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

The chevalier Olivieri died on the 29th Sept. 1789, in the eighty-second year of his age; no less respected for his moral than for his mental qualifications. He was one of the warmest promoters in his province, of sciences, arts, manufactures, and agriculture; and so benevolent, that the greatest part of his annual income was employed in relieving the wants of others. He had no issue, so that his family became extinct at his death. His fortune devolved on two nephews of the family of Machirelli; but wishing to be of some service to his city, even after his death, he bequeathed to it his magnificent palace, together with the library and museum, and a suitable revenue for their support. In gratitude his townsmen erected a statue to him on the ground floor of his own palace, with an inscription by the celebrated Abbe Lanzi. Great honours were also paid to him by various literary societies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a learned Lutheran divine, was born Feb. 14, 1642, at Altenburg, in Misnia. After some school education, he studied at Jena and Kiel, and acquired great knowledge of the Oriental languages, under the instructions of Matthias Wasmuth. Still ambitious to add to his stock of learning, he pursued this object at Utrecht under Leusden, at London under Edmund Castell and Matthew Poole, and at Oxford under Pocock. On his return to Germany in 1671, he failed as a candidate for the place of assessor of the faculty of philosophy at Kiel; but was more successful the following year at Jena, where he took his degrees in philosophy, and taught the Oriental languages. In 1675 he was invited to Kiel to be Greek professor, on the recommendation of Wasmuth, his old master; whom, in 1678, he succeeded in the chair of Oriental languages, and held with it his Greek professorship until 1683, when he resigned the latter to Daniel Hasenmuller. In 1689 he took his degree of doctor, and became at the same time professor of divinity; but his reputation rests chiefly on his skill in the Oriental languages; and this he might have enjoyed without diminution, had he not adopted the whimsical opinion of his master Wasmuth, and maintained the relationship between the Greek and the Oriental languages, and the connection which the dialects of the one have with those of the other. This chimerical scheme of subjecting the Greek to the rules of the Hebrew, he defended in a small work, entitled “Graecismus facilitati suse restitutus, methodo nova, eaque cum praeceptis He braicis Wasmuthianis et suis Orientalibus, quam proxime harmonica, adeoque regulis 34 succincte absolutus,” Kiel, 1676, 8vo. This was twice reprinted, but raised him many enemies, not only on account of the scheme itself, but of his extravagant praise of Wasmuih, at the expence of Buxtorf, and other eminent scholars.

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

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

Upon the death of his patron the burgrave, he entered into the service of the count of Lignitz, and continued there some time but at last, resolving to retire, he chose for his residence the town of Dantzic, where he finished his work of the ancient “Daei,” and died of the plague, 1639. He wrote many other pieces besides the abovementioned, the titles of some of which are, “Sylvarum libri duo;” “Epigrammatum liber unus;” “Vesuvius, Poema Germanicum” “Barclay’s Argenis,” translated into German verse a German translation of “Grotius de Veritate,” &c.; “Opera poetica” “Prosodia Germanica;” “The Psalms of David,” translated into German verse. His poems, in correctness and elegance of versification, were so much superior to those of his predecessors, as to obtain for him the title of father of German poetry, but it does not appear that his example was for some time followed.

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

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

As Oporinus understood manuscripts very well, he took care to print none but the best. He left some works of his own, as, “Notae in Plutarchum;” “Polyhistoris scholia in prioraaliqua capita Solini;” “DariiTiberti epitome Vitarum Plutarchiab innumeris mendisrepurgata;” “Scholia in Ciceronis Tusculanas qusestiones;” “Annotationes ex diversis doctorum lucubrationibus collectae in Demosthenis orationes;” “Propriorum nominum Onomasticon.” He also made notes to some authors, and large tables of contents to others; as Plato, Aristotle, Pliny, &c. and several letters of his may be seen in a collection of letters printed at Utrecht in 1697. An account of his life was written by Andrew Lociscus, in an oration, “De vita et obitu Oporini.”

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

, an eminent divine, was born Oct. 3, 1651 at Beringhen, a small town in the county of Liege, He was admitted a licentiate in divinity at Louvain in 1681, and afterwards taught theology in the college of Adrian, and at the seminary of Malines; but was driven from thence by Humbert de Precipiano, archbishop of that city, for his attachment to the Jansenists; and was banished in 1704, having declared himself one of Steyaert’s principal adversaries; but, after two years, Louvain becoming part of the emperor’s dominions, M. Opstraet was appointed principal of the college de Faucon, which office he held till his death, November 29, 1720. His Latin works are numerous, and in request among the disciples of Jansenius and Father Quesnel, but are rather scarce in France. The principal are, “A Theological Dissertation on the Method of administering the Sacrament of Penitence,” against Steyaert; “Vera Doctrina de Baptismo LaborantiunV' 3 vols. 12mo, against Steyaert;” Theological Instructions for young divines;“” The good Shepherd,“which treats on the duties of pastors, and has been translated into French, 2 vols. 12mo;” The Christian Divine,“translated into French by M. de S. Andre de Beauchene, under the title of,” Le Directeur d'un jeune The*ologien,“1723, 12mo;” Theological Instructions concerning human Actions,“3 vols. 12mo;” A System of dogmatical, moral, practical, and scholastic Theology," in 3 vols, with others enumerated in our authorities.

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

, a learned 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a learned Italian Jesuit, was born at Florence in 1554, and descended from a noble family. He entered the society in 1572, where he was distinguished by the purity of his morals, and his general proficiency in literature, particularly in the Latin tongue. Having finished his studies, he took his master’s degree with great credit, and for some time was Latin tutor, until his tender health rendered the labours of teaching insupportable, and he was preferred to the easier offices of rector of the college at Nola, and afterwards president of the seminary for novices at Naples. In 1598 he was inviced to Rome, where he undertook to draw up a history of the Jesuits; but died in 1606, when he had completed only the first volume of that work, which was published at Rome in 1615, folio, under the title of “Historiae Societatis Jesu Pars prima, sive Ignatius,” and continued by fathers Francis Sacchini, Everard, Jouvency, and Cordara, the last of whom published his continuation in 1750. It makes in all 7 vols. bound usually in six, but is rarely found complete. Orlandini was also the author of “Anmice Litterae Societatis Jesu,” for the years 1583, 1584, and 1586 and also of “Vita Petri Fabri Soc. Jes.” &c.

, a learned and pious prince of the s blood royal of France, was the son of Philip duke of Orleans, afterwards regent, and of Mary Frances of Bourfron. He was born at Versailles, Aug. 4, 1703, and appeared first at court at the time the prince his father became regent of France. After the death of the regent he married Augusta Maria, of Baden, in 1724; a princess whose amiable qualifications made her death justly lamented by her consort, and people of all denominations. She died in 1726, having been married only two years. The prince, deeply affected with his loss, and sensible of the infelicity of titles^ pre-eminence, and all earthly enjoyments, sought for that comfort in the exercises of religion which courts cannot bestow. In 1730 he toot, in the abbey of St. Genevieve, an apartment mean and inconvenient, and in a manner sequestered from the world. He first retired to it only at the solemn festival, but resided in it more frequently after 1735; and, when he left the court in 1742, took up his constant residence there, nor returned more to his palace, except to attend the council, from which he seldom absented himself. In his retirement he practised the most rigid austerities; slept on a rough straw bed, rose early, passed several hours in prayer, fasted, drank nothing but water, and constantly deprived himself of the convenience of fire, even in the most inclement seasons; and was, in all his actions, an example of severe self-denial. His charitable disposition led him to relieve the indigent of every nation, found several public charities, and send missionaries to the remotest parts of the world.

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

, a Jesuit who acquired a considerable reputation in his own country as a historian, was born at Bourges in 1644. He was a teacher of the belles lettres in different colleges for several years, and became a celebrated preacher. Some separate lives which he published, in an agreeable style, and with judicious reflections, first attracted the public attention, but his reputation chiefly arose from his historical writings. Voltaire says that father D'Orleans was the first who chose revolutions for his subject, and adds, that the idea was not more happy than the execution. His “History of the Revolutions of England” met with the universal approbation of the French critics, and would have been, says Palissot, a perfect model, had the author concluded with the reign of Henry V11I, but after that he was no longer allowed to be impartial. English critics, however, have a less favourable opinion of his qualifications for writing such a history; and Echard, who translated part of the work, “History of the Revolutions in England under the family of the Stuarts, from 1603 to 1690,” 1711, 8vo, has very properly cautioned his readers against the author’s prejudices. Father D'Orleans, whose private character is represented as very amiable, died in the prime of life iti 1698. His works are, l.the history already mentioned, “Histoire des Revolutions d'Angleterre,” Paris, 1693, 3 vols. 4to, afterwards reprinted in 4 vols. 12ino, with heads. Francis Turpin published a continuation in 1786, in 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “Histoire des Revolutions d' Espagne,” ibid. 1734, 3 vols 4to. This, left incomplete by the author, was finished by Brumoy and Rouille, but it had not the same success as his revolutions of England, which his countrymen are willing to impute to the subject being less interesting. 3. “Histoire de M. Constance, premier minister du roi de Siam, et de la derniere revolution de cet etat,” ibid. 1692, 12mo. 4. “Histoire des deux conquerants Tartares Chimchi et Camhi, qui ont subjugue la Chine,” ibid. 1689, 8vo. 5. The lives, published separately, of Spinola, 1693, 12mo; of P. Cotton, 1688, 4to of Ricci, 1693, 12mo; of Mary of Savoy and the infanta Isabella, 1696, 12mo, and of Stanislaus Kostka, 1712, reprinted in 1727, with the life of Louis de Gonzaga. 6. “Sermons et instructions Chretiennes sur diverses matieres,” 1696, 2 vols. 12mo.

, an eminent historian, the son of Dr. Alexander Orme, a physician and surgeon in the service of the East India company, was born at Anjengo, in the Travancore country, in 1728. He was sent to England for hi education, and was entered at Harrow-school when he was only six years of age. After he left school, he was a year in the office of the accomptant-general of the African company, to be initiated in commercial transactions, and then embarked for Calcutta, where he arrived in 1742. As soon as he engaged in the company’s service, he acquired the highest reputation for the zeal with which he entered into their interests, and at the same time acquired such knowledge of the institutions, manners, and customs of the natives of India, that, in 1752, when some regulations were thought necessary in the police of Calcutta, he was desired to give his opinion on the subject. He accordingly drew up the greater part of “A general idea of the Government and People of Indostan.” In 1753 he returned to England, and was frequently consulted by men in power on Indian affairs, and respecting plans, at that time in agitation, for supporting the British interest in Hindoostan. Mr. Orme revisited India in 1754, on being appointed by the court of directors a member of the council at Fort St. George, and contributed much to those measures which finally gave to the English the superiority in India which they have ever since possessed. Mr. Orme held the office of commissary and accomptant-general during the years 1757-8, but in the latter year his health obliged him to embark for England, where he arrived in the autumn of 1760, and settling in London, employed himself in preparing “The History' of the Military Transactions of the British nation in Itidostan, from the year 1745,” the first volume of which, bringing down the history to 1756, was published in 1763, and extremely well received by the public. The East India company, duly sensible of his merits, and of the importance of his historical researches, not only gave him free access to all their records, but appointed him to be their historiographer, with a salary of 400l. per annum. To obtain the most accurate information respecting the war which was to be the subject of the second volume, he went over to France in 1773, where he was furnished liberally with various authentic documents, but it was not till 1778 that the work was brought to its completion. This contained all the events which took place in the English settlements in India from 1756 to 1763, with an investigation of the rise and progress of the English commerce in Bengal, and an account of the Mahommedan government from its establishment in 1200. In 1782 Mr. Orme published a work entitled “Historical Fragments of the Mogul empire of the Marattoes, and of the English concerns in Indostau from the year 1659.” This, which was an octavo volume, was his last publication, for though his literary pursuits were unremitted, yet his health was unequal to the exertions required for the composition. In 1792 he left the metropolis to enjoy in retirement the society of. his friends, and the recreation afforded by a well- assorted library. The place of his retirement was Ealing, where he was often visited by his friends, who appear to have loved him with great affection. Amongst these may be mentioned general Richard Smith, Mr. Robarts, one of the court of directors, Mr. Dairy mple, sir George Baker, and the late Mr. Owen Cambridge. But his books were his chief companions; and such was the active curiosity of his mind, that at the age of seventy he found in them a constant source of amusement. He continued his studies to the last month of his life, and a great many of his books bear interesting evidence of the strict attention with which he perused them; for their margins are filled with observations in his own hand writing. In the beginning of January 1801, he fell into a state of weakness and languor that prognosticated his speedy dissolution; and he expired on the 14th of that month, in the seventy-third year of his age.

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

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

, a polemical writer of the time of James I. was descended paternally from a Lancashire family, which assumed the name of an estate in that county, in the reign of Henry III. of which it still continues the possession. His grandfather, John Ormerod, a younger brother of this house, married a Lancashire lady of the name of Whitaker, who from the contiguity of the estate of Ormerod and Holme, was most probably of the family of the Whitakers of the latter place. It is not unlikely that this relationship to the learned divinity-professor of Cambridge, might influence the subject of this article in his choice of his university, and in his theological studies.

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

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

, a learned Spanish ecclesiastic, flourished in the fifth century, and was born at Tarragona in Catalonia. He was a disciple of St. Augustin; and, in the year 414, was sent to Africa by Eutropius and Paul, two Spanish bishops, to solicit Augustin’s assistance against heretics who infested their churches. He continued a year with this doctor, and in that time made a great proficiency in the knowledge of the Scriptures. In the year 415, Augustin dispatched him to Jerusalem, to consult St. Jeroni upon the origin of the soul; and Orosius on his return brought into Africa the relics of the martyr St. Stephen; whose body, as well as those of Nicomedes, of Gamaliel, and his son Abiba, had been found during Orosius’s residence in Palestine. At length, by the advice of Augustin, our author undertook the history we have of his in seven books, under the title, as is said, of “Miseria humana;” containing an account of the wars, plagues, earthquakes, floods, conflagrations, thunder and lightning, murder, and other crimes, which had happened from the beginning of the world to the year of Christ 416. The purpose of it was to shew, against some heathen objectors, that these calamities had not been more frequent, after the commencement of Christianity, than before; and farther, that it was owing to the Christian religion, that the Roman Cpmrnonwealth, which did not deserve to continue, was nevertheless then still subsisting. It has gone through several editions: as, Paris, 1506, 1524, and 1526, folio; Cologne, 1536, 1542, 1561, and 1572, 8vo, with the “Apologia de Arbitrii libertate;” at Mentz, in 1615, and lastly by Havercamp at Ley den, 1738, 4to, and 1767, the same edition with a different date. We have an Anglo-Saxon version by king Alfred, which was published with an English translation by the hon. Daines Barrington, in 1773, 3vo.

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

Orpheus is said to have improved the lyre, by increasing the number of its strings from four to seven. To him also is ascribed the invention of hexameter verse. He, doubtless, excelled in poetry of various kinds, but it is justly questioned whether he committed any of his verses to writing. He possessed great skill in the art of medicine. Perhaps this circumstance may serve to explain the fable of his recalling his wife Eurydice from hell. The particulars of his death are variously related by different writers; but it is generally agreed, that he died by violent means. After his death, he was ranked among the divinities.

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

, an Italian grammarian and poet, was born in 1652, at Bologna, son of Mario Orsi, a patrician of that city. His house was a kind of academy, in which several literary men met regularly. He married twice, and died in 1733, aged eighty-one, leaving some ingenious sonnets, pastorals, and many poetical pieces, besides other works in Italian. Some of them may be found in Muratori’s and Crescembeni’s treatises on poetry. His “Thoughts” on Bouhour’s “Maniere de Penser,” were published at Modena, 1735, 2 vols. 4to.

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

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

, an eminent divine among the dissenters, was born at Shrewsbury, Sept. 4, 1717, and at a proper age was sent to the free-school of his native place, where he went through the whole course of grammatical education, having stayed there somewhat more than eight years. In May 1733, he left the school, and went to Warrington, under the care of Dr. Charles Owen, the dissenting minister of that town, where he continued one year; after which, in August 1734, he went to Northampton, under the care of Dr. Doddridge, where he continued above seven years; and such was his progress in study, that in March 1738-9hewas chosen assistantto Dr.Doddridge in the academy; and he began his lectures in this capacity, with reading to the junior students in the classics and geography. About the same time he was examined before a committee of pastors in the neighbourhood, as to his qualifications for the ministerial office, and received an ample testimony of satisfaction and approbation. His first sermon was preached at Welford, in Northamptonshire, on the 15th of April, 1739. After this he continued to preach occasionally in all the neighbouring congregations, excepting on the first Sunday of every month, when he generally assisted Dr. Doddridge at Northampton. Becoming popular, he received several invitations from the congregations at Weiford, Rowell, and Harborough, to settle with them as their minister: and he was applied to, likewise, by the dissenting society at Salters’-hall, London, to preach there as a candidate; but he thought it best to decline these applications, as, while he was assistant at Northampton, he wag engaged in a very useful employment, and had daily op­'portunities of improving himself superior to what he should have had in any other station. The enjoyment which he had of Dr. Doddridge’s conversation, was esteemed by him as a most peculiar advantage.

In April 1741, died Mr. Berry, the minister of the Presbyterian meeting at Shrewsbury; and about the same time Mr. Dobson, the pastor of the Independent Church in that town, to which Mr. Orton’s father belonged, removed to Walsall, in Staffordshire. These two societies being thus vacant, concurred in an invitation to Mr. Orton, to accept the pastoral charge among them, promising, that in that case they would unite together in one congregation. Accordingly, having accepted their offer, he removed, in October 1741, to Shrewsbury, and, on the 18th of that month, preached his first sermon to the united congregations. In the following month, he had the misfortune to lose his father, who died at the age of fifty- two. This event was not only a great personal affliction to Mr. Orton, but brought upon him such a weight of cares, in addition to his various duties as a minister, that his health was materially injured; the consequence of which was, that he was laid under the necessity of having several assistants, in succession: as Mr. Francis Boult, who continued at Shrewsbury till the end of the year 1745; Mr. Moses Carter, who died in 1747; and Mr. Joseph Fownes. By Dr. Doddridge’s death Mr. Orton lost his much-honoured tutor, father, and friend, whose life he afterwards published. In March 1752, Mr. Orton was invited to assume the pastoral charge of the congregation belonging to Dr. Doddridge. Upon this his people at Shrewsbury were alarmed; and, apprehending that he might listen to the application, they sent him a most respectful, affection-r ate, and unanimous address, to intreat that he would not leave them. A separate address, to the same purpose, was made to him by the young persons of the society. He had no inclination to quit a situation in which he was comfortable and useful; especially as there were some circumstances at Northampton that were of a discouraging nature. Nevertheless, he thought it a proper piece of respect to take some time to consider of the invitation, which at length he declined.

Not long after this event, another attempt was made to draw Mr. Orton from Shrewsbury. He was applied to by a considerable congregation in Westminster, to succeed their late pastor, the Rev. Dr. Obadiah Hughes; but he immediately rejected the proposal, as he never had any inclination to settle in London, and as he was firmly persuaded that neither his health, nor his abilities, nor his sentiments, qualified him for a situation in the metropolis. On his refusal of this offer, it was accepted, in 1752, by the late Dr. Kippis.

From this time nothing material occurred, in the course of Mr. Orton’s ministry at Shrewsbury, till the year 1765. He was comfortable and happy among his people, and in the friendship and assistance of Mr. Fownes. But in that year his bodily infirmities had so far advanced upon him, that he was quite disabled from continuing in his public work. On the 15th of September, therefore, (which was his birth-day) he delivered his last sermon to his congregation. The Lord’s Supper was administered by him several times after this; but he durst not undertake to preach any more.

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

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

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

, a very learned critic, and the correspondent of many eminent English scholars, was born at Amsterdam, July 28, 1696, of a family originally from France. He was intended for commerce by his father, who nevertheless gave him a classical education under David Hoogstraten and the celebrated Hemsterhuis. It was Peter Bdrman, however, who prevailed on his father to change his destination, and allow him to become a scholar by profession. He was accordingly sent, in 1715, to the university of Leyden, where he studied the Greek language and literature under James Gronovius; history, antiquities, and rhetoric under Peter Burman, the oriental languages underHey man and Schaaf, and jurisprudence under Schulting and No.odt. Before his academical course was completed, viz. in 1718, he visited England, where one of his brothers John-Leonard was settled as a merchant. His object on this visit was to form an acquaintance with some of the literati of that age; but principally to inspect the public libraries in London, Oxford, and Cambridge. He remained, however, here only from July to the beginning of Autumn, when he returned to Leyden; and, having finished his studies, took the degree of doctor of law Feb. 3, 1721. He then went to the Hague, with a view to the bar, but became dissatisfied with the profession, and seems from this time to have relinquished every pursuit but that of general literature. In 1723 be began his travels by visiting Antwerp, Brussels, Louvain, and lastly France, where he spent a twelvemonth. At Paris he became acquainted with many eminent characters, particularly Monfaucon, Sallier, Fraguier, Sevin, Chamillart, Bouquet, Boivin, and Tournemine, who respectively introduced him to the societies of the learned, and to the most noted libraries and museums. In the month of August 1724, he returned to Amsterdam; but had not been long there before the dangerous illness of one of his brothers rendered it necessary for him to revisit London, where he remained a year, employed as he had been at Paris, in the company of the learned, and among the libraries. Here he became intimate with Bentley, Chishull, Sherard, Cunningham, Mead, Potter, Hutchinson, Markland, Wasse, &c. &c.

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

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

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

, a divine of considerable eminence, was a native of Bavaria, and born in 1498. He studied at Wittemburg and Nureinburg, and began to preach at the latter place in 1522. He is generally numbered among the worthies who promoted the reformation and among other services of great importance, contributed very much to enlighten the mind of the celebrated Cranmer, who became acquainted with him while abroad negociating some matters for Henry VI II. The unrestrained conversation of Osiander appeared to our countryman, at first, as a kind of libertinism it sounded harshly in his ear: and he would ask,“if such an opinion were false, how could it possibly possess itself of the minds of the greatest and most learned men of all ages, through such a tract of time?” But Osiander carried him boldly still higher into antiquity. “Tell me not,” said he, “what Austin says, and Jerome; but what Peter says, and Paul. Read your Bible; and say honestly, whether such and such doctrines are not plainly repugnant to such and such passages of Scripture?” Osiander, however, in the end did not in all things adhere to his own advice, and became the cause of great disturbances in the Lutheran churches.

This doctrine was opposed by many eminent divines; but Osiander persisted, and drew up a confession of faith, which was printed by order of the duke of Brandenburg, but highly disapproved by the Lutheran divines assembled at Augsburg. He was a studious and acute divine; but disposed to adopt novel and mystical opinions, and much disliked on account of his pride and arrogance. He shamefully treated the excellent Melancthon in his old age, who bore his insolence with a truly Christian spirit. Osiander died suddenly at Konigsberg, where he was minister and professor, in 1552. He wrote “Harmonia Evangelica” “Epistola ad Zninglium de Eucharistia;” “Dissertationes dure, de Lege et Evangelic et Justificatione;” “Liber de Imagine Dei, quid sit.” His son Luke was a Lutheran minister, and wrote an institution of the Christian religion, and other works. He died at Tubingen in 1604. And there was another Luke Osiander, who was chancellor of Tubingen, who died in 1638, and who left behind him a treatise “On the Omnipresence of Christ as Man.”

, grandson of the preceding Andrew, was born at Blauberen, in the duchy of Wirtemburg, in 1562, and became a Lutheran minister; after which he became deacon of the church of Aurach, and pastor of the church of Gigligen. He was next appointed preacher and counsellor to prince Lewis of Wirtemburg, and in 1592 he received the degree of doctor of divinity at “Tubingen. After various other promotions and honours, he died in 1617. He was the editor of” Biblia Sacra, Latine vulgata, cum Emendationibus et Explicationibus superiorum Versionum, et Observationibus ex Thebl. Andreoe, Herbrandi," &c. which passed through five editions in a few years, and is highly commended by father Simon, in his Crit. Hist, of the Old Testament. He was like wise author of several theological works.

, a Lutheran divine and professor, was a native of Vayingen, in the duchy of Wirtemburg, and was a provost of the university of Tubingen, Where he died in 1697. He is known as the author of “Commentarius in Pentateuchum,” in five volumes, folio, 1676—1678; also of Commentaries on Joshua, the book of Judges, Ruth, and the two books of Samuel, in 3 vols, fol. 1681—1687; of “Disputationes Academicae in praecipua et maxime controversa Novi Testament! Loca,” and other learned works.

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

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

, 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.

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

, nephew to the preceding, was canon of Evora; and, having been educated by his uncle, endeavoured to imitate his style; but not with much success; yet some are of opinion he had more learning. He is author of the following works, besides his uncle’s “Life:” 1. “Notationes in Hieronymi Osorii Paraphrasin Psalmorum,” subjoined to his uncle’s “Paraphrase,” in the third volume of'his works. Du Pin says, these “Remarks” are valuable, and filled with critical observations on the Hebrew language. 2. “Paraphrasis et Comrnentaria ad Ecclesiasten nunc primum edita.” 3. “Paraphrasis in Canticum Canticorum,” Lugd. 1611, 4to.

, a celebrated cardinal, and one of the greatest men of his time, was born at a small village in the county of Almagnac, Aug. 23, 1526. He was descended of indigent parents, and left an orphan at nine years of age, in very hopeless circumstances; but Thomas de Marca, a neighbouring gentleman, having observed his promising genius, took the care of his education, and placed him under the tutors of the young lord of Castlenau de Mugnone, his nephew and ward. D'Ossat made such a quick progress, that he became preceptor to his companion; and was sent in that character with the young nobleman and two other youths to Paris, where they arrived in May 1559. He discharged this trust with fidelity and care, till they had completed their course of study; and then sent them back to Gascony, in 1562. During this time he had made himself master of rhetoric and philosophy, and became a good mathematician; and being now at leisure to improve himself, he repaired to Bourges, where he studied the law under Cujacius. About this time he wrote a defence of Peter Rarnus, under whom he had studied philosophy, against James Charpentier, entitled “Expositio in disputationem Jacobi Carpenterii de Methodo,” Parisi 1564, to which Charpentier published a scurrilous reply, “Ad expositionem disputationis de methodo, contra Thessalum Ossatum responsio.” D'Ossat, having obtained his diploma at Bourges, returned to Paris in 1568, and applied himself to the bar. In this station his merit procured him the acquaintance and esteem of many distinguished persons; and, among the rest, of Paul de Foix, then counsellor to the parliament of Paris, took him in his company to Rome, in 1574.

This was the first step towards making his fortune; for the same friend being afterwards made archbishop of Thoulouse, and appointed by Henry III. ambassador in ordinary at the court of Rome in 1580, engaged D‘Ossat to be secretary to the embassy; and the archbishop dying in 1581, his secretary was employed in the same character by cardinal d’Este, protector of the French affairs at Rome. He continued in this service till the death of the cardinal protector, in 1586; who by will left him 4000 crowns, and offered him a diamond worth 20,000 crowns, to keep as a security till the legacy should be paid; but D‘Ossat generously refused the pledge, though he had no hopes of ever receiving the legacy. Before this time he had entered into the church, and been ordained priest; and during his residence with the cardinal, acquired a knowledge of the intrigues of the court of Rome, and displayed so much political ability, that he was -continued in the secretaryship under cardinal de Joyeuse, who succeeded d’Este. This was done by the express command of Henry ill. that he might be a kind of political tutor to that cardinal, who, being then only twenty-six years of age, had not gained sufficient experience; and he conducted himself so agreeably to Joyeuse, that he presented him in 1588 to the priory of St. Martyn du Vieux Bellesme; and the same year he was a second time invested with the post of counsellor to the praesidial court of Melun, which he had obtained before he left Paris.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1720, his “Arguments and Reflections on the Bible” were published, and soon appeared in English at the instance of the Society for propagating Christian knowledge; and as Mr. Ostervald in 1724 printed a Bible with these reflections added to the respective chapters, the same was done in England; and the Bible thus illustrated has been often reprinted, until within these few years. In 1722 he published a volume of “Sermons,” which were, like all his works, reprinted in various languages. He was at this time at Basil with his son, a temporary retirement which became now necessary to his health; yet he did not much intermit his usual labours of preaching, teaching, and the carrying on of an extensive correspondence. At length he was struck with apoplexy in August 1746, but survived in a weak and languid, though resigned state, until April 14, 1747, when he breathed his last in the eighty-fourth year of his age. During his illness, and after his death, the inhabitants of Neufchatel shewed every mark of profound veneration for his character, and of regret for his loss.

, a learned professor of the mathematics and of the Hebrew language, was born in the county of Merckenstein, in Austria, in 1511. He studied successively at the universities of Ingoldstadt, Leipsic, and Basil, from which last he went to Memmingen, in Swabia, on an invitation from the magistrates to become mathematical professor in that city; and afterwards to Tubingen, and was elected professor of Hebrew, with which he joined a course of lectures on the mathematics. In 1552 he accepted of the united professorships of mathematics and Hebrew at Friburg, which he held for more than twentyseven years. He died in 1579, in the sixty-ninth year of his age. He was author of “Commentaria in Theorias Planetarum;” “De primo mobili;” “Commentaria in Sphaeram Joannis de Sacrobosco;” “In Almagestum Ptolomaei Annotationes;” “Gentium Kalendarium;” “Oratio funebris de Obitu Sebastiani Munsterii,” written in the Hebrew language. He likewise translated the New Testament into Hebrew, and wrote paraphrases on several books of the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That his mange was quite cur‘d, and his lice were all kill’d."

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After having gone through his grammatical learning with great credit, he pursued his studies at Bremen, Groningen, Franeker, and Leyden, under the most eminent professors of his time, and was distinguished for his acquaintance with the classics, and the great progress he made in divinity and sacred criticism, which he studied in their original sources, without satisfying himself with that second-hand information to be derived from abridgments, pamphlets, and periodical journals, which last, his biographer calls “eruditio journalistica,” and which is very well understood in our own days and country. Among other requisites for a scholar of real powers and erudition, he applied with great diligence to the oriental languages, and was esteemed so well acquainted with Jewish learning, that his contemporaries did not hesitate to compare him with Buxtorf and Cocceius, whose hypothesis on the Hebrew points he adopted in preference to that of Louis Cappel, although this, as might have been expected, involved him in a controversy.

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

Among his works, which had the greatest reputation, are, 1. “Introductio in accentuationem Hebraeoruni metricam & prosaicam,” 1714 and 1715, 4to, which procured him three highly complimentary letters from Burman, Reland, and Vitringa. It was in his preface that he maintained the antiquity of the Hebrew points. 2. Several tracts on the “Decalogue” and 3. A tract, of which there is a copy in the British Museum, and which was probably a thesis, “Encomium taciturnitatis, rituperium loquacitatis,” Amst. 1679, we should be inclined to attribute to him, if the date permitted.

, a learned French ecclesiastic, of the seventeenth century, was a native of Chinon in Tourraine, and a canon of Tours, He enjoyed the reputation of an universal scholar; was a poet, mathematician, divine, a controversial writer, and even a musician, although in the latter character he appears to have escaped the very minute researches of Dr. Burney in his valuable history of that art. He had been music- master of the holy chapel at Paris for ten years, before he became a canon of Tours. He wrote a great many works, among which some of his controversial pieces against the protestants, his “History of Music from its origin to the present time,” and his dissertation on Vossius’s treatise “De poematum cantu et viribus rythmi,” remain in manuscript. Those which were published, are, 1. “Secret pour composer en musique par un art nouveau,” Paris, 1660. 2. “Studiosis sanctarum scripturarum Biblia Sacra in lectiones ad singulos dies, per legem, prophetas, et evangelium distributa, et 529 carminibus mnemonicis comprehensa,” ibid. 1668; of this a French edition was published in 1669. 3. “Motifs de reunion a l‘eglise catholique, presentes a ceux de la religion pretendue-reforme*e de France, avec un avertissement sur la reponse d’un ministre a Poffice du saint Sacrement,” ibid. 1668. 4. “Le motifs de la conversion du comte de Lorges Montgommery,” dedicated to Louis XIV. ibid. 1670. 5. “Defense de Tancienne tradition des eglises de France, sur la mission des premiers predicateurs evangeliques dans les Gaules, du temps des apotres ou de leurs disciples immediats, et de Pusage des ecrits des S. S. Severe-Sulpice, et Gregoire de Tours, et de Tabus qu‘on en faiten cette rnatiere et en d’autres pareilles,” ibid. 178. This was addressed to the clergy and people of To'irs by the author, who held the same sentiments as M.de Ma re a, respecting St. Denis. 6. “L‘Art de la science des Nombres, en Francois et en Latin, avec un preface de i’excellence de Farithmetique,” ibid. 1677. 7. “Architecture harmonique, ou application de la doctrine des proportions, de la musique a ^architecture, avec un addition a cet ecrit,” ibid. 1679, 4to. 8. “Calendarium novum, perpetuum, et irrevocable,” 1682; but this work he was induced to suppress by the advice of his friend M. Arnauld, who thought that his ideas in it were too crude to do credit to his character. His last publication was, 9. “Breviarium Turonense, renovatum, et in melius restitutum,” 1685. He died at Tours, July 19, 1694, and the following lines,

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

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

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

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

, an accomplished English gentleman, and polite writer, the descendant of an ancient family, was the son of Nicholas Overbury, of Bourton on the Hill, near Morton in Marsh, in Gloucestershire, esq. by Mary his wife, daughter of Giles Palmer, of ComptonScorfen, in the parish of Ilmington, in Warwickshire. He was born at Compton-Scorfen in the house of his grandfather by the mother’s side, about 1581. In Michaelmas term 1595, he became a gentleman commoner of Queen’s college, in Oxfordshire, where he made great progress in logic and philosophy, and November 15, 1598, took the degree of B. A. which being completed by determination in the Lent following, he left the university for the Middle Temple, where he had been before entered in order to study the municipal law, but it does not appear that he remained here long. We are told that in a little time he set out for France, and on his return was accounted a very finished gentleman, and well qualified to shine at court, which, unhappily, was his ambition.

Soon after his arrival he contracted an intimacy with the infamous favourite of Jarnes I. Robert Carr, afterwards earl of Somerset. This man’s history is too well known to render it necessary to dwell upon it in this place. Intoxicated as he was with an advancement at court, of which he was so unworthy, he was not wholly insensible of his own ignorance and inexperience; and he found in sir Thomas Overbury a judicious and sincere adviser, who endeavoured to instill into him the principles of prudence and discretion; and so long as he was content to be ruled by Overbury’s friendly counsels, he enjoyed, what Hume says is rare, the highest favour of the prince, without being hated by the people. It is easy, therefore, to see what attached Carr to Overbury; and the latter, who could not but perceive the inferiority of the royal favourite, appears to have connected himself with him from motives of ambition, which, for a time, he had every prospect of gratifying. In 1608 he was knighted by the influence of Carr, and his father was appointed one of the judges for Wales. The year following, sir Tnornas made another tour on the continent, which is said to have produced “Observations upon the Provinces United; and on the State of France,” Lond. 1651, 12mo; but it is very doubtful whether he was the real author of this work.

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

With Rochester she had already carried on a criminal intercourse, which, instead of satiating their desires, made them lament their unhappy fate, and long for an union that should be indissoluble. So momentous an affair, however, could not be concluded without consulting Overbury, with whom Rochester was accustomed to share all his secrets, and who, in fact, had been privy to his connection with lady Essex, and had even promoted it by dictating to Rochester those ingenious and passionate letters by which, in a great measure, the lady was won. Like an experienced courtier, says Hume, he thought that a conquest of this nature would throw a lustre on the young favourite, and would tend still farther to endear him to James, who was charmed to hear of the amours of his court. But when Rochester hinted his design of obtaining a divorce and marrying the countess, Overbury used every method to dissuade him from the attempt, representing how difficult it would be to procure a divorce, and how disgraceful to marry the woman whose mind these two friends had combined to debauch! And, in what the historian calls the “zeal of friendship,” he went so far as to threaten Rochester, that he would separate himself for ever from him, if he could so far forget his honour and his interest as to prosecute the intended marriage.

It was now that Overbury was to experience the nature of that friendship that is cemented only by vice. Rochester, over whose mind his passion for the countess had gained the complete ascendancy, revealed the above conversation to her; and when her rage and fury broke out against Overbury, he had also the weakness to enter into her vindictive projects, and to swear vengeance against his friend. Some contrivance was necessary for the execution of their purpose, and they hit upon one wh‘ich, had it first appeared in a drama, would have been censured as unnatural. Rochester addressed himself to the king; and after complaining, that his own indulgence to Overbury had begotten in him a portion of arrogance, which was extremely disagreeable, he procured a commission for his embassy to Russia; which he represented a* a retreat for his friend, both profitable and honourable. But, when consulted by Overbury, he earnestly dissuaded him from accepting this offer, and took on himself the office of satisfying the king, if he should be displeased at his refusal. Overbury fell into the snare, and declined his majesty’s offer; on which Rochester again addressed the king, aggravated the insolence of Overbury ’s conduct, and on April 21, 1613, obtained a warrant for committing him to the Tower, which James intended, as Hume gently expresses it, as a slight punishinent for his disobedience. But Rochester had a far deeper design, aad had placed one of his creatures as lieutenant in the Tower for the vile purpose he meditated, and Overbury in the mean time was confined so strictly, as to be debarred the sight even of his nearest relations; and no communication of any kind was allowed with him during near six months which he lived in prison,

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

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

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

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

, one of the finest poets of the Augustan age, was the son of a Roman knight, and a native of Sulmo, a town in the county of the Peligni, now Abruzzo. He was born in the year of Rome 7 Jo; that memorable year when the consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, were slain in the battle of Mutina against Antony. From his youth, his inclinations lay towards poetry; which, however, upon his father’s entreaties, he forsook, and, with a view to the practice of the law, studied eloquence under those eminent masters, Aurelius Fuscus and Porcius Latro, whose characters Seneca has drawn, and also mentions Ovid’s improvements under them. Such was his diligence and success, that he determined several private causes very judiciously, and frequently pleaded with great force of eloquence in the court of the centumviri. He was likewise made one of the triumviri, who were magistrates of great authority, and tried capital causes.

Soon after he had put on the toga virilis, which was done at seventeen, Augustus honoured him with the latus davits, an ornament worn only by persons of quality; but, upon the death of his elder brother, by which he came to an easy fortune, he bad adieu to law and the bar, and devoted himself entirely to poetry and pleasure; and being a man of wit, he soon became the companion and favourite of the wits of his day, Tibullus, Severus, Sabinus, Flaccus, &c. and the learned Hyginus is said likewise to have been his intimate friend. He soon discovered a genius adapted to all kinds of poetry; in which he might have been without a competitor, if his fancy had been regulated a little by judgment; but in his time custom laid no extraordinary restraint on the luxuriances of the pen, and Ovid was probably most flattered for those indecencies for which he is now most censured. He married thrice, and two of his wives he repudiated soon after marriage; but seems to have b^en affectionately attached to the third, Perilla, who appears indeed to have deserved the praises he bestows on her beauty and virtue. With her he lived very happily during his long course of prosperity; and she proved a great consolation to him in that reverse which he experienced in his latter days.

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

The first edition of Ovid is that printed by Balthasar Azoguidi, at Bologna, in 1471; the second was printed in the same year, by Sweynheym and Pannartz, at Rome; but the former is of the greatest rarity, four copies only being known, and none of them perfect. Of more modern editions, the best are, that of Heinsius, Amst. 1661, 3 vols. 12mo; and of Burman, Amst. 1727, 4 vols. 4to. Those printed by the Aldus’s, in 1502, 1515, and 1533, are also of great value, but not so easily accessible.

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

, 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.

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

Such are the outlines of the life of a gentleman who certainly is entitled to a more ample memorial; one who to very extensive and profound literature, added the most amiable manners, the strictest attention to the duties of his station, and the most exemplary conduct in his several relations, both public and domestic. He had a truly pious frame of mind, and was perhaps superior in biblical erudition to most of his contemporaries.

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

Besides these, Dr. Owen published in 1785, “Xenophon’s Memorabilia,” left unfinished by Dr. Edward Edwards, of Jesus-college, Oxford; and in 1766, “Rowland’s Mona Antiqua.” He was also author of “A Collation of the Account of the dedication of the Temple, printed in The Origin of Printing,'” 1776, 8vo; and “Remarks on the time employed on Caesar’s two Expeditions into Britain,” in “Archseologia,” II. 159; and contributed very liberally to Bowyer’s Conjectures on the New Testament, and Mr. Bowyer testified his gratitude by leaving Dr. Owen a legacy of 100l.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With this dislike to the discipline of the university, he appears to have connected at the same time many perplexing thoughts respecting his spiritual state, which ended in a sort of melancholy that lasted about five years, during which he seemed alienated from his friends and accustomed pursuits. He was roused to activity, however, as soon as the rebellion broke out, on which occasion he appeared a decided supporter of the measures of the parliament. The first consequence of this was, that his uncle, who was a zealous royalist, resented his conduct, settled his estate upon another, and died without leaving him any thing. About this time, however, sir Robert Dormer, of Ashcot, in the parish of Great Milton, took him into his family as chaplain, and tutor to his eldest son, a task for which he was eminently fitted; and he afterwards became chaplain to John lord Lovelace of Hurley, in Berkshire, a loyalist, who treated Mr. Owen with respect, from an opinion of his great learning; but when this nobleman went to joint the king’s army, Mr. Owen came up to London, and took lodgings in Charter-house yard. While here, going one day to Aldermanbury church, with a view of hearing Mr. Caiamy, it happened that a stranger preached, and the effect of his discourse was to remove all those doubts with which Mr. Owen had been perplexed for some years, and to restore the tranquillity of his mind on religious matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the short remainder of Dr. Owen’s life, he was much afflicted with the stone and asthma, aggravated, if not brought on, by unremitting study, which, however, he still continued, until confined, about a month before his death, which took place at his house at Ealing, August 24, 1683, in the sixty-seventh year of his age. He was interred in the dissenters’ burying-ground in Bunhill-fields, where a monument was erected to his memory.

The character of Dr. Owen, apart from the share he had in the troubles of his country, seems entitled to the praise bestowed by his various biographers. In person he was tall, grave in aspect, of a comely and majestic figure, and his deportment was in every respect that of a gentleman. As he was indisputably the most learned, he was at the same time the most moderate and candid of the nonconformists. With great talents, keenness, and spirit for controversy, he confined himself strictly to argument, and abstained from personal reflections and arrogance. As a writer he was perhaps the most voluminous of his brethren. His works amount to seven volumes in folio, twenty in quarto, and about thirty in octavo.

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

, a learned judge, and author of a book of reports, was the son of Richard Owen, esq. of Condover, in Shropshire, and educated in Oxford, but in what college seems doubtful. Having taken a degree in arts, he left the university, and repairing to Lincoln’s Inn, London, studied law, and became an eminent counsellor. In 1583 he was elected Lent-reader of that society. In 1590 he was made serjeant at law, and- queen’s serjeant soon after. He arrived at length at the dignity of judge of the common pleas, which office he is said to have executed during five years with great abilities and integrity. He died in December 1598, and was buried on the south side of the choir in Westminster abbey, where a monument was erected to his memory. He had the reputation of a learned man, and a patron of learning. His “Reports in the King’s Bench and Common Pleas, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and some few cases in the time of king James,” (which last could not have been his) were printed in folio, in 1656. Though there is a vacancy in the pages of this volume from 77 to 80 inclusive, the book is perfect.

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

, an eminent French mathematician, was descended from a family of Jewish extraction, but which had long been convertsto the Romish faith and some of whom had held considerable places in the parliaments of Provence. He was born at Boligneux, in Brescia, in 1640; and being a younger son, though his father had a good estate, it was thought proper to breed him to the church, that he might enjoy some small benefices which belonged to the family, to serve as a provision for him. Accordingly he studied divinity four years; but, on the death of his father, devoted himself entirely to the mathematics, to which he had always been strongly attached. Some mathematical books, which fell into his hands, first excited his curiosity; and by his extraordinary genius, without the aid of a master, he made so great a progress, that at the age of fifteen he wrote a treatise of that kind, of which, although it was not published, he inserted the principal parts in some of his subsequent works.

For a maintenance he first went to Lyons to teach the mathematics, in which he had considerable encouragement; and after some time his generous disposition procured him still better success elsewhere. Among his scholars were two foreigners, who expressing their uneasiness to him at being disappointed of some bills of exchange for a journey to Paris, he asked them how much would do, and being told 50 pistoles, he lent them the money immediately, even without their note for it. Upon their arrival at Paris, mentioning this generous action to M. Daguesseau, father of the chancellor, this magistrate was touched with it; and engaged them to invite Ozanam to Paris, with a promise of his favour. The opportunity was eagerly euibraced; and the business of teaching the mathematics here soon brought him in a considerable income: but he wanted prudence for some time to make the best use of it. He was young, handsome, and sprightly; and much aduicted both to gaming and gallantry, which continually drained his purse. Among others, he had a love intrigue with a woman, who lodged in the same house with him, and gave herself out for a person of condition. However, this expence in time led him to think of matrimony, and he soon after married a young woman without afortune, but for this defect she made amends by her modesty, virtue, and sweet temper; so that though the state of his purse was not amended, yet he experienced a long course of domestic happiness. He had twelve children by her, who all died young; and he was lastly rendered quite unhappy by the death of his wife also, which happened in 1701. Neither did this misfortune come single: for the war breaking out about the same time, on account of the Spanish succession, it swept away all his scholars, who, being foreigners, were obliged to leave Paris. Thus he sunk into a very melancholy state; under which, however, he received some relief, and amusement, from the honour of being admitted this same year an eleve of the royal academy of sciences.

He seems to have had a pre-sentiment of his death, from some lurking disorder within, of which no outward symptoms appeared. In that persuasion he refused to engage with some foreign noblemen, who offered to become his scholars; alleging that he should not live long enough to carry them through their intended course. Accordingly he was seized soon after with an apoplexy, which terminated his existence in less than two hours, on the 3d of April, 1717, at 77 years of age.

We are told that he knew too much of astronomy to give into judicial astrology; and obstinately refused all that was offered him to engage him to calculate nativities. Once indeed he submitted to the importunity of a count of the empire, whom he had sufficiently warned not to believe him. He drew up by astronomy the scheme of his nativity, and then without employing the rules of astrology, foretold him all the instances of good fortune, which ca.ne into his head. The count at the same time procured his horoscope to be taken by a physician, who was greatly infatuated with astrology, and who followed exactly all the rules of that art. Twenty years after the count informed Mr. Ozanam, that all his predictions were come to pass, and that none of the physician’s had their effect. This account gave him a very different satisfaction from what was intended. The count thought to compliment him upon his skill in astrology, but it only served to confirm him in his opinion of the absurdity of that pretended science.

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.

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

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

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.”

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

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

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

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

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.”

It was at this time, however, that Pace fell under cardinal Wolsey’s displeasure; the effects of which are said to have been very serious. The cardinal is thought to have been enraged against him, first, because he had shewn a readiness to assist Charles duke of Bourbon with money, for whom the cardinal had no great affection: and, secondly, because he had not forwarded the cardinal’s design of obtaining the papal chair with so much zeal as Wblsey expected. Such are the reasons assigned by some historians for Wolsey’s displeasure, who is said to have ordered matters in such a manner, that for nearly the space of two years, Pace received no instructions from his court as to his proceedings at Venice; his allowance for expences was also withdrawn, and no answer returned to his letters. On one occasion, when the Venetian ambassador residing in London asked Wolsey whether he had any commands for the English ambassador at Venice, he answered Paceus decipit Begem: and this singular treatment, we are told, so affected Pace that he became insane. As soon as the king was informed of this, Pace was ordered home; and, being carefully attended by physicians at the king’s command, was restored in a short time to his senses, and amused himself by studying the Hebrew language, with the assistance of Robert Wakefield. In the interval, he was introduced to the king at Richmond, who expressed much satisfaction at his recovery; and admitted him to a private audience, in which he remonstrated against the cardinal’s cruelty to him. But the cardinal was too powerful at this time, and when urged by the king to answer the charge against him, he summoned Pace before him, and sat in judgment, with the duke of Norfolk and others, who condemned Pace, and sent him to the Tower of London; where he was confined for two years, till discharged at length by the king’s command. Pace, thus degraded, and depressed in body and mind, resigned his deanries of St. Paul and Exeter, a little before his death; and, retiring to Stepney for his health, died there, in 1532, when not quite fifty years of age.

There is an elegant and just character of him by Leland, written upon his return from Venice; and he certainly was much esteemed by the learned men of his time, especially by sir Thomas More and Erasmus. The latter admired Pace for his candour and sweetness of temper; and was so much afflicted at his misfortunes,that he could never forgive the man that caused them. He styles him utriusque literature calentissimus; and wrote more letters to him than to any one of his learned friends and correspondents. Stow gives him the character of a right worthy man, and one that gave in council faithful advice: learned he was also, says that antiquary, “and endowed with many excellent parts and gifts of nature; courteous, pleasant, and delighting ia music; highly in the king’s favour, and well heard in matters of weight.” There is extant a remarkable letter of his to the king, written in 1527, in which he very honestly gives his opinion concerning the divorce; and Fiddes observes, that he always used a faithful liberty to the cardinal, which brought him at last to confinement and distraction.

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

, a Spanish artist, supposed to have been born in 1571, at Seville, is said by Mr. Fuseli, to owe his reputation more to theory, writing, and the celebrity of his scholars Cano and Velazquez, than to the superiority of his works. He was a pupil of Luis Feniandez, but, though partial to the great style, does not appear to have studied it in Italy. With sufficient correctness of outline, judgment in composition, dignity of characters, propriety of costume, observance of chiaroscuro and perspective, Pacheco displeases by want of colour, timidity of execution, and dryness of style. Seville possesses the best of his historic performances; of his numerous portraits, those of his wife and Miguel de Cervantes were the most praised. He possesses considerable erudition, and there is much wit and humour in his epigrams. He died in 1654. Of his works we know only one, entitled “Arte de la Pintura, su antiguedad y grandezas,” Seville, 1649, 4to.

, a celebrated abbot of Tabenna in Egypt, was born about the year 292, of heathen parents. He bore arms at the age of twenty, and was so touched with the charitable works of some Christians, that he returned to Thebais when the war ended, and embraced Christianity. He afterwards placed himself under the direction of a solitary named Palemon, and made so astonishing a progress in religion with this excellent master, that he became founder of the monastery of Tabenna, on the banks of the Nile, peopled Thebais with holy solitaries, and had above 5000 monks under his care. His sister founded a convent of nuns on the other side of the Nile, who lived in a community, and practised great austerities. St. Pachomius died May 3, 348. We have some of his “Epistles” remaining, a “Rule,” and some other pieces in the library of the fathers. M. Arnauld D'Andilly has, translated a life of him into French, which may be found among those of the fathers of the desert.

, an eminent Greek, flourished about 1280, under the reign of Michael Paleologus, and Andronicus his successor. He was a person of high birth r and had acquired no less knowledge in church-affairs in the great posts he had among the clergy of Constantinople, than of state-matters in the high employments he held m the court of the emperor; so that his “History of Michael Paleologus and Andronicus” is the more esteemed, as he was not only an eye-witness of the affairs of which he writes, but had also a great share in them. This history was published by Poussines, a Jesuit, Gr. et Lat. “ex intorpr. et cum not. P. Possini,” Rome, 1666—69, 2 vols. fol. Pachymera composed also some Greek verses; but they were little esteemed, and never printed. Brucker mentions a compendium of the Aristotelian philosophy published from his manuscripts; and Tilman published his paraphrase on the epistles of Dionysius the Areopagite, “Georgii Pachymerae Paraphrasis in decem epistolas bead Dionysii Areopagitæ,” Paris, 1538.

, antiquary and librarian to the duke of Parma, and historiographer of the order of Malta, was born at Turin, Nov. 13, 1710. After studying in the university of Turin, he took the religious habit in the order of the Theatins, at Venice, and then went to Bologna to study mathematics and natural philosophy under the celebrated Beccari. It appears that he began his subsequent literary career with the last-mentioned pursuit; and that as soon as he had attained the higher orders, he was appointed professor of philosophy in the college of Genoa; and was one of those who first dared, to explode, from the schools of Italy, the old rooted prejudices of fantastic systems, and to substitute for them the eternal truths discovered by Newton. He did not, however, long remain in the professorship of philosophy, at Genoa, but quitted philosophy for divinity, and devoted ten years to preaching and the composition of sermons, by neither of which he acquired much reputation; but within this period he published some orations, his “Treatise on the Antiquities of Hipa Transone,” the ancient Cupra; and three years after, his “Explanation of an ancient engraved Stone.”

The precise date of Father Paciaudi’s most meritorious labours may be properly fixed at 1747, the thirty-sixth of kis life; and, from that time to 1760, he was seen almost in a state of continual preregrination at Naples, at Florence, at Venice, and at Rome. In the first of these cities, during the years 1747, 48, and 49, he published a learned “Dissertation on a Statue of Mercury,” in 4to; “ObserTations on some foreign and odd Coins,” likewise in 4to and, “A Series of Medals representing the most remarkable Events of the Government of Malta,” in folio. At Florence appeared in 1750, in 4to, his “Treatise on the ancient Crosses and Holy Monuments which are found at iui” at Venice, in the same year, his unrivalled work, “De sacris Christianorum Balneis” and at Rome, from 1751 to 1756, no less than eight volumes in 4to, containing as many different works, issued from his pen; the best of which was accounted the treatise “De Athletarum Cubistesi.” His position, in this disquisition, was, that the Greeks, though they placed dancing in the same rank as the military march, considered it as an art tending to regulate, adjust, and beautify the movements of the body, and divided it into four genera according to its various application to religious ceremonies, warlike exercises, theatrical performances, and domestic enjoyments; yet the cubistic art, whose object is to teach jumping and uncommon corporeal exertions, although perfectly known, was never held in great estimation in ancient Greece.

The year 1757 is perhaps the most remarkable in Paciaudi’s literary life; that being the period in which he entered into a correspondence with count Cayius, and began to supply him with numberless heads of valuable information for his “Recueii d' Antiquity’s.” Paciaudi may, in fact, be considered if not one of the authors, at least as a contributor to that work. And his letters, which were published in 1802 at Paris, are a proof of the ample share of fame to which he is entitled in this respect. This correspondence was carried on for eight years, from 1757 to 1765. But neither were Paciaudi’s powers confined to it alone, nor was he without further employments during that period It was then (in 1761) that he published his capital work “Monumenta Peloponnesia,” in 2 vols. 4to, containing a complete illustration of those celebrated statues, busts, bas-reliefs, and sepulchral stones, which, from the continent and the islands of Peloponnesus, had been removed to Venice, and which formed a part of the numerous collection of antiquities possessed by the illustrious family of Nani, in that metropolis. Then too it was that he received from the celebrated Parmesan minister Tillot, the invitation to go to Parma to superintend the erection of the library which had been projected by his royal highness the Infant Don Philip.

From a confidential declaration to count Cayius, it appears, that Mr Paciaudi was highly satisfied with his employment. He considered it as an opportunity of rendering useful his extensive erudition, without those inconveniencies which attend the necessary intercourse with the world. He therefore engaged in the business with a zeal bordering on enthusiasm. Besides the acquisition which he made of the excellent library of count Pertusati at Home, in 1762, he went to Paris in search of other books; and such was his exertion, that, in less than six years, he collected more than sixty thousand volumes of the best xvorks of every kind, and thus erected one of the most copious libraries in Italy. He also compiled such an excellent “Catalogue raisonne*e” of its articles as deserves to be adopted as a model by all who are at the head of large bibliographical establishments.

Whilst he was thus active in the organization of the library, he received additional honours and commissions from the royal court of Parma. In 1763 he was appointed antiquary to his royal highness, and director of the excavations which, under the authority of government, had been undertaken in the ancient town of Velleja, situated in the Parmesan dominions; and in 1767, on the expulsion of the Jesuits, he was declared “president of studies,” with the power of new modelling as he thought proper, the whole system of public instruction throughout the state. In this new organization of studies he displayed the same spirit of order by which he had been already distinguished in the formation of the library. He endeavoured to arrange the different subjects in the minds of his pupils as he had formerly classified the books upon the different shelves.

Notwithstanding so many signal services to the court of Parma, Paciaudi fell a victim to mean intrigues, and lost the favour of his sovereign. He had been intimately connected with the minister who then happened to be disgraced, and was in some measure involved in the same misfortune. He forfeited his places. But, conscious of his own integrity, he did not choose to leave Parma, and patiently waited for the transit of the storm. His innocence being soon ascertained, he was restored to his several functions, and to the good opinion of the prince. He made, however, of this favourable event, the best use that a prudent man could do; he endeavoured to secure himself against a similar misfortune in future, by soliciting permission to retire to his native country; and this “voluntary exile,” says M. Dacier, in the eulogy of Paciaudi, “banished the last remains of suspicion against him. Nothing was now remembered but his merit and his zeal: his loss was severely felt; and the most engaging solicitations were made to him to resume his functions. In vain did he plead in excuse his advanced age, and the necessity of repose; his excuses were not admitted, and he was finally obliged to return to Parma.”

Mr. Paciaudi was an excellent man: religious, disinterested, and cordial; and although not without personal vanity, and often chargeable with severity of criticism on his antagonists, was always kind and polite, beloved by the great, consulted by the learned, and esteemed by people of every description. He was intimately connected with the greatest literary men of his age, among whom, besides Caylus, it is sufficient to mention the illustrious Winkelmann, and the author of the Travels of Anacharsis, to whom he stood indebted for the academical honours which he received at Paris.

, an eminent lawyer and philosopher, called Pacius de Beriga, from the name of a country seat belonging to his father’s family, near Vicenza, was born at the latter city in 1550. His parents bestowed every pains on his education, and he is said to have made such progress in his first studies as to have composed a treatise on arithmetic at the age of thirteen. For farther proficiency he was sent to Padua, with his brother Fabius, who afterwards became a physician of eminence, and is mentioned with great honour by the medical biographers. Julius, after taking his degree of doctor in law, returned to his own country, where, in the course of his extensive reading, he became acquainted with the sentiments of the reformers, and concealed his attachment to them with so little care, that he was menaced by the horrors of the inquisition, from which he escaped to Geneva. This step being attended with the Joss of his property, he gained a livelihood for some lime by teaching youth, until his character becoming known, he was encouraged to give lectures on civil Jaw, which he did for ten years with great success and reputation. At Geneva also he married a lady whose family had fled from Lncca for the cause of religion, and had a family of ten children by her.

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

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

, a Latin tragic poet, was a native of Brindisi, the ancient Brundusium, and nephew to Ennius. He flourished at Rome about 154 B. C. According to his last biographer, he was held in high esteem by C. Lelius, and particularly by Cicero, who affirmed him to be superior to Sophocles in his tragedy of “Niptra,” and classed“him in the first rank of tragic poets. They are said likewise to have looked upon every one as an enemy to Roman literature who had temerity enough to despise his tragedies, particularly his” Antiope.“We have nothing, however, of his works left except some fragments in Maittaire’s” Corpus Poetarum." Pacuvius was a painter also, as well as a poet; and Pliny speaks of one of his pictures which was placed in the temple of Hercules, and was admired by the connoisseurs of those times. He died at Tarentum, when beyond his ninetieth year. He wrote his own epitaph, which is preserved in Aulus Gellius. Annibale di Leo, who was also born at Brindisi, published in 1764 a dissertation on his life and writings, in order to do honour to his native place, which certainly would not have been less honoured if he had omitted to tell us that among the eminent men of Brindisi, was M. Lenius Strabo, the first inventor of bird-cages.

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

Disabled now from public service, he re-assumed, with greater vigour than ever, the study of the mathematics and fortification; and, in 1645, gave to the public his “Treatise of Fortification.” It was allowed by all who understood the science, that nothing superior had then appeared on that subject; and, whatever improvements have been made since, they have been derived in a manner from this treatise, as conclusions from their principles. In 1651 he published his “Geometrical. Theorems,” which shew a perfect knowledge of all parts of the mathematics. In 1655 he printed a paraphrase, in French, of the “Account,” in Spanish, “of the River of the Amazons,” by father de Rennes, a Jesuit; and we are assured, that blind as he was, yet he drew the chart of that river, and the parts adjacent, which is seen in this work. Of this work an English translation was published by W. Hamilton in 1661, 3vo.

In 1657 he published “The Theory of the Planets; cleared from that multiplicity of eccentric circles and epicycles, which the astronomers had invented to explain their motions.” This distinguished him among the astronomers, as much as his work on fortification did among the engineers; and he printed, in 1658, his “Astronomical Tables,” which are very succinct and plain. But, as few great men are without their foible, that of Pagan was a prejudice in favour of judicial astrology; and, though he is more reserved than most others, yet what he wrote upon that subject must not be classed among those productions which do honour to his understanding. He was beloved and visited by all persons illustrious for rank, as well as science; and his house was the rendezvous of all the polite and worthy both in city and court. He died at Paris, Nov. 18, 1665, having never been married. The king ordered his first physician to attend him in his illness, and gave several marks of the extraordinary esteem which he had for his merit.

His character is that of an universal genius; and, having turned himself entirely to the art of war, and particularly to the branch of fortification, he made extraordinary progress in it. He understood mathematics, not only better than is usual for a gentleman whose view is to rise in the army, but even to a degree of perfection above that of the ordinary masters who teach that science. He had so particular a genius for this kind of learning, that he obtained it more readily by meditation than by reading, and accordingly spent less time on mathematical books than he did in those of history and geography. He had also made morality and politics his particular study; so that he may be said to have drawn his own character in his “Homme Hero'ique,” and to have been one of the completes! gentlemen of his time. Louis XIII. was heard to say several times, that the count de Pagan was one of the most worthy, most adroit, and most valiant men in his kingdom. That branch of his family which removed from Naples to France in 1552, became extinct in his person.

, an English divine, was born in 1590, at Harrow on the Hill, Middlesex, and entered of Baliol College, Oxford, in 1606. Here he took his degrees in arts, and in 1619 was chosen fellow of All Souls. In 1629, by the interest of Laud, he succeeded Dr. Denison, as master of the free school of Reading. In 1634 he was admitted D. D. but ten years after was deprived of his school by the parliamentary commissioners for Berkshire. He held, however, the rectory of East Locking in that county, to which he had been presented by his college, until his death, which happened Feb. 14, 1663, at the rectory -house. He was buried in the chancel of his own church. At the restoration he had obtained a writ of restitution to the school, which was publicly read, he being present, as appears by the diary of the corporation; but, after some debate it was carried that Mr. Singleton, the then master, should have notice before an answer was resolved upon; and it appears that Mr. Singleton was confirmed in the place, being the sixth person who held it after Page.

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

, a famous Cordelier, and one of the ablest critics of his time, was born at Rognes, a small town in Provence, March 31, 1624. He took the monk’s habit in the convent of the Cordeliers at Aries, and professed himself there in 1641. After he had finished the usual course of studies in philosophy and divinity, he preached some time, and was at length made four times provincial of his order. These occupations did not hinder him from applying to chronology and ecclesiastical history, in which he excelled. He printed in the Journal des Savans, Nov. 11, 1686, a learned “Dissertation upon the Consular Office,” in which he pretends to have discovered the rules, according to which the Roman emperors took the dignity of consul at some certain times more than others, but in this he is not thought to have been successful. His most considerable work is “A Critique upon the Annals of Baronius;” in which he has rectified an infinite number of mistakes, both in chronology and in facts. He published the first volume of this work, containing the first four centuries, at Paris, in 1689; with a dedication to the clergy of France, who allowed him a pension. The whole work was printed after his death, in four volumes, folio, at Geneva, in 1705, by the care of his nephew, father Francis Pagi, of the same order. It is carried to the year 1198, where Baronius ends. Pagi was greatly assisted in it by the abbe* Longuerue, who also wrote the eloge of our author, which is prefixed to the Geneva edition. Another edition was published at Geneva in 1727. It is a work of great utility, but the author’s chronology of the popes of the first three centuries is not approved by the learned. He has also prefixed a piece concerning a new chronological period, which he calls “Graeco-Romana,” and uses for adjusting all the different epochas, which is not without its inconveniences. Our author wrote some other works of inferior note before his death, at Aix, in Provence, June 7, 1699. His character is that of 'a very able historian, and a learned and candid critic. His style has all the simplicity and plainness which suits a chronological narration. He held a correspondence with several learned men, as Stillingfleet, Spanheim, Cuper, Dodwell, the cardinal Noris, &c.

, 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.