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

But Erasmus, whatever he might think of Luther’s opinions, had neither his impetuosity,' nor his courage. He contented himself, therefore, with acting and speaking in his usual strain of moderation, and wrote a letter to the elector Frederic, in which he declared “his dislike of the 'arts which were employed to make Luther odious; that he did not know Luther, and so could neither approve nor condemn his writings, because indeed he had not read them; that however he condemned the railing at him with so much violence, because he had submitted himself to the judgment of those whose office it was to determine, and man had endeavoured to convince him of his error that his antagonists seemed rather to seek his death, than his salvation; that they mistook the matter in supposing, that all error is heresy; that there are errors in all the writings of both ancients and moderns; that divines are of different opinions; that it is more prudent to use moderate, than violent means; that the elector ought to protect innocency, and that this was the intent of Leo X.” Erasmus wrote also a friendly letter in answer to Luther’s, and told him, that “his books had raised such an uproar at Louvain, as it was not possible for him to describe; that he could not have believed divines could have been such madmen, if he had not been present, and seen them with his eyes; that, by defending him, he had rendered himself suspected; that many abused him as the leader of this faction, so they call it; that there were many in England, and some at Louvain, no inconsiderable persons, who highly approved his opinions; that, for his own part, he endeavoured to carry himself as evenly as he could with all parties, that he might more effectually serve the interests of learning and religion; that, however, he thought more might be done by civil and modest means than by intemperate heat and passion; that it would be better to inveigh against those who abuse the pope’s authority, than against the popes themselves; that new opinions should rather be promoted in the way of proposing doubts and difficulties, than by affirming and deciding peremptorily; that nothing should be delivered with faction and arrogance; but that the mind, in these cases, should be kept entirely free from anger, hatred, and vainglory. I say not this,” says Erasmus, “as if you wanted any admonitions of this kind, bat only that you may not want them hereafter, any more than you do at present.” When this letter was written, Erasmus and Luther ha<i never seen each other: it is dated from Louvain, May 30, 151 y; and it is hardly possible to read it without suspecting, that Erasmus was entirely in Luther’s sentiments, if he had possessed the courage to declare it. He concludes in these words, which seem to imply as much: “I have dipped into your commentaries upon the Psalms; they please me prodigiously, and I hope will be read with great advantage. There is a prior of the monastery of Antwerp, who says he was formerly your pupil, and loves you most affectionately. He is a truly Christian man, and almost the only one of his society who preaches Christ, the rest being attentive either to the fabulous traditions of men, or to their own profit. I have written to Melarrcthon. The Lord Jesus pour upon you his spirit, that you may abound more and more every day, to his glory in the service of the church. Farewell.”

In 1519 Luther had a famous dispute at Leipsic with John Eckius. Eckius, as we have observed, wrote notes upon Luther’s theses, which Luther first, and afterwards Carolostadius, answered. The dispute thus depending, a conference was proposed at Leipsic, with the consent of George duke of Saxony, who was cousin-german to Frederic the elector; and accordingly Luther went thither at the end of June, accompanied by Carolostadius and Melancthon. Melchior Adam relates that Luther could not obtain leave to dispute for some time, but was only a spectator of what passed between Carolostadius and Eckius, till Eckius got at last a protection for him from the duke. It is certain, however, that they disputed upon the most delicate points upon purgatory, upon indulgences; and especially upon the authority of the pope. Luther objected to this last, as being an invidjous and unnecessary subject; and that he would not have meddled with it, if Eckius had not put it among the propositions which they were to argue. Eckius answered, and it must be owned with some reason, that Luther had first given occasion to that question, by touching upon it himself, and teaching several things contrary to the authority of the holy see. In this dispute, after many texts of scripture, and many passages from the fathers, had been cited and canvassed by both sides, they came to settle the sense of the famous words, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church.” Luther asserted, That by rock is to be understood either power or faith: if power, then our Saviour hath added to no purpose, “and I will give thee the keys, &c.” if faith, as it ought, then it is also common to all other churches, and not peculiar to that of Rome. Eckius replied, That these words settled a supremacy upon St. Peter; that they ought to be understood of his person, according to the explication of the fathers; that the contrary opinion was one of the errors of Wicklitf and John Hass, which were condemned; and that he followed the opinion of the Bohemians. Luther was not to be silenced with this, but said, That although all the fathers had understood that passage of St. Peter in the sense of Eckius, yet he would oppose them with the authority of St. Paul and St. Peter himself; who say, that Jesus Christ is the only foundation and corner-stone of his church; and as to his following the opinion of the Bohemians, in' maintaining a proposition condemned with John Huss, that “the dignity of the pope was established by the emperor,” though he did not, he said, approve of the schism of the Bohemians, yet he should make no scruple to affirm, that, among the articles condemned with John Huss, there were some very sound and orthodox. This dispute ended at length like all others, the parties not the least nearer in opinions, but more at enmity with each other’s persons. It seems, however, granted on all sides, that while Eckius made the best possible defence for his party, Luther did not acquire in this dispute that success and applause which he expected; and it is agreed also, that he made a concession to Eckius, which he afterwards retracted, that the pope was head of the church by human though not by divine right; which made George duke of Saxony say, after the dispute was over, “Sive Jure divino, siye hurnano sit papa, est tamen papa:” " Whether he be pope by divine right or human, he is nevertheless pope/'

This same year 1519, Luther’s books concerning indulgences were formally censured by the divines of Louvain and Cologne. The former having consulted with the cardinal of Tortosa, afterwards Adrian VI. passed their censure on the 7th of November; and the censure of the lakter, which was made at the request of the divines of Louvain, was dated on the 30th of August. Luther wrote immediately against these censures, and declared that be valued them not: that several great and good men, such as Occam, Picus Mirandula, Laurentius Valla, and others, had been condemned in the same unjust manner; nay, he would venture to add to the list, Jerom of Prague and John Huss. He charged those universities with rashness, in being the first that declared against him; and accused them of want of proper respect and deference to the holy see, in condemning a book presented to the pope, on which judgment had not yet been passed. About the end of this year, Luther published a book, in which be contended for the communion being celebrated in both kinds. This was condemned by the bishop of Misnia, Jan. 24, 1520. Lnther, seeing himself so beset with adversaries’, wrote a letter to the new emperor, Charles V. of Spain, who was not yet come into Germany, and another to the elector of Mentz; in both which he humhly implores protection, till he should be able to give an account of himself and his opinions; adding, that he did not desire to be defended, if he were convicted of impiety or heresy, but only that he might not be condemned without a hearing. The former of these letters is dated Jan. 15, 1520; the latter, Feb. 4. The elector Frederic fell about this time into a dangerous illness, which threw the whole party into great consternation, and occasioned some apprehensions at Wittemberg: but of this he happily recovered.

While Luther was labouring to excuse himself to the emperor and the bishops of Germany, Eckius had gone to Rome, to solicit his condemnation: which, it may easily be conceived, was not now very difficult to be obtained, as he and his whole party were had in abhorrence, and the elector Frederic wajs out of favour, on account of the protection which he afforded Luther. The elector excused himself to the pope, in a letter dated April 1; which the pope answered, and sent him at the same time a copy of a bull, in which he was required “either to oblige Luther to retract his errors, or to imprison him for the disposal of the pope.” This peremptory proceeding alarmed at first the court of the elector, and many German nobles who were of Luther’s party, but their final resolution was, to protect and defend him. In the mean time, though Luther’s condemnation was determined at Rome, Miltitz did not cease to treat in Germany, and to propose means of accommodation. To this end he applied to the chapter of the Augustine friars there, and prayed them to interpose their authority, and to beg of Luther that he would endeavour to conciliate the pope by a letter, full of submission and respect. Luther consented to write, and his letter bears date April the 6th; but matters had been carried too far on both sides, ever to admit of a reconciliation. The mischief Luther had done, and continued to do, to the papal authority, was irreparable; and the rough usage and persecutions he had received from the pope’s party had now inflamed his active spirit to that degree, that it was not possible to appease it, but by measures which the pope and the court of Rome could never be expected to adopt. At all events, the letter he wrote at this juncture could not be attended with any healing ednsequences; the style and sentiments were too irritating for a less degree of pride than that which presided at Rome. In this epistle Luther says, “that among the monsters of the age, with whom be had been engaged for three years past, he had often called to mind the blessed father Leo: that now he began to triumph over his enemies, and to despise them: that, though he had been obliged to appeal from his holiness to a general council, yet he had no aversion to him: that he had always wished and prayed for all sorts of blessings upon his person and see: that his design was only to defend the truth: that he had never spoken dishonourably of his holiness, but had called him a Daniel in the midst of Babylon, to denote the innocence and purity he had preserved among so many corrupt men: that the court of Rome was visibly more corrupt than either Babylon or Sodom; and that his holiness was as a lamb among wolves, a Daniel among lions, and an Ezekiel ampng scorpions: that there were not above three or four cardinals of any learning or piety: that it was against these disorders of the court of Rome he was obliged to appear: that cardinal Cajftan, who was ordered by his holiness to treat with him, bad shewn no inclinations to peace: that his nuncio JVliltitz had indeed come to two conferences with him, and that he had promised JVliltitz to be silent, and submit to the decision of the archbishop of Triers; but that the dispute at Leipsic had hindered the execution of this project, and put things into greater confusion: that Milt it/ hud applied a third time to the chapter of his order, at whose instigation he had written to his holiness: and that he now threw himself at his feet, praying him to impose silence upon his enemies: but that, as for a recantation on his part, be must not insist upon it, unless he would increase the troubles; nor prescribe him rules for the interpretation of the word of God, because it ought not to be limited. Then he admonishes the pope not to suffer himself to be seduced, by his flatterers, into a persuasion that he can command and require all things, that he is above a council and the universal church, that he alone has a right to interpret scripture; but to believe those rather who debase, than those who exalt him.”

The continual importunities of Luther’s adversaries with Leo caused him at length to publish a formal condemnation of him, in a bull dated June 15, 1520. In the beginning of this bujl, the pope directs his bpeech to Jesus Christ, to St. Peler, St. Paul, and all the saints, invoking their aid, in the most solemn expressions against the new errors and heresies, and for the preservation of the faith, peace, and unity of the church. Then he expresses hi? great grief for the late propagation of these errors in Germany; errors, either already condemned by the councils and constitutions of the pope, or new propositions heretical, false, scandalous, apt to offend and seduce the faithful. Then, after enumerating forty-one propositions collected from Luther’s writings, he does, by the advice of his cardinals, and after mature deliberation, condemn them as respectively heretical; and forbids all Christians, under the pain of excommunication, and deprivation of all their dignities, which they should incur ipso facto, to hold, defend, or preach any of these propositions^ or to suffer others to preach them. As to Luther, after accusing him of disobedience and obstinacy, because he had appealed from his citation to a council, though he thought he might at that instant condemn him as a notorious heretic, yet be gave him sixty days to consider; assuring him, that if in that time he would revoke his errors, and return to his duty, and give him real proofs that he did so by public acts, and by burning his books, he should find in him a true paternal affection: otherwise he declares, that he should incur the punishment due to heretics.

Luther, now perceiving that all hopes of an accommodation were at an end, no longer observed the least reserve or moderation. Hitherto he had treated his adversaries with some degree of ceremony, paid them some regard; and, not being openly separated from the church, did not quite abandon the discipline of it. But now he kept no measures with them, broke off all his engagements to the church, and publicly declared, that he would no longer communicate in it. The first step he took, after the publication of the pope’s bull, was to write against it; which he did in very severe terms, calling it, “The execrable bull of antichrist.” He published likewise a book called “The Captivity of Babylon” in which he begins with a protestation, “That he became every day more knowing: that he was ashamed and repented of what he had written about indulgences two years before, when he was a slave to the superstitions of Rome: that he did not indeed then reject indulgences, but had since discovered, tliat they are nothing but impostures, fit to raise money, and to destroy the faith: that he was then content with denying the papacy to be jure divino, but had lately been convinced that it was the kingdom of Babylon: that he then wished a general council would settle the communion in both kinds, but npw plainly saw, that it was commanded by scripture: that he did absolutely deny the seven sacraments, owning no more than three, baptism, penance, and the Lord’s supper,” &c. About the same time also, he published another treatise in the German language, to make the court of Rome odious to the Germans; in which “he gives a history of the wars raised by the popes against the emperors, and represents the miseries Germany had suffered by them. He strives to engage the emperor and princes of Germany to espouse his party against the pope,' by maintaining, that they had the same power over the clergy as they had over the laity, and that there was no appeal from their jurisdiction. He advised the whole nation to shake off the pope’s power; and proposes a reformation, by which he subjects the pope and bishops to the power of the emperor, &c.” Lastly, that he might not be wanting in any thing which should testify his abhorrence of the proceedings in the court of Rome, Luther determined to treat the pope’s bull and decretals in the same manner as they had ordered his writings to be treated: and therefore, calling the students at Wittemberg together, he flung them into a fire prepared for that purpose; saying, “Because thou hast troubled the holy one of God, let eternal fire trouble thee.” This ceremony was performed, Dec. 10, 1520.

The bull of Luther’s condemnation was carried into Germany, and published there by Eckius, who had solicited it at Rome; and who, together with Jerom Aleander, a person eminent for his learning and eloquence, was intrusted by the pope with the execution of it. In the mean time, Charles V. of Spain, after he had adjusted the affairs of the Low Countries, went into Germany, and was crowned emperor, Oct. the 21st, at Aix-la-Chapelle. The plague preventing his remaining long in that city, he went to Cologne, and appointed a diet at Worms, to meet Jan. the 6tb, 1521. Frederic, elector of Saxony, could not be present at the coronation, but was left sick at Cologne, where Aleander, who accompanied the emperor, presented him with a brief, which the pope had sent by him, and by which his holiness gave him notice of the decree he had made against the errors of Luther. Aleander told the elector, that the pope had intrusted himself and Eckius with the affair of Luther, which was of the utmost consequence to the whole Christian world, and, it' there were not a speedy stop put to it, would undo the empire: that he did not doubt, but that the elector woifld imitate the emperor, and other princes of the empire, who had received the pope’s judgment respectfully. He informed his highness also, that he had two things to request of him in the name of the pope: “First, That he would cause all Luther’s books to be burnt; and, secondly, that he would either put Luther to death, or imprison him, or send him to the pope.” The pope sent also a brief to the university of Wittemberg, to exhort them to put his bull in execution against Luther; but neither the elector nor the university paid any regard to his briefs. Luther, at the same time, renewed his appeal to a future council, in terms very severe upon the pope, calling him tyrant, heretic, apostate, antichrist, and blasphemer; and in it prays the emperor, electors, princes, and lords of the empire, to favour his appeal, nor suffer the execution of the bull, till he should be lawfully summoned, heard, and convicted, before impartial judges. This appeal is dated Nov. 17. Erasmus, indeed, and other German divines, were of opinion that things ought not to be carried to this extremity, foreseeing, that the fire which consumed Luther’s books would soon put all Germany into a flame. They proposed, therefore, to agree upon arbitrators, or to refer the whole cause to the first general council. But these pacific proposals came too late; and Eckius and Aleander pressed the matter so vigorously both to the emperor and the other German princes, that Luther’s books were burnt in several cities of Germany. Aleander also earnestly importuned the emperor for an edict against Luther; but he found many and great obstacles. Luther’s party was very powerful; and Charles V. was not willing to give so public an offence to the elector of Saxony, who had lately refused the empire, that he might have it.

To overcome these difficulties, Aleander gained a new bull from Rome, which declared, that Luther had incurred, by obstinacy, the penalty denounced in the first. He also wrote to the court of Rome for the assistance of money and friends, to be used at the diet of Worms: and, because the Lutherans insisted that the contest was chiefly about the jurisdiction of the pope, and the abuses of the court of Rome, and that they were only persecuted for the sake of delivering up Germany to the tyranny of that court; he undertook t.> shew, That Luther had broached many errors relating to the mysteries of religion, and revived the heresies of Wickliff and John Huss. The diet of Worms was held in the beginning of 1521 where Aleandtrr, in the absence of Luther, employed his eloquence and interest so successfully, that the emperor and princes of the empire were about to execute the pope’s bull against Luther with severity, and without delay The only way wfhich the elector of Saxony and Luther’s friends could invent to ward off the blow, was to say, “That it was not evident, that the propositions objected tp were his that his adversaries might attribute them to him falsely that the books from which they were taken might be forged and, above all, that it was not just to condemn him without summoning and hearing him.” The emperor, therefore, with the consent of the princes of the diet, sent Sturmius, an orh'cer, from Worms to Wittemberg, to conduct Luther safely to the diet. Sturmius carried w.th him a “safe-conduct” to Luther, signed by the emperor and princes of the diet; and also a letter from the emperor, dated March 21, 1521, and directed “To the honourable, beloved, devout doctor, Martin Luther, of the order of St. Augustine;” in which he summoned him to appear at the diet, and assured him, that he need not fear any violence or ill treatment. Nevertheless, Luther’s friends were much against his going; some telling him, that, by burning his books, he might easily know what censure would be passed on himself; others reminding him of the treatment they had, upon a like occasion, shewn to John Huss. But Luther despised all dangers; and, in a strain which is extremely characteristic of him, declared, that “If he knew there were as many devils at Worms as tiles upon the houses, he would go.”

He arrived accordingly at Worms April 16, where a prodigious multitude of people were assembled, for the sake of seeing a man of whom so much had no.w been heard. When he appeared before the diet, he had two questions put to him by John Eckius: “First, whether h$ owned those books for his that went under his name; and, secondly, Whether he intended to retract or defend what was contained in them.” These queries produced an altercation, which lasted some days; but which ended at length in this single and peremptory declaration of Luther, that “unless he was convinced by texts of scripture or evident reason (for he did not think himself obliged to submit to the pope or his councils), he neither could nor would retract any thing, because it was not lawful for him to act against nis conscience.” This being Luther’s final resolution, the emperor declared to the diet, That he was determined to proceed against him as a notorious heretic; but that he intended, nevertheless, he should return to Wittemberg, according to the conditions laid down in his “safe-conduct.” Luther left Worms April the 26th, conducted by Sturmius, who had brought him and being arrived at Friburg, he wrote letters to the emperor and princes of the diet, to commend his cause to them, and to excuse himself for not submitting to a recantation. These letters wt re conveyed by Sturmius, whom he sent back, on pretence that he was then out of danger; but in reality, as it is supposed, that Sturmius might not be present at the execution of a scheme which had been concerted befofe Luther set out from Worms; for, the elector of Satfony, foreseeing that the emperor was going to make a bloody edict against Luther, and finding it impossible to support and protect him any longer without involving himself in difficulties, resolved to have him taken away, and concealed. This was proposed to Luther, and accordingly when he went from Eysenac, May the 3d, through a wood, in his way to Wittemberg, he was suddenly set upon by some horsemen in disguise, deputed for that purpose, who pretended to take him by force, and carried him secretly into the castle of Wittemberg. Melchior Adam relates, that there were only eight nobles privy to this expedition, which was executed with so much address and fidelity, that no man knew what was become of him, or where he was. This contrivance produced two advantages to Luther: as, first, it caused people to believe that he was taken away by the intrigues of his enemies, which made them dious, and exasperated men’s minds against them; and, secondly, it secured him against the pr isecution which the pope and the empe or were making against him.

Before the diet of Worms was dissolved, Charles V. caused an edict to be drawn up, which was dated the 8th of May, and solemnly published on the 2oth in the assembly of the electors and princes held in his palace. In this edict, after declaring it to be the duty of an emperor, not only to defend the limits of the empire, but to maintain religion and the true faith, and to extinguish heresies in their original, he commands, That Martin Luther be, agreeably to the sentence of the pope, henceforward looked upon as a member separated from the church, a schismatic, and an obstinate and notorious heretic. He forbids all persons, under the penalty of high treason, loss of goods, and being put under the ban of the empire, to receive or defend, maintain or protect him, either in conversation or in writing; and he orders, that, after the twenty-one days allowed in his safe-conduct, he should be proceeded against according to the form of the ban of the empire, in what place soever he should be: or, at least, that he should be seized and imprisoned, till his imperial majesty’s pleasure should be further known. The same punishments are denounced against all the accomplices, adherents, followers, or favourers of Luther; and also all persons are forbidden to print, sell, buy, or read any of his books: and, because there had been published several books concerning the same doctrines, without his name, and several pictures dispersed that were injurious to the pope, cardinal, and bishops, he commands the magistrates to seize and burn them, uod to punish the authors and printers of those pictures and libels. Lastly, it forbids in general the printing of any book concerning matters of faith, which hath not the approbation of the ordinary, and some neighbouring university.

While the bull of Leo X. executed by Charles V. was thundering throughout the empire, Luther was safely shut up in his castle, which he afterwards called his Hermitage, and his Patmos. Here he held a constant correspondence with his friends at Wittemberg, and was employed in composing books in favour of his own cause, and against his adversaries. He did not however so closely confine himself, but that he frequently made excursions into the neighbourhood, though always under some disguise or other. One day he assumed the title and appearance of a nobleman: but it may be supposed that he did not act his part very gracefully; for a gentleman who attended him under that character, to an inn upon the road, was, it seems, so fearful of a discovery, that he thought it necessary to caution him against that absence of mind peculiar to literary men; bidding him “keep close to his sword, without taking the least notice of books, if by chance any should fall in his way.” He used sometimes even to go out a hunting with those few who were in his secret; which, however, we may imagine, he did more for health than for pleasure, as indeed may be collected from his own curious account of it. “I was,” says he, “lately two days a hunting, in which amusement I found both pleasure and pain. We killed a brace of hares, and took some unhappy partridges; a very pretty employment, truly, for an idle man! However, I could not forbear theologizing amidst dogs and nets; for, thought I to myself, do not we, in hunting innocent animals to death with dogs, very much resemble the devil, who, by crafty wiles and the instruments of wicked priests, is perpetually seeking whom he may devour? Again: We happened to take a leveret alive, which I put into my pocket, with an intent to preserve it; yet we were not gone far, before the dogs seized upon it, as it was in my pocket, and worried it. Just so the pope and the devil rage furiously to destroy the souls that I have saved, in spite of all my endeavours to prevent them. In short, I am tired of hunting these little innocent beasts; and had rather be employed, as I have been for some time, in spearing bears, wolves, tigers, and foxes; that is, in opposing and confounding wicked and impious divines, who resemble those savage animals in their qualities.”

Weary at length of his retirement, he appeared publicly again at Wittemberg, March 6, 1522, after he had been absent about ten months. He appeared indeed without the elector’s leave, but immediately wrote him a letter, to prevent his being offended. The diet of Charles V. severe as it was, had given little or no check to Luther’s doctrine; for the emperor was no sooner gone into Flanders, than his edict was neglected and despised, and the doctrine seemed to spread even faster than before. Carolostadius, in Luther’s absence, had acted with even more vigour than his leader, and had attempted to abolish the use of mass, to remove images out of the churches, to set aside auricular confession, invocation of saints, the abstaining from meats; had allowed the monks to leave their monasteries, to neglect their vows and to marry, and thus had quite changed the doctrine and discipline of the church at Wittemberg: all which, though not against Luther’s sentiments, was yet blamed by him, as being rashly and nnseasonably done. The reformation was still confined to Germany; it had not extended to France; and Henry V11I. of England made the most rigorous acts to prevent its entering his realm; and to shew his zeal for the holy see, wrote a treatise “Of the seven Sacraments,” against Luther’s book “Of the captivity of Babylon;” winch he presented to Leo X. in Oct. 1521. The pope received it favourably, and complimented Henry with the title of “Defender of the Faith.” Luther, however, paid no regard to his dignity, but treated both his person and performance in the most contemptuous manner. Henry complained of this rude usage to the princes of Saxony; and Fisher, bishop of Rochester, replied, in hehall' of Henry’s treatise: but neither the king’s complaint, nor the bishop’s reply, were attended with any visible effects.

Luther now made open war with the pope and bishops; and, that he might make the people despise their authority as much us possible, he wrote one book against the pope’s bull, and another against the order falsely culled “the order of bishops.” The same year, 1522, he wrote a loiter, July the 29tn, to the assembly of the States of Bohemia, in which he assured them, that he was labouring to establish their doctrine in Germany, and exhorted them not to return to the communion of the church of Rome; and he published also this year, a translation of the “New Testament” in the German tongue, which was afterwards corrected by himself and Melancthon. This translation having been printed several times, and in general circulation, Ferdinand, archduke of Austria, the emperor’s brother, made a very severe edict, to suppress its publication, and forbade all the subjects of his imperial majesty to have any copies of it, or of Luther’s other books. Some other princes followed his example, which provoked Luther to write a treatise “Of the secular power,” in which he accuses them of tyranny and impiety. The diet of the empire was held at Nuremberg, at the end of the year; to which Adrian VI. sent his brier', dated Nov. the 25th; for Leo X, died Dec. 2, 1521, and Adrian bad been elected pope the 9th of Jan. following. In this brief, among other things, he informs the diet, that he had heard, with grief, that Martin Luther, after the sentence of Leo X. which was ordered to be executed by the edict of Worms, continued to teach the same errors, and daily to publish books full of heresies: that it appeared strange to him, that so large and so religious a nation could be seduced by a wretched apostate friar: that nothing, however, could be more pernicious to Christendom: and that, therefore, he e.thorts them to use their utmost endeavours to make Luther, and the authors of these tumults, return to their duty; or, if they refuse and continue obstinate, to proceed against them according to the laws of the empire, and the severity of the last edict.

In the beginning of 1524, Clement VII. sent a legate into Germany to the diet which was to be held at Nuremberg. This pope had succeeded Adrian, who died in Oct. 1523, and had, a little before his death, canonized Benno, who Was bishop of Meissen in the time of Gregory VII. and one of the most zealous defenders of the holy se. Luther, imagining that this was done directly to oppose him, drew up a piece with this title, “Against the new Idol and Devil set up at Meissen;” in which he treats the memory of Gregory with great freedom, and does not spare even Adrian. Clement VII.'s legate, therefore, represented to the diet at Nuremberg the necessity of enforcing the execution of the edict of Worms, which had been strangely neglected by the princes of the empire; but, notwithstanding the legate’s solicitations, which were very pressing, the decrees of that diet were thought so ineffectual, that they were condemned at Rome, and rejected by the emperor. It was in this year that the dispute between Luther and Erasmus began about free-will. Erasmus had been much courted by the papists to write against Luther; but had hitherto avoided the task, by saying, “that Luther was too great a man for him to write against, and that he had learned more from one short page of Luther, than from all the large books of Thomas Aquinas.” Besides, Erasmus was all along of opinion, that writing would not be found an effectual way to end the differences, and establish the peace of the church. Tired out, however, at length with the importunities of the pope and the catholic princes, and desirous at the same time to clear himself from the suspicion of favouring a cause which he would not seem to favour, he resolved to write against Luther, though, as he tells Melancthon, it was with some reluctance; and he chose free-will for the subject. His book was entitled “A diatriba, or Conference about Free-will,” and was wriuen with much moderation, and without personal reflections. He tells Luther in the preface, “that he ought not to take his differing from him in opinion ill, because he had allowed himself the liberty of differing from the judgment of popes, councils, universities and doctors of the church.” Luther was some time before he answered Erasmus’s book, but at last published a treatise “De servo arbitrio, or, Of the Servitude of Man’s Will;” and though Melancthon had promised Krasmus, that Luther should answer him with civility and moderation, yet Luther had so little regard to Melancthon’s promise, that he never wrote any thing more severe. He accused Erasmus of being carelrsn about religion, and little solicitous what became of it, provided the world continued in peace; and that his notions were rather philosophical than Christian. Erasmus immediately replied to Luther,- in a piece called “Hyperaspistes”. in the first part of which he answers his arguments, and in the second his personal reflections.

Before this resolution of the diet appeared, the elector of Saxony, and landgrave of Hesse, proposed to the deputies of Strasbiirji and Nuremberg, to nuke1 league in the defence of those who should follow the new doctrine, and to bring the cities of Francfort and Ulm into it; but the deputies could then give no other answer, than that they would consult their cities about it. Affairs were now in great confusion in Germany; and they were not less so in Italy; for a quarrel arose between the pope and the emperor, during which Rome was twice taken, and the pope imprisoned. While the princes were thus employed in quarrelling with each other, Luther persisted in carrying on the work of the Reformation, as well by opposing the papists, as by combating the anabaptists and other fanatical sects; which, having taken the advantage of his contest ^with the church of. Rome, had sprung up and established themselves in several places. In 1527, Luther was suddenly seized with a coagulation of the blood about the heart, which had like to have put an end to his life; but recovering from this, he was attacked a second time with a spiritual temptation, which he calls, “Colaphum Satanae, a blow of Satan.” He seemed, as he tells us, to perceive at his left ear a prodigious beating, as it were of the waves of the sea, and this not only wiihin, but also without his head; and so violent withal, that he thought every moment he was going to expire. Afterwards, when he felt it only in the inner part of his head, he grew almost senseless, was all over chilly, and not able to speak: but, recovering himself a little, he applied himself to prayer, made a confession of his faith, and lamented grievously his unworthiness of martyrdom, which he had so often and so ardently desired. In this situation, he made a will, for he had a son, and his wife was again with child, in which he recommanded his family to the care of heaven: “Lord God,” says he, “I thank thee, that thou wouldst have me poor upon earth, and a beggar. I have neither house, nor land, nor possessions, nor money, to leave. Thou hast given me a wife and children take them, I beseech thee, under thy care, and preserve them, as thou hast preserved me.” He was, however, permitted to recover from this terrible condition; but he often spoke of it afterwards to his friends as one of the severest bufferings he had ever received from Satan. Perhaps our medical readers will be disposed to consider it in a very different light.

The elector John of Saxony (for Frederic was dead), the elector of Brandenburg, Ernest and Francisdukes of Lunenburg, the landgrave of Hesse, and the prince of Anhalt, protested against this decree of the diet. Their reasons were, 4t Ttiat they ought not to do any thing to infringe upon the determination of the former diet, which had granted liberty in religion, till the holding of the council; that that resolution, having been taken by the unanimous consent of all the members of the empire, could not be repealed but by the like consent; that, in the diet of Nuremberg, the original cause of all the differences in religion was searched into, and that, to allay them, they had offered to the pope eighty articles, to which his holiness had given no answer; that the effect of their consultations had always been, that the best way to end disputes and reform abuses was to hold a council; that they could not suffer opinions to be forced from them, which th^y judged true and agreeable to the word of God, before the council was held; that their ministers had proved, by invincible arguments taken out of Scripture, that the popish mass was contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ, and the practice of the apostles, so that they could not agree to what uas ordered in the diet; that they knew the judgment of their churches concerning the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist; but that they ought not to make a decree against those who were of a contrary opinion, because they were neither summoned nor heard: that they could indeed venture to approve of the clause about preaching the gospel according to the interpretation received in the church, since that did not determine the matter, it being yet in dispute what was the true church; that there was nothing more certain than the word of Go4 itself, which explains itself, and therefore they would take care, that nothing else should be taught but the Old and New Testament in their purity; that they are the only infallible rule, and that all human traditions are uncertain; that the decree of the former diet was made for the preservation of peace, but that this last would infallibly beget wars and troubles. For these reasons they could not approve of the decree of the diet, but yet would do nothing that should be blame- worthy, till a council, either general or national, should be held." Fourteen cities, viz. Strasburg, Nuremberg, Ulm, Constance, Retlingen, Windsheim, Memmingen, Lindow, Ketnpten, Hailbron, Isny, Weissemburg, Nortlingen, S. Gal, joined in this protestation, which was put into writing, and published the 19th of April, 1529, by an instrument, in which they appealed from all that should be done, to the emperor, a future council, either general or national, or to unsuspected judges; and accordingly they appointed deputies to send to the emperor, to* petition that this decree might be revoked. This was the famous protestation, which gave the name of Protestants to the reformers in Germany.

Luther had now nothing else to do but to sit down and contemplate the mighty work he had finished; and the remainder of his life was spent in exhorting princes, states, and universities, to confirm the reformation which had been brought about through him, and in publishing from time to time such writings as might encourage, direct, and aid them. The emperor threatened temporal punishments with armies, and the pope eternal with bulls and anathemas; but Luther cared for none of their threats. His friend and coadjutor Melancthon was not so indifferent, owing to the moderation and diffidence of his temper; and hence we find many of Luther’s letters, written on purpose to comfort him under his anxieties. “I am,” says he, in one of these letters, “much weaker than you in private conflicts, if I may call those conflicts private which I have with the devil; but you are much weaker than me in public. You are all diffidence in the public cause; I, on the contrary, am very sanguine, because I am confident it is a just and a true cause, the cause of God and of Christ, which need not look pale and tremble; whereas the case is very different with me in my private conflicts, who am a very miserable sinner, and therefore have great reason to look pale and tremble. Upon this account it is, that I can be almost an indifferent spectator amidst all the noisy threats and bullyings of the papists; for if we fall, the kingdom of Christ falls with us; and, if it should fall, I had rather fall with Christ, than stand with Caesar.” So again a little farther: “You, JNlelancthon, cannot bear these disorders, and labour to have things transacted by reason, and agreeable to that spirit of calmness and moderation which your philosophy dictates. You might as well attempt to be mad with reason. Do not you see that the matter is entirely out of your power and management, and that even Christ himself forbids your measures to take place?” This letter was written in 1530.

This year the court of Rome, finding it impossible to deal with the protestants by force, began to have recourse to stratagem. They affected therefore to think, that though Luther had indeed carried things to a violent extreme, yet what he had pleaded in defence of these measures was not entirely without foundation. They talked with a seeming shew of moderation; and Pius 111. who succeeded Clement VII. proposed a reformation first among themselves, and even went so far as to fix a place for a council to meet at for that purpose. But Luther treated this farce as it deserved to be treated; unmasked and detected it immediately; and, to ridicule it the more strongly, caused a picture to be drawn, in which was represented the pope seated on high upon a throne, some cardinals about him with fox’s tails, and seeming to evacuate upwards and downwards, “sursum deorsum repurgare,” as Melchior Adam expresses it. This was fixed against the title-page, to let the readers see at once the scope and design of the book which was, to expose that cunning and artifice with which those subtle politicians affected to cleanse and purify themselves from their errors and superstitions. Luther published about the same time “A Confutation of the pretended grant of Constanline to Sylvester bishop of Rome,” and also “Some letters of John Huss,” written from his prison at Constance to the Bohemians.

In this manner he was employed till his death, which happened in 1546. That year, accompanied by Melancthon, he paid a visit to his own country, which he had not seen for many years, and returned again in safety. But soon after he was called thither again by the earls of Mansfelt, to compose some differences which had arisen about their boundaries. He had not been used to such matters; but because he was born at Isleben, a town in the territory of Mansfelt, he was willing to do his country what service he could, even in this way. Preaching his last sermon, therefore, at Wittemberg, Jan. 17, he set off the 23d; and at Hall in Saxony lodged with Justus Jonas, with whom he stayed three days, because the waters were out. The 28th he passed over the river with his three sons, and Jonas and being in some danger, he said to the doctor, “Do not you think it would rejoice the deril exceedingly, if I and you, and my three sons, should be drowned” When he entered the territories of the earl of Mansfelt, he was received by 100 horsemen or more, and conducted in a very honourable manner; but was at the same time so very ill that it was feared he would die. He said that these fits of sickness often came upon him when he had any great business to undertake: of this, however, he did not recover, but died Feb. 18, in his sixty-third year. A little before he expired he admonished those that were about him to pray to God for the propagation of the gospel “because,” said he, “the council of Trent, which had sat once or twice, and the pope, will devise strange things against it.” Soon after, his body was put into a leaden coffin, and carried with funeral pomp to the church at Isleben, when Jonas preached a sermon upon the occasion. The earls of Mansfelt desired that his body should be interred in their territories; but the elector of Saxony intsted upon his being brought back to Wittemberg, which was accordingly done; and there he was buried with the greatest pomp that perhaps ever happened to any private mail. Princes, earls, nobles, aad students without number, attended the procession; and Melancthon made his funeral oration.

, an elegant English writer, was the eldest son of sir Thomas Lyttelton, of Hagley, in Worcestershire, bart. and was born in 1709. He came into the world two months before the usual time, and was imagined by the nurse to be dead, but upon closer inspiection was found alive, and with some difficulty reared. At Eton school, where he was educated, he was so much distinguished that his exercises were recommended as models to his school-fellows. From Eton he went to Christ Church, where he retained the same reputation of superiority, and displayed his abilities to the public in a poem on Blenheim. He was a very early writer, both in verse and prose; his “Progress of Love,” and his “Persian Letters,” having both been written when he was very young. After a short residence at Oxford, he began his travels in 1728, and visited France and Italy. From Rome he sent those elegant verses which are prefixed to the works of Pope, whom he consulted in 1730 respecting his four pastorals. Pope made some alterations in them, which may be seen in Bowles’s late edition of that poet’s works (vol. IV. p. 139). We find Pope, a few years afterwards, in a letter to Swift, speak thus of him: He is “one of those whom his own merit has forced me to contract an intimacy with, after I had sworn never to love a man more, since the sorrow it cost me to have loved so many now dead, banished, or unfortunate, I mean Mr. Lyttelton, one of the worthiest of the rising generation,” &c. In another letter Mr. Lyttelton is mentioned in a manner with which Dr. Warton says he was displeased .

Mr. Lyttelton now stood in the first rank of opposition; and Pope, who was incited, it is not easy to say how, to increase the clamour against the ministry, commended him among the other patriots. This drew upon him the reproaches of Mr. Henry Fox, who, in the House of Commons, was weak enough to impute to him as a crime his intimacy with a lampooner so unjust and licentious. Lyttelton supported his friend, and replied, “that he thought it an honour to be received into the familiarity of so great a poet.” While he was thus conspicuous, he married (1741) Miss Lucy Fortescue, sister to Matthew lord Fortescue, of Devonshire, by whom he had a son, Thomas, and two daughters, and with whom he appears to have lived in the highest degree of connubial felicity: but human pleasures are short; she died in childbed about six years afterwards (1747); and he solaced his grief by writing a “Monody” to her memory, without, however, condamning himself to perpetual solitude and sorrow; for soon after he sought to find the same happiness again in a second marriage with the daughter of sir Robert Rich (1749); but the experiment was unsuccessful, and he was for some years before his death separated from this lady. “She was,” says Gilbert West in a letter to Dr. Doddridge, “an intimate and dear friend of his former wife, which is some kind of proof of her merit; I mean of the goodness of her heart, for that is the chief merit which Mr. Lyttelton esteems; and I hope she will not in this disappoint his expectations; in all other points she is well suited to him; being extremely well accomplished in languages, music, painting, &c. very sensible, and well bred.” This lady died Sept. 17, 1795.

This eminent man died of a suppression of urine, at the abbey of St. Germain-des-Pres, in Dec. 1707. His great merit had procured him, in 1701, the place of honorary member of the academy of inscriptions. Du Pin tells us thac “it would be difficult to give Mabillon the praises he deserves: the voice of the public, and the general esteem of all the learned, are a much better commendation of him than any thing we can say. His profound learning appears from his works: his modesty, humility, meekness, and piety, are no less known to those who have had the least conversation with him. His style is masculine, pure, clear, and methodical, without affectation or superfluous ornaments, and suitable to the subjects of which he has treated.” Few men were more honoured by the notice of the great than Mabillon, and to this he was entitled both by his virtues and his extensive learning. Pope Clement XI. paid him the compliment to write to father Iluinart, expressing his hopes that the remains of such a man had been interred with the honours due to him. “Every man of learning who goes to Paris,” said cardinal Colloredo, “will ask where you have placed him”.

, who in his Latin works called himself Cavellus, was titular primate of Armagh, and a learned writer in defence of Duns Scotus, whose opinions were generally embraced by his countrymen. He was born in the county of Down, in Ireland, in 1571, and became a Franciscan friar. He studied at Salamanca, in Spain, and afterwards for many years governed the Irish Franciscan college at Louvain, dedicated to St. Anthony, in the founding of which he had been instrumental. In this college he was also professor of divinity, which office he filled afterwards in the convent of Ara Cceli at Rome, was definitor-general of his order, and at length advanced by the pope to the see of Armagh; but died at Rome, as he was preparing for his journey to Ireland, Sept. 22, 1626, in the fifty -fifth year of his age. He was buried in the church of St. Isidore, under a monumental stone, and inscription, placed there by the earl of Tyrone. He was reckoned a man of great learning, and one of the best schoolmen of his time. His works, which consist chiefly of commentaries on and a defence of Scotus, were in substance incorporated in Wading' s edition of Scotus’s works, printed at Lyons, 1639, in 12 vols. folio.

, a Portuguese Jesuit, and most indefatigable writer, born at Coimbra, in 1596, quitted that order after a time to take the habit of a cordelier. He was strongly in the interest of the duke of Braganza when he seized the crown of Portugal. Being sent to Rome, he acquired for a time the favour of pope Alexander the Vllth, and was preferred by him to several important offices. The violence of his temper however soon embroiled him with this patron, and he went to Venice, where he disputed de omni scibili; and gaining great reputation, obtained the professorship of moral philosophy at Padua. Afterwards, having ventured to interfere in some state matter at Venice, where he had been held very high, he was imprisoned, and died in confinement, in 1681, at the age of 85. He is said, in the “Bibliotheque Portugaise,” to have published 109 different works: and in one of his own books he boasts that he had pronounced 53 public panegyrics, 60 Latin discourses, and 32 funeral orations; that he had written 48 epic poems, 123 elegies, 115 epitaphs, 212 dedications, 700 familiar letters, 2600 poems in heroic verse, 3000 epigrams, 4 Latin comedies, and had written or pronounced 150,000 verses extemporaucously. Yet the man who could declare all this, is hardly known by name in the greater part of Europe; and of the enormous list of his printed works, not more than five are thought worthy of mention by the writers of his life- To write much, is far easier than to write well. The works specified by his biographers are, 1. “Clavis Augustiniana liberi arbitrii,” a book written against father, afterwards cardinal Noris. The disputants were both silenced by authority; but Macedo, not to seem vanquished, sent his antagonist a regular challenge to a verbal controversy, which by some biographers has been mistaken for a challenge to fight. The challenge may be found in the “Journal Etranger” for June 1757. 2. “Schema Sanctae Congregationis,” 1676, 4to a dissertation on the inquisition, full of learning and absurdity. 3. “Encyclopaedia in agonem literatorum,” 1677, folio. 4. “Praise of the French,” in Latin, 1641, 4to; a book on the Jansenian controversy. 5. “Myrothecium Morale,” 4to. This is the book in which he gives the preceding account of what he had written and spoken, &c. He possessed a prodigious memory, and a ready command of language; but his judgment and taste were by no means equal to his learning and fecundity.

, a celebrated political writer and historian, was born of a good family, at Florence, in 1469. He first distinguished himself as a dramatic writer, but his comedies are not formed on the purest morals, nor are the verses by which he gained some reputation about the same time, entitled to much praise. Soon after he had entered public life, either from the love of liberty, or a spirit of faction, he displayed a restless and turbulent disposition, which not only diminished the respect due to his abilities, but frequently endangered his personal safety. He involved himself in the conspiracy of Capponi and Boscoli, in consequence of which he was put to the torture, but endured it without uttering any confession, and was set at liberty by Leo X. against whose house that conspiracy had been formed. Immediately after the death of Leo, he entered into another plot to expel the cardinal de Medici from Florence. Afterwards, however, he was raised to hitjh honours in the state, and became secretary to the republic of Florence, the 'duties of which office he performed with great fidelity. He was likewise employed in embassies to king Lewis XII. of France; to the emperor Maximilian; to the college of cardinals; to the pope, Julius II., and to other Italian princes. Notwithstanding the revenues which must have accrued to him in these important situations, it would appear that the love of money had no influence on his mind, as he died in extreme poverty in June 1527. Besides his plays, his chief works are, 1. “The Golden Ass,” in imitation of Lucian and Apuleius 2. “Discourses on the first Decade of Livy” 3. “A History of Florence” 4. “The Life of Castruccio Castracani;” 5. “A Treatise on the Military Art;” 6. “A Treatise on the Emigration of the Northern Nations;” 7. Another entitled “Del Principe,” the Prince. This famous treatise, which was first published in 1515, and intended as a sequel to his discourses on the first decade of Livy, has created very discordant opinions between critics of apparently equal skill and judgment, some having considered him as the friend of truth, liberty, and virtue, and others as the advocate of fraud and tyranny. Most generally “the Prince” has been viewed in the latter light, all its maxims and counsels being directed to the maintenance of power, however acquired, and by any means; and one reason for this opinion is perhaps natural enough, namely, its being dedicated to a nephew of pope Leo X. printed at Rome, re*published in other Italian cities, and long read with attention, and even applause, without censure or reply. On the other hand it has been thought impossible that Machiavel, who was born under a republic, who was employed as one of its secretaries, who performed so many important embassies, and who in his conversation always dwelt on the glorious actions of Brutus and Cassius, should have formed such a system against the liberty and happiness of mankind. Hence it has frequently been urged on his behalf, that it was not his intention to suggest wise and faithlul counsels, but to represent in the darkest colours the schemes of a tyrant, and thereby excite odium against him. Even lord Bacon seems to be of this opinion. The historian of Leo considers his conduct in a different point of view; and indeed all idea of his being ironical in this work is dissipated by the fact, mentioned by Mr. Roscoe, that “many of the most exceptionable doctrines in” The Prince,“are also to be found in his” Discourses,“where it cannot be pretended that he had any indirect purpose in view; and in the latter he has in some instances referred to the former for the further elucidation of his opinions. In popular opinion” The Prince“has affixed to his name a lasting stigma; and Machiavelism has long been a received appellation for perfidious and infamous politics. Of the historical writings of Machiavel, the” Life of Castruccio Castracani“is considered as partaking too much of the character of a romance; but his” History of Florence," comprising the events of that republic, between 1205 and 1494, which was written while the author sustained the office of historiographer of the republic, although not always accurate in point of fact, may upon the whole be read with both pleasure and advantage. It has been of late years discovered tnat the diary of the most important events in Italy from 1492 to 1512, published by the Giunti in 1568, under the name of Biagio Buonaccorsi, is in fact a part of the notes of Machiavel, which he had intended for a continuation of his history; but which, after his death, remained in the hands of his friend Buonaccorsi. - This is a circumstance of which we were not aware when we drew up the account of this author under the name Esperiente.

Which our predecessor quoted principally to shew, that Pope himself, infinitely superior as his talents in poetry were, did not disdain to imitate this author, in his “Essay on Criticism:”

, a celebrated philosopher and mathematician, was born at Rome Octqber 23, 1637. After studying jurisprudence, in which he made a great and very rapid progress at Pisa, he began to devote his main attention to mathematics and natural philosophy, which he cultivated at Florence, during three years, under the celebrated Vincent Viviani, and was made secretary to the academy del Cimento, the duties of which office he discharged with the utmost assiduity and care. Being directed by the prince to draw up an account of the experiments made there, he published it in 1666, when it was received with universal applause by men of science. While engaged on this work, he obtained leave from Leopold to pay a visit to his father at Rome, and with a view to obtain some ecclesiastical promotion. Having failed in this object, he returned to Florence, and obtained a place at the court of the grand duke Ferdinand II.; and shortly after a pension was given him by pope Alexander VII. About 1666 he drew up and published a small volume relative to the history of China, which was received with great applause; and at the same time he published a small, but elegant compendium of the Moral Doctrine of Confucius. Having considerable poetical talents, he was the first person who published a good translation of the Odes of Anacreon in Italian verse. He was very conversant in many of the modern languages, and could write and speak French, Spanish, and English, with the correctness and ease of the natives of those countries. When in England he became the intimate friend of the illustrious Mr. Robert Boyle, whom he vainly attempted to convert from the errors of the protestant faith. After being employed in several missions to foreign princes, he was in 1674 appointed ambassador to the imperial court, where he acquired the particular favour of the emperor, and formed connections with the men most eminent for science and literature; but, finding a very inconvenient delay of the necessary pecuniary remittances from his court, he determined to return to Florence without waiting the permission of the duke. Shortly after, that prince recalled him, and gave him apartments in his palace, with a considerable pension, but Magalotti preferred retirement, and the quiet prosecution of his studies. In 1684 he composed fifteen Italian odes, in which he has drawn the picture of a woman of noble birth and exquisite beauty, distinguished not only by every personal, but by every mental charm, and yet rendering herself chiefly the object of admiration and delight by her manners and conduct, whom, with no great gallantry, he entitled “The Imaginary Lady.” His next work consisted of Letters against Atheists, in which his learning and philosophy appear to great advantage. In 169 he was appointed a counsellor of state to the grand duke, who sent him his ambassador into Spain to negotiate a marriage between one of his daughters and king Charles II.; but soon after he had accomplished the object of this mission, he sunk into a temporary melancholy. After recovering in about a year, he resumed his literary labours, and published works upon various subjects, and left others which were given to the world after his decease, which happened in 1712, when he had attained the age of 75. Magalotti was as eminent for his piety as he was for his literary talents; unimpeachable in his morals, liberal, beneficent, friendly, polite, and a lively and cheerful, as well as very instructive companion. His house was the constant resort of men of letters from all countries, whom he treated with elegant hospitality. He was deeply conversant with the writings of the ancient philosophers, and was a follower of the Platonic doctrine in his poems. In his natural and philosophical investigations he discarded all authority, and submitted to no other guide but experiment. Among the moderns he was particularly attached to Galileo. After his death a medal was struck in honour of his memory, with the figure of Apollo raised on the reverse, and the inscription Omnia Lustrat.

Of the domestic habits of Magliabechi, we have many accounts that represent him as an incorrigible sloven. His attention was so entirely absorbed by his books and studies, that he totally neglected all the decencies of form and ceremony, and often forgot the most urgent wants of human nature. His employment under the grand duke did not at all change his manner of life: the philosopher still continued negligent in his dress, and simple in his manners. An old cloak served him for a gown in the day, and for bed-clothes at night. He had one straw chair for his table, and another for his bed; in which he generally continued fixed among his books till he was overpowered by sleep. The duke provided a commodious apartment for him in his palace; of which Magliabechi was with much difficulty persuaded to take possession; and which he quitted in four months, returning to his house on various pretences, against all the remonstrances of his friends. He was, however, characterized by an extraordinary modesty, and by a sincere and beneficent disposition, which his friends often experienced in their wants. He was a great patron of men of learning, and ha4 the highest pleasure in assisting them with his advice and information, in furnishing them with all necessary books and manuscripts. Cardinal Nods used to call him his Maecenas; and, writing to him one day, he told him he thought himself more obliged to him for direction in his studies, than to the pope for raising him to the purple. He had the utmost aversion to any thing that looked like constraint. The grand duke knew his disposition, and therefore always dispensed with his personal attendance upon him; and, when he had any orders to give him, sent him them in writing. The pope and the emperor would gladly have drawn him into their service, but he constantly refused their most honourable and advantageous offers. The regimen he observed contributed not a little to preserve his health to old age. He always kept his head warmly covered, and took at certain times treacle, which he esteemed an excellent preservative against noxious vapours. He loved strong wine, but drank it in small quantities. He lived upon the plainest and most ordinary food. Three hard eggs and a draught of water was his usual repast. He took tobacco, to which he was a slave, to excess; but was absolute master of himself in every other article.

, a celebrated Capuchin, born at Milan in 1586, descended from the earls of Magni, acquired great reputation in the seventeenth century by his controversial writings against the protestants, and philosophical ones in favour of Descartes against Aristotle. He passed through the highest offices in his order, and was apostolical missionary to the northern kingdoms. It was by his advice that pope Urban VIII. abolished the Jesuitesses in 1631. Uladislaus king of Poland, solicited a cardinal’s hat for Magni; but the Jesuits are said to have opposed it. They certainly informed against him as a heretic, because he had said that the pope’s primacy and infallibility were not founded on scripture, and he was imprisoned at Vienna; but regained his liberty by favour of the emperor Ferdinand III. after having written very warmly against the Jesuits in his defence. He retired at last to Saltzburg, and died there, 1661, aged seventyfive. Mention is made of Magni in the sixteenth Provincial Letter and one of his Apologetical Letters may be found in the collection entitled “Tuba magna,” tom. II.

, the eleventh sultan of the Turks, born at Adrianople, the 24th of March, 1430, is to be remembered chiefly by us, for taking Constantinople in 1453, and thereby driving many learned Greeks into the West, which was a great cause of the restoration of learning in Europe, as the Greek literature was then introduced here. He was one of the greatest men upon record, with regard to the qualities necessary to a conqueror: and he conquered two empires, twelve kingdoms, and two hundred considerable cities. He was very ambitious of the title of Great, which the Turks cave him, and even the Christians have not disputed it with him; for he was the first of the Ottoman emperors, whom tue Western nations dignified with the title of Grand Seignior, or Great Turk, which posterity has preserved to his descendants. Italy had suffered greater calamities, but she had never felt a terror equal to that which this sultan’s victories imprinted. The inhabitants seemed already condemned to wear the turban; it is certain that pope Sixtus IV. represented to himself Rome as already involved in the dreadful fate of Constantinople; and thought of nothing but escaping into Provence, and once more transferring the holy see to Avignon. Accordingly, the news of Mahomet’s death, which happened the ad of Mav, 1481, was received at Rome with the greitest joy that ever was beheld there. Sixtus caused all the churches to be thrown open, made the trades-peopld leave off their work, ordered a feast of three days, with. public prayers and processions, commanded a discharge of the whole artillery of the castle of St. Angelo all that time, and put a stop to his journey to Avignon. Some authors have written that tbis sultan was an atheist, and derided all religions, without excepting that of his prophet, whom he treated as no better than a leader of banditti. This is possible enough; and there are many circumstances which make it credible It is certain he engaged in war, not to promote Mahometism, but to gratify his own ambition: he preferred his own interest to that of the faith he professed; and to this it was owing that he tolerated the Greek church, and even shewed wonderful civility to the patriarch of Constantinople. His epitaph deserves to be noted; the inscription consisted only of nine or ten Turkish words, thus translated: “I proposed to myself the conquest of Rhodes and proud Italy.”

, a man celebrated in the republic of letters, was born at Nancy, in Lorrain, in 161O. He was very well descended, and his parents were people of considerable rank and fortune. He was admitted into the society of the Jesuits in 1626; but obliged afterwards to quit it by the order of pope Innocent XI. in 1682, for having asserted too boldly the authority of the Gallican church against the court of Rome. Louis XIV. however, made him sufficient amends for this disgrace by settling on him a very honourable pension, with which he retired into the abbey of St. Victor at Paris. Here he died in 1686, after having made a will by which it appears that he was extremely dissatisfied with the Jesuits. Bayle has given the substance of it, as far as relates to them, and calls it a kind of a declaration of war. It sets forth, “That a gentleman of Nancy, in Lorrain, had been educated and settled in France from twelve years of age, and by that means was become a very faithful and loyal subject of that king; that he was now almost seventy-six years old that his father and mother being very rich ha J founded a college for the Jesuits at Nancv., fifty years ago; and that for ten years hefore this foundation they had supplied those fathers with every thing they wanted. He declares, that they did all this in consideration of his being admitted into that order; and yet that now he was forcibly turned out of it. he wills, therefore, by this testament, that all the lands, possessions, &c. which the Jesuits received of his father and mother, do devolve, at his decease, to the Carthusian monastery near Nancy; affirming, that his parents would never have conferred such large donations upon them, but upon condition, that they would not banish their son from the society, after they had once admitted him; and that, therefore, since these conditions had been violated on the part of the Jesuits, the possessions of his family ought to return to him.”

, a scholastic divine and historian, was born, not at Haddington, as is usually said, but at Gleghorn, a village near North Berwick, in 1469. From some passages in his writings, it appears that he resided for a time both at Oxford and at Cambridge. At the former particularly, we learn from the dedication of one of his works to cardinal Wolsey, he resided, not three months, as Wood says, but a year. The cardinal, whom he styles “your majesty,” received him “after the old manner of Christian hospitality, and invited him with a splendid salary to Oxford, where he had lately founded his college, which Major did not accept, on account of the love he bore to his mother university of Paris.” It appears that he went in 1493 to Paris, and studied in the college of St. Barbe, under the famous John Boulac. Thence he removed to the college of Montacute, where he began the study of divinity, under the celebrated Standouk. In 1498 he was entered of the college of Navarre in 1505 he was created D. D. returned to Scotland in 1519, and taught theology for several years in the university of St. Andrew’s. At length, disgusted with the quarrels of his countrymen, he returned to Paris, and resumed his lectures in the college of Montacute, where he had several pupils, afterwards men of eminence. About 1530, he removed once more to Scotland, was chosen professor of divinity at St. Andrew’s, and afterwards became provost. It is usually supposed that he died in 1547, but it is certain that he was alive in 1549; for in that year he subscribed (by proxy, on account of his great age) the national constitutions of the church of Scotland. He died soon after, probably in 1550, which must have been in his eighty-second year. Du Pin says, that of all the divines who had written on the works of the Master of Sentences (Peter Lombard), Major was the most learned and comprehensive. His History of Scotland is written with much commendable freedom; but in a barbarous style, and not always correct as to facts. Hs was the instructor, but not, as some have said, the patron of the famous George Buchanan. He also had the celebrated John Knox as one of his pupils. Baker in a ms note on the “Athenae,” adds to the mention of this fact, that “a man would hardly believe he ha.d been taught by him.” Baker, however, was not sufficiently acquainted with Major’s character to be able to solve this doubt. Major, according to the very acute biographer of Knox (Dr. M‘Crie) had acquired a habit of thinking and expressing himself on certain subjects, more liberal than was adopted in his native country and other parts of Europe. He had imbibed the sentiments concerning ecclesiastical polity, maintained by John Gerson, Peter D’Ailly, and others, who defended the decrees of the council of Constance, and liberties of the Gallican church, against those who asserted the incontroulable authority of the sovereign pontiff. He thought that a general council was superior to the pope, might judge, rebuke, restrain, and even depose him from his dignity; denied the temporal supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and his right to inaugurate or dethrone princes; maintained that ecclesiastical censures and even papal excommunications had no force, it* pronounced on invalid or irrelevant grounds; he held that tithes were merely of human appointment, not divine right; censured the avarice, ambition, and secular pomp of the court of Rome and the episcopal order; was no warm friend of the regular clergy, and advised the reduction of monasteries and holidays. His opinions respecting civil government were analogous to those which he held as to ecclesiastical policy. He taught that the authority of kings and princes was originally derived from the people that the former are not superior to the latter, collectively considered that if rulers become tyrannical, or employ their power for the destruction of their subjects, they may lawfully be controuled by them; and proving incorrigible, may be deposed by the community as the superior power; and that tyrants may be judicially proceeded against, even to capital punishment. The affinity between these and the political principles afterwards avowed by Knox, and defended by the classic pen of Buchanan, is too striking to require illustration. But although Major had ventured to think for himself on these topics, in all other respects be was completely subservient to the opinions of his age; and with a mind deeply tinctured with superstition, defended some of the absurdest tenets of popery by the most ridiculous and puerile arguments. We cannot, therefore, greatly blame Buchanan, who called him in ridicule, what he affected to call himself in humility, “Joannes, solo cognomine, Major.” His works are, 1. “Libri duo fallaciarum,” Lugd. 1516, comprising his “Opera Logicalia.” 2. “In quatuor sententiarum commentarius,” Paris, 1516. 3. “Commentarius in physica Aristotelis,” Paris, 1526. 4. “In primum et secundum sententiarum commentarii,” Paris, 1510. 5. “Commentarius in tertium sententiarum,” Paris, 1517. 6. “Literalis in Matthaeum expositio,” Paris, 1518. From these two last may be collected his sentiments on ecclesiastical polity, mentioned above. 7. “De historia gentis Scotorum, sen historia majoris Britanniae,” Paris, 1521, 4to. Of this a new edition was printed at Edinburgh, 17+0, 4to. 8. “Luculenta in 4 Evangelia expositiones,” &c. Paris, 1529, folio. 9. “Placita theologica.” 10. “Catalogus episcoporum Lucionensium.” He also translated Caxton’s Chronicle into Latin.

, a very learned Spanish Jesuit, was born at Fuente del Maestro, a small village in the province of Estramadura, in 1534. He studied under Dominicus Asoto, a Dominican, and also under Francis Tolet, a Jesuit, who was afterwards a cardinal, and there was no better scholar in the university of Salamanca in his time, than Maldonat. He there taught philosophy, divinity, and the Greek language. He entered into the society of the Jesuits, but did not put on the habit of his order till 1562, when he was at Rome. In 1563, he was sent by his superiors to Paris, to teach philosophy in the college which the Jesuits had just established in that city; where, as the historians of his society tell us, he was so crowded with hearers, that he was frequently obliged to read his lectures in the court or the street, the hall not being sufficient to contain them. He was sent, with nine other Jesuits, to Poictiers, in 1570, where he read lectures in Latin, and preached in French. Afterwards he returned to Paris, where he was not only accused of heresy, but likewise of procuring a fraudulent will from the president de St. Andre, by which the president was made to leave his estate to the Jesuits. But the parliament declared him innocent of the forgery, and Gondi, bishop of Paris, entirely acquitted him of the charge of heresy. He afterwards thought proper to retire to Bourges, where the Jesuits had a college, and continued there about a year and a half. Then he went to Rome, by the order of pope Gregory XIII. to superintend the publication of the “Septuagint'? and after finishing his” Commentary upon the Gospels," in 1582, he died there, in the beginning of 1583.

In 1731 his first tragedy, called “Eurydice,” was performed at Drury-lane, and very unfavourably received; nor when revived thirty years after, and supported by Garrick and Mrs. Gibber, could the town endure it with patience. On this last occasion Dayies informs us that the author would not take the blame upon himself; “he sat in the orchestra, and bestowed his execrations plentifully upon the players, to whom he attributed the cold reception of his tragedy.” About this time we find him an inmate in Mr. Knight’s family at Gosfield, probably as tutor to Mr. Newsham, Mrs. Knight’s son by her first husband. Her third was the late earl Nugent. We shall soon have occasion to quote a very remarkable passage from a letter of Pope’s to this lady, respecting Mallet.

Soon after the exhibition of “Eurydice,” Mr. Mallet published his poem on “Verbal Criticism,” a subject which he either did not understand, or willingly misrepresented. “There is’in this poem,” says Dr. Johnson, “more pertness than wit, and more confidence than knowledge. The versification is tolerable, nor can criticism allow it a, higher praise.” It was written to pay court to Pope, who soon after introduced him, we may add, “in an evil hour” to lord Bolingbroke. The ruin of Pope’s reputation might have been dated from this hour, if the joint malignity of Bolingbroke and Mallet could have effected it. Mallet was now in the way to promotion. When the prince of Wales, at variance with his father, placed himself at the head of the opposition, and kept a separate court, he endeavoured to increase his popularity by the patronage of literature; and Mallet being recommended to him, his royal highness appointed him his under-secretary, with a salary of 200l. a year.

In 1747 Mallet published his “Hermit, or Amyntor and Theodora,” a poem in which Dr. Johnson allows that there is copiousness and elegance of language (which indeed appear in most of Mallet’s works), vigour of sentiment, and imagery well adapted to take possession of the fancy. It abounds also with many excellent moral precepts, which receive weight and energy from the sanction of religion, a foundation on which Mallet did not always build. Dr. Warton was much censured for saying in his “Essay on the Life and Writings of Pope,” that “the nauseous affectation of expressing every thing pompously and poetically, is nowhere more visible than in a poem lately published, called Amyntor and Theodora;” but Warton was not a rash critic, and retained the sentence in the subsequent editions of his “Essay.”

Not long after this, Mallet was employed by lord Bolingbroke in an office which he executed with all the malignity that his employer could wish. This was no other than to defame the character of Pope Pope, who by leaving the whole of his Mss to lord Bolingbroke, had made him in some respect the guardian of his character Pope, onwhose death-bed lord Bolingbroke looking earnestly down, repeated several times, interrupted with sobs, “O great God, what is man? I never knew a person that had so tender a heart for his particular friends, or a warmer benevolence for all mankind!” who certainly had idolized this nobleman throughout his whole life, and who adhered to his lordship’s cause through all the vicissitudes of popular odium and exile. What could have induced Bolingbroke to the malice of degrading Pope’s character, and the cowardice of employing a hireling to do it? The simple fact is, that after Pope’s death it was thought to be discovered that he had privately printed 1500 copies of one of lord Bolingbroke’s works, “The Patriot King,” the perusal of which his lordship wished to be confined to a select few. This offence, which Mallet only could have traced to a bad motive, if fairly examined, will probably seem disproportioned to the rage and resentment of Bolingbroke. A very acute examiner of evidence (Mr. D'Israeli) has therefor imputed that to the preference with which Pope had distinguished Warburton, and is of opinion that Warburton, much more than Pope, was the real object. Between Bolingbroke and Warburton there was, it is well known, a secret jealousy, which at length appeared in mutual and undisguised contempt. But much of this narrative belongs rather to them than to Mallet, who could feel no resentment, could plead no provocation. On the contrary, he had every inducement to reflect with tenderness on the memory and friendship of Pope, who speaks of him, in a letter we have already alluded to, in the following terms “To prove to you how little essential to friendship I hold letter-writing I have not yet written to Mr. Mallet, whom I love and esteem greatly, nay whom I know to have as tender a, heart, and that feels a friendly remembrance as long as any man.” Such was the man who gladly undertook what Bolingbroke was ashamed to perform, and in a preface to the “Patriot King” misrepresented the conduct of Pope in language the most malignant and contemptuous. That he had an eye to his own interest in all this, it would be a miserable affectation of liberality to doubt. No other motive can account for his conduct, and this conduct will be found to correspond with his general character. Bolingbroke accordingly rewarded him by bequeathing to him all his writings published and unpublished, and Mallet immediately began to prepare them for the press. His conduct at the very outset of this business affords another illustration of his character. Francklin, the printer, to whom many of the political pieces written during the opposition to Walpole, had been given, as he supposed, in perpetuity, laid claim to some compensation for those. Mallet allowed his claim, and the question was referred to arbitrators, who were empowered to decide upon it, by an instrument signed by the parties; but when they decided unfavourably to Mr. Mallet, he refused to yield to the decision, and the printer was thus deprived of the benefit of the award, by not having insisted upon bonds of arbitration, to which Mallet had objected as degrading to a man of honour! He then proceeded, with the help of Millar, the bookseller, to publish all he could find; and so sanguine was he in his expectations, that he rejected the offer of 3000l. which Millar offered him for the copy-, right, although he was at this time so distressed for money that he was forced to borrow some of Millar to pay the stationer and printer. The work at last appeared, in 5 vols. 4to, and Mallet had soon reason to repent his refusal of the bookseller’s offer, as this edition was not sold off in twenty years. As these volumes contained many bold attacks on revealed religion, they brought much obloquy on the editor, and even a presentment was made of them by the grand-jury of Westminster. His memory, however, will be thought to suffer yet more by his next appearance in print When the nation was exasperated by the ill success of the war, and the ministry wished to divert public indignation from themselves, Mallet was employed to turn it upon admiral Byng. In this he entered as heartily as into the defamation of Pope, and wrote a letter of accusation under the character of a “Plain Man,” a large sheet, which was circulated with great industry, and probably was found to answer its purpose. The price of blood, on this occasion, was a pension which he retained till his death.

, an Italian physician and anatomist, was born March 10, 1628, at Crevalcuore, near Bologna, in Italy, where he was taught Latin and studied philosophy. In 1649, losing his parents, and being obliged to choose his own method of life, he determined to apply himself to physic. The university of Bologna was then supplied with very learned professors in that science, particularly Bartholomew Massari, and Andrew Mariano, under whose instructions Malpighi in a short time made great progress in physic and anatomy. After he had finished the usual course, he was admitted doctor of physic, April 6, 1653, In 1655 Massari died, a loss which Malpighi severely felt, as independent of his esteem for him as a master, he had become more nearly related to him by marrying his sister. In 1656, the senate of Bologna gave him a professorship, which he did not long hold; for the same year the grand duke of Tuscany invited him to Pisa, to be professor of physic there. Here he contracted a strict friendship with Borelli, whom he subsequently owned for his master in philosophy, and to whom he ascribed all the discoveries which he afterwards made. They dissected animals together, and it was in this employment that he found the heart to consist of spiral fibres; a discovery, which has been ascribed to Borelli in his posthumous works. The air of Pisa not agreeing with Malpighi, be continued there but three years: and, in 1659, returned to Bologna, to resume his former posts, notwithstanding the advantageous offers which were made him to stay at Pisa. In 1662 he was sent for to Messina, in order to succeed Peter Castello, first professor of physic, who was just dead. It. was with reluctance that he went thither, though the stipend was great; and although he was prevailed on at last by his friend Borelli, to accept it, yet in 1666 he returned to Bologna. In 1669 he was elected a member of the royal society of London, with which he ever after kept a correspondence by letters, and communicated his discoveries in anatomy. Cardinal Pignatelli, who had known him while he was legate at Bologna, being chosen pope in 1691, under the name of Innocent XII. immediately sent for him to Rome, and appointed him his physician. In 1694 he was admitted into the academy of the Arcadians at Rome. July the 25th, of the same year, he had a fit, which struck half his body with a paralysis; and, November the 29th following, he had another, of which he died the same day, in his 67th year. His remains were embalmed, and conveyed to Bologna, where they were interred with great funeral honours in the chureh of St. Gregory, and a statue was erected to his memory. Malpighi is described as a man of a serious and melancholy temperament, which is confirmed by his portrait in the meeting-room of the royal society at Somerset-house. He was indefatigable in the pursuit of knowledge, on the sure ground of experience and observation, ever candid in his acknowledgments to those who had given him any information, and devoid of all ostentation or pretension on the score of his own merits. He ranks very high among the philosophers of the physiological age in which he lived, when nature began to be studied instead of books, and the dreams of the schools. Hence arose the discoveries of the circulation of the blood, the absorbent system of the animal body, and the true theory of generation. To such improvements the investigations of Malpighi, relative to the anatomy and transformation of insects, particularly the silk-worm, and the developement of the chick in the egg, lent no small aid. From these inquiries he was led to the anatomy and physiology of plants, in which he is altogether an original, as well as a very profound, observer. His line of study was the same as that of Grew, but these philosophers laboured independent of each other, and their frequent coincidence evinces the accuracy of both.

, an Italian grammarian, poet, and orator, was born atVelitri, in 1452. He taught classical learning in different parts of Italy with considerable success. He published in 1492 a poem entitled “Silva vitse suae,” or an account of his own life, which Meuschenius reprinted, in 1735, in the first volume of his collection, entitled “Vitae summorum dignitate et eruditione virorum.” He was distinguished also by some other poems, as “de Floribus, de Figuris, de Poetica virtute.” 2. “Epigrams,” published at Venice in 1500, in 4to. 3. Notes upon some of the classic authors. He died some time after 1506; but the story of his having his hands cut off, and his tongue cut out, by order of the pope Alexander VI. for having made an insolent speech to him, and which was related by Flaccius Illyricus, appears to be without foundation.

Sir John Mandevile visited Tartary about half a century after Marco Polo, who was there in 1272. In this interval a true or fabulous account of that country, collected by a cordelier, one Oderic D'Udin, who set out in 1318, and returned in 1330, was published in Italian, by Guillaume de Salanga, in the second volume of Ramusio, and in Latin and English by Hakluyt. It is suspected that sir John made too much use of this traveller’s papers; and it is certain that the compilers of. the “Histoire Generale des Voyages” did not think our English knight’s book so original, or so worthy of credit, as to give any account of it in their excellent collection. Sir John indeed honestly acknowledges that his book was made partly of hearsay, and -'partly of his own knowledge; and he prefaces his most improbable relations with some such words as these, thei seyne, or men seyn^ but I have not sene it. His book, however, was submitted to the examination of the pope’s council, and it was published after that examination, with the approbation of the pope, as Leland thinks, of Urban V. Leland also affirms that sir John Mandevile had the reputation of being a conscientious man, and that he had religiously declined an honourable alliance to the Soldan-of Egypt, whose daughter he might have espoused, if he would have abjured Christianity. It is likewise very certain that many things in his book, which were looked upptv as fabulous for a long time, have been since verified beyond all doubt. We give up his men of fifty feet high r but his hens that bore wool are at this day very well known, under the name of Japan and silky fowls, &c. Upon the whole, there does not appear to be any very g.ood reason why sir John Mandevile should not be believed in any thing that he relates on his own observation. He was, as may be easily credited, an extraordinary linguist, and wrote his book in Latin, from which he translated it into French, and from French into English, and into Italian; and Vossius says that he knows it to be in Belgic and German. The English edition has the title of “The Voiyage and Travaile of Sir John Maundevile, knight, which treateth of the way to Hierusalem, and marvayles of lude,” &c. Lond. 1568, 4to, reprinted in 1684, same form, and again in 1727, 8vo. All these are in the British Museum, together with copies of the French, Spanish, Latin, and Italian. Of the last there are two editions, printed at Venice in 1537 and 1567, both in 8vo. The original English ms, is in the Cotton library. The English editions are the most valuable to us, as written in the very language used by our countrymen three hundred years ago^ at a time when the orthography of the English language was so little fixed, that it seems to have been the fashionable affectation of writers, to shew their wit and scholarship by spelling the same words in the greatest variety of ways imaginable. The reader will be amused by Addison’s pretended discovery of sir John Mandevile’s Mss. and the pleasant fiction of “the freezing and thawing of several short speeches which sir John made in the territories of Nova Zembla.” This occurs in the Tatler, No. 254, the note upon which has principally furnished us with the above account.

, a very learned scholar, was born at Florence, June 5, 1396, of an illustrious family that had fallen into decay. After a course of philosophical, theological and mathematical studies, he became, in the Greek language, the pupil of Camaldoli, who then taught that language at Florence, and not of Chrysoloras, as Vossius, and Hody, if we mis-take not, have reported. Manetti then lectured on philosophy in that city to a numerous auditory. He was afterwards employed by the state in various negociatious; and became successively governor of Pescia, Pistoria, and Scarperia, and commissary of the army along with Bernardetto de Medicis. He filled also several offices in the government of Florence, and rendered his own country many important services. When at Rome in 1452, at the coronation of the emperor Frederick, pope Nicholas V. bestowed on him the honour of knighthood. His talents and services, however, excited the envy of some of the families of Florence, and even the favour he acquired with the princes at whose courts he had been employed as ambassador, was considered as a crime; and a heavy fine being imposed on him, he found it necessary to leave his country, and take refuge in Rome, where pope Nicholas V. made him one of his secretaries, with a handsome salary, besides the perquisites of his place. He remained in the same office under the succeeding popes Calixtus III. and Pius II. which last made him librarian of the Vatican. Manetti at length left Rome to reside with Alphonsus, king of Naples, who had a great esteem for him, and gave him an annuity of 900 golden crowns. He did not, however, enjoy this situation long, dying Oct. 26, 1459, in his sixty-third year. He was an excellent scholar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, which at that time was little known in Italy, and employed twenty-two years on those languages. He kept three domestics, two of whom were Greeks, and the third a Syrian, who knew Hebrew, and whom he ordered always to speak to him in their respective languages. He was the author of a great many works, most of which remain in manuscript in the Laurentian Library. Those published were, 1. “De dignitate et excellentia hominis,” Basle, 1532, 8vo. 2. “Vita Petrarchae.” This life of Petrarch is inserted in Tommasini’s “Petrarcha redivivus.” 3. “Oratio ad regem Alphonsum in nuptiis filii sui.” This, which was spoken in 1445, was printed by Marquard Freher, in 1611, 4to, along with three other orations, addressed to Alphonsus on the peace, to the emperor Frederic on his coronation, and to pope Nicholas V. Other works have been attributed to him, as a “History of Pistoria,” and the lives of Dante, Boccacio, and Nicholas V,; but we find no particular account of them.

, a very learned Italian prelate, and voluminous editor, was born at Lucca, Feb. 16, 1692. At school and college he made rapid progress in every branch of study, but became particularly attached to ecclesiastical history and biography. He was for some years professor of theology at Naples; but the greater part of his life was spent in reading, and carefully exploring the contents of the Italian libraries, particularly the manuscripts, from all which he amassed a fund of information on subjects connected with ecclesiastical history, of vast extent and importance. His first station in the church was that of a clerk-regular in the congregation of the Mother of God; and from this, in 1765, at the age of seventy-two, he was promoted to the archbishopric of Lucca, by pope Clement XIII. who had a high esteem for him. He died Sept. 27, 1769. His life, in our authority, is little more than an account of his works, which indeed must have occupied the whole of his time. His first publication was entitled “Tractatus de casibus, et excommunicationibus episcopis reservatis, confectusad normam label lae Lucanse,” Lucca, 1724. He then published a translation into Latin of Calmet’s “Dictionary of the Bible,*' with additions; an, edition of Thomasini” De veteri et nova ecclesise disciplina,“3 vols. folio; a Latin translation of Calmet’s” Commentaries on the Bible,“1731, &c. 7 vols. an edition of Baronius’s annals, with great additions, in 30 vols. folio a new edition of the Councils, including Labbe, Cossart, &c. 1759, &c. 30 vols. folio; anew edition of yneas Sylvius (pope Pius II.) orations, with many hitherto unpublished, 1755, 2 vols. 4to. He was the editor of some other ecclesiastical collections and theological pieces of inferior note; but we must not omit the work by which he is perhaps best known in this country, his excellent edition of Fabricius’s” Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis," 6 vols. 4to, generally bound in three, printed at Padua, in 1754. This alone is sufficient to place him in the first rank of literary antiquaries.

, an Italian poet of great temporary fame, was born at Mantua, whence he took his name, in 1448, and not in 1444, as Cardan and others have said; for Mantuan himself relates, in a short account of his own life, that he was born under the pontificate of Nicholas V. and Nicholas was only made pope in March 1447. He was of the illustrious family of the Spagnoli, being a natural son of Peter Spagnolo, as we learn from Paul Jovius, who was his countryman, and thirty-three years old when Mantuan died, and therefore must have known the fact. Mantuan too speaks frequently and highly, in his works, of his father Peter Spagnolo, to whom he ascribes the care of his education. In his youth, he applied himself ardently to books, and began early with Latin poetry, which he cultivated all his life; for it does not appear that he wrote any thing in Italian. He entered himself, we do not know exactly when, among the Carmelites, and came at length to be general of his order; which dignity, upon some disgust or other, he quitted in 1515, and devoted himself entirely to the pursuit of the belles-lettres. He did not enjoy his retirement long, for he died in March 1516, upwards of eighty years of age. The duke of Mantua, some years after, erected to his memory a marble statue crowned with laurel, and placed it next to that of Virgil; and even Erasmus went so far as to say that a time would come, when Baptist Mantuan would not be placed much below his illustrious countryman. In this opinion few critics will now join. If he had possessed the talents of Virgil, he had not his taste, and knew not how to regulate them. Yet allowance is to be made, when we consider that, in the age in which he lived, good taste had not yet emerged. Liiius Gyraldiis, in his “Dialogues upon the poets of his own times,” says, “that the verses which Mantuan wrote in his youth are very well; but that, his imagination afterwards growing colder, his latter productions have not the force or vigour of his earlier.” We may add, that Mantuan was more solicitous about the number than the goodness of his poems; yet, considering that he lived when letters were but just reviving, it must be owned, that he was a very extraordinary person. His poetical works were first printed, in a folio volume without a date, consisting of his eclogues, written chiefly in his youth seven pieces in honour of the virgins inscribed on the kalendar, beginning with the virgin Mary these he calls “Parthenissal.” “Parthenissa II.” &c. four books of Silvge, or poems on different subjects; elegies, epistles, and, in short, poems of every description. This was followed by an edition at Bologna, 1502, folio, and by another at Paris in 1513, with the commentaries of Murrho, Brant, and Ascensius, 3 vols. fol. but usually bound in ne. A more complete, but now more rare, edition of them was published at Antwerp, 1576, in four vols. 8vo, under this title, “J. Baptistae Mantuani, Carmelitae, theologi, philosophi, ppetae, & oratoris clarissimi, opera omnia, pluribus libris aucta & restituta.” The Commentaries of the Paris edition are omitted in this; but the editors have added, it does not appear on what account, the name of John, to Baptist Mantuan.

In imitation, it is said, of the hand-writing of the celebrated Petrarch, Aldus procured the first examples of that which is called, in printing, the Italic character, to be cut and cast for him by Francesco of Bologna, about 1500. An edition of the works of Virgil, in octavo, was the first book he printed in this type, which was long known among printers by the name of Aldine. The inventor obtained a patent from the Senate of Venice, for its exclusive use for ten years, from the 13th of November, 1502; and another similar patent from pope Alexander the Sixth, from the 17th of November, 1502. The last of these was renewed for fifteen years more, by Julius the Second, on the 27th of January, 1513; and again by Leo the Tenth, on the 28th of the following November.

In 1561 Paul had been invited by Pius IV. upon terms of great honour and advantage, to repair to Rome, and engage in printing the Holy Scriptures and the works of the lathers of the church. He accordingly undertook this journey, of which his holiness bore the expences, as well as of the removal of his printing-materials and of his family; and conditioned to allow him, from the time of his arrival, a yearly salary of at least 500 crowns. From this time, till the death of Pius, he continued to exercise his profession as a printer with great reputation at Rome, while he also kept open his printing-house at Venice. But at length dissatisfied with his situation, and in ill health, he left Rome in September 1570, and after visiting several distinguished places in Italy, returned to Venice in May 1572. From Venice, after a very short stay, he went back again to Rome, where he was cheered by the seasonable liberality of the pope, which was made more agreeable by being bestowed without any exaction of personal labour or attendance.

, one of the most admired painters of the Italian school, was born in 1625, at Camerino in the march of Ancona. When quite a child he is said to have pressed out the juices of flowers, which he used for colours in drawing on the walls of his father’s house. This propensity most probably induced his parents to send him to Rome at eleven years old; where, by his manner of copying the designs of Raphael in the Vatican, he obtained the favour of Andrea Sacchi, and became his pupil. From the grace and beauty of his ideas he was generally employed in painting Madonnas and female saints; on which account he was, by Salvator Rosa, satirically called Carluccio delta Madonna. He was far from being ashamed of this name, and in the inscription placed by himself on his monument (nine years before his death), he calls it gloriosum cognomen, and professes his particular devotion to the Virgin Mary. The pope, Clement XI. gave him a pension, and the title of Cavaliero di Cristo and he was appointed painter in ordinary to Louis XIV. He died at Home, loaded with honours, in 1713, at the advanced age of eighty-eight. Extreme modesty and gentleness were the characteristics of his disposition; and Jiis admiration of the great models he had studied was such, that not content with having contributed to preserve the works of Raphael and the Caraccis in the Farnese gallery, he erected monuments to them in the Pantheon, at his own expence. Several plates are extant, etched hy him in aquafortis, in which he has displayed abundant taste and genius.

, one of the greatest ornaments of the Gallican church, but a man of great inconsistency of character, was born in 1594, at Gant, in Bearn, of a very ancient family in that principality. He went through his course of philosophy among the Jesuits, and then studied the law for three years; after which he was received a counsellor in 1615, in the supreme council at Pau. In 1621 he was made president of the parliament of Bearn; and going to Paris in 1639, about the affairs of his province, was made a counsellor of state. In 1640 he published “The History of Bearn,” which confirmed the good opinion that was conceived of his knowledge and parts. He was thought, therefore, a very proper person to undertake a delicate and important subject, which offered itself about that time. The court of France was then at variance with the court of Rome, and the book which Peter de Puy published, concerning the liberties of the Gallican church, greatly alarmed the partisans of the court of Rome; some of whom endeavoured to persuade the world that they were the preliminaries of a schism contrived by cardinal Richelieu; as if his eminency had it in his head to erect a patriarchate in that kingdom, in order to render the Gallican church independent of the pope. A French divine, M. Hersent (see Hersent), who took the name of Optatus Gallus, addressed a book to the clergy upon the subject; and insinuated that the cardinal had brought over to his party a great personage, who was ready to defend this conduct of the cardinal; and this great personage was Peter de Marca. But an insinuation of this nature tending to make the cardinal odious, as it occasioned a rumour that he aspired to the patriarchate, the king laid his commands on de Marca to refute Hersent’s work, and at the same time to preserve the liberties of the Gallican church on the one hand, and to make it appear on the other that those liberties did not in the least diminish the reverence due to the holy see. He accepted of this commission, and executed it by his book “De Concordia sacerdotii & imperii, sive, de libertatibus ecclesisæ Gallicæ,” which he published in 1641. He declared in his preface, that he did not enter upon the discussion of right, but confined himself to the settling of facts: that is, he only attempted to shew what deference the Western churches had always paid to the bishop of Rome on the one side; and on the other, what rights and privileges the Gallican churclh had always possessed. But though he had collected an infinite number of testimonies in favour of the pope’s power, the work was of too liberal a cast not to give offence: perhaps even the very attempt to throw the subject open to discussion was not very agreeable and accordingly, the court of Rome made a great many difficulties in dispatching the bulls which were demanded in favour of de Marca, who had, in the end of 1641, been presented to the bishopric of Conserans. That court gave him to understand that it was necessary he should soften some things he had advanced; and caused his book to pass a very strict examination. After the death of Urban VIII. cardinal Bichi warmly solicited Innocent X. to grant the bulls in favour of the bishop of Conserans; but the assessor of the holy office recalled the remembrance of the complaints which had been made against his book “De Concordia,” which occasioned this pope to order the examination of it anew. De Marca, despairing of success unless he gave satisfaction to the court of Rome, published a book in 1646, in which he explained the design of his “De Coocordia,” &c. submitted himself to the censure of the apostolic see, and shewed that kings were not the authors, but the guardians of the canon laws. “I own,” says he, “that I favoured the side of my prince too much, and acted the part of a president rather than that of a bishop. I renounce my errors, and promise for the future to be a strenuous advocate for the authority of the holy see.” Accordingly, in 1647, he wrote a book entitled “De singulari primatu Petri,” in which he proved that St. Peter was the only head of the church; and this he sent to the pope, who was so pleased with it, that he immediately granted his bulls, and he was made bishop of Conserans in 1648. This conduct of de Marca has been noticed by lord Bolingbroke, in his posthumous works, with becoming indignation. He calls him “a time-­serving priest, interested, and a great flatterer, if ever there was one;” and adds, that, “when he could not get his bulls dispatched, be made no scruple to explain away all that he had said in favour of the state, and to limit the papal power.”

When the circumstances here alluded to are considered, it will not be thought surprising that the society of his lordship, anil his correspondence, should have been sought by some of the most distinguished characters of the time: he lived in close intimacy with lord Cobham, who placed his bust among the worthies at Stowe lord Cornbury, sir William Wyndham, lord Chesterfield, and Mr. Pope and notwithstanding an essential difference of opinion from lord Bolingbroke on some very important points, he was so attracted by his most extraordinary talents, as to form an intimate friendship with him, which continued to the death of the viscount, although with a short temporary interruption to it, owing to the part which lord Marchmont took in vindicating, rather or extenuating, the conduct of Pope, respecting the printing of lord Bolingbroke’s “Patriot King.” Of this affair we have taken some notice in our account of Mallet; and shall be able to throw additional light on it when we come to the article of Pope, from lord Marchmont’s account, with which we have been favoured.

, de Saint Sorlin, was a man of getiius, and a favourite of cardinal Richelieu, who used to receive him at his retired hours, and unbend his mind by conversing with him upon gay and delicate subjects. On. this account, and because he assisted the cardinal in the tragedies he composed, Bayle used to say, that “he possessed an employment of genius under his eminence;” which in French is a pun, as genie means genius and engineers/lip. He was born at Paris in 1595. He has left us himself a picture of his morals, which is by no means advantageous; for he owns that, in order to triumph over the virtue of such women as objected to him the interest of their salvation, he made no scruple to lead them into atheistical principles. “I ought,” says he, “to weep tears of blood, considering the bad use I have made of my address among the ladies; for I have used nothing but specious falsehoods, malicious subtleties, and infamous treacheries, endeavouring to ruin the souls of those I pretended to love. I studied artful speeches to shake, blind, and seduce them; and strove to persuade them, that vice was virtue, or at least a thing natural and indifferent.” Marets at length became a visionary and fanatic; dealt in nothing but inward lights and revelations; and promised the king of France, upon the strength of some prophecies, whose meaning be tells us was imparted to him from above, that he should have the honour of overthrowing the Mahometan empire. “This valiant prince,” says he, “shall destroy and expel from their dominions impiety and heresy, and reform the ecclesiastics, the courts of justice, and the finances. After this, in common agreement with the king of Spain, he shall summon together all the princes of Europe, with the pope, in order to re-unite all the Christians to the true and only catholic religion. After all the heretics are re-united to the holy see, the king, as’eldest son of the chu/ch, shall be declared generalissimo of all the Christians, and, with the joint forces of Christendom, shall destroy by sea and land the Turkish enapire, and law of Mahomet, and propagate the faith and dominion of Jesus Christ over the whole earth:” that is to say, over Persia, the empire of the great mogul, Tartary, and China.

, a writer of several romances or novels much esteemed in France, was born at Marseilles in 1697, his family having been originally of Genoa. He was early in orders, and settled at Avignon, where, as a minim, he was much employed in all the offices of his order, and preached against the Jews with no little success. He published some works on pious discipline, which were much esteemed, and gained him the favour of pope Clement XIII. From this pontiff he received several marks of honour, and was employed by him to collect the “Acts of the Martyrs.” He had composed only two volumes in 12mo of this work, when he was seized with a dropsy in the heart, and died April 3, 1767, in his seventieth year. He was much esteemed by all worthy men; and his novels, as well as his other writings, were calculated to serve the cause of virtue and religion. The principal of his works are 1. “Conduct of Sister Violet, who died in odour of sanctity, at Avignon,” 12mo. 2. “Adelaide de Vitzburg, or the pious pensioner,” 12mo. 3. “The perfect Nun,” 12mo. 4. “Virginia, or the Christian Virgin,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “The Lives of the Solitaries of the East,” 9 vols. 12mo. 6. “Baron Van-Hesden, or the Republic of Unbelievers,” 5 vols. 12mo. 7. “Theodule, or the Child of Blessing,” 16mo. 8. “Farfalla, or the converted Actress,” 12mo. 9. “Retreat for a Day in each Month,” 2 vols. 12mo. 10. “Spiritual Letters,” 1769, 2 vols. 12mo; and a few more of less consequence.

In 1601, he went to Venice, to print some poems which he dedicated to Crescentio; and after making the tour of that part of Italy, returned to Rome. His reputation increased greatly, so as to engage the attention of the cardinal Peter Aldobrandini, who made him his gentleman, and settled on him a considerable pension. After the election of pope Paul V. which was in 1605, he accompanied this cardinal to Ravenna, his archbishopric, and lived with him several years. He then attended him to Turin, at which court he ingratiated himself by a panegyric upon the duke Charles Emmanuel; for which this prince recompensed him with honours, and retained him, when his patron the cardinal left Piedmont. During his residence here he had a violent dispute, both poetical and personal, with Gasper Murtola, the duke’s secretary. Murtola was, or fancied himself, as good a poet as Marini, and was jealous of Marini’s high favour with the duke, and therefore took every opportunity to speak ill of him. Marini, by way of revenge, published a sharp sonnet upon him at Venice, in 1608, under the title of “II nuovo mondo;” to which Murtola opposed a satire, containing an abridged life of Marini. Marini answered in eighty-one sonnets, named the “Murtolelde:” to which Murtola replied in a “Marineide,” consisting of thirty sonnets. But the latter, perceiving that his poems were inferior in force as well as number to those of his adversary, resolved to put an end to the quarrel, by destroying him; and accordingly fired a pistol, the ball of which luckily missed him. Murtola was cast into prison, but saved from punishment at the intercession of Marini, who, nevertheless, soon found it expedient to quit his present station.

He went afterwards to France, where he found a patroness in Mary de Medicis, who settled a handsome pension upon him. In 1621 he sent a nephew whom he had with him at Paris, to Rome, about business, and conveyed by him his compliments to cardinal Louis Ludovisio, nephew to Gregory XV. then the reigning pope; which compliments were so well received by the cardinal, that he wrote to him immediately to return to Rome. Marini complied, and quitted France about the end of 1622; and on his arrival at Rome, was made president of the academy of the Umoristi. Upon the advancement of Urban VIII. to the pontificate, in 1623, he went to Naples, and was chosen president of one of the academies in that city, but soon after conceived an inclination to return to Rome, which he was about to indulge, when he was seized with a complaint which carried him off, in 1625.

Jeremiah was born Oct. 29, 1693, and in 1704 was admitted upon the foundation of Christ’s Hospital, London, whence, in 1710, he was sent to the university of Cambridge, with the usual exhibition of 30l. per annum for seven years, and admitted of St. Peter’s college. Here he took the degree of B. A. in 1713, and the following year appears among the poetical contributors to the “Cambridge Gratulations.” In 1717 he took his master’s degree, and about the same time ably vindicated the character of Addison against the satire of Pope, in some verses addressed to the countess of Warwick. He was the author also of a translation of “The Friar’s Tale,” from Chaucer, which is printed in Ogle’s edition of 1741. Curl), the bookseller, in some of his publications, includes poems by a Mr. John Markland of St. Peter’s college. If tliis is not a blunder for Jeremiah, these might be the production of Mr. Markland’s brother John, who was also educated at Christ’s Hospital; but this is doubtful, and not very important.

Released now from public concerns, he returned to his studies; and it was his peculiar good fortune, that amidst the hurry, and noise, and fatigue of war, he had made all the advantages which the most philosophic man ecu i have made, who had travelled pureiy in quest of knowledge; hact determined the situation of places by, astronomical methods, measured the course and swiftness of rivers, studied the fossils, the vegetables, the animals of each country, made anatomical and chemical experiments, and done, in short, every thing which a man of science could do, and with such a fund of knowledge, knew how to fill up his time in the most agreeable as well as honourable manner. While at Marseilles, he was called by pope Clement XL in 1709, and invested with a military commission. Returning soon after to Bologna, he began to execute a design which he had long been meditating. He had a rich collection of every thing that might contribute to the advancement of natural knowledge: instruments proper for astronomical and chemical experiments, plans for fortifications, models of machines, &c. &c. All these he presented to the senate of Bologna, by an authentic act, dated Jan. 11, 1712; forming, at the same time, a body out of them, which he called “The institute of the arts and sciences at Bologna.” He afterwards founded a printing-house, and furnished it with the best types for Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. He presented this to the Dominicans at Bologna, in 1728, ‘on condition that ’all the writings of the “Institute, &c.” should be printed there at prime cost. It was called “The printing-house of St. Thomas of Aquinas.”

, an eminent Italian poet, was born at Bologna in 1665, and was educated at the Jesuits’ school, and at the university of his native city, after which he devqted himself to the study of classical literature, and having obtained the post of one of the secretaries to the senate of B*ologna, was enabled to follow his studies without much interruption. After publishing a serious poem, entitled “Gli Ocche di Gesu,” The Eyes of Jesus, he produced a tragedy called “La Morte di Nerone,” which with several of liis other pieces was acted with great^ applause. In 1707 he was appointed professor of the belles lettres in the university of Bologna, and soon after was made private secretary to Aldrovandi, who had been nominated delegate to pope Clement XI. At Rome, where he contracted an intimacy with many men of high literary reputation, he published a whimsical dialogue, “Del Volo,” On Flying, in which he endeavoured to prove that men and heavy bodies might be supported in the air, and also wrote several discourses in verse concerning the art of poetry. When he accompanied Aldrovandi, who was appointed the pope’s legate at the courts of France and Spain, he wrote at Paris his opinions “On” ancient and modern Tragedy,“in the form of dialogues; and on his return to Rome, he published his tragedies in three volumes, and was reckoned to have conferred a great benefit on Italian literature, although his style is often too turgid and florid for a model. He also began a poem” On the Arrival of Charlemagne in Italy, and his Accession to the Western Empire,“which he never finished. He died in 1727, at the age of sixty-two, leaving the character of a man of amiable manners and social qualities. His principal works,” Versi et Prose," were printed at Bologna in 1729, 7 vols. 8vo.

, recorder of Exeter, was born in that city in 1562, and educated in the grammar school, whence he was sent to Broadgates-hall, now Pembroke college, Oxford, in 1579. Here he is supposed to have taken one degree in arts, and then removed to some of the inns of court in London to study law. In 1605, he was elected reeofder of his native city, where he died April 12, 1617. He is noticed here as the author of a history or chronicle of the kings of England, entitled “The History and Lives of the Kings of England, from William the Conqueror to King Henry VIII.” Lond. 1616, folio, reprinted in 1618, an amusing, and not ill-written work, taken principally from the Chronicles. An appendix was published in 1638, by B. R M. A. including the history of Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth. It is said that king James took offence at some passages in Mr. Martyn’s work respecting his own family or the Scottish nation, and that the author was brought into some trouble. Of what kind this trouble was we are not told, but that it preyed on his mind, and hastened his death. Mr. Martyn also published a book for the use of one of his sons, entitled “Youth’s Instruction,” Lond. 1612, 'Jto, which Wood saysj shows a great deal of reading. His family appears to have been somewhat poetical, as his history was preluded by copies (if verses by his three sons, and his son-in-law. 1 Ma&Tyr, Justin, see Justin. Martyr, Peter. See Anghiera. Martyr (Peter), a very distinguished divine, was born at Florence, Sept. 8, 1500. His family name was VermiliUs; but his parents gave him that of Marty*, from one Peter a martyr, whose church happened to stand near their house. The first rudiments of literature he received from his mother, who was a very ingenious lady; and used, as it is said, to read Terence and other classics to him in the original. When he was grown up, he became a regular Augustine in the monastery of Fiesoli; and, after three years’ stay there, was sent to the university of Padua, to study philosophy and the Greek language. At twenty-six, in 1526, he was made a public preacher, and preached first at Brixia, in the church of Afra, then at Rome, Venice, Mantua, and other cities of Italy. He read lectures of philosophy and divinity in his college, and applied himself to the study of the Hebrew tongue, the knowledge of which he attained by the assistance of one Isaac, a Jewish physician. Such was his fame at this time, that he was made abbot of Spoletto, in the duchy of Umbria, where he continued three years. Afterwards, he was made go1 Prince’s Worthies 6f Devon. Fuller’s Worthies. Ath. Ox. vol I. vernor of the monastery of St. Peter ad aram in Naples. Here he first became acquainted with the writings of Zuinglius and Bucer, which led him to entertain a good opinion of protestantism: and afterwards his conversation with Valdes, a Spanish lawyer, so confirmed him in it, that he made no scruple to preach it at Rome privately to many persons of quality, and sometimes even publicly. Thus when he came to I Cor. iii. 13, he boldly affirmed, that place not to be meant of purgatory “because,” said he, “the fire there spoken of is such a fire, as both good and bad must pass through and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” “And this,” says Fuller, in his quaint manner, “seeming to shake a main pillar of purgatory, the pope’s furnace, the fire whereof, like the philosopher’s stone, melteth all his leaden bulls into pure gold; some of his under-chemists, like Demetrius and the craftsmen, began to bestir themselves, and caused him to be silenced.”

, a distinguished person in the republic of letters, was born at Sarzana, in the state of Genoa, in 1591. He spent the early partofhis life among the Jesuits, and afterwards became chamberlain to pope Urban VIII. He vvas naturally so eloquent, that this same pope, merely to exercise his talent, founded a professorship of rhetoric for him, in the college de la Sapienza, in 1628, and settled upon him for life a pension of 500 crowns. Mascardi filled the chair with great reputation; but his love of letters made him neglect the management of his affairs, and he was always poor, and always in debt. He is described in “Erytbrsei Pinacotheca/' as never being able to supply his own wants, but by borrowing from others, and removing from place to place, without a fixed habitation. He wrote a great many compositions in verse and prose, the principal of which is entitled,” Dell' arte historica.“Of this he printed so large an edition at his own expence, that he would have been a considerable loser by it, if a great number of copies had not been sold at Paria by the influence of cardinal Mazarine. He had some literary contests with several authors. In his” History of the Conspiracy of the Compte de Fiesco" he has very frequently attacked the religion of Hubert Folietta; and in his other books he used some writers in the same way, which occasioned him to be attacked in his turn. The objections which were made to him, together with his answers, were added to the second edition of the history just mentioned. H& died at Sarzana, in 1640, in his forty-ninth year.

, a distinguished poet and divine of the last century, was the son of the vicar of St. Trinity-hall in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and was born in 1725. His education, previously to his going to the university, was probably superintended by his father, whose indulgence in permitting him to follow the bent of his youthful mind towards poetry and painting, he acknowledges in an epistolary address written in 1746. He went to Cambridge in 1742-3, and was entered of St. John’s college, where his tutor, Dr. Powell, encouraged him to publish his excellent monody to the memory of Pope, which appeared in 1747. He took his bachelor’s degree in 1745, and his master’s in 1749, but little else has been recorded of his academical progress, except that his attachment to the Muses continued during his residence at the university, of which he took leave in an ode complimentary to his college and his tutor.

Mr. Mason’s life appears to have been principally devoted to the duties of his profession, occasionally relieved by the cultivation of the fine arts. His associates, at least in the latter part of his life, were few. He had the misfortune to survive the greater number whose friendship he had cultivated in his early years, and he was not ambitious *t>f new connections. This brought on him the imputation of that pride, or distance of manner, which is ascribed to men of unsocial habits. But Mason’s heart was not inaccessible, and his friendships were inviolable. The simplicity, hdwever, attributed to him in his young days by Gray, and the patience with which lord Orford informs us, he heard his faults, did not accompany him through life. On the publication of Gray’s life, he was ready to allow that “twenty-five years had made a very considerable abatement in his general philanthropy” and by philanthropy he seems here to mean a diffidence of opinion on matters of literature, and an -unwillingness to censure acknowledged merit. It can have no reference to philanthropy in the more general acceptation of the word, for he was to the last, liberal, humane, and chai-itaWe. What it really means, indeed, we find in the work just alluded to. The contemptuous notice of Waterland, Akenside, and Shenstone, which he did not suppress in Gray, he employed himself with more harshness whenever he could find an opportunity to attack the writings of Dr. Johnson. The opinion this great critic pronounced on Gray may be probably, quoted as the provocation, and great allowance is to be made for the warmth and zeal with which he guards the memory of his departed friend. But surely one of his notes on Gray’s Letters may be here fairly quoted against him. “Had Mr. Pope disregarded the sarcasms of the many writers that endeavoured to eclipse his poetical fame, as much as Mr. Gray appears to have done, the world would not have been possessed of a Dunciad; but it would have been impressed with a more amiable idea of its author’s temper.” Nor was his prosecution of Murray, for taking about fifty lines from his works of Gray into an edition which that bookseller published, much to the credit of his liberality, especially as he refused to drop the prosecution, when requested to name his own terms of compensation. Such httlenesses are to be regretted in a maa who was the friend of genius and literature, whose circumstances placed him far above want, and whose regular discharge of the duties of piety and humanity bespoke an ambition for higher enjoyments than fame and wealth caa yield. Of his regard for sacred truth, and the respect due to it, he exhibited a proof in a letter to lord Orford on his lordship’s childish epitaph on two piping bullfinches, to which he received an answer that was probably not very satisfactory.

As a poet, his name has been so frequently coupled with that of Gray, and their merits have been supposed to approach so nearly, that what has been said of the one will in some degree apply to the other. It is evident that they studied in the same school, and mutually cultivated those opinions which aim at restoring a purer species of poetry than was taught in the school of their predecessor Pope. Whether we consider Mason as a lyric, dramatic, or didactic writer, we find the same grandeur of outline, the same daring and inventive ambition which carries out of the common track of versification and sentiment into the higher regions of imagination. His attachment to the sister art, and his frequent contemplation of the more striking and sublime objects of nature, inclined him to the descriptive; and his landscapes have a warmth and colouring, often rich and harmonious, but perhaps too frequently marked with a glare of manner peculiar to the artist. His compositions, however, even on the same subject, have all the variety of a fertile invention. Although we have Evening, Morning, &c. often depicted, they are to be distinguished, and the preference we are inclined to give is regulated by the feeling which the varieties of natural appearances excite in different minds, and in the same mind at different times.

It is now necessary to advert to a series of poems which have been added to Mr. Mason’s works in the late edition of the English poets. The author of the “Heroic Epistle” was long concealed from the world, and for reasons which are obvious; but the poem had merit enough to be ascribed to the best living satirists, to Mason, Walpole, Hayley, Cowper, Anstey, and others. It appears, however, to be now universally given to Mason. Mr. Thomas Warton was of opinion that “it might have been written by Walpole and buckram 'd by Mason.” Mr. Malone, in a note on this opinion, which occurs in Boswell’s Life of Johnson, says, “It is now known that the Heroic Epistle was written by Mason.” Mr. Mant, in his life of Warton, informs us that when it was first published, Warton ascribed it to Mason, and endeavoured to confirm his opinion by internal evidence. Mason heard of this, and sent to him a letter in 1777, published by Mr. Mant, in which he professes to expostulate with him for raising a report merely from critical conjecture. "I have been told that you have pronounced me very frequently in company to be the author of the Heroic Epistle to sir William Chambers, and I am told too, that the premier himself suspects that I am so upon your authority. Surely, sir, mere internal evidence (and you can possibly have no other) can never be sufficient to ground such a determination upon, when you consider how many persons in this rhyming age of ours are possessed of that knack of Pope’s versification, which constitutes one part of the merit of that poem, and as to the wit, humour, or satire, which it contains, no part of my writings could ever lead you, by their analogy, to form so peremptory a judgment. I acquit you, however, in this procedure of every, even the slightest degree of ill nature; and believe that what you have said was only to show your critical acumen. I only mention it that you may be more cautious of speaking of other persons in like manner, who may throw such anonymous bantlings of their brain into the wide world. To some of these it might prove an essential injury; for though they might deserve the frown of power (as the author in question certainly does), yet I am persuaded that your good nature would be hurt if that frown was either increased or fixed by your ip$e dixit.

, a Lutheran divine, was born at Leipsic in 1650. He was deeply skilled in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, and was a professor, first at Wittemburg, then at Hamburgh, and afterwards at Stetin in Pomerania, where he became the general superintendant of the churches of that province. Fabricius dedicated the first edition of his “Bibliotheca Latina” to him at Hamburgh in 1696; which Saxius says is the only thing he knows to his honour; but why Saxius speaks thus slightingly of him does not appear. He himself published, 1. in 1697, “De fide Baronii et Bellarmini, ipsis Pontificiis ambigua,” “on the faith of Baronius and Bellarmin, which is suspicious even to the Papists,” printed at Amsterdam, in 8vo. 2. A “Bibliotheca Biblica,” in which he examines the characters of the various authors, Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Protestant, who have commented upon the Bible. The best edition of this work was printed at Rostock, in 1713, 4to. 3. A treatise on the manner of studying the Scripture, 4to. 4. A treatise “de Osculo pedum Pontificis Romani;”" on kissing the Pope’s foot, now become scarce, Leipsic, 1714, 4to. 5. Many dissertations on important passages in the Bible. Mayer died in 1712. His learning was undoubtedly great, but is not thought to be set off to advantage by his style, which is dry and harsh.

, a French poet, and one of the forty of the French academy, was the son of a counsellor of the parliament of Toulouse, and born in 1582. He was secretary to queen Margaret, and pleased the court of that princess by his wit and gaiety. Noailles, the ambassador to Rome, took him with him in 1634-; and pope Urban VIII. was very much pleased with him. Returning to France, he made his court to the great, but was too sanguine in the expectations he formed from them; which lead in general to disappointment. This was his case. He commended cardinal Richelieu, in order to obtain something; and abused him for giving him nothing. He had the same success at the court of Anne of Austria; and, after a variety of disappointments, he retired to his province, where he died in 1646. He wrote songs, odes, epigrams, some of them rather licentious, and a poem, entitled, “Philander,” &c. Malherbe says of him, and it has generally been allowed, that his verses were well turned, but wanted force.

, cardinal, and first minister of state in France, was born at Piscina, in the province of Abruzzo, in Italy, on July 14, 1602. His abilities enabled him to make a considerable figure, even in his early years, whilst he was studying the belles lettres, in which he had the happiness of being instructed by the abbe Jerome of Colonna, who afterwards became a cardinal. This illustrious person went to reside in the university of Alcala in Spain, whither he was followed by Mazarin, who applied himself to the law, and at his return to Italy, took his doctor’s degree. He went afterwards to the court of Rome, where he became acquainted with cardinal Sacchetti, whom Urban VIII. sent into Lombardy. It was through his means, that Mazarin was instructed in every particular relating to the interest of the difff rent princes who were then at war respecting Cassel and Montserrat. Soon after this, the cardinal Antonio Barberini, nephew to the pope, came into the Milanese and Piedmont, in the character of legate, to conclude a peace. Mazarin embraced his cause so warmly, that he was ordered to remain upon the spot with the nuncio James Pancirole, and to assist him in his endeavours to conclude this great affair. He here scrutinized closely the designs of the French, the imperialists, the Spaniards, the duke of Mantua, and the duke of Savoy; and took such measures as might best reconcile and strengthen their various interests. When it happened that peace had been concluded at Ratisbon on the 3d of October, but the French and Spaniards refused to accept it in Italy, Mazarin, who perceived that By such an opposition his care would have proved nugatory, sought for new expedients to render the peace general, and to prevent these two armies from coming to an engagement. The Spaniards, who were besieging Cassel, had made entrenchments for six miles round, and were determined vigorously to defend themselves against the French, who approached extremely near, with an intention to force their lines. On Oct. 26, 1630, the Spaniards waited only for the signal to fire, and the forlorn hope of the French army had been drawn out to force their lines; when Mazarin, after offering an accommodation in many forms, quitted the Spanish trenches, and, riding on a full gallop towards the French, waved his hat to them, crying out, “Peace! peace!” He then addressed himself to the commander in chief, the marshal duke de Schomberg, and gave in such proposals as were accepted by the generals, and followed by the peace concluded in the April following. The nuncio Pancirole and Mazarin were joint agents for the pope; but all the credit of the negociation was given to the latter.

The cardinal de Richelieu was induced from these services to conceive an esteem for him, while Barberini was equally attached to him, and prevailed upon Urban VIII. to make him keeper of the seals. He went in 1634 to Avignon, in quality of vice- legate, and to France in that of nuncio extraordinary, where he acquired a profound knowledge of state affairs, and with much art cultivated at the same time, the friendship of Richelieu, and the good-will of Louis XIII. In compliment to the nomination of this monarch, the pope added him to the number of cardinals in 1641. When Richelieu died, the same king made Mazarin his minister of state, and one of the executors to his will. In these departments, he took upon him the administration of affairs, during the minority of Louis XIV. and the regency of the queen Anne of Austria. The dawnings of his power were attended with the happiest success; and the good fortune of the king’s armies was to our cardinal a source of much national applause. But these advantages were very soon succeeded by the murmurs of an oppressed people, and the envious combination of the great nobles, who were jealous of his high advancement. Hence arose the civil wars in 1649, and the three following years; and the dissatisfaction becoming more general, it was insisted upon, that he should be dismissed from the royal presence. Mazarin, who knew how necessary it was for him to retire, demanded that he might take his leave; and immediately departed from the kingdom. He was stili so conscious of fortune’s always attending him, that he mentioned even this event as one of the chief incidents contributing to his greatness; and although decrees were issued out against him, his fine library was sold, and a price was fixed upon his head, he contrived to quell this fury with most astonishing dexterity. He even was enabled to return to court, and with a double share of power; and so mutable is popular opinion, that many who once had been his bitterest enemies, were now become his warmest friends. After this, he continued to render the state many important services, the chief of which was the obtaining of peace between France and Spain: for this purpose, he went in person to hold a conference with the Spanish minister, don Louis de Haro, in 1659. The successful termination of this affair, was followed by the king’s marriage, with the Infanta. The continual application of Mazarin to business brought on a very dangerous iUness: he was at that time at the Louvre, but gave orders to be carried to Vincennes, where he died March 9, 1661, aged 59. When sensible of his danger, he began to feel scruples concerning the wealth which he had heaped together, and his confessor plainly told him that restitution was necessary for his salvation. He gave the whole to the king, in the hope that, as was the case, his majesty would restore it to him. His wealth is said to have amounted to eight millions sterling, all collected in a time of war, or national commotion. The king paid the highest honours to his memory. His body was magnificently entombed in the college usually called after his name, but sometimes by that of “the four nations,” having been designed as a place of education for the youth of the four conquered nations.

Dr. Mead was twice married. By his first lady, whom we have mentioned, he had ten children (of whom three survived him, two daughters married to Dr. Wilmot and Dr. Nicholls, and his son Richard, heir to his father’s and uncle’s fortunes): by the second lady, Miss Anne Alston, sister to sir Rowland Alston of Odell in Bedfordshire (whom he married in 1724), he had no issue. Dr. Mead raised the medical character to a higher dignity than ever was known in this or any other country. During almost half a century he was at the head of his profession, which is said to have brought him in one year upwards of seven thousand pounds, and between five and six for several years. The clergy, and in general all men of learning, were welcome to his advice; and his doors were open every morning to the most indigent, whom he frequently assisted with money; so that, notwithstanding his great income, he did not die very rich. He was a most generous patron of learning and learned men, in all sciences, and in every country; by the peculiar munificence of his disposition, making the private gains of his profession answer the end of a princely fortune, and valuing them only as they enabled him to become more extensively useful, and thereby to satisfy that greatness of mind which will transmit his name to posterity with a lustre not inferior to that of the most distinguished characters of antiquity. To him the several counties of England, and our colonies abroad, applied for the choice of their physicians. No foreigner of any learning, taste, or even curiosity, ever came to England without being introduced to Dr. Mead; and he was continually consulted by the physicians of the continent. His large and spacious house in Great Ormond street became a repository of all that was curious in nature or in art, to which his extensive correspondence with the learned in all parts of Europe not a little contributed. The king of Naples sent to request a collection of all his works; presented him with the two first volumes of signor Bajardi, and invited him to his own palace: and, through the hands of M. de Boze, he frequently had the honour of exchanging presents with the king of France. He built a gallery for his favourite furniture, his pictures, and his antiquities. His library, as appears by the printed catalogue of it, consisted of 6592 numbers, containing upwards of 10,000 volumes, in which he had spared no expence for scarce and ancient editions. It was at that time mentioned as remarkable, although it will not be thought so now, that many of his books sold for much more than they had cost him. The sale of the whole amounted to 5500l. His pictures also were chosen with so much judgment, that they produced 3417l. 11s. about six or seven hundred pounds more than he gave for them; and the total amount of his books, pictures, coins, &c. &c. was 16,069l. 8s. Md. Nor did he make this great collection for his own use only, but freely opened it to public inspection. Ingenious men were sure of finding at Dr. Mead’s the best helps in all their undertakings; and scarcely any thing curious appeared in England but under his patronage. By his singular humanity and goodness, “he conquered even Envy itself;” a compliment which was justly paid him in a dedication, by the editor of lord Bacon’s Works, in 1730. But the most elegant compliment he received, or couid receive, was in the dedication written by Dr Johnson for Dr James, which we have inserted in vol. XVIII. art. James. Dr. Johnson once said of Dr. Mead, that “he lived more in the broad sunshine of life than almost any man.” He constantly kept in pay a great number of scholars and artists of all kinds, who were at work for him or for the public. He was the friend of Pope, of Halley, and of Newton; and placed their portraits in his house, with those of Shakspeare and Milton, near the busts of their great masters, the ancient Greeks and Romans. A marble bust of Dr. Harvey, the work of an excellent artist, from an original picture in his possession, was given by him to the college of physicians: and one of Dr. Mead, by Roubillac, was presented to the college in 1756, by the late Dr. Askew. A portrait of him was etched by Pond, another by Richardson; a mezzotinto by Houston, from a painting of Ramsay; and an engraved portrait by Baron. There was also a medal of him struck in 1773, long after his decease, by Lewis Pingo.

, a celebrated citizen of Florence, born in that city iii 1389, was the eldest son of John de Metlici, the founder of his illustrious family. 4i The maxims,“says Mr. Roscoe,” which, m iformly pursued, raised the house of Medici to the splendour which it afterwards enjoyed, are to be found in the charge given by this venerable old man on his death-bed to his two sons “I feel,” said John de Medici, “that I have lived the time prescribed me. I die content; leaving you, my sons, in affluence and in health, and in such a station, that while you follow my example, you may live in your native place honoured and respected. Nothing affords me more pleasure than the reflection that my conduct has not given offence to any one; but that, on the contrary, I have endeavoured to serve all persons to the best of my abilities. I advise you to do the same. With respect to the honours of the state, if you would live with security, accept only such as are bestowed on you by the laws, and the favour of your fellow-citizens; for it is the exercise of that power which is obtained by violence, and not of that which is voluntarily conferred, that occasions hatred and violence.” At the death of this venerable man, in 1428, Cosmo had already obtained distinction both in the political and commercial world. In 1414, when the pope, John XXIII., was summoned to attend the council of Constance, he chose to be accompanied by Cosmo de Medici, among other men of eminence, whose high characters might countenance his cause. On the death of his father, Cosmo succeeded to the influence possessed by him as head of that powerful family, which rendered him the first citizen of the state, though without any superiority of rank or title, and his conduct being marked by urbanity and generosity to all ranks, he acquired numerous and zealous partizans. Such was the influence of his family, that while the citizens of Florence fancied they lived under a pure republic, the Medici generally assumed to themselves the first offices of the state, or nominated such persons as they esteemed fit for those employments. Cosmo exerted this influence with great prudence and moderation; yet, owing to the discontent of the Florentines, with the bad success of the war against Lucca, a party arose, led on by Rinaldo de' Albizi, which, in 1433, after filling the magistracies with their own adherents, seized the person of Cosmo, and committed him to prison, and he was afterwards banished to Padua for ten years, and several other members and friends of the Medici family underwent a similar punishment. He was received with marked respect by the Venetian government, and took up his abode in the city of Venice. Within a year of his retreat, Rinaldo was himself obliged to quit Florence; and Cosmo being recalled, he returned amidst the acclamations of his fellow-subjects. Some victims were offered to his future security, and the gonfaloniere who had pronounced his sentence, with a few others of that party, were put to death. Measures were now taken to restrict the choice of magistrates to the partizans of the Medici, and alliances were formed with the neighbouring powers for the avowed purpose of supporting and perpetuating the system by which Florence was from that time to be governed. The manner in which Cosmo employed his authority, has conferred upon his memory the greatest honour. From this time his life was an almost uninterrupted series of prosperity. The tranquillity enjoyed by the republic, and the satisfaction and peace of mind which he experienced in the esteem and confidence of his fellow-citizens, enabled him to indulge his natural propensity to the promotion of science, and the patronage and encouragement of learned men. The richest private citizen in Europe, he surpassed almost all sovereign princes in the munificence with which he patronized literature and the fine arts. He assembled around him some of the most learned men of the age, who had begun to cultivate the Grecian language and philosophy. He established, at Florence, an academy expressly for the elucidation of the Platonic philosophy, at the head of which he placed the celebrated Marsilius Ficinus. He collected from all parts by means of foreign correspondences, manuscripts of the Greek, Latin, and Oriental languages, which formed the foundation of the Laurentian library nor was he less liberal in the encouragement of the fine arts. During the retirement of his latter days, his happiest hours were devoted to the study of letters and philosophy, and the conversation of learned men. He also endowed numerous religious houses, and built an hospital at Jerusalem for the relief of distressed pilgrims. While the spirit of his government was moderate, he avoided every appearance of state which might excite the jealousy or discontent of the Florentines; and therefore, byway of increasing his interest among them, restricted the marriages of his children to Florentine families: By such wise measures, and the general urbanity of his behaviour to all orders of men, he attained the title of “Father of his country,” which was inscribed on his tomb. He died Aug. 1, 14-64, aged seventyfive years, deeply lamented by the citizens of Florence.

, grandson of the preceding, was born Jan. 1, 1448. From his earliest years he gave proofs of a vigorous mind, which was carefully cultivated, and exhibited many traits of that princely and liberal spirit which afterwards procured him the title of “Magnificent.” In polite literature he cultivated poetry, and gave some proofs of his talents in various compositions. At the death of Cosmo, on account of the infirmities of his father Peter de Medici, he was immediately initiated into political life, although then only in his sixteenth year. He was accordingly sent to visit the principal courts in Italy, and acquire a personal knowledge of their politics and their rulers. In 1469 his father died, leaving his two sons Lorenzo and Julian heirs of his power and property; but it was Lorenzo who succeeded him as head of the republic. Upon the accession of Sixtus IV. to the papal throne, he went, with some other citizens, to congratulate the new pope, and was invested with the office of treasurer of the holy see, and while at Rome took every opportunity to add to the remains of ancient art which his family had collected. One of the first public occurrences after he conducted the helm of government, was a revolt of the inhabitants of Volterra, on account of a dispute with the Florentine republic; by the recommendation of Lorenzo, means of force were adopted, which ended in the sack of the unfortunate city, an event that gave him much concern. In 1472, he re-established the academy of Pisa, to which he removed in order to complete the work, exerted himself in selecting the most eminent professors, and contributed to it a large sum from his private fortune, in addition to that granted by the state of Florence. Zealously attached to the Platonic philosophy, he took an active part in the establishment of an academy for its promotion, and instituted an annual festival in honour of the memory of Plato, which was conducted with singular literary splendour. While he was thus advancing in a career of prosperity and reputation, a tragical incident was very near depriving his country of his future services. This was the conspiracy of the Pazzi, a numerous and distinguished family in Florence, of which the object was the assassination of Lorenzo and his brother. In the latter they were successful; but Lorenzo was saved, and the people attached to the Medici collecting in crowds, putto death or apprehended the assassins, whose designs were thus entirely frustrated, and summary justice was inflicted on the criminals. Salviati, archbishop of Pisa, was hanged out of the palace window in his sacerdotal robes; and Jacob de Pazzi, with one of his nephews, shared the same fate. The name and arms of the Pazzi family were suppressed, its members were banished, and Lorenzo rose still higher in the esteem and affection of his fellow-citizens. The pope, Sixtus IV. who was deep in this foul conspiracy, inflamed almost to madness by the defeat of his schemes, excommunicated Lorenzo and the magistrates of. Florence, laid an interdict upon the whole territory, and, forming a league with the king of Naples, prepared to invade the Florentine dominions. Lorenzo appealed to all the surrounding potentates for the justice of his cause; and he was affectionately supported by his fellow-citizens. Hostilities began, and were carried on with various success through two campaigns. At the close of 1479, Lorenzo took the bold resolution of paying a visit to the king of Naples, and, without any previous security, trusted his liberty and his life to the mercy of a declared enemy. The monarch was struck with this heroic act of confidence, and a treaty of mutual defence and friendship was agreed upon between them, and Sixtus afterwards consented to a peace. At length the death of Sixtus IV. freed him from an adversary who never ceased to bear him ill-will; and he was able to secure himself a friend in his successor Innocent VIII. He conducted the republic of Florence to a degree of tranquillity and prosperity which it had scarcely ever known before; and by procuring the institution of a deliberative body, of the nature of a senate, he corrected the democratical part of his constitution.

, an ancient Christian father, was bishop of Sardis in Asia, and composed several works upon the doctrine and discipline of the church; of which we have nothing now remaining but their titles, and some fragments preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical Hist, book IV. The most valuable of these is part of an humble petition, which he presented to the emperor Marcus Antoninus; in which he beseeches him, “to examine the accusations which were brought against the Christians, and to stop the persecution, by revoking the edict which he had published against them.” He represents to him, that “the Roman, empire was so far from being injured or weakened by Christianity, that its foundation was more firmly established, and its bounds considerably enlarged, since that religion had taken footing in it;” that “the Christian religion had been persecuted by none but the worst emperors, such as Nero and Domitian that Adrian and Antoninus had granted privileges in its favour and that he hoped from his clemency and goodness, that they should obtain the same protection of their lives and properties from him.” This petition was presented, according to Eusebius, in the year 170; but other authors give it the date of 175 or 177, and Dupin 182. Melito died before the pontificate of Victor, probably about the year 192, as we learn from a letter of Polycrates to that pope, where he speaks of Melito as of a man dead, and in the following terms: “What shall I say of Melito, whose actions were all guided by the operations of the Holy Spirit? who was interred at Sardis, where he waits the resurrection and the judgment.” He passed, it seems, for a prophet in his day; that is, for a man inspired by God; according to the testimony of Tertullian, as Jerome represents it. The same Tertullian observes also, that he was an elegant writer and a good orator; which, however, it would not be easy to discover from the fragments that remain of him.

, a French engraver and designer, particularly celebrated for a mode of engraving peculiar to himself, and of his own invention, that of forming a whole head by one line of the graver, swelling it in various places to produce the shades. A head of our Saviour, formed of one spiral line, beginning at the tip of the nose, is his most famous work in this style. There are also portraits by him, of pope Clement VIII. and of the marquis Justiniani, and a set of the Justiniani gallery, all of which are highly esteemed. Charles II. was desirous of inviting him to settle in England; but an attachment to his country, and a happy marriage in it, fixed him at home. He was born at Abbeville in 1601, and died at Paris in 1688.

, son of the above, by his second wife, was born in 1710. Of his early history little is known. He probably received a liberal education, although we do not find that he studied at either university. He was bred to the law, as appears by his being appointed a commissioner of bankrupts in 1756, by sir John Eardley Wilmot, at that time one of the commissioners of the great seal, and an excellent discerner and rewarder of merit. The greater part of Mr. Melmoth’s life, however, was spent in retirement from public business, partly at Shrewsbury, and partly at Bath, where he was no less distinguished for integrity of conduct, than for polite manners and elegant taste. He first appeared as a writer about 1742, in a volume of “Letters” under the name of Fitzosborne, which have been much admired for the elegance of their language, and their just and liberal remarks on various topics, moral and literary. In 174-7 he published “A Translation of the Letters of Pliny,” in 2 vols. 8vo, which was regarded as one of the best versions of a Latin author that had appeared in our language. In 1753, he gave a translation of the “Letters of Cicero to several of his Friends, with Remarks,” in 3 vols. He had previously to this, write ten an answer to Mr. Bryant’s attack, in his Treatise on the Truth of the Christian Religion, on his remarks on Trajan’s Persecution of the Christians in Bithynia, which made a note to his translation of Pliny’s Letters. He was the translator likewise of Cicero’s treatises “De Amicitia” and “De Senectute,” which were published in 1773 and 1777. These he enriched with remarks, literary and philosophical, which added much to their value. In the former he refuted lord Shaftesbury, who had imputed it as a defect to Christianity, that it gave no precepts in favour of friendship, and Soame Jenyns, who had represented that very omission as a proof of its divine origin. The concluding work of Mr. Melmoth was a tribute of filial affection, in the Memoirs of his father, which we have already noticed. After a long life passed in literary pursuits, and the practice of private virtue, Mr. Melmoth died at Bath, March 15, 1799, at the age of eighty-nine. He had been twice married first to the daughter of the celebrated Dr. King, principal of St. Mary’s- hall, Oxford, and secondly to Mrs. Ogle. The author of “The Pursuits of Literature” says, “Mr. Melmoth is a happy example of the mild influence of learning on a cultivated mind; I mean that learning which is declared to be the aliment of youth, and the delight and consolation of declining years. Who would not envy this fortunate old man, his most finished translation and comment on Tully’s Cato? Or rather, who would not rejoice in the refined and mellowed pleasure of so accomplished a gentleman, and so liberal a scholar” Dr. Warton, in a note on Pope’s works, mentions his translation of Pliny as “one of the few that are better than the original.” Birch, in his Life of Tillotson, had made nearly the satae remark, which was the more liberal in Birch, as Melmoth had taken' great liberties with the style of Tillotson. To Mr. Melmoth’s other works we may add a few poetical efforts, one in Dodsley’s Poems (vol. I. p. 216, edit. 1782), entitled “Of active and retired life;” and three in Pearch’s poems (vol. II.) “The Transformation of Lycou and Euphormius;” a Tale,“in p. 149; and Epistle to Sappho.”

, better known by the name of Marsilius of Padua, the place of his birth, was one of the most celebrated philosophers and lawyers of the 14th century. He was educated at the university of Orleans; was afterwards made counsellor to the emperor Louis of Bavaria; and wrote an apology entitled “Defensor pacis,” for that prince, in 1324. In this extraordinary work, for such at that time it might well be deemed, he boldly maintained that the pope ought to submit to the emperor, not only in temporal affairs, but also in what regards the outward discipline of the church. He described in strong colours, the pride, the luxury, and other irregularities of the court of Rome; and shewed at large, that the pope could not, by divine right, claim any powers or prerogatives superior to those of other bishops. John XXII. at that time filled the papal chair, and was so provoked at this doctrine of Marsilius, as well as his manner of propagating it, that he issued out a long decree, in which he endeavoured to refute it, and by which he excommunicated the author, in 1327. Dupin relates, that on this book being translated into French without the author’s name, pope Gregory XL complained of it to the faculty of divinity at Paris when the faculty declared, by an authentic act, that none of their members had any hand in that translation and that neither Marsilius of Padua, nor John de Jande, who was likewise thought to have been concerned in the work, belonged to their body. Besides the “Defensor pacis, seu de re imperatoria et pontifica, adversus usurpatam Romani Pontificis jurisdictionem, libri tres,” Marsilius wrotea treatise entitled “De translatione imperil” and also another, “De jurisdictione imperial! in causis matrimonialibus.” He died at Monternalto, in 1328; and, however his memory may have been honoured elsewhere, was ranked at Rome among the heretics of the first class.

We are told, by his biographer Fabroni, that being not a little in awe of the satirical talents of that writer, he had cultivated his kindness with no little anxiety; and thus, it may be supposed, obtained this compliment. He was now appointed by the pope, canon of St. Angelo in Piscina; and continued to publish several works, in Latin as well as in Italian as, “Orationes de morum, philosophise, humanarumque literarum studiis, et de Leonis X. P. M. laudtbus.” But his Latin compositions did not so well satisfy the learned as those he produced in his own language; and their criticisms led him to write and publish a tract, “De poesis innocentia, et de literatorum hominum invidia.” This, however, was prior to the present period, as it bears date in 1675. He published now a poetical version of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in Italian, which was so much approved by pope Clement XI. that he ordered it to be distributed to the cardinals in passion-week. Menzini was admitted a member *of the society of Arcadi, under the name of Euganius, under which we have seen him mentioned by the satirist: and being also admitted of the academy Delia Crusca, he was very anxious to have his verses cited in their dictionary, as authority. In this he could not prevail, except after a time for his satires, in which he had revived some classical Italian expressions then growing obsolete. In 1731, however, long after his death, and in the fourth edition of that vocabulary, all his Italian works were admitted, as affording classical citations. Towards the end of life he became dropsical, and died at the age of fifty-eight, in 1704. He left the fortune of a poet, his works only, which he bequeathed to a friend and they were in 1730 1734, published collectively, in 4 vols. 8vo, the contents of which are recited by Fabroni. An edition of his “Art of Poetry” has lately been published by Mr. Mathias, perhaps the most accomplished Italian scholar and critic in this kingdom. His satires were published with Salvini’s notes, in 1759, 8vo, and with those of Rinaldo Maria Bracci, at Naples in 1763, 4to.

, a physician and naturalist, the son of Peter Mercati, a physician of St. Miniato, in Tuscany, was born April 8, 1541. After having finished his scholastic education at his native place, he was sent to Pisa, and placed under the tuition of Cesalpini, from whom he derived his taste for the study of nature. Having received his degree of doctor in philosophy and medicine ia that university, he went to Rome, where pope Pius V. appointed him superintendant of the botanical garden of the Vatican, at the age of twenty-six, but Niceron says he was not more than twenty. Afterwards Ferdinand I. the grand duke of Tuscany, raised him to the rank of nobility; and soon afterwards the same dignity was conferred upon him by the senate of Rome. Among his other honours, Sixtus V. conferred upon him the office of apostolical prothonotary, and sent him into Poland with cardinal Aldobrandini, that he might enjoy the opportunity of increasing his collections in natural history. The same cardinal, when elected pope in 1592, under the title of Clement VIII. nominated Mercati his first physician, and had in contemplation higher honours to bestow upon him, when this able physician died, in 1593, in the fifty-third year of his age. His character in private life was universally esteemed, and the regret of the most distinguished persons of Rome followed him to his grave.

Mercati wrote in Italian, at the request of his patron pope Gregory, a work “On the Plague, on the Corruption of the Air, on the Gout, and on Palsy,” Rome, 1576, 4to; and likewise a “Dissertation on the Obelisks of Rome,” 1589, 4to. But he is principally remembered for his description of the subjects of natural history, particularly of mineralogy, contained in the museum of the Vatican, which was formed under the auspices of Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. and was afterwards totally dispersed. He was about to prepare engravings of the principal subjects, when his disease, which terminated his life, interrupted his progress. His manuscript came into the hands of Carlo Dati of Florence, where it remained till the time of Clement XI. who purchased it, and caused it to be splendidly edited by Lancisi, his first physician, in 1717, at Rome, under the title of “Metallotheca, opus posthumnm authoritate et mnnificentia dementis XI. Pont. Max. e tenebris in lucem eductum opera & stud. J. M. Lancisi Archiat. Prat, illustratum,” folio. An “Appendix ad Metallothecam” was published in 1719.

, a learned and eminent physician, was born at Forli, in Romagna, Sept 30, 1530. He was educated according to Niceron at Padua, and according to Eloy at Bologna. It seems, however, agreed that he received his doctor’s degree in 1555, and began to practice at Forli. In 1562 he was sent as ambassador to pope Pius IV. at Rome, where he was honoured with the citizenship, and upon a pressing invitation determined to reside in a place which presented so many opportunities for the pursuit of his favourite studies. During his abode at Rome, besides his professional concerns, he studied classical literature, and the monuments of antiquity, and produced a learned and elegant work, which acquired him much celebrity in the literary world, and which was first published at Venice in 1569, under the title of “De Arte Gymnastica Libri sex,” 4to. It was many times reprinted, and its merit occasioned his being appointed professor of medicine in the university of Padua. In 1573 he was called to Vienna by the emperor Maximilian II., to consult respecting a severe illness under which that personage laboured; and his treatment was so successful, that he returned loaded with valuable presents, and honoured with the dignities of a knight and count palatine. In 1587 he removed to a professorsip at Bologna, which has been partly attributed to a degree of dissatisfaction or self-accusation, in consequence of an error of judgment, which had been committed by him and Capivaccio, several years before, when they were called to Venice, in order to give their advice respecting a pestilential disorder which prevailed in that city. On this occasion both he and his colleague seem to have fallen into the mistake of several medical theorists, of denying the reality of contagion; and their counsels were said to have been productive of extensive mischief. Nevertheless his reputation appears to have suffered little from this error; for he was invited by Ferdinand, the grand duke of Tuscany, to settle at Pisa in 1599, where he was ordered a stipend of eighteen: hundred golden crowns, which was ultimately raised to two thousand. Here he died Nov. 9, 1606, and was interred, with great honours, in a chapel, which he had himself erected at Forli. He left a large property in money and effects, among which was a valuable collection of pictures; and he made a great number of charitable bequests.

Among other schemes w hich he hoped might eventually succeed in relieving his embarrassments, he appears to have now had some intentions of going to Jamaica, but in what capacity, or with what prospects, he perhaps did not himself know. There was, however, no immediate plan soeabily practicable, by which he could expect at some distant period to satisfy his creditors, and the consciousness of this most painful of all obligations was felt by him in a manner which can be conceived only by minds of the nicest honour and most scrupulous integrity. While in this perplexity, he was cheered by a letter from lord Lyttelton, in which his lordship assured him that he thought his genius in poetry deserved to be cultivated, but would not advise the republication of his poem without considerable alterations. He declined the offer of a dedication, as a tiling likely to be of no use to the poet, “as nobody minded dedications;” but suggested that it might be of some use if he were to come and read the poem with his lordship, when they might discourse together upon what he thought its beauties and faults. In the mean time he exhorted Mickle to endeavour to acquire greater harmony of versification; and to take care that his diction did not loiter into prose ^ or become hard by new phrases, or words unauthorized by the usage of good authors. In answer to this condescending and friendly letter, Mickle informed his lordship of his real name, and inclosed the elegy of “Pollio” for his lordship’s advice. This was followed by another kind letter from lord Lyttelton, in which he gave his opinion, that the correction of a few lines would make it as perfect as any thing of that kind in our language, and promised to point out its faults when he had the pleasure of seeing the author. An interview accordingly took place in the month of February 1764, when his lordship, after receiving him with the utmost politeness and affability, begged him not to be discouraged at such difficulties as a young author must naturally expect, but to cultivate his very promising poetical powers; and, with his usual condescension, added, that he would become his schoolmaster. Other interviews followed this very flattering introduction, at which Mickle read with him the poem on “Providence,” and communicated his plan for treating more fully a subject of so much intricacy, intimating that he had found it necessary to discard the philosophy of Pope’s ethics. But, as in order to render his talents as soon productive as possible, he had now a wish to publish a volume of poems, he sent to his noble friend that on “Providence,” “Pollio,” and an “Elegy on Mary Queen of Scots.” This produced a long letter from his lordship, in which after much praise of the two former, he declined criticising any part of the elegy on Mary, because he wholly disapproved of the subject. He added, with justice, that poetry should not consecrate what history must condemn; and in the view his lordship had taken of the history of Mary, he thought her entitled to pity, but not to praise. In this opinion Mickle acquiesced, from convenience, if not from conviction, and again sent his lordship a copy of “Providence,” with further improvements, hoping probably that they might be the last; but he had the mortification to receive it back from the noble critic so much marked and blotted, that he began to despair of completing it to his satisfaction. He remitted, therefore, a new performance, the “Ode on May Day,” begging his lordship’s opimion “if it could be made proper to appear this spring (1765) along with the one already approved.”

Although there is no species of poetry of which he had not afforded favourable specimens, and many striking images and animated descriptions are discoverable in his original pieces, and while we allow that his imagination is considerably fertile, his language copious, and his versification rich and various, yet it cannot be denied that there are too- many marks of imitation in all his lesser poems, and that his fame must rest principally, where it is more than probable he intended it should, on his translation of the Lusiad. This work, which is now rising in reputation, is inferior only to Pope’s Iliad, according to the general opinion, which perhaps may be controverted. Pope has given an English poem of unquestionable beauty, but, we may say with Bentley, it is not Homer. Mickle has not only transfused the spirit, but has raised the character of his original. By preserving the energy, elegance, and fire of Camoens, he has given an “English Lusiad,” a work which, although confessedly borrowed from the Portuguese, Has all the appearance of having been invented- in the language in which we find it. In executing this, indeed, it must be confessed that Mickle has taken more liberties with his original than the laws of translation will allow; but they are of a kind not usually taken by translators, for he has often introduced beauties of his own equal to any that come from the pen of Camoens. In acknowledging that he has taken such freedoms, however, he has not specified the individual passages; a neglect for which some have praised his humility, and others have blamed his injustice. But with this exception, he has successfully executed what he purposed, not only to make Camoens be understood and relished, but “to give a poem that might live in the English language.” Nor ought it to be omitted in this general character of the Lusiad, that in his preliminary dissertations, he has distinguished himself as a scholar, a critic, and a historian.

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

, a learned monk and historian of the order of the Camaldoli, was born at Venice Sept. 10, 1708, and after a course of study, during which he distinguished himself by arduous application, and acquired the fame of great learning, he became, in 1732, professor of philosophy and theology in the monastery of St. Michael at Venice. Being also appointed master of the novices, he remained in that office until 1747, when he removed to Faenza, as chancellor of his order. Here he first began to form the plan and collect materials for his celebrated work, the “Annales Camaldulenses,” in which he had the assistance of father Anselm Costadoni. In 1756 he was chosen abbe of his order in the state of Venice, and became, of course, head of the monastery of St. Michael. In 1764 he was appointed general of his order, and went to Rome, where he was received with every mark of respect by pope Clement XIII. He died at St. Michael’s Aug. 14, 1777. His annals were published in 1773, under the title of “Arinales Camaldulenses ordinis S. Benedicti ab anno 907 ad annum 1764, &c.” Venice, 9 vols fol. His other works were,. “Memorie del monistero della santissima Trinita irr Fv.erza,” Faenza, 1749. 2. “Ad scriptores rerum Itahcarum Cl. Mnratorii accessiones historicge Faventinae,” &c. Venice, 1771. 5. “De litteratura Faventinorum, sive de viris dociis, et scriptoribus urbis Faventinae (Faenza), appendix ad accessiones hist. Faventinas,” Venice, 1775. 6. “Bibliotheca codicum manuscriptorum monasterii S. Michaeiis Venetiaruhi, cum appendice librorum impressorum seculi XV.” ibid. 1779, fol.

In order to put an end to these ‘contentions, pope Clement VIII. instituted the celebrated congregation ’De Auxiliis, in 1597; but after several assemblies of counsellors and cardinals, in which the Dominicans and Jesuits disputed contradictorily during nine years before the pope and the court of Rome, the affair was still undecided. Pope Paul V. under whom these disputes had been continued, at length published a decree, Aug. 31, 1607, forbidding the parties to defame or censure each other, and enjoining the superiors of both orders to punish those severely who should disregard this prohibition.

As he was a patron of poets, his own works did not miss of celebration. Addison began to praise him early, and was followed or accompanied by other poets; perhaps by almost all, except Swift and Pope, who forbore to flatter him in his life, because he had disappointed their hopes; and after his death spoke of him, Swift with slight censure, and Pope in the character of Bufo with acrimonious contempt*.

He was, as Pope says, “fed with dedications;” and Tickell affirms that no dedication was unrewarded. Dr. Johnson’s remarks on this are too valuable to be omitted.

f * Pope’s contemptuous character of quarrel is stated in Johnson’s life of

lord Halifax as Bufo occurs in the Pope, with a ludicrous anecdote re­“Prologue to the Satires,” and yet in specting Halifax’s talents as a critic.

in a note that Halifax was " a peer no cause as Pope’s, disappointment of

, an English lady of distinguished talent, by marriage related to the Sandwich family, was the eldest daughter of Evelyn Pierrepoint, duke of Kingston, and the laoy Mary Fielding, daughter of William earl of Denbigh. She was born about 1690, and lost her mother in 1694. Her capacity for literary attainments was such as induced her father to provide her with the same preceptors as viscount Newark, her brother; and under their tuition, she made great proficiency in the Greek, Latin, and French languages. Her studies were afterwards superintended by bishop Burnet, and that part of life which by females of her rank is usually devoted to trifling amusements, or more trifling “accomplishments,” xvas spent by her in studious retirement, principally at Thoresby and at Acton, near London. Her society was confined to a few friends, among whom the most confidential appears to have been Mrs. Anne Wortley, wife of the hon. Sidney Montagu, second son of the heroic earl of Sandwich. In this intimacy originated her connection with Edward Wortley Montagu, esq. the eldest son of this lady; and after a correspondence of about two years, they were privately married by special licence, which bears date August 12, 1712. Mr. Wortley was a man possessed of solid rather than of brilliant parts, but in parliament, where at different periods of his life he had represented the cities of Westminster and Peterborough, and the boroughs of Huntingdon and Bossiney, he acquired considerable distinction as a politician and a speaker. In 1714 he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the treasury, and on this occasion his lady was introduced to-the court of George I. where her beauty, wit, and spirit were universally admired. She lived also in habits of familiar acquaintance with two of the greatest geniuses of the age, Addison and Pope; but it did not require their discernment to discover that, even at this time, she was a woman of very superior talents.

In 1716, Mr. Wortley resigned his situation as a lord of the treasury, on being appointed ambassador to the Porte, in order to negociate peace between the Turks and Imperialists. Lady Mary determined to accompany him in this difficult and, during war, dangerous journey, and while travelling, and after her arrival in the Levant, amused herself and delighted her friends by a regular correspondence, chiefly directed to her sister the countess of Mar, lady Rich, and Mrs. Thistlethwaite, both ladies of the court, and to Mr. Pope. Previously to her arrival at the capital of the Ottoman empire, the embassy rested about two months at Adrianople, to which city the Sultan, Achmed the third, had removed his court. It was here that she first was enabled to become acquainted with the customs of the Turks, and to give so lively and so just a picture of their domestic manners and usages of ceremony. Her admission into the interior of the seraglio was one of her most remarkable adventures, and most singular privileges, and gave rise to many strange conjectures, which it is not now necessary to revive. It is more important to record that, during her residence at Constantinople, she was enabled to confer on Europe a benefit of the greatest consequence; namely, inoculation for the small-pox, which was at that time universal in the Turkish dominions. This practice she examined with such attention as to become perfectly satisfied with its efficacy, and gave the most intrepid and convincing proof of her belief, in 1717, by inoculating her son, who was then about three years old. Mr. Maitland, who had attended the embassy in a medical character, first endeavoured to establish the practice in London, and was encouraged by lady Mary’s patronage. In 1721 the experiment was successfully tried on some criminals. With so much ardour did lady Mary, on her return, enforce this salutary innovation among mothers of her own rank, that, as we find in her letters, much of her time was necessarily dedicated to various consultations, and to the superintendence of the success of her plan. In 1722, she had a daughter of six years old, inoculated, who was afterwards countess of Bute and in a short time the children of the royal family, that had not had the small- pox, underwent the same operation with success then followed some of the nobility, and the practice gradually prevailed among all ranks, although it had to encounter very strong prejudices; and was soon extended, by Mr. Maitland to Scotland, and by other operators to most parts of Europe.

Mr. Wortley’s negociations at the Porte having failed, owing to the high demands of the Imperialists, he received letters of recall, Oct. 28, 1717, but did not commence his journey till June 1718; in October of the same year he arrived in England. Soon after, lady Mary was solicited by Mr. Pope to fix her summer residence at Twickenham, with which she complied, and mutual admiration seemed to knit these kindred geniuses in indissoluble bonds. A short time, however, proved that their friendship was not superhuman. Jealousy of her talents, and a difference in political sentiments, appear to have been the primary causes of that dislike which soon manifested itself without ceremony and without delicacy. Lady Mary was attached to the Walpole administration and principles. Pope hated the whigs, and was at no pains to conceal his aversion in conversation or writing. What was worse, lady Mary had for some time omitted to consult him upon any new poetical production, and even when he had been formerly very free with his emendations, was wont to say, “Come, no touching, Pope, for what is good, the world will give to you, and leave the bad for me;” and she was well aware that he disingenuously encouraged that idea. But the more immediate cause of their implacability, was a satire in the form of a pastoral, entitled “Town Eclogues.” These were some of lady Mary’s earliest poetical attempts, and had been written previously to her leaving England. After her return, they were communicated to a favoured few, and no doubt highly relished from their supposed, or real personal allusions. Both Pope and Gay suggested many additions and alterations, which were certainly not adopted by lady Mary; and as copies, including their corrections, were found among the papers of these poets, their editors have attributed three out of six to them. “The Basset Table,” and The Drawing Room,“are given to Pope and the” Toilet“to Gay. The publication, however, of these poems, in the name of Pope, by Curl, a bookseller who hesitated at nothing mean or infamous, appears to have put a final stop to all intercourse between Pope and lady Mary.” Irritated,“says her late biographer,” by Pope’s ceaseless petulance, and disgusted by his subterfuge, she now retired totally from his society, and certainly did not abstain from sarcastic observations, which were always repeated to him.“The angry bard retaliated in the most gross and public manner against her and her friend lord Hervey. Of this controversy, which is admirably detailed by Mr. Dallaway, we shall only add, that Dr. Warton and Dr. Johnson agree in condemning the prevarication with which Pope evaded every direct charge of his ungrateful behaviour to those whose patronage he had once servilely solicited; and even his panegyrical commentator, Dr. Warburton, confesses that there were allegations against him, which” he was not quite clear of."

Few persons had seen more of life than Mrs. Montague, and of that part of mankind, who were eminent either for their genius or their rank; and for many years her splendid house in Portman-square was open to the literary world. She had lived at the table of the second lord Oxford, the resort of Pope, and his contemporaries she was the intimate friend of Pulteney and Lyttelton and she survived to entertain Johnson and Goldsmith, and Burke and Reynolds, till their respective deaths*. Dr. Beattie was frequently her inmate, and for many years her correspondent; and Mrs. Carter was, from their youth, her intimate friend, correspondent, and visitor. For the most learned of these she was a suitable correspondent and companion, as is evident from her letters, and was acknowledged by all who heard her conversation. It was, however, her defect that she had too great a regard to the manners and habits of the world, and damped her transcendant talents by a sacrifice to the cold dictates of worldly wisdom. Her understanding was as sound as her fancy was lively her taste was correct and severe and she penetrated the human character with an almost unerring sagacity but her love of popularity, and her ambition of politeness, controuled her expressions, and concealed her real sentiments from superficial observers. Since her death four volumes of her epistolary correspondence have been published by her nephew and executor, Matthew Montague, esq.; and when the series shall be completed, a just idea may be formed of Mrs. Montague’s genius and character, and the result, we may venture to predict, will be highly favourable.

Moor now went to Rome, where his learning procured him very high distinction. He was first made censor of booksj and then invited to Montefiascone, and appointed rector of a seminary newly founded by cardinal Mark Antony Barbarigo, and also professor of philosophy and Greek. Pope Innocent XII. was so much satisfied with his conduct in the government of this seminary, that he contributed the sum of two thousand Roman crowns yearly towards its maintenance; and Clement XI. had such a high opinion of Moor that he would have placed his nephew under his tuition, had he not been prevented, as was supposed, by the persuasions of the Jesuits. On the death of James II. Dr. Moor was invited to France, and such was his reputation there, that he was made twice rector of the university of Paris, and principal of the college of Navarre, and was appointed regius professor of philosophy, Greek, and Hebrew. He died, in his eighty-fifth year, at his apartments in the college of Navarre, Aug. 22, 1726. It is evident he could have been no common character, who attained so many honours in a foreign land. His writings, however, are perhaps not much known. One of them, “DeExistentiaDei, et humanae mentis immortalitaie,” &c. published at Paris, 1692, 8vo, is said by Harris to have been translated into English by Mr. Blackmore, perhaps sir Richard, but we have not been able to find this work in any of our public libraries. Dr. Moor also published “Hortatio ad studium lingua; Graecae et Hebraicae,” Montefiascone, 1700, 12mo; and “Vera sciendi Methodus,” Paris, 1716, 8vo, against the philosophy of Des Cartes.

For his services abroad his lordship was declared general in Spain by Charles III. afterwards emperor of Germany; and, the war being thought likely to be concluded, he was appointed by queen Anne ambassador extraordinary, with power and instructions for treating and adjusting all matters of state and traffic between the two kingdoms. The king of Spain, however, having transmitted some charges against him, his conduct was examined by parliament, and cleared up to their entire satisfaction. The House of Lords, in particular, who were pleased with his justification, resolved, Jan. 12, 1710-11, “that his lordship, during the time he commanded the army in that kingdom, had performed many great and eminent services; and that, if the opinion, which he had given to the council of war at Valencia, had been followed, it might very probably have prevented the misfortunes that had since happened in Spain:” and upon this foundatiorrthey voted thanks to his lordship in the most solemn manner. In 1710 and 1711, Jie was employed in embassies to Vienna, Turin, and several of the courts in Italy. On his return to England, he was made colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards; and being general of the marines, and lord-lieutenant of the county of Northampton, was, on August 4, 1713, installed at Windsor a knight of the garter. Soon after which he was sent ambassador extraordinary to the king of Sicily, and to negociate affairs with other Italian princes; and in March 1713-14, was made governor of the island of Minorca. In the reign of George I. he was general of all the marine forces in Great Britain, in which post he was liker wise continued by George II. He died in his passage to Lisbon, whither he was going for thp recovery of his health, Oct. 25, 1735, aged seventy-seven. A very interesting account of his last illness, which was excruciating, js given in vol. X. of Bowles’s edition of Pope’s Works.

Lord Peterborough was a man of great courage and skill as a commander, and was successful in almost all his undertakings. As a politician, he appears also to much, advantage, being open, honest, and patriotic in the genuine sense. Lord Or ford has characterized him well in other respects, as “one of those men of careless wit and negligent grace, who scatter a thousand bon-mots and idle verses, which (such) painful compilers (as lord Orford) gather and hoard, till the owners stare to find themselves authors. Such was this lord of an advantageous figure, and enterprizing spirit as gallant as Amadis, and as brave, but a little more expeditious in his journeys; for he is said to have seen more kings and more postillions than any man in Europe.” He was indeed so active a traveller, according to Dean Swift, that queen Anne’s ministers used to say, they wrote at him, and not to him . What lord Peterborough wrote, however, seems scarcely worth notice, unless in such a publication as the “Royal and Noble Authors,” where the freedom of that illustrious company is bestowed on the smallest contributors to literary amusement. He is said to have produced “La Muse de Cavalier; or, an apology for such gentlemen as make poetry their diversion, and not their business,” in a letter inserted in the “Public Register,” a periodical work by Dodsley, 1741, 4to “A copy of verses on the duchess of Marl-' borough” <c Song, by a person of quality,“beginning” I said to my heart, between sleeping and waking, &c.“inserted in Swift’s Works.” Remarks on a pamphlet,“respecting the creation of peers, 1719, 8vo; but even for some of these trifles, the authority is doubtful. His correspondence with Pope is no little credit to that collection. He was the steady friend and correspondent of Pope, Swift, and other learned men of their time, as he had been of Pryden, who acknowledges his kindness and partiality. The” Account of the Earl of Peterborough’s conduct in Spain,“taken from his original letters and papers, was drawn up by Dr. Freind, and published in 1707, 8vo. Dr. Jf reind says, that” he never ordered off a detachment of a hundred men, without going with them himself.“Of his own courage his lordship used to say, that it proceeded from his not knowing his danger; agreeing in opinion with. Turenne, that a coward had only one of the three faculties of the mind apprehension. Of his liberality, we have this instance, that the remittances expected from England, not coming to his troops when he commanded in Spain, he is said to have supplied them for some time with money from his own pocket. In this he differed considerably from his great contemporary the duke of Marlborough, and the difference is stated in one of his best bon-mots. Being once taken by the mob for the duke, who was then in disgrace with them, he would probably have been roughly treated by these friends to summary justice, had he not addressed them in these words:” Gentlemen, I can convince you by two reasons that I am not the duke. In the first place, I have only five guineas in my pocket; and in the second, they are heartily at your service." So throwing his purse among them, he pursued his way amid loud acclamations. Many other witticisms may be seen in our authorities, which are less characteristic.

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

The whole is a clear, energetic, and lively description, and, as Dr. Young, who was well acquainted with More, told Dr. Warton, the portrait is not over-charged. Some have thought that Pope’s character of Macer was intended also for More, but the leanness there alluded to cannot apply to More, if the above description be just. The pastoral Philips is more probably Macer.

The cause of the quarrel between More and Pope was this In a letter published in the Daily Journal, March 18, 1728, written by the former, there are the following words: “Upon reading the third volume of Pope’s Miscellanies, I found five lines, which I thought excellent and, happening to praise them, a gentleman produced a modern comedy, * The Rival Modes,' where were the same verses to a tittle. These gentlemen are undoubtedly the first plagiaries, who pretend to make a reputation by stealing from a man’s works in his own life-time, and out of a public print.” But it appears, from the notes to the Dunciad, that More himself borrowed the lines from Pope; for, in a letter to Pope, dated Jan. 27, 1726, he observes, that “these verses, which he had before given him leave to insert in ‘ The Rival Modes,’ would be known for his, some copies being got abroad. He desires nevertheless, that, since the lines in his comedy have been read to several, Pope would not deprive it of them.” As proofs of this circumstance, are brought the testimonies of lord Bolingbroke, and the lady of Hugh Bethel, esq. to whom the verses were originally addressed, who knew them to be Pope’s long before “The Rival Modes” was written. This gentleman died in 1734, at Whister, near Isleworth in Middlesex, for which county he was a justice of peace. Notwithstanding his quarrel with Pope, he was certainly a man of parts and politeness, or the poet would never have introduced him, as he did, to the earl of Peterborough’s acquaintance; but his misfortune was, as the commentator on the Dunciad observes, too inordinate a passion to be thought a wit.

He now resigned himself to that plan of retirement, study, and devotion, which had always been most agreeable to him; but he could no longer expect to enjoy this without interruption. He knew the capricious and arbitrary temper of his royal master, who had already divorced queen Catherine, married Anne Boleyn, and expected that what he had done should be approved with more than silent acquiescence. The coronation of the new queen being fixed for May 31, 1533, sir Thomas received an invitation to attend the ceremony; but this he declined, as he still retained his former opinions on the unlawfulness of the divorce. This, which Henry would naturally construe into an insult, provoked him extremely, conscious as he was that the opinions of sir Thomas would have great weight with the people. Various means were therefore tried to gain him over, and when these proved ineffectual, a more ^harsh, but in those days, not a very extraordinary proceeding took place. In the ensuing parliament a bill was : brought into the House of Lords, attainting sir Thomas, bishop Fisher, and some others, of misprision of treason, for countenancing and encouraging Elizabeth Barton, tlje maid of Kent (See Eliz. Barton, vol. IV.) in her treasonable practices. When this bill came to be read a third time, the House of Lords addressed the king to know his pleasure, whether sir Thomas might not be suffered to speak in his own defence; but Henry would not consent to this, nor when he desired to be admitted into the House of Commons, to defend himself there, would the king permit him: but he assigned a committee of the privycouncil to hear his justification. The affair of Barton, however, was a mere pretence, the object of this committee being to draw from him, either by fair words or threatenings, an assent to the divorce and the second marriage. When the commissioners, who were Cranmer, now archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor Audley, the duke of Norfolk, and secretary Cromwell, found that their persuasions were of no avail, they told him, that their instructions were to charge him with ingratitude, and “to inform him, that his majesty thought there never was a servant so villainous, or a subject so traitorous to his prince, as he was;” and, ft in support of this heavy charge against him, they were to allege his subtle and sinister devices, in procuring his majesty to set forth a book to his great dishonour throughout all Christendom: by which he had put a sword into the pope’s hand to fight against himself."

The book here alluded to was king Henry’s “Assertio septem Sacramentorum,” &c. already mentioned, in which sir Thomas had assisted his majesty. Sir Thomas was a good deal astonished at the turn now given to that assistance; but, assuming his usual courage, told the commissioners that these terrors were arguments for children, and not for him: but as for the book which they had mentioned, he could not bring himself to believe that the king would ever lay it to his charge, as his majesty was himself better acquainted with that affair, and with his innocence in it, than any other person could be. The king, he said, well knew that he had not procured, nor counselled, the writing of that book: and when he revised it by the king’s command, and found the pope’s authority defended and advanced very highly, he remonstrated against it to his majesty, and told him, that, as he might not always be in amity with the pope, he thought it best that it should be amended in that point, and the pope’s authority be more slenderly touched. Nay, said the king, that shall it not: we are so much indebted to the see of Rome, that we cannot do too much honour unto it. Upon this he put his majesty further in mind of the statute of Premunire, which had pared away a good part of the pope’s authority and pastoral care. To which the king replied, “Whatsoever impediment there may be to the contrary, we will set forth that authority to the uttermost; for we received from the Roman see our crown imperial,” which, till it was told him from his majesty’s own mouth, he never heard of before. He trusted, therefore, that when his majesty should be informed of this, and should recollect the subject of their conversation upon this head, he would of himself entirely clear him of the charge.

The commissioners were probably conscious that these assertions were true; at least they could make no reply, and therefore dismissed sir Thomas, who feeling a considerable elation of mind on his return home, his son-in-law Roper asked him if his hi^h spirits were owing to his having succeeded in procuring his name to be struck out of the bill of attainder Sir Thomas’s answer showed that he had been more tenacious of his consistency than of his life: “In troth, son, I had forgotten that but if thou wouldst know why I am so joyful, in good faith it is this I rejoice that I have given the devil so foul a fall for I have gone so far with these lords, that without great shame I can never go back.” He had indeed gone so far as to exasperate the king beyond all hopes of forgiveness; and that monarch, who could forget friendship and attachment as hastily as he conferred them, irritated at having his former sentiments respecting the pope so unseasonably recalled, declared that the bill of attainder should proceed against him. And when the duke of Norfolk and secretary Cromwell hinted that the upper house would not pass the bill without hearing sir Thomas in his own defence, the king declared that he should be present himself, and he presumed that the house would not in that case dare to reject it. He was at length, however, diverted from this purpose on its being suggested that some better opportunity might be found to proceed against sir Thomas, and on being persuaded by his counsellors that, as to the present accusations, the public would think him more worthy of praise than blame. Sir Thomas’s name was accordingly struck out of the bill and although, taking advantage of the king’s displeasure, his enemies endeavoured to bring against him accusations of improper conduct in his office of judge, these served, only to demonstrate the strict integrity which guided all his decisions, and that when gifts were sometimes tendered to him by the clients of the court, he always refused, or returned them, and often with his characteristic^humouiv One lady, in whose favour he had given a decree, presented him, as a new year’s gift, with a pair of gloves, and in them forty pounds. He immediately returned the money, saying, “Since it would be contrary to good manners to refuse a new year’s gift from a lady, I am content to take your gloves; but as for the lining, I utterly refuse it.”

The same motives prevailed with him when the act of supremacy, now passed, was tendered to him, by a committee of the privy council sent on purpose. His answer was, that “the statute was like a two-edged sword if he spoke against it, he should procure the death of his body. and if he consented to it, he should purchase the death of his soul.” Such were the mistaken views entertained by this illustrious character, of an act which gave the first effectual blow to papal tyranny in these kin<yloms. His unalterable attachment to the interests of popery appeared just after, when Rich, the solicitor-general, and some others, were sent to take away his books, papers, and writing-implements. Rich endeavoured to argue with him in this manner, “Suffer me, sir, to put this case to you: If there were an act of parliament to be made, that all the realm should take me for king, would not you, Mr. More, take me to be so” “Yes,” said sir Thomas, “that I would.” Rich then put the case that an act of parliament should make him pope, to which sir Thomas answered, “that the parliament might intermeddle without impropriety in the state of temporal princes; but as to his second supposition, he would put a case himself, whether if an act of parliament should ordain that God should not be God, Mr. Rich would own that he should not?” The conversatioa here ended, but Rich took occasion from it to swear on sir Thomas’s trial, that he had said that the parliament could not make the king supreme head of the church. This sir Thomas denied, and it was not clearly proved; but his sentiments might surely, without much straining, admit of the inference.

His behaviour in prison during the short remainder of his life corresponded with the firmness and placid temper he had hitherto displayed. Among the last visitors whorti he received was sir Thomas Pope, the celebrated founder of Trinity college, Oxford, whom the king selected to inform him of the time of his execution. The intimation was sudden. It was on July 6, 1535, that sirThomas Pope told him he was to be beheaded that same day at nine o'clock, and that therefore he must immediately prepare himself. More received the news with his usual cheerfulness, and as the king had further intimated his pleasure that he should not use many words at his execution, he promised obedience, and only requested that his daughter Margaret might be at his burial. Sir Thomas Pope, in answer to this, informed him that the king had already consented that his wife and children, and any of his friends, mjght be present; at which he expressed his satisfaction.

At this trying moment,* he not only retained his fortitude and cheerfulness, but to the last gave proofs of that facetious turn, which it would appear he could not suppress under any circumstances. When Pope appeared to be very melancholy at the consideration of his friend’s approaching death, sir Thomas More, inspecting his own water in the urinal, put on the grave airs of a quack, and said archly, “I see no danger but that this man might live longer, if it had pleased the king.” Their parting at last was more serious, sir Thomas endeavouring to comfort his friend with the prospect of eternal felicity, in which, he hoped, they should have a happy meeting. As soon as Pope was gone he dressed himself in the best cloaths he had, and when the lieutenant suggested that these were too good for the executioner’s perquisite, “If they were cloth of gold,” said sir Thomas, “I should think them well bestowed on him who was to do me so singular a benefit.” He was prevailed on, however, to exchange them for a gown of frieze; and out of the little money which he had left, he sent an angel of gold to the executioner.

As to his family, by his first wife he had four children, who all survived him; three daughters and one son, named John, after his grandfather. Sir Thomas had the three daughters first, and his wife very much desired a boy: at last she brought him this son, who appearing weak in his intellects, sir Thomas said to his lady, “Thou hast prayed so long for a boy, that thou hast one now who will be a boy as long as he lives.” By a liberal education, however, his natural parts seem to have been much improved. Among Erasmus’s letters, there is one written to him, in which that great scholar calls him “Optimae Spei Adolescens.” Erasmus also inscribed to him the “Nux of Ovid,” and “An Account of Aristotle’s Works.” After the death of his father he was committed to the Tower for refusing the same oath of supremacy, and condemned, but afterwards pardoned, and set at liberty, which favour he did not long survive. He was married very young to a Yorkshire heiress, by whom he had five sons. His eldest son Thomas had a son of the same name, who, being a zealous Roman catholic, gave the family estate to his younger brother, and took orders at Rome; whence, by the pope’s command, he came a missionary into England. He afterwards lived at Rome; where, and in Spain, he negociated the affairs of the English clergy at his own expence. He died, aged fifty-nine years, in April 1625; and, two years after, was printed in 4to, with a dedication to Henrietta Maria, king Charles I.'s queen, his “Life of sir Thomas More,” his great grandfather. The learned author of the “Life of Erasmus” says, that “this Mr. More was a narrow-minded zealot, and a very fanatic;” and afterwards adds, very justly, that “there is no relying on such authors as these, unless they cite chapter and verse.”

, a learned ecclesiastic, was born at Blois, of protestant parents, in 1591. He was instructed in the belles lettres at Rochelle, and afterwards went to Leyden, where he attained a critical knowledge of the Greek, Latin, and Oriental tongues, and applied himself to philosophy, law, mathematics, and divinity. Returning to France, he went to settle at Paris, where he gained an acquaintance with cardinal du Perron, and was induced by him to embrace the Roman catholic religion. Some time after, he entered into the congregation of the oratory, lately established, and began to make himself known by his learning and his works. In 1626 he published some “Exercita'ions upon the original of Patriarchs and Primates, and the ancient usage of ecclesiastical censures, dedicated to pope Urban VIII.” He undertook, in 1628, the edition of the “Septuagint Bible,” with the version made by Nobilius; and put a preface to it, in which he treats of the authority of the Septuagint; commends the edition of it that had been made at Rome by order of Sixtus V. in 1587, which he had followed; and maintains, that we ought to prefer this version to the present Hebrew text, because this has been, he says, corrupted by the Jews. Before this work was ready to appear, he gave the public, in 1629, a “History,” written in French, of the deliverance of the church by the emperor Constantine, and of the greatness and temporal sovereignty conferred on the Roman church by the kings of France; but this performance was not well received at Rome, and Morin was obliged to promise that he would alter and correct it. He published, soon after, “Exercitations upon the Samaritan Pentateuch;” for the sake of establishing which, he attacks the integrity of the Hebrew text. The Polyglott being then printing at Paris, Morin took upon himself the care of the Samaritan Pentateuch; but his endeavours to exalt this, together with the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible, at the expence of the Hebrew, made him very obnoxious to some learned men; and he was attacked by Hottinger and Buxtorf in particular. This, however, enhanced his merit at the court of Rome; and cardinal Barberini invited him thither, by order of the pope, who received him very graciously, and intended to employ him in the re-union of the Greek to the Roman church, which was then in agitation. He was greatly caressed at Rome, and intimate with Lucas Holstenius, LeoAllatius, and all the learned there. After having continued nine years at Rome, he was recalled, by order of cardinal Richelieu, to France, where he spent the remainder of his life in learned labours, and died of an apoplexy at Paris, Feb. 28, 1659.

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

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

Among the public-spirited schemes which his liberality induced him to execute, was the famous cut or drain from Peterborough to Wisbeche, a track of upwards of twelve miles across a fenny country, which proved of great benefit to his diocese and to the public, and was completed entirely at his expence. This still is known by the name of Morton’s Leame, As soon as Henry VII. was seated on the throne, after the death of Richard III. he sent for Morton, who was still abroad, and immediately on his arrival made him one of his privy council; and on the death of cardinal Bourchier, in 1486, he was, probably on the king’s recommendation, elected by the prior and convent of Canterbury to be archbishop. In the mean time the king granted him. the whole profits of the see, until the pope’s confirmation could be obtained, and the disposal of all the preferments annexed to it; and having received the pope’s bull, dated Oct. 6, 1436, he was, by the king, admitted to the temporalities on Dec. 6 following In August 1487 he was constituted lord chancellor of England, which office he retained to his death. In a ms. in the British Museum, (Mss. Harl. 6100. fol. 54.) he is said to have been made chancellor in 1485, which was the first year of Henry VII.; and we have already mentioned, from another authority, that he filled that office while bishop of Ely. In 1493 he was creiited a cardinal by pope Alexander VI. by the title of St. Anastasia. In Hall’s Chronicle this promotion is placed in 1489, which is a mistake.

It was in 1552 that he first began to be involved in troubles, which lasted more or less during his whole life. Some years before, Henry II. had issued an edict to repress the frauds and abuses practised at Rome by the conveyancers of benefices, to the great detriment of the ecclesiastical order; and this having occasioned a dispute between his majesty and pope Julius II. he published a new edict forbidding money to be sent to Rome on any pretence. This gave great offence to the pope, who insisted that kings had no right to pass edicts which interfered with ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that the authority of the holy see was injured by such proceedings. Yet, says Thuanus, our kings always had such a right, and now Du Moulin maintained it with all the force of his profound legal knowledge, and produced not only arguments, but precedents for it; and in treating of the spiritual power of the pope, he traced it to foundations which were by no means of the most honourable kind. This was, in that age, a very bold attempt, and in fact so disconcerted the pope, as to make him willing to listen to the pacific overtures made by the king. It was on this occasion that the marshal de Montmorency (afterwards constable of France) introduced Du Moulin to the king, with these words, “Sire, what your majesty has not been able to do with 300,000 men, has been effected by this little man (Du Moulin was of short stature) with his little book.” The court of Rome, however, never forgot the injury: Clement VIII. ordered his works to be burnt, and they were placed in the “Index expurgatorius,” in the first class of prohibited books. In the permissions which used to be given to read certain works in the Index, those of Machiavel and the impious Du Moulin“were always excepted. Those, however, who in the countries where the Index of prohibited books was respected, were unwilling to be thus totally deprived of the benefit arising from Du Moulin’s able writings on jurisprudence, contrived to have them reprinted under the fictitious name of Gaspar Caballinus de Cingulo; and it was under that name that they used to be quoted for many years. But it was not only at Rome where Du Moulin had to encounter the prejudices of the times; even in France, although his” Observa-f tionssur TEdit du Roi Henry II." (for such was the title of the work) was dedicated to the king, and printed with the royal privilege, it did not fail to render him very obnoxious to such of his countrymen as preferred the interests of Rome to the independent rights of the kingdom; and the authority of parliament was scarcely sufficient to protect him from their vengeance, which proceeded to such acts of violence, that after the mob had pillaged his house, and attempted his life, he was obliged to seek an asylum in Germany, where he was very kindly received. After residing for some time at Tubingen, where people flocked from all quarters for the benefit of his advice, he was encouraged to return to Paris, but had scarcely resumed his accustomed pursuits, when the religious commotions which broke out in that city, obliged him again to leave it, after seeing his house a second time pillaged. He now retired to Orleans, and afterwards to Lyons, where his enemies procured him to be imprisoned. On being released, he returned to Paris, where new troubles awaited him. He first became obnoxious to the Jesuits, whose society was now rising into consequence, and who wanted to be permitted to establish a college for education. This was opposed by the university oY Paris, and Du Moulin supported their opposition. The Jesuits, however, backed by the ciL.nceilor Hospital, gained their point, as the parliament was induced to believe that the mode of education among the Jesuits would be an effectual check to the introduction of the new errors, i. e. the principles of the reformation.

In 1599 he went to Paris, to be minister at Charenton, and chaplain to Catharine of Bourbon, the king’s sister, who was then married to Henry of Lorraine, duke of Bar, and continued a determined protestant in spite of all attempts to convert her. The pope applied to Henry IV. concerning the conversion of his sister, and Henry employed his divines to argue with her; but Du Moulin strengthened her sentiments against all their artifices. Perron and Cotton were the men chiefly employed, with whom Du Moulin had frequent conflicts; and when Henry begged her only to hear his chaplains preach, she consented to hear father Cotton, who was immediately ordered to preach before the king and his sister in the very place where Du Moulin had preached before. On this occasion, to secure herself the better against the wiles of this Jesuit, she contrived to have Du Moulin so placed that he might hear all that Cotton said.

, an eminent musician, was the son of Leopold Mozart, vice-chapel-master to the prince archbishop of Salzburg. This Leopold, who was born at Augsburg in 1719, became early in life a musician and composer; and in 1757 published a treatise on the art of playing the violin; but what, according to Dr. Burney, did him most honour was his being father of such an incomparable son as Wolfgang, and educating him with such care. His son was born at Salzburg, Jan. 17, 1756, and at seven years old went with his father and sister to Paris, and the year following to London. In 1769 he went to Italy; and in 1770 he was at Bologna, in which city Dr. Burney first saw him, and to which city he had returned from Rome and Naples, where he had astonished all the great professors by his premature knowledge and talents. At Rome he was honoured by the pope with the order of Speron d'Oro. From Bologna he went to Milan, where he was engaged to compose an opera for the marriage of the princess of Modena with one of the archdukes. Two other composers were employed on this occasion, each of them to set an opera; but that of the little Mozart, young as he was, was most applauded.

About this time the cardinal Bessarion arrived at Vienna, to negociate some affairs for the pope, and being a lover of astronomy, soon formed an acquaintance with Purbich and Regiomontanus. He had begun to form a Latin version of Ptolomy’s Almagest, or an Epitome of it; but not having time to go on with it himself, he requested Purbach to complete the work, and for that purpose to return with him into Italy, to make himself master of the Greek tongue, which he was as yet unacquainted with. To these proposals Purbach only assented, on condition that Regiomontanus would accompany him, and share in all the labours, which were, however, soon interrupted by the death of Purbach, which happened in 1461. The whole task then devolved upon Regiomontanus, who finished the work at Rome, to which city he accompanied the cardinal Bessarion, and applied himself diligently to the study of the Greek language; not neglecting, however, to make astronomical observations, and compose various works in that science, as his <f Dialogue against the Theories of Cremonensis.“The cardinal going to Greece soon after, Regiomontanus went to Ferrara, where he continued the study of the Greek language under Theodore Gaza; who explained to him the text of Ptolomy, with the commentaries of Theon; till at length he could compose verses in Greek, and read it critically. In 1463 he went to Padua, where he became a member of the university; and, at the request of the students, explained Alfraganus, an Arabian philosopher. In 1464 he removed to Venice, to meet and attend his patron Bessarion. Here he wrote, with great accuracy, his” Treatise of Triangles,“and a” Refutation of the Quadrature of the Circle," which Cardinal Cusan pretended he had demonstrated. The same year he returned with Bessarion to Rome where he made some stay, to procure the most curious books those he could not purchase, he took the pains to transcribe, for he wrote with great facility and elegance; and others he got copied at a great expence. For as he was certain that none of these books could be had in Germany, he intended, on his return thither, to translate and publish some of the best of them. During this time too he had a warm contest with George Trapezonde, whom he had greatly offended by animadverting on some passages in his translation of Theon’s Commentary.

In 1474, pope Sixtus the 4th conceived a design of reforming the calendar; and sent for Regiomontanus to Rome, as the most proper person to accomplish his purpose, who, although much engaged in his studies, and printing, at length consented to go. He arrived at Rome in 1475, but died there the year after, at only forty years of age; not without a suspicion of being poisoned by the sons of George Trapezonde, or Trapezuntius, whose father is said to have been killed by the criticisms of Regiomontanus on his translation of Ptolomy’s Almagest.

, is celebrated by Meres, amongst the comic poets, as the best plotter; and a few of his dramatic pieces, enumerated in the Biog. Dramatica, are occasionally to be met with and purchased as curiosities. He appears to have been a writer through a very long period, there being works existing published by him for the booksellers, which are dated in 1580 and 1621, and probably both earlier and later than those years. He frequently employed his talents on the translation of romances, but with little spirit or fidelity. He rendered himself more celebrated in his day as the author of the city pageants, from 1605 to 1616. In 1582 he detected the treasonable practices of Edmund Campion, and his confederates, of which he published an account, wherein he is styled “some time the pope’s scholler allowed in the seminarie at Roome.” The publication of this pamphlet brought down upon him the vengeance of his opponents, one of whom, in an answer to him, has given his history in these words:

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

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

In the summer of 1763, Mr. Murphy went his first, the Norfolk, circuit; but with little success; and afterwards appeared occasionally as a pleader in London. The Muse, however, he confesses, “still had hold of him, and occasionally stole him away from ‘ Coke upon Littleton.’” In his law pursuits he continued till 1787, when, to his great astonishment, a junior to him on the Norfolk circuit was appointed king’s counsel. Disappointed at this, he sold his chambers in Lincoln’s-Inn, in July 1788, and retired altogether from the bar. The intermediate time, however, had been filled up by the production of his “Three Weeks after Marriage,” “Zenobia,” “The Grecian Daughter,” and other dramatic pieces, generally acted with great applause, and which are yet on the stock list. After he retired from the bar he bought a house at Hammersmith, and there prepared various publications for the press, among which, in 1786, was an edition of his works collectively, in seven volumes, octavo. In 1792, he appeared as one of the biographers of Dr. Johnson, in “An Essay on his Life and Genius;” but this was a very careless sketch, copied almost verbatim from the account of sir John Hawkins’s Life of Johnson, in the Monthly Review. In the following year he published a translation of Tacitus, in four volumes, quarto, dedicated to the late Edmund Burke. To this work, which is executed in a masterly manner, he added “An Essay on the Life and Genius of Tacitus;” with historical supplements and frequent annotations and comments. Mr. Murphy continued to write to an advanced age, and in 1798 he published his “Arminius,” intended to justify the war then carried on against the ambition of France, and which, with the majority of the nation, he considered as both just and necessary. Through his interest with lord Loughborough, he obtained the office of one of the commissioners of bankrupts, to which, during the last three years of his life, was added a pension of two hundred pounds a year. In his latter days, after he had published a “Life of Garrick,” a very sensible decay of mental powers became visible. He continued, however, to be occasionally cheered and assisted by a few friends, until his death, at his lodgings at Knightsbridge, June 18, 1805. From his biographer’s account it appears he had perfectly reconciled his mind to the stroke of death: when he had made his will, and given plain and accurate directions respecting his funeral, he said, “I have been preparing for my journey to another region, and now do not care how soon I take my departure.” On the day of his death he frequently repeated the lines of Pope:

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

, an eminent architect, to whose memory Black Friars Bridge will be a lasting monument, was born at Edinburgh, Jan. 4, 1734. His father, Thomas Mylne, was an architect, and a magistrate of that city; and his family, it has been ascertained, held th office of master-masons to the kings of Scotland for five hundred year’s, till the union of the crowns of England and Scotland. Mr. Mylne was educated at Edinburgh, and travelled early in life for improvement in h;s hereditary science. At Rome he resided five years, and in September 1758, gained the first prize in the first class of architecture, adjudged by the academy of St. Luke, and was also unanimously elected a member of that body. On this occasion prince Altieri, distinguished for his knowledge of the fine arts, obtained from the pope the necessary dispensation, Mr. Mylne being a protestant. He was also elected a member of the academies of Florence and Bologna. He visited Naples, and viewed the interior of Sicily with an accuracy never before employed; and from his skill in his profession, and his classical knowledge, was enabled to illustrate several very obscure passages in Vitruvius. His fine collection of drawings, with his account of this tour, which he began to arrange for publication in 1774, but was interrupted by his numerous professional engagements, are still in the possession of his son, and will, it is hoped, at no very distant period, be given to the public. He was often heard to remark in his latter days, that in most of his observations and drawings, he had neither been anticipated by those who traversed the ground before him, nor followed by those who came after him.

According to Niceron, he went in 1626 to study at Padua; but others think this was in 1624, and that on his return he printed one of his most curious works, his “Apologie pour les grands hommes soupgonnes de magie.” 1625, 8vo. Although we cannot agree with Voltaire, that this is the only one of his works which continues to be read, it is perhaps the most generally known, and shews that he had risen considerably above tire prejudices of his times. The eminent characters accused of dealing in magic, whom he defends in this work, are, Zoroaster, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Numa Pompilius, Democritus, Empedocles, Apollonius, Socrates, Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, Jamblichus, Chicus, Julius Caesar Scaliger, Cardanus, Alchindus, Geber, Artephius, Thebit, Anselmus Parmensis, Raymond Lully, Arnaldus Villanovanus, Peter ab Apono, Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, Merlin, Savonarola, Nostradamus, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Bungey, Michael Scotus, Joannes Picus, Trithemius, Robertus Lincolniensis, Albertus Magnus, pope Sylvester II. pope Gregory VII. Joseph, Solomon, the wise men of the East who came to worship Jesus Christ, and Virgil.

, a Spanish Dominican friar, born in Old Castile, is said to have been an eloquent preacher. He quitted Spain in 1646 on a mission to China, where he did not arrive till 1659. He was head of the mission in the province of Chekiang when the persecution arose, and was expelled with the rest of the missionaries. In 1672, he returned to Spain; and soon after went to Rome to give the pope an account of his conduct, which savoured more of the zeal of Loyola than of St. Paul. In 1678 Charles II. raised him to the archbishopric of St. Domingo, in America, where he resided till his death, in 1689. He spoke the Chinese language fluently, and no person, perhaps, understood better the affairs of China, He wrote a work entitled “Tradados Historicos, Politicos, Ethicos, y Religiosos, de la monarchia de China.” The first volume, folio, Mad. 1676, is scarce and curious, but has been inserted in Churchill’s Voyages; the second was suppressed by the inquisition, but has been so often quoted by the Jesuits, that it is thought the inquisitors gave away a few copies before they destroyed the impression; the third never was published. Navaretta is said also to have written some religious tracts in the Chinese language.

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

From the Hague he arrived in England in 1691, confirmed in his dislike of the change of government. He had, while abroad, shewn his regard for king James by holding a correspondence with the earl of Melfort, his majesty’s ambassador to the pope, after the revolution; and now declared himself a nonjuror, and left the communion of the church of England, although, we think, without being fully decided. He had, indeed, consulted Tillotson, and followed his opinion, who thought it no better than a trick, detestable in any thing, and especially in religion, to join in prayers where there was any petition which was held to be sinful. On this subject, however, we shall soon find that Nelson changed his opinion. The friendship between him and Tillotson remained the same; and the good archbishop expired in his friend’s arms in 1694, after which Nelson was very instrumental in procuring Mrs. Tillotson’s pension from the crown to be augmented from 400l. to 600l. per annum. Mr. Nelson’s new character unavoidably threw him into new connections, among whom was Mr. Kettlewel), who had resigned his living at Coleshill in Warwickshire, on account of the new oaths, and afterwards resided in London. This pious and learned divine was of his opinion as to leaving the communion of the established church; yet persuaded him to engage in the general service of piety and devotion; observing to him, that he was very able to compose excellent books of that kind, which too would be apt to do more good, as coming from a layman. This recomdation was highly agreeable to Mr. Nelson; and indeed it was their agreement in this, rather than in state-principles, that first made Kettleweli admire our author, who, in return, is said to have encouraged Kettleweli to proceed in that soft and gentle manner, in which he excelled, in managing the nonjurors’ controversy; and animated him besides to begin and prosecute some things for the public good, which otherwise would not have seen the light. Mr. Kettlewell died in 1695, and left Mr. Nelson his sole executor and trustee in consequence of which he published his posthumous piece entitled “An Office for Prisoners,” &c. in 1697. He also published five other of his friend’s posthumous pieces, and furnished the chief materials for the account of his life afterwards.

, founder of the congregation of priests of the Oratory in Italy, was born July 23, 1515, of a noble family at Florence. His piety and zeal acquired him uncommon reputation. He died at Rome, 1595, aged eighty, and was canonized by pope Gregory XV. 1622. The congregation founded by St. Philip de Neri was confirmed, 1574, by pope Gregory XIII. and took the name of the Oratory, because the original assemblies, which gave rise to its establishment, were held in an oratory of St. Jerome’s church at Rome but it differs from the congregation of the Oratory founded by cardinal de Berulle, in France. Its members take no vows; their general governs but three years; their office is to deliver such instructions every day in their church as are suited to all capacities. Each institution has produced great numbers of men who have been celebrated for their learning, and services to the Romish church. It was at St. Philip de Neri’s solicitation that cardinal Baronius, who had entered his congregation, wrote his Ecclesiastical Annals.

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

, M. A. son of a worthy clergy, man in Herefordshire, and great grandson, by his mother’s side, to the famous Spenser, was born in 1675, and was, for some time, educated at Corpus Christi college, Oxford; but we do not find his name among the Graduates. He was afterwards chaplain to the second duke of Richmond, and rector of Stopham in Sussex, in 1734, when he published a translation of “Velleius Paterculus.” For some time before this he lived at Hackney, in rather distressed circumstances. So early as 1718, he was author of an excellent poem, under the title of “Bibliotheca,” which is preserved in the third volume of Nichols’s “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems,” and on which Dr. Warton thinks Pope must have formed his goddess Dulness, in the “Dunciad.” Besides the many productions of Dr. Newcomb reprinted in that collection, he was author of several poems of merit; particularly of “The last Judgment of Men and AngeU, in twelve books, after the manner of Milton,” 1723, folio, adorned with a fine metzotinto portrait; of another, “To her late majesty queen Anne, upon the Peace of Utrecht;” “An Ode to the memory of Mr. Rowe;” and another, “To the memory of the countess of Berkeley.” He also translated several of Addison’s Latin poems, and Philips’s “Ode to Mr. St. John.”

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.

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

, a Greek historian, 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.

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.

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

a learned Italian, was born at Sessa, in the kingdom of Naples, in 1473. About 1500, he was appointed professor of philosophy at Padua, where he composed a treatise “De Intellectu et Duemonibus,” in which he maintained that there is but one soul, which animates all nature. This raised many opponents, and he was forced to publish his treatise with amendments in 1492, fol. reprinted 1503 and 1527. He afterwards gained so much reputation by his other works, however insignificant they may now appear, that the most celebrated universities of Italy offered him professorships with large stipends; and he had a salary of a thousand crowns in gold, when professor at Pisa, about 1520. Pope Leo X. had such a value for Niphus, that he made him count palatine, permitted him to quarter his arms with those of the Medici family, and granted him power to create masters of arts, bachelors, licentiates, doctors of divinity, civil and canon law, to legitimate bastards, and to ennoble three persons. The letters patent which conveyed these singular privileges, are dated June 15, 1521. Niphus was a philosopher in theory only, being remarkable even in old age for levity and intrigue. He also loved high living; and such were the charms of his conversation, that he had easy access to the nobility and ladies of rank. The year in which he died is not exactly known, but it is certain that he was living in 1545, and dead in 1550, and that he was above seventy at the time of his death. He left Commentaries in Latin on Aristotle and Averroes, 14 vols. fol.; some smaller works on subjects of morality and politics, Paris, 1645, 4to a treatise “on the Immortality of the Soul,” against Pomponatius, Venice, 1518, fol. “De amore, de pulchro, Veneris et Cupidinis venales,” Leydae, 1641, 16to, &c.

, 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.

By another ordinance, in 1703, he likewise condemned the resolution of the “Case of Conscience,” which had been signed by forty doctors of the Sorbonne, in favour of Jansenius, the same year, respecting the distinction between the fact and the right. These maintained, that the five propositions, though rightfully condemned by the decrees of the popes, yet were not in fact taught by Jansenius, as was declared in those decrees. In the same spirit of pastoral vigilance, he did not content himself with preserving the sacred depositum of faith inviolate among the full-confirmed Catholics, but made it his business also to instruct the new converts, by a letter addressed particularly to them. With the like care, when Mr. Simon, an author of great fame, published his French version of the “New Testament,” with a paraphrase and notes, which were thought by our prelate of a bad tendency, he considered himself bound in duty to prohibit the reading of that book, in order to prevent the ill effects it might occasion by falling into the hands of the simple and unwary. In June 1700 he was created a cardinal, at the nomination of the French king, and assisted in the conclave held that year, in which Clement XI. was elected pope having, a little before, in the same year, sat president in an assembly of the clergy, where several propositions, concerning doctrine and manners, were condemned. He also presided afterwards in several of these general assemblies, both ordinary and extraordinary. In 1715, he was appointed president of the council of conscience at Rome, notwithstanding he had refused to accept the constitution Unigenitus.

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

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

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.

His answers to all these accusations were so much to the satisfaction of the pope, that at length his holiness honoured him with the purple in 1695. After this he was in all the congregations, and employed in the most important affairs, much to the hindrance of his studies, which he used deeply to regret to his friends. Upon the death of cardinal Casanati, he was made chief librarian of the Vatican, in 1700; and, two years afterwards, nominated, among others, to reform the calendar: but he died at Rome, Feb. 23, 1704, of a dropsy. He had the reputation of one of the most learned men in the sixteenth century, which seems justified by his many able and profound writings on subjects of ecclesiastical history and antiquities. Of the latter the most celebrated are, 1. “Annus et Epochse Syro-Macedonum in vetustis urbium Syriae nummis prsesertim Mediceis expositae,” Florence, 1691, fol. and 2. “Cenotaphia Pisana Caii et Lucii Caesarum dissertationibus illustrata,” Venice, 1681, fol. The whole of his works are comprized in 4 vols. fol. 1729 1732. Some authors mention a fifth volume, but Fabroni gives the contents of only four. They indicate much study of theology, the belles-lettres, sacred and profane history, antiquities and chronology. His History of Pelagianism, as it procured him the most reputation, occasioned also the only uneasiness with which his literary life was disturbed. He had written it with a good deal of caution, and confined himself mostly to historical detail, mixing very little discussion. The Jesuits, however, took occasion to reproach him with Jansenism, and it must be allowed that while he rejected some particular notions of Jansenius, he leaned not a little to the doctrine of St. Augustine.

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

, 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.

, 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.

, a nobleman of poetical celebrity, was a descendant from the Nugents of Carlanstown, in the county of Westmeath, and was a younger son of Michael Nugent, by Mary, daughter of Robert lord Trimleston. He was chosen M. P. for St. Mawes, in Cornwall, in 1741; appointed comptroller of the household of Frederick, prince of Wales, in 1747; a lord of the treasury in 1754; one of the vice-treasurers of Ireland in 1759; and a lord of trade in 1766. In 1767 he was created baron Nugent and viscount Clare, and in 1776 earl Nugent, with remainder to his son-in-law, the late marquis of Buckingham. His lordship was thrice married; his second wife was Anne, sister and heiress to secretary Craggs, the friend of Pope and Addison, by whom he acquired a large fortune. She was at the time of her marriage to him, in 1736, in her second widowhood, having

Warwickshire, and secondly of John Knight, esq. of Bellowes, or Belhouse, or Gosfield-hall, in Essex. Much of Pope’s correspondence with this lady is inserted in the supplementary volume of the last edition of that poet’s works. Earl Nugent died Oct. 13, 1788.

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.

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.

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

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

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

He is represented to have been a man of great benevolence, and has been immortalized both by Thomson and Pope. He was at once, says Dr. Warton, a great hero and a great legislator. The vigour of his mind and body has seldom been equalled. The vivacity of his genius continued to a great old age. The variety of his adventures, and the very different scenes in which he had been engaged, merit a more full narrative than we have been able to furnish. Dr. Johnson once offered to write his life, if the general would furnish the materials. Johnson had a great regard for him, for he was one of the first persons that highly, in all companies, praised his “London.” But the greatest lustre of his life was derived from his benevolent and judicious settlement of the colony of Georgia.

, 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.

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,

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.”

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

, 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.

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

, general of the Augustin monks, and a celebrated cardinal, was born at Saxoferato, in 1408, of poor parents. He was admitted young amongst the monks of Augustin, and studied at Rimini, Bologna, and Perugia: in which last place he was first made professor of philosophy, and afterwards appointed to teach divinity. At length he was chosen provincial, and some time after accepted, not without reluctance, the post of solicitor-general of his order. This office obliged him to go to Rome, where his learning and virtue became greatly admired, notwithstanding he took all possible methods, out of an extreme humility, to conceal them. The cardinal of Tarentum, the protector of his order, could not prevail upon him to engage in any of the public disputations, where every body wished to see his great erudition shine; they had, however, the gratification to hear his frequent sermons, which were highly applauded. He appeared in the pulpits of the principal cities in Italy, as Rome, Naples, Venice, Bologna, Florence, Mantua, and Ferrara; was elected first vicar-general, and then general of his order, in 1459; and at last created cardinal, in 1460, by pope Pius II. This learned pontiff gave him afterwards the bishopric of Camerino, and made use of his abilities on several occasions. Oliva died shortly after at Tivola, where the court of Rome then resided, in 1463. His corpse was carried to the church of the Augustin monks at Rome, where there is a marble monument, with an epitaph, and a Latin tetrastic by way of eulogium. His works are, “De Christi ortu sermones centum”' “De ccena cum apostolis facta;” “De peccato in spiritum sanctum; Orationes elegantes.”

During this interval, however, he was far from being idle in other respects, as he was employed in collecting materials for his successive works. He had formed with infinite labour, an ample collection of inscriptions, diplomas, and manuscripts of every kind, many of which, by permission of pope Benedict XIV, he had obtained from the several archives of the papal dominions. In the vestibule and hall of his palace he had collected a vast numbec of statues, busts, marbles, and other monuments of civil and ecclesiastical history; and had arranged in his museum an immense quantity of coins, seals, cameos, engraved stones, pieces of glass and ivory, and other curious works of antiquity; and it is worthy of remark, that the whole of this collection related in some measure to his own native city, Pesaro, to the illustration of whose history he had devoted his talents. At length, in 1774, he published, in 4to, his “Memoirs of the ancient Port of Pesaro,” of which an honourable account was given by Tiraboschi, in the new literary journal of Modena, as tending to illustrate many important particulars in the history of the latter period of the Roman empire.

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

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

, a learned Portuguese divine, descended from an illustrious family, was born at Lisbon in 1506. Discovering an extraordinary inclination for literature, he was sent, at thirteen, to the university of Salamanca; where having studied Greek and Latin, and law, he removed at nineteen to Paris, to be instructed in Aristotle’s philosophy, which was then the vogue. From Paris he went to Bologna, where he devoted himself to the study of the sacred Scriptures, and the Hebrew language; and he acquired such reputation, as a theologist, that, on his return home, John III. king of Portugal appointed him professor of divinity at Coimbra, Taking priest’s orders, the care of the church of Tavora was given him by Don Lewis infant of Portugal; and, soon after, the archdeaconry of Evora by cardinal Henry, archbishop of that province, and brother to king John; and at last he was nominated to the bishopric of Sylves in Algarva, by Catharine of Austria, that king’s widow, who was regent of the kingdom during the minority of her grandson Sebastian. When this prince became of age to take the administration of the kingdom into his own hands, he resolved upon an expedition against the Moors in Africa, much against the persuasions of Osorio who, to avoid being an eye-witness of the calamities he dreaded, made various pretences to go to Rome. Here pope Gregory XIII. gave him many testimonies of his esteem: but he had not been absent above a year, when the king recalled him home; and not long after, Sebastian was killed in the battle of Alcazer, against the Moors, Aug. 4, 1578. During the tumults in Portugal which succeeded this fatal event, Osorio took every means to prevent the people of his diocese from joining in them; but the miseries of his country at this juncture are said to have broke his heart, and he died of grief, Aug. 20, 1580, aged seventy-four.

Upon Henry the Fourth’s abjuring the Protestant religion in 1593, the papal absolution for him was obtained by D‘Ossat; which was deemed a master-stroke of his abilities. The favour was strongly opposed both by the Spaniards and the princes of the house of Lorrain, and also by the Hugonots, who were naturally averse to their beloved prince’s being reconciled to the see of Rome; but every difficulty was removed by the artful management of D’Ossat, who dissipated all the scruples of Clement VIII. a pope by nature extremely diffident; so that the affair was resolved on before the arrival of James Davy, afterwards cardinal Du Perron, who, indeed, by the figure that he made, quickened the execution . The king, in consideration of this service, nominated D‘Ossat, in 1596, to the bishopric of Rennes, to which the bull was signed gratuitously by the pope. Sept. 1597, he was appointed counsellor of state, on which occasion he took the oath before the duke of Luxemburg, then the French ambassador at Rome; who, having leave to return home in 1598, the superintendency of the French affairs was committed to D’Ossat, till another ambassador should be appointed; and, May the following year, he was created a cardinal. The king had solicited this favour for some time, his low birth being made an objection. Nor indeed was his fortune even now equal to this high station; but he resolved not to lay aside the modesty and temperance he had hitherto observed, and in that spirit refused an equipage and some fine furniture which were sent him three weeks after his promotion, by cardinal de Joyeuse, in whose house he had received the compliments of the cardinals upon his election. The legacy, however, already mentioned, of cardinal d'Este, happened unexpectedly to be paid to him the following year, 1600; and so seasonably, that, as he himself declared, he should otherwise have been almost ruined. Some time after, the pope gave him the abbey of Nant, in Rouerge. Upon cardinal de Joyeuse returning to France this year, he was appointed vice-protector of the French nation; and in that quality was affable, easily accessible, and kind to those who had occasion to apply to him. All these preferments were highly agreeable to Henry IV. who the same year added to them the bishopric of Bayeux, the revenues of which were richer than those of Rennes. This, however, he resigned in 1603, finding the affairs of the court would not permit him to reside in his diocese; and he had scarcely made this sacrifice when he died, March 13, 1604, in his 68th year. His corpse was interred in the church of St. Lewis, at Rome, where there is a monument erected to his memory.

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

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

Pope’s account of Otway’s death was first related by Dr. Warton in the notes to his “Essay on Pope,” and in the. following words: “Otway had an intimate friend who was murdered (not robbed) in the street. One may guess at his sorrow, who has so feelingly described true affection in his * Venice Preserved.' He pursued the murderer on foot, who fled to France, as far as Dover, where he was seized with a fever, occasioned by the fatigue, which afterwards carried him to his grave in London.” The robber, we find, is by this account a murderer, and as Dr. Warton was alt ways more correct as to minor facts than Dr. Johnson, it is probable that he relates the story as he heard it, but it is to be traced to Spence, who was informed by Dennis, the critic, that “Otway had a friend, one Blakiston, who was shot; the murderer fled towards Dover, and Otway pursued him. In his return he drank water, when violently heated, and so got the fever which was the death of him.” And Dennis in the Preface to his “Observations on Pope’s translation of Homer,” 1717, 8vo, says, “Otway died in an alehouse,” which is not inconsistent with the preceding account, as he generally lived in one; but whether the story of the guinea and the loaf can be introduced with any probability to heighten the poet’s distress, we do not pretend to determine. It would not perhaps be very wrong to conjecture that both accounts might be true, but his contemporaries have left us no precise documents. Dr. Johnson has remarked that Otway appears by some of his verses to have been a zealous loyalist, and had what was in those times the common reward of loyalty, he lived and died neglected.

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

Ozanam was of a mild and calm disposition, a cheerful and pleasant temper, endeared by a generosity almost unparalleled. His manners were irreproachable after marriage; and he was sincerely pious, and zealously devout, though studiously avoiding to meddle in theological questions. He used to say, that it was the business of the Sorbonne to discuss, of the pope to decide, and of a mathematician to go straight to heaven in a perpendicular line. He wrote a great number of useful books; a list of which is as follows 1. “La Geometric-pratique, contenant la Trigonometric theorique & pratique, la Longimetrie, la Planimetrie, & la Stereometric,” Paris, 1684, 12mo., 2. “Tables des Sinus, Tangentes, & Secantes, & des Logarithmes des Sinus & des Tangentes, & des nombres depuis T unite jusqu'a dix mille, avec un traite de Trigonometric, par de nouvelles demonstrations & des pratiques tres faciles,” Paris, 1685, 8vo reprinted, with additions, in 1710. 3. “Traite des 'Lignes du premier genre, de la construction des equations, et des lieux Geometriques, expliquees par une methode nouveile & facile,” Paris, 1687, 4to. 4. “L‘usage du Compas de proportion, explique & demontre d’une maniere courte & facile, & augmente d'un Traite de la division des champs,” Paris, 1688, 8vo, reprinted in 1700. 5. “Usage de l'instrument universel pour resoudre promptement & tres-exactement tous les problemes de la Geometric- pratique sans aucun calcul,” Paris, 1688, 12mo; reprinted in 1700. 6. “Dictionaire Mathematique, ou Idee generale des Mathematiques,” Paris, 1690, 4to. 7. “Methode Generale pour tracer des Cadrans sur toutes sortes de plans,” Paris, 1673, 12mo, reprinted and enlarged in 1685. 8. “Cours de Mathematiques, qui comprend toutes les parties de cette science les plus utiles & les plus necessaires,” Paris, 1693, 5 vols. 8vo. 9. “Traite” 4e la Fortification, contenant les methodes anciennes & modernes pour la construction & defense des Places, & la maniere de les attaquer, expliquees plus au long qu‘elles n’on jusqu' a present,“Paris, 1694, 4to. 10.” Recreations Mathematiques & Physiques, qui contiennent plusieurs problemes utiles & agreables de PArithmetiquej de Geometric, d'Optique, de Gnomonique, de Cosmographie, de Mechanique, de Pyrotecnie, & de Physique, avec un Traite des Horloges elementaires,“Paris, 1694, 2 vols. 8vo. There was a new edition, with additions, at Paris, in 1724, 4 vols. 8vo; and in 1803, Dr. Hutton published a very enlarged edition, in 4 vols. 8vo, with Montucla’s and his own additions and improvements. 11.” Nouvelle Trigonometric, oil Ton trouve la maniere de calculer toutes sortes de Triangles rectilignes, sans les tables des Sinus, & aussi par les Tables des Sinus, avec un application de la Trigonometric a la mesure de Lignes droites accessibles & inaccessibles sur la terre,“Paris, 1699, 12mo. 12.” Methode facile pour arpenter ou mesurer toutes sortes de superficies, & pour toiser exactement la Ma^onnerie, les Vuidanges des terres, & tous les autres corps, avec le toise du bois de charpente, & un traite dela Separation des Terres,“Paris, 1699, 12mo; reprinted, with corrections, in 1725. 13.” Nouveaux Elemens d'Algebre, ou Principes generaux pour resoudre toutes sortes de problemes de Mathematiques,“Amsterdam, 1702, 8vo, Mr. Leibnitz, in the Journal des Savans of 1703, speaks thus of this work of our author:” Monsieur Ozanam’s Algebra seems to me greatly preferable to most of those which have been published a long time, and are only copies from Des Cartes and his commentators. I am well pleased that he has revived part of Vieta’s precepts, which deserve not to be forgotten.“14.” Les Elemens d'Euclide, par le P. Dechales. Nouvelle edition corrigee & augmentee,“Paris, 1709, in 12mo; reprinted in 1720. 15.” GeometriePratique du Pieur Boulanger, augmentee de plusieurs notes & d‘un Traite de l’Arithmetique par Geometric, par M. Ozanam,“Paris, 1691, 12mo. 16.” Traite de la Sphere du Monde, par Boulanger, revu, corrige*, & augmente, par M. Ozanam,“Paris, 12mo. 17.” La Perspective Theorique & Pratique, ou Ton enseigne la maniere de mettre toutes sortes d‘objets en perspective, & d’en representer les ombres causees par le Soleil, ou par une petite Lumiere,“Paris, 1711, 8vo. 18. * e Le Geographic & Cosmographie, qui traite de la Sphere, des Corps celestes, des differens Systmes du Monde, du Globe, & de ses usages,” Paris, 1711, 8vb. 19. In the Journal des Ssavans, our author has the following pieces I. “Demonstration de ce Theoreme que la somme ou la. difference de deux quarre”-quarrez ne peut etre un quarre-quarre,“Journal of May 20, 1680. II.” Response a un probleme propose“par M.'Comiers,” Journal of Nov. 17, 1681. III. “Demonstration d'un problSaie touchant les racines fausses imaginaires,” Journal of the 2d and 9th of April, 1685. IV. “Methode pour trouver en nombres la racine cubique, & la racme sursolide d'un binoine, quand ii y en a une,” Journal of April 9th, 1691. 20. In the “Me mo ires de Trevoux,” he has this piece, “Reponse aux principaux articles, qui sont dans le 23 Journal de Paris de Tan 1703, touchant la premiere partie de son Algebre,” inserted in the Me. noire* of December 1703, p. 2214. And lastly, in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences of 1707, he has Observations on a Problem of Spherical Trigonometry.

Mr. Ozell, however, had a more exalted idea of his own abilities than the world was willing to allow them, for, on his being introduced by Mr. Pope into the “Dunciad” (for what cause, however, does not appear), he published a very extraordinary advertisement, signed with his name, in a paper called “The Weekly Medley,” Sept. 1729, in which he expresses his resentment, and at the same time draws a comparison, in his own favour, between Mr. Pope and himself, both with respect to learning and poetical genius. The advertisement at length may be seen in the notes to the “Dunciad.” But, says the author of his life, “though we cannot readily subscribe to this self-assumed preference, yet, as Mr. Coxeter informs us that his conversation was agreeable, and his knowledge of men and things considerable, and as it is probable that, with an understanding somewhat above the common rank, he possessed a considerable share of good-nature, we readily allow, that a person of this character might be much more amiable than one of a greater brilliancy of parts, if deficient in these good qualities.”

In 1519, Maximilian died, and the kings of France and Spain immediately declared themselves candidates for the Imperial throne. Henry, encouraged by the pope, was also induced to offer himself as a candidate, and Pace was ordered to attend the diet of the empire, sound the opinions of the electors, and endeavour to form a judgment of the likelihood of his success. Pace, however, soon discovered that his royal master had started too late, and that tven the electors of Mentz, Cologn, and Triers, who were disposed to favour his pretensions, pleaded, with a shew of regret, that they were pre-engaged. The election fell on Charles V. In 1516, Pace was instituted treasurer of Lichfield, which he resigned in 1522, on being made dean of Exeter. In 1511), he succeeded Colet as dean of St. Paul’s; and some say, held also the deanery of Sarum, but this is not quite clear, although he is called dean of Salisbury by Herbert, in his “Life and Reign of Henry VIII.” In 1521, he was made prebendary of Combe and Harnham, in the church of Sarum, and we find mention of some other church preferments he held from 1516 to 1522, but they are so dubiously related that it is difficult to give them in due order.

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

, nephew of the preceding, was born at Lambesc in Provence Sept. 7, 1654. The extraordinary inclination that appeared in his infancy for polite learning induced his parents to send him to study, among the priests of the oratory, at Toulon; where he soon made so great a proficiency, that his uncle, Anthony Pagi, sent for him to Aix, where he then resided. The conversation of hip uncle inspired him with a desire of devoting himself to the church, and accordingly he entered into the order of the Cordeliers, and made his profession. After having taught philosophy in several convents, he desired to return to his uncle at Aix; and, having obtained leave, remained studying under his directions for several years and assisted him in his “Critique upon Baronius’s Annals” of which, as we have mentioned in the preceding article, he became the editor. Father Francis afterwards laid the plan of another work, which he published under the title “Breviarium Historicochronologico-criticum, illustriofa pontificum Romanorum gesta, conciliorum generalium acta, nee non complura turn sacrorum rituum, turn antiquae ecclesiae discipline, capita complectens,” 4 vols. 4to, 1717, &c. In this he discovers the most bigoted zeal for the Ultramontane theology, and every thing which exalts the authority of the pope. A long illness, brought on by a fall, prevented his finishing the last volume, which was not published until 1727, six years after his death, which took place Jan. 21, 1721.

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

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

He afterwards translated the “New Testament” from the Greek, and dedicated it to pope Clement VII. It was printed with the former at Lyons in 1528. He was also the author of an “Hebrew Lexicon and an Hebrew Grammar; which Buxtorf, who calls him” Vir linguarum Orientalium peritissimus," made great use of in compiling his. He died in 1536, aged seventy. Saxius places his birth in 1471, and his death in 1541. Though he appears. to have lived and died a bigoted Catholic, Luther spoke of him, and his translations, in terms of the highest applause.

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

, called by Dr. Burney the Homer of the most ancient music that has been preserved, was, as his name imports, a native of the ancient Proeneste, now corruptly called Palestrina, and is supposed to have been born some time in 1529. All the Italian writers who have mentioned him, say he was the scholar of Gaudio Mell. Fiamingo, by which name they have been, generally understood to mean Claude Goudimel, of whom we have given some account in vol. XVI.; but this seems doubtful, nor is there any account of his life on which reliance can be placed. All that we know with certainty is, that about 1555, when he had distinguished himself as a composer, he was admitted into the Pope’s chapel, at Rome; in 1562, at the age of thirty three, he was elected maestro di capella of Santa Maria Maggiore, in the same city; in 1571 was honoured with a similar appointment at St. Peter’s; and lastly, having brought choral harmony to a degree of perfection that has never since been exceeded, he died in 1594, at the age of sixty-five. Upon his coffin was this inscription, “Johannes Petrus Aloysius Praenestinus Musicae Princeps.”

By the assistance of signor Santarelli, Dr. Burney procured at Rome a complete catalogue of all the genuine productions of Palestrina, which may be classed in the following manner: masses in four, five, and six parts, twelve books; of which lib i. appeared at Rome in folio, 1554, when the author was in the twenty-fifth year of his age; and in that city only went through three several editions during his life. Lib. ii. of his masses, which includes the celebrated composition entitled “Missa Papse Marcelli,” was published likewise at Rome, in 1567. -Of this production it has been related by Antimo Liberati, and after him by Adami, Berardi, and other musical writers, that the pope and conclave having been offended and scandalized at the light and injudicious manner in which the mass had been long set and performed, ^determined to banish music in parts entirely from the church; but that Palestrina, at the age of twenty-six, during the short pontificate of Marcellus Cervinus, intreated his holiness to suspend the execution of his design till he had heard a mass composed in what, according to his ideas, was the true ecclesiastical style. His request being granted, the composition, in six parts, was performed at Easter 1555, before the pope and college of cardinals, who found it so grave, noble, elegant, learned, and pleasing, that music was restored to favour, and again established in the celebration of sacred rites. This mass was afterwards printed, and dedicated to the successor of Marcellus, pope Paul IV. by whom Palestrina was appointed chapel-master.

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

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

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

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

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

, famous for his adventures, and his hostility to the Jesuits, was the son of a weaver at Bar-le-duc, of the name of Parisot, where he was born March 8, 1697. He embraced the monastic life in 1716, and the provincial of his order going to Rome, to attend the election of a general in 1734, took Parisot with him as his secretary. In 1736 he went to Pondicherry, and was made a parish-priest of that city by M. Dupleix, the governor but the Jesuits, with whom he quarrelled, found means to remove him from the East Indies to America, whence he returned to Rome in 1744. He was now employed in drawing up an account of the religious rites of the Malabar Christians but, dreading the intrigues of the Jesuits, withdrew to Lucca, where he completed his work, under the title of “Historical Memoirs relative to the Missions into the Indies,” in 2 vols. 4to. As this work contained some curious discoveries of the means made use of by the Jesuit missionaries to increase their number of converts, he greatly offended both his own order and them, and was obliged to quit his country: he went first to Venice, then to Holland, and afterwards to England, where he established in the neighbourhood of London two manufactories of tapestry. From London he removed to Prussia, and from thence into the duchy of Brunswick. Here he was allowed by the pope to assume the habit of a secular priest. He now assumed the name of the abbé Plate!, went to France, and from thence to Portugal, where, on account of the persecutions which he endured, he obtained a pension. Having completed his great work against the Jesuits, he revisited France, and committed it to the press, in 6 vols. 4to. Afterwards he re-entered the order of the capuchins at Commercy, but, being of a restless disposition, he soon quitted their community, and took up his abode at a village in Lorrain, where he died in 1770, at the age of seventy -three.

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

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

It seems probable that he had an ambition to rise by political interest. When the Whigs were ejected, in the end of queen Anne’s reign, he was persuaded to change his party, not without much censure from those whom he forsook, and was received by the earl of Oxford and the new ministry as a valuable reinforcement. When Oxford was told that Dr. Parnell waited among the crowd in the outer room, he went, by the persuasion of Swift, with his treasurer’s staff in his hand, to inquire for him, and to bid him welcome; and, as may be interred from Pope’s dedication, admitted him as a favourite companion to his convivial hours; but it does not appear that all this was followed by preferment. Parnell also, conceiving himself qualified to become a popular preacher, displayed his elocution with great success in the pulpits of London; but the queen’s death putting an end. to his expectations, abated his diligence, and from that time he fell into a habit of intemperance, which greatly injured his health. The death of his wife is said to have first driven him to this miserable resource.

In 1758, a volume was published, it is not known by whom, entitled “The Posthumous Works of Dr. Thomas Parnell.” This, although it exceeded the volume published by Pope in bulk, appeared so far inferior in merit, that the admirers of Parnell questioned the authenticity of most of the pieces; and there are but a few of them indeed which can be ascribed to him without some injury to his character. Goldsmith refused to incorporate them with the collection he published in 1770; but they were afterwards added to the edition in Johnson’s Poets, and apparently without his consent. He says of them: “I know not whence they came, nor have ever inquired whither they are going.”

, an eminent grammarian in Italy, was born at Cosenza in the kingdom of Naples, in 1470. He was designed for the law, the profession of his ancestors but his inclination was to study classical literature. His family name was Giovanni Paulo Parisio; yet, according to the humour of the grammarians of that age, he adopted that under which we have classed him. He taught at Milan with great reputation, being particularly admired for a graceful delivery, which attracted many auditors to his lectures. He went to Rome during the pontificate of Alexander VI. and was like to have been involved in the misfortunes of the cardinals Bernardini Cajetan, and Silius Savello, whose estates were confiscateed, and themselves banished for conspiring to depose the pope. As it was well known that he had corresponded with these men, he took the advice of a friend, in retiring from Rome. Not long after, he was appointed public professor of rhetoric at Milan, where his superior merit drew upon him the envy of his contemporary teachers, who, by false accusations, rendered his situation so uneasy, that he was obliged to leave Milan, and retire to Vicenza, where he obtained the professorship of eloquence, with a larger salary; and he held this professorship, till the states of the Venetians were laid waste by the troops of the league of Cambray. He now withdrew to his native country, having made his escape through the army of the enemies. He was afterwards sent for by Leo X. who was before favourably inclined to him; and on his arrival at Rome, appointed him professor of polite literature. He had been now some time married to a daughter of Denietrius Chalcondylas; and he took with him to Rome Basil Chalcondylas, his wife’s brother, and brother of Demetrius Chalcondylas, professor of Greek at Milan. He did not long enjoy this employment conferred upon him by the pope: for; being worn out by his studies and labours, he became so cruelly afflicted with the gout, as to lose the use of his limbs. Poverty was added to his other sufferings; and in this unhappy state he left Rome, and returned into Calabria, his native country, where he died of a fever in 1533.

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

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

After the defeat of the armada in 1588, he used every means in his power to persuade the Spanish monarch to a second invasion; and when he failed in this, he endeavoured to raise a rebellion in England, urging the earl of Derby to appear at the head of it, who is said to have been poisoned, at his instigation, for refusing to acquiesce. Nor did he stop here. We find sir Ralph Winwood informing secretary Cecil from Paris, in 1602, of an attempt to assassinate the queen that year by another English Jesuit, at the instigation of father Parsons; and when all these plans proved abortive, he endeavoured to prevent the succession of king James by several means; one of which was, exciting the people to set up a democratic form of government, for which he had furnished them with principles in several of his books. Another was, to persuade the pope to make his kinsman the duke of Parma king of England, by joining with the lady Arabella, and marrying her to the duke’s brother, cardinal Farnese. Cardinal d'Ossat gives the king of France a large account of both these projects in one of his letters; and in another mentions a third contrivance which Parsons had communicated to him, and whose object was, that the pope, the king of France, and the king of Spain, should first appoint by common consent a successor for England, who should be a catholic; and then should form an armed confederacy to establish him on the throne.

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

But this check did not hinder him from exercising his jurisdiction over the Romanists in England, as prefect of the English mission and, after his return to Rome, we find him removing the arch- presbyter of England, Blakwell, for taking the oath of supremacy to James I. He likewise obtained a brief from Paul V. to deprive all such priests as should take that oath; and thus continued zealous an the discharge of this office to the last. Father More lias given copies of three letters, one to the mission in England, another to the rector of St. Omer’s, and the third to the arch-presbyter Berkit, successor to Blakwell; all dictated by him, while he lay past recovery in the opinion of his physicians. The last was finished the 13th of April; and the fever, which had seized him on the I Oth, put a period to his life on the 18th, 1610. Pope Paul, as soon as he heard of his illness, indulged him in all the ceremonies usually granted to cardinals at the point of death. His body was afterwards embalmed and interred, pursuant to his own request, in the chapel of his college at Rome, close to that of cardinal Allen. A monument was soon after erected to his memory, with an inscription; a copy of which may be seen in Ribadineira’s Bibl. Soc. Jes. under the letter P.

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

, an Italian cardinal, famous rather as a patron of letters, than as a writer, and employed by the see of Rome in many important negociations, was born at Fossombrone in the dutchy of Urbino, in 1682. He studied in the Clementine college at Rome, where he afterwards formed that vast library and curious collection of manuscripts, from which the learned world has derived so much advantage. In 1706 he attended the nuncio Gualterio, his relation, to Paris, where he formed an intimacy with the most learned men of the time, and examined every thing that deserved attention. He was particularly intimate with Mabillon, and Montfaucon. In 1708 ha went into Holland, at first for the sake of literary inquiries, but afterwards as a kind of secret agent for the pope at the Hague, where he resided four years, and attended the congress at Utrecht in 1712. On his return to Rome., he passed through Paris, where he was most graciously and honourably received by Louis XIV. who gave him his portrait set with diamonds. He then proceeded to Turin to accommodate some differences between the pope and the duke of Savoy; and upon his return to Rome was declared president of the apostolic chamber. In the two congresses at Bale in 1714, and at Soleure in 1715, he was again employed, and strongly evinced his zeal, talents, activity, prudence, and other qualities of a great negotiator. His account of this embassy was published in 1738, in folio, under the title of “Acta Legationis Helvetica,” which may be considered as a model of conduct for persons employed in such services. Upon the accession of Clement XII. he was sent as nuncio to the court of Vienna, where he pronounced the funeral oration of prince Eugene. In the pontificate of Innocent XIII. which lasted from 1721 to 1724, Passionei had been made archbishop of Ephesus; ie continued in favour with the successors of that pope, Benedict XIII. and Clement XII. the latter of whom, in 1738, raised him to the dignity of cardinal, having at the same time made him secretary of the briefs. Benedict XIV. in 1755 made him librarian of the Vatican, which he enriched by many important accessions; and in the same year he was admitted into the French academy, under the peculiar title of associ6 etranger. He died on the 15th of July, 1761, at the age of seventy-nine.

Cardinal Passionei did not write much besides the articles that have been already mentioned. He worked, indeed, with Fontanini, in revising the “Liber diurnus Romanorum Pontificum,” and produced a paraphrase on the nineteenth psalm, with a few more small pieces: but he was most illustrious for his enlightened knowledge of letters, and his judicious and liberal patronage of learned men and useful works; an example but too little followed in the present age. He had one of the most valuable libraries in Rome, composed of the best, the scarcest, and most remarkable books in all sciences, and in all languages, ancient and modern. He himself was the librarian, and did the honours of it in a manner the more satisfactory to the learned, as no one was more able to second and extend their views on the subjects of their researches. “In this,” says a Swedish traveller, “he was very different from the cardinals Davia, Gualterio, and Imperiali, all three also very rich in books. The first was always reading, and never wrote; the second was always writing, and never read; and the third neither read nor wrote.” Cardinal Passionei’s temper, however, was not equable, and Benedict XIV. delighted to put him in a rage, sometimes by taking away one of his books, and making him think it was lost, but more frequently, which was the greatest provocation our cardinal could receive, by introducing a work written by a Jesuit. On one occasion when the pope did this, the cardinal opened the window, and threw the book with all his force into the square of Monte Cavallo. At this instant the pope appeared, and vouchsafed him his grand benediction. It is said, that by way of answer to this benediction, a certain gesture of the cardinal’s put a stop to the pleasantry that the pope had promised himself from this scene. He most cordially hated the Jesuits; and had it depended on him, their society would have been soon dissolved. On this subject and every other on which he entered with the pope Benedict, he spoke with the firmest independence, and the pope generally found it necessary in all disputes to yield to him. Let us not forget, however, that it was this cardinal who opened the treasures of the Vatican to Dr. Kennicott, in a very handsome order signed by his name. This was at the time justly said to be an honour which no work relating to the Bible could boast of since the reformation.

, son of the preceding, and an able physician and antiquary, was born at Paris, Feb. 2.i, 1633. He was educated with great care by his father, and made such surprizing progress in his studies, that at the age of fourteen he defended Greek and Latin theses in philosophy, with the greatest applause in an assembly composed of thirty-four prelates, the pope’s nuncio, and many other persons of distinction. Being intended for the bar, he completed his law studies, and became an advocate in the parliament of Paris, but he soon relinquished this career for the study of medicine, which in his opinion promised greater advantages. He became afterwards a considerable practitioner, and a teacher of reputation in the medical school of Paris, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1656; but was about this time obliged to leave France for fear of imprisonment. The cause of this is variously related, but the most probable account is, that he had been in some way accessary to the circulation of certain libels which drew upon him the resentment of the court.

, a platonic philosopher and man of letters, was born, in 1529, at Clissa in Illyricum, and was educated at Padua. In 1553 he began to appear as an author by some miscellaneous Italian tracts. In 1557, with the view of obtaining the patronage of the duke of Ferrara, he published a panegyrical poem on the house of Este, entitled “L'Eridano,” in a novel kind of heroic verse of thirteen syllables. After this, for several years, he passed an unsettled kind of life, in which he twice visited the isle of Cyprus, where he took up his abode for seven years, and which he finally quitted on its reduction by the Turks in 1571. He also travelled into France and Spain, and spent three years in the latter country, collecting a treasure of ancient Greek Mss. which he lost on his return to Italy. In 1578 he was invited to Ferrara by duke Alphonso II. to teach philosophy in the university of that city. Afterwards, upon the accession of Clement VIII. to the popedom, he was appointed public professor of the Platonic philosophy at Rome, an office which he held with high reputation till his death, hi 1597. He professed to unite the doctrines of Aristotle and Plato, but in reality undermined the authority of the former. He wholly deserted the obscurity of the Jewish Cabbala, and in teaching philosophy closely followed the ancient Greek writers. During his lecturing at Rome, he more openly discovered his aversion to the Aristotelian philosophy, and advised the pope to prohibit the teaching pf it in the schools, and to introduce the doctrine of Plato, as more consonant to the Christian faith. His “Discussiones Peripatetics,” a learned, perspicuous, and elegant work, fully explains the reason on which his disapprobation of the Peripatetic philosophy was founded. He was one of the first of the moderns who attentively observed the phenomena of nature, and he made use of every opportunity, that his travels afforded him, for collecting remarks concerning various points of astronomy, meteorology, and natural history. In one of his “Dialogues on Rhetoric,” he advanced, under the fiction of an Ethiopic tradition, a theory of the earth which some have thought similar to that afterwards proposed by Dr. Thomas Burnet. His other principal works were, “Nova Geometria,” 1587; “Parallels Militari,” 1594, both of which are full of whimsical theories and an elaborate edition of “Oracula Zoroastris, Hermetis Trismegisti, et aliorum ex scriptis Platonicorum collecta, Graece et Latine, prefixa Dissertation^ Historica,” 1591.

, an unfortunate poet, was born at Peasmarsh, in the county of Sussex, in 1706, and was the son of a farmer at that place, who rented a considerable estate of the earl of Thanet. He discovered excellent parts, with a strong propensity to learning and his father, not being in circumstances to give him a proper education, applied to his noble landlord, who took him under his protection, and placed him at Appleby school in Westmoreland. Here he became acquainted with Mr. Noble, a clergyman of great learning and fine taste, who promoted his studies and directed his taste. Upon his leaving Appleby, he went to Sidney college in Cambridge, where he pursued the plan Mr. Noble had given him, and went through the classics, as well as all our English poets, with great advantage. Of these last, Spenser’s “Fairy Queen” and Brown’s “( Britannia’s Pastorals” are said to have given him the greatest delight. He had, however, unfortunately contracted a habit of desultory reading, and had no relish for academical studies. His temper could not brook restraint; and his tutor, he thought, treated him with great rigour. A quarrel ensued; and, to avoid the scandal of expulsion, with which he was threatened, he took his name out of the college book, and went to London. Even now his friends would have forgiven him, and procured his readmission; but the pleasures of the town, the desire of being known, and his romantic expectations of meeting with 0u,e generous patron to reward his merit, rendered him deaf to all advice. He led a pleasurable life, frequented Button’s, and became acquainted with some of the most eminent wits of the time. As he had no fortune, nor any means of subsistence, but what arose from the subscriptions for the poems he proposed to publish; and, as he wanted even common prudence to manage this precarious income, he was soon involved in the deepest distress and most deplorable wretchedness. In a poem, entitled “Effigies Authons,” addressed to lord Burlington, he describes himself as destitute of friends, of money; a prey to hunger; and passing his nights on a bench in St. James’s park. In a private letter to a gentleman, he thus expressed himself: “Spare my blushes; I have not enjoyed the common necessaries of life these two days, and can hardly hold to subscribe myself,” &c. Curll, the bookseller, finding some of his compositions well received, And going through several impression>, took him into his house; and, as Pope affirms in one of his letters, starved him to death. But this does not appear to be strictly true; and his death is more justly attributed to the small-pox, which carried him off in 1727, in his 21st year. His biographer says, that he had a surprising genius, and had raised hopes in all that knew him, that he would become one of the most eminent poets of the age; but surh of his poems as we find in the collection published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1728, would not in our days be thought calculated to Support such high expectations.

, a celebrated traveller, was the son of Nicholas Paulo, a Venetian, who went with his brother Matthew, about 1225, to Constantinople, in the reign of Baudoin. While they were on this expedition Marco was born. On their return through the deserts they arrived at the city where Kublai, grand khan of the Tartars, resided. This prince was highly entertained with the account which they gave him of the European manners and customs, and appointed them his ambassadors to the pope, in order to demand of his holiness a hundred missionaries. They accordingly came to Italy, obtained from the Roman pontiff two Dominicans, the one an Italian, and the other an Asiatic, and carried with them young Marco, for whom the Tartar prince expressed a singular affection. This youth was at an early period taught the different dialects of Tartary, and was afterwards employed in embassies which gave him the opportunity of traversing Tartary, China, and other eastern countries. After a residence of seventeen years at the court of the great khan, the three Venetians came back to their own country in 1295, with immense wealth. A short time after his return, Marco served his country at sea against the Genoese, his galley in a naval engagement was sunk, and himself taken prisoner and carried to Genoa. He remained there many years in confinement; and, as well to amuse his melancholy, as to gratify those who desired it of him, sent for his notes from Venice, and composed the history of his own and his father’s voyages in Italian, under this title, “Delle maraviglie del mondo da lui vidute,” &c. of which the first edition appeared at Venice in 1496, 8vo. This work has been translated into several foreign languages, and has been inserted in various collections. The best editions are one in Latin, published by Andrew Miiller at Cologne in 1671, and one in French, to be found in the collection of voyages published by Bergeron, at the Hague in 1735, in two vols. In the narrative there are many things not easily believed, but the greater part of his accounts has been verified by succeeding travellers. He not only gave better accounts of China than had been before received; but likewise furnished a description of Japan, of several islands of the East Indies, of Madagascar, and the coasts of Africa, so that from his work it might be easily collected that a direct passage by sea to the East Indies was not only possible, but practicable.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Edward 1. was born in the county of Sussex, about 1240, and educated in the monastery at Lewes, whence he was sent to Oxford, and became a minorite friar. Hid name occurs in the registers of Merlon-college, which was founded in his time, but not with sufficient precision to enable us to say that he was educated there. He was, however, created D. D. at this university, and read public lectures. Pits says he was professor of divinity, and afterwards provincial of his order in England. He appears to have been twice at Paris, where he also read lectures with great applause. He went from Paris, after his second visit, to Lyons, where he obtained a canonry in the cathedral, which Godwin and Cave inform us was held with the archbishopric of Canterbury for two centuries after. Fuller says it was a convenient half-way house between Canterbury and Rome. He then went to Rome, where the pope appointed him auditor or chief judge of his palace, but Leland calls the office which the pope bestowed upon him that of Palatine lecturer or reader, “lector, ut vocant, Palatinus.” In 1278, this pope consecrated him archbishop of Canterbury, on Peckham’s agreeing to pay his holiness the sum of 4000 marks, which there is some reason to think he did not pay; at least it is certain he was so slow in remitting it, that the pope threatened to excommunicate him.