Burgoldensis. The following are the principal: 1, “Thesaurus rerum publicarum totius orbis,” Geneva, 1675, 4 vols. 8vo, a useful and curious book for the knowledge of the new monarchies and their interests. 2. “Limnoeus enucleatus,” ibid. 1670, folio; a work in high repute, and necessary for those who study the law of the empire. 3. “Notitia Imperil, sive discursus in instrumentum pacis Osnabrugo-Monasteriensis,” under the name of Phil. And. Burgoldensis, 4to. 4. “Tractatus de Rebuspublicis turbidis in tranquillum statuni reducendis, in eoque conservandis.” 5. “Tractatus de quatuor elementis juridice consideratis et notis illustratus.” 6. “Manuale principum Christiano rum de vera eorum felicitate.” 7. “Tractatus JuridicoPoliticus de securitate juris, publici ac privati.” 8. “De origine et progressu juris Romani,” &c.

, a celebrated English actress, and most accomplished woman, was born in Pall-mall, London, in 1683. Her father, once possessed of a competent estate, was then an officer in the guards; but, being improvident, left his family, at his death, almost destitute. In these circumstances, the widow was forced to live with a sister, who kept a tavern in St. James’s market; and the daughter was placed with a sempstress in King-street, Westminster. Miss Oldfield, in the mean time, conceived an extraordinary taste for the drama, and was entertaining her relations at a tavern by reading, or attempting to act, when her voice chanced to reach the eat of Farquhar, the celebrated dramatic writer, who happened to dine in the same house. On being introduced, he was struck with her agreeable person and carriage, and presently pronounced her admirably formed for the stage. This concurring with her own inclinations, her mother opened the matter to sir John Vanburgh, a friend of the family, who having the same favourable opinion of her talents, recommended her to Mr. Rich, then patentee of the king’s theatre. She remained, however, in comparative obscurity, till 1703, when she first appeared to advantage in the part of Leonora in “Sir Courtly Nice;” and established her theatrical reputation, the following year, in th'at of Lady Betty Modish in the “Careless Husband.”

A little before this time, she formed an illicit connection with Arthur May n waring, esq. who interested himself greatly in the figure she made upon the stage; and it was in some measure owing to the pains he took in improving her natural talents, that she became, as she soon did, the delight and chief ornament of it. After the death of this gentleman, which happened in Nov. 1712, she engaged in a like commerce with brigadier-gen. Charles Churchill, esq. She had one son by Maynwaring; and another by Churchill, who afterwards married the lady Anna Maria Walpole, natural daughter of the earl of Orford. About 1718, Savage, the poet, being reduced to extreme necessity, his very singular case so affected Mrs. Oldfield, that she settled on him a pension of 50L per annum, which was regularly paid as long as she lived. This, added to other generous actions, together with a distinguished taste in elegance of dress, conversation, and manners, have generally been spread as a veil over her failings; and such was her reputation, that upon her death, which happened Oct. 23, 1730, her corpse was carried from her house in Grosvenor-street to the Jerusalem Chamber, and after lying in state, was conveyed to Westminster abbey, the pall being supported by lord De la Warr, lord Hervey, the right hon* George Bubb Doddington, Charles Hedges, esq. Walter Carey, esq. and captain Elliot; her eldest son Arthur Maynwaring, esq. being chief mourner. She was interred towards the west end of the south aile, between the monumerits of Craggs and Congreve. At her own desire, she was elegantly dressed in her coffip, with a very fine Brussels laced head, a Holland shift, with a tucker and double ruffles of the same lace, a pair of new kid gloves, and her body wrapt up in a winding-sheet. On this account, Pope introduced her, in the character of Narcissa, in Epistle I. line 245,

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

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

But what turned to his greater advantage was, his being made known to the earl of Kingston, who became his patron, and entertained him with great respect at his seat at Holme-Pierpoint; apparently in the view of making him his chaplain, if he would qualify himself for it by entering into orders. But he had the utmost aversion for that office, as appears from his “Satire,” addressed to a friend, who was about to leave the university, and come abroad into the world; in which he lets him know, that he was deterred from the thought of such an office by the servility too often expected from it. He remained, however, an inmate in the earPs house, till his death, which was occasioned by the small-pox, Dec. 9, 1683, in his 30th year. He was buried in the church of Holme-Pierpoint, the earl attending as chief mourner, who soon after erected a monument to his memory, with an inscription expressing his eloge in Latin, to this effect: “No poet was more inspired with the sacred furor, none more sublime in sentiments, none more happily bold in expression, than he.” In his person, he was tall of stature, very thin, long-visaged, with a high nose and prominent; his aspect unpromising, but satire was in his eye. His constitution was tender, and inclined to a consumption; and not a little injured by apJication to learned authors, in whom he was well versed. His genius lay chiefly to satire, where, however, he did not always keep within the bounds of decency.

His works have been frequently printed in one volume, 8vo; in 1722, in 2 vols. 12mo, with the “Author’s Life;” and lately, under the inspection of captain Thomson, in 3 vols. 12mo. They consist of no less than fifty pieces; the chief of which are, “The Four Satires upon the Jesuits,” written in 1679. In 1681 he published “Some new pieces” by the author of the Satires upon the Jesuits, 8vo. The fame he acquired by these satires procured him the title of the English Juvenal, and although his language is frequently harsh and coarse, there are many passages of vigour and elegance, and much vivacity of description. Pope used to say, “Oldham is a very indelicate writer; he has strong rage, but too much like Billingsgate. Lord Rochester had much more delicacy, and more knowledge of mankind. Oldham is too rough and coarse. Rochester is the medium between him and the earl of Dorset, who is the best.”

, ridiculed in the Taller by the name of Mr. Omicron, “the Unborn Poet,” descended from an ancient family of the name, originally seated at Oldmixon, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, and was born in 1673. Where he was educated is not known. He appears to have been early a writer for the stage; his first production was “Amyntas,” a pastoral, and his second, in 1700, an opera, neither of much merit or success. He Soon, however, became a violent party-writer, and a severe and malevolent critic. In the former light he was a strong opponent of the Stuart family, whom he has, on every occasion, endeavoured to vilify without any regard to that impartiality which ought ever to be the essential characteristic of an historian. As a critic he was perpetually attacking, with evident tokens of envy and malevolence, his several contemporaries; particularly Addison, Eusden, and Pope. The last of these, however, whom he had attacked in different letters which he wrote in “The Flying Post,” and repeatedly reflected on in his “Prose essays on Criticism,” and in his “Art of Logic and Rhetoric,” written in imitation of Bouhours, has introduced him into his “Dunciad,” with some very distinguishing marks of eminence among the devotees of dulness. In the second book of that severe poem, where the dunces are contending for the prize of dulness, by diving in the mud of Fleet-ditch, he represents our author as mounting the sides of a lighter, in order to enable him to take a more efficacious plunge. Oldmixon’s malevolence of abuse entitled him to the above-mentioned honour; and, to the disgrace of the statesmen of that time, his zeal as a virulent party-writer procured him the place of collector of the customs at the port of Bridgewater, but he died at his house in Great Pulteney-street, aged sixty-nine, July 9, 1742. He left a daughter, who died in 1789, at Newiand in Gloucestershire, aged eighty-four. Another of his daughters sung at Hickford’s rooms in 1746. He lies buried in Ealing church.

, a bibliographer of great industry and accuracy, was born July 14, 1696. He was the natural son of Dr. William Oldys, chancellor of Lincoln, commissary of St. Catharine’s, official of St. Alban’s, and advocate of the Admiralty, by a woman who was maintained by her keeper in a very penurious and private manner, and whose son, it is probable, had but little assistance in his education from parents so circumstanced.

This Dr. Oldys, who was connected with Dryden and others in a translation of Plutarch’s lives, to which he contributed the life of Pompey, was advocate of the Admiralty to James II. and served king William in the same department, though he was not fully convinced of the validity of that prince’s claim to the crown. When^ he was ordered, in 1693, to prosecute those seamen as pirates who had attacked the English ships by virtue of a commission from James, he refused to obey; alleging, when he was examined by a committee of the privy council, that they were not traitors or pirates, that they had only acted animo hostili, not anitno furandi; that, though James was supposed in England to have abdicated the throne', his authority was still believed to be legitimate by those who had followed him in his exile, as well as by the people of that country from which the commissions had issued; and that, even if his pretensions were false, a reputed power was equivalent to a real one, according to an established maxim communis error facitjus. Sir John Trenchard, the secretary of state, declared, that these reasons amounted to high treason; but Dr. Oldys would not retract his opinion, in which sir Thomas fynfold readily concurred. The doctors Littleton and Tindal, on the contrary, maintained that James had no right to grant such commissions, and that all who acted under them were pirates. Oldys was now deprived of his office, which was given to Littleton, and some of the prisoners were condemned and executed. Though not a favourite at court, Dr. Oldys continued to practice as an advocate with great reputation and success, until his death in 1708. As a scholar, he was respectable; as a civilian, he was learned; as a pleader, eloquent and judicious.

Of the early part of his son’s life little is known, except that he lost his parents soon, and, probably, was left to make his way in life unassisted by every thing but his own talents. Captain Grose says he soon squandered away a small patrimony, and afterwards became an attendant on lord Oxford’s library, of which, after Wanley’s death, in 1726, it may be conjectured, he had the principal care. During this period he produced his most valuable works; and, while in this situation, had every opportunity of gratifying his passion for ancient and curious books. On the death of lord Oxford, in 1741, his valuable library fell into the hands of Osborne the bookseller, who dispersed it by a catalogue, in the formation of which Mr. Oldys was employed, as he was also in the selection made from the pamphlets, in a work in eight volumes 4to, entitled “The Harleiau 'Miscellany.” In compiling the catalogue, it is supposed he proceeded only to the end of the second volume. Dr. Johnson was afterwards employed.

His circumstances through life seem to have been at the best times moderate, and often approaching to necessitous. At one period, which, sir John Hawkins says, was while he was employed on Osborne’s catalogue, he was confined in the Fleet-prison, and acquired such a liking for the company he found there, that to the end of his life, he used to spend his evenings in a house within the rules, with persons who, though confined within a certain district, were exempted from actual imprisonment. The only post he ever held was that of Norroy king of arms, given him by the duke of Norfolk, in return for the pleasure he had received from his Life of sir Walter Raleigh, which is undoubtedly his best biographical work. The chief part of his subsistence was derived from the booksellers, by whom he appears to have been constantly employed. He seems to have had but little classical learning, and his style is very uncouth, but his knowledge of English books has hardly been exceeded.

Captain Grose, who was acquainted with him, says he was a man of great good-nature, honour, and integrity, particularly in his character of an historian. “Nothing,” adds he, “I firmly believe, would ever have biassed him to insert any fact in his writings he did not believe, or tcv suppress any he did. Of this delicacy he gave an instance at a time when he was in great distress, After his publication of the Life of sir Walter Raleigh, some booksellers, thinking his name would sell a piece they were publishing, offered him a considerable sum to father it, which he rejected with the greatest indignation.” From the same authority we learn, that Mr. Oldys, if$ the latter part of his life, abandoned himself to drinking, and was almost continually in a state of intoxication. At the funeral of the princess Caroline he was in such a situation as to be scarcely able to walk, and actually reeled about with a crown on a cushion, to the great scandal of his brethren . He is said also to have been much addicted to low company.

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

, a learned traveller, whose German name was Oelschlager, was born in 1599, or 1600, at Aschersieben, a small town in the principality of Anhalt. 43is parents were very poor, and scarcely able to maintain him, yet by some means he was enabled to enter as a student at Leipsic, where he took his degrees in arts and philosophy, but never was a professor, as some biographers have asserted. He quitted Leipsic for Holsteiu, where the duke Frederic, hearing of his merit and capacity, wished to employ him. This prince having a wish to extend the commerce of his country to the East, determined to send an embassy to the Czar Michael Federowitz, and the king of Persia, and having chosen for this purpose two of his counsellors, Philip Crusius and Otto Bruggeman, he appointed Olearius to accompany them as secretary. Their travels lasted six years, during which Olearius collected a great fund of information respecting the various countries they visited. The Czar of Moscovy on his return wished to have retained him in his service, with the appointment of astronomer and mathematician; not, however, his biographers tell us, so much on account of his skill in these sciences, as because the Czar knew that Olearius had very exactly traced the course of the Volga, which the Russians then wished to keep a secret from foreigners. Olearius had an inclination, however, to have accepted this offer, but after his return to the court of Holstein, he was dissuaded from it, and the duke having apologized to the Czar, attached him to himself as mathematician and antiquary. In 1643, the duke sent him on a commission to Moscow, where, as before, his ingenuity made him be taken for a magician, especially as on this occasion he exhibited a camera obscura. In 1650 the duke appointed him his librarian, and keeper of his curiosities. The library he enriched with many Oriental Mss. which he had procured in his travels, and made also considerable additions to the duke’s museum, particularly of the collection of Paludanns, a Dutch physician, which the duke sent him to Holland ta purchase; and he drew up a description of the whole, which was published at Sleswick in 1666, 4to. He also constructed the famous globe of Gottorp, and an armillary sphere of copper, which was not less admired, and proved how much mathematics had been his study. He died Feb. 22, 1671. He published, in German, his travels, 1647, 1656, 1669, fol. Besides these three editions, they were translated into English by Davies, and into Dutch and Italian. The most complete translation is that, in French, by Wicquefort, Amst. 1727, 2 vols. fol. who also translated Olearius’s edition of Mandelso’s “Voyages to Persia,” c. fol. Among his other and less known works, are some lives of eminent Germans “The Valley of Persian Roses,” from the Persian; “An abridged Chronicle of Holstein,” &c

, an Italian antiquary, was born July 11, 1689, at Rovigo, in the Venetian state. Having been ordained priest in 1711, he became professor of ethics at Azzoio, which office he filled for eight years, and went to Rome in 1715, where Clement XI. received him very kindly. After this pontiff’s decease, Oliva being made secretary to the conclave, obtained the notice of cardinal de Rohan, who patronized him, and in 1722 appointed him his librarian, which he held till his death, March 19, 1757, at Paris. He translated the abbe Fleury’s “Tr. des Etudes,” into Italian, and left a dissertation, in Latin, “On the necessity of joining the study of ancient medals to that of history;” another, “On the progress and decay of learning among the Romans;” and a third, “On a monument of the goddess Isis.” These three, under the title of “CEuvres diverses,” were printed at Paris, 1758, 8vo. He also published an edition of a ms. of Sylvestri’s, concerning an ancient monument of Castor and Pollux, with the author’s Life, 8vo; an edition in 4to, of several Letters written by Poggio, never published before; and formed a ms catalogue of cardinal de Rohan’s library, in 25 vols. fol.

, son and disciple of the preceding, was born in 1601, and by the precepts and example of his father, he arrived at a degree of perfection in miniature portrait painting confessedly superior to his instructor, or any of his contemporaries, as he did not confine his subjects to a head only. His pictures, like his father’s, are spread among the houses of the nobility and gentry, and are alike justly esteemed. The works which he executed upon a larger scale are much more valuable than those of his father, and are also more numerous, though not very frequently to be met with. L6rd Orford mentions that there were thirteen works of Peter Oliver in the collection of Charles I. and of James II.; and that seven of them are preserved in queen Caroline’s closet at Kensington; and he also speaks of a portrait of Mrs. Oliver by her husband, in possession of the duchess of Portland, as his finest work. Lord Orford thinks it extraordinary that more of the works of this excellent master are not known, as he commonly made duplicates of his pictures, reserving one of each for himself. On this subject, he adds, that Russel the painter, related to or connected with the Olivers, told Vertue a remarkable story. The greater part of the collection of king Charles I. being dispersed in the troubles, among which were several of the Olivers, Charles II. who remembered, and was desirous of recovering them, made many inquiries about them after the Restoration; at last, he was told by one Rogers of Islevvorth, that both the father and son were dead, but that the son’s widow was living at Isleworth, and had many of their works. The king went very privately and unknown with Rogers, to see them; the widow shewed several finished and unfinished; with many of which the king being pleased, he asked if she would sell them; she replied she had a mind the king should see them first, and if he did not purchase them, she should think of disposing of them. The king discovered himself; on which she produced some more pictures, which she seldom shewed. The king desired her to set a price she said she did not care to make a price with his majesty she would leave it to him but promised to look over her husband’s books, and let his majesty know what prices his father, the late king, had paid. The king took away what he liked, and sent Rogers to Mrs. Oliver with the options of \OOOl. or an annuity of 30Q/. for her life. She chose the latter. Some years afterwards it happened that the king’s mistresses having begged aril or most of these pietures r Mrs. Oliver said, on hearing it, that if she had thought the king would have given them to such whores and strutn* pets and bastards, he never should have had them. This reached the court, the poor woman’s salary was stopped* and she never received it afterwards. The rest of the Winnings which the king had not taken, fell into the hands of Mrs. Russel’s father. Peter Oliver is supposed to have died before the restoration, probably about 1654. Isaac Oliver, the glass -painter, appears to have been of this family.

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

, knight of the military order of Christ, and gentleman of the king of Portugal’s household, was born at Lisbon, May 21, 1702. His father, Joseph de Oliveyra e Souza, held a principal post in the exchequer of Portugal, and was for twenty five years secretary of embassy at the courts of London, the Hague, and Vienna. No expence was spared on the education of his son, whom he procured to be admitted into the exchequer at an early age, and who, in recompense for his own as well as his father’s services, was in Dec. 1729, invested with the order of knighthood. In 1732 he visited Madrid, and was introduced at the Spanish court. On his father’s death, which happened at Vienna in 1734, he was appointed to succeed him as secretary of embassy, and during his residence in this city, first began to perceive the absurdities of the popish superstition, from the difficulty that he found (as he has himself expressed) in defending it from the attacks of some Lutheran friends in occasional conversation.

His mind becoming easier by degrees, he returned to his favourite studies, and through the course of the year 1751, he published his “Amusements Periodiques,” a monthly publication, in which he entered with great freedom into the controversy between the protestant and Romish churches, and they were therefore soon prohibited both in Portugal and Rome. In 1753 he retired to a house at Kentish town, where he divided his time between the care of a small garden, the pursuit of his studies, and the conversation of several learned friends who frequently visited him. When the news arrived of the dreadful earthquake at Lisbon in December 1755, he published his “Discours Pathetique” early in 1756, addressed to his countrymen, but particularly to the king of Portugal. The rapid sale of several editions of this work, both in French and English, in the course of a few weeks, was no inconsiderable proof of its merit; but while it made him more known and esteemed in this and other countries, it drew upon him the resentment of some of his countrymen, and particularly of the inquisitors, who now laid a prohibition on all his works in geaeral. Even his brother, Thomas de Aquinas, a Benedictine monk, wrote to exhort him to retract his errors. This occasioned the chevalier to publish a second part, or “Suite de Discours pathetique,” 1757, in which he not only answered the objections made to the “Discours,” but inserted his brother’s letter, with a suitable answer.

About this time he. removed from Kentish town to Krughtsb ridge, for the convenience of his friends; but time having robbed him of a number of these, he left that situation in 1775 to reside at Hackney, where he continued to pursue his studies, constantly employing the mornings in writing, and the evenings in reading. Besides the works already mentioned, he occasionally published several others, not of less merit, though of less importance to the memoirs of his life. The manuscripts he left vvere very numerous, and their subjects as various. Among them are what he calls “Oliveyrana, ou Memoires historiques, litteraires,” &c. which, in 27 vols. 4to, contain, as he often mentioned, the fruits of his reading and observations for the space of twenty-five years. These were, in 1734, in the possession of his widow, an English lady, whom he married in 1746, and who survived him, but how long we have not discovered. The chevalier died Oct. 18th, 1783, and was interred in the burial ground of the parish of Hackney, with a privacy suitable to his worldly circumstances, but much below liis merit, virtues, and piety.

Having gone through a regular course of studies; he returned to his native place in 1733, and soon after married a lady of the same town, of the name of Belluzzi, a family illustrious as his own. He had scarcely attained his twentyeighth year when he published his capital work “Marmora Pesauriensia notis illustrata,” 2 vols. folio, which, for its depth of research, judgment, information, and utility, ranked him amongst the greatest antiquaries of his age, and gained him the highest esteem from his illustrious contemporaries, Macedon, Maffei, Gori, Zeno, Lanni, Quirini, Antonelli, Garampi, and others. After the publication of this excellent work, it appeared that he had relinquished his favourite pursuit, as nothing else of the kind appeared for thirteen years. He however presented to the public many valuable memoirs and dissertations on literary history, in the celebrated collection of Cologera, who, from respect and gratitude, dedicated to him the volume of the collection which appeared in 1750.

, a peripatetic philosopher of Alexandria, lived under Theodosius the younger, about the year 430, and wrote Commentaries on part of Aristotle, 1551, fol. and a Life of Plato, which contains many particulars not to be met with in Diogenes Laertius. James "WinJet has translated this Life into Latin, and added notes to it. It seems probable, however, that the commentator on Aristotle, and the author of the life of Plato, were different persons; and there is a third Olympiodorus, a Greek monk, who lived in the fifth or sixth century, and left short and elegant Commentaries on Job and Ecclesiastes, which may be found in the library of the Greek fathers. The little that is known of either of these may be seen in our authorities.

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

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

, surnamed the Proselyte, a famous Rabbi of the first century, and author of the Chaldee Targum on the Pentateuch, flourished in the time of Jesus Christ, according to the Jewish writers; who all agree that he was, at least in some part of his life, contemporary with Jonathan Ben Uzziel, author of the second “Targum upon the Prophets.” Prideaux thinks, he was the elder of the two, for several reasons the chief of which is the purity of the style in his “Targum,” coming nearest to that part of Daniel and Ezra which is in Chaldee. This is the truest standard of that language, and consequently the most antient; since that language, as well as others, was in a constant flux, and continued deviating in every age from the original: nor does there seem any reason why Jonathan Ben Uzziel, when he understood his “Targum,” should pass over the law, and begin with the prophets, unless that he found Onkelos had done this work before him, and with a success which he could not exceed.

Azarias, the author of a book entitled “Meor Ena'im,” or the Light of the Eyes, tells us, that Onkelos was a proselyte in the time of Hillel and Samnai, and lived to see Jonathan Ben Uzziel one of the prime scholars of Hillel. These three doctors flourished twelve years before Christ, according to the chronology of Gauz; who adds, that Onkelos was contemporary with Gamaliel the elder, St. Paul’s master, who was the grandson of Hillel, who lived twentyeight years after Christ, and did not die till eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem. However, the same Gauz, by his calculation, places Onkelos 100 years after Christ; and, to adjust his opinion with that of Azarias, extends the life of Onkelos to a great length. The Talmudists tell us, that he assisted at the funeral of Gamaliel, and was at a prodigious expence to make it most magnificent. Some say, he burnt on the occasion goods and effects to the value of 7000 crowns; others, that he provided seventy pounds of frankincense, which was burnt at the solemnity.

Whatever may be in these reports, we may observe, from Prideaux, that the “Targum” of Onkelos is rather a version than a paraphrase; since it renders the Hebrew text word for word, and for the most part accurately and exactly, and is by much the best of all this sort. It has therefore always been held in esteem among the Jews, much above all the other Targums; and, being set to the same musical notes with the Hebrew text, it is thereby made capable of being read in the same tone with it in their public assemblies. That it was accordingly there read alternately with the text (one verse of which being read first in the Hebrew, the same was read afterwards in the Chaldee interpretation) we are told by Levita; who, of all the Jews that have handled this argument, has written the most accurately and fully. He says, that the Jews, holding themselves obliged every week, in their synagogues, to read that parashah or section of the law which was the lesson of the week, made use of the “Targum” of Onkelos for this purpose; and that this was their usage even down to his time, which was about the first part of the 16th century. And for this reason; that though, till the art of printing was invented, there were of the other Targums scarce above one or two of a sort to be found in a whole country, yet then the “Targum” of Onkelos was every where among them.

From the excellence and accuracy of Onkelos’s “Targum,” Prideaux also concludes him to have been a native Jew; since, without being bred up from his birth in the Jewish religion and learning, and long exercised in all the rites and doctrines thereof, and also thoroughly skilled in both the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, as far as a native Jew could be, he can scarce be thought thoroughly adequate to that work which he performed; and that the representing him as a proselyte seems to have proceeded from the error of taking him to have been the same with Akilas, or Aquila, of Pontus, author of the Greek “Targum,” or version on the prophets and Hagiographia, who was indeed a Jewish proselyte. The first Latin version of the Targum of Onkelos was by Zamora, and published in the Complutensian Polyglot, whence it was copied into others, and is in Walton’s.

, a Greek author, and a Platonic philosopher, wrote commentaries upon Plato’s “Politics,” which are lost; but his name is still known, by his treatise entitled “Stratageticus,” on the duty and virtues of the general of an army, which has been translated into Latin, Italian, French, and Spanish. The first edition in Greek was published, with a Latin translation, by Nicolas Rigault, at Paris, 1599, 4to but the reprint of this in 1600, 4 to, with the notes of Æmilius Forms, is preferred. There is also a good edition by Schwebelius, Nuremberg, 1762, fol. The time when our author flourished is not precisely fixed, only it is certain that he lived under the Roman emperors. His book may determine the point, if Q. Veranius, to whom it is dedicated, be the same person of that name who is mentioned by Tacitus, who lived under the emperors Claudius and Nero, and died in the reign of the latter, being then Legatus Britannia? but this is not certain.

, a very excellent artist and professor of painting in the Royal Academy, was born in May 1761, at St. Agnes in Cornwall, a village about seven miles distant from the town of Truro. In his earliest years he was remarkable for the strength of his understanding, and the rapidity with which he acquired all the learning that a village-school could afford him. When ten years old, he was not only able to solve several difficult problems in Euclid, but was thought capable of instructing others: and when he had scarcely reached his twelfth year, he established an evening school at St. Agnes, and taught writing and arithmetic. His father, a carpenter, was desirous to bring him up in his own business; but this was by no means suitable to one whose mind had attained some glimpses of science, and still more of art. He was formed a painter by nature; and had not this been the case, he would probably have excelled in some branch of science or literature: with much comprehension and acuteness, his thirst of information was insatiable, and his ambition to excel, unbounded. But painting was his destination, and after many early and rude efforts, he had hung his father’s house with portraits of his family and friends in an improved style, when he became acquainted with Dr. John Wolcot, then residing at Truro, and since so well known by the name of Peter Pindar: who, having himself a taste for drawing, and a strong perception of character, saw the worth of our artist, and was well qualified to afford him instruction in many requisite points. He also recommended him so effectually that he commenced professed portrait" painter, and went about to the neighbouring towns with letters of introduction to the principal families resident in them, and henceforward entirely supported himself by his own exertions.

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

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.

The lectures which he delivered at the Royal Academy are published to the world, it is therefore not necessary to enter upon their merits; but it will be justice to their author, earnestly to recommend the perusal of them to all who wish to understand the principles of the art on which they treat. Unhappily the course was incomplete, as he only gave four lectures of the six prescribed to each professor. The world were deprived all further benefit from his powerful intellects by his death, which occurred, after a lingering illness, in April 1807. He was honoured by an interment in St. Paul’s cathedral, near the grave of sir Joshua Reynolds, and his funeral was most respectfully attended by almost all the members of the Royal Academy, and many of the nobility and gentry of the country.

, 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.

, a famous German printer, was born at Basil, Jan. 25, 1507. His father, John Herbst, was a painter; who had been deserted by his father for attachment to his art, and had settled at Basil in very indifferent circumstances. He contrived, however, to give his son some education at home, and afterwards sent him to Strasbourg, where he received the provision allotted to poor students. Here he studied Latin and Greek, and spoke and wrote the former with purity and fluency. With these accomplishments he would have returned home, but having no prospect of employment there, he went to the abbey of St. Urban, in the Canton of Lucerne, and was appointed master of the school. In this house, he formed an intimacy with the canon Xylotectus, who afterwards quitted his preferment, became a protestant, and married. Oporinus, also disliking a monastic life, followed his friend to Basil, and gained a livelihood by transcribing the works of the Greek authors published by Frobenius. On the death of his friend Xylotectus, he married his widow in 1527, a woman of a capricious temper, who rendered his life very uneasy. He had been for some time appointed schoolmaster here, but exchanged an employment of much drudgery and little reward for the study of medicine, which he hoped would be more profitable. The noted Paracelsus was at this time at Basil, and engaged to teach him all the secrets of his art within the space of a year. Oporinus, rejoiced at the prospect of becoming as wise as his master, willingly submitted to be his pupil, his servant, his amanuensis, and bore with all his eccentricities with great patience, accompanying him even to Alsace, until finding that he was egregiously duped by this quack, he returned to Basil, to encounter another disappointment. His wife died, from whom he expected great riches, but she left him only debts.

About this time Grynaeus, the Greek professor at Basil, and an intimate friend of Oporinus, procured him to be appointed one of the professors, and he gave a course of lectures on the lives of Plutarch; but, the governors of that republic obliging all the professors in their university to take the degree of M. A. Oporinus, who was then past thirty, refused to submit to the usual examination, resigned his office, and took up the trade of a printer. In this business he joined in partnership with Robert Winter, and changed his family name of Herbst, according to the humour of several learned men at that time, for Oporinus, a Greek word, signifying Autumn as Winter also, for the same reason, took that of Chimerinus . The partners, however, met with considerable losses; so that Winter died insolvent; and Oporinus was not able to support himself without the assistance of his friends, in which condition he died July 6, 1568. He had six presses constantly at work, usually employed above fifty men, and published no book which he had not corrected himself. Notwithstanding his great business, he died above 1500 livres in. debt.

, a Greek poet and grammarian, who flourished about the year 200 under the emperor Caracalla, was a native of Anazarba in Cilicia. We have of this author five books of fishing, entitled “Halieutics;” which he presented to Caracalla, in the life-time of his father the emperor Severus: as also four books of hunting, presented likewise to Caracalla after the death of Severus. Caracalla was so much pleased with Oppian’s poems, that he gave a crown of gold for every line; whence, it is said, they got the title of Golden verses, although others have supposed they merited that appellation for their elegance. Some modern critics say, he was a particular favourite of the Muses; he excels in sentiments and similitudes, but is particularly distinguished by the great erudition which supports his verses. He composed other pieces, which are lost; for instance, “A Treatise upon Falconry.” He died in his own country, of the plague, at thirty years of age; and a statue was erected in honour of him by his feU low-citizens who also placed an epitaph upon his tomb, importing, that the gods took him out of the world, because he excelled all mortals. The best editions of his poems are those of Leyden in 1597, 8vo, with notes by Rittershusius; to which is prefixed an account of his life, and that of Schneider, 1776. His work upon “Fishing” was translated into English heroic verse by Jones and others, of St. John’s college, in Oxford, and printed there in 1722, 8vo, with his life prefixed.

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

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

He wrote 70 books of collections, which he chiefly compiled from the works of Galen, and the other physicians who preceded him, and his own experience, at the desire of Julian the emperor, about A. D. 360; of which the first 15 are now only remaining, and two more on anatomy. Of these his works he made an epitome, for the use of his son Eustathius, in nine books. His “Theory of Diseases” is that of Galen, from whom he principally took it; yet something new may be found in his works, not mentioned by any author before him; and both he and JEtiu* have preserved several useful fragments of antiquity from Archigenes, Herodotus, Leonides, Eunapius, Posidonius, Apollonius, and Antyllus, and some others. There is a good edition of his “Anatomica” in Greek and Latin, 4to, a Dundass, L. Bat. 1745.

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

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

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

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

Though what we have at present of the works of Origen made several considerable volumes, yet they are but an inconsiderable part of what he wrote. Jerom, speaking of Origen, says, “Who is there among you that can read as many books as he has composed?” We may distinguish his works into two kinds; the one upon the sacred Scriptures, the other into separate treatises upon different subjects. Not to mention his “Tetrapla” and“Hexapla,” which were rather a collection than a work of his own, he composed three sorts of books upon the Scriptures; and these were “Commentaries,” “Scholia,” and “Homilies.” In his “Commentaries,” he gave himself wholly up to all that heat and fire, all that genius and force of fancy, which was natural to him; the better, as he thought, to reach the height and depth of the Scriptures, and their most recondite and mysterious interpretation. His “Scholia” were, on the contrary, only short notes, to explain the difficult places. These two kinds of works were rather for jthe use of the learned than of the people; but the “Homilies,” which the Latins call Treatises, and we Sermons, were moral lectures upon the holy Scriptures. We have none of the “Scholia” remaining, nor hardly any of the “Homilies” in Greek and those which we have in Latin, are ^translated by Ruffinus, and others, with so much licence, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to discern Origen’s own from what has been foisted in by his interpreters. A great part likewise of his “Commentaries” are lost. The other Treatises of Origen are not near so many in number as his works upon the Scriptures, and yet they were very considerable; for, not to mention his “Commentaries upon the” Philosophers,“which Eusebius speaks of, he wrote two books upon the” Resurrection;“a treatise” -De Principiis,“in four books; ten of” Stromata;“an” Exhortation to Martyrdom;“eight books against” Celsus;“”A Treatise upon Prayer;“'” A Letter to Africanus concerning the History of Susannah," &c.

All Origen’s works, which remain only in Latin, were collected by Merlinus, and afterwards by Erasmus, and printed at Paris, in 1512, and at Basil in 1536, in 2 vols. folio. Genebrard has since made a larger collection, which was printed at Paris, in 1574, 1604, 1619, 2 vols. folio. All the Greek fragments of Origen upon the Scriptures were published, with a Latin translation by Huetius, and printed in 1668, 1679, and 1685, 2 vols, folio; to which are prefixed by the editor large Prolegomena, under the title of “Origeniana,” in which are given, in three books, a very copious and learned account of the life, the doctrines, and the writings of Origen. The eight books against U Oelsus,“an Epicurean philosopher, which are by far the most valuable of his works, were published in Greek, with the” Translation of Gelenius,“and the” Notes of Hoeschelius,“in 1605, 4to; and afterwards very correctly at Cambridge, in 1658, 4to, by William Spencer, fellow of Trinity-college, who corrected the translation, and also added notes of his own. To this edition are subjoined the” Philocalia, sive de obscuris sacrse scripturae locis,“of Origen. Wetstein, Greek-professor at Basil, caused to be printed there, with a Latin version and notes, in 1674, 4to,” The Dialogue against Marcion“(which, by the way, is supposed by Huetius to be a spurious piece), the” Exhortation to Martyrdom,“and the” Letters of Africanus and Origen, concerning the “History of Susannah and lastly, the book” De Oratione,“was published at London, in 1718, 4to, with notes by Dr. Ashton and Mr. Reading. An edition of all Origen’s works was undertaken by Charles Delarue, a Benedictine monk, who began to publish it at Paris, in 1733, folio; and though the four volumes he has given us do not complete his plan, yet they contain the best, and indeed the only part of Origen’s works wprth any attention. This was reprinted by Oberthur, in 1780, 15 vols. 8vo. The celebrated Montfaucon has published in 2 vols, folio, some remains and fragments of his” Hexapla," and more recently Bahrdt published at Leipsic the Hexapla, 1769, in 2 vols. 8vo.

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.