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

Mr. Ellis appears to have been at one time, as we have already noticed, in trade, and not very successful. In 1764, however, the lord chancellor Northington procured him the office of agent for West Florida, and afterwards that of St. Dominica, places which he says made him “happy and easy,” and did not require him to leave London. In 1754 he was elected a fellow of the royal society. After a series of declining health, he died Oct. 15, 1776, leaving a daughter, Martha, who was afterwards married to Alexander Watt, esq. of Northaw in Herts, and died in child-bed in 1795. In 1786, a posthumous work of Mr. Ellis was published by this daughter at the request of sir Joseph Banks, entitled “Natural History of many curious and uncommon Zoophites,” forming the best systematic account of the zoophites which has yet appeared. Mr. Ellis appears from his correspondence, in the possession of Dr. Smith, to have been a man of great modesty, pious affections, and grateful sensibility.

, a miscellaneous writer of some reputation in the last age, and well known to the scholars of that period, was the son of Mr. James Ellis, and was born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, March 22, 1698. His father was a man of an eccentric character, roving, and unsettled. At one time he was clerk to his uncle and guardian, serjeant Denn, recorder of Canterbury, and kept his chambers in Gray’s-inn, on a starving allowance, as Mr. Ellis used to declare, for board-wages. Leaving his penurious relation, who spent what his father left him in a litigious process, he obtained a place in the post-office at Deal in Kent, from whence he was advanced, to be searcher of the customs in the Downs, with a boat; but being imposed upon, as he thought, in some way by his patron, he quitted his employment and came to London. He was represented by his son as particularly skilful in the use of the sword, to which qualification he was indebted, through the means of a nobleman, for one of his places. He was also much famed for his agility, and could at one time jump the wall of Greenwich park, with the assistance of a staff. At the trial of Dr. Sacheverel he was employed to take down the evidence for the doctor’s use. His wife, Susannah Philpot, our author’s mother, was so strict a dissenter, that when Dr. Sacheverel presented her husband with his print, framed and glazed, she dashed it on the ground, and broke it to pieces, calling him at the same time a priest of Baal; and at a late period of our author’s life, it was remembered by him, that she caused him to undergo the discipline of the school, for only presuming to look at a top on a Sunday which had been given to him the day preceding. The qualifications which Mr. Ellis’s father possessed, it will be perceived, were not those which lead to riches; and indeed so narrow were his circumstances, that he was unable to give his son the advantages of a liberal education. He was first sent to a wretched day-school in Dogwell-court, White Fryars, with a brother and two sisters; and afterwards was removed to another, not much superior, in Wine-office-court, Fleet-street, where he learned the rudiments of grammar, more by his own application than by any assistance of his master. He used, however, to acknowledge the courtesy of the usher, who behaved well to him. While at this school he translated “Mars ton Moore; sive, de obsidione praelioque Eboracensi carmen. Lib. 6. 1650, 4to. Written by Payne Fisher;” which, as it has not been found among his papers, we suppose was afterwards destroyed. At what period, or in what capacity he was originally placed with Mr. John Taverner, an eminent scrivener in Threadneedlestreet, we have not learned; but in whatever manner the connexion began, he in due time became clerk or apprentice to him; and during his residence had an opportunity of improving himself in the Latin tongue, which he availed himself of with the utmost diligence. The son of his master, then at Merchant Taylors’ school, was assisted by his father in his daily school-exercises; which being conducted in the presence of the clerk, it was soon found that the advantage derived from the instructions, though missed by the person for whom it was intended, was not wholly lost. Mr. Ellis eagerly attended, and young Taverner being of an indolent disposition, frequently asked his assistance privately; which at length being discovered by the elder Taverner, was probably the means of his first introduction to the world, though it cannot be said much to his advantage, as old Taverner had the address to retain him in the capacity of his clerk during his life-time, and at his death incumbered him with his son as a partner, by whose imprudence Mr. Ellis was a considerable sufferer both in his peace of mind and his purse, and became involved in difficulties which hung over him a considerable number of years. His literary acquisitions soon, as it might be expected, introduced him to the acquaintance of those who had similar pursuits. In 1721, the rev. Mr. Fayting, afterwards of Merchant Taylors’ school, rector of St. Martin Outwich, and prebendary of Lincoln, being then about to go to Cambridge, solicited and obtained his correspondence, part of which was carried on in verse. With this gentleman, who died 22d Feb. 1789, in his eighty-sixth year, Mr. Ellis lived on terms of the most unreserved friendship, and on his death received a legacy of 100l. bequeathed to him by his will. At a period rather later, he became also known to the late Dr. King of Oxford. Young Taverner, who probably was not at first intended for a scrivener, was elected from Merchant Taylors’ school to St. John’s college, Oxford, and by his means Mr. Ellis was made acquainted with the tory orator. By Dr. King he was introduced to his pupil lord Orrery; and Mr. Ellis atone time spent fourteen days in their company at college, so much to the satisfaction of all parties, that neither the nobleman nor his tutor ever afterwards came to London without visiting, and inviting Mr. Ellis to visit them. In, the years 1742 and 1713, Dr. King published “Templum Libertatis,” in two books, which Mr. Ellis translated into verse with the entire approbation of the original author. This translation still remains in ms. Of his poetical friends, however, the late Moses Mendez, esq. appears to have been the most intimate with him. Several marks of that gentleman’s friendship are to be found scattered through his printed works; and about 1749 he addressed a beautiful epistle to him from Ham, never yet published. In 1744 Mr. Mendez went to Ireland, and on July 5 sent a poetical account of his journey to Mr. Ellis. This epistle was afterwards printed in 1767, in -a collection of poems, and in the same miscellany Mr. Ellis’s answer appeared. Soon after Mr. Mendez addressed a poetical epistle to his friend, Mr. S. Tucker, at Dulwich, printed in the sam collection.

Mr. Ellis, though there 'is good reason to believe that he never discontinued writing verses for more than seventy years, was not one of those poets who are led by their attention to the muses to neglect their private affairs. As a scrivener he was employed by a number of families, to whom he afforded great satisfaction in conducting his business; and his friends and acquaintance were such as did credit to him as a citizen, and honour as a man. Dr. Johnson once said to Mr. Boswell, “It is wonderful, sir, what is to be found in London. The most literary conversation that I ever enjoyed was at the table of Jack Ellis, a moneyscrivener behind the Royal Exchange, with whom I at one period used to dine generally once a week.” But though Mr. Ellis for so long a course of years never discontinued writing, he was by no means eager after the fame derived from publishing. The greater part of his performances still remain in manuscript. He was, however, not insensible to the praises of his friends, and, being blessed with a very retentive memory, would with little solicitation repeat poems of considerable length with great accuracy. He has been heard to recite with much energy and vivacity, poems of not less than a hundred lines, after the age of eighty-eight years. The work which he appears to have taken the most pains with, is a translation of Ovid’s Epistles, which he left ready for the press. Dr. Johnson frequently recommended the publication of this performance; and Dr. King, who read it with some attention, commended it in very warm terms, and declared, as the translator used to mention with a laudable degree of exultation, “that he differed from other translators so much as to warrant him to say, what he read was not Ellis, but Ovid himself.”

The last year of his life was that which his friends look back to with concern. Having entrusted a sum of money to an artful person who was declared a bankrupt, he became alarmed, and apprehensive that he should be left to want in his old age. With a degree of delicacy which belongs only to those who think above the vulgar, it is feared that he suffered these doubts to prey upon his mind, without disclosing the state of it to any of those whose assistance he had every reason to rely on. At length an accident brought his situation to the notice of one of his friends, and measures were taken to make him easy in his circumstances for the remainder of his life, by means which would certainly have been effectual. From this time he resigned the conduct of himself to his friends, and resumed his accustomed cheerfulness. He received visits, and conversed with the same gaiety he had been used to in his best days; and from the vigour of his constitution, afforded hopes that he would pass a few years with comfort. These expectations were not realized: nature at length gave way. On the 17th of December, 1791, he had a fit, from which he recovered, and was well enough on the 20th to remove to lodgings which had been taken for him. For a few days he seemed to be well, and at ease both in mind and body, but shortly after appeared to have caught a cold, and gradually grew worse. On the SjOth he was cold, his lips black, and his countenance much altered. To a friend who called on him be said he had lost his feeling; and being told it was probable it would return, he replied “That I don't know.” His friend then said, “As it has always been your maxim, sir, to look on the brightest side, we may draw this conclusion, that if you have no feeling, you feel no pain;” to which he answered with great earnestness, “'Tis very true.” The next day, about 12 o'clock, sitting in his chair, he without any struggle leaned his head back, and expired. On the 5th day of January he was buried in the parish church of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, accordingto the directions of his will, and was attended by the majority of the common-council, who voluntarily acted as pall-bearers, to pay respect to his memory. A mural tablet, with an inscription to his memory, has since been erected.

Mr. Ellis in his person was below the middle size, with hard features, which at the first appearance were rather forbidding, but on a nearer acquaintance he was hardly ever known to fail of conciliating the regard of those whom he desired to please. He lived a bachelor, as he used often to declare, from a disappointment early in life; but he was particularly attentive to the fair-sex, whose favour hfe seemed earnest to acquire and in general was successful to obtain. Temperate, regular, and cheerful, he was always a pleasing companion, and joined in the conversation of his friends with ease, freedom, and politeness. He abounded in anecdote, and told a story with great success. He was charitable to the poor and unfortunate, and benevolent in an extraordinary manner, to some of his relations who wanted his assistance. He early acquired a disgust to the cant and hypocrisy which he thought he had discovered in the sectaries among whom he was bred; and, from disJiking the obnoxious parts of his early religious practice, he carried his aversion much further than some of his friends would be willing to defend, and became an infidel; his opinions, however, he seldom obtruded, or ostentatiously brought forwa'rd for the purpose of controversy. His aversion to sectaries he seems to have retained to the end of his life . As a man of business he was careful and attentive, and from his accuracy afforded no opportunity for controversies among his clients on the score of errors or mistakes.

The preceding account of Mr. Ellis was written by Mr. Isaac Reed, for the European Magazine. The executor to whom Mr. Ellis left his Mss. w.as the late Mr. Sewell, bookseller in Cornhill, and proprietor of that Magazine, who gave many of these Mss. to Mr. Reed, with whose curious library they were sold in 1807. Among these was a volume of Fables, the Translation of Dr. King’s “Ternplum Libertatis,” the “Squire of Dames,” and “The Gospel of the Infancy, or the Apocryphal Book of the Infancy of our Saviour, translated from the Latin version of Henry Sike, from the Arabic ms.” On this last, Mr. Heed wrote the following note: “Ellis was a determined unbeliever in the Scriptures, which, I suppose, was his inducement to this translation.” Mr. Ellis, however, must have taken some pains to conceal his sentiments from Dr. Johnson, who appears to have been once intimate with him, and who resented no insult to company with more indignation than the intrusion of infidel sentiments, accompanied, as they generally are, with the pert ignorance that is ever disgusting to a scholar.

, a learned prelate of the church of England, was born in 1693. Who his parents were, and what was the place of his birth, we are not informed, nor have any reason to suppose him related to the subject of the following article. After having gone through a proper course of grammatical education, he was entered of Clarehall, in the university of Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1712, and that of master of arts in 1716. It is highly probable that he likewise became a fellow of his college. Some time after, having taken holy orders, ne was in 1724 promoted to the vicarage of St. Olave, Jewry, and to the rectory of St. Martin, Iremonger lane, which is united to the former. In 1725, he was presented, by the lord chancellor Macclesfield, whose chaplain he is said to have been, to a prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Gloucester. On the 25th of April, 1728, when king George the Second paid a visit to the university of Cambridge, Mr. Ellys was created doctor of divinity, being one of those who were named in the chancellor’s list upon that occasion. In 1736, when the protestant dissenters were engaged in endeavouring to obtain a repeal of the corporation and test acts, Dr. Ellys appeared in opposition to that measure, and published a work, entitled “A Plea for the Sacramental Test, as a just security to the Church established, and very conducive to the welfare of the State,” 4to, an elaborate performance, written with great ability and learning. In 1749, Dr. Ellys published a sermon, which he preached before the house of commons on the thirtieth of January. This discourse, the text of which was Mat. xxii. 21, was printed, as then was customary, at the request of the house. Our author’s next publication was early in 1752, being “Remarks on an Essay concerning Miracles, published by David Hume, esq, among his Philosophical Essays,” 4to. In this small piece, which was written in a sensible and genteel manner, Dr. Ellys considered what Mr. Hume had advanced, relating to miracles, in a somewhat different light from what had been done by Dr. Rutherforth and Mr. Adams; but the tract being anonympus, and coming after what Mr. Adams had so admirably written on the same subject, it did not, perhaps, excite that attention which, it deserved. In October, 1752, Dr. Ellys was promoted to the see of St. David’s, in the room of the honourable Dr. Richard Trevor, translated to the bishopric of Durham, and was consecrated February 28, 1753. It had for many years been understood, that our author was engaged in preparing, and had frequently declared his intention of publishing, a work, the design of which should be to illustrate, confirm, and vindicate, the principles of religious liberty, and the reformation from popery, founded upon them. This design recommended him to the notice of the excellent persons at that time in administration, and particularly to archbishop Herring; and it was the reputation of being employed in the accomplishment of it, that occasioned Dr. Ellys’s advancement to the high station which he held in the church. Why our prelate never completed his design during his life-time, and why he received no farther marks of favour, from the great personages who first countenanced him, is not known. Dr. Ellys, after his promotion to the bishopric of St. )avid’s, continued to bold his prebend of Gloucester, and his city living in commendam; and besides his other preferments, he was vicar of Great Marlow, Bucks. In 1754, he published the sermon which he had preached before the house of lords on the thirteenth of January. The text was 1 Pet. ii. 16. In 1758, he was called to a similar service, before the tame house, on the twenty-ninth of May, being the anniversary of king Charles the Second’s restoration. The last discourse published by him was in 1759, having been delivered, from John xv. 8. before the society for propagating the gospel in foreign parts. On the seventeenth of January, 1761, our prelate died at Gloucester, and was buried in the South aile of the cathedral there, where a neat pyramidal monument is erected to his memory, with an epitaph on a tablet of white marble, supported by a cherub.

The few publications of our author, which appeared in his life-time, were a sufficient evidence of his general learning and abilities; but the great proof of his talents was not displayed till after his death. In 1763, was published, in quarto, the first part of “Tracts on the Liberty, spiritual and temporal, of Protestants in England. Addressed to J. N. esq. at Aix-la-Chapelle.” The second part was given to the world in 1765, under the title of “Tracts on r the Liberty, spiritual and temporal, of Subjects in England.” These two parts together form one great and elaborate work, which had been the principal object of the bishop’s life. The greatest part of the papers which were left by him, as we are informed by the editors, had been transcribed and fitted for the press; but the diffidence that often attends men of the most extensive understanding, prevented him from coining to a resolution of publishing them, though often solicited by his friends who had seen them, and by others of his acquaintance, who were so fully satisfied of his rare abilities, and knowledge of our civil and ecclesiastical constitution, as to believe no man of his time had better considered that subject, or was more capable of shewing it in a good light. The first volume, besides the plea for the sacramental test, consists of seven tracts, the titles of which are as follow: “I. Of the right of private judgment in all matters of religion. II. Of the liberty of publicly worshipping God, III. On the liberty, as to matters ecclesiastical, when a religion is publicly established. IV. On the liberty recovered to the people of England, by suppressing the authority formerly exercised over this realm by the Bishop of Rome. V. An answer to the objections to the ill use which, it is alleged, has been made of the liberty we have gained, by having broken with the see of Rome. VI. The nature of Supremacy, in matters ecclesiastical, vested in the crown. VII. The claim of some English Protestants to greater liberty than they now enjoy.” Though Dr. Ellys, in these tracts, vindicates the establishment of the church from the objections of the protestant dissenters, his principal concern, is with the Church of Rome, the tenets of which he very particularly examines and confutes. The subject was deemed highly important at the time in which he wrote. There was then an apprehension of danger from popery; and this sentiment he has expressed in his introduction to J. N. esq. “The increase,” says he, “of the Romish interest in Europe has been so great for these last hundred years, and is so likely to go farther, that it certainly is very necessary that the people of this nation should be acquainted at least with the chief arguments against that religion. Of these, therefore, you will here find some account; not a large one indeed, because none but things of the greatest moment have been selected; yet such a one as will, I hope, clearly shew that our ancestors were indispensably obliged to leave the communion of the church of Rome, and that we are as strictly bound to continue that separation as long as the terms of her communion remain what they are.” His biographer adds, that, should the controversy between, the Roman catholics and the church of England be revived, excellent materials for conducting it may be found in bishop Ellys’s performance. Besides, there can be no period in which a protestant should be a stranger to the grounds of his profession, and in which it will not be extremely proper that literary men in general, and divines in. particular, should have a good acquaintance with the subject.

The second part of our prelate’s work comprehends six tracts, under the following titles: “I. Of the Liberty of the Subjects in Judicial proceedings, as to matcers both criminal and civil. II. Of the right and manner of imposing Taxes; and of the other privileges of the Parliament. III. Of the means whereby the free Constitutions of other nations have been impaired, while that of England has been preserved and improved. IV. Of the Antiquities of the Commons in Parliament. V. Of the Royal Prerogative, and the hereditary right to the Crown of Britain. VI. Of the dangers that may be incident to the present Establishment, and the prospect there is of its continuance.” The second, third, fifth, and sixth, of these tracts are divided into sections, containing various important and learned discussions. The specific character of bishop Kllys’s work is, that it is a copious defence of moderate whiggistn, joined with a zealous attachment to our ecclesiastical establishment; and that it contains a large fund of historical, constitutional, and legal knowledge. The editors of the tracts say of him that “he was not only eminent for his fine parts, extensive knowledge, and sound judgment, jewels truly valuable in themselves, but they were set in him to the highest advantage, by a heart so overflowing with benevolence and candour as never even to conceive terms of acrimony or reproach towards the opinions or persons of those who differed from him. This Christian temper of his is discoverable in all the parts of these tracts that are taken up in controversy; for he always thought a person, though on the right side of the question, with principles of persecution, to be a worse man than he that was on the wrong. These dispositions engaged him in defence of toleration, and all those indulgences that he thought ought to be allowed to tender consciences. But when that liberty was once granted (as it was by law to our dissenters), he saw no necessity it should be attended with civil power, which might endanger the ecclesiastical establishment; and if he has shewed, beyond all doubt, the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and a liberty of publicly worshipping God in consequence of that judgment, he has also as undeniably proved the necessity of a test, as a just security to the established church, and a proper guard to the welfare of the state: for he was persuaded, that human laws cannot bind conscience, but they may exclude those from civil power who profess a private conscience repugnant to the public conscience of the state: all which he has managed with such gentle, charitable, and Christian liberty, as meant only to answer the arguments, not inflame the resentment of the opponents.”

, or as sometimes improperly spelt Ellis (Sir Richard, Bart.), a gentleman of extensive learning, particularly in biblical criticism and antiquities, descended from an ancient family originally of Wales, but who afterwards obtained possessions in Lincolnshire, was the son of sir William Ellys of Wyham, in that county, by Isabella, grand-daughter of the celebrated Hampden. Of his early history we have little information. His father had been a member of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he proceeded M. A. and his son might probably have been sent to the same university, and left it without taking a degree. From, his extensive acquaintance with the literati of Holland, it is not improbable, as the practice was then common, that he studied at some of the Dutch universities. We are told that he served in two parliaments for Grantham, and in three for Boston in Lincolnshire; but, according to Beatson’s Register, he sat only for Boston in the fifth, sixth, and seventh parliament of Great Britain, namely, from 1715 to 1734; but his father sir William sat for three parliaments for Grantham. Although sir Richard communicated some particulars of his family to Collins, when, publishing his “Baronetage,” the latter has either omitted, or was not furnished with the dates that might have assisted us in ascertaining these facts with certainty. Sir Richard married, first, a daughter and coheiress of sir Thomas Hussey, bart. and, secondly, a daughter and coheiress of Thomas Gould, esq. who survived him, and afterwards married sir Francis Dashwood, bart. (who died lord le Despencer in 1781), and died Jan. 19, 1769. Sir Richard had no issue by either of his wives, and the title of course became extinct on his death, which happened February 21, 1741-2, when he was deeply lamented, not only as a man of great learning and piety, but on account of his many and extensive charities. He entailed his estates, after the death of lady Ellys, on the Hobarts and Trevors, and his seat at Nocton in Lincolnshire is now the chief seat of the earl of Buckinghamshire. Sir Richard had two sisters married to Edward Cheek and Richard Hampden, esqs.

Besides his literary friends at home, sir Richard appears to have corresponded with, and to have been highly respected by many eminent scholars on the continent. He was a munificent patron of men of learning, and frequently contributed to the publication of their works, at a time when the risks of publication were more terrible than in our days. It was not unfrequent, therefore, to honour him by dedications. The Weuteins dedicated to him the best edition of Suicer’s “Thesaurus Ecclesiast.” to which he bad contributed the use of a manuscript of Suicer’s in his own possession, and Ab. Gronovius dedicated to him his edition of Ælian (Leyden, 1731). Horsley’s “Britannia Romana” was also dedicated to him. He was the steady friend and patron of Michael Maittaire, who, in his “Seoilia,” addresses many verses to him, from some of which we learn that sir Richard had travelled much abroad, that his pursuits were literary, and that he collected a curious and valuable library . The only work by which his merits as a scholar and critic can now be ascertained, was published at Rotterdam, in 1728, 8vo, under the title “Fortuita Sacra, quibus subjicitur Commentarius de Cymbalis.” The epithet fortuita is used as denoting that the explanation of the several passages in the New Testament, of which the volume partly consists, casually offered themselves. The whole indeed was written in the course of his private studies, and without any view to publication, until some friends, conceiving that they would form an acceptable present to the literary world, prevailed on him to allow a selection to be made, which was probably done by the anonymous editor of the volume; and they are written in Latin with a view to appear on the continent, where biblical criticism, although not perhaps at that lime more an object of curiosity than at home, required to be conveyed in a language common to the learned. Subjoined to these critical essays on various difficult texts, which the author illustrates from the Misnah and other books of Jewish traditions, is a curious dissertation on the cymbals of the ancients, which not being noticed by Dr. Burney in his History of Music, has probably escaped the researches of that able writer. In all these sir Richard Ellys shows a vast compass of ancient learning, and a coolness of judgment in criticism, which very considerably advanced his fame abroad. We know but of one answer to any of his positions, entitled “A Dissertation on 1 Cor. xv. 29; or an Inquiry into the Apostle’s meaning there, of being `baptized for the dead,' occasioned by the honourable and learned author of the Fortuita Sacra his interpretation thereof.” This Inquiry is conveyed in a letter to the author ef the Republic of Letters, vol. V. (1730).

, author of a history of the Saracens, or rather a chronology of the Mohammedan empire, was born in Egypt, towards the middle of the thirteenth century. His history comes down from Mohammed to the year of the hegira 512, that is, to A. D. 1148: in which he sets down year by year, in a very concise manner, what concerns the Saracen empire; and intermixes some passages of the eastern Christians, keeping principally to Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Persia. His qualities and n>e­>rit must have been very conspicuous, since, though he professed Christianity, he filled a post of distinction and trust near the persons of the Mohammedan princes^ Those, who consider the measures he ought to keep in that post, will not think it strange that he has spoken honourably of the caliphs, and has never made use of any injurious terms with respect to the Mohammedan religion; but some have questioned his being a Christian from his speaking honourably, as he often does, of the followers of Mohammed, and culling that impostor “Mohammed of gloriousmemory.” Yet, as he has not only omitted to prefix to his work the formal declaration of being a mussulman, which the Mohammedan writers are wont to make, but has taken great care to insert in his Annal< several things, relating to the Christians, and turning to their praise, which a mussulman would avoid as a crime, and has even given at the end of his work a short account of his family, it has been concluded that he was a Christian. He was son to Yaser al Amid, who was secretary to the council of war under the sultans of Egypt, of the family of the Jobidw, for forty-five years together; and in 1238, when his father died, succeeded him in his place.

His history of th'e Saracens has been translated from Arabic into Latin by Erpenius, and printed in those two languages at Leyden, 1625, in folio. Erpcnius died hetore the publication; and Golius took care of it, writing also a preface. Elmacinus began his work at the creation of the world; and Holtinger had in manuscript that part which reaches from thence to the flight of Mohammed. The translation of Erpenius is full of mistakes, especially as to geography and proper names; on which accdunt, however, he deserves some excuse, il we consider the difficulty of reading the Arabic manuscripts, and that he was the first who made any tolerable progress in this kind of learning. The French translation made by Peter Vat tier, and printed at Paris in 1657, is equally incorrect. The Arabic text was printed apart in 12mo, at the same time with the folio edition and dedicated by Erpeniuct’s widow to Andrews, bishop of Winchester.

, an eminent Scotch prelate, descended from a noble family in Germany, the counts of Helphinstein, was the son of John, or as some say, William Elphinston and Margaret Douglas, daughter of Douglas of Drumlanrig, and was horn at Glasgow in 1431, or, according to another account, in 1437. He was educated in the newly-erected university of Glasgow, and in the twentieth year of his age became M. A. He then applied himself to the study of divinity, and was made rector of Kirkmichael. After continuing four years in this situation, he went to Paris, where he acquired such reputation in the study of the civil and canon law, as to attract the attention of the university; and he was advanced to the professorship of civil and canon law, first at Park, and afterwards at Orleans, where his lectures were attended by a great concourse of students. The improvement of his own mind, however, being the particular object of his solicitude, he canvassed the most abstruse and difficult parts of his profession with the most eminent and learned doctors of the age. After nine years’ intense study in France, he returned home at the earnest solicitations of his friends, particularly bishop Muirhead, who made him parson of Glasgow, and official of his diocese; and as a mark of respect he was chosen rector of that university in which he had been educated. After the death of his friend and patron, Ivluirbead, he was made official of Lolhian, by archbishop Schevez, of St. Andrew’s; and at the same time was called to parliament, and to a seat in the privycouncil. As his talents were of the most acute and discerning kind, he embraced subjects remote from his religious studies, and became conspicuous as an able politician and skilful negociator. In this capacity he was employed by James III. on an embassy to France, in conjunction with Livingstone, bishop of Dunkeld, and the earl of fiuchan. It is said that he managed so dextrously, that the old league and amity were renewed, and all cause of discord between the two kingdoms removed. The French monarch was so charmed with his conduct and conversation, that he loaded him with valuable presents. When he returned home, he was made archdeacon of Argyle, in 1479, and soon after bishop of Ross; and in 1484, he was translated to the see of Aberdeen. His address in negociation induced the king to send him as one of the commissioners from Scotland to treat of a truce with England, and a marriage between his son and the lady Anne, the niece of Richard III.

When the earl of Richmond came to the crown of England as Henry VII. bishop Elphinston was sent to his court, with other ambassadors, to arrange the terms of a truce, which was accordingly settled for three years on July 3, 1486. The discontent of the nobles threatening to involve the country in a civil war, Elphinston mediated between them and the king; but, finding it impossible to reconcile their jarring interests, he went to England about the latter end of 1487, to solicit the friendly interposition of Henry, as the ally of the Scotish king; and although he did not succeed as he wished and expected, king James was so sensible of the value of his services, that he advanced him in February 1488, to the office of lord high chancellor of Scotland, which he enjoyed until the king’s death, when he retired to his diocese. During the time he remained at Aberdeen, he was occupied in correcting the abuses that had prevailed in the diocese, and in composing a book of canon law. But he was not long permitted to enjoy the calm of retirement, and was again called to the parliament that assembled at Edinburgh, Oct. 6, 1488, to assist at the coronation of James IV. The earl of Bothwell, who then ruled as prime minister, suspecting that bishop Elphinston would not concur in an act of indemnity in favour of those who were concerned in the rebellion of the last reign, contrived to send him on an embassy to the court of Maximilian of Germany, with a proposal for a marriage between the king, and Margaret, the emperor’s daughter; but the mission was ineffectual, as that lady had been previously promised to the prince of Spain, and was married accordingly, before Elphinston arrived at Vienna. Yet although the bishop did not succeed in this embassy, he performed a lasting service to the country in his way home, by settling a treaty of peace and amity between the states of Holland and the Scotch. In 1492, when the bishop returned, he was made lord privy-seal, and the same year appointed one of the commissioners on the part of Scotland, for the prolongation of the truce with England. But the truce was not strictly observed by the Scotch, and a new commission was found to be necessary for the more effectual settlement of all differences. Bishop Elphinston was included in this commission, and the Scotch deputies meeting with the English at Edinburgh, June 2l, they agreed to prolong the truce till fhe last day of April, 1501.

James IV. having precipitated the country into a war with England, in opposition to Elphinston’s advice, who was cautious from experience, lost his life at Flodden-field, where the better part of the Scotch nobility shared a similar fate. This circumstance so afflicted the venerable prelate’s mind, that his wonted cheerfulness entirely forsook him, and his debilitated frame fast verged to the grave. The affairs of Scotland, however, being again in a distracted state, Elphinstou, ever anxious to do good, made an exertion to attend parliament, that he might offer his advice; but the fatigue of the journey exhausted his wearied body, and he died Oct. 25, 1514. His corpse was brought from Edinburgh, and interred in the collegiate church at Aberdeen near the high altar. This eminent prelate has justly obtained the encomium of historians, and the reverence of his countrymen. He appears to have been eminent as a prelate and statesman, a man of learning, aud an able promoter of it by his munificent endowment of the college.

, an eminent Prussian botanist, was born in 1623 at Francfort on the Oder, and began his studies at the college of that city under John Moller, then rector. Having an incliiation for the study of medicine, he went to Wirtemberg, attended the lectures of Sperling, Schneider, Banzer, &c. and then pursued his course at Konigsberg, Holland, France, and Italy, and took his doctor’s degree at Padua. On his return home, Frederick-William, elector of Brandenburgh, appointed him, in 1656, court-physician and botanist, offices which he filled with great reputation until his death, at Berlin, Feb. 19, 1688. His works are, 1. “Flora Marchica,” or a catalogue of plants cultivated in the principal gardens of Brandenburgh, Berlin, 1663, 8vo, and 1665. 2. “Anthropometria, sive de mutua membrorum proportione, &c.” Stadt, 1672, 8vo, probably the third edition. 3. “Distillatoria curiosa,” Berlin, 1674, 4to. 4. “Ciysniatica nova,” ibid. 1665, 8vo. 5. “De Horti cultura,” 4to. 6. “De Phosphoris,” translated into English by Sherley, Lond. 1677, 12mo, VVildenow, who has named a plant the Elscholtzia, in honour of this botanist, mentions a manuscript work of his on horticulture, written in German, and preserved in the royal library of Berlin.

, a learned Prussian divine, was born in 1692, at Saalfield, in Prussia, and was educated at the university of Konigsberg, where he became private tutor to some young nobleman, and was afterwards appointed chaplain of the army. In 1719, he published a work on the delivery of the law on Mount Sinai, and shortly after the first volume of his “Sacred Observations on the New Testament.” In the following year his Prussian majesty appointed him professor of theology and the oriental languages at Lingen, to which he repaired, after having first taken his degree of doctor at Utrecht. He was afterwards chosen a member of the academy of Berlin; and in 1742, he was appointed director of the class of the belles lettres in that academy; and when the society was renewed in 1744, he retained the same office, and contributed several valuable papers to their memoirs. He died of a fever, Octobers, 1750. His works are very numerous, and on various topics, but chiefly in theology. He published also, “A new description of the state of the Greek Christians in Turkey,” in which he received very important assistance from Athanasius Dorostamos, who came to Berlin to collect money for the Christian slaves in England.

, a divine and antiquary, descended from a very ancient family in the bishopric of Durham, was born at Newcastle upon Tyne, Jan. 1, 1673, and was the son of Mr. Ralph Elstob, a merchant of that place. Being intended for the church, he received his grammatical education, first at Newcastle, and afterwards at Eton after which he was admitted of Catharine-hall, in Cambridge but the air of the country not agreeing with him, he removed to Queen’s college, Oxford. Here his studious turn acquired him so much reputation, that in 1696 he was chosen fellow of University college, and was appointed joint tutor with Dr. C layering, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. At this college Mr. Elstob took the degree of master of arts, June 8, 1697. In 1701, he translated into Latin the Saxon homily of Lupus, with notes, for Dr. Jiickes. About the same time he translated into English sir John Cheke’s Latin version of Plutarch, “De Superstitione,” which is printed at the end of Strype’s Life of Cheke. The copy made use of by Mr. Elstob was a manuscript in University college, out of which Obadiah Walker, when master of that college, had cut several leaves, containing Cheke’s remarks against popery. In 1702, Mr. Elstob was appointed rector of the united parishes of St. Swithin and St. Mary Bothaw, London, where be continued to his death, and which appears to be the only eqclesiastical preferment he ever obtained. In 1703, he published, at Oxford, an edition of Ascham’s Latin Letters. He was the author, likewise, of an “Essay on the great affinity and mutual agreement between the two professions of Law and Divinity,” printed at London, with a preface, by Dr. Hickes. This book, in process of time, became so little known, that Mr. Philip Carteret Webbe insisted upon it that there was no such work, until convinced, by an abstract or view of it, which was sent to Mr. Pegge, from a copy in the library of St. John’s college, Cambridge. It is a thin octavo, and not very scarce. In 1704, Mr Elstob published two sermons; one, a thanksgiving sermon, from Psalm ciii. 10, for the victory at Hochstet; and, the other, from 1 Timothy i. 1, 2, on the anniversary of the queen’s accession. Besides the works already mentioned, our author, who was a great proficient in the Latin tongue, compiled an essay on its history and use collected materials for an account of Newcastle and, also, the various proper names formerly used in the north but what is become of these manuscripts is not known. In 1709, he published, in the Saxon language, with a Latin translation, the homily on St. Gregory’s day. Mr. Elstob bad formed several literary designs, the execution of which was prevented by his death, in 1714, when he was only forty-one years of age. The most considerable of his designs was an edition of the Saxon laws, with great additions, and a new Latin version by Somner, together with notes of various learned men, and a prefatory history of the origin and progress of the English laws, down to the conqueror, and to Magna Charta. This great plan was completed in 1721, by Dr. David Wilkins, who, in his preface, thus speaks concerning our author “Hoc Gulielmus Elstob, in literis Anglo-Saxonicis versatissimus præstare instituerat. Hinc Wheloci vestigia premens, Leges quas editio ejus exhibet, cum Mss. Cantabrigiensibus, Bodleiano, Roffensi, et Cottonianis contulerat, versioneque nova adornare proposuerat, ut sic Leges, antea jam publici juris factae, ejus opera et studio emendatiores prodiissent. Veruin morte immatura præreptus, propositum exequi non potuit.” Whilst Mr. Elstob was engaged in this design, Dr. Hickes recommended him to Mr. Harley, as a man whose modesty had made him an obscure person, and which would ever make him so, unless some kind patron of good learning should bring him into light. The doctor added his testimony to Mr. Elstob’s literature, his great diligence and application, and his capacity for the work he had undertaken. Mr. Harley so far attended to Dr. Hickes’s recommendation as to grant to Mr. Elstob the use of the books and manuscripts in his library, which our author acknowledged in a very humble letter. A specimen of Mr. Elstob’s design was actually printed at Oxford, in 1699, under the title of “Hormesta Pauli Orosii, &c. ad exemplar Junianum, &c.” He intended, also, a translation with notes, of Alfred’s Paraphrastic Version of Orosins; his transcript of which, with collations, was in Dr. Pegge’s hands. Another transcript, by Mr. Ballard, with a large preface on the use of Anglo-Saxon literature, was left by Dr. Charles Lyltelton, bishop of Carlisle, to the library of the Society of Antiquaries. Alfred’s Version of Orosius has since been given to the public, with an English translation, by the honourable Daines Barrington. In his publication, Mr. Barrington observes, that he has made use of Mr. Elstob’s transcript, and that he has adopted from it the whimsical title of Hormesta. When it is considered that Mr. Elstob died in early life, it will be regretted, by the lovers of antiquarian learning, that he was prevented from acquiring that name and value in the literary world, to which he would otherwise probably have arisen.

, sister of Mr. William Elstob, and engaged in the same learned pursuits, was born at Newcastle, Sept. 29, 1683. It is said, that she owed the rudiments of her extraordinary education to her mother; of which advantage, however, she was soon deprived; for at the age of eight years she had the misfortune of losing this intelligent parent. Her guardians, who entertained different sentiments, discouraged as much as they were able her progress in literature, as improper for her sex; but she had contracted too great a fondness for literary studies to be diverted from the prosecution of them. During her brother’s continuance at Oxford, she appears to have resided in that city, where she was esteemed and respected by Dr. Hudson and other Oxonians. Upon her brother’s removal to London, she probably removed with him; and, it is certain, that she assisted him in his antiquarian undertakings. The first public proof which she gave of it was in 1709, when, upon Mr. Elstob’s printing the homily on St. Gregory’s day, she accompanied it with an English translation. The preface, too, was written by her, in which she answers the objections made to female learning, by producing that glory of her sex, as she calls her, Mrs. Anna Maria Schurman. Mrs. Elstob’s next publication was a translation of madame Seudery’s “t-ssay on Glory.” She assisted, also, her brother in an edition of Gregory’s pastoral, which was probably intended to have included both the original and Saxon version; and she had transcribed all the hymns, from an ancient manuscript in Salisbury cathedral. By the encouragement of Dr. Hickes, she undertook a Saxon Homilarium, with an English translation, notes, and various readings. To promote this design, Mr. Bowyer printed for her, in 1713, “Some testimonies of learned men, in favour of the intended edition of the Saxon Homilies, concerning the learning of the author of those homilies, and the advantages to be hoped for from an edition of them. In a letter from the publisher to a doctor in divinity.” About the same time she wrote three letters to the lord treasurer, from which it appears, that he solicited and obtained for her queen Anne’s bounty towards printing the homilies in question. Her majesty’s decease soon deprived Mrs. Elstob of this benefit; and she was not otherwise sufficiently patronized, so as to be able to complete the work. A lew only of the homilies were actually printed at Oxford, in folio. Mrs. Elstob’s portrait was given in the initial letter G of “The English. Saxon Homily on the Birth-day of St, George.” In 1715, she published a Saxon grammar, the types for which had been cut at the expence of the lord chief justice Parker, afterwards earl of Macclesfield. Mrs. Elstob had other literary designs in view, but was prevented from the prosecution of them, by her distressed circumstances, and the want of due encouragement. After her brother’s death, she was so far reduced, that she was obliged to retire to Evesham in Worcestershire, where she subsisted with difficulty by keeping a small school. In this situation she experienced the friendship of Mr. George Ballard, and of Mrs. Capon, wife of the rev. Mr. Capon, who kept a boarding-school at Sianton, in Gloucestershire. These worthy persons exerted themselves among their acquaintance, to obtain for Mrs. Elstub some annual provision. At length she was recoiflmended to queen Caroline, who granted her a pension of twenty guineas a year. This being discontinued on the queen’s decease, Mrs. Elstob was again brought into difficulties, and, though mistress of eight languages, besides her own, was obliged to seek for employment as a preceptress of children. She may, however, be considered as having been very fortunate in the situation which she obtained in this capacity; for, in 1739, she was taken into the family of the duchess Dowager of Portland, where she continued till her death, which happened on the 30th of May 1756. She was buried at St. Margaret’s, Westminster. Mr. Rowe Mores describes her as having been the indefessa comes of her brother’s studies, and a female student of the university; and as having originally possessed a genteel fortune, which, by pursuing too much the drug called learning, she did not know how to manage. He adds, that upon visiting her in her sleeping-room at Bulstrode, he found her surrounded with books and dirtiness. She was, however, one of the most extraordinary women of her age, the first, and as far as we know, the last of her sex, who was a Saxon scholar. A more particular account of her Mss. and other productions is given in our first authority.

, a Lutheran divine, styled in the Bibl. German, one of the principal ornaments of the pity of Stade, descended from a noble family, originally of Guelderland, which they quitted to avoid the persecutions of the duke of Alva, and was born at Kensburgh in Hoistem, in 1684. He studied at Lubeck, Rostock, Leipsic, Jena, and Wirtemberg, at which last university he took his degree of master of arts. In 1717 he received an invitation to Stade, where he became pastor of the church of St. Cosmo and Damien, and where he died in the thirtysixth year of his age, June 10, 1721, much lamented as one who had given striking proofs of eminent talents, and whose studies, had they been prolonged, promised yet greater fruits. The authority quoted above gives the following list of his works, but without dates or size, &c. 1. “Dissertatio inauguralis de Jure Episcoporum in Gallia, a papa ad concilium provocandi.” 2. “De Melchisedeeo, contra Juriaeum et Halsium.” 3. “De Formula concordiiE in Dania non combusta, contra Gotfr. Arnoldum.” 4. “De recentiorum in Novum Foedus Critica.” 5. “Observationes philological super B. H. Witteri commentationem in Genesin.” 6. “Epistola Apologetica ad Witterum.” 7. “Vindiciae Diascepseos Hunnianae, adversus D. Strimesium.” 8. “De Fanaticorum Palinodia.” 9. “De Inscriptione Apocalypseos Johanneas. 10.” De Philosophumenis viris sanctis temere afflictis.“ll.”De Magis.“12.” Annotationes ad Matnr. Simonii libellum de literis pereuntibus.“13.” Controversies recentiores de Atheismo.“14.” Controversise recentiores de anima.“15.” Commentatio de reliquiis Papatus ecclesiae Lutheranse temere afflictis, &c.“To these may be added a new edition of Launoy” De varia Aristotelis fortuna in academia Parisiensi." He had also for some time been employed on a history of philosophy, and other literary undertakings, which his death interrupted.

, an English gentleman, clerk of the house of commons in the reign of Charles I. was born at Battersea in Surrey, in 1598; being the eldest son of Henry Elsynge, esq. who was clerk of the house of lords, and a person of great abilities. He was educated at Westminster school; and thence, in 1621, removed to Christ Church, in Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. 1625. Then he travelled abroad, and spent at several times above seven years in foreign countries; by which he became a very accomplished person, and was greatly esteemed by men of the highestquality and bestjudgment. He was in particular so much valued by archbishop Laud, that his grace procured him the place of clerk of the house of commons, to which he proved of excellent use, as well as a singular ornament. For he was very dextrous in taking and expressing the sense of the house; and also so great a help to the speaker and to the house in stating the questions, and drawing up the orders free from exceptions, that it much conduced to the dispatch of business, and the service of the parliament. His discretion also and prudence were such, that though the long parliament was by faction kept in continual disorder, yet his fair and temperate carriage made him commended and esteemed by all parties, how furious and opposite soever they were among themselves. And therefore for these his abilities and good conduct) more reverence was paid to his stool, than to the speaker Lenthall’s chair; who, being obtioxious, timorous, and interested, was often much confused in collecting the sense of the house, and drawing the debates into a fair question; in which Elsynge was always observed to be so ready and just, that the house generally acquiesced in what he did of that nature. At length, when he saw that the greater part of the house were imprisoned and secluded, and that the remainder would bring the king to a trial for his life, he desired, the 26th Dec. 1648, to resign his place. He alleged for this his bad state of health; but most people understood his reason to be, and he acknowledged it to Wbitelock and other friends, because he would have no hand in the business against the king. After which, quitting his advantageous employment, he retired to his house at Hounslow, in Middlesex, where he presently contracted many bodily infirmities, of which he died in 1654. He was a man of very great parts, and very learned, especially in the Latin, French, and Italian languages he was, what was far above all these accomplishments, a very just and honest man and Whitelock relates, that the great Selden was particularly fond of him, which is no small circumstance to his honour.

He was the author of, 1. “The ancient method and manner of holding Parliaments in England,” 1663, reprinted often since; the best edition is that of 1768, by the learned and accurate Thomas Tyrwhitt, esq. who was some time clerk of the house of commons. Wood supposes that this work is mostly taken from a manuscript entitled “Modus tenendi Parliamentum apud Anglos, &c. Of the form and manner of holding a Parliament in England, and all things incident thereunto, digested and divided into several chapters and titles, anno 1626.” Written by our author’s father, who died while his son was upon his travels. 2. A tract concerning the proceedings in parliament: never published. The manuscript was some time in the possession of sir Matthew Hale, who bequeathed it by his will to Lincoln’s-inn library. 3. He left also behind him some tracts and memorials, which his executors thought sot perfect enough to be published. 4. Wood ascribes moreover to him, “A declaration or remonstrance of the state of the kingdom, agreed on by the lords and commons assembled in parliament, 19th May, 1642.” But this piece is not thought to have been his, on account of a degree of virulence running through it, which was not natural to him. The reader may find it in the fourth volume of Rushworth’s Collections, and in Husband’s collection of Remonstrances, &c. 1643, 4to.

, a gentleman of eminent learning in the reign of king Henry Vlil. and author of several works, was son of sir Richard Eiyot, of the county of Suffolk, and educated in academical learning at St. Mary’s hall in Oxford, where he made a considerable progress in logic and philosophy. After some time spent at the university, he travelled into foreign countries, and upon his return was introduced to the court of kiiag Henry, who, being a great patron of learned men, conferred on him the honour of knighthood, and employed him in several embassies, particularly to Rome in 1532, about the affair of the divorce of queen Catharine, and afterwards, about 1536, to the emperor Charles V. Sir Thomas was an excellent grammarian, rhetorician, philosopher, physician, cosmographer, and historian; and no less distinguished for his candour, and the innocence and integrity of his life. He was courted and celebrated by all the learned men of his time, particularly the famous antiquary Leland, who addressed a copy of Latin verses to him in his “Encomia illustrium virorum.” A similitude of manners, and sameness of studies, recommended him to the intimacy and friendship of sir Thomas More. He died in 1546, and was buried the 25th of March, in the church of Carleton, in Cambridgeshire, of which county he had been sheriff. His widow afterwards was married to sir James Dyer.

Sir Thomas Elyot’s “Governor,” says Strype, waa designed to instruct men, especially great men, in good morals, and to reprove theirvices. It consisted of several chapters, treating concerning affability, benevolence, beneficence, the diversity of flatterers, and other similar subjects. In these chapters were some sharp and quick sentences, which offended many of the young men of fashion at that time. They complained of sir Thomas’s strange terms, as they called them; and said that it was no little presumption in him to meddle with persons of the higher and nobler ranks. The complaints of these gentlemen, who were always kicking at such examples as did bite them, our author compared to a galled horse, abiding no plasters. King Henry read and much liked sir Thomas Elyot’s treatise; and was particularly pleased with his endeavours to improve and enrich the English language. It was observed by his majesty, that throughout the book there was no new term made by him of a Latin or French word, and that no sentence was hereby rendered dark or hard to be understood.

Sir Thomas Elyot’s Castle of Health, we are told by the same author, subjected him to various strictures. When some gallants had mocked at him for writing a book of medicine, and said in derision, that he was become a physician, he gave this answer: “Truly, if they call him a physician which is studious about the weal of his country, I vouchsafe they so name me. For, during my life, I will in that affection always continue.” Indeed, sir Thomas’s work exposed him to the censures both of the gentry and the medical faculty. To the former, who alleged that it did not beseem a knight to write upon such a subject, he replied, “that many kings and emperors (whose names he sets down) did not only advance and honour that science with special privileges, but were also studious in it themselves.” He added, “that it was no more shame for a person of quality to be the author of a book on the science of physic, than it was for king Henry the Eighth to publish a book on the science of grammar, which he had lately done.” What offended the physicians was, that sir Thomas should meddle in their department, and particularly that he should treat of medicine in English, to make the knowledge thereof common. But he justified himself by endeavouring to shew, that his work was intended for their benefit. As for those who found fault with him for writing in English, he, on the other hand, blamed them for affecting to keep their art a secret. To such of the college as reflected upon his skill, he represented, that before he was twenty years old, one of the most learned physicians in England read to him the works of Hippocrates, Galen, Oribasius, Paulus Celius, Alexander Trallianus, Pliny, Dioscorides, and Joannicius. To these sir Thomas afterwards added the study of Avicen, Averroes, and many more. Therefore, though he had never been at Montpelier, Padua, or Salerno; yet he said, “that he had found something in physic, by which he had experienced no little profit for his own health.”

, or Eliseus, as he calls himself in his “Miscellanea,” the son of a clergyman in Devonshire, was educated at Baliol-college, Oxford. In 1655, about the time when he took the degree of B. A. being then fellow of the college, he published a small volume of divine poems, and another in 1658. The same year he published “Miscellanea,” in Latin and English verse, and several short essays in Latin prose. This book was reprinted in 1662. In the preface, and again in the body of the work, he speaks with great sensibility of some persons who had decried his performances, and aspersed his character on account of some levities and follies of youth. In 1659 he succeeded his father in the rectory of East Allington, in Devonshire. His conduct appears to have been irreproachable after he entered into orders. By his writings he has given sufficient testimony of his parts, industry, and learning. The most remarkable of his numerous works, which are mentioned by Wood, is the pamphlet he published against Dr. Tillotson’s sermons on the incarnation; and the most estimable is his volume of Letters, &c. as some of them are written to eminent persons, particularly Dr. Sherlock and Dr. Bentley. There are also letters from Dr. Henry More, Dr. Barlow, and others, to Edmund Elys. He was living, and in studious retirement, in 1633, at which time he was a non-juror.

. This family of celebrated printers at Amsterdam and Leyden greatly adorned the republic of letters by many beautiful editions of the best authors of antiquity. They fell somewhat below the Stephens’s in point of learning, as well as in their editions of Greek and Hebrew authors; but as to the choice of good books they seem to have equalled, and in the neatness and elegance of their small characters, greatly to have exceeded them. Their Virgil, Terence, and Greek Testament, have been reckoned their master-pieces; and are indeed so very fine, that they justly gained them the reputation of beiug the best printers in Europe. There were five of these Elzevirs, namely, Lewis, Bonaventure, Abraham, Lewis, and Daniel. Lewis began to be famous at Leyden in 1595, and was remarkable for being the first who observed the distinction between the v consonant and u vowel, which had been recommended by Ramus and other writers long before, but was hitherto neglected. Daniel died in 1680, or 1681; and though he left children who carried on the business, passes nevertheless for the last of his family who excelled in it. The Elzevirs have printed several catalogues of their editions; but the last, published by Daniel, is considerably enlarged, and abounds with new books. It was printed at Amsterdam, 1674, in 12mo, and divided into seven volumes.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born May 14, 1701, at Hurvvorth, a village about three miles south of Darlington, on the borders of the county of Durham, at least it is certain he resided here from his childhood. His father, Dutlly Emerson, taught a school, and was a tolerable proficient in the mathematics; and without his books and instructions perhaps his son’s genius might might never have been unfolded. Besides his father’s instructions, our author was assisted in the learned languages by a young clergyman, then curate of Hurworth, who was boarded at his father’s house. In the early part of his life, he attempted to teach a few scholars; but whether from his concise method (for he was not happy in expressing his ideas), or the warmth of his natural temper, he made no progress in his school; he therefore Sood left it oft', and satisfied with a small paternal estate of about 60l. or 70l. a year, devoted himself to study, which he closely pursued in his native place through the course of a long life, being mostly very healthy, till towards the latter part of his days, when he was much afflicted with the stone: towards the close of the year 1781, being sensible of his approaching dissolution, he disposed of the whole of his mathematical library to a bookseller at York, and on May the 26th, 1782, his lingering and painful disorder put an end to his life at his native village, in the eighty-first year of his age. In his person he was rather short, but strong and well-made, with an open countenance and ruddy complexion. He was never known to ask a favour, or seek the acquaintance of a rich man, unless he possessed some eminent qualities of the mind. He was a very good classical scholar, and a tolerable physician, so far as it could be combined with mathematical principles, according to the plan of Keil and Morton. The latter he esteemed above all others as a physician the former as the best anatomist. He was very singular in his behaviour, dress, and conversation. His manners and appearance were that of a rude and rather boorish countryman, he wasof very plain conversation, and indeed seemingly rude, commonly mixing oaths in his sentences. He had strong natural parts, and could discourse sensibly on any subject; but was always positive and impatient of any contradiction. He spent his whole life in close study and writing books; with the profits of which he redeemed his little patrimony from some original incumbrance. He had but one coat, which he always wore open before, except the lower button no waistcoat; his shirt quite the reverse of one in. common use, no opening before, but buttoned close at the collar behind; a kind of flaxen wig which had not a crooked hair in it; and probably had never been tortured with a comb from the time of its being made. This was his dress when he went into company. One hat he made to last him the best part of his lifetime, gradually lessening the flaps, bit by bit, as it lost its elasticity and hung down, till little or nothing but the crown remained. He never rode although he kept a horse, but was frequently seen to lead the horse, with a kind of wallet stuffed with the provisions he had bought at the market. He always walked up to London when he had any thing to publish, revising sheet by sheet himself; trusting no eyes but his own, which was always a favourite maxim with him. He never advanced any mathematical proposition that he had not first tried in practice, constantly making all the different parts himself on a small scale, so that his house was filled with all kinds of mechanical instruments together or disjointed. He would frequently stand up to his middle in water while fishing; a diversion he was remarkably fond of. He used to study incessantly for some time, and then for relaxation take a ramble to any pot ale-house where he could get any body to drink with and talk to. The duke of Manchester was highly pleased with his company, and used often to come to him in the fields and accompany him home, but could never persuade him to get into a carriage. When he wrote his sinall treatise on navigation, he and some of his scholars took a small vessel from Hurworth, and the whole crew soon gotswampt; when Emerson, smiling and alluding to his treatise, said “They must not do as I do, but as I say.” He was a married man; and his wife used to spin on an old-fashioned wheel, of which a very accurate drawing is given in his mechanics. He was deeply skilled in the science of music, the theory of sounds, and the various scales both ancient and modern, but was a very poor performer. He carried that singularity which marked all his actions even into this science. He had, if we may be allowed the expression, two first strings to his violin, which, he said, made the E more melodious when they were drawn up to a perfect unison. His virginal, which is a species of instrument like the modern spinnet, he had cut and twisted into various shapes in the keys, by adding some occasional half-tones in order to regulate the present scale, and to rectify some fraction of discord that will always remain in the tuning. He never could get this regulated to his fancy, and generally concluded by saying, 4< It was a bad instrument, and a foolish thing to be vexed with."

, or Emili, a famous historian, was a native of Verona, and acquired so much reputation in Italy, that Stephen Poncher, bishop of Paris, advised king Lewis XII. to engage him to write in Latin a history of the kings of France. He was accordingly invited to Paris, and a canonry in the cathedral church was given him. He retired to the college of Navarre, to compose this work; yet after about thirty years of application to this his only employment, it was not completed at his death. The tenth book, which contained the beginning of the reign of Charles VIII. was left unfinished. But the history was continued by Arnoldus Feronius, who added nine books, which include the supplement to the former reign, and end at the death of Francis I. This continuation was published at Paris in 1650; but the best edition of the whole is that entitled “Emilii Pauli,'de Gestis Francorum, libri decem, cum Arnoldi Feroni libris novem.” Paris, 2 vols. fol.

He is said to have been very nice and scrupulous in regard to his works, having always some correction to make; hence Erasmus imputes the same fault to him that was objected to the painter Protogenes, who thought he had never finished his pieces; “That very learned man Paulus Emilius (says he) gave pretty much into this fault he was never satisfied with himself but, as often as he revised his own performances, he made such alterations, that one would not take them for the same pieces corrected, but for quite different ones; and this was his usual custom. This made him so slow, that elephants could bring forth sooner than he could produce a work; for he took above thirty years in writing his history.” Lipsius was much pleased with this performance: “Paulus Emilius (says that author) is almost the only modern who has discovered the true and ancient way of writing history, and followed it very closely. His manner of writing is learned, nervous, and concise, inclining to points and conceits, and leaving a strong impression on the mind of a serious reader. He often intermixes maxims and sentiments not inferior to those of the ancients. A careful examiner, and impartial judge of facts; nor have J met with an author in our time, who has less prejudice or partiality. It is a disgrace to our age that so few are pleased with him; and that there are but few capable of relishing his beauties. Among so many perfections there are, however, a few blemishes, for his style is somewhat unconnected, and his periods too short. This is not suitable to serious subjects, especially annals, the style of which, according to Tacitus, should be grave and unaffected. He is also unequal, being sometimes too studied and correct, and thereby obscure; at other times (this however but seldom) he is loose and negligent. He affects also too much of the air of antiquity in the names of men and places, which he changes, and would reduce to the ancient form, often learnedly, sometimes vainly, and in my opinion always unbecomingly.” Emilius’s history is divided into ten books, and extends from Pharamond to the fifth year of Charles VIII. in 1438. The tenth book was found among his papers in a confused condition, so that the editor, Daniel Xavarisio, a native of Verona, and relation of Emilius, was obliged to collate a great number of papers full of rasures, before it could be published. He has been censured by several of the French writers, particularly by M. Sorel: “It does not avail (says this author) that his oratorical pieces are imitations of those of the Greeks, and Romans: all are not in their proper places; for he often makes barbarians to speak in a learned and eloquent manner. To give one remarkable circumstance: though our most authentic historians declare, that Hauler, or Hanier, the counsellor, who spoke an invective, in presence of king Lewis Hautin, against Enguerrand de Mar rigny, came off poorly, and said many silly things; yet Paulus Emilius, who changes even his name, calling him Annalis, makes him speak with an affected eloquence. He also makes this Enguerrand pronounce a defence, though it is said he was not allowed to speak; so that what the historian wrote on this occasion was only to exercise his pen.” He has been also animadverted upon for not taking notice of the holy vial at Ilheims. “I shall not (says Claude de Verdier) pass over Paulus Emilius of Verona’s malicious silence, who omitted mentioning many things relating to the glory of the French nation. Nor can it be said he was ignorant of those things, upon which none were silent before himself; such as that oil which was sent from heaven for anointing our monarchs; and also the lilies. And even though he had not credited them himself, he ought to have declared the opinion of mankind.” Vossius, however, commends his silence in regard to these idle tales. Julius Scaliger mentions a book containing the history of the family of the Scaligers, as translated into elegant Latin by Paulus Emilius; and in his letter about the antiquity and splendour of the family, he has the following passage: “By the injury of time, the malice of enemies, and the ignorance of writers, a great number of memoirs relating to our family were lost; so that the name of Scaliger would have been altogether buried in obscurity, had it not been for Paulus Emilius of Verona, that most eloquent writer and preserver of ancient pedigrees; who having found in Bavaria very ancient annals of our family, written, as himself tells us, in a coarse style, polished and translated them into Latin. From this book my father extracted such particulars as seemed to reflect the” greatest honour on our family." Scaliger speaks also of it in the first edition of his Commentary on Catullus, in 1586, and in the second, in 1600, but in such a manner as differs somewhat from the passage above cited. Scioppius has severely attacked Scaliger on account of these variations: he observes, that no mention being made of the place where this manuscript was pretended to be found, nor the person who possessed it, and such authors as had searched the Bavarian libraries with the utmost care, having met with no such annals; he therefore asserts, that whatever the Scaligers advanced concerning this work, was all im posture. Emilius, as to his private life, was a man of exemplary conduct and untainted reputation. He died in 1529, and was buried in the cathedral at Paris.

, a learned English divine, a great champion of Arianism, and memorable for his sufferings on that account, was descended of a substantial and reputable family, and born at Stamford, in Lincolnshire, May 27, 1663. His parents were frequenters of the established church, and particularly acquainted with Cumberland, then a minister at Stamford, afterwards bishop of Peterborough; but being inclined to the sentiments of the nonconformists, they chose to bring up their son to the ministry among them. For this purpose, after he had been at a private school four years, he was sent in 1678 to an, academy in Northamptonshire, where he continued four years more. He went in 1679 to Cambridge, and was admitted of Emanuel college; but soon returned to the academy. In August 1682, he removed to Mr. Doolittle’s school near London; and in December following made his first essay as a preacher at Mr. Doolittle’s meeting-house, near Cripplegate. In 1683, Mr. Emlyn became chaplain to the countess of Donegal, a lady of great quality and estate in the north of Ireland, but then living in Lincoln’sinn-fields. In 1684, Mr. Emlyn went over with the countess and the rest of her family to Belfast, in Ireland, where she was soon after married to sir William Kranklin, and lived in great state and splendour. Here our chaplain had a very liberal and handsome allowance, usually wore the habit of a clergyman, and was treated by sir VV illiam and the countess with every mark of civility. Sir William, who had a good estate in the ivest of England, offered him a considerable living there; but this offer he declined, not being satisfied with the terms of ministerial conformity, though at that time he had no scruples on the subject of the trinity constantly attended the service of the church both parts of the day and when in the evening he preached in the countess’s hall, he had the minister of the parish, Mr. Claude Gilbert, for a hearer, with whom he lived in great intimacy, and for whom he often officiated in the parish church. Indeed, without any subscription, he had from the bishop of the diocese a licence to preach facultatis exercende gratiá; insomuch that it was reported that he had entirely left the dissenters, and was gone over to the establishment. While Mr. Emlyn was in this station, he made a journey fo Dublin, where he preached once to the congregation of which Mr. Daniel Williams and Mr. Joseph Boyse were then pastors; and so acceptable were his services to the audience, that the people were afterwards induced to invite him thither. Towards the latter end of king James’s reign, the north of Ireland was thrown into such confusion and disorder, that the family of sir William Franklin and the countess of Donegal broke up; an event which was accelerated by some domestic differences. Mr. Emlyn, therefore, returned to London, where he arrived in December 1688. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams had some time before retreated to the same place, having quitted the pastoral care of the congregation at Dublin, which he could never be persuaded to resume. When this determination was known, and Mr. Emlyn had not yet left Ireland, Mr. Boyse sounded him by letter, to know whether he was disposed to become Mr. Williams’s successor, and wished him to take Dublin in his way to England, but this he declined. In Mr. Emlyn’s journeyings between Ireland and London, he several times accepted of invitations to preach in the parish-churches of some towns through which he passed. At Liverpbol in particular, as he was standing at the door of his inn one Saturday evening, the minister of the place, concluding by his garb that he was a clergyman, requested him to give his parishioners a sermon the next day, which he accordingly did. What was very remarkable, when he passed that way again some time afterwards, the minister being dead, several of the people, who had heard him before, desired him to preach for them the next Sunday, which service he performed so much to their satisfaction, that they offered to use their interest with their patron to procure him the living; an offer with which his views of things did not permit him to comply. After Mr. Emlyn had returned to London, being out of employment, he was invited by sir Robert Rich, one of the lords of the admiralty, in May 1689, to his house near Beccles, in Suffolk, and was by him prevailed upon to officiate as minister to a dissenting congregation at Lowestoff in that county. This place he supplied for about a year and a half, but refused the invitation of becoming their pastor, having determined not to accept the pastoral care, where he was not likely to settle for life, or at least for a long continuance. Here also Vie cultivated a friendly correspondence with the parish-minister, frequently taking several of his people along with him to church, and accompanying the minister in collecting public charities; by which means a perfect harmony subsisted between the members of the establishment and the dissenters. During Mr. Emlyn’s residence at LowestofT, ho contractcJ a closu and intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Manning, a nonconformist minister at Peasenhall in that neighbourhood. Being both of them of an inquisitive temper, they frequently conferred together, and jointly examined into the principal points of religion, mutually communicating to each other their respective sentiments. This correspondence, notwithstanding the great distance to which they were afterwards separated, was carried on by letters as long as Mr. Manning lived. Dr. Sherlock’s “Vindication of the Trinity” having been published about this time, their thoughts were much turned to the consideration of that subject, the result of which was, that they began to differ from the received doctrine in that article. Mr. Manning embraced the Socinian opinion, and strove hard to bring Mr. Emlyn into the same way of thinking; but he could not be brought to doubt either of the pre-existence of Jesus as the Logos, or that by him God had created the material world. The interpretations which the Socinians gave of the scriptures appeared to our divine so forced and unnatural, that he could by no means accede to them; nor did he ever, in the succeeding part of his life, change his sentiments upon the subject. Nevertheless, upon occasion of his carrying a letter from Mr. Whiston to the prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, in 1711, he was reflected on as a Socinian preacher.

When James II. bad fled from Ireland to France, and affairs were tending to a settlement in the former kingdom, the protestant congregations began to re-assemble in large numbers. Upon this occasion, Mr. Boyse again pressed Mr. Emlyn to accept the pastoral care, jointly with himself, of the dissenting society in Wood-street, Dublin. The invitation being earnestly recommc'nded by Mr. Nathanael Taylor, an eminent minister in London, Mr. Emlyn thought proper to comply with it, after having taken a considerable time for deliberation. Accordingly, in May 1691, he removed to Dublin. Here he soon came into great reputation as a preacher. He had not only a portly presence, a strong clear voice, and a graceful delivery, but his discourses were for the most part rational and persuasive, and always accompanied with something serious and pathetic. Controversial points he scarcely ever introduced into the pulpit. Few excelled him in prayer; and he was exemplary in the private duties which were incumbent upon him as a Christian minister. Mr. Emlyn being thus settled in Dublin, contracted an acquaintance there with Mrs. Esther Bury, who, though an usual attendant on the church-service, had been induced, by the fame of his preaching, to become his hearer. She was one of the daughters and coheiresses of Mr. David Sollom, a gentleman of good estate in the county of Meath. At this time she was the wife of Richard Cromleholme Bury, esq. who was possessed of a large estate near Limerick, and who, dying on the 23d of November, 1691, left her a widow, with a handsome jointure. In this state, though she had many admirers, Mrs. Bury continued till 1694, when she was married to Mr. Emlyn. He was now arrived to the utmost height of his desires. Being possessed of an easy fortune, he lived in affluence, was highly beloved by his people, and well respected by all who knew him. In 1697 he had some thoughts of openly declaring his sentiments in relation to the Trinity, and of breaking off from the congregation; but, on mature deliberation, he determined not to proceed abruptly in so important an affair, but embrace the first fair occasion of declaring his opinion. Towards the end of 1701 he began to experience a very afflictive change in his condition. His first calamity was of a domestic nature; for, on the 13th of October, he lost his wife, which event was succeeded, in a very few weeks, by the decease of his mother; and he had a little before been deprived of a young son. The death of his wife, in. particular, inflicted a deep and tender wound upon his heart, as may be perceived in the sermon which he preached upon the occasion; and which was printed at Dublin, in 1703, under the title of “Funeral Consolations,” and from its popularity, several times reprinted. In it Mr. Emlyn never once mentions his wife, but, towards the conclusion of the discourse, has covertly and delicately delineated her character.

In less than nine months after Mrs. Emlyn’s decease, he began to be involved in prosecutions on account of his opinions in relation to the Trinity. The first occasion was given by Dr. Duncan Cummins, a noted physician in Ihibiin, and a leading member of the congregation in Wood-street. This gentleman had been brought up to the study of divinity, but afterwards chose the medical profession; he had done many kind offices to Mr. Emlyn, but, having observed that Mr. Emlyn avoided expressing the common opinion, and those arguments which are supposed to support it, he strongly suspected that his judgment was against the Supreme Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This suspicion he communicated to Mr. Boyse, the consequence of which was, that, in June 1702, they jointly waited upon Mr. Emlyn, acquainting him with their jealousies, and earnestly desiring to know his real sentiments in the matter. Being tlius applied to, he thought himself bound to declare openly his faith in so great a point. Accordiugly he freely owned himself to be convinced, that the God and father of Jesus Christ is alone the Supreme Being, and superior in excellence and authority to his son, who derives all from him. At the same time, Mr. Emlyn told the gentlemen that he did not aim to make any strife among the people of the congregation, but was willing to leave them peaceably, that, if they pleased, they might choose another minister. This, however, was not to be permitted him. Mr. Boyse, not willing to take such a weighty matter upon himself, brought it before the Dublin ministers, namely, Mr. Weld, Mr. Travers, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Iredel, and Mr. Tate. At an interview with them, he candidly explained his sentiments, the only resuli of which was, that, on that very day, they agreed to cast him off, and that he should not be permitted to preach any more: and this they did without consulting his congregation, who, as yet, were entire strangers to the affair. Mr. Emlyn, however, directed the deacons and chief managers of the church to be called together, when he informed them, that a difference of opinion relative to the Trinity had rendered him offensive to some who were present, and to the ministers of Dublin; upon which account, thankfully acknowledging the kindness and respect they had shewn him for so many years, he desired his dismission. At this declaration the gentlemen assembled were greatly surprised and grieved; and Dr. Cummins himself then wished he had not begun the business. It was proposed that Mr. Emlyn should lie by for some time without preaching; but to this he would not consent without a declaration of the cause, lest he should be suspected of having been guilty of some immorality. The next proposition, was, that he should retire for a while to England, provided it was approved of by the ministers. To this they agreed, accompanying their agreement with a curious message, sent by two of their number, charging him not to preach any where, to whatever place he went. Mr. Emlyn embarked for England the next day, with great inconvenience to himself and family; and, no sooner was he gone, than a loud clamour was raised against him and his opinions. When he came to London, he found some persons who were disposed to treat him with candour and charity. This, however, when they heard of it, was so offensive to the Dublin ministers, that they endeavoured, by their letters, to render him as odious as possible. While he was in London, he published a short account of his case.

After about ten weeks’ absence, though Mr. Emlyn received discouraging accounts of the rage that prevailed against him in Dublin, he thought it necessary to return, to his family. Finding that both his opinions and his person lay under a great odium among many who knew little of the subject in dispute, he wrote his “Humble Inquiry into the Scripture account of Jesus Christ: or, a short argument concerning his Deity and Glory, according to the Gospel.” A few days after this work was prinjted, our author intended to return to England; but some zealous dissenters, getting notice of his design, resolved to have him prosecuted. Two of them, one of whom was a presbyterian, and the other a baptist-church officer, were for presenting Mr. Emlyn; but, upon reflection, this method was judged to be too slow, and too uncertain in its operation. Mr. Caleb Thomas, therefore, the latter of the two dissenters, immediately obtained a special warrant from the lord chief justice (sir Richard Pyne) to seize our author and his books. Our author, with part of the impression of his work, being thus seized, was carried before the lord chief justice, who at first refused bail, but afterwards said that it might be allowed with the attorney-general’s consent; which being obtained, two sufficient persons were bound in a recognizance of eight hundred pounds for Mr. Emlyn’s appearance. This was in Hilary term, February 1703, at the end of which he was bound over to Easter term, when the grand jury found the bill, wherein he was indicted of blasphemy. To such a charge he chose to traverse. The indictment was altered three times before it was finally settled, which occasioned the trial to be deferred till June 14, 1703. On that day, Mr. Emlyn was informed, by an eminent gentleman of the long robe, sir Richard Levins, afterwards lord chief justice of the common pleas, that he would not be permitted to speak freely, but that it was designed to run him down like a wolf, without law or game; and he was soon convinced that this was not a groundless assertion. The indictment was for writing and publishing a book, wherein he had blasphemously and maliciously asserted, that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the father, to whom he was subject; and this with a seditious intention. As Mr. Emlyn knew that it would be difficult to convict him of being the author of the work, he did not think himself bound to be his own accuser, and the prosecutor not being able to produce sufficient evidence of the fact, at length sent for Mr. Boyse. This gentleman, being examined as to what Mr. K.mlyn had preached of the matters contained in the book, acknowledged that he had said nothing of tlu-tn in the pulpit directly, but only some things that gave ground of suspicion. Mr. Boyse being farther asked, what our author had said in private conference with the ministers, answered, “that what he had declared there was judged by his brethren to be near to Arianism.” Though this only proved the agreement of the book with Mr. Emlyn’s sentiment, it yet had a great effect upon the minds of the jury, and tended more than any other consideration to produce a verdict against him. The queen’s counsel, having thus only presumption to allege, contended,that strong presumption was as good as evidence; which doctrine was seconded by the lord chief justice, who repeated it to the jury, who brought him in guilty, without considering the contents of the book whether blasphemy or not, confining themselves, as it would appear, to the fact of publishing: for which some of them afterwards expressed their concern. The verdict being pronounced, the passing of the sentence was deferred to June 16, being the last day of the term. In the mean time Mr. Emlyn was committed to the common jail. During this interval, Mr. Boyse shewed great concern for our author, and used all his interest to prevent the rigorous sentence for which the attorney-general (Robert Kochford, esq.) had moved, viz. the pillory. It being thought proper that Mr. Emlyn should write to the lord chief justice, he accordingly did so; but with what effect we are not told. When he appeared to have judgment given against him, it was moved by one of the queen’s counsel (Mr. Brodrick) that he should retract: but to this our author could not consent. The lord chief justice, therefore, proceeded to pass sentence on him; which was, that he should suffer a year’s imprisonment, pay a thousand pounds fine to the queen, and lie in prison till paid; and that he should find security for good behaviour during life. The pillory, he was told, was the punishment due; but, on account of his being a man of letters, it was not inflicted. Then, with a paper on his breast, he was led round the four courts to l>e exposed. After judgment had been passed, Mr. Emlyn was committed to the sheriffs of Dublin, and was a close prisoner, for something more than a quarter of a year, in the house of the under-sheriff. On the 6th of October he was hastily hurried away to the common jail, where he lay among the prisoners in a close room filled with six beds, for about five or six weeks; and then, by an habeas corpus, he was upon his petition removed into the Marshalsea for his health. Having here greater conveniences, he wrote, in 1704, a tract, entitled “General Remarks on Mr. Boyse’s Vindication of the true Deity of our blessed Saviour.” In the Marshalsea our author remained till July 21, 1705, during the whole of which time his former acquaintances were estranged from him, and all offices of friendship or.civility in a manner ceased; especially among persons of a superior rank. A few, indeed, of the plainer tradesmen belonging to his late congregation were more compassionate; but not one of the dissenting ministers of Dublin, Mr. Boyse excepted, paid him any visit or attention. At length, through the zealous and repeated solicitations of Mr. Boyse, the generous interference of Thomas Medlicote, esq. the humane interposition of the duke of Ormond, and the favourable report of the lord chancellor (sir Richard Cox, to whom a petition of Mr. Emlyn had been preferred), and whose report was, that such exorbitant fines were against law, the fine was reduced to seventy pounds, and it was accordingly paid into her majesty’s exchequer. Twenty pounds more were paid, by way of composition, to Dr. Narcissus March, archbishop of Armagh, who, as queen’s almoner, had a claim of one shilling a pound upon the whole fine. During Mr. Emlyn’s confinement in the Marshalsea, he regularly preached there. He had hired a pretty large room to himself; whither, on the Sundays, some of the imprisoned debtors resorted; and from without doors there came several of the lower sort of his former people and usual hearers. Soon after his release Mr. Emlyn returned to London, where a small congregation was found for him, consisting of a few friends, to whom he preached once every Sunday. This he did without salary or stipend; although, in consequence of his wife’s jointure having devolved to her children, his fortune was reduced to a narrow income. The liberty of preaching which our author enjoyed, gave great offence to several persons, and especially to Mr. Charles Leslie, the famous nonjuror, and Mr. Francis Higgins, the rector of Balruddery, in the county of Dublin. Complaint was made upon the subject to Dr. Teniaon, archbishop of Canterbury, who was not inclined to molest him. Nevertheless, in the representation of the lower house of convocation to the queen in 1711, it was asserted, that weekly sermons were preached in defence of the Unitarian principles, an assertion which Mr. Emlyn thought proper to deny in a paper containing some observations upon it. After a few years, his congregation was dissolved by the death of the principal persons who had attended upon his ministry, and he retired into silent obscurity, but not into idleness; for the greater part of his life was diligently spent in endeavouring to support, by various works, the principles he had embraced, and the cause for which he had suffered. The first performance published by him, after his release from prison, was “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Willis, 'dean of Lincoln; being some friendly remarks on his sermon before the honourable house of commons, Nov. 5, 1705.” The intention of this letter was to shew that the punishment even of papists for religion was not warranted by the Jewish laws; and that Christians had been more cruel persecutors than Jews. In 1706 Mr. Emlyn published what his party considered as one of his most elaborate productions, “A Vindication of the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, on Unitarian principles. In anMver to what is said, on that head, by Mr. Joseph Boyse, in his Vindication of” the Deity of Jesus Christ. To which is annexed, an answer to Dr. Walerland on the same head.“Two publications came from our author in 1707, the first of which was entitled” The supreme Deity of God the Father demonstrated. In answer to Dr. Sherlock’s arguments fur the supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ, or whatever can be urged against the supremacy of the first person of the Holy Trinity.“The other was” A brief Vindication of the Bishop of Gloucester’s (Dr. Fowler) Discourses concerning the descent of the man Christ Jesus from Heaven, from Dr. Sherlock the dean of St. Paul’s charge of heresy. With a confutation of his new notion in his late book of The Scripture proofs of our Saviour’s divinity.“In 1708 Mr. Emlyn printed three tracts, all of them directed against Mr. Leslie. The titles of them are as follow: 1. Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 2. A Vindication of the Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 3. An Examination of Mr. Leslie’s last Dialogue relating to the satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Together with some remarks on Dr. Stillingfleet’s True reasons of Christ’s Sufferings. In the year 1710 he published” The previous question to the several questions about valid and invalid Baptism, Lay-baptism, &c. considered viz. whether there be any necessity (upon the principles of Mr. Wall’s History of infant baptism) for the continual use of baptism among the posterity of baptised Christians.“But this hypothesis, though supported with ingenuity and learning, has not obtained many converts. Our author did not again appear from the press till 1715, when he published” A full Inquiry into the original authority of that text, 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, &c. containing an account of Dr. Mill’s evidence, from antiquity, for and against its being genuine; with an examination of his judgment thereupon.“This piece was addressed to Dr. William Wake, lord archbishop of Canterbury, president, to the bishops of the same province, his grace’s suffragans, and to the clergy of the lower house of convocation, then assembled. The disputed text found an advocate in Mr. Martin, pastor of the French church at the Hague, who published a critical dissertation on the subject, in opposition to Mr. Emlyn’s Inquiry. In 1718 our author again considered the question, in” An Answer to Mr. Martin’s critical dissertation on 1 John v. 7; shewing the insufficiency of his proofs, and the errors of his suppositions, by which he attempts to establish the authority of that text from supposed manuscripts." Mr. Martin having published an examination of this answer, Mr. Emlyn printed a reply to it in 1720, which produced a third tract upon the subject by Mr. Martin, and there the controversy ended; nor, we believe, was it revived in a separate form, until within these few years by Mr. archdeacon Travis and professor Person.

While Mr. Emlyn was engaged in this celebrated controversy, he found leisure for other publications. In 1718 he printed a tract entitled, “Dr. Bennet’s new theory of the Trinity examined; or, some considerations on the Discourse of the ever blessed Trinity in Unity; and his examination of Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity.” Dr. Bennet’s explication of the Trinity was singular, and approached to Sabellianism; on which account he laid himself open to the strictures both of trinitarian and Unitarian divines. Three pieces were published by Mr. Emlyn in 1719. The first was “Remarks on a book entitled The Doctrine of the blessed Trinity stated and defended, by four London ministers, Mr. Tong, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Reynolds. With an appendix, concerning the equality of the Three Persons, and Mr. Jurieu’s testimony to the primitive doctrine on this point.” These were four dissenting clergymen, who had united their talents upon the subject. His next publication was, “A trua narrative of the proceedings of the dissenting ministers of Dublin against Mr. Thomas Emlyn; and of his prosecution (at some of the dissenters’ instigation) in the secular court, and his sufferings thereupon, for his humble Inquiry into the scripture account of the Lord Jesus Christ: annis 1702, 3, 4, 5. To which is added an appendix, containing the author’s own and the Dublin ministers’ account of the difference between him and them, with some remarks thereon.” The last tract published by our author, in 1719, was “The reverend Mr. Trosse’s Arguments answered; relating to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Deity of the Holy Ghost. Taken from his Catechism, and Sermon on Luke xxii. 31. printed at Exon.”

Although Mr. Emlyn flattered himself that his doctrine gradually gained ground both in England and Ireland, he still continued to be so obnoxious, that none of the divines among the dissenters in London dared to ask him to preach for them, excepting the ministers of the baptist congregation at Barbican, Mr. Burroughs and Mr. (afterwards Dr.) James Foster, who invited him more than once to that office. About 1726, upon the decease of Mr. James Pierce, of Exeter, several of the people wished to invite Mr. Emlyn thither; but, as soon as he was acquainted with it, be requested them to desist, thanking them for their respectful attention to him, and excusing his acceptance of an invitation, on account of his declining years, and the feebleness of his limbs. Though our author lived in private retirement, he was honoured with the esteem and friendship of divers persons of distinguishe4 learning and in eminent stations. He was particularly intimate with Dr. Samuel Clarke, who, though at first he was upon the reserve with Mr. Emlyn, when he came to be farther acquainted with him, expressed a high value and regard for him, generally advised with him in matters of importance, and opened his mind to him with the utmost freedom. The doctor’s language to our author was, “I can say any thing to you.” Mr. Whiston also, in his account of his own life, has spoken of Emtyn several times in terms of great respect. In 1731 our author wrote “Observations on Dr. Waterland’s notions in relation to Polytheism, Ditheism, the Son’s consubstantiality with, and inferiority to, the Father;” and in the same year he drew up some “Memoirs of the Life and Sentiments of the reverend Dr. Samuel Clarke,” neither separately published, but inserted in his works. Mr. Einlyn, who was naturally of a very cheerful and lively temper, enjoyed, in all respects, a large share of health, the gout excepted; which, by degrees, impaired his health, and by its annual returns greatly disabled him in his limbs. For the last two or three years of his life he grew much feebler; and about a year before his death he received a violent shock, which it was feared would have carried him off. However, he so well recovered from it, that he weathered the next winter, though a severe one, without any farther breach upon his health. On Friday, July 17, 1743, he was suddenly taken ill in the night, but grew so far better as to be able, for some days, to converse with his friends, and to testify the great satisfaction he enjoyed in the consciousness of his integrity. His disorder returning, he departed this life on Tuesday, the 30th day of the month, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. On the 16th of August following, his funeral sermon was preached at Barbican, by Mr. Foster, who has given him an excellent character. His character is likewise displayed at large in the Memoirs of his life, in which we are told that he was one of the brightest examples of substantial unaffected piety, of serious rational devotion, of a steady unshaken integrity, and an undaunted Christian courage. He was buried in Bunhill-Fields, where there is an inscription to his memory. The Memoirs of his life were written by his son, Sollom Emlyn, esq. and separately published in 1746. In the same year they were prefixed to a collection of his works, in two volumes, octavo. An appendix is added, containing several short papers, drawn up by our author, on various subjects. Mr. Sollom Emlyn, who was bred to the law, and became an eminent counsellor, was employed to publish lord chief justice Hale’s “History of the Pleas of the Crown,” which he did in 1736, in two volumes, folio, together with a preface and large notes, many, of which were contributed by Mr. William Whiston, a son of the celebrated Whiston, who also examined many of the records for the purpose of accuracy. Mr. Sollom Emlyn died in 1756, and left one son, Thomas Emlyn, esq. barrister at law, a bencher of Lincoln’s Inn, and fellow of the royal society, who died in 1797.

Mr. Emlyn was one of the most eminent divines of the Arian persuasion which this country has produced, but liis writings are not now so much read as they formerly were. He was what is called a high Ariao; believing our blessed Saviour to be the first of derived beings, the Creator of the world, and an object of worship; but several persons who are advocates for the pre-existence of Christ, do not entirely coincide with the sentiments which Mr. Emlyn has advanced upon these subjects.

, a learned professor of Groningen, was born at Gretha, a village in East Friesland, Dec. 5, 1547. He was the son of Emmo Diken, a minister of that village, who had been Luther’s and Melancthon’s disciple; and at nine years of age was sent to study at Embden. He continued there till he was eighteen, and was then sent to Bremen, to improve under the famous John Molanus. Returning to his father, he did not go immediately to the university, but passed some time at Norden. Being turned of twenty-three, he was sent to Rostock, a flourishing university, where he heard the lectures of David Chytraeus, a celebrated divine and historian; and of Henry Bruce, an able mathematician and physician. The death of his father obliged him to return to East Friesland, after he had continued above two years at Rostock.; and his mother’s excessive grief upon this occasion hindered his taking a journey into France, as he had wished, and induced him to continue with her three years, after which he went to Geneva, where he staid two years. Being returned into his own country, he had the choice of two preferments, either to be a minister or the rector of a college: but, from a great degree of natural timidity, he could not venture to engage in the ministry, thoagh it was very much his inclination. He chose therefore to be rector of a college, which was that of Norden and was admitted into that post in 1579. He made his college flourish exceedingly but was turned out of his employment in 1587, through the zeal of some Lutherans, because he would not subscribe the confession of Augsburg. He was chosen the year after to be rector of the college of Leer, whose reputation he raised so high, that it surpassed that of Norden; which the Lutherans could never retrieve from the declining state into which it fell after Emmius was deposed. They had banished from Groningen several persons who followed Calvin’s reformation; and those of the exiles who retired to Leer, meeting with the same fate as Emmius, engaged in a particular friendship with him: so that, when the city of Groningen confederated with the United Provinces, and the magistrates resolved to restore their college, Emmius being recommended by several persons, they chose him to be the rector of that college, and gave him a full power to make or abrogate there such statutes as he should think proper.

He entered upon this employment in 1594, and exercised it near twenty years, to the uncommon advantage of the students, who were sent in great numbers to that college. At the end of that time, namely, in 1614, the magistrates of Groningen changed their college into an university, and made Emmius professor of history and of the Greek tongue. He was the first rector of that university, and one of the chief ornaments of it by his lectures, till the infirmities of old age did not suffer him to appear any longer in public. Yet he did not become useless either to the republic of letters, or to the university of Groningen; for he continued to write books, and to impart his wise counsels to the senate in all important affairs. He was a man whose learning was not his only merit: he was capable, which few men who spend their lives in a college are, of advising even princes. The governor of the provinces of Friesland and Groningen consulted him very often, and seldom failed to follow his advice.

His knowledge of history, and his memory, must have been extraordinary, if credit can be given to his biographers, who assert, that, without any preparation, he could answer all manner of questions concerning the history, both ancient and modern, of any country whatsoever, without the least mistake in the circumstances of times, places, and persons. He not only knew the actions, events and motives, but also understood the interest of the several nations, the form of their government, the inclinations of their princes, the means they employed to enlarge their dominions, their alliances, and their origin. He knew also the figure, situation, and magnitude of their cities tmd forts, the position of rivers and highways, the turnings and windings of mountains, &c. The author of his life has collected several encomiums, which Thuanus, Scaliger, Dousa, and others, have passed upon him, which are abundantly flattering, especially those of Scaliger, who styles Emmius’s History of Friesland “a divine history.” The magistrates of Groningen caused his picture to be placed in the town-house.

, an eminent philosopher, poet, orator, historian, and physician, was of Agrigentum, in Sicily, and flourished about the eighty-fourth olympiad, or B. C. 44-4. He appears from his doctrine to have been of the Italic school; but under what master he studied philosophy is uncertain. After the death of his father Meto, who was a wealthy citizen of Agrigentum, he acquired great weight among his fellow-citizens, by espousing the popular party, and favouring democratic measures. He employed a large share of his paternal estate in giving dowries to young women, and marrying them to men of superior rank. His consequence in the state became at length so great, that he ventured to assume several of the distinctions of royalty, particularly a purple robe, a golden girdle, a Delphic crown, and a train of attendants; always retaining a grave and commanding aspect. He was a determined enemy to tyranny, and is said to have employed his influence in establishing and defending the rights of his countrymen.

The skill which Empedocles possessed in medicine and natural philosophy enabled him to perform many wonders, which he passed upon the superstitious and credulous multitude for miracles. He pretended to drive away noxious winds from his country, and hereby put a stop to epidemical diseases. He is said to have checked, by the power of music, the madness of a young man, who was threatening his enemy with instant death; to have cured Pantha, a woman of Agrigentum, whom all the physicians had declared incurable; to have restored a woman to life, who had lain breathless for thirty days; and to have done many other things equally astonishing, after the manner of Pythagoras: on account of which he was an object of universal admiration, so that when he came to the Olympic games, the eyes of all the people were fixed upon him. Besides medical skill, Empedocles possessed poetical talents. The fragments of his verses, which are dispersed through various ancient writers, have been in part collected by Henry Stephens, in the “Poesis philosophica,” 1574, 8vo. This circumstance affords some ground for the opinion of Fabricius, that Empedocles was the real author of that ancient fragment which bears the name of “The Golden Verses of Pythagoras.” He is said also to have been a dramatic poet; but Empedocles the tragedian was another person; Suidas, upon some unknown authority, calls him the grandson of the philosopher. Georgias Leontinus, a celebrated orator, was his pupil; whence it may seem reasonable to infer, that he was an eminent master of the art of eloquence. The particulars of his death are variously related. Some report, that during the night, after a sacred festival, he was conveyed away towards the heavens, amidst the splendour of celestial light; others that he threw himself into the burning crater of Mount Etna. Much reliance cannot be placed on either of these stories. There is more probability that towards the close of his life he went into Greece, and died there, at what time is uncertain. Aristotle says he died at sixty years of age. The substance of his philosophy, according to Brucker, is this: It is impossible to judge of truth by the senses without the assistance of reason; which is. led, by the intervention of the senses, to the contemplation of the real nature, and immutable essences, of things. The first principles of nature are of two kinds, active and passive the active is unity, or God the passive, matter. The active principle is a subtle, ethereal fire, intelligent and divine, which gives being to all things, and animates all things, and into which all things will be at last resolved. Many daemons, portions of the divine nature, wander through the region of the air, and administer human affairs. Man, and also all brute animals, are allied to the divinity; and it is therefore unlawful to kill or eat animals. The world is one whole, circumscribed by the revolution of the sun, and surrounded, not by a vacuum, but by a. mass of inactive matter. The first material principles of the four elements are similar atoms, indefinitely small, and of a round form. Matter, thus divided into corpuscles, possessed the primary qualities of friendship and discord, by means of which, upon the first agitation of the original chaotic mass, homogeneous parts were united, and heterogeneous separated, and the four elements composed, of which all bodies are generated. The motion of the corpuscles, which excites the qualities of friendship and discord, is produced by the energy of intellectual fire, or divine mind; all motion, and consequently all life and being, must therefore be ascribed to God. The first principles of the elements are eternal nothing can begin to exist, or be annihilated but all the varieties of nature are produced by combination or separation. In the formation of the world, ether was first secreted from chaos, then fire, then earth; by the agitation of which were produced water and air. The heavens are a solid body of air, crystallized by fire. The stars are bodies composed of fire, they are fixed in the crystal of heaven; but the planets wander freely beneath it. The sun is a fiery mass, larger than the moon, which is in the form of a hollow plate, and twice as far from the sun as from the earth. The soul of man consists of two parts, the sensitive, produced from the same principles with the elements; and the rational, which is a daemon sprung from the divine soul of the world, and sent down into the body as a punishment for its crimes in a former state, where it transmigrates till it is sufficiently purified to return to God.

, of Oppyck, in Holland, was born there in the latter part of the sixteenth century, and acquired great reputation for his knowledge of the oriental languages. He was also an able lawyer and divine, and took his degree of doctor in the latter faculty. He studied the oriental languages under Drusius and Erpenius, and after having been professor of theology and Hebrew at Harderwich for eight years, was, in 1627, made professor of Hebrew at Leyden, on which occasion he delivered an harangue on the dignity and utility of the Hebrew language, and it was his constant endeavour to diffuse a knowledge of that language, and of the Arabic and jSyriac, among his countrymen, that they might be the better enabled to combat the objections of the Jews to the Christian religion. In 1639, count Maurice, governor of Bresil, appointed him his counsellor. He died in June 1648, very soon after he had begun a course of theology at Leyden. He lived in much intimacy with Lewis de Dieu, Daniel Heinsius, and the Buxtorfs, who speak very highly of him. He offered at one time to superintend the printing of a Talmudical dictionary in Holland, and endeavoured to bring the younger Buxtorf to Leyden, who had undertaken to defend the vowel points against Lewis Cappel. We also find him corresponding with our excellent archbishop Usher. Constantine’s works are, 1 “Coinmentarius ad codicem Babylouicum, seu Tractatus Thalmudicus de mensuris Templi,” Leyden, 1630, 4to. 2. “Versio et Notae ad Paraphrasin Joseph! Jachiadae in Danielem,” Amst. 1633, 4to. 3. “Itinerarium D. Benjaminis,” Heb. and Lat. Leyden, 8vo. 4. “Moysis Kimchi Grammatica Chaldaica,” ibid. 8vo. 5. “Confutatio Abarbanelis et Alscheichi in caput liii. Isaia-,” ibid. 1631, 8vo, and Franc. 1685. 6. “Commentarius in Tractatum Thaimudicum, qui dicitur Porta, de legibus Hebraeorum forensibus,” Heb. and Lat ibid. 1637, 4to. 7. “Commentariuf ad Betramum de Republica Hebrseorum,” 1641, 8vo.

, a dissenting divine of great learning and amiable character, was born at Sudbury, on March 29, O. S. 1741, of parents in a humble walk of life, but of very respectable characters. His amiable disposition and promising talents early recommended him to the rev. Mr. Hextall, the dissenting minister of that place, who took great care of his education, and infused into hi young mind that taste for elegance in composition, which ever afterwards distinguished him. In his seventeenth year, he was sent to the academy at Daventry, then under the direction of the rev. Dr. Ashworth, where he passed through the usual course of instruction preparatory to the office of the ministry; and with such success did he cultivate his talents, that, on leaving the academy, he was at once chosen, in 1763, minister of the congregation of Benri’s Garden, in Liverpool, where he passed seven of the happiest years of life, very generally beloved and esteemed. He manned, in 1767, the daughter of Mr. Holland, draper, in Liverpool, with whom he passed all the rest of his days in most cordial union. His literary reputation was extended, during his residence in this place, by the publication of two volumes of sermons, which were very well received, and were followed by “A Collection of Hymns and of Family Prayers.”

About 1770, he was invited to take a share in the conduct of the dissenting academy at Warrington, and also to occupy the place of minister to the congregation, there, both vacant by the death of the rev. Mr. Seddon. His acceptance of this honourable invitation was a source of a variety of mixed sensations and events to him, of which anxiety and vexation composed too large a share for his happiness. No assiduity on his part was wanting in the performance of his various duties but the diseases of the institution were radical and incurable and perhaps his gentleness of temper was ill adapted to contend with the difficulties in Blatter of discipline, which seem entailed on all dissenting academies, and which, in that situation, fell upon him, as the domestic resident, with peculiar weight. He always, however, possessed the respect and affection of the hestdisposed of the students; and there was no reason to suppose that any other person, in his place, could have prevented that dissolution which the academy underwent in 1783. During the period of his engagement there, his indefatigable industry was exerted in the composition of a number of works, mostly, indeed, of the class of useful compilations, but containing valuable displays ofhis powers of thinking and writing. The most considerable was his “Institutes of Natural Philosophy,” 1783, 4to, a clear and well-arranged compendium of the leading principles, theoretical and experimental, of the sciences comprized under that head. And it may be mentioned as an extraordinary proof of his diligence and power of comprehension, that, on a vacancy in the mathematical department of the academy, which the state of the institution rendered it impossible to supply by a new tutor, he prepared himself at a short warning to fill it up; and did till it with credit and utility, though this abstruse branch of science had never before been a particular object of his study. He continued at Warrington two years after the academy had broken up, taking a few private pupils. In 1785, receiving an invitation from the principal dissenting congregation at Norwich, he accepted it, and first fixed his residence at Thorpe, a pleasant village near the city, where he pursued his plan of taking a limited number of pupils to board in his house. He afterwards removed to Norwich itself, and at length, fatigued with the long cares of education, entirely ceased to receive boarders, and only gave private instructions to two or three select pupils a few hours in the morning. This too he at last discontinued, and devoted himself solely to the duties of his congregation, and the retired and independent occupations of literature. Yet, in a private way and small circle, few men had been more successful in education, of which many striking examples might be mentioned, and none more so than the members of his own family. Never, indeed, was a father more deservedly happy in his children; but the eldest, whom he had trained with uncommon care, and who had already, when just of age, advanced in his professional, career so far as to be chosen town-clerk of Nottingham, was most unfortunately snatched away by a fever, a few years since. This fatal event produced effects on the doctor’s health which alarmed his friends. The symptoms were those of angina pectoris, and they continued till the usual serenity of his mind was restored by time and employment. Some of the last years of his life were the most comfortable; employed only in occupations which, were agreeable to him, and which left him master of his own time witnessing the happy settlement of two of his daughters contracted in his living within the domestic privacy which he loved and connected with some of the most agreeable literary companions, and with a set of cordial and kind-hearted friends, he seemed fully to enjoy life as it flowed, and indulged himself in pleasing prospects for futurity. But an unsuspected and incurable disease was preparing a sad and sudden change; a schirrous contraction of the rectum, the symptoms of which were mistaken by himself for a common laxity of the bowels, brought on a total stoppage, which, after a week’s struggle, ended in death. Its gradual approach gave him opportunity to display all the tenderness, and more than the usual firmness of his nature. He died amidst the kind offices of mourning friends at Norwich, Nov. 3, 1797. Besides the literary performances already mentioned, Dr. Enfielcl completed in 1791, the laborious task of an abridgment of “Brucker’s History of Philosophy,” which he Comprized in two volumes, 4to. It may be truly said, that the tenets of philosophy and the lives of its professors were never before displayed in so pleasing a form, and with such clearness and elegance of language. Indeed it was his peculiar excellence to arrange and express other men’s ideas to the utmost advantage; but it has been objected that in this work he has been sometimes betrayed into inaccuracies by giving what he thought the sense of the ancients in cases where accuracy required their very words to be given. Yet a more useful or elegant work upon the subject has never appeared in our language, and in our present undertaking we have taken frequent opportunities to acknowledge our obligations to it. Among Dr. Enfield’s publications not noticed above, were his “Speaker,” a selection of pieces for the purpose of recital “Exercises on Elocution,” a sequel to the preceding “The Preacher’s Directory,” an arrangement of topics and texts “The English Preacher,” a collection of short sermons from various authors, 9 vols. 12mo; “Biographical Sermons on the principal characters in the Old and New Testament.” After his death a selection of his “Sermons” was published in 3 vols. 8vo, with a life by Dr. Aikin. As a divine, Dr. Enfield ranks among the Socinians, and his endeavours in these sermons are to reduce Christianity to a mere system of ethics.

, another artist, was born atMalines in the year 1527. Though he, has left chiefly pictures in distemper, yet he is allowed to be a very able artist. His principal works are in the church of St, llorabout. He has represented on a large canvas, the works of mercy. A multitude of figures, well designed, form the object of this grand composition, and among them he is said to have distinguished, with great spirit, the poor that deserve our compassion, from those who do not. His works are dispersed in the principal towns of Germany. At Hamburgh, in the church of St. Catharine, was a grand and learned composition representing the conversion of St. Paul. He painted for the prince of Orange, ill the castle of Antwerp, the history of David, from the designs of Lucas van Heere. De Vries painted the architecture of it, the friezes, the terms, and the other ornaments. The whole was executed in water-colours. Enghelrams died in, 1583, at the age of fifty-six.

All we know of this curious artist is, that she lived single to the age of about forty, and then married Mr. Bartholomew Kello, a North Briton; that she had a son who was educated at Oxford, and was minister of Speckshall. in Suffolk. His son was sword-bearer of Norwich, and died in 1709. Joseph Hall, bishop of Norwich, when dean of Worcester, 1617, is styled by her, “My very singulaf friend,” in a manuscript dedicated to him, now in the Bodleian library.

, an ancient Latin poet, was born at Radian, a town in Calabria, anno U. C. 514, or B.C. 237. That this was the place of his nativity, we learn from himself, as well as from others; and the Florentines at this day claim him for their fellow-citizen. He came at first to Rome, when M. P. Cato was quaestor, whom he had instructed in the Greek language in Sardinia. C. Nepos informs us, that “Cato, when he was praetor, obtained the province of Sardinia, from whence, when he was quaestor there before, he had brought Ennius to Rome:” which we esteem,“says the historian,” no less than the noblest triumph over Sardinia.“He had a house on the Aventine mount; and, by his genius, conversation, and integrity, gained the friendship of the most eminent perspns in the city. Among these were Galba and M. Fulvius Nobilior, by whose son (who, after his father’s example, was greatly addicted to learning) he was made free of the city. He attended Fulvius in the war against the Ætolians and Ambraciotae, and celebrated his victories over those nations. He fought likewise under Torquatus in Sardinia, and under the elder Scipio; and in all these services distinguished himself by his uncommon valour. He was very intimate with Scipio Nasica, as appears from Cicero: Nasica, going one day to visit Ennius, and the maid-servant saying that he was not at home, Scipio found that she had told him so by her master’s orders, and that Ennius was at home. A few days after, Ennius coming to Nasica, and inquiring for him at the door, the latter called out to him,” that he was not at home.“Upon which Ennius answering,” What do I not know your voice“Scipio replied,” You have a great deal of assurance for I believed your maid, when she told me, that you were not at home and will not you believe me myself?" Ennius was a man of uncommon virtue, and lived in great simplicity and frugality. He died at the age of seventy years; and his death is said to have been occasioned by the gout, contracted by an immoderate use of wine, of which he always drank very freely before he applied himself to writing. This Horace affirms:

He was interred in the Appian way, within a mile of the city, in Scipto’s sepulchre; who had so great an esteem and friendship for him, that he ordered him to be buried in his sepulchre, and a statue to be erected to him upon his monument. Valer. Maximus observes, that “Scipio paid these honours to Ennius, because he thought that his own, actions received a lustre from that poet’s writings; and was persuaded, that the memory of his exploits would last as long as the Roman empire should flourish.”

Ennius is said to have been perfectly well skilled in the Greek language, and to have endeavoured to introduce the treasures of it among the Latins. Suetonius tells us, that “he and Livius Andronicus were half Greeks, and taught both the Greek and Latin languages at home and abroad.” He was the first among the Romans who wrote heroic verses, and greatly polished the Latin poetry. He wrote the Annals of Rome, which were so highly esteemed, that they were publicly recited with unusual applause by Q,uintus Vargonteius, who digested them into books; and they were read at Puteoli in the theatre by a man of learning, who assumed the name of the Ennianist. He translated several tragedies from the Greek, and wrote others. He published likewise several comedies; but, whether of his own invention, or translated by him, is uncertain. He gave a Latin version of Evemerus’s sacred history, and Epicharmus’s philosophy and wrote Phagetica, epigrams; Scipio, a poem Asotus or Sotadicus, satires Protreptica & Praecepta, and very probably several other works. It appears from his writings, that he had very strong sentiments of religion. The fragments of Ennius, for there are nothing but fragments left, were first collected by the two Stephenses; and afterwards published by Jerom Columna, a Roman nobleman, with a learned commentary, and the life of Ennius, at Naples, 1590, 4to. Columna’s edition was reprinted at Amsterdam, 1707, 4to, with several additions by Hesselius, professor of history and eloquence in the school at Rotterdam, and this is by far the best edition of Ennius.

, bishop of Pavia in Italy, and an eminent writer, was descended from an illustrious family in Gaul, and horn in Italy about the year 473. Losing an aunt, who had brought him up, at sixteen years of age, he was reduced to very necessitous circumstances, but retrieved his affairs by marrying a young lady of great fortune and quality. He enjoyed for some time all the pleasures and advantages which his wealth could procure him; but afterwards resolved upon a more strict course of life. He entered into orders, with the consent of his lady, who likewise betook herself to a religious life. He was ordained deacon by Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, with whom he lived in the most inviolable friendship. His application to divinity did not divert him from prosecuting, at his leisure hours, poetry and oratory, in which he had distinguished himself from his youth; and his writings gained him very great reputation. Upon the death of Epiphanius, he appears to have been elected one of the deacons of the Roman church; and in the year 603, having presented to the synod of Rome an apology for the council there, which had absolved pope Symmachus the year before, it was ordered to be inserted among the acts of the synod. He was advanced to the bishopric of Pavia about the year 511, and appointed to negociate an union between the eastern and western churches; for which purpose he took two journeys into the east, the former in the year 515, with Fortunatus, bishop of Catanaea; the latter in the year 517, with Peregrinus, bishop of Misenum. Though he did not succeed in these negotiations, he shewed his prudence and resolution in the management of them. For the emperor Anastasius, having in vain used his utmost efforts to deceive or corrupt him, after other instances of ill treatment, ordered him to be put on board an old ship; and, forbidding him to land in any part of Greece, exposed him to manifest danger, yet he arrived safe in Italy; and, returning to Padua, died there, not long after, in the year 521. His works consist of, 1. “Epistolarum ad diversos libri IX.” 2. “Panegyricus Theodorico regi Ostrogothorum dictus.” 3. “Libellus apologeticus pro Synodo Palmari.” 4. “Vita B. Epiphanii episcopi Ticinensis.” 5. “Vita B. Antonii monachi Lirinensis” 6. “Eucharisticon de Vita sua ad Elpidium.” 7. “Parasnesis didascalica ad Ambrosium & Beatum.” 8. “Proeceptum de Cellulanis Episcoporum.” 9. “Petitorium, quo absolutus est Gerontius.” 10. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis I.” 11. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis II.” 12. “Dietiones sacrae VI.” 13. “Dictiones scholastics VII.” 14. “Controversioe X.” 15. “Dictiones Ethicae V.” 16. “Poeinata, seu Carminum Liber I.” 17. “Epigrammata, seu Carminum Liber II.” They" were all published by Andrew Scottus at Tournay, 1610, 8vo; and by James Sirrnond at Paris, 1611, 8vo, with notes, explaining the names and titles of the persons mentioned by Ennodius, and containing a great many observations very useful tot illustrating the history of that age. Ennodius’s works are likewise printed with emendations and illustrations, at the end of the first volume of father Sirmond’s works, published at Paris in 1626[?]; and, from that edition, at Venice, 1729, folio. Dupiu observes, that there is a considerable warmth and liveliness of imagination in the writings of Ennodius but that his style is obscure, and his manner of reasoning far from exact.

, a miscellaneous compiler of various historical works, was born in 1713, but where, or where educated, we have not been able to discover: he styled himself in his numerous title-pages the Rev. John Entick, M. A. but it does not appear whence, he derived his orders, or his degree. It is certain that at one time he studied with a view to the ministry, eilher in the church or among the dissenters. In the list of writers who engaged in the controversy with Woolston, we find his name, as a “student in divinity,” and the author of a tract, entitled “The Evidence of Christianity asserted and proved from facts, as authorised from sacred and profane history.” Mr. Entick was at this time about eighteen years old. In London, or its vicinity at Stepney, he was a schoolmaster, and spent a considerable part of his life in writing for the booksellers, who appear to have always employed him when they engaged in such voluminous compilations as were to be published in numbers. In this way we find his name to a “Naval History,” folio “A History, of the (Seven years’) War,” 5 vols. 8vo “A History of London,” 4 vols. 8vo a new edition, enlarged, of Maitland’s History of London, 2 vols. folio, &c. &c. He compiled also a small Latin and English Dictionary, and a Spelling Dictionary, of both which immense numbers have been sold. About the year 1738, he proposed publishing an edition of Chaucer, which never took effect. Soon after the beginning of the present reign, he commenced patriot, of the school of Wilkes, wrote for some time in an anti-ministerial paper called the Monitor, and had at length the good fortune to be taken up under a general warrant, for which he prosecuted the messenger, and recovered 300l. damage?. It was after this that he professed to improve and enlarge Maitland’s History of London, without adding a syllable to the topographical part; but in the historical, he gave a very full account of Wilkes’s proceedings with the city of London, and of the sufferings of his adherents. In 1760, he married a widow lady of Stepney, who died the same year; and in May 1773, himself died, and was buried at the same place. We may add to his other publications, that he had a considerable share in the New “Week’s Preparation,” and a New “Whole Duty of Man.”

is a Spanish writer, who among biographers is classed under different names. In Moreri, we find him under that of Dryander, by which, perhaps, he is most generally known; but in France he took the name of Du Chesne, and by the Germans was called Evck, Eycken, or Eyckman. Referring to Marchand for a dissertation on these different names, it may suffice here to notice that Enzinas was of a distinguished family of Burgos, the capital of Old Castille, where he was probably born, or where at least he began his studies. He appears afterwards to have gone into Germany, and was the pupil of the celebrated Melancthon for some years, and thence into the Netherlands to some relations, where he settled. Having become a convert to the reformed religion, which was there established, he translated the New Testament into Spanish, and dedicated it to Charles V. It was published at Antwerp in 1543. He had met with much discouragement when he communicated this design to his friends in Spain, and was now to suffer yet more severely for his attempt to present his countrymen with a part of the scriptures in their own tongue. The publication had scarcely made its appearance, when he was thrown into prison at Brussels, where he remained from November 1543 to Feb. I, 1545, on which day finding the doors of his prison open, he made his escape, and went to his relations at Antwerp. About three years after, he went to England, as we learn from a letter of introduction which Melancthon gave him to archbishop Cranmer. About 1552 Melancthon gave him a similar letter to Calvin. The time of his death is not known. He published, in 1545, “A History of the State of the Low Countries, and of the religion of Spain,” in Latin, which was afterwards translated into French, and forms part of the “Protestant TYIartyrology,” printed in Germany. Mavchand points out a few other writings by him, but which were not published separately. Enzinas had two brothers, James and John. Of the former little is recorded of much consequence; but John, who resided a considerable time at Rome, and likewise became a convert to the protestant religion, was setting out for Germany to join his brother,' when some expressions which he dropped, relative to the corruptions and disorders of the church, occasioned his being accused of heresy, and thrown into prison. The terrors of a dungeon, and the prospect of a cruel death, did not daunt his noble sou), but when brought before the pope and cardinals to be examined, he refused to retract what he had said, and boldly avowed and justified his opinions, for which he was condemned to be burnt alive, a sentence which was put into execution at Rome in 1545.

, a famous Theban, son of Polymnus, and one of the greatest captains of antiquity, studied philosophy and music under Lysis, a Pythagorean philosopher, and was accomplished in every exercise of mind and body. Epaminondas first bore arms among the Lacedemonians, saved the life of Pelopidas their general, who had received seven or eight wounds in battle, and formed a strict friendship with him, which lasted through life. Pelopidas, by his advice, delivered the city of Thebes from the yoke of the Lacedemonians, who had gained possession of Cadmea, which occasioned a bloody War between the two nations. Eparninondas was appointed general of the Thebans, gained the celebrated buttle of Leuctru, 371 B. C. in which Cleombrotus, a valiant king of Sparta, was killed; ravaged the enemy’s country, and caused the city of Messene to be rebuilt and peopled. The command of the army being afterwards given to another, because Epaminondas had kept the troops in the field four months beyond the time ordered by the people, he served as a common soldier, and signalized himself by so many noble actions, that the Thebans, ashamed of having deprived him of the command, restored all his authority, that he might conduct the war in Thessaly, where his arms were ever victorious. A war breaking out between the people of Elea and those of Mantinea, the Thebans defended the former, and Epaminoudas attempted to surprise Sparta and Mantinea; but, failing in his enterprize, he engaged the enemy 363 B. C. and was mortally wounded by a spear, the head of which remained in the wound. Finding that he must die if it was extracted, he would not let it be done, but continued to give his orders. When told that the enemy were defeated entirely, he said, “I have lived long enough, since I die unconquered;” then, tearing out the weapon, expired, being about forty-eight years of age. One of his friends condoling with him, a few moments before, that he left no children, having never been married, “You are mistaken,” replied Epaminondas “1 leave two daughters; the Victory at Leuctra, and that at Mantinea.” This great man was not only illustrious for his military talents, but for his goodness, affability, frugality, equity, and moderation and was a tender, generous friend.

, a very ingenious and benevolent French abbé, and the extensive promoter, if not the inventor, of a method of relieving the deaf and dumb, and rendering them useful members of society, was the son of an architect, who educated him for the church. Having obtained a canonry of Troyes, by the presentation of the bishop of that diocese, he soon became intimate with the prelate Soanen, famous for his attachment to Quesnel, and his opposition to the bull Unigenitus, and coinciding in his religious opinions, shared in the persecution of which Soanen was the object, and was laid under an interdict. He was first induced to turn his thoughts towards the unhappy case of the deaf and dumb, from observing two young girls in that situation, and although some not altogether unsuccessful attempts had been made before his time, in individual cases, the abbé L'Epee soon outdid the most skilful of his predecessors, by reducing his means to a sort of system. Under his care numerous pupils acquired useful knowledge, and were enabled to hold a communication with their friends. Some of them were enabled to learn several languages; others became profound mathematicians, and others obtained academical prizes by poetical and literary works. Without other means than a moderate personal fortune, for he held no place or preferment, he defrayed the whole expences of his establishment, and always deprived himself of luxuries, and often of necessaries, that his poor pupils might not want. When the emperor Joseph II. came to Paris, he admired the institution and its founder, and asked permission to place under his care an intelligent man, who might diffuse through Germany the blessings of his labours; and he sent him a magnificent gold box with his picture. In 1780 the Russian ambassador came to offer him the compliments of his sovereign, and a considerable present. “Tell Catherine,” said L'Epee, “that I never receive gold; but that if my labours have any claim to her esteem, all I ask of her is to send me from her vast dominions one born deaf and dumb to educate.” This amiable man died in February 1790, justly regretted by his country, and was succeeded in his school by the abbé Sicard. L'Epee wrote, 1. “An Account of the Complaint and Cure of Marianne Pigalle,” 1759, 12mo. 2. “Institution des Sourds et Muets, par la voie des signes methodiques,” 1776, 12mo, reprinted in 1784, under the title “La veritable maniere d'instruire les Sourds et Muets, confirmee par une longue experience.” A translation of this was published in London, 1801, 8vo. We cannot conclude this article without adverting to the success of the methods of teaching the deaf and dumb as now practised in this country, and eminently promoted by the “Society for the Deaf and Dumb,” in their Asylum, Kent Road: few charitable foundations have been more wisely laid, more judiciously conducted, or more liberally supported.

, an ancient Christian writer of the fourth century, was a native of Edessa, according to some; or, as others say, of Nisibe in Syria; and was born under the emperor Constantine. He embraced a monastic life from his earliest years, and in a short time was chosen superior to a considerable number of monks. He is also said to have been ordained deacon at Edessa, and priest at Caesarea in Cappadocia by St. Basil, who taught him Greek; but these two last circumstances are questionable, and it is more generally asserted that he did nat understand Greek, and that he died a deacon. He might have been a bishop, which promotion he averted in a very singular manner, that reminds us of the conduct of Ambrose on a similar occasion: Sozomen relates, that when the people had chosen him, and sought him in order to have him ordained to that function, he ran into the market-place and pretended to be mad, and they desisting from their purpose, he escaped into some retired place, where he continued till another was chosen. He wrote a great number of books, all in the Syriac language; a great part of which is said to have been translated in his lifetime. Photius tells us that he wrote above a thousand orations, and that himself had seen forty-nine of his sermons: and Sozomen observes, that he composed three hundred thousand verses, and that his works were so highly esteemed that they were publicly read in the churches after the scriptures. The same writer adds, that his works were so remarkable for beauty and dignity of style, as well as for sublimity of sentiments, that these excellences did not disappear even in their translations: and St. Jerom assures us, that in reading the truiislatiun of St. Ephrem’s treatise of the Holy Ghost, he recognized all the excellence of the original. Gregory Nyssen, in his panegyric on this father, is very copious with regard to the merit of his writings, and his attachments to the orthodox faith. St. Ephrem had an extreme aversion to the heresies of Sabellius, Arius, and Apollinarius; the last of whom, as Gregory relates, he treated in a manner which partakes too much of the modern trick to deserve much credit. It is thus related: Apollinarius having written two books, in which he had collected all the arguments in defence of his own opinion, and having entrusted them with a lady, St. Ephrem borrowed these books, under the pretence of being an Apollinarian; but before he returned them he glewed all their leaves together. The lady seeing the outside of the books to be the same as before, and not discovering that any thing had been done to them, returned them to Apollinarius to be used in a public conference he was going to have with a catholic: but he, not being able to open his books, was obliged to retire in disgrace. St. Ephrem was a man of the greatest severity of morals, and so strict an observer of chastity, that he avoided the sight of women. Sozomen tells us, that a certain woman of dissolute character, either on purpose to tempt him, or else being hired to it by others, met him on purpose in a narrow passage, and stared him full and earnestly in the face. St. Ephrem rebuked her sharply for this, and bade her look down on the ground. But the woman said, “Why should 1 do so, since I am not made out of the earth, but of thee It is more reasonable that thou shouldst look upon the ground, from which thou hadst thy original, but that I should look upon thee, from whom I was procreated.” St. Ephrem, wondering at the woman, wrote a book upon this conversation, which the most learned of the Syrians esteemed one of the best of his performances. He was also a man of exemplary charity, and as a late historian remarks, has furnished us with the first outlines of a general infirmary. Edessa having been long afflicted with a famine, he quitted his 'cell; and applying himself to the rich men, expostulated severely with them for suffering the poor to starve, while they covetously kept their riches hoarded up. He read them a religious lecture upon the subject, which affected them so deeply, that they became regardless of their riches: “but we do not know,” said they, “whom to trust with the distribution of them, since almost every man is greedy of gain, and makes a merchandise and advantage to himself upon such occasions.” St. Ephrern asked them, “what they thought of him” They replied, that they esteemed him a man of great integrity, as he was universally thought to be. “For your sakes, therefore,” said he, “I will undertake this work;” and so, receiving their money, he caused three hundred beds to be provided and laid in the public porticoes, and took care of those who were sick through the famine. And thus he continued to do, till, the famine ceasing, he returned to his cell, where he applied himself again to his studies, and died notlongafter, in the year 378, under the emperor Valens. Upon his death-bed he exhorted the monks who were about him, to remember him in their prayers forbade them to preserve his clothes as relics and ordered his body to be interred without the least funeral pomp, or any monument erected to him. St. Ephrem was a man of the severest piety, but confused in his ideas, and more acquainted with the moral law than the gospel.

, an ancient poet and philosopher, who flourished about 440 B. C. was born in the island of Coos, and was carried, as we are told by Laertius, into Sicily when he was but three months old, first to Megara, and afterwards to Syracuse; which may well enough justify Horace and others in calling him. a Sicilian. He had the honour of being taught by Pythagoras himself; and he and Phormus are said to have invented comedy in Syracuse, though others have pretended to that discovery. He wrote fifty -five, or, according to others, thirty-five plays; but his vrorks have been so long lost, that even their character is scarcely on record. Horace only has preserved the memory of one of his excellences, by commending Plautus for imitaiing it; and that is, the keeping his subject always in view, and following the intrigue very closely: Plautus ad cxemplum Siculi properare Epicharmi, &c.

, an illustrious philosopher of the school of the stoics, flourished in the first century of the Christian aera. He was born at Hieropolis in Phrygia, and was sold as a slave to Epaphroditus, one of Nero’s domestics. He was lame, which has been variously accounted for. Suidas says, that he lost one of his legs when he was young, in consequence of a defluxion; Simplicius asserts that he was born lame; Celsus relates, that when his master, in order to torture him, bended his leg, Epictetus, without discovering any sign of fear, said to him, “You will break it:” and when his tormentor had broken the leg, he only said, “Did I not tell you, you would break it?” Others ascribe his lameness to the heavy chains with which his master loaded him. Having, at length, by some means obtained his freedom, he retired to a small hut within the city of Rome, where, with the bare necessaries of life, he devoted himself to the study of philosophy, and passed his days entirely alone, till his humanity led him to take the charge of a child, whom a friend of his had through poverty exposed, and to provide it with a nurse. Having furnished himself, by diligent study, with the principles of the stoic philosophy, and been instructed in rhetoric by Rufus, who was himself a bold and successlul corrector of public manners, Epictetus, notwithstanding his poverty, became a popular moral preceptor, for which he was admirably qualified, being an acute and judicious observer of manners. His eloquence was simple, majestic, nervous, and penetrating, and while his doctrine inculcated the purest morals, his life was an admirable pattern of sobriety, magnanimity, and the most rigid virtue.

Neither his humble station, nor his singular merit, could however screen Epictetus from the tyranny of the monster Domitian. With the rest of the philosophers he was banished, under a mock decree of the senate, from Italy, which he bore with a degree of firmness worthy of a philosopher who called himself a citizen of the world, and could boast that, wherever he went, he carried his best treasures along with him. At Nicopolis, the place which he chose for his residence, he prosecuted his design of correcting viceand folly by the precepts of philosophy. Wherever he could obtain an auditory, he discoursed concerning the true way of attaining contentment and happiness; and the wisdom and eloquence of his discourses were so highly admired, that it became a common practice among the more studious of his - hearers to commit them to writing. It is probable from the respect which Adrian entertained for him that he returned to Rome after the death of Domitian; and the “Conference between Adrian and Epictetus,” if the work were authentic, would confirm this probability; but it is impossible to compare it with his genuine remains, without pronouncing it spurious.

Epictetus flourished from the time of Nero to the latter end of the reign of Adrian, but not so far as the reign of the Antonines for Aulus Gellius, who wrote in their time, speaks of Epictetus as lately dead and the emperor Marcus Aurelius mentions him only to lament his loss. The memory of Epictetus was so highly respected, that, according to Lucian, the earthen lamp by which he used to study was sold for three thousand drachmas. Epictetus himself wrote nothing. His beautiful Moral Manual, or Enchiridion, and his “Dissertations,” collected by Arrian, were drawn up from notes which his disciples took from his lips. Simplicius has left a Commentary upon his doctrine, in the eclectic manner. There are also various fragments of the wisdom of Epictetus, preserved by Antoninus, Gellius, Stobaeus, and others. Although the doctrine of Epictetus is less extravagant than that of any other stoic, his writings every where breathe the true spirit of stoicism, The tenet of the immortality of the soul was adopted and maintained by him with a degree of consistency suited to a more rational system than that of the stoics, who inculcated a renovation of being in the circuit of events, according to the inevitable order of fate; and his exhortations to contentment and submission to Providence are enforced on much sounder principles than those of the stoics. He also strenuously opposed the opinion held by the stoics in general, concerning the lawfulness of suicide; and his whole system of practical virtues approaches nearer than that of any other instructor unenlightened by revelation, to the purity of Christian morality. If there were Christians in Nero’s household, which seems certain, it is not improbable he might have been taught some of their principles. There are various editions of the remains of this philosopher, published at Leyden in 1670, in 8vo, cum notis variorum; at Utrecht in 1711, in 4to at Oxford in 1740, in 8vo, by Joseph Simpson, together with the Table of Cebes, &c. at London in 1742, by J. Upton, in 2 vols. 4to, a very excellent edition. The Enchiridion was published by C. G. Heyne, in 1776, in 8vo, and together with Cebes’s Table, by Schweighauser, in 179H, fi vols. 8vo, by far the best edition ever published. These have been translated into various languages; but the most esteemed version in our country is that by Mrs. Carter, published in 1758, with notes.

The period in which Epicurus opened his school was peculiarly favourable to his design. In the room of the simplicity of the Socratic doctrine, nothing now remained but the subtlety and affectation of stoicism, the unnatural severity of the Cynics, or the debasing doctrine of indulgence taught and practised by the followers of Aristippns. The luxurious refinement which now prevailed in Athens, inclined the younger citizens to listen to a preceptor who smoothed the stern brow of philosophy, and, under the notion of pleasure, led them unawares to moderation and virtue. Hence his school became exceedingly popular, and disciples flocked into the garden, not only from different parts of Greece, but from Egypt and Asia. Those who were regularly admitted into this school lived upon such a footing of friendly attachment, that each individual cheerfully supplied the necessities of his brother. Cicero describes the friendship of the Epicurean fraternity as unequalled in the history of mankind. That he might prosecute his philosophical labours with the less interruption, Epicurus lived in a state of celibacy. In his own conduct he was exemplary for temperance and continence, and he inculcated upon his followers severity of manners, and the strict government of the passions, as the best means of passing a tranquil and happy life. Notwithstanding his regular manner of living, towards the close of his days, probably in consequence of intense application to study, his constitution became infirm, and he was afflicted with the stone. Perceiving from these marks of decay that his end was approaching, he wrote a will, in which he bequeathed his garden, and the buildings belonging to it, to Hermachus, and through him to the future professors of his philosophy. On the last day of his life he wrote to hi friend Hermachus, informing him that his disease had for fourteen days tormented him with anguish, which nothing could exceed; at the same time he adds, “All this is counterbalanced by the satisfaction of mind which I derive from the recollection of my discourses and discoveries.” The emperor Marcus Antoninus confirms this account, attesting that Epicurus in his sickness relied more upon the recollection of his excellent life than upon the aid of physicians, and instead of complaining of his pain, conversed with his friends upon those principles of philosophy which he had before maintained. At length, finding nature just exhausted, he ordered himself to be put into a warm bath, where, after refreshing himself with wine, and exhorting his friends not to forget his doctrines, he expired. His death happened in the second year of the 127th olympiad, or B.C. 271, and the seventy-third of hisage. He is said to have written a greater number of works from his own invention, than any other Grecian philosopher; but none are extant except a compendium of his doctrine, preserved by Laertius, and a few fragments dispersed among ancient authors. Not only did the immediate followers of Epicurus adorn the memory of their master with the highest honours, but many eminent writers, who have disapproved of his philosophy, have expressed great respect for his personal merit. Yet it cannot be denied that from the time when this philosopher appeared to the present day, an uninterrupted course of censure has fallen upon his memory; so that the name of his sect has almost become a proverbial expression for every thing corrupt in principle, and infamous in character. The charges brought against Epicurus are, that he superseded all religious principles, by dismissing the Gods from the care of the world; that if he acknowledged their existence, it was only in conformity to popular prejudice, since, according to his system, nothing exists in nature but material atoms; that he discovered great insolence and vanity in the disrespect with which he treated the memory of former philosdphers, and the characters and persons of his contemporaries; and that both the master and the whole fraternity were addicted to the vilest and most infamous vices. These accusations against the Epicurean school have been more or less confirmed by men distinguished for their wisdom and virtue, by Zeno, Cicero, Plutarch, Galen, and many of the Christian fathers. By what, therefore, are they to be repelled Brucker, who has examined this question with, his usual acuteness and erudition, observes, that with respect to the first charge, that of impiety, it certainly admits of no refutation. The doctrine of Epicurus concerning nature, not only militated against the superstitions of the Athenians, but against the agency of a supreme deity in the formation and government of the world; and his misconceptions with respect to mechanical motion, and the nature of divine happiness, ld him in his system to divest the Deity of some of his primary attributes. It does not indeed appear that he entirely denied the existence of superior powers. Cicero, who is unquestionably to be ranked among his opponents, relates, that Epicurus wrote books concerning piety, and the reverence due to the gods, expressed in terms which might have become a priest; and he charges him with inconsistency, in maintaining that the gods ought to be worshipped, whilst he asserted, that they had no concern in human affairs; herein admitting, that he revered the gods, but neither through hope nor fear, merely on account of the majesty and excellence of their nature. But if, with the utmost contempt for popular superstitions, Epicurus retained some belief in, and respect for, invisible natures, it is evident that his gods were destitute of many of the essential characters of divinity, and that his piety was of a kind very different from that which is inspired by just notions of Deity. Not to urge, that there is some reason to suspect, that what he taught concerning the gods might have been artfully designed to screen him from the odium and hazard which would have attended a direct avowal of atheism. The second charge against Epicurus, that of insolence and contempt towards other philosophers, seems scarcely compatible with the general air of gentleness and civility which appears in his character. If he claimed to himself the credit of his own system, he did no more than Zeno, Plato, and Aristotle, after availing themselves of every possible aid from former philosophers, had done before him. But, adds Brucker, calumny never appeared with greater effrontery, than in accusing Epicurus of intemperance and incontinence. That his character was distinguished by the contrary virtues appears not only from the numerous attestations brought by Laertius, but even from the confession of the most creditable opponents of his doctrine, particularly Cicero, Plutarch, and Seneca; and indeed this is sufficiently clear from the particulars which are related concerning his usual manner of living. But nothing can be a greater proof that his adversaries had little to allege against his innocence, than that they were obliged to have recourse to forgery. The infamous letters which Diotimus, or, according to Athcnucus, Theotimus, ascribed to him, were proved, in a public court, to have been fraudulently imposed upon the world, and the author of the imposition was punished. Whatever might be the case afterwards, therefore, there is little reason to doubt that, during the life of Epicurus, his garden was rather a school of temperance, than a scene of riot and debauchery.

Another cause of the discredit, into which Epicurus and his followers fell, may he discovered in the nature and constitution of his philosophy. He made pleasure the end of his doctrine, and only employed wisdom as a guide to happiness. The stoics would easily perceive, that a preceptor who attempted to correct the false and corrupt taste of the times, and to lead men to true pleasure, by natural and easy steps in the path of virtue, would be more likely to command the public attention, than one who rested his authority and influence upon a rigid system of doctrine, and an unnatural severity of manners. In order, therefore, to secure their own popularity, they thought it necessary to misrepresent the principles and character of Epicurus, and held him to public censure as an advocate for infamous pleasures. That they might gain the greater credit by their misrepresentations, they invented and circulated many scandalous tales, which would obtain a ready reception among the indolent and credulous Athenians. This might be the more easily effected, as Epicurus passed his time in his garden, remote from the crowd, and did not scruple, in his retirement, to enjoy such pleasures as he judged to be not inconsistent with that virtuous tranquillity, which was the chief end of his philosophy. The calumnies which were thus ingeniously fabricated, and industriously propagated, against the Epicurean sect, would be the more willingly believed, on account of the contempt with which Epicurus treated the vulgar superstitions, and Iris avowed rejection of the doctrine of fate, or providence, so strongly maintained by the stoics; and especially on account of the perverse abuse of his doctrine to the encouragement of licentiousness, by which many of his followers brought disgrace upon their sect. These abuses ought not, however, to be imputed to the founder of the school. Seneca himself acknowledges, that the profligates, who in his time professed themselves disciples of Epicurus, were not led into their irregularities by his doctrine; but, being themselves strongly addicted to vice, sought to hide their crimes in the bosom of philosophy, and had recourse to a master who encouraged the pursuit of pleasure, not because they set any value upon that sober and abstemious ivind of pleasure which the doctrine of Epicurus allowed, but because they hoped, in the mere name, to find some pretext or apology for their debaucheries. If these circumstances be duly considered and compared, it will no longer appear strange, that many eminent men, who had addicted themselves to other schools, have given an unfavourable judgment concerning Epicurus, whilst the force of truth has sometimes led them, at the expence of their own consistency, to attest his merit. Others, however, have penetrated through the thick cloud of calumny, which has hung over the character of Epicurus, and, in opposition to the general current of censure, have ventured to give him that praise, which, amidst all the absurdities of his speculative system, was so justly due to his personal virtues, and to his laudable attempts to conduct men, by innocence and sobriety, to the tranquil enjoyment of life.

, a Cretan philosopher and poet, of the city of Gnossus in Crete, flourished in that island, when Solon was in great reputation at Athens, in the sixth century B. C. Many fabulous stories are told of him, and it is not easy to separate the true from the false part of his history. He was supposed to have been the son of the nymph Balte. He was a man venerable for religious observances, and it was the general persuasion, all over Greece, that he was inspired by some heavenly genius; and that he was frequently favoured with divine revelations. He devoted himself wholly to poetry, and every thing connected with divine worship. He was the first who introduced the consecration of temples, and the purification of countries, cities, and likewise private houses. He had little esteem for the people of his own country. St. Paul, in his epistle to Titus, when speaking of the Cretans, cites one of his verses, where he says (according to our translation), “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies;” which, however, Fenelon translates less obscurely in these words, “They were great liars, indolent, yet malignant brutes.”

Among the miracles told of him is the following: his father one day sent him to the country, in quest of a ewe. When returning, Epimenides went a little off the highway, and entered a cave directed to the south, in order to enjoy a little repose, and remained asleep there for fifty-seven years, and when he awoke, found himself fifty-seven years older, and every thing changed in proportion around him. An adventure so strange made a great deal of noise over the country; and every one regarded Epimenides as a favourite of the gods. Some of them would have done wiser, if they had made this fiction the foundation of a satiric rojnance; but it has been conjectured that he only disappeared from his family, and spent the fifty-seven years in travelling. It is also recorded of him that he had the power of sending his soul out of his body, and recalling it at pleasure. Perhaps, says Brucker, in his hours of pretended inspiration, he had the art of appearing totally insensible and entranced, which would easily be mistaken, by ignorant spectators, for a power of dismissing and re-­calling his spirit. If, however, the Cretans were notorious liars, and it is to them we are -indebted for the particulars of the life of Epimenides, the solution of these mysteries becomes. easy. He probably was a man of superior talents, who pretended to an intercourse with the gods, and to support his pretensions lived in retirement upon the spontaneous productions of the earth, and practised various arts of imposture. During a plague, the Athenians sent for him to perform a lustration, in consequence of which the plague ceased, and when the Athenians wished to reward him munificently, he demanded only a branch of the sacred olive, which grew in their citadel. Solon, in whose time this lustration was performed (B. C. 596), seems to have been no stranger to the true character of Epimenides; for we find that he greatly disapproved of the conduct of the Athenians in employing him to perform this ceremony. Soon after his return to Crete, he died, as Laertius says, at the age of 157 years, or, as the Cretans pretend, at the age of 299 years. The superstitious Cretans paid him divine honours, after his decease; and he has been reckoned by some the seventh wise man of Greece, to the exclusion of Periander from this number. Laertius enumerates a variety of pieces written by Epimenides, both in prose and verse. Among the former was a treatise “On Sacrifices,” and “An account of the Cretan Republic;” and among the latter “The Genealogy and Theogony of the Curetes and Corybantes,” in 5000 verses; “Of the building of the ship Argo, and Jason’s expedition to Colchis,” in 6500 verses “Of Minos and Rhadamanthus,” in 4000 verses and a treatise “Of Oracles and Responses,” mentioned by St. Jerome, from which St. Paul is said to have taken the quotation above-mentioned.

, an ancient Christian writer, was born, about the year 320, at Besanduce, a village of Palestine, His parents are said by Cave to have been Jews; but others. are of opinion that there is no ground for this suspicion, since Sozomen affirms, that “from his earliest youth he was educated under the most excellent monks, upon which, account he continued a very considerable time in Ægypt.” It is certain, that, while he was a youth, he went into Ægypt, where he fell into the conversation of the Gnostics, who had almost engaged him in their party; but he soon withdrew himself from them, and, returning to his country, put himself for some time under the discipline of Hilarion, the father of the monks of Palestine. He afterwards founded a monastery near the village where he was born, and presided over it. About the year 367 he was elected bishop of Salamis, afterwards called Constantia, the metropolis of the isle of Cyprus, where he acquired great reputation by his writings and his piety. In the year 382, he was sent lor to Rome by the imperial letters, in order to determine the cause of Paulinus concerning the see of Antioch. In the year 3yi a contest arose between him and John, bishop of Jerusalem. Epipbanius accused John of holding the errors of Origen; and, going to Palestine, ordained Paulinian, brother of St. Jerom, deacon and priest, ill a monastery which did not belong to his jurisdiction. John immediately complained of this action of Epiphanius, as contrary to the canons and discipline of the church, and Epiphanius defended what he had done, in a letter to John. This dispute irritated their minds still more, which were already incensed upon the subject of Origen; and both of them endeavoured to engage Theophilus of Alexandria in their party. That prelate, who seemed at first to favour the bishop of Jerusalem, declared at last against Origen condemned his books in a council held in the year 399 and persecuted all the monks who were suspected of regarding his memory. These monks, retiring to Constantinople, were kindly received there by John Chrysostom; which highly exasperated Theophilus, who, from that time, conceived a violent hatred to Chrysostom. In the mean time Theophilus informed Epiphanius of what he had done against Origen, and exhorted him to do the same; upon which Epiphanius, in the year 401, called a council in the isle of Cyprus, procured the reading of Origen’s writings to be prohibited, and wrote to Chrysostom to do the same. Chrysostom, not approving this proposal, Epiphanius went to Constantinople, at the persuasion of Theophilus, in order to get the decree of the council of Cyprus executed. When he arrived there, he would not have any conversation with Cbrysostom, but used his utmost efforts to engage the bishops, who were then in that city, to approve of the judgment of the council of Cyprus against Origen. Not succeeding in this, he resolved to go the next day to the church of the apostles, and there condemn publicly all the books of Origen, and those who defended them; but as he was in the church, Cbrysostom informed him, by his deacon Serapion, that he was going to do a thing contrary to the laws of the church, and which might expose him to danger, as it would probably raise some sedition. This consideration stopped Epiphanius, who yet was so inflamed against Origen, that when the empress Eudoxia recommended to his prayers the young Theodosius, who was dangerously ill, he answered, that “the prince her son should not die, if she would but avoid the conversation of Dioscorides, and other defenders of Origen.” The empress, surprised at this presumptuous answer, sent him word, that “if God should think proper to take away her son, she would submit to his will that he might take him away as he had given him but that it was not in the power of Epiphanius to raise him from the dead, since he had lately suffered his own archdeacon to die.” Epiphanius’s heat was a little abated, when he had discoursed with Ammourns and his companions, whomTheophilus had banished for adhering to Origen’s opinions; for these monks gave him to understand that they did hot maintain an heretical doctrine, and that he had condemned them in too precipitate a manner. At last he resolved to return to Cyprus, and in his farewell to Chrysostom, he said, “I hope you will not die a bishop;” to which the latter replied, “I hope you will never return to your own country,” and both their hopes were realized, as Chrysostom was deposed from his bishopric, and Epiphanius died at sea about the year 403. His works were printed in Greek at Basil, 1544, in folio, and had afterwards a Latin translation made to them, which has frequently been reprinted. At last Petavius undertook an edition of them, together with a new Latin translation, which he published at Paris, 1622, with the Greek text revised and corrected by two manuscripts. This, which is the best edition, is in two volumes folio, at the end of which are the animadversions of Petavius, which however, are rather dissertations upon points of criticism and chronology, than notes to explain the text of his author. This edition was reprinted at Cologne, 1682, in 2 vols. folio.

Epiphanius was well versed in the Hebrew, Syriac, Egyptian, Greek, and Latin tongues, which makes Jerome call him ενταγλωττος, “a man of five tongues;” and was very conversant in ecclesiastical antiquities, on which account he is chiefly regarded; but his literary character has not escaped much rigid censure. M. Dailk' styles him “a good and holy man;” hut observes, “that he was little conversant in the arts either of rhetoric or grammar, as appears sufficiently from his writings, which defects must necessarily be the cause of much obscurity in very many places, as indeed is much complained of by the interpreters of this father.” Scnliger says he was “an ignorant man, who knew nothing of Greek or Hebrew; who, without any judgment, was solicitous to collect everything; and who abounds in falsities. We have,” says he, “a treasure of antiquities in him for he had good books, which he sometimes transcribes to very good purpose but when he advances any thing of his own, he performs it wretchedly.” Pliot ins tells us, that his style is very mean and negligent; and Dupin observes, that it has neither beauty nor elevation, but is low, rough, and unconnected; that he had a great extent of reading and erudition, but no judgment nor justness of thought that he often uses false reasons to confute heretics that he was very credulous, inaccurate, and frequently mistaken in important points of history that he paid too ready a regard to spurious memoirs and uncertain reports; in short, that he had great zeal and piety, but little conduct and prudence.

, or rather Bischop, under which name, perhaps, he should bave been classed, was a celebrated printer at Basil. He was born at Weissembourg in Alsace, about the end of the fifteenth century. His acquaintance with Greek and Latin gave him very superior advantages when he began the business of printing. The famous Frobenius bestowed his daughter on him in marriage, and on his death, in 1527, Bischop went into partnership with his son Jerome. Among other spirited undertakings of this firm was an edition of the Greek fathers, which they commenced with the works of St. Basil. All writers on the subject of printing bestow high praise on the talents of Bischop, who was also much respected b/ the learned of his time. The works which came from his press were in general remarkable for correctness, neatness of type, and beauty of paper, qualities seldom to be met with together. Erasmus had so much regard for him as to leave him and his partners executors of his will. Bischop died Sept. 27, 1563, leaving a son of the same name and profession, who died two years after, in the flower of youth. They were a protestant family, and had fled from France during the persecutions.

, a man of very uncommon parts and learning, and the chief support of the Arminian sect, was descended from a reputable protestant family, and born at Amsterdam in 1583. Having a numerous fraternity, and his parents not very rich, it was doubted for some time whether he should be brought up to learning; but, appearing to have a strong disposition towards it, his friends determined to encourage him in the pursuit. After he had gone through the Latin schools at Amsterdam, he went to study at Leyden, in 1602. His father died of the plague in that same year, and his mother in 1604; neither of which calamities, however, in the least retarded his studies. He was admitted M. A. hi 1606, and thenceforward applied himself wholly to the study of divinity, in which he made so great progress, that he was judged in a short time quaJified for the ministry. The magistrates of Amsterdam wished he might be promoted to it; but he met with many difficulties, because during the violent controversy between Gomarus and Arnjjnius about predestination, he declared for the latter. This made him desirous to leave the university of Leyden, and he went to Fraueker in 1609, bur. did not continue there long, for he found that by disputing too vehemently, he had exasperated the professor Lubertus, who was a zealous Gomarist. Arminius was at that time labouring under the illness of which at length he died; on which account Episcopius went to visit him at Leyden, and had many conferences with him upon religion, and the state of the church. He afterwards, returning to Franeker, had more disputes with Lubertus. His adversaries now began to charge him with Socinianism; and Lubertus was so severe in his reprehensions of him, that he left Franeker, and returned to Holland.

Here he was ordained in 1610, and made minister of the village of Bleyswyck, which was dependent upon Rotterdam. He was one of the deputies in the conference held at the Hague in 1611, before the states of Holland, between six anti-remonstrant and six remonstrant ministers; and here he displayed his wit and learning to the greatest advantage. In 1612 he was chosen divinity-professor at Leyden, in the room of Gomarus, who had voluntarily resigned; and lived in peace with Polyander his colleague, though they held contrary opinions about predestination. The functions, however, of his post and his private studies were a light burden to him, compared with the difficulties he had to sustain on account of the Arminian controversy; which, though it began in the universities, soon extended to the pulpits, and from them to the people, and none were more unpopular than Episcopius and the most eminent men of the Arminian party. The second year of his professorship at Leyden, he was abused at Amsterdam at church and in the street; because, being godfather to one of his nieces, he had taken upon him to reply to the minister who officiated. The minister asked him whether the doctrine of the church there was not the true and perfect doctrine of salvation Episcopius answered, that he admitted it only, with certain limitations which provoked the minister to call him a presumptuous young man and this altercation exposed Episcopius to the rage of the populace, from which he narrowly ercaped. Curcellaeus informs us, that in February 1617, the house of Episcopius’s eldest brother was plundered by the mob at Amsterdam under this false pretence, that a great many Arminians used to meet there to hear sermons.

In 1614, he began his comment upon the first epistle of St. John, which gave occasion to various rumours, all of them tending to prove him a Socinian. The year taking the opportunity of the vacation, he went to Paris, for the sake of seeing that city; but his object was immediately misrepresented, and on his return home, his adversaries published, that he had had secret conferences with father Cotton, in order to concert the ruin of the protestant church and the United Provinces that he avoided all conversation with Peter du Moulin, minister at Paris or, as others say, that the latter declined all conference with him, seeing him so intimate with the enemies of his country, and of the protestant religion; and although there was little truth in these reports, it was not easy for Episcopius to prove his innocence. The states of Holland having invited him to come to the synod of Dort, that he might take his place in that assembly, as well as the other professors of the Seven United Provinces, he was one of the first that went thither, and was accompanied by some remonstrant ministers. But the synod would not suffer them to sit in that assembly as judges, nor admit them but as persons summoned to appear. They were obliged to submit, and appear before the synod. Episcopius made a speech, in which he declared, that they were all ready to enter into a conference with the synod; but was answered, that the synod did not meet to confer, but to judge. They excepted against the synod, and refused to submit to the order made by that assembly: which was, that the remonstrants should neither explain nor maintain their opinions, but as far as the synod should judge it necessary. Upon their refusing to submit to this order, they were expelled the synod and measures were taken to judge them by their writings. They defended their cause with the pen and Episcopius composed most of the pieces they presented on this occasion, and which were published some time after. The synod then deposed them from their functions; and because they refused to subscribe a writing, which contained a promise not to perform privately any of their ministerial functions, they were banished out of the territories of the commonwealth in 1618, and took up their residence at Antwerp: as thinking themselves there in the best situation to take care of their churches and families. Episcopius was not now so much taken up with the affairs of his party, as not to find time to write against the church of Rome in defence of those truths which all the protestants in general maintain. When the war between tho Spaniards and United Provinces began again in 1621, he went to France; and there laboured by his writings, as much as lay in his power, to strengthen and comfort his brethren. He not only composed, in common with them, “A confession of faith;” and published, soon after, his “Antidote against the canons of the synod of Dort,” but he also disputed with great strength of argument against Wadingus, a Jesuit; who treated him very kindly, and, taking an advantage of the difficulties he saw him under, endeavoured to persuade him to enter into the pale of his church. The times being grown more favourable, he returned to Holland in 1620; and was made a minister of the church of the remonstrants at Rotterdam. He married the year after, but never had any children by his wife, who died in 1641. In 1634 he removed to Amsterdam, being chosen rector of the college which those of his sect had founded there, and continued in that post till his death, which was preceded by a tedious and gradual decline. August 1640, hiring a vessel, he went with his wife to Rotterdam but in the afternoon, while he was yet upon Ins voyage, a fever seized him and, to add to his indisposition, about evening came on such a storm of thunder and fain as had not been known for many years. All these hindrances made them arrive so late at Rotterdam, that the gates of the city were shut: and the long time he was obliged to wait, before he could get them opened, increased his disorder so much, that he was confined to his bed for the four following months. He recovered; yet perceived the effects of this illness, in the stone and other complaints, as long as he lived. He died the 4th of April, 1643, having lost his sight some weeks before. Limborch, with the partiality of a friendly biographer, tells us, that the moon was under an eclipse at the hour of his death; and that some considered it as a fit emblem of the church, as being then deprived of much light by the disappearing of such a luminary as Episcopius. He tells us also, with more truth, that Episcopius’s friends and relations had some medals struck with the images of Truth and Liberty upon them, in remembrance of him. Yet Episcopius did not always write with that moderation 'which becomes the patience and humility of a Christian; and his friends who have defended him against this charge, have not been very successful.

It would be endless to collect the extraordinary eulogiums which great and learned men have bestowed upon Episcopius; one of which may be quoted as coming from an unexpected quarter, from Mabillon, an eminent member and ornament of the church of Rome: “I cannot forbear observing in this place,” says he, in his treatise of studies proper for them that live in monasteries, “that, if some passages had been left out of Episcopius’s theological institutions, which Grotius esteemed so much that he carried them with him wherever he went, they might have been very useful in the study of divinity. This work is divided into four books; the method of which is quite difr ferent from that which is generally followed. His style is beautiful, and his manner of treating his subjects answers his style perfectly well; nor would the time spent in reading of it be lost, if it was corrected with regard to some passages, in which the author speaks against the Roman catholics, and in favour of his own sect.” The Arminians have had very naturally the highest regard for Episcopius, and been careful to preserve his reputation from the attacks that have been made upon it: so careful, that, in 1690, they engaged Le Clerc, one of their professors, publicly to accuse Jurieu of calumny, because he had spoken evil of Episcopius. Le Cle.rc published a letter directed to Jurieu; in which he observes, that “they who have dipped into Episcopius’s works, and are acquainted, with the society of the remonstrants, have no occasion to see them vindicated. And as for those who have not read that author, and never conversed with any of the remonstrants, if they were so unjust as to judge only by Mr. Jurieu’s accusations, they would not deserve the least trouble to undeceive them; for it would show that they had no notion of common equity, and were too stupid to hearken to any vindication. But then we are persuaded,” adds he, “that there is not one person in the United Provinces, or any where else, that is disposed to believe this accuser upon his bare word.” After this preamble, Le Clerc says, “You charge Episcopius with two crimes: the first is, his being a Socinian; the second, his being an enemy to the Christian religion.” Le Clerc confutes the first of these accusations, by referring to several parts of Episcopius’s works, where he explodes the doctrine of the Socinians; and afterwards finds it no difficult task to answer the second, because Episcopius’s life and writings evidently shew, that he was a virtuous and conscientious man, and very zealous for the Christian religion. Le Clerc refers to a-passage in Episcopius’s Institutions, in which the truth of the Christian religion “is proved,” says he, “in so clear and strong a manner, that we might hope there would not remain any infidels in the world, if they would all duly weigh and consider his arguments. And yet you style him, sir, an enemy of Christianity; though it does not in the least appear, that you have either read his works, or examined his life. There is indeed nothing but the disorder of your mind, occasioned by your blind zeal, for which you have been long noted, that can make me say, O Lord, Forgive Him; for, in reality, you Know Not What You Do. You could not choose a better method to pass in the world for a man little acquainted with the duties of Christianity, and even of civil society, than by writing as you have done,” &c. With respect to his opinions on this subject, Episcopius acknowledges that Jesus Christ is called in Scripture the Son of God, not merely on account either of his miraculous conception, or of his mediation, or of his resurrection, or of his ascension, but on a fifth account, which, in his opinion, clearly implies his pre-existence; yet he contends, that it is not necessary to salvation, either to know or believe this fifth mode of filiation because it is not any wherfc said in Scripture to be necessary because we may have faith in Christ without it and because for the three first centuries the Christian church did not esteem a profession of belief in this mode to be necessary to salvation. Bishop Bull attacked with great learning this third reason of Episcopius, which has likewise been attacked with equal force of reasoning by more recent defenders of the Trinitarian doctrine. Of our English divines, Hammond is said to have borrowed largely of Episcopius, and Tillotson has been accounted one of his disciples.

Episcopius’s works 'make two volumes in folio, Amsterdam, 1665 and 1671, and reprinted at London in 1678. Those contained in the first volume were published in his life-time: the second are posthumous. He left the care of them to Francis Limborch, who married the daughter of Robert Episcopius, our author’s brother; and Limborch gave them to Curcellaeus to publish, who prefixed a discourse containing an account of Episcopius. This Francis Limborch was the father of Philip Limborch, who wrote the life of Episcopius, to which this article is much indebted.

, a physician of great reputation among the ancients, is supposed to have been born at Julis, in the island of Cea or Ceos. He was the most distinguished pupil of Chrysippiis, the Cnidian physician, and had attained a high character in his profession in the fourth, century B. C. His fame acquired him the notice and esteem of Seleucus Nicenor, king of Syria, at whose court he is said to have discovered by feeling the pulse of Antiochus Soter that he was in love with his mother-in-law Stratonice. His character, however, is founded upon more solid ground. He may be considered as the father of anatomicarcience, at least conjointly with Herophilus. It seems to be clearly established, that, before the time of these physicians, no one had dared to dissect human bodies; anatomical ‘examinations had been confined exclusively to the bodies of brutes. The Ptolemies, especially Soter and Philadelphia, being desirous that the arts should be cultivated, and having surmounted the prejudices of the age, granted the bodies of malefactors to the physicians for dissection, of which opportunity Erasistratus and Heropliilus availed themselves largely, and made several important discoveries. To what extent these discoveries were carried, it is not easy to ascertain but they were the first who dissected the human brain accurately according to the fragments preserved by Galen, Erasistratus described the brain minutely, and inferred that the brain was the common sensorium, or source of all the vital actions and sensations, which were effected throAigh the medium of the nerves. He also examined minutely the structure of the heart and of the great vessels, and was the first to point oat the valvular apparatus, and its peculiar form in each of the cavities of that viscus. His physiology, in general, was not, however, very profound, and his pathology necessarily imperfect; although he attempted to explain the causes of diseases from his knowledge of the structure of the body. The hypothesis by which he attempted to explain the origin of inflammation, resembled, in its leading feature, that modern supposition, which, sanctioned by the name of Boerhaave, was generally received in the medical world fora long series of years. His practice, like that of his master Chrysippus, was extremely simple. He did not employ blood-letting, nor purgatives; considering that plethora might be reduced more safely and naturally by fasting, or abstinence in diet, especially when aided by exetcise. He advised his patients, therefore, to use sucli articles of diet as contained little nutriment, as melons, cucumbers, and vegetables in general. He was exceedingly averse from the employment of compound medicines, and especially of the mixture of mineral, vegetable, and animal substances; and he exclaimed against the use of the antidotes of the physicians of his day, in which simplicity was altogether shunned. From the fragments of his writings to be found in Galen and Ciclius Aurelianus, it would appear, that Erasistratus wrote an accurate treatise on the dropsy, in which he disapproves of the operation of tapping; and that be had Jct’t other books on the following subjects:—viz. on the diseases of the abdomen, on the preservation of health, on wholesome things, on fevers, and wounds, on habit, on palsy, and on gout.— Having lived to extreme old age, and suffering severely from the pains of an ulcer in the foot, Erasistratus is said to have terminated his existence by swallowing the juice of cicuta, or hemlock.

, one of the most illustrious of the revivers of learning, was born at Rotterdam, October 28, 1467. His father Gerard, who was of Tergou, in that neighbourhood, fell in love with Margaret, the daughter of one Peter, a physician of Sevenbergen; and after promises of marriage, as Erasmus himself suggests, connected himself with her, though the nuptial ceremonies were not performed. From this intercourse Gerard had a son, whom Erasmus calls Anthony, in a letter to Lambert Grunnius, secretary to pope Julius II. and whose death, in another letter he tells us, he bore better than he did the death of his friend Frobenius. About two years after, Margaret proved with child again; and then Gerard’s father and brethren (for he was the youngest of ten children) beginning to be uneasy at this attachment, resolved to make him an ecclesiastic. Gerard, aware of this, secretly withdrew into Italy, and went to Rome; he left, however, a letter behind him, in which he bade his relations a final farewell; and assured them that they should never see his face more while they continued in those resolutions. At Rome he maintained himself decently by transcribing ancient authors, which, printing being not yet commonly used, was no unprofitable employment. In the mean time, Margaret, far advanced in her pregnancy, was conveyed to Rotterdam to lie in, privately; and was there delivered of Erasmus. He took his name from this city, and always called himself Roterodamus, though, as Dr. Jortin, the writer of his life, intimates, he should rather have said Roterodamius, or Roterodamensis. The city, however, was not in the least offended at the inaccuracy, but made proper returns of gratitude to a name by which she was so much ennobled; and perpetuated her acknowledgments by inscriptions, and medals, and by a statue erected and placed at first near the principal church, but afterwards removed to a Station on one of the bridges. Gerard’s relations, long ignorant what was become of him, at last discovered that he was at Rome and now resolved to attempt by stratagem what they could not effect by solicitation and importunity. They sent him word, therefore, that his beloved Margaret was dead; and he lamented the supposed misfortune with such extremity of grief, as to determine to leave the world, and become a priest. And even when upon his return to Tergou, which happened soon after, he found Margaret alive, he adhered to his ecclesiastical engagements; and though he always retained the tenderest affection for her, never more lived with her in any other manner than what was allowable by the laws of his profession. She also observed on her part the strictest celibacy ever after. During the absence of his father, Erasmus was under the care and management of his grandmother, Gerard’s mother, Catharine. He was called Gerard, after his father, and afterwards took the name of Desiderius, which in Latin, and the surname of Erasmus, which in Greek, signify much the same as Gerard among the Hollanders, that is, “amabilis,” or amiable. Afterwards he was sensible that he should in grammatical propriety have called himself Erasmius, and in fact, he gave this name to his godson, Joannes Erasmius Frobenius. As soon as Gerard was settled in his own country again, he applied himself with all imaginable care to the education of Erasmus, whom he was determined to bring up to letters, though in low repute at that time, because he discovered in him early a very uncommon capacity. There prevails indeed a notion in Holland, that Erasmus was at first of so heavy and sl9w an understanding, that it was many years before they could make him learn any thing; and this, they think, appears from a passage in the life written by himself, where he says, that “in his first years he made but little progress in those unpleasant studies, for which he was not born; in literis ill is inamoenis, quibus non natus erat.” When he was nine years old, he was sent to Dav enter, in Guelderland, at that time one of the best schools in the Netherlands, and the most free from the barbarism of the age; and here his parts very soon shone 'out. He apprehended in an instant whatever was taught him, and retained it so perfectly, that he infinitely surpassed all his companions. Rhenanus tells us that Zinthius, one of the best masters in the college of Daventer, was so well satisfied with Erasmus’s progress, and so thoroughly convinced of his great abilities, as to have foretold what afterwards came to pa>s, that “he would some time prove the envy and wonder of all Germany.” His memory is said to have b~?en so prodigious, that he was able to repeat all Terence and Horace by heart. We must nojt forget to observe, that pope Adrian VI. was his schoolfellow, and ever after his friend, and the encourager of his studies.

From Daventer, Erasmus was immediately removed to Tergou, the plague being in the house where he lodged; and now, about fourteen years o/ age, was left entirely to the care of guardians, who used him very ill; and although he was of an age to be sent to a university, they determined to force him into a monastery, that they might possess his patrimony; amd they feared that an university might create in him a disgust to that way of life. The chief in this plot was one Peter Winkell, a schoolmaster of Tergou, to whom there is a very ingenious epistle of Erasmus extant, in which he expostulates with him for his ill management and behaviour. They sent him first to a convent of friars at Bois-le-duc, in Brabant, where he lived, or rather, as he expresses it, lost three years of his life, having an utter aversion to the monastic state. Then he was sent to another religious house at Sion, near Delft; and afterwards, no effect towards changing his resolutions having been wrought upon him at Sion, to a third, namely, Stein, near Tergou. Here, unable to sustain the conflict any longer with his guardians and their agents, he entered among the regular canons there, in 1486. Though great civilities were shewn to him upon his entrance into this convent, and in compliance with his humour some laws and ceremonies were dispensed with, yet he had a design of leaving it before he made his profession; but the restless contrivances of his guardians, and particularly the ill state of his affairs, got the better of his inclinations, and he was at length induced to make it. A monastery, as monasteries then were, and such as Erasmus afterwards described them, devoid of all good learning and sound religion, must needs be an irksome place to one of his turn: at Stein, however, it was no small comfort to him to lind a young man of parts, who had the same taste for letters with himself, and who afterwards distinguished himself by a collection of elegant poems, which he published under the title of “Dearum Sylva.” This was William Hermann, of Tergou, with whom he contracted a very intimate friendship, which continued after his departure from Stein; and accordingly, we find among his letters some that were written to Hermann. The two earliest letters now extant, of Erasmus, were written from this monastery of Stein to Cornelius Aurotinus, a priest of Tergou; in which he defends with great zeal the celebrated Laurentius Valla against the contemptuous treatment of Aurotinus.

Erasmus’s enemies, and among the rest Julius Scaliger, have pretended that he led a very loose life during his stay in this convent, a charge which his friends have endeavoured to repell by going into the other extreme, and attributing to him a more virtuous course than he pursued, since it is evident from several acknowledgments of his own, that he did not spend his younger days with the utmost regularity. In a letter to father Servatius, he owns that “in his youth he had a propensity to very great vices; that, however, the love of money, or even of fame, had never possessed him; that, if he had not kept himself unspotted from sensual pleasures, he had not been a slave to them; and that, as for gluttony and drunkenness, he had always held them in abhorrence.” He also appears to have been of a playful turn, of which Le Clerc gives an instance, although without producing his authority. There was, it seems, a pear-tree in the garden of the convent at Stein, of whose fruit the superior was extremely fond, and reserved entirely to himself. Erasmus had tasted these pears, and liked them so well as to be tempted to steal them, which he used to do early in the morning. The superior, missing his pears, resolved to watch the tree, and at last saw a monk climbing up into it; but, as it was yet hardly light, waited a little till he could; discern him more clearly. Meanwhile Erasmus had perceived that he was seen; and was musing with himself how he should get off undiscovered. At length he bethought himself, that they had a monk in the convent who was lame, and therefore, sliding gently down, imitated as he went the limp of this unhappy monk. The superior, now sure of the thief, as having discovered him by signs not equivocal, took an opportunity at the next meeting of saying abundance of good things upon the subject of obedience; after which, turning to the supposed delinquent, he charged him with a most flagrant breach of it, in stealing his pears. The poor monk protested his innocence, but in vain. All he could say, only inflamed his superior the more; who, in spite of his protestations, inflicted upon him a very severe penance.

Erasmus, however, had no disposition for this way of life. “Convents,” he says, “were places of impiety rather than of religion, where every thing was done to which a depraved inclination could lead, under the sanction and mask of piety; and where it was hardly possible for any one to keep himself pure and unspotted.” This account he gives of them in a piece “De contemptu inundi,” which he drew up at Stein, when he was about twenty years of age; and which was the first thing he ever wrote. At length, the happy moment arrived when he was to quit the monastery of Stein. Henry a Bergis, bishop of Cambray, who was preparing at that time for Rome, with a view of obtaining a cardinal’s hat, wanted some person to accompany him who could speak and write Latin with accuracy and ease. Erasmus’s fame not being confined to the cloister, he applied to the bishop of Utrecht, as well as the prior of the convent, and they having given their consent, Erasmus went to Cambray, but soon found to his mortification that for certain reasons the bishop dropped his design. Still, as he was now loose from the convent, he went, with the leave and under the protection of the bishop, to study at the university of Paris. He was in orders when He went to Cambray; but was not made a priest till 1492, when he was ordained upon the 25th of February, by the bishop of Utrecht.

How he spent his time with the bishop of Cambray, with whom he continued some years, we have no account. bishop, however, was, now his patron, and apparently very fond of him; and he promised him a pension to maintain him at Paris. But the pension, as Erasmus himself relates, was never paid him; so that he was obliged to have recourse to taking pupils, though a thing highly disagreeable to him, purely for support. Many noble English became his pupils, and, among the rest, William Blunt, lord Montjoy, who was afterwards his very good friend and patron. Erasmus tells us, that he lived rather than studied, “vixit verius qnam studuit,” at Paris; for, his patron forgetting the promised pension, he had not only no books to carry on his studies, but even wanted the necessary comforts and conveniences of life. He was forced to take up with bad lodgings and bad diet, which brought on him a fit of illness, and changed his constitution so much for the worse, that, from a very strong one, it continued ever after weak and tender. The plague too was in that city, anl had been for many years; so that he was obliged, after a short stay, to leave it, almost without any of that benefit he might naturally have expected, as the university at that time was famous for theology. Leaving Paris, therefore, in the beginning of 1497 he returned to Cambray, where he was received kindly by the bishop. He spent some days at Bergis with his friend James Battus, by whom he was introduced to the knowledge of Anne Borsala, marchioness of Vere. This noble lady proved a great benefactress to him; and he afterwards, in gratitude, wrote her panegyric. This year he went over to England for the first time, to fulfill a promise which he had made to his noble disciple Montjoy. This noble lord, a man of learning, and patron of learned men, was never easy, it is said, while Erasmus was in England, but when he was in his company. Even after he was married, as Knight relates, he left his family, and went to Oxford, purely to proceed in his studies under the direction of Erasmus. He also gave him the liberty of his house in London, when he was absent; but a surly steward, whom Erasmus, in a letter to Colet, calls Cerberus, prevented his using that privilege often. Making but a short stay in London, he went to Oxford; where he studied in St. Mary’s college, which stood nearly opposite New-Inn hall, and of which there are some few remains still visible. Here he became very intimate with all who had any name for literature: with Colet, Grocyn, Linacer, William Latimer, sir Thomas More, and many others. Under the guidance of these he made a considerable progress in his studies; Colet engaging him in the study of divinity, and Grocyn, Linacer, and Latimer teaching him Greek. Greek literature was then reviving at Oxford; although much opposed by a set of the students, who called themselves Trojans, and, like the elder Cato at Rome, opposed it as a dangerous novelty.

Upon his coming to Oxford, he wrote a Latin ode (for he was not altogether without a poetical genius) by way of compliment to the college in which he was placed; and this made John Sixtine, a Phrysian, who was one of his first acquaintance there, observe, “what before he thought incredible, that the German wits were not at all inferior to those of Italy.” Erasmus was highly pleased with England, and with the friends he had acquired there, as appears by a letter dated from London, Dec. 5, 1497, and written to a friend in Italy; “in which country,” he tells him, “he himself would have been long ago, if his friend and patron lord Montjoy had not carried him with him to England. But what is it, you will say, which captivates you so much in -England If, my friend, I have any credit at all with you, I beg you to believe me, when I assure you, that nothing yet ever pleased me so much. Here I have found a pleasant and salubrious air I have met with humanity, politeness, learning learning not trite and superficial, but deep, accurate, true old Greek and Latin learning and withal so much of it, that, but for mere curiosity, I have no occasion to visit Italy. When Colet discourses, I seem to hear Plato himself. In Grocyn I admire an universal compass of learning. Linacer’s acuteness, depth, and accuracy, are not to be exceeded: nor did nature ever form any thing more elegant, exquisite, and better accomplished, than More. It would be endless to enumerate all; but it is surprising to -think, how learning flourishes in this happy country.”

In 1499 he took a second journey to England, as we collect from a letter of his to sir Thomas More, dated from Oxford, October the 28th of that year: but he does not appear to have made any considerable stay. In his return, at Dover, he was stripped of all his money, to the amount of about six angels, by a custom-house officer, before he embarked; and upon application for redress, he was told, that the seizure was according to ];iw, and there was no redress to be had. He had too much sense, however, to impute this, as some travellers would have done, to the country at large; on the contrary, in June 1500, when he published his “.Adagia” at Paris, he added to it a panegyric upon England, and dedicated the whole to his friend the lord Montjoy; who, in the mean time, had really been the occasion of his losing his money, from not instructing him in the laws and usages of the kingdom. About the middle of this year he made a journey into Holland; “where, though the air,” he says, “agreed with him, yet the horrid manners of the people, their brutality and gluttony, and their contempt of learning, and every thing that tended to civilise mankind, offended him highly.” Holland had not then made the figure she did afterwards as the asylum of letters. This year also he published his piece “De copia vevborum,” and joined it to another piece, “De conscribendis epistolis,” which he had written some time before at the request of Montjoy.

He had now given many public proofs of his uncommon abilities and learning, and his fame was spread in all probability over a great part of Europe; yet we find by many of his letters, that he still continued extremely poor. His time was divided between pursuing his studies, and looking after his patrons; the principal of whom was Autonius & Bergis, the abbot of St. Berlin, to whom he had been lately recommended, and who had received him very graciously. This abbot was very fond of him, and gave him a letter of recommendation to cardinal John de Medicis, afterwards pope Leo X.; for Erasmus had professed his intention to go into Italy, with a view of studying divinity some months at Bononia, and of taking there a doctor’s degree; also to visit Rome in the following year of the jubilee; and then to return home, and lead a retired life. But, although disappointed for want of the necessary means, he spent a good part of 1501 with the abbot of St. Berlin; and, the year after, we find him at Louvain, where he studied divinity under Dr. Adrian Florent, afterwards pope Adrian VI. This we learn from his dedication of Arnobius to this pope in 1522; and also from a letter of that pope to him, where he speaks of the agreeable conversations they were wont to have in those hours of studious leisure. In 1503 he published several little pieces, and amongst the rest his “Enchiridion militis Christian i:” which he wrote, he tells us, “not for the sake of shewing his eloquence, but to correct a vulgar error of those, who madereligion to consist in rites and ceremonies, to the neglect of virtue and true piety.” Long, indeed, before Luther appeared, Erasmus had discovered the corruptions and superstitions of the church of Rome, and had made some attempts to reform them. The “Enchiridion,” however, though it is very elegantly written, did not sell upon its first publication; but in 1518 Erasmus having prefixed a preface which highly offended the Dominicans, their clamours against it made its merit more known.

As Erasmus had no where more friends and patrons than in England, be made frequent visits to this island. Of these the principal were, Warham, archbishop of Canterbury; Tonstall, bishop of Durham; Fox, bishop of Winchester; Colet, dean of St. Paul’s; lord Montjoy, sir Thomas More, Grocyn, andLinacer; and he often speaks of the favours he had received from them with 'pleasure and gratitude. They were very pressing with him to settle in England; and “it was with the greatest uneasiness that he left it, since,” as he tells Culet, in a letter dated Paris, June 19th, 1506, “there was no country which had furnished him with so many learned and generous benefactors as even the single city of London.” He had left it just before, and was then at Paris in his road to Italy, where he made but a short stay, lest he should be disappointed, as had been the case more than once already. He took a doctor of divinity’s degree at Turin; from whence he pro-, ceeded to Bologna, where he arrived at the very time it was besieged by Julius II. He passed on for the present to Florence, but returned to Bologna upon the surrender of the town, and was time enough to be witness to the triumphant entry of that pope. This entry was made Nov. 10, 1506, and was so very pompous and magnificent, that Erasmus, viewing Julius under his assumed title of Christ’s vicegerent, and comparing his entry into Bologna with Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, could not behold it without the utmost indignation. An adventure, however, befel him in this city which had nearly proved fatal. The town not being quite clear of the plague, the surgeons, who had the care of it, wore something like the scapulars of friars, that people fearful of the infection might know and avoid them. Erasmus, wearing the habit of his order, went out one morning; and, being met by some wild young fellows with his white scapular on, was mistaken for one of the surgeons. They made signs to him to get out of the way; but he, knowing nothing of the custom, and making no haste to obey their signal, would have been stoned, if some citizens, perceiving his ignorance, had not immediately run up to him, and pulled off his scapular. To prevent such an accident for the future, he got a dispensation from. Julius II. which vvas afterwards confirmed by Leo X. to change his regular habit of friar into that of a secular priest. Erasmus now prosecuted his studies at Bologna, and contracted an acquaintance with the learned of the place;, with Paul Bombasius particularly, a celebrated Greek.pro-> fessor, with whom he long held a correspondence by letters. He was strongly invited at Bologna to read lectures; but, considering that the Italian pronunciation of Latin was different from the German, he declined it lest his mode of speaking might appear ridiculous. He drew up, however, some new works here, and revised some old ones. He augmented his “Adagia” considerably; and, desirous of having it printed by the celebrated Aldus Manutius at Venice, proposed it to him. Aldus accepted the offer with pleasure; and Erasmus went immediately to Venice, after having staid at Bologna little more than a year. Besides his “Adagia,” Aldus printed a new edition of his translation of the Hecuba and Iphigenia of Euripides; and also of Terence and Plautus, after Erasmus had revised and corrected them. At Venice he became acquainted with several learned men; among the rest, with Jerome Aleander, who for his skill in the tongues was afterwards promoted to the dignity of a cardinal. He was furnished with all necessary accommodations by Aldus, and also with several Greek manuscripts, which he read over and corrected at his better leisure at Padua, whither he was obliged to hasten, to superintend and direct the studies of Alexander, natural son of James IV. king of Scotland, although Alexander was at that time nominated to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. Erasmus studied Pausanias, Eustathius, Theocritus, and other Greek authors, undor the inspection and with the assistance of Musurus, who was one of those Greeks that had brought learning into the West, and was professor of that science at Padua.

Not enjoying a very good state of health at Padua, he went to Sienna, where he drew up some pieces of eloquence for the use of his royal pupil; and soon after to Rome, leaving Alexander at Sienna. He was received at Rome, as Rhenanus tells us, with the greatest joy and welcome by all the learned, and presently sought by persons of the first rank and quality. Thus we find that the cardinal John de Medicis, afterwards Leo X. the cardinal Raphael of St. George, the cardinal Gritnani, and Giles of Viterbo, general of the Augustines, and afterwards a cardinal, had a generous contention among themselves who should be foremost in civility to Erasmus, and have the most of his company. There is something interesting in the manner he was introduced to cardinal Gritnani, as related by himself in one of his letters, dated March 17, 1531: “When I was at Rome,” says he, “Peter Bembus often brought me invitations from Grimani, that I would come and see him. I never was fond of such company; but at last, that I might not seem to slight what is usually deemed a very great honour, 1 went. On arriving at his palace, not a soul could I perceive, either in or about it. It was after dinner; so, leaving the horse with my servant, I boldly ventured by myself into the house. I found all the doors open; but nobody was to be seen, though I had passed through three or four rooms. At last I happened upon a Greek, as I supposed, and asked him whether the cardinal was engaged He replied, that he bad company but asking what was my business Nothing, said I, but to pay iny compliments, which I can do as well at any other time. I was going; but halting a moment at one of the windows to observe the situation and prospect, the Greek ran up to me, and asked my name; and without my knowledge carried it to the cardinal, who ordered me to be introduced immediately. He received me with the utmost courtesy, as if I had been a cardinal conversed with me for two hours upon literary subjects and would not suffer me all the time to uncover my head ^ and upon my offering to rise, when his nephew, an archbishop, came in to us, he ordered me to keep my seat, saying, it was but decent that the scholar should stand before the master. In the course of our conversation, he earnestly entreated me not to think of leaving Rome, and offered to make me partaker of his house and fortunes. At length he shewed me his library, which was full of books in all languages, and was esteemed the best iti Italy, except the Vatican. If I had known Grimani sooner, I certainly should never have left Rome; but I was then under such engagements to return to England, as it was not in my power to break. The cardinal said no more upon this point, when I told him that I had been invited by the king of England himself; but begged me to believe him very sincere, and not like the common tribe of courtiers, who have no meaning in what they say. It was not without some difficulty that I got away from him; nor before I promised him, that I would certainly wait on him again before I left Rome. I did not perform my promise; for I was afraid the cardinal by his eloquence would tempt me to break my engagements with my English friends. I never was more wrong in my life but what can a man do, when fate drives him on”

Erasmus was at Rome when Julius II. made his entry into that city from the conquest of Bologna; and this entry offended him as much as that at Bologna had done. For he could not conceive that the triumphs of the church, as they were called, were to consist in vain pomp and worldly magnificence, but rather in subduing all mankind to the faitti and practice of the Christian religion. While he was at Rome he was taken under the protection of the cardinal Raphael of St. George; and at his persuasion, employed on the ungrateful task of declaiming backwards and forwards upon the same argument. He was first to dissuade from undertaking a war against the Venetians; and then to exhort and incite to the war, upon every‘ variation of the pontiffV mind. When he was preparing to leave Rome, many temptations and arguments were ’used to detain him; and the pope offered him a place among his penitentiaries, which is reckoned very honourable, and a step to the highest preferments in that court. But his engagements in England prevented his staying at Rome; though, as we have already seen, he afterwards repented that he did not. He set out from Rome to Sienna, where he had left the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, his pupil; who, not willing to quit Italy without seeing Jlome, brought him back thither again. After a short stay they went to Cumae, to see the Sibyl’s cave; and there his pupil parted from him, being recalled to Scotland, where he was, killed in a battle fought against the English at Flodden-field in 1513. Erasmus has left a grand eulogium on this young nobleman in his “Adagia.”

He left Italy soon after his pupil, without understanding the language of that country, which made his journey less advantageous as well as pleasant to him. It is said that when he was at Venice, he met Bernard Ocricularius of Florence, who had written Latin history in the manner of Sallust Erasmus desired a conversation with him, and addressed him in Latin: but the Florentine obstinately refused to speak any thingexcept Italian; which Erasmus not understanding, they separated without edification on either part. Why Erasmus should not understand Italian, it is. not difficult to conceive; but it is somewhat singular that he should be ignorant of French, which was in a great measure the case, though he had spent so much time in that country. In his way from Italy to England, he passed first to Curia, then to Constance, and so through the Martian forest by Brisgau to Strasburgh, and from thence by the Rhine to Holland; whence, after making some little stay at Antwerp and Louvain, he took shipping for England. Some of his friends and patrons, whom he visited as he came along, made him great offers, and wished him to settle among them; but his heart was at this time entirely fixed upon spending the remainder of his days in England, not only upon account of his former connections and friendships, which were very dear to him, bxit the great hopes that had lately been held out to him, of ample preferment, provided he would settle there. Henry VII. died in April 1509; and Henry VIII. his son and successor, was Erasmus’s professed friend and patron, and had for some time held a correspondence with him by letters. That prince was no sooner upon the throne, than Montjoy wrote to Erasmus to hasten him into England, promising him great things on the part of the king, and of Warham archbishop of Canterbury, though indeed he had no particular commission to that end from either the one or the other. More, and some other friends, wrote him also letters to the same purpose. But he had no sooner arrived in the beginning of 1510, than he perceived that liis expectations had been raised too high, and began secretly to wish that he had not quitted Rome. However, he took no notice of the disappointment, but pursued his studies with his usual assiduity. At his arrival in England he lodged with More; and while he was there, to divert himself and his friend, he wrote, within the compass of a week, “Encomium Moriæ,” or “The praise of Folly,” a copy of which was sent to France, and printed there, but with abundance of faults; yet it became so popular, that in a few months it went through seven editions. The general design of this ludicrous piece is to shew, that there are fools in all stations, and more particularly to expose the errors and follies of the court of Rome, not sparing the pope himself; so that he was never after regarded as a true son of that church. It was highly acceptable to persons of quality, but as highly offensive to dissolute monks, who disapproved especially of the Commentary which Lystrius wrote upon it, and which is printed with it, because it unveiled several things from whose obscurity they drew much profit. Soon after he came to England he published a translation of the Hecuba of Euripides into Latin verse; and, adding some poems to it, dedicated it to archbishop Warham. The prelate received the dedication courteously, yet made the poet only a small present. As he was returning from Lambeth, his friend Grocyn, who had accompanied him, asked, “what present he had received” Erasmus replied, laughing, “A very considerable sum” which Grocyn would not believe. Having told him what it was, Grocyn observed, that the prelate was rich and generous enough to have made him a much handsomer present; but certainly suspected that he had presented to him a book already dedicated elsewhere. Erasmus asked, “how such a suspicion could enter his head” “Because,” said Grocyn, “such hungry scholars as you, who stroll about the world, and dedicate books to noblemen, are apt to be guilty of such tricks.”

In 1515 he was at Basil; and this year Martin Dorpius, a divine of Louvain, instigated by the enemies of Erasmus, wrote against his “Praise of Folly;” to whom Erasmus replied with much mildness, as knowing that Dorpius, who was young and ductile, had been put upon it by others. He was the first adversary who attacked him openly, but Erasmus forgave him, and took him into his friendship (see Dorpius), which he would not easily have done, if he had not been good-natured, and, as he says of himself, “irasci facilis, tamen ut placabilis esset.” He wrote this year a very handsome letter to pope Leo X. in which he speaks of his edition of St. Jerome, which he had a mind to dedicate to him. Leo returned him a very obliging answer, and seems not to refuse the offer of Erasmus, which, however, did not take effect; for the work was dedicated to the archbishop of Canterbury. Not content with writing to him, Leo wrote also to Henry VIII. of England, and recommended Erasmus to him. The cardinal of St. George also pressed him much to come to Rome, and approved his design of dedicating St. Jerome to the pope: but he always declined going to Rome, as he himself declared many years after, or even to the imperial court, lest the pope or the emperor should command him to write against Luther and the new heresies. And therefore, when the pope’s nuncio to the English court had instructions to persuade Erasmus to throw himself at the pope’s feet, he did not think it safe to trust him; having reason to fear that the court of Rome would never forgive the freedoms he had already taken.

He soon returned to the Low Countries, where we find him in 1516. He received letters from the celebrated Budeus, to inform him that Francis I. was desirous of inviting learned men to France, and had approved of Erasmus among others, offering him a benefice of a thousand livres. Stephanus Poncherius, or Etienne de Ponchery, bishop of Paris, and the king’s ambassador at Brussels, was the person who made these offers, but Erasmus excused himself, alleging that the catholic king detained him in the Low Countries, having made him his counsellor, and given him a prebend, though as yet he had received none of the revenues of it. Here, probably, commenced the correspondence and 'friendship between Erasmus and Budeus, which, however, does not seem to have been very sincere. Their letters are indeed not deficient in compliments, but they likewise abound in petty contests, which shew that some portion of jealousy existed between them, especially on the side of Budeus, who yet in other respects was an excellent man; (See Budeus). This year was printed at Basil, Erasmus’s edition of the New Testament, a work of infinite labour, and which helped, as he tells us, to destroy his health and spoil his constitution. It drew upon him the censures of some ignorant and envious divines; who, not being capable themselves of performing such a task, were vexed, as it commonly happens, to see it undertaken and accomplished by another. We collect from his letters, that there was one college in Cambridge which would not suffer this work to enter within its walls; however, his friends congratulated him upon it, and the call for it was so great, that it was thrice reprinted in less than a dozen years, namely, in 1519, 1522, and 1527. This was the first time the New Testament was printed in Greek. The works of St. Jerome began now to be published by Erasmus, and were printed in 6 vols. folio, at Basil, from 1516 to 1526. He mentions the great labour it had cost him to put this father into good condition, which yet he thought very well bestowed, for he was excessively fond of him, and upon all occasions his panegyrist. Luther blamed Erasmus for leaning so much to Jerome, and for thinking, as he supposed, too meanly of Augustine. “As much,” says he, “as Erasmus prefers Jerome to Augustine, so much do I prefer Augustine to Jerome.” But in this respect, Jortin is of opinion that Luther’s taste was extremely bad.

Thus letters began to revive apace, and no one contributed more to their restoration than Erasmus. Among other things, the “Epistolae obscurorum virorum” were published; and ignorance, pedantry, bigotry, and persecution, met with warm opponents, who attacked them with great vigour, and allowed them no quarter. More informs Erasmus, that the “Epistolze” were generally approved, even by those who were ridiculed in them, and who had not the sense to feel it. This anonymous offspring of wit was fathered upon Erasmus, among many others, but undoubtedly without reason. If he had been the author, it would not have had that surprising effect on him which it is said to have had when first he began to read it. The effect was this: it threw him into such a fit of laughter, that it burst an abscess he then had in his face, which the physicians had ordered to be opened.

The rise of the reformation was a very interesting period to Erasmus. Luther had preached against indulgences in 1517, and the contest between the Romanists and the reformed was begun and agitated with great warmth on both sides. Erasmus, who was of a pacific temper, and abhorred, of all things, dissensions and tumults, was much alarmed and afflicted at this state of affairs; and he often complained afterwards, that his endeavours to compose and reconcile the two parties only drew upon him the resentment and indignation of both. From this time he was exposed to a persecution so painful, that he had much difficulty to support it with equanimity; and invectives were aimed at him by the rancorous churchmen, who loudly complained that his bold and free censures of the monks, and of their pious grimaces and superstitions, had paved the way for Luther. “Erasmus,” they used to say, “laid the egg, and Luther hatched it.” Erasmus seems afterwards to have been considered as really a coadjutor in the business of the reformation; for in the reign of Mary queen of England, when a proclamation was issued against importing, printing, reading, selling, or keeping heretical books, his works are comprehended amongst them.

Erasmus received this year, 1518, a considerable present from Henry VIII. as also an offer of a handsome maintenance in England for the rest of his life; he thanked the king, but without either accepting or refusing the favour. A little time after, he wrote to cardinal Wolsey, for whom, however, he had no great affection; and after some compliments, heavily complained of the malice of certain calumniators and enemies of literature, who thwarted his designs of employing human learning to sacred purposes. “These wretches,” says he, “ascribe to Erasmus every thing that is odious; and confound the cause of literature with that of Luther and religion, though thejt have no connection with each other. As to Luther, he is perfectly a stranger to me, and I have read nothing of his, except two or three pages not that I despise him, but because my own pursuits will not give me leisure and yet, as I am informed, there are some who scruple not to affirm, that I have actually been his helper. If he has written well, the praise belongs npt to me nor the blame, if he has written, ill since in all his works there is not a line that came from me. His life and conversation are universally commended and it is no small prejudice in his favour, that his morals are unblameable, and that calumny itself can fasten no reproach on his life. If I had really had time to peruse his writings, I am not so conceited of my own abilities, as to pass a judgment upon the performances of so eminent a divine. I was once against Luther, purely for fear he should bring an odium upon literature, which is too much suspected of evil already,” &c. Thus he goes on to defend himself here, as he does in many other places of his writings; where we may always observe his reserve and caution not to condemn Luther, while he condemned openly enough the conduct and sentiments of Luther’s enemies. Though Erasmus addressed himself upon this occasion to Wolsey, yet it was impossible for the cardinal to be a sincere friend to him, because he was patronized by Warham, between whom and Wolsey there was no good understanding; and because the great praises which Erasmus frequently bestowed upon the archbishop would naturally be interpreted by the cardinal as so many slights upon himself. In his preface to Jerome, after observing of Warham, that he used to wear plain apparel, he relates, that once, when Henry VIII. and Charles V. had an interview, Wolsey took upon him to set forth an order that the clergy should appear splendidly dressed in silk and damask; and that Warham alone, despising the cardinal’s authority, appeared in his usual habit.

In 1519, Luther sent a very courteous letter to Erasmus, whom he fancied to be on his side; because he had declared himself against the superstitions of the monks, and because these men hated them both almost equally. He thought, too, that he could discern this from his new preface to the “Enchiridion militis Christiani,” which was republished about this time. Erasmus replied, calling Luther “his dearest brother in Christ;” and informed him, “what a noise had been made against his works at Louvain. As to himself, he had declared,” he says, “to the divines of that university, that be had not read those works, and, therefore, could neither approve nor disapprove them; but that it would be better for them to publish answers made up of solid argument, than to rail at them before the people, especially as the moral character of their author was blameless. He owns, however, that he had perused part of his Commentaries upon the Psalms; that he liked them much, and hoped they might be st-rviceable. He tells him, that many persons, both in England and the Low Countries, commended his writings. There is,” says he, “a prior of a monastery at Antwerp, a true Christian, who loves- you extremely, and was, as he relates, formerly a disciple of yours. He is almost the only one who preaches Jesus Christ, while others preach human fables, and seek after lucre. The Lord Jesus grant you from day to” day an increase of his spirit, for his glory and the public good.“From these and other passages, Erasmus appears to have entertained hopes, that Luther’s attempts, and the great notice which had been taken of them, might be serviceable to genuine Christianity yet he did not approve his conduct, nor had any thoughts of joining him on the contrary, he grew every day more shy and cautious of engaging himself in his affairs. He was earnestly solicitous to have the cause of literature, which the monks opposed so violently, separated from the cause of Lutheranism; and therefore he often observes, that they had no kind of connection. But, as Dr. Jortin remarks, with great truth,” the study of the belles lettres is a poor occupation, if they are to be confined to a knowledge of language and antiquities, and not employed to the service of religion and of other sciences. To what purpose doth a man fill his head with Latin and Greek words, with prose and verse, with histories, opinions, and customs, if it doth not contribute to make him more rational, more prudent, more civil, more virtuous and religious Such occupations are to be considered as introductory, and ornamental, and serviceable to studies of higher importance, such as philosophy, law, ethics, politics, and divinity. To abandon these sciences, in order to support philology, is like burning a city to save the gates."

About 1520, a clamour was raised against Erasmus in England, although he had many friends there; and, among them, even persons of the first quality, and the king himself. He gives a remarkable instance of this in the behaviour of one Standish, who had been a monk, and was bishop of St. Asaph; and whom Erasmus sometimes calls, by way of derision, “Episcopum a sancto asino.” Standish had censured Erasmus, in a sermon preached at St. Paul’s, for translating the beginning of St. John’s gospel, “In principle erat sermo,” and not “verbum.” He also accused Erasmus of heresy before the king and queen but this charge was repelled by two learned friends, who are supposed to have been Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, and sir Thomas More. This year, Jerome Aleander, the pope’s nuncio, solicited the emperor, and Frederic elector of Saxony, to punish Luther. Frederic was then at Cologn, and Erasmus came there, and was consulted by him upon this occasion. Erasmus replied, ludicrously at first, saying, “Luther has committed two unpardonable crimes: he touched the pope upon the crown, and the monks upon the belly.” He then told the elector seriously, that “Luther had justly censured many abuses and errors, and that the welfare of the church required a reformation of them; that Luther’s doctrine was right in the main, but that it had not been delivered by him with a proper temper, and with due moderation.” The pope’s agents, finding Erasmus thus obstinately bent to favour, at least not to condemn and write against Luther, as they often solicited him to do, endeavoured to win him over by the offer of bishoprics or abbeys. “I know,” says he, “that a bishopric is at my service, if I would but write against Luther: but Luther is a man of too great abilities for me to encounter; and, to say the truth, I learn more from one page of his, than from all the volumes of Thomas Aquinas.”

Still we find Erasmus taking all opportunies of declaring his firm resolution to adhere to the see of Rome. “What connections,” says he, “have I with Luther, or what recompense to expect from him, that I should join with him to oppose the church of Rome, which 1 take to be a true part of the catholic church J, who should be loth to resist the bishop of my diocese” As for the monks, they would have been glad to have seen him a deserter, and lodged in the enemy’s quarters, because he would have much less incommoded them as a Lutheran than as a catholic; but he was determined not to stir. His wish was to seek a middle way, with a view of putting an end to these contests; but, above all, to keep himself from being looked upon as a party on either side. Thus, there is a remarkable letter of his, written to Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, in 1521, wherein he complains equally of the violence of Luther, and of the rage of the Dominicans; as also of the malice of Aieander, who ascribed to him some writings of Luther, of which he had not even heard. Some affirmed, that Erasmus had written a treatise called “The Captivity of Babylon,” although Luther openly acknowledged it for his own: others said, that Luther had taken many of his sentiments from Erasmus. “I see now,” says he, “that the Germans are resolved at all adventures to engage me in the cause of Luther, whether I will or not. In this they have acted foolishly, and have taken the most effectual method to alienate me from them and their party. Wherein could I have assisted Luther, if I had declared myself for him, and shared the danger along with him Only thus far, that, instead of one man, two would have perished. I cannot conceive what he means by writing with such a spirit: one thing I know too well, that he has brought a great odium upon the lovers of literature. It is true, that he hath given us many wholesome doctrines, and many good counsels; and I wish he had not defeated the effect of them by his intolerable faults. But, if he had written, every thing in the most unexceptionable manner, I had no inclination to die for the sake of truth. Every man has not the courage requisite to make a martyr; and I am afraid that, if I were put to the trial, I should imitate St. Peter.” In this Erasmus betrays his genuine character, and it is plain that it was not truth, nor the desire of propagating it, but self-preservation only, which influenced his conduct throughout this affair. He certainly approved of Luther’s principal doctrines, and inwardly wished he might carry his point; but, as he could not imagine that probable, he chose to adhere outwardly to the stronger party. “I follow,” says he, “the decisions of the pope and the emperor, when they are right, which is acting religiously: I submit to them, when they are wrong, which is acting prudently: and I think it is lawful for good men to behave themselves thus, when there is no hope of obtaining any more.” From this principle of policy, he extolled the book of Henry VIII. against Luther, even before he had seen it; and he began now to throw out hints, that he would one day enter the lists with the great reformer, yet, when his friend and patron Montjoy exhorted him, the same year, to write against Luther, he replied, “Nothing is more easy than to call Luther a blockhead nothing is less easy than to prove him one at least, so it seems to me.” Upon the whole, he was exceedingly perplexed how to behave to Luther; and frequently appears inconsistent, because he thought himself obliged to disclaim before men what in his heart he approved and even revered.

In 1519 a collection of Erasmus’s letters was published, which gave him, as he pretends, much vexation. As he had spoken freely in them on many important points, he could not avoid giving offence. The monks especially, as enemies to literature, exclaimed violently against them; and when the Lutheran contentions broke out, these letters were still more censured than before, and accused of favouring Lutheranism, at a time when, as he says, it was neither safe to speak, nor to keep silence. He adds, that he would have suppressed those letters, but that Froben would not consent: but in this, says Jortin, he could hardly speak seriously, since Froben was too much his friend to print them without his consent. In 1522 he published the works of St. Hilary. “Erasmus,” says Du Pin, “when he published his editions of the fathers, joined to them prefaces and notes full of critical discernment: and, though he may sometimes be too bold in rejecting some of their works as spurious, yet it must be confessed, that he has opened and shewed the way to all who have followed him.” He had lately published also at Basil his celebrated “Colloquies,” which he dedicated to John Erasmus Froben, son to John Froben, and his godson. He drew up these “Colloquies,” partly that young persons might have a book to teach them the Latin tongue, and religion and morals at the same time; and partly, to cure the bigotted world, if he could, of that superstitious devotion which the monks so industriously propagated. The liveliest strokes in them are aimed at the monks and their religion; on which account they had no sooner appeared, than a most outrageous clamour was raised against them. He was accused of laughing at indulgences, auricular confession, eating fish upon fast-days, &c. and it is certain he did not talk of these matters with much respect. The faculty of theology at Paris passed a general censure, in 1526, upon the Colloquies of Erasmus, as upon a work in which “the fasts and abstinences of the church are slighted, the suffrages of the holy virgin and of the saints are derided, virginity is set below matrimony, Christians are discouraged from monkery, and grammatical is preferred to theological erudition; and therefore decreed, that the perusal of that wicked book be forbidden to all, more especially to young people, and that it be entirely suppressed, if possible.” In 1537, pope Paul III. chose a select number of cardinals and prelates, to consider about reforming the church; who, among other things, proposed, that young people should not be permitted to learn Erasmus’s Colloquies. A provincial council also, held at Cologn in 1549, condemned these Colloquies, as not fit to be read in schools. Yet they must be allowed to contain a treasure of wit and good sense, and though they were intended as only a schoolbook, are not unworthy the perusal of the most advanced in knowledge. Colineus reprinted them at Paris in 1527; and, by artfully giving out that they were prohibited, sold, it is said, above tbur-and-twenty thousand of one impression.

Adrian dying this year, he was succeeded by Clement VII. who sent to Erasmus an honourable diploma, accompanied with two hundred florins. He invited him also to Rome, as his predecessors had done: but “at Rome,” says Erasmus, “there are many who want to destroy me, and they had almost accomplished their purpose before the death of Adrian. After having, at his own request, communicated to him my secret opinion, I found that things were altered, and that I was no longer in favour.” The cause was manifest, says Jortin Erasmus had hinted at the necessity of a reformation and such language was highly disgusting at the court of Rome. If Luther did not like Erasmus, because Erasmus approved not in all things either his doctrine or his conduct, the court of Rome liked him as little, because he did not condemn Luther in all things yet it thought proper to give him good words and promises, and to entice him thither if possible where he would have been in their power, and no better than a prisoner at large.

In 1525 he published his “Diatribe de libero arbitrio,” already noticed, which Luther replied to, in a treatise entitled “De servo arbitrio.” In this he mixes compliment, praise, scorn, insult, ridicule, and invective, together; at which Erasmus was much provoked, and immediately wrote a reply, which was the first part of his “Hyperaspistes:” the second was published in 1527. The year after he published two treatises, in the way of dialogue, entitled “The pronunciation of the Greek and Latin languages,” and “The Ciceronianus.” In the former, which is one of the most learned of all his compositions, are contained very curious researches into the pronunciation of vowels and consonants; in the sec.ond, which is one of the most lively and ingenious, he rallies agreeably some Italian purists, who scrupled to make use of any word or phrase which was not to be found in Cicero: not that he condemned either Cicero or his manner of writing, but only the servility and pedantry of his imitators, which he thought, and very justly, deserving of ridicule. On the contrary, when Froben engaged him, the very same year, to revise a new edition of the Tusculan Questions, he prefixed to it an elegant preface, in which he highly extols Cicero, both for his style and moral sentiments, and almost makes a saint of him: and Julius Scaliger, who censured Erasmus for his treatment of the Ciceronians, declared afterwards, that he was willing to forgive him his blasphemies, and to be at peace with him thenceforward, for the sake of this preface; which he considered as a kind of penance, and of satisfaction made to the manes of the Roman orator.

But, with all his greatness, Erasmus had, and it must not be dissembled, his failings and infirmities. Bayle has observed of him, that he had too much sensibility when he was attacked by adversaries made too many complaints of them and was too ready to answer them and Le Clerc has often censured him for his lukewarmness, timidity, and unfairness, in the business of the reformation. Dr. Jortin seems to allow some foundation for these censures, yet has offered what can be offered by way of excuse for Erasmus. To the first of them fye replies, that Erasmus “was fighting for his honour, and for his life; being often accused of nothing less than heterodoxy, impiety, and blasphemy, by men whose forehead was a rock, and whose tongue was a razor. To be misrepresented as a pedant and a dunce,” he says, “is no great matter, for time and truth put folly to flight to be accused of heresy by bigots, hypocrites, politicians, and infidels, this is a serious affair as they know too well, who have had the misfortune to feel the effects of it.” As for his lukewarmness in promoting the reformation, Dr. Jortin is of opinion, that much may be said, and with truth, in his behalf. He thinks that Erasmus “was not entirely free from the prejudices of education; that he had some indistinct and confused notions about the authority of the church catholic, which made it not lawful to depart from her, corrupted as he believed her to be; and that he was much shocked at the violent measures which were pursued by the reformers, as well as by the violent quarrels which arose among them.” The doctor cannot be persuaded, “that the fear of losing his pensions and coming to want ever made Erasmus say or do things which he thought unlawful;” yet supposes, “that he might be afraid of disobliging several of his oldest and best friends, who were against the Lutheran reformation, such as Henry VIII. Charles V. the popes, Wolsey, &c. and also his patrons, Warham, Montjoy, More, Tonstall, Fisher, Bembus, &c. and all these things might influence his judgment, though he himself was not at all aware of it. There is no necessity to suppose, that he acted against his conscience in adhering to the church of Rome: no, he persuaded himself that he did 'as much as piety and prudence required from him in censuring her defects.” The doctor observes, that “though as protestants we are certainly much obliged to Erasmus, yet we are more obliged to Luther, Melancthon, and other authors of the reformation. This,” says he, “is true; yet it is as true, that we and all the nations in Europe are infinitely obliged to Erasmus, for spending a long and laborious life in opposing ignorance and superstition, and in promoting literature and true piety.”

, an eminent German physician, but perhaps more celebrated as a divine, from being, the reputed founder of the Erastians, or of the opinions so called, for they are not a distinct sect, was born in 1523, or 1524, at Auggenen, a village in the lordship of Badenweiller, which is in the marquisate of Baden Dourlach. His family name was Leiber, or beloved, to which he gave, according to the custom of the times, a Greek turn, and called himself Erastus. In 1540, he was sent to the university of Basil, where he had some difficulties to struggle with, owing to the poverty of his parents; but, according to Melchior Adam, Providence raised him up a patron, who provided for him liberally, and after his studies at Basil, enabled him to travel to Italy for farther improvement. At Bologna he studied both philosophy and physic, the latter for nine years under the ablest masters. Returning, with a doctor’s degree, to his own country, he lived for some time at the court of the princes of Henneberg, where he practised physic with great reputation, until the elector palatine Frederick III. invited him to his court, and made him first physician and counsellor. This prince appointed him also professor of physic in the university 'of Heidelberg. In 1581 be returned to Basil, where he was also chosen professor of physic, and where he made a liberal foundation for the provision and education of poor students in medicine, and after superintending and establishing this, which was long called the Erastian foundation, he died Dec. 31, 1583, or, according to some, Jan. 1, 1584. His medical works were principally, 1. “Disputationum de Medicina nova Philippi Paracelsi,” p. i. Basil, 1572, p. ii. ibid. 1572, p. iii. ibid. 1572, p. iv. et ultima, ibid. 1573, all in 4to. In these volumes he refutes the doctrines which Paracelsus had previously taught at Basil, and had committed to writing, particularly^) astrology and medicine. 2. “Theses de~Contagio,” Heidelberg, 1574, 4to. 3. “De Occult. Pharmacor. Potestatibus,” ibid. 1574, 4to; Francfort, 1611. 4. “Disputat, de Auro Potabili,” Basil, 1578, 1594, 4to. 5. “De Putredine Lu ber,” ibid. 1580, 4to; Lipsiae, 1590. 6. “Epistola de Astrologia Divinatrice,” Basil, 1580, 4to. 7. “De Pinguedinis in Anhnalibus Generatione et Concretione,” Heidelbergae, 1580, 4to. 8. “Com ids Montani, Vicentini, novi Medicorum censoris, quinque Librorum de Morbis nuper Editorum viva Anatome,” Basil, 1581, 4to. 9. “Ad Archangeli Mercenarii Disputationem de Putredine responsioj” ibid. 152, 4to. 10, “Varia Opuscula Medica,” Franc. 1590, folio.

His fame, however, chiefly now rests on what he wrote in ecclesiastical controversy. When at Heidelberg, a dispute having arisen respecting the sacrament, chiefly founded on the question, “Whether the terms flesh and blood ought to be understood literally or metaphorically' he published a book” De crena Domini,“in which he contended for the metaphorical sense. He had indeed all his life paid so much attention to contested points of divinity, that he was reckoned as good a divine as a physician; and for this reason, in 1564, when a conference was held between the divines of the palatinate, and those of Wittemberg, respecting the real presence in the sacrament, Erastus was ordered by the elector Frederic to be present at it. The work, however, which excited most attention, in this country, at least, if not in his own, was his book on ecclesiastical excommunication, in which he denies the power of the church to excommunicate, exclude, absolve, censure, in short, to exert what is called discipline. Denying the power of the keys, he compared a pastor to a professor of any science who can merely instruct his students; he would have all ordinances of the gospel open and free to all, and all offences, whether of a civil or religious nature, to be referred to the civil magistrate, consequently the church with him was merely a creature of the state. Some of our first reformers adopted these sentiments so far as to maintain, that no one form of church government is prescribed in scripture as a rule for future ages, as Cranmer, Redmayn, Cox, &c. and archbishop Whitgift, in his controversy with Cartwright, delivers the same opinion. The Erastians formed a party in the assembly of divines in 1643, and the chief leaders of it were Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Colman, Mr. Selden, and Mr. Whitlock; and in the house of cornmons there were, besides Selden and Whitlock, Oliver St. John, esq. sir Thomas Wicldrington, John Crew, esq. sir John Hipsley, and others. In the assembly, the Erastians did not except against the presbyterian government as a” political institution,“proper to be established by the civil magistrate, but they were against the claim of a” divine right.“Accordingly the clause of divine right was lost in the house of commons. It is almost needless to add, however, that after the restoration, these opinions, decayed, and we believe that at this time, there is no sect, however hostile in its opinions to the power of the established church, who has not, and does not assert a power of its own binding on all its members, in one shape or other. In Erastus’s life-time, he was opposed by Ursinus, his friend and colleague; and since has been answered by Hammond,” On the power of the Keys,“1647. But it is necessary to remark that what is called Erastus’s book on this subject was not published in his life-time. During that, indeed, he published his opinions in the form of theses, levelled at Caspar Olevianus and his colleagues, who wanted to introduce ecclesiastical discipline in the churches of the Palatinate; and Beza, who foresaw the mischiefs of this controversy, addressed himself both to Erastus and Olevianus, recommending peace. Having afterwards obtained a copy of the theses which Erastus had written, he determined to answer them; this excited Erastus to draw up a work in reply, but he declined printing it, lest he should disturb the peace of the churches. Six years after his death, however, it was published by one of his disciples, under the title” Explicatio questionis, utrum Excommunicatio, quatenus religionem intelligentes et amplexantes, a sacramentorum usu, propter admissum facinus arcet, mandato nitatur divino, an excogitata sit ab hominibus, &c.“Pesclavii (Puschlaw) apud Baocium Sultaceterum (fictitious names), 1589, 4to. By a letter of his in Goldast’s” Centuria Philologicarum Epistolarum,“it appears that Erastus pronounced his work unanswerable, but Beza very soon performed that task in his” Tractatus pius et moderatus," &c. Geneva, 1690, 4to, and to the general satisfaction of the divines of that period.

, a Greek of Cyrene, librarian of Alexandria under king Euergetes, the son of Ptolemy Philadelphia, was born in the year 275 B. C. He cultivated at once poetry, grammar, philosophy, mathematics, and excelled in the first and the last. He was styled the Cosmographer, the measurer of the universe, the second Plato, and was the first who discovered a method of measuring the bulk and circumference of the earth. He constructed the first observatory, and observed the obliquity of the ecliptic, and found out also a method of knowing the primitive numbers, that is, the numbers that have no common measure but unity, which was named the sieve of Eratosthenes. This philosopher likewise composed a treatise for completing the analysis, and he solved the problem of the duplication of the cube, by means of an instrument composed of several sliders. Having attained the age of eighty, and being oppressed with infirmities, he voluntarily died of hunger, in the year 195 B. C. He described in Greek, the reigns of thirty-eight Theban kings, which had been omitted by Manetho, out of the sacred records of the Egyptians, at Thebes, and this at the command of king Euergetes. Apollodorus transcribed this catalogue out of Eratosthenes, and Sycellus out of Apollodorus. This catalogue or Laterculus of Eratosthenes is generally owned to be the most authentic Egyptian account of all others now extant, and reaches from the beginning of that kingdom after the deluge, till the days of the judges, if not also till the days of Solomon: and by Diccearchus’s connection of one of its kings with an antediluvian king of Egypt on one side, and with the first olympiad of Jphitus on the other, we gain another long and authentic series of heathen chronology during all that time. The little that remains to us of the works of Eratosthenes was printed at Oxford in 1672, 8vo- There are two other editions one in the “Uranologia” of father Petau, 1630; and the other at Amsterdam, in the same size, 1703; and in 1795, John Conr. Schaubach edited the “Catasterismi cutninterpretatione Latina et commentariis,” including a dissertation by the learned Heyne, printed at Gottingen, 1795, 8vo.

, of Lombardy, a writer who lived in the eighth and part of the ninth century, began early in life to bear arms, and was made prisoner of war, but afterwards retired to Monte Cassino, where he embraced the rule of St. Benedict at the age of about twenty-five. The government of a neighbouring monastery was conferred upon him but here he was exposed to so many vexations, that he was obliged once more to retire and in his retreat wrote a Chronicle, or a History at large of the Lombards, which is thought to be lost, and an abridgment of the same history, from the year 774 to 888, which forms & sort of supplement to Paul the deacon. Anthony Caraccioli, priest of the order of regular clerks, published this abridgment, which relates some curious facts, with other pieces, at Naples, in 1620, 4to. Camillus Peregrinus inserted it afterwards in his history of the princes of Lombardy, 1643, 4to.

, a native of Antwerp, and secretary to the duke of Florence, was born at Antwerp in 1584, of protestant parents, said to be of the same family with Peter the Hermit, so celebrated in the history of the crusades. In his youth Scaliger had a great esteem for him, and recommended him in the strongest terms to Casaubon; who procured him employment, and endeavoured to get him into Mr. de Montaterre’s family, in quality of preceptor, and was likely to have succeeded, when Eremita found means to ingratiate himself with Mr. de Vic, who was going ambassador into Switzerland. In the course of their intimacy De Vic, a man of great bigotry, and fired with a zeal for making converts, soon won over Eremita, by means of a conference with a Portuguese monk; and fre became a Roman catholic, which gave Casaubon great uneasiness. Eremita, however, still retained a veneration for Scaliger, and, after his death, defended him against Scioppius, who in his answer, speaks with very little respect of Eremita, and informs us that after being at Rome in 1606, he disappeared for some time after, as it was supposed at first from poverty, but it afterwards was discovered that he had retired to Sienna, where he made his court to archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini, who recommended him to Silvio Piccolomini, great chamberlain to the great duke of Florence. By this means he obtained a pension from that prince, as a reward for a panegyric written on the nuptials of the great duke with Magdalen of Austria, and published in 1608, and at his earnest request he was sent into Germany with the deputy, to acquaint the several princes of the empire with the death of the great duke’s father. At his return to Florence, he affected to be profoundly skilled in allairs of government; and promised a commentary which should exceed whatever had been written upon Tacitus. As he looked upon the history of our Saviour as fabulous, so he took a delight in exclaiming against the inquisitors and the clergy; and had many tales ready upon these occasions, all which he could set off to advantage.

Such is the character which Scioppius has given of Eremita; which is in part confirmed by some particulars related by Casaubon. He died at Leghorn in 1613. Grsevius published at Utrecht, in 1701, an octavo volume of his “Opera varia;” among which were “Aulicae vitae ac civilis, libri iv.” all taken from a manuscript in the duke of Florence’s library, communicated by Magliabecchi to Gracvius, who, in a preface, has endeavoured to refute the slanders of Scioppius. The four books, “De Aulica vita ac civili,” are written with great purity and elegance of style, and abound with curious knowledge, which makes them entertaining as well as useful. Bayle mentions two other works of our author, which, he says, deserve to be read: “Epistolica relatio de itinere Germanico, quod legatione magni Etruriae ducis ad Rodolphum II. imperatorem Germanise anno 1609 peractum fuit;” and his epistle “De Helveticorum, Rhetorum, Sedonensium situ, republica, & moribus.” His Latin poems were inserted in the second volume of “Deliciac poetarum Belgicorum.”

Another of his works was upon the subject of the eucharist, in answer to a famous book of Paschasius Radbertus, concerning the body and blood of Christ. Upon this head, Erigena had the good sense to oppose the doctrine of transubstantiation. While our author was employed in these discussions, an incident occurred, which drew upon him the displeasure of the Roman pontiff. Michael Balbus, the Greek emperor, had sent, in the year 824, a copy of the works of Dionysius, the philosopher, to the emperor Lewis the pious, as a most acceptable present. In France these treatises were esteemed to be an invaluable treasure; and therefore Charles the bald, who could not read Greek, was earnestly desirous of perusing them in a Latin translation. This desire was undoubtedly increased by an opinion which at that time universally prevailed, though without any proof, that Dionysius the Areopagite, or St. Denys, was the first Christian teacher, or apostle, in France. At the request of Charles, Scotus undertook the task of translating the works in question, the titles of which were, “On the celestial Monarchy;” “On the ecclesiastical Hierarchy;” “On divine Names;” and, “On mystic Theology.” These books were received with great eagerness by the western churches; but the translation having been made without the license of the sovereign pontiff, and containing many things contrary to the received faith of the church of Rome, the pope, Nicholas the first, was highly displeased, and wrote a threatening letter to the French king, requiring that Scotus should be banished from the university of Paris, and sent to Rome. Charles had too much affection and respect for our author to obey the pope’s order; but Erigena thought it advisable, for his safety, to retire from, Paris. According to some writers, it was upon this occasion that he returned to England. It was the translation of the works of the pretended Dionysius which revived the knowledge of Alexandrian Platonism in the west, and laid the foundation of the mystical system of theology, which afterwards so generally prevailed. Hence it was, that philosophical enthusiasm, born in the east, nourished by Plato, educated in Alexandria, matured in Asia, and adopted into the Greek church, found its way into the western church, and there produced innumerable mischiefs.

The most capital work of Scotus was his treatise “On the division of nature, or the natures of things;” which, after long lying in manuscript, was published at Oxford, in 1681, by Dr. Thomas Gale. In various respects this was the most curious literary production of the age in which Erigena flourished, being written with a metaphysical subtlety and acuteness then unknown in Europe. This acuteness he acquired by reading the writings of the Greek philosophers: and by applying the refinement of logic to the discussion of theological subjects, he became the father of that scholastic divinity, which made so distinguished a figure in the middle ages, and so long resisted the progress of genuine science. The remarks of one of our ancient historians [Hoveden] on Scotus’s work are not unjust. “His book, entitled, `The Division of Nature,' is of great use in solving many intricate and perplexing questions; if we can forgive him for deviating from the path of the Latin philosophers and divines, and pursuing that of the Greeks. It was this that made him appear a heretic to many; and it must be confessed that there are many things in it which, at first sight at least, seem to be contrary to the catholic faith.” Of this kind are his opinions of God and the universe, which bear a considerable resemblance to the pantheism of Spinoza. At the entrance of his work, Erigena divides nature into that which creates, and is not created that which is created, and creates that which is created, and does not create and that which neither creates nor is created. As a farther proof of the singularity of John Scotus’s genius, we shall produce his argument for the eternity of the world “Nothing can be an accident with respect to God consequently, it was not an accident with respect to him to frame the world therefore God did not exist before he created the world for, if he had, it would have happened to him to create that is, creation would have been an accident of the jdivine nature. God therefore precedes the world, not in the order of time, but of causality. The cause always was, and is, and will be; and therefore the effect always has subsisted, doth subsist, and will subsist; that is, the universe is eternal in its cause.” Hence Erigena taught that God is all things, and that all things are God by which he might only mean the same with the oriental, cabbalistic, and Alexandrian philosophers and, after these, with the followers of Origen, Synesius, and the supposed Dionysius, that all things have eternally proceeded by emanation from God, and will at length return into him as streams to their source. Accordingly he says, that “after the resurrection nature itself will return to God; God will be all in all, and there will remain nothing but God alone.” From these brief specimens it appears, that the philosophy of Scotus was founded in the enthusiastic notions of Universal deification; and consequently, that he is rather to be ranked among the fanatical than among the atheistical philosophers. The monastic life, which then so generally prevailed, afforded so much leisure for indulging the flights of imagination, and so many opportunities for an ostentatious display of piety, that it was peculiarly favourable to the propagation of enthusiasm. To this it may be added, that the ignorance of the times made it perfectly easy for those, who were inclined to practise upon vulgar credulity, to execute their design. It is not, therefore, surprising, that the dreams of mysticism should be extensively propagated, under the authority of a supposed apostolical name.

The concluding period of Erigena’s life is involved in some degree of uncertainty. According to Cave and Tanner, he removed from France to England in the year 877, and was employed by king Alfred in the restoration of learning at the university of Oxford, but this proceeds upon the tradition that Alfred did restore learning at Oxford, which has no foundation whatever. It is said by Tanner, that in the year 879 he was appointed professor of mathematics and astronomy at Oxford, which is likewise very doubtful, although it may not be improbable that he read lectures in Little University hall,- now part of Brazennose college, without the rank of professor. Here he is reported to have continued three years, when, upon account of some differences which arose among the gownsmen, he retired to the abbey of Mahnesbury, where he opened a school. Behaving, however, with harshness and severity to his scholars, they were so irritated, that they are reported to have murdered him with the iron bodkins which were then used in writing. According to others, the scholars were instigated to this atrocious act by the monks, who had conceived a hatred against Scotus, as well for his learning as his heterodoxy. Such is Leland’s account, who expressly says that it was the Scotus who translated Dionysius. The time of his death js differently stated, but is generally referred to the year 883. Some, however, place it in either the year 884 or 886. Such is the state of facts, as given by most of the English writers; but other authors suppose that our historians have con.­founded John Scotus Erigena with another John Scot, who was an Englishman, and who taught at Oxford. Accordr ing to Mackenzie, Erigena retired to England in the year 864, and died there about the year 874. As a proof of the last circumstance, he refers to a letter of Anastasius the librarian to Charles the Bald, written in the year 875, which speaks of Scotns as of a dead man. Dr. Henry thinks it most probable that he ended his days in France. Anastasius had so high an opinion of Erigena, that he ascribed his translation of the works of Dionysius to the especial influence of the spirit of God. He was undoubtedly a very extraordinary man for the period in which he lived. During a long time he had a place in the list of the saints of the church of Rome; but at length, on account of its being discovered that he was heterodox with regard to the doctrine of transubstantiation, Baronius struck his name out of the calendar. A catalogue of Scotus’s works in general may be seen in Cave. Bale has added to the number, but probably without sufficient reason. The following are all that have been printed: 1. “De divisione Nature,” Oxon. by Gale, 1681, fol. 2. “De pncdestinatione Dei, contra Goteschalcum,” edited by Gilb. Maguin in his “Vindiciac praedestinationis et gratiæ,” vol. I. p. 103. 3. “Excerpta de differentiis et societatibus Graeci Latinique verbi,” in Macrobius’s works. 4. “De corpore et sanguine Domini,” 1558, 1560, 1653; Lend. 1686, 8vo. 5. “Ambigtia S. Maximi, seu scholia ejus in difh'ciles locos S. Gregorii Nazianzeni, Latino versa,” along with the “Divisio Nature,” Oxford, 1681, folio. 6. “Opera S. Dionysii quatuor in Latinam linguam conversa,” in the edition of Dionysius, Colon. 1536. Many of his Mss. are preserved in various libraries.

, a numismatical writer of considerable reputation in the sixteenth century, was of a noble family in Venice, where he was born in 1530. After a very liberal education, he passed some time in political employment, but at last devoted himself entirely to literary pursuits. In the course of his various studies he published a treatise on the money of the ancients’; an explanation of Aristotle’s ethics; and translated into Italian the TimeUs of Plato, and wrote some other philosophical pieces. At the age of forty he was again employed in the affairs of the republic, and managed what was entrusted to him with great reputation. He died in 1585. His work on money was esteemed so much superior to that of Eneas Vieo, who preceded him, that he was considered in his own country as the father of the numismatic science. It was published tinder the title of “Discorso sopra la Medaglie degli antichi, con la dichiarazione delle Monete Consolari, e deJle Medaglie degl' Imperatori,” Venice, 4to, without date, but some copies have the date of 1471. His other works were, 1. “Le Sei Giornati, mandate in luce da Ludovico Dolce,'” Venice,1567, 4to. 2. “Esposizioue delle tre Canzoni di Francesco Petrarca chiamate le tve Sorelle,” Venice, 1561, 4to. 3. “Trattato dello strumento, e della via inventrice degli antichi,” ibid. 1554, 4to. 4. A discourse on Civil Government, published with those of Barth. Cavalcanti, Venice, 1555, and 1571, 4to. We have mentioned his translation of the Timeus of Plato, which was published at Venice in 1558, 4to, and may now add that he translated five other of Plato’s dialogues, Venice, 1574, 8vo.

He had already passed through a course of divinity, and gained a considerable skill in the oriental languages, to which he had applied himself at the persuasion of Joseph Scaligcr, who foresuw his future fame in that important branch of knowledge, and afterwards travelled into England, France, Italy, and Germany; in which countries he contracted an acquaintance with the most learned men. While at London, he became acquainted with Bedell, who was excellently skilled in the oriental tongues. He continued a year in Paris, where he learned Arahic of an Egyptian Jacobine, named Barbalus, and gained the friendship of Isaac Casaubon, among whose letters are several to Erpenius. In one of April the 7th, 1610, he exhorts him to prosecute his studies in the Arabic tongue, urging that “it would be of the greatest importance to learning; that if he looked round the Christian world, he would find no person who had taken the proper method to gain the wished-for point in that kind of literature; that Joseph Scaliger had disappointed their hopes; that Bedell, though a man of great learning, proceeded slowly; that the German who made so great a noise, was not to be depended on; that the Italians, alter raising great expectations, had of a sudden deserted them; in short, that himself was the only person who had laid a solid and firm foundation for a future superstructure.” During his stay at Venice, by the assistance of some learned Jews and Turks, he acquired the knowledge of the Turkish, Persian, and Ethiopic languages; and he distinguished himself in Italy to such advantage, that he was ottered a stipend of 500 ducats a jear, to translate some Arabic hooks into Latin.

After four years spent in his travels, he returned to Leyden in July 1612, about which time there was a design to invite him to England, and to settle a liberal stipend on him; but in the February following, he was chosen by the curators of that university, professor of the Arabic. and other oriental tongues, except the Hebrew, of which there was already a professor. He filled this chair with, great applause, and soon after set up, at an extraordinary expence, a press for the eastern languages, at which he printed a great many excellent works. October 1616, he married a daughter of a counsellor in the court of Holland, by whom he had seven children, three of whom survived him. In 1619 the curators of the university erected a second chair for the Hebrew language, of which they appointed him professor. In 1620 he was sent by the prince of Orange and the states of Holland into France, to solicit Peter du Moulin, or Andrew Rivet, to undertake the professorship of divinity at Leyden but, not prevailing then, he was sent again the year following, and after six months stay in France, procured Rivet, with the consent of the French churches, to remove to Leyden. Some time after his return the states of Holland appointed him their interpreter, and employed him to translate the letters they received from the several princes of Africa and Asia, and also to write letters in the -oriental languages; and the emperor of Morocco was so pleased with the purity of his Arabic style, that he shewed his letters to his nobles, as a great curiosity, for their elegance and propriety. In the midst, of these employments, he was seized with a contagious disease, then epidemical, of which he died Nov. 13, 1621, aged only forty years. The learned of his time lamented him, and wrote the highest eulogiums upon him, as indeed he well deserved, for he was not only most eminent as a scholar, but as a man of great piety and benevolence. Besides the advantageous ofler made him in Italy, he rejected another from the king of Spain and the archbishop of Seville, who invited him into that kingdom to explain certain Arabic inscriptions. Gerard John Vossius made his funeral oration in Latin, which was printed at Leyden, 1625, in 4to; and the same year were published at the same place, in 4to, Peter Scriverius’s “Manes Erpeniani, cum epicediis variorum.”

, baron of Dun, the ancestor of the preceding, and one of the protestant reformers in Scotland, was born at the family-seat near Montrose, in 1508, or 1509. His father was John Erskiue, of Dun, a descendant of the earls of Marr, and his mother was a daughter of William, first lord Ruthven. He was educated most probably at the university of Aberdeen; and according to the ancient custom of the nobility of Scotland, pursued his studies for some time in one or other of the foreign universities. Buchanan styles him “a man of great learning:” and to this character he is amply entitled, as we are informed he was the first of his countrymen who patronized the study of the Greek language, which was first taught by his means at Montrose. In 1534, on returning from his travels, he brought with him a Frenchman skilled in the Greek tongue, whom he settled at Montrose, and upon his departure he liberally encouraged others to come from France and succeed to his place; and from this private seminary many Greek scholars proceeded, and the knowledge of the language was gradually diffused through the kingdom. After his father’s death, he was employed as the other barons or lairds then, were, in administering justice in the county of Angus, to which he belonged, and occasionally assisting in the meetings of parliament. He was besides almost constantly chosen provost, or chief magistrate of the neighbouring town of Montrose. At an early period of his life, he became a convert from popery, but the precise manner in which his conversion was accomplished, is not known. He was, however, a liberal encourager of those who became converts, and especially those who suffered for their rehgiou. The castte of Dun was always a sanctuary to protestant preachers a-.id professors, and here he appears to have associated with a number of persons, some of high rank, who strengthened each other in their principles, and by their power and influence contributed much to the reformation in that part of the kingdom.

But while Mr. Erskine was attending to the affairs of religion, he did not neglect the duties which he owed to the public as a magistrate and a military knight. In the war with England, which began in September 1547, the English ships infested the east coast of Scotland, and some of them having landed about eighty men for the purposes of pillage, he collected a force trom the inhabitants, and repelled them with such bravery, that not a third of the eighty were able to regain their ships. In 1555 he had an interview with the celebrated John Knox, who had just arrived from Geneva, and was invited by him to the family-seat at Dun, where he preached and was resorted to by the principal men in that part of the country; and though this atVorded a public avowal of Mr. Erskine’s principles, the popish bishops thought him a man too powerful to be molested; and he still proceeded in his endeavours to promote the reformation. In December 1557, he, along v?ith the earl of Argyle, the earl of Glencairn, and other noble and distinguished characters, subscribed a covenant in which they bound themselves to advance the protestant religion, and to maintain in safety its ministers and professors, (who were now for the first time called the congregation) t by all means in their power, even to the hazard of their lives.

The parliament, which met Dec. 14, 1537, appointed him by the title of “John Erskine of Dun, knight and provost of Montrose,” to go to the court of France, as one of the commissioners from Scotland, to witness the young queen’s (Mary) marriage with the dauphin, and to settle the terms of the marriage contract; and on his return he was surprised to find that the reformation was likely to be forwarded by the very means taken to suppress it. An aged priest named Mill, had suffered martyrdom at St. Andrew’s, and in the opinion of archbishop Spottiswood, “the death of this martyr was the death of popery in this realm.” The protestants were now increasing in numbers, and were not a little encouraged by the death of queen Mary of England, and the accession of Elizabeth, whom they knew to be favourable to their cause. The queen regent of Scotland was therefore addressed more boldly than before by the protestant lords, in behalf of the free exercise of their religion, and by Erskine among the rest; but, although his demands and language are said to have been more moderate than the rest, this produced no effect, and a proclamation was issued, requiring the protestant ministers to appear at Stirling, May 10, 1559, and there to be tried for reputed heresy. The protestant lords and other laity determined upon this to accompany and defend their ministers, and much confusion would have immediately ensued, if Mr. Erskine had not obtained a promise from the queen regent, that the ministers should not be tried; and the people were ordered to disperse. No sooner had this been done, than the queen broke her promise, and a civil war followed, for the particulars of which we must refer to the page of history. It may suffice to notice here, that Mr. Erskine occasionally assisted as a temporal baron, but before the war was concluded, he relinquished his armour, and became a preacher, for which by his learning and study of the controversies between the church of Rome and the reformers, he was well qualified. The civil war ended in favour of the prntestant party, by the death of the queen regent in 1560 and a parliament, or convention of the estates was immediately held, who began their proceedings by appointing a committee of lords, barons, and burgesses, to distribute the few protestant ministers whom they then had, to the places where their services were most required. The committee nominated some of them to the chief cities, and as “The first book of Discipline” was now produced, they, agreeably to the plan proposed in that book, nominated five ministers who should act in the capacity of ecclesiastical Supkrintendants. Mr. Erskine was one of these five, and had the superintendency of all ecclesiastical matters in the counties of Angus and Mearus, and from this period Ins usual designation was, “John Erskine of Dun, knight, superintendant of Angus and Mearus.” This was in fact a kind of episcopal authority, conferred for life; but for their conduct the superintendants were accountable to the general assembly of the clergy. Their office was sufficiently laborious, as well as invidious; and we find Mr. Erskine several times applying to be dismissed. In 1569, by virtue of his office, he had to suspend from their offices for their adherence to popery, the principal, sub-principal, and three professors of King’s-college, Aberdeen. In 1577, he had a hand in compiling the “Second Book of Discipline,” or model for the government of a presbyterian church, which still exists; and in other respects he was an active promoter of the reformation as then established, until his death, March 21, 1591, in the eightysecond year of his age. Buchanan, Knox, and Spottiswood, agree in a high character of him; and even queen Mary preferred him as a preacher, because, she said, he “was a mild and sweet natured man, and of true honesty and uprightness.”

, D. D. an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was born June 2, 1721. He was the eldest son of John Krskiue, esq. of Carnock, afterwards of Cardross, advocate, and professor of Scotch law in the university of Edinburgh, who is well known by his “Institutes of the Law of Scotland,” a work of the highest authority and reputation. His grandfather, colonel John Erskine, third son of Heury lord Cardross, was a man of eminent piety, and distinguished by his services in support of the revolution in 1688. Mr. Erskine, the subject of this article, was originally intended by his relations for the profession of the law, and received a suitable education. He appears, however, from his earliest years, to have been of a serious turn of mind, and to have preferred the study of theology, and the employment of the ministry. He entered the university of Edinburgh in 1734, where he acquired much useful knowledge, and formed an intimate connection with some fellow-students, who afterwards rose to great eminence both in the political and literary world. At this time it was the practice to prescribe discourses to the students, on subjects connected with the lectures which they heard. A volume of essays of this description is preserved in the college library, and in it are two theses delivered April 30, 1737, one by the late eminent historian, Dr. Robertson, afterwards Dr. Erskine’s colleague in the ministry, and at that time his fellow-studeiU, under the title “De probabilitate historiea, sive de evidentia morali,” the other by Dr. Erskine, entitled “De rectae rationis usu Icgitimo, sive de libertate cogitandi.” They are both written in very pure Latin, and discover a considerable acquaintance with philosophical discussions.

His eagerness to obtain information of the state of religion abroad, and his facility in the acquisition of languages, induced him, at an advanced period of life, to learn the German and Dutch languages, which he did with amazing rapidity, by mere dint of private application. This enabled him to examine the productions of the German divines, and seems to have produced his first volume of “Sketches of Church History,” 1790, 8vo, a work replete with new and interesting information respecting the state of religion on the continent. A second volume appeared in 1797, at a very critical period, in which he appears to have been the first who detected the plan formed for destroying every thing held sacred among men, and which has been since more fully developed by professor Robison, and the abbé Barruel.

He died on the morning of Jan. 19, 1803. He married the hon. Miss Mackay, daughter of lord Rae, who survives him, and by whom he had a son and three daughters. In his temper, Dr. Erskine was ardent and benevolent. His affections were warm, and his attachments perpetual. His piety was constant and lively; and, while he exhibited in his conduct a beautiful example of the graces and virtues of that religion of which he was a minister, he enjoyed, in a high degree, the cheering hopes which the faith of the gospel inspires. He was remarkable for the simplicity of his manners, and for that genuine humility, which is the attendant and brightest ornament of real greatness. His beneficent deeds, which, were Very nilmerous, and remain a precious memorial of him, were performed in the unostentatious manner of real charity. He was never ashamed to avow his own convictions of the truth; and, while he put the most candid construction on the motives of those who differed from him in sentiment, be maintained his own principles with firmness. In the general assembly of the church of Scotland he was considered as a leader of the popular party. There, however, his openness and integrity of character secured him, what few have enjoyed, the confidence and affection of his friends, and the esteem of his opponents. Of the high reputation to which his virtues had raised him, no proof more decisive can be given, than“a circumstance which occurred during the disturbances in Edinburgh, in February 1779, occasioned by the celebrated bill, proposed at that time to have been introduced into parliament for the repeal of the penal statutes against the catholics in Scotland. The furious mob, which, in defiance of the military, had assembled in the college-court with the intention of demolishing the house of principal Robertson, became quiet at his approach; and, in consequence of his exhortation to them, desisted from their purpose. Dr. Erskine’s independence and liberality of mind deserve to be particularly mentioned. These were qualities that shone conspicuously through the whole of his life; and which he possessed in so eminent a degree, that many thought he carried them to an exteme. To his publications we may add a” Reply to a printed Letter directed to him by A. G. in which the gross and palpable misrepresentations, in the said letter, of his Sketches of Church History, as promoting the designs of the infamous sect of the illuminati, are considered," 1718.

, a Scotch divine, was one of the younger of the thirty- three children of Ralph Erskine, of Shieltield, a family of considerable antiquity in the county of Merse, and descended from the noble family of Marr. He was born at Dryburgh, still the family-seat of the Buchan family, in 1624, where he received the rudiments of his education, and in 1650 took the degree of M. A. in the university of Edinburgh. He was ordained to the ministry by the presbyterians in England, to the Jiving of Cornhill, in Durham, but soon after was ejected by the act of uniformity, on which he returned to his own country; but the persecution carried on at that time in Scotland against the presbyterians, obliged Mr. Erskine to take refuge in Holland, whence the want of the common necessaries of life induced him again to return to his native country, where he was apprehended and committed prisoner to the Bass, a strong fort in the mouth of the Forth. There he continued near three years till, through the interest of the then earl of Marr, his kinsman, he was set at liberty but such was the violence of the times, that he was again driven from Scotland. In 1687, when king James’s toleration, was proclaimed, Mr. Erskine embraced it; and on the re-establishment of presbytery in 1690, he was appointed minister of Churnside in the county of Berwick. He died August 10, 1696, aged sixty-eight, much respected by all who knew him, and left behind him several manuscripts, elucidating difficult passages in scripture; but these having been written in Latin, none of them were ever published.

, son of the above, was born in the prison of the Bass, June 22, 1680, and in 1701 took his degree of M. A. in the university of Edinburgh. lu 1703 he was ordained minister of Portmoak in the county of Fife, where he discharged the pastoral duty with great integrity till 1731, when he was made choice of to be one of the ministers of Stirling. In April 1732, being chosen moderator of the synod of Perth and Stirling, it was his turn to preach at the opening of that synod at Perth, and in his sermon he took occasion to censure some late proceedings of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, respecting patronage; and this brought on a prosecution against him, which was conducted with so little judgment or moderation on the part of the assembly, as eventually to occasion a schism in the church of great extent. This is usually known by the name of the secession, and its adherents by that of Seceders, now a very numerous body in Scotland, for whose history we may refer to a very impartial and well-written account under the article Seceders, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or to a tract, where their history is more minutely detailed, entitled “An historical account of the rise and progress of the Secession,” by John Brown, minister of the gospel at Hadclington. Mr. Erskine, however, experienced by this no falling off in his popularity, being still beloved by his hearers, and esteemed even by those who were his professed enemies, A meeting was built for him at Stirling, where he officiated to a very numerous congregation, and where he died, June 2, 1754. As a gentleman and a scholar, few ever equalled him; and, although but in low circumstances, his charity was unbounded. Four volumes of his sermons were printed at Glasgow in 8vo, 1762, and a fifth volume at Edinburgh, 1765, under the patronage of the late duchess of Northumberland, in whose family one of his sons lived as a gardener.

, a German divine and philologer, was born at Nuremberg March 24, 1663. After studying at Altorf, where, in 1684, he took his degree of master of arts, and received the poetic crown, he went to Jena, and, as adjunct of the faculty of philosophy, taught the classics with great reputation. He afterwards travelled through Germany and Holland, and on his return assisted his father, who was pastor of the fauxbourg of Wehrd in Nuremberg. Having carried on a correspondence with the most eminent scholars of his time, and now acquired reputation by his works, he was invited by the celebrated Magliabechi to become librarian to the grand duke of Florence; and among other advantages, he was promised the unmolested exercise of his religion, which was the protestant; and he would probably have accepted so liberal an offer, if he had not at the same time,been appointed inspector of the schools at Altorf, on which charge he entered in 1691. Four years afterwards he was recalled to Nuremberg, as deacon of the church of St. Mary, and professor of eloquence, poetry, history, and the Greek languages in the college of St. Giles, to which office, in 1705, was added that of pastor of St. Clare. But these offices do not appear to have been profitable, if, as we are told, he found himself in such circumstances as to be obliged to sell a good part of his valuable and curious library. Here, however, he seems to have remained until his death, Sept. 24, 1722. Some of his philological dissertations were printed in 1700, in the “Syntagma secundnm dissertationum Philologicarum,” Rotterdam, 8vo. His “Epigenes sive commentarius in fragmenta Orphica” was published at Nuremberg in 1702, 4to. He also published a new edition, Utrecht, 1689, of the “Orphei Argonautica, hymni, et de lapidibus Poema,” with notes; and an edition of “Matthei Devarii de particulis Grrecae Linguae, liber singularis,” Amst. 1700, 12 mo. He translated into German Allix on the Truth of the Christian Religion, and on the coming of the Messiah; and count Marsigli’s Letter on Mineral Phosphorus. He wrote a life of himself, which was prefixed to some of his sermons printed after his decease.

, surnamed of Mendoza, a Spanish Jesuit, and famous casuist, who died July 4, 1669, aged eighty, is author of several theological works, in which he professes to smooth the way to salvation. His principles of morality have beeo turned into ridicule by the ingenious Pascal: they are convenient, he allows; but, says he, the gospel proscribes all conveniencies. The most known of his books are, 1. “His Moral Theology,” Lyons, 1663, 7 vols. in folio; and, 2. “His Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures,” Lyons, 1667, 9 vols. fol.

, a writer on military affairs, was born at Brive-la-Gaillarde, March 25, 1713, and died at Paris, Feb. 28, 1783. He bore arms at the age of nineteen, signalized his prowess in Italy in 1734, and was aid de-camp in the campaigns of Bavaria in 1742. Marshal Saxe, who was well acquainted with his military talents, employed him either as aide-major-general of the army, or as colonel of one of the regiments of grenadiers created in 1745. Being appointed in 1766 governor of the hotel-des-invalides, he not only maintained the utmost regularity, but introduced great improvements there. He obtained the rank of lieutenant-general in 1780. Among his works are, 1. “Campagnesdu roi en 1745, 1746, 1747, et 1748,” 4 vols. 8vo. 2. “Essai sur la science de la Guerre, 1751,” 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “Essai sur les grandes operations de la Guerre,” 1755, 4 vols. 8vo; works that display the sound knowledge of an experienced officer. 4. “Supplement aux Reveries du marechal de Saxe,” Paris, 1773, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. He gave the history of this same mare‘chal in 3 vols. 4to, and 2 vols. 12mo. This performance is highly interesting to military men, on account of the plans of battles and of marches found in the 4to edition. The author, after having related the warlike exploits of his hero, concludes, in the manner of Plutarch, with the particular anecdotes and incidents of his life. The baron d’Espagnac had married at Brussels, the 18th of December 1748, Susanna Elizabeth, baroness de Beyer, by whom he had four sons and a daughter. One of these sons went into the church, and was a canon fit Paris, where he was first distinguished by considerable literary talents, and afterwards by his avarice and peculation. He belonged at one time to M. Calonne’s office, from which he was dismissed for improper conduct, but in 1791 made his appearance in the national assembly with a plan of finance. He was afterwards employed by the revolutionary government as commissary to the army of the Alps, and to that of Dumouriez, by which he got an immense fortune, but this he lost, as well as his life, by a decree of the revolutionary tribunal, being guillotined at Paris, April 4, 1794. Of his literary productions, the best were his “Eloge de Catinat,” and “Reflexions sur I'abbS Suger et son siecle.”

, president of the parliament of Bourdeaux, a man of learning in the seventeenth century, acquired considerable fame by publishing in 1623, a book entitled “Enchyridion physicse restitutae.” He did not put his name to this, but it is proved to be his by several of his acquaintance, as well as by the device at the beginning, “Spes mea est in agno,” and before the treatise of chemistry, “Pene nos unda Tagi,” which are both anagrams of his name. It was the first work that appeared in France, professing to contain a complete system of physics contrary to that of Aristotle. The author, however, while he says that he has only re-established the ancient philosophy, has added many things of his own invention. He confutes the opinion of materia prima, which was held to be extended every where without being any where perceived, and incessantly tending to the uuion of forms without having any, being the basis and support of contraries, viz. of the elements which are said to be produced out of it. He shows that this system of nature is imaginary, that there is no contrariety in the elements, and that which is observed in them proceeds from the excess of their qualities, and that when they are tempered there is no contrariety in them. Yet he believes that there is a materia prima from whence the elements result and become the second matter of things, which are earth and water; for he holds neither air nor fire for elements. The elements, according to his notion, are not transformed into each other: water only becomes vapour, and vapour water, by circulation. He places the real fire of the world in the sun, which he calls not only the eye of the universe, but the eye of the creator of the universe, by which he beholds in a sensible manner his creatures, and which is the first agent of the world. The rest of his book abounds in curious particulars concerning the origin of things, their subsistence and various alterations, relating to the design of this philosopher to treat of chemical matters. He therefore subjoins another treatise, entitled “Arcanum Hermeticae philosophic opus,” in which he discourses of the matter of the philosopher’s stone and its digestions, of the degrees of fire, of the figure of the vessels and furnace, of the composition of the elixir and its multiplication. This book was translated into French under the title of “La Philosophic des Anciens retablie en sa purete.” In 1616 he published an old manuscript, entitled “Le Rozier des Guerres;” and added to it a treatise of his own upon the institution of a young prince. This ms. was found at Nerac in the king’s closet. Mr. d'Espagnet thought his edition to be the first, but it had been printed in 1523, in folio, which edition is more complete than this of 1616. In the ms. of Nerac, was wanting all the second part, and the three last chapters of the first. For this account the reader is referred to Naude“'s” Addition a Phistoire de Louis XI.“p. 72; and to” Syntagma de studio militari,“p. 73. The prologue alone suunces to convince us that Louis XI. is not the author of that work, as the title pretends, though he speaks in it as giving instructions to the dauphin his son. See the” Bibliotheque Choisie“of M. Colomie’s. In the publication of the” Rozier des Guerres,“he punctually retains the old spelling and in his advertisement to the reader gives this reason for it” This little tract, du Rozier,“says he,” seemed to me so good that I would not embellish or disguise it, but have left in its native simplicity: and though the language of it is not in use in our times, yet it may be understood, being so full of good sense and meaning, that with all its jargon it may silence the affected diction of the court and bar. 1 have also carefully preserved the orthography; because in adding or diminishing a letter, a word is often changed, and of ancient made modern. By this means, in my judgment, the language of Philip de Commines, in his history, has been corrupted: the editors, thinking to mend the spelling, and polish the diction, have destroyed the marks of its antiquity, so that the style of his book is not the style of his times; as we may judge both by this little manuscript, and by many others of the same age, which are to be found in famous libraries, especially by the history of Charles VI. written by John Juvenal des Ursins, and lately published by the sieur de Godefroy. I imagine this error proceeds from the insufficiency of the correctors; who, pretending to correct the orthography, have adulterated it, and thereby rendered themselves plagiaries."

, a learned French divine, was born at Chalons-sur-Marne in 1511, of noble parents, became a doctor of the Sorbonne, and was rector of the university of Paris. He preached with considerable applause; but having in one of his sermons called the “Légende Doreée” the “Légende Ferrée,” it was concluded that he did not believe in the worship of the saints; especially from his doubting of certain facts related by the legendary writers in the “Golden Legend,” of which he ventured to speak thus disrespectfully. The faculty of Paris was about to pass a censure on him; but he explained himself in another discourse, and the transient storm was succeeded by a calm. The cardinal de Lorraine, who was well aware of his merit, employed him in several affairs of importance. D‘Espence attended him to Flanders in 1544, for the purpose of ratifying the peace between Charles V. and Francis I. His eminence took him afterwards to Rome in 1555, where he made so conspicuous a figure, that Paul IV. would have honoured him with the purple, in order to retain him. But his intention was set aside (says fatrjer, Berthier) as being apparently contrary to the interests of France. The imperialists requested the hat for three monks; and therefore the cardinal de Lorraine, who IV voured the design of getting D’Espence into the sacred college, relinquished the idea. “I rather chose,” says he in a letter to the king, “that he should not be there, than that three monks should get in; accordingly I entreated his holiness to think no more of it, and, by that means, I kept out the whole crew.” D'Espence, liking far less to live at Rome than at Paris, returned to France, and appeared with consequence at the assembly of the states of Orleans in 1560, and at the conference of Poissy in 1561, where he attached himself to the Calvinists, which gave much offence to his popish brethren. He died of the stone at Paris, Oct. 5, 1571, in the sixtieth year of his age. He was one of the most moderate and judicious doctors of the age in which he lived, and with all his attachment to popery, was the declared enemy of all violent measures, and disapproved of persecutions. He was well versed in the sciences, both ecclesiastical and profane. His works are almost all written in Latin, with an elegance scarcely known to the theologians of that period. The principal of them are, 1. “A treatise on Clandestine Marriages;” in which he proves that the sons of distinguished families cannot validiy contract marriage, without the consent of their relations. 2. “Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus,” full of long digressions on the hierarchy and the ecclesiastical discipline. 3. Several controversial tracts, some in Latin and others in French. Ah his Latin works were collected at Paris in 1619, folio.

, an eminent Italian historian, was born at San Geminiano, a village of Tuscany, in 1437. He was of the illustrious family of the Buonaccorsi, which name he changed to that of Callimaco or Callimachus, when he had, along with Pomponius Laetus, and other men of learning, established an academy, the members of which adopted Latin or Greek names. The surname of Esperiente, or Experiens, he is supposed to have assumed in allusion to the vicissitudes of his life, but in that case he must have assumed it after he had met with these vicissitudes. It is therefore more reasonable to suppose that he merely meant to infer that all true knowledge is founded on experience. Paul II. having succeeded Pius II. in 1464, did not view Esperiente’s academy, and his change of name, in the same favourable light as his predecessor, but fancied he discovered something mysterious and alarming in such a society, and even persecuted the members of it with some severity. Esperiente was therefore obliged to make his escape, and after travelling in various countries, came to Poland in 1473, where he was kindly received by the archbishop of Leopol or Lemberg, and acquired the esteem of Casimir III. king of Poland, who appointed him preceptor to his children, and some time afterwards employed him as his secretary. Acquiring the confidence of the king, who perceived his talents for business, he was entrusted with several important negociations at Constantinople in 1475, and at Vienna and Venice in 1486. In 1488 he had the misfortune to lose his library by an accidental fire. The death of Casimir in 1491, made no difference in his situation, John Albert the successor to the crown, who had been his pupil, admitting him to his confidence, and even to a share of power, which excited the resentment of the natives, who were jealous of the interference of a foreigner and a fugitive; but the virtue and good conduct of Esperiente were superior to the attacks of his adversaries, and he retained his station and favour, with undiminished honour, to the close of his days. He died at Cracow Nov. 1, 1496, and his remains were deposited in a tomb of bronze, with the following inscription: “Philippus Callimachus Experieus, natione Thuscus, vir doctissimus, utriusque fortunse exemplum imitandutn, atque oninis virtutis ctiltor pra?cipuus, ciivi oliin Casimiri et Joaunis Alberti, Poloniae regum, secretarius acceptissimus, relictis ingenii, ac reruin a se gestarum, plnribus tnonu mentis, cum summo omnium honor u in muToro, et regiffi domus, atque hujus reipublicae incoinmodo, anno sal mis nostne 1496, calendis Novembris, vita decedens, hie sepultus est,”

, a French moral writer, was boni at Beziers in loll, and entered in 1629 into the oratory, which he quitted five years afterwards to mix again in society; in which, indeed, he -possessed all the qualities adapted to please sense, wit, and the advantages of a good figure. The duke de la Rochefoucault, the chancellor Se'guier, and the prince de Conti, gave him unequivocal testimonies of their esteem and friendship. The first introduced him into the circles of fashion the second obtained for him a pension of 2000 livres and a brevet of counsellor of state; the third heaped his favours upon him, and consulted him upon all occasions. Esprit died in 1678, at the age of sixty-seven. He was a member of the French academy, and one of those who shone in the infancy of that society. His works are: 1. “Paraphrases on some of the Psalms,” which cannot be read with much pleasure since the appearance of those of Masillon. 2. “The fallacy of Human Virtues,” Paris, 1678, 2 vols. 12mo; and Amsterdam, 1716, 8vo, which was intended as a commentary on the Maxims of the duke de la Rochefoucault; but In some places, say his countrymen, it may be compared to the ingenious and lively Horace commented by the heavy Dacier. He cannot, however, be censured for directing his reflections more on persons than on vices a defect too frequent among modern moralists; and it is to his credit that after having shewn the fallacy of merely human virtues, he concludes all his chapters by proving the reality of the Christian virtues. Louis de Bans has taken from this book, his “Art of knowing mankind.”

, a learned and orthodox Dutch divine, was born at Bommel, in the duchy of Guelderland, in February 1618, and after having been instructed in classical learning at home, was sent to Utrecht, where he studied under Antonius Emilius, who was at that time moderator of the university. He then went through a course of philosophy, mathematics, and theology, under the ablest professors, and in 1639 his name was put into the list of students who were candidates for the ministry. The following year he was admitted to his degree of M. A. In 1641 he was appointed pastor of the church of Nederlangbroeck. In 1645 he took his doctor’s degree in theology; and in 1651 was chosen minister of the church of Utrecht: two years after, he was appointed joint professor of divinity with Walter de Bruyn, and began his course of lectures, according to the usual mode, by a discourse “De tractatione verbi divini.” He died May 18, 1672, and an eulogium was pronounced on him by his quondam fellowstudent, John Voetius, as appears by one of Graevius’s letters in Burman’s “Sylloge,” vol. IV. p. 419. His works were, 1. “Triumphus Crucis, sive fides catholica de satisfactione Jesu Christi,” Amst. 1649, a work levelled at the Socinian opinions, especially those of Crellius. It was the reputation of this learned performance which first pointed him out as fit for the professor’s chair. 2. “De morah'tate Sabbathi,” 1658. 3. “Disquisitio de moralitate Sabbathi hebdomadalis,” 1665. 4. “Dissertationes de Decalogo et die Sabbathi adversus Abrahamum Heidanum,” Utrecht, 1666, 4to. 5. “Vindiciae quarti praecepti in Decalogo,” ibid. 1666, written in answer to Francis Barman, who defended the opinions of Cocceius. 6. “Defensio concilii Theologici Ultrajectini de Canonicatibus, Vicariatibns, &c.” 1658, 4to, which was answered by Desmarais, in his “Vindicirc de Canonicis,” printed at Groningen, 1660, 4to. 7. “Systema Theologicum,” Utrecht, 1659, 2 vols. 4to, in the preface to which he promises a system of practical divinity. 8. “Synopsis controversiarum Theologicarum, et index locorum totius sacrae Scripturoc,” Arnst. 1661, and Utrecht thrice reprinted, y. “Compendium Theologiae dogmaticum,” Utrecht, 1669, and 1685, 8vo. 10. “Apologia pro ministris in Anglia non conformistis.” The date of this is not in our authority, but the work must not be mistaken for one with a similar title, supposed by Hickman, mentioned in our account of Durell; (see Durell). 11. “Dissertatio de subjectione Christi ad legem divinam.” 12. “Doctrina de nostra redemptione per meritum Jesu Christi.” 13. “Instructio salutaris de Judaeis.” 14. “Refutatio vere catholica contra pontificios.” 15. “Oratio de celsitudine perseverantiie.” 16. “Oratio funebris in obitum Gualteri de Bruyn,” Utrecht, 1653. 17. “Oratio funebris in obitum Gisberti Voetii,” ibid. 1677, 4to. He published also in Dutch, a treatise on the tributemoney, from Matthew xvii. verse 24, &c. and various theological dissertations written as theses for disputation.

, F. S. A. a man whose astonishing knowledge of gothic architecture could only be equalled by his modesty, was the son of a builder and carpenter at Cambridge, where he was born in 1723, and was educated under Mr. Heath, fellow of KingVcollege, and then master of the college school near the chapel, the perpetual contemplation of which probably inspired him with that taste for and love of our ancient architecture, which so eminently marked the whole of his progress. The repairs and improvements of that celebrated chapel, and of Ely and Lincoln minsters, planned and conducted by him, will be a lasting monument of his skill, even if the public should never be indulged with his drawings, admeasurements, and observations, on the first of these admirable specimens of that style of building; not to mention his improvements of several colleges in Cambridge, and of Madingley, the seat of sir John Hinde Cotton, bart. in that county, and his repair of the tower of Winchester college chapel, as well as innumerable instances of his friendly assistance. His proposals for publishing the plans and sections of King’s-college chapel, in fifteen plates, with remarks and comparisons, may be seen in Cough’s Brit. Top. vol. I. p. 237. All that were actually published of his writing were, “Remarks on the antiquity of different modes of brick and stone buildings in England,” Archseol. vol. IV. p. 73. “Observations on Lincoln Cathedral,” ib. 149, and “On the origin and antiquity of round churches, and of the round church at Cambridge in particular,” ib. vol. VI. p. 163, and “On Croyland abbey and bridge,” which forms the 22d number of the Bibliotheca Topog. Britann. He was preparing further remarks on the rise and progress of his favourite science in its various parts, which death intercepted. His designs for the new building of Bene't, King’s, and Emanuel colleges, Trinity-hall, and the Public Library at Cambridge, were engraved 1739, 1741, 1743, 1748, and 1752. The first of these drew him into a controversy with the historian of that house, who disputed his claim to the design, and obliged him to publish “A letter to his subscribers to the plan and elevation ofan intended addition to Corpus Christi college, in Cambridge,” Cambridge, 1749, 8vo, which effectually closed the dispute. Mr. Essex had particularly made himself master of the ancient site of Cambridge, his native town. He married the daughter of Mr. Thurlbourn, bookseller, by whom he left one daughter, who died in 1787, the wife of the rev. John Hammond. Mr. Essex died at Cambridge, Sept. 14, 1784, aged sixty-one, and his widow in 1790.

, well known both as an actor and a writer, was born at Tewksbury, in Gloucestershire, in 1668, and received his education at the Latin school of that town; but, having an early inclination for the stage, he stole away from his father’s house at fifteen years of age, and joined a travelling company of comedians then at Worcester, where, for fear of being known, he made his first appearance in woman’s clothes, in the part of Roxana, in Alexander the Great. But this disguise not sufficiently concealing him, he was obliged to make his escape from a pursuit that was made after him; and, under the appearance of a girl, to proceed with great expedition to Chipping Norton. Here, however, being discovered and overtaken by his pursuers, he was brought back to Tewksbury; and his father, in order to prevent such excursions for the future, soon after carried him up to London, and bound him apprentice to an apothecary in Hatton-garden. From this confinement Mr. Chetwood, who probably might have known him, and perhaps had these particulars from his own mouth, tells us that he broke away, and passed two years in England in an itinerant life; though Jacob, and Whincop after him, say that he set up in business, but, not finding it succeed to his liking, quitted it for the stage. Be this, however, as it will, it is certain that he went over to Ireland, where he met with good success on the stage, from whence he, came back to London, and was received in Drury-lane theatre. His first appearance there was in the part of Dominic, the “Spanish Fryar,” in which, although in himself but a very middling actor, he established his character by a close imitation of Leigh, who had been very celebrated in it. And indeed, in this and all his other parts, he was mostly indebted for his applause to his powers of mimicry, in which he was inimitable, and which not only at times afforded him opportunities of appearing a much better actor than he really was, and enabling him to copy very exactly several performers of capital merit, whose manner he remembered and assumed, but also by recommending him to a very numerous acquaintance in private life, secured him an indulgence for faults in his public profession, that he might otherwise, perhaps, never have been pardoned; among which he was remarkable for the gratification of that “pitiful ambition,” as Shakspeare justly styles it, and for which he condemns the low comedians of his own time, of imagining he could help his author, and for that reason frequently throwing in additions of his own, which the author not only had never intended, but perhaps would have considered as most opposite to his main intention.

Estcourt, however, as a companion, was perfectly entertaining and agreeable; and sir Richard Steele, in the Spectator, where, as well as in the Tatler, he is often mentioned, records him to have been not only a sprightly wit, but a person of easy and natural politeness. His company was extremely courted by every one, and his mimicry so much admired, that persons of the first quality frequently invited him to their entertainments, in order to divert their friends with his drollery; on which occasions he constantly received very handsome presents for his company. Among others, he was a great favourite with the duke of Marlborough; and at the time the famous beef-steak club was erected, which consisted of the chief wits and greatest men in the kingdom, Mr. Estcourt had the office assigned Jiim of their providore; and as a mark of distinction of lhat honour, he used, by way of badge, to wear a small gridiron of gold, hung about his neck with a green silk ribband. He quitted the stage some years before his death, which happened in 1713, when he was interred in the parish of St. Paul’s, Covent-garden, where his brother comedian, Joe Haines, had been buried a few years before. He left behind him two 'dramatic pieces; viz. 1. “Fair Example,” a comedy, 1706, 4to. 2. Prunella," an interlude, 4to. The latter of these was only a ridicule on the absurdity of the Italian operas at that time, in which, not only the unnatural circumstance was indulged, of music and harmony attending on all, even the most agitating passions, but also the very words themselves which were to accompany that music, were written in different languages, according as the performers who were to sing them happened to be Italians or English.

, an eminent Dutch divine of the popish persuasion, was born at Gorcum, in Holland, about 1542, and was a descendant of an illustrious family of the lords of the castle of Est, from whom he took his name. He finished his classical studies under Macropedius, at Utrecht) studied divinity and philosophy at Louvain, and taught these two sciences for ten years at that place. In 1580 he was admitted to his degree of D. D. and some time after was appointed to lecture on divinity at Doway, and was made superior of the seminary of that city, and provost of the church of St. Peter. He was also elected chancellor of the university of Doway, and employed all his time in teaching or writing. Although esteemed highlylearned, he was no less distinguished for his modesty and benevolence. He died at Doway Sept. 20, 1613, and was buried in the church of St. Peter. His works are, 1. “Martyrium Edmundi Campiani, societatis Jesu,” translated from the French; Louvain, 1582, 8vo; (see Campian). 2. “Historia martyrum Gorcomensium majori numero fratrum minorum,” Doway, 1603, 8vo. 3. “Orationes Theologies,” Doway, 1614, 8vo. 4. “Commentarii in quatuor lihros Sententiarum,” Doway, 1615, 4 vols. fol. reprinted at Paris, 1638, 3 vols. fol. Dupin says this is one of the best theological works the Roman church can boast, and recommends it to students in divinity. 5. “Annotationes in praecipua difficiiiora S. Scriptura; loca,' 1 Antwerp, 1621, fol. a work on which a high value appears to have been placed, as it passed through several editions. It resulted from the conferences he held in the seminary of Doway, but, according to Dupin, his observations ar rather practical than critical. 6.” In omnes B. Pauli et aliorum apostolorumepistolas Commentaria,“Doway, 1614, 2 vols. fol. Dupin praises this as one of the best works of the kind, but it appears that Estius was prevented by death from proceeding farther than 1 John v. and that the rest of the commentary was supplied by Barth. de la Pierre. He wrote also some Latin verses, and an essay” Contra avaritiam scientiae,“censuring the selfishness of learned men who keep their improvements and discoveries to themselves. This is inserted in a work by Francis Vianen of Brussels, entitled” Tractatus triplex de ordine amoris," Louvain, 1685, 8vo.

, son of the foregoing, is not so noted as his father, though he was one of the five authors employed by cardinal Richelieu in making his bad plays. He was received into the French academy in 1632, and died in 1652, at about the age of fifty-four. Moderately provided with the goods of fortune, but a man of strict honour, he rather chose to quit the capital with a woman of worth but of no fortune, whom he had married, than to beg at the table of a financier, or to be troublesome to his friends. Pelisson says of him, “that he had more genius than learning and knowledge.” Yet he had no small knowledge of the laws of the drama, and was a fastidious critic, both in regard to himself and to others. It is said that he caused a young man of Languedoc to die of grief, who came to Paris with a comedy which he fancied to be a chef-d'oeuvre, and in which the severe critic pointed out numerous defects. The same thing is related of Claude de Estoile which is told of Malherbe and of Moliere, that he read his works to his maid-servant. He wrote several pieces for the stage, not above mediocrity some odes that are rather below it and a few other pieces of poetry that have great merit. His odes are in the “Re­^ueil des Poetes Francois,” 1692, 5 vols. 12mo.

, cardinal, archbishop of Rouen, was son of John d'Estouteville, of an ancient and illustrious family of Normandy, and born in 1403. He was charged with important commissions during the reigns of Charles VII. and of Louis XI. reformed the university of Paris, and patronized the learned. He was a man of great firmness of character, and a very stern executor of justice. It is said that the Barigel of Rome having caught a thief in the fact, and resolved to put him to death upon the spot, as there was no hangman to be found, he obliged a French priest who happened to be travelling through that place, to execute an office so unworthy of his character. The cardinal being informed of the transaction, and unable to account for it, sent for the Barigel, and caused him immediately to be hanged at a window of his house. Being a zealous partisan for the pragmatic sanction, he called an assembly of bishops at Bourges, to discuss the means for a strict observance of that regulation, and measures were adopted for that end, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the deputies of the church of Bourdeaux and Peter their archbishop, in favour of the pope, to whom they were desirous of leaving a plenary power. D‘Estouteville died at Rome, being dean of the cardinals, the 22d of December, 1483, at the age of eighty. Besides the archbishopric of Rouen, he possessed six bishoprics in France, and in, Italy four abbeys and three grand priories; but he employed the greater part of the revenues in the decoration of the churches of which he had the care, and in relieving the poor. It was he who completed the castle of Gaillori, one of the finest pieces of architecture of the sixteenth century, which had been begun by the cardinal George D’Amboise.

, grand-master of the artillery of France, was born in 1486, of a distinguished and ancient family, and died in 1567, at the age of eighty-one. He was at first page to queen Anne of Brittany, and afterwards performed great services to the kings Francis I. and Henry II. being the first who put the French artillery on a respectable footing. He signalized himself at the taking of Calais in 1558, and on several other occasions gave eminent proofs of sagacity and courage. He is also said to have been the first gentleman of Picardy who embraced the protestant religion. Brantome, in his Capitaines François, says, “that M. d'Estrées was one of the worthy men of his rank, without offence to others, and the most intrepid in trenches and batteries; for he went to them holding up his head, as if it had been to a hunting party in the fields; and the greatest part of the time he went on horseback, mounted on a great German hack, above twenty years old, and as intrepid as his master; for as to cannonades and arquebusades that were fired in the trench, neither the one nor the other ever lowered their heads for them; and he shewed himself half the body high above the trench, for he was tall and conspicuous as well as his horse. Hq was the ablest man in the world in knowing the fittest spots for erecting a local battery, and in directing it best; accordingly, he was one of the confidents that mons. de Guise wished to have about him for making conquests and taking towns, as he did at Calais. It was he who the first provided us with those fine founderies of artillery which we make use of to this day; and even of our cannon, which do not fear being fired a hundred times one after the other, as I may say, without bursting, without splitting, without breaking, as he proved in one before the king, when the first essay was made; but we do not choose to cram them in this manner, for we spare goodness as much as we can. Before this mode of casting, our cannons were not near so good, but a hundred times more fragile, and requiring to be very often refreshed with vinegar, which occasioned much more trouble. He was of a very large person, a fine and venerable old man, with a beard that reached down very low, and seemed to have been his old comrade in war in the days of yore, which he had all along made his profession, and where he learned to' be somewhat cruel.”

, sister of Francois Annibal d'Estr<Ses, was endowed from her birth with all the gifts and graces of nature. Henry IV. who saw her for the first time in 1591, at the chateau de Coeuvres, where she lived with her father, was so smitten with her figure and wit, that he resolved to take her to be his favourite mistress. In order to obtain an interview, he disguised himself one day like a countryman, passed through the enemy’s guards, and pursued his way at the imminent hazard of his life. Gabrielle, who was fond of the duke de Bellegard, the master of the horse, hesitated at first to comply with the ardent affection of the king; but the elevation of her father and of her brother, the sincere attachment of Henry, his affable and obliging manners, at length prevailed on her. In order that he might visit her more freely, Henry made her marry Nicholas d'Amerval, lord of Liancourt, with whom she never cohabited. Henry loved her to so violent a degree, that though he was married, he was determined to make her his wife. It was in this view that Gabrielle engaged her fond lover to take up the Roman catholic religion, to enable him to obtain from the pope a bull to dissolve his marriage with Marguerite de Valois, and united her utmost efforts with those of Henry IV. to remove the obstacles that prevented their union; but these schemes were defeated by her sudden death, April 10, 1599. It is pretended that she was poisoned by the rich financier Zamet: she died, however, in dreadful convulsions, and on the day following her death, her face was so disfigured, that it was impossible to be known. Of all the mistresses of Henry, he was most attached to this woman, whom he made duchess of Beaufort, and at her death put on, mourning, as if she had been a princess of the blood, yet she had not so entire a sway over his heart as to alienate him from his ministers that were not agreeable to her; much less to make him dismiss them. She took occasion to say to him one day on the subject of Sully, with whom she was displeased: “I had rather die, than live under the shame of seeing a footman upheld against me, who bear the title of mistress.” “Pardieu, madame,” said Henry, “this is too much; and I plainly perceive that you have been put upon this frolic as an attempt to make me turn away a servant whom I cannot do without. But I will not comply; and, that you may set your heart at rest, and not shew your peevish airs against my will, I declare to you, that if I were reduced to the necessity of parting with one or the other, I could better do without ten mistresses like you than one servant like him.” During one of the festivities that Henry occasionally gave to Gabrielle, dispatches were brought him that the Spaniards had taken possession of Amiens. “This stroke is from heaven,” said he, “I have been long enough acting the king of France it is time to shew myself king of Navarre;” and then turning to d'Estrees, who, like him, was dressed out for the occasion, and who had burst into tears, he said to her: “My mistress, we must quit our arms and mount on horseback, to engage in another sort of war.” The same day he got together some troops; and, laying aside the lover, assumed the hero, and marched towards Amiens. Henry IV. had three children by her; Cirsar duke of Vendome, Alexander, and Henrietta, who married the marquis d'Elbauf.

, marshal of France, and minister of state, was born at Paris, July 1, 1695, the son of François Michel le Tellier de Courtanvaux, captaincolonel of the Cent-Suisses, son of the marquis de Louvois and Marie Anne Catherine d‘Estrees, daughter of John count d’Estrees, vice-admiral and marshal of France. He first bore arms in the short war which the duke of Orleans, regent, declared against Spain, and served under the command of the marechal de Berwick. Having attained by his services the rank of field-marshal and inspector- general of cavalry, he signalized himself in the war of 1741. The blockade of Egra, the passage of the Meine at Selingstadt, the battle of Fontenoi, the siege of Mons, that of Charleroi, &c. were among the exploits in which he was concerned. He had the greatest share in the victory of Laufeldt; and marshal Saxe, an excellent judge of military merit, trusted him on various occasions with the most critical manoeuvres. On the breaking out of the war in 1756, Louis XV. who had promoted him to the rank of marshal of France, Feb. 24, 1757, appointed him to the command of the army in Germany, consisting of upwards of 100,000 men. He set out in the beginning of spring, after having shewn the monarch the plan of operations. “At the beginning of July,” said he, “I shall have pushed the enemy beyond the Weser, and shall be ready to penetrate into the electorate of Hanover;” and, not content with effecting this, he gave battle to the duke of Cumberland at Hastembeck, the 26th of July; after this, he was replaced by marshal Richelieu, who profited by the advantages that had been gained, to obtain the capitulation of Closterseven, by which the Hanoverians engaged to remain neuter during the rest of the war. Marshal d‘Estrees, recalled by intrigues at court, and sent to Giessen, after the battle of Minden, took no share in the command, but contented himself with giving useful advice to M. de Contades. He obtained the brevet of duke in 1763, and he died the 2d of January, 1771, at the age of seventy-six. Marshal d’Estrees left no children.

, king of Kent, and the first Christian king among the Anglo-Saxons, succeeded to the throne about the year 560. He began his reign, in order to revive the reputation of his family, by making war upon the king of Wessex, by whom he was twice defeated, though he was afterwards triumphant, and acquired the complete ascendancy over Wessex and the other states, except Northumberland, and reduced them to the condition of his tributaries or dependants. In the reign of Ethelbert, Christianity was introduced into England. The king had married Bertha, daughter of the king of Paris, who, being a Christian, had stipulated for the free exercise of her religion, and had carried over in her train a French bishop. So exemplary in every respect were her life and conduct, that she inspired the king and his court with a high respect for her person, and for the religion by which she appeared to be influenced. The pope, taking advantage of this circumstance, sent a mission of forty monks, at the head of whom was Augustin, to preach the gospel in the island. They landed in Kent, in the year 597, and were well and hospitably received by Ethelbert, who assigned them habitations in the isle of Thanet. A conference was held, and the king took time to consider of the new doctrines propounded to him; and in the mean while gave them full liberty to preach to his subjects. Numbers were converted, and at length the king submitted to a public baptism. (See Augustine). Christianity proved the means of promoting knowledge and civilization in this -island; and the king, with the consent of his states, enacted a body of laws, which was the first written code promulgated by the northern conquerors. Ethelbert died in the year 616, and left his crown, after a reign of fifty years, to his son Edbald.

, a celebrated wit and comic writer in the reigns of king Charles II. and king James II. is said to have been descended of an ancient family in Oxfordshire, or allied to it He was born about 1636, not very distant from London, it is believed, as some of his nearest relations appear to have been settled not far from this metropolis. It is thought he was partly educated at the university of Cambridge, but travelled into France, and perhaps Flanders also, in his younger years. At his retu,rn, he studied for a while the municipal laws at one of the inns of court in London; but the polite company he kept, and his own natural talents, inclining him rather to court the favour of the muses and cultivate the belles lettres, he produced his first dramatic performance in 1664, entitled “The Comical Revenge; or, Love in a tub,” which brought him acquainted, as he himself informs us, with Charles afterwards earl of Dorset, to whom it is dedicated. Its fame also, with his lively humour, engaging conversation, and refined taste in the fashionable gallantries of the town, soon established him in the societies, and rendered him the delight of those leading wits among the quality and gentry of chief rank and distinction, who made pleasure the chief business of their lives, and rendered that reign the most dissolute of any in our history; such as George Villiers duke of Bucks, John Wilmot earl of Rochester, sir Car Scroop, sir Charles Sedley, Henry Savile, &c. Encouraged by his first success, he brought another comedy upon the stage, in 1668, entitled “She would if she could,” which gained him no less applause, and it was supposed he would now make the stage his principal pursuit, but whether from indolence, or his pleasurable engagements, there was an interval of above seven years before the appearance of his next and last dramatic production, entitled “The Man of Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter.” It is dedicated by him to the duchess of York, who then was Mary, the daughter of the duke of Modena; in the service of which duchess our author, as he says in his said dedication, then was. This play still exalted his reputation, even above what both the former had done; he having therein, as perhaps he had also partly set himself some example in the others before, shadowed forth (but somewhat disguisedly) some of his noted acquaintance and contemporaries, who were known, or thought to be so, by his said draughts of them, to many of the audience; and this rendered the play very popular. In the famous poem written by the lord Rochester, after the example of sir John, Suckling’s upon the like subject, Apollo finds some plausible pretence of exception to the claim of every poetical candidate for the laurel crown; therefore our poet, by the scheme or drift of it, could escape no less disappointment than the rest: yet his lordship, to do him ample justice, has sufficiently shewed his merits to it, in every thing but his perseverance to exert them; which, after having first of all discarded Mr. Dryden, he next expresses thus:

That his long seven years’ silence is not to be pardon'd." Which shews that the poem in which these lines are written was just before the publication of our author’s last comedy. Sir George was addicted to great extravagances, being too free of his purse in gaming, and of his constitution with women and wine; which embarrassed his fortune, impaired his health, and exposed him to many reflections. Gildon says, that for marrying a fortune he was knighted; but it is said in a poem of those times, which never was printed (ms collection of satires, in the Harleian collection), that, to make some reparation of his circumstances, he courted a rich old widow; whose ambition was such, that she would not marry him unless he could make her a lady; which he was forced by the purchase of knighthood to do. This was probably about 1683. We hear not of any issue he had by this lady; but he cohabited, whether before or after this said marriage is not known, for some time with Mrs. Barry, the actress, and had a daughter by her on whom he settled five or six thousand pounds but she died young. From the same intelligence we have also learnt, that sir George was, in his person, a fair, slender, genteel man; but spoiled his countenance with drinking, and other habits of intemperance; and, in his deportment, very affable and courteous, of a sprightly and generous temper; which, with his free, lively, and natural vein of writing, acquired him the general character of Gentle George and Easy Etherege; in respect to which qualities we may often find him compared with sir Charles Sedley. His courtly address, and other accomplishments, won him the favour of the duchesi of York, afterwards, when king James was crowned, his queen; by whose interest and recommendation he wa sent ambassador abroad. In a certain pasquil that was written upon him, it is intimated as if he was sent upon ome embassy to Turkey. Gildon says, that, being in particular esteem with king James’s consort, he was sent envoy to Hamburgh but it is in several books evident, that he was, in that reign, a minister at Ratisbon at least from 1686 to the time that his majesty left this kingdom, if not later and this appears also from his own letters which he wrote thence some to the earl of Middleton, inverse to one of which his lordship engaged Mr. Dryden to return a poetical answer, in which he invites sir George to write another play; and, to keep him in countenance for his having been so dilatory in his last, reminds him hovr long the comedy, or farce, of the “Rehearsal” had been hatching, by the duke of Buckingham, before it appeared: but we meet with nothing more of our author’s writing for the stage. There are extant some other letters of his in prose, which were written also from Ratisbon; two of which he sent to the duke of Buckingham when he was in his recess. As for his other compositions, such as have been printed, they consist, for the greatest part, of little airy sonnets, lampoons, and panegyrics, of no great poetical merit, although suited to the gay and careless taste of the times. All that we have met with, of his prose, is a short piece, entitled “An Account of the rejoycing at the diet of Ratisbonne, performed by sir George Etherege, knight, residing therefrom his majesty of Great Britain; upon occasion of the birth of the prince of Wales. In a letter from himself.” Printed in the Savoy, 1688. How far beyond this or the next year he lived, the writers on our poets, who have spoken of him, have been, as in many other particulars of his life, so in the time when he died, very deficient. In Gildon’s short and imperfect account of him, it is said, that after the revolution he went for France to his master, and died there, or very soon after his arrival thence in England. But there was a report, that sir George came to an untimely death by an unlucky accident at Ratisbon; for, after having treated some company with a liberal entertainment at his house there, in which having perhaps taken his glass too freely, and being, through his great complaisance, too forward in waiting on some of his guests at their departure, flushed as he was, he tumbled down the stairs and broke his neck. Sir George had a brother, who lived and died at Westminster; he had been a great courtier, yet a man of such strict honour, that he was esteemed a reputation to the family. He had been twice married, and by his first wife had a son; a little man, of a brave spirit, who inherited the honourable principles of his father. He was a colonel in king William’s wars; was near him in one of the most dangerous battles in Flanders, probably it was the battle of Landen in 1693, when his majesty was wounded, 'and the colonel both lost his right eye, and received a contusion on his side. He was offered, in queen Anne’s reign, twenty-two hundred pounds for his commission, but refused to live at home in? peace when his country was at war. This colonel Ktherege died at Ealing in Middlesex, about the third or fourth year of king George I. and was buried in Kensington church, near the altar; where there is a tombstone over his vault, in which were also buried his wife, son, and sister. That son was graciously received at court by queen Anne; and, soon after his father returned from the wars in Flanders under the duke of Marlborough, she gave him an ensign’s commission, intending farther to promote him', in reward of his father’s service but he died a youth and the sister married Mr. Hill of Feversham in Kent but we hear not of any male issue surviving. The editors of the Biographia Dramatica observe, that, as a writer, sir George Etherege was certainly born a poet, and appears to have been possessed of a genius, the vivacity of which had littlecultivation; for there are no proofs of his having been a scholar. Though the “Comical Revenge” succeeded very well upon the stage, and met with general approbation for a considerable time, it is now justly laid aside on account of its immorality. This is the case, likewise, with regard to sir George’s other plays. Of the “She would if she could,” the critic Dennis says, that though it was esteemed by men of sense for the trueness of some of its characters, and the purity, freeness, and easy grace of its dialogue, yet, on its first appearance, it was barbarously treated by the audience. If the auditors were offended with the licentiousness of the comedy, their barbarity did them honour; but it is probable that, at that period, they were influenced by some other consideration. Exclusively of its loose tendency, the play is pronounced to be undoubtedly a very good one; and it was esteemed as one of the first rank at the time in which it was written. However, ShadwelPs encomium upon it will be judged to be too extravagant.

, of Miletus, a philosopher of the Megaric school, who flourished about the 105th olympiad, or the year 360 B. C. was the disciple and successor of Euclid, and a strenuous opponent of Aristotle, whose writings and character he took every occasion of censuring and calumniating. He is most remarkable, however, for having introduced new subtleties into the art of disputation, several of which, though often mentioned as proofs of great ingenuity, deserve only to be remembered as examples of egregious trifling. Of these sophistical modes of reasoning, called by Aristotle Eristic syllogisms, the following may suffice: 1. Of the sophism, called from the example, The Lying: “if when you speak the truth, you say you lie, you lie; but you say you lie, when you speak the truth: therefore, in speaking the truth, you lie.” 2. The Occult; “Do you know your father? Yes. Do you know this man who is veiled? No. Then you do not know your father; for it is your father who is veiled.” 3. Sorites, “Is one grain a heap? No. Two grains? No. Three grains? No. Go on, adding one by one and, if one grain be not a heap, it will be impossible to say, what number of grains make a heap.” 4. The Horned. “You have what you have not lost; you have not lost horns; therefore you have horns.” In such high repute were these silly inventions for perplexing plain truth, that Chrysippus wrote six books upon the first of these sophisms; and Philetas, a Choan, died of a consumption which he contracted by the close study which he bestowed upon it.

, an eminent philosopher, who flourished irv the 97th olympiad, about 390 B. C. was the founder of the Megaric sect, which was so called from Megara, where he was bora. He was endued by nature with a subtle and penetrating genius, and applied himself early to the study of philosophy. The writings of Parmenides first taught him the art of disputation. Hearing of the fame of Socrates, Euclid removed from Megara to Athens, where he long remained a constant hearer, and zealous disciple, of that philosopher; and such was his regard for him, that, when, in consequence of the enmity which subsisted between the Athenians and Megarians, a decree was passed by the forner, that any inhabitant of Megara, who should be seen in Athens should forfeit his life, he frequently came to Athens by night, from the distance of about twenty miles, concealed in a long female cloak and veil, to visit his master. But as his natural propensity to disputation was not sufficiently gratified in the tranquil method of philosophising adopted by Socrates, he frequently engaged in the business and disputes of the civil courts, at which Socrates, who despised forensic contests, expressed some dissatisfaction. This probably was the occasion of a separation between Euclid and his master; for we find him, after this time, at the head of a school in Megara, in which his chief employment was, to teach the art of disputation, which he did with so much vehemence, that Timon said, Euclid had carried the madness of contention from Athens to Megara. He was, however, at times sufficiently master of his temper, as appears from his reply to his brother, who in a quarrel had said, “Let me perish if I be not revenged on you:” “and let me perish,” returned Euclid, “if I do not subdue your, resentment by forbearance, and make you love me as much as ever.” In disputation, Euclid was averse to the analogical method of reasoning, and judged, that legitimate argumentation consists in deducing fair conclusions from acknowledged premises. He held, that there is one supreme good, which he called by the different names of Intelligence, Providence, God; and that evil, considered as an opposite principle to the sovereign good, has no physical existence. The supreme good he defined to be that which is always the same. Good he therefore considered abstractedly, as residing in the Deity, and he seems to have maintained, that all things which exist are good by their participation of the first good, and that in the nature of things there is no real evil. When Euclid was asked his opinion concerning the gods, he replied, “I know nothing more of them than this: that they hate inquisitive persons,” an answer which at that time, and remembering the fate of Socrates, shows his prudence at least.

, the celebrated mathematician, according to the account of Pappus and Proclus, was born at Alexandria, in Egypt, where he flourished and taught mathematics, with great applause, under the reign of Ptolemy Lagos, about 280 years before Christ. And here, from his time till the conquest of Alexandria by the Saracens, all the eminent mathematicians were either born, or studied; and it is to Euclid, and his scholars, we are beholden for Eratosthenes, Archimedes, Apollonius, Ptolemy, Theon, &c. &c. He reduced into regularity and order all the fundamental principles of pure mathematics, which had been delivered down by Thales, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, and other mathematicians before him, and added many others of his own discovering: on which account it is said he was the first who reduced arithmetic and geometry into the form of a science. He likewise applied himself to the study of mixed mathematics, particularly to astronomy and optics. His works, as we learn from Pappus and Proclus, are the Elements, Data, Introduction to Harmony, Phenomena, Optics, Catoptrics, a Treatise of the Division of Superficies, Porisms, Loci ad Superficiem, Fallacies, and four books of Conies. The most celebrated of these, is the Elements of Geometry, first published at Basil, 1533, by Simon Grynaeus, of which there have been numberless editions, in all languages; and a fine edition of all his works was printed in 1703, by Dr. David Gregory, SaTilian professor of astronomy at Oxford, which is the most complete, and is illustrated by the notes of sir Henry Savile, and dissertations and discussions on the authenticity of the several pieces attributed to Euclid.

The Elements, as commonly published, consist of 15 books, of which the two last it is suspected are not Euclid’s, but a comment of Hypsicles of Alexandria, who lived 20Q years after Euclid. They are divided into three parts, viz. the Contemplation of Superficies, Numbers, and Solids the first 4 books treat of planes only the 5th of the proportions of magnitudes in general the 6th of the proportion of plane figures the 7th, 8th, and 9th give us the fundamental properties of numbers; the 10th contains the theory of commensurable and incommensurable lines and spaces; the llth, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th, treat of the doctrine of solids. There can be no doubt that, before Euclid, Elements of Qeometry were compiled by Hippocrates of Chios, Eudoxus, Leon, and many others, mentioned by Proclus in the beginning of his second book; for he affirms that Euclid new ordered many things in the Elements of Ludoxus, completed many things in those of Theatetus, and besides strengthened such propositions as before were too slightly, or but superficially established, with the most firm and convincing demonstrations.

Euclid, as a writer on music, has ever been held in the highest estimation by all men of science who have treated of harmonics, or the philosophy of sound. As Pythagoras was allowed by the Greeks to have been the first who found out musical ratios, by the division of a monochord, or single string, a discovery which tradition only had preserved, Euclid was the first who wrote upon the subject, and reduced these divisions to mathematical demonstration. His “Introduction to Harmonics,” which in some Mss. was attributed to Cleonidas, is in the Vatican copy given to Pappus; Meibomius, however, accounts for this, by supposing those copies to have been only two different ms editions of Euclid’s work, which had been revised, corrected, and restored from the corruptions incident to frequent transcription by Cleonidas and Pappus, whose names were, on that account, prefixed. It first appeared in print with a Latin version, in 1498, at Venice, under the title of “Cleonidae Harmonicum Introductorium:” who Cleonidas was, neither the editor, George Valla, nor any one else pretends to know. It was John Pena, a mathematician in the service of the king of France, who first published this work at Paris, under the name of Euclid, 1557. After this, it went through several editions with his other works.

History is silent as to the time of Euclid’s death, or his age. He is represented as a person of a courteous and agreeable behaviour, and in great esteem and familiarity with king Ptolemy; who once asking him, whether there was any shorter way of coming at geometry than by his Elements, Euclid, as Proclus testifies, made answer, that there was no royal way or path to geometry.

, a learned Jesuit, was a native of Crete, and supposed to be descended from the imperial family of the Palseologi. He went to Rome in pursuit of knowledge, and entered himself a member of the society of Jesus. He was afterwards professor of philosophy, and then of theology in the university of Padua, rector of the Greek college in Rome, and censor of the inquisition. He was honoured with the esteem and friendship of pope Urban VIII. who appointed him chaplain to his nephew cardinal Francis Barberini, when he was sent papal legate into France. He died at Rome Dec. 24, 1625. He was suspected to be the author of a work entitled “Admonitio ad Regem Ludovicum XIII.” which attacked the authority of the kings of France, in matters of an ecclesiastical nature. This treatise brought the Jesuits into general disrepute; it was likewise censured by the faculty of the Sorbonne, and the assembly of the clergy at Paris in 1626, and condemned by the parliament. He merits notice here, however, chiefly for having frequently entered the lists of controversy with many eminent English divines, who wrote against popery about the beginning of the seventeenth century, particularly Burhill, Prideaux, Abbot, and Collins, but the titles of his works may now be spared.

, a Roman empress (wife to Theodosius the younger), whose proper name was Athenais, was the daughter of Leontius, an Athenian philosopher, and born about the year 400. Her father took such care of her education, that she became at length so accomplished in learning, that, at his death, he left his whole estate to his two sons, except an hundred pieces of gold, which he bequeathed to his daughter, with this declaration, that “her own good fortune would be sufficient for her.” This compliment, however, did not satisfy her, and having gone to law with her brothers, without success, she carried her cause to Constantinople, where she was recommended to Pulcheria, sister of the emperor Theodosius the younger, and became her favourite. In the year 421 she embraced Christianity, and changed her name from Athenais to Eudocia 3 and the same year was married to the emperor, through the powerful recommendation of his sister; by which event her father’s prophecy appeared to be fulfilled. Amidst all the grandeurof her new situation, she still continued to lead a very studious and philosophic life, spending much of her time in reading and writing; and lived very happily till the year 445, when an apparently trifling accident exposed her to the emperor’s jealousy. The emperor, it is said, having sent her an apple of an extraordinary size, she sent it to Paulinus, whom she respected on ac­"count of his learning. Paulinus, not knowing from whom it came, presented it to the emperor who, soon after seeing the empress, asked her what she had done with it. She, being apprehensive of raising suspicions in her husband, if she should tell him that she had given it to Paulinus, very unwisely declared that she had eaten it, which excited a suspicion of her intimacy with Paulinus, that seemed to be confirmed by her confusion on his producing the apple. He also put Paulinus to death. Upon this she went to Jerusalem, where she spent many years in building and adorning churches, and in relieving the poor. It is said that even when here, the jealousy of Theodosius pursued her, and that hearing she visited the priest Severus and the deacon John, he sent Saturninus with orders to put them both to death. Eudocia was so irritated at this barbarous persecution, that she for once stained the purity of her own life, by procuring Saturninus to be murdered. Dupin says, she did not return while the emperor lived; but Cave tells us, that she was reconciled to him, returned to Constantinople, and continued with him till his death; after which, she went again to Palestine, where she spent the remainder of her life in pious works. She died about A. D. 460; and, as Cave says, upon her death-bed, took a solemn oath, by which she declared herself entirely free from any stains of unchastity.

, a Pythagorean philosopher, of Cnidus, a city of Caria in Asia Minor, flourished about 370 years before Christ. He learned geometry from Archytas, and afterwards travelled into Egypt to learn astronomy and other sciences. There he and Plato studied together, as Laertius informs us, for the space of thirteen years; and afterwards came to Athens, fraught with all sorts of knowledge, which they had imbibed from the priests. Here Eudoxus opened a school, which he supported with so much glory and renown, that even Plato, though his friend, is said to have envied him; he also composed elements of geometry, from whence Euclid liberally borrowed, as mentioned by Proclus. Cicero calls Eudoxus the greatest astronomer that had ever lived: and Petronius says, he spent the latter part of his life upon the top of a very high mountain, that he might contemplate the stars and the heavens with more convenience and less interruption: and we learn from Strabo, that there were some remains of hisi observatory at Cnidus, to be seen even in his time. None of his works are extant, but he is said by Fabricius (Bibl. GriEC. lib. hi. c. 5.) to have written upon music, and he gathers from Theon of Smyrna, p. 94, that Eudoxus was the first who expressed the ratios of concords by numbers, and who discovered that grave and acute sounds depend on the slow or quick vibrations of the sounding body. He died in the fifty-third year of his age.

, prince of Savoy, an illustrious general, was born in 1663, and descended from Carignan, one of the three branches of the house of Savoy. His father was Eugene Maurice, general of the Swiss and Grisons, governor of Champaigne in France, and earl of Soissons; his mother donna Olympia Mancini, neice to cardinal Mazarin. In 1670 he was committed to the tuition of a doctor of the Sorbonne; but his father dying before he was ten years of age, after the French king had given him the grant of an abbey as a step to a cardinal’s hat, and the government of Champaigne being given out of his family, occasioned an alteration in his intended profession; which was indeed by no means suitable to his genius, although he gave great and early hopes of proficiency in the belles lettres, and is said to have been particularly fond of Curtius and Cæsar. He was a youth of great spirit, and so jealous of the honour of his family, that when his mother was banished by the king’s order from the French court to the Low Countries, soon after her husband’s decease, he protested against the injustice of her banishment, and vowed eternal enmity to the authors and contrivers of it. After being for a time trained to the service of the church, for which he had no relish, he desired the king, who maintained him according to his quality, to give him some military employment. This, however, was denied him, sometimes on account of the weakness of his constitution, sometimes for want of a vacancy, or a war to employ the troops in. Apprehending from hence that he was not likely to be considered so much as he thought he deserved in France, and perceiving that he was involved in the disgrace of his mother, he resolved to retire to Vienna with one of his brothers, prince Philip, to whom the emperor’s ambassador had, in his master’s name, promised a regiment of horse. They were kindly received by the emperor; and Eugene presently became a very great favourite with his imperial majesty. He had in the mean time many flattering promises and invitations to return to France; but his fidelity to the emperor was unshaken, and he resolved to think no more of France, but to look on himself as a German, and to spend his life in the service of the house of Austria.

When these two brothers arrived in Germany, the Turks were descending upon the Imperialists, in order to make an irruption into the hereditary country. There prince Philip received his death’s wound by the fall of his horse, after he had gallantly behaved himself in a skirmish with the Turks, and left his command to his brother Eugene. This prince, in 1683, signalized himself at the raising of the siege of Vienna, where he made a great slaughter of the Turks, in the presence of John III. king of Poland, the elector of Bavaria, John George III. elector of Saxony, Charles V. duke of Lorrain, Frederic prince of Waldeck, Lewis William margrave of Baden, and many other great men, of whom he learned the art of war. After raising the siege of Vienna, it was resolved not to give the Turks time to recollect themselves. The project was laid to reduce the most important fortresses in Hungary: and the next year, 1684, he again distinguished himself at the sieges of Newhausel and Buda. He behaved so gallantly at the siege of Buda, that the duke of Lorrain wrote a letter in his commendation to the emperor. He was constantly in the trenches, and one of the first who entered the town sword in hand: and at their return to Vienna, when Newhausel was taken, the duke presented him to the emperor in these words, “May it please your majesty, this young Savoyard will some time or other be the greatest captain of the age:” which prophecy, it is universally agreed, was afterwards fulfilled. His imperial majesty caressed him upon all occasions, and had that firm and wellgrounded confidence in his merit, that when Buda was taken, and the army gone into winter quarters, he invested him with the chief command of his troops, during the absence of the supreme officers. Thus he rose daily in the favour of the court of Vienna; and every campaign was only a new step in his advancement to the first military offices.

In 1688 Belgrade was besieged and taken; where Eugene, who was always among the foremost in any onset, received a cut through his helmet by a sabre, but repaid the blow by laying the Turk who gave it him dead at his feet. Lewis XIV. had now invaded the empire with a powerful army, and declared war against the emperor; which caused a great alteration in the affairs of Vienna, and forced that court to form a new plan for the campaign of 1689. As the emperor was more concerned to defend himself against the French than the Turks, the dukes of Lorrain and Bavaria were appointed to command upon the Rhine, and prince Lewis of Baden in Hungary. The duke of Savoy having informed the court of Vienna of the danger he was in by the approach of French troops, the imperial ministers promised themselves great advantages from the war in Italy, on the account of the powerful diversion that his royal highness might be able to make there in favour of the empire. Eugene was intrusted by the court of Vienna to manage this expedition; and was thought the most proper person, not only because he was related to the duke of Savoy, but because of the vast reputation he had lately acquired in Hungary, which rendered him yet more acceptable to his royal highness, who received him with all the marks of sincere friendship. Accordingly, he took upon him the command of the emperor’s forces in Italy, and blocked up Mantua, which had received a French garrison, of whom he killed above 500 in several sallies: so that during 1691 and 1692 they never durst attempt the least excursion. In 1692, at his return from Vienna, whither he had been to give the emperor an account of the last campaign, he entered Dauphiny. The inhabitants of Gap brought him the keys of the town, and all the neighbouring country submitted to contribution: but the great designs he had formed soon vanished; for the Spaniards would stay no longer in the army, nor keep the post of Guillestre, though Eugene, whom they very much esteemed, endeavoured to make them change their resolution. This miscarriage is also partly attributed to the sickness of the duke of Savoy, who was persuaded to make a will at this time, wherein he declared Eugene administrator, or regent, during the minority of his successor.

In 1696, after the separate peace between France and Savoy, at which Eugene was extremely dissatisfied, the French king made very large offers to draw him over to his interest. He offered him particularly his father’s government of Champaigne, the dignity of a marshal of France, and an annual pension of 2000 pistoles: but nothing was capable of shaking his fidelity to the emperor, who afterwards made him commander of his army in Hungary, preferably to many older generals. In 1697, being commander in chief of the imperial army in Hungary, he gave the Turks the greatest blow they had ever received in the whole war, and gained a complete victory over them at Zenta, not far from Peterwaradin. The grand seignior came to command his armies in person, and lay encamped on both sides [of] the Thiesse, having laid a bridge over the river. Eugene marched up to him, and attacked his camp on the west side of the river; and, after a short dispute, broke in, made himself master of it, and forced all who lay on that side over the river, whither he followed them, and gave them a total defeat. In this action the Germans had no more than 430 men killed, and 1583 wounded: but of the Turks 22,000 were killed in the field, among whom were the grand visier, and the aga of the janisaries; 10 or 12,000 were drowned in the Thiesse, and 6000 wounded and taken prisoners, among whom were 27 pashas, and several agas. The Imperialists took 9000 laden waggons, after 3000 had been thrown into the river; the grand seignior’s tent, valued at 40,000 livres, with all the rest belonging to his army; 17,000 oxen, 6000 camels, all heavy laden; 7000 horses, 100 heavy cannon, and 70 field-pieces, besides 500 drums, and as many colours, 707 horses tails, 83 other standards, a scymitar of inestimable value, the sultan’s great seal, his coach drawn by eight horses, wherein were ten of the women of his seraglio; 74 pair of silver kettle-drums, all the grand seignior’s papers, and all the money that was to pay the army, which came to above 3,000,000 livres; and it is said, that the whole booty amounted to several millions of pounds sterling.

In 1699 the peace of Carlowitch was concluded, and an end put at length to the war, which had lasted fifteen years: and it was a great satisfaction to Eugene to have contributed so much to the finishing of it by this famous victory at Zenta. He had passed the first years of his youth in the wars of Hungary; was in almost all the battles, where he had eminently distinguished himself; and it seemed now, that he had nothing to do but to enjoy at Vienna that tranquillity which is sometimes, although not always, relished by men who have spent their lives amidst the noise of arms and dangers. But this repose was not to last long. The king of Spain’s death, and the dreaded union of that monarchy with France which followed, kindled a new war, which called him to Italy to command the emperor’s army there. His Imperial majesty published a manifesto, setting forth his title to the crown of Spain, when Eugene was upon the point of entering Italy. The progress of his arms under this general made the French king resolve to send marshal Villeroy into Italy, in the room of marshal Catinat, who had not given satisfaction. But Eugene soon let him see that numbers alone, in which the French were greatly superior, could not gain a victory; for he foiled him in every skirmish and engagement, and at length took him prisoner by a contrivance conducted with so much secrecy, that the French had not the least suspicion of it. Eugene went to put himself at the head of a body he brought from the Oglio, and ordered another to come from the Parmezan at the same time to force the bridge. He marched with all secrecy to Cremona; and sent in, through the ruins of an old aqueduct, men who got through and forced one of the gates; so that he was within the town before Villeroy had any apprehension of an army being near him. Awakened on a sudden with the noise, he got out to the street, and there was taken prisoner. At the instant that one of the German officers laid hold on him he whispered him, and said, “I am marshal de Villeroy: I will give you ten thousand pistoles, and promise you a regiment, if you will carry me to the castle.” But the officer answered him, “I have a long time faithfully served the emperor my master, and will not now betray him.” So he was sent to the place where Eugene was; who sent him to one more secure, under a strong guard. But, notwithstanding this, the other body neglecting to come up at the time appointed, an Irish regiment secured the bridge; and the design of capturing the garrison failed, although it was so well contrived and so happily executed on one part. Eugene had but four thousand men with him, and the other body not being able to join him, he was forced to march back, which he did without any considerable loss, carrying marshal Villeroy and some other prisoners with him. In this attempt, though he had not an entire success, yet he gained all the glory to which the ambition of a military man could aspire, and was considered as the greatest and happiest general of the age.

The queen of England now concerted measures with the emperor for declaring and carrying on a war with France. Her Britannic majesty highly resented the indignity offered to herself, and the wrong done the house of Austria, by the duke of Anjou’s usurping the crown of Spain. She acted, therefore, to preserve the liberty and balance of Europe, to pull down the exorbitant power of France, and at the same time to revenge the affront offered her, by the king of France’s owning the pretended prince of Wales for king of her dominions. Eugene was made president of the council of war by the emperor, and all the world approved his choice; as indeed they well might, since this prince no sooner entered on the execution of his office than affairs took quite a new turn. The nature and limits of our plan will not suffer us to enlarge upon the many memorable actions which were performed by this great statesman and soldier during the course of this war, which proved so fatal to the glory of Louis XIV. The battles of Schellenburg, Blenheim, Turin, &c. are so particularly related in almost every history, that we shall not insist upon them here. In 1710 the enemies of Eugene, who had vowed his destruction, sent him a letter, with a paper inclosed, which was poisoned to such a degree, that it made his highness, with two or three more who did but handle it, ready to swoon; and killed a dog immediately, upon his swallowing it after it was greased. The next year, 1711, in April, the emperor Joseph died of the small-pox; when Eugene marched into Germany, to secure the election of his brother to the throne. The same year, the grand visier sent one of his agas in embassy to his highness, who gave him a very splendid audience at Vienna, and received from him a letter written with the grand visier’s own hand, wherein he styles his highness “the great pattern of Christian princes, president of the Aulic council of war to the emperor of the Romans, the most renowned and most excellent among the Christian princes, first peer among all the nations that believe in Christ, and best beloved visier of the emperor of the Romans.”

In 1712, after having treated with the States General upon the proposals of peace then made by the court of France, he came over to England, to try if it were possible to engage our court to go on with the war, for it met with great obstructions here: but was surprised to find, the day before his arrival, which was on Jan. 5, that his good friend the duke of Marlborough was turned out of all his places. However, he concealed his uneasiness, and made a visit to the lord president of the council, and to the lord treasurer; and having had an audience of the queen, the day after his arrival, he paid his compliments to the foreign ministers, and the new ministry, especially the duke of Ormond, whose friendship he courted for the good of the common cause. But, above all, he did not neglect his fast friend and companion in military labours, the discarded general; but passed his time chiefly with him. He was entertained by most of the nobility, and magnificently feasted in the city of London by those merchants who had formerly contributed to the Silesian loan. But the courtiers, though they caressed him for his own worth, were not forward to bring his negotiations to an happy issue; nor did the queen, though she used him civilly, treat him with that distinction which was due to his high merit. She made him a present of a sword set with diamonds, worth about 5000l. which he wore on her birth-day; and had the honour at night to lead her to and from the opera performed on this occasion at court. After he had been told that his master’s affairs should be treated of at Utrecht, he had his audience of leave March the 13th, and the 17th set out to open the campaign in Flanders, where he experienced both good and ill fortune at Quesnoy and Landrecy.

In 1713, though forced to act only defensively on the Rhine against the French, who now threatened to overrun the empire, he nevertheless so signalized himself by his vigilance and conduct, that he obliged them to spend one whole summer in taking Landau and Friburg. March 6, 1714, he concluded with marshal Villars, at Rastadt, preliminary articles of a general peace between the empire and France; which were signed by him, as his imperial majesty’s plenipotentiary, Sept. the 27th following, in a solemn treaty of peace, at Baden in Ergau: in which treaty he is entitled “The most high prince and lord Eugene, prince of Savoy and Piedmont, knight of the golden fleece, counsellor of state to his sacred imperial majesty, president of the council of war, lieutenant-general and marshal of the holy Roman empire.” Upon his return to Vienna, he was received with the loudest acclamations of joy by the people, and with the most cordial affection by the emperor, who presented him with a fine sword richly adorned with diamonds. He now seemed to have some respite from the fatigues of war but neither was this to last long: for, though peace was concluded with France, yet war broke out on the side of the Turks, who in 1716 began to make extraordinary preparations. Eugene was sent with the command of the imperial army into Hungary, attacked the Turks in their camp, and obtained a complete victory over them. He took the important fortress of Temeswaer, after the Turks bad been in possession of it 164 years; and next invested Belgrade, which he also took.

As to a general character of prince Eugene, it may easily be collected from what has already been said of him. He was always remarkable for his liberality; one instance of which he shewed, while he was here in England, to Mrs. Centlivre, the poetess; who, having addressed to him a trifling poem on his visiting England, received from him a gold snuff-box, valued at about 35 pistoles. He was also a man of great and unaffected modesty, so that he could scarcely bear, with any tolerable grace, the just acknowledgments that were paid him by all the world. Burnet, who was admitted several times to much discourse with him, says, that “he descended to an easy equality with those who conversed with him, and seemed to assume nothing to himself, while he reasoned with others.” He said jokingly one day, when the duke of Marlborough talking of his attachment to his queen, Regina pecunia, “Money is his queen.” This great general was a man of letters; he was intended for the church, and was known at the court of France by the name of the abbé de Savrie. Having made too free in a letter with some of old Louis the Fourteenth’s gallantries, he fled out of France, and served as a volunteer in the emperor’s service in Hungary against the Turks, where he soon distinguished himself by his talents for the military art. He was presented by the emperor with a regiment, and a few years afterwards made commander in chief of his armies. Louvois, the insolent war-minister of the insolent Louis XIV. had written to him to tell him, that he must never think of returning to his country: his reply was, “Eugene entrera un jour en France en dépit de Louvois & de Louis.” In all his military expeditions, he carried with him Thomas a Kempis “de Imitatione.” He seemed to be of the opinion of the great Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, “that a good Christian always made a good soldier.” Being constantly busy, he held the passion of love very cheap, as a mere amusement, that served only to enlarge the power of women, and to abridge that of men. He used to say, “Les amoureux sont dans la société ce que les fanatiques sont en religion.” His amusement was war, and in the Memoirs written by himself, and lately published, he speaks of some of its horrors with too little feeling. It is said that he was observed to be one day very pensive, and was asked by his favourite aid-de-camp on what he was meditating so deeply? “My good friend,” replied he, “I am thinking, that if Alexander the Great had been obliged to wait for the approbation of the deputies of Holland before he attacked the enemy, how impossible it would have been for him to have made half the conquests that he did!” This illustrious conqueror lived to a great age, and being tam Mercurio quam Marte, “as much a scholar as a captain,” amused himself with making a fine collection of books, pictures, and prints, which are now in the emperor’s collection at Vienna. The celebrated cardinal Passionei, then nuncio at Vienna, preached his funeral sermon, from the following text of apocryphal Scripture: “Alexander, son, of Philip the Macedonian, made many wars, took many strong holds, went through the ends of the earth, took spoils of many nations: the earth was quiet before him. After these things he fell sick, and perceived that he should die.”—Maccabees.

, catholic bishop of Carthage, was elected to that see in the year 480 or 481, in the reign of Hunneric, and at the request of the emperor Zeno, and for some time presided over that diocese without disturbance. In the year 483, however, Hunneric issued a proclamation, ordering all the bishops who believed in the trinitarian doctrine, to appear at Carthage, and hold a conference with the Arian bishops. The catholics at first remonstrated against obeying this order without the approbation of the transmarine bishops. The meeting, however, having taken place, the first debates were respecting the title of Catholics, by which Eugenius and his party were distinguished, and the title of Patriarch assumed by Cyrita, the head of the Arian bishops. Eugenics then presented a confession of faith, or statement of his principles, and offered to defend them in argument with the Arians; but Hunneric, who was himself an Arian, not only refused to hear him, but banished all the catholic bishops, and among them Eugenius, who was sentenced to the desarts in the province of Tripoly, where he remained until the death of Hunneric in the year 484. During the reign of Gondebald, he continued on his diocese in peace; but Thrasamund, the next king, banished him again, into that part of Gaul where Alaricus, king of the Visigoths, then reigned. Eugenius retired to Albi, where he was unmolested during the remainder of his life. He died at Viance in that territory, Sept. 6, in the year 505. There are some small discourses of his extant, in defence of the catholic faith, as, “Expositio fidei Catholici;” “Apologeticus pro fide;” “Altercatio cum Arianis,” &c.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born at Basil, on the 14th of April, 1707: he was the son of Paul Euler and of Margaret Brucker (of a family illustrious in literature), and spent the first year of his life at the village of Richen, of which place his father was protestant minister. Being intended for the church, his father, who had himself studied under James Bernoulli!, taught him mathematics, as a ground-work of his other studies, or at least a noble and useful secondary occupation. But Euler, assisted and perhaps secretly encouraged by John Bernoulli, who easily discovered that he would be the greatest scholar he should ever educate, soon declared his intention of devoting his life to that pursuit. This intention the wise father did not thwart, but the son did not so blindly adhere to it, as not to connect with it a more than common improvement in every other kind of useful learn-, ing, insomuch that in his latter days men often wondered how with such a superiority in one branch, he could have been so near to eminence in all the rest. Upon the foundation of the academy of sciences at St. Petersburgh, in, 1723, by Catherine I. the two younger Bernouillis, NichoJas and Daniel, had gone thither, promising, when they set out, to endeavour to procure Euler a place in it: they accordingly wrote to him soon after, to apply his mathetics to physiology, which he did, and studied under the best naturalists at Basil, but at the same time, i. e. in 1727, published a dissertation on the nature and propagation of sound; and an answer to the question on the masting of ships, which the academy of sciences at Paris judged worthy of the accessit. Soon after this, he was called to St. Petersburgh, and declared adjutant to the mathematical class in the academy, a class, in which, from the circumstances of the times (Newton, Leibnitz, and so many other eminent scholars being just dead), no easy laurels were to be gathered. Nature, however, who had organized so many mathematical heads at one time, was not yet tired of her miracles and she added Euler to the number. He indeed was much wanted the science of the calculus integralis, hardly come out of the hands of its creators, was still too near the stage of its infancy not to want to be made more perfect. Mechanics, dynamics, and especially hydrodynamics, and the science of the motion of the heavenly bodies, felt the imperfection. The application of the differential calculus, to them, had been sufficiently successful; but there were difficulties whenever it was necessary to go from the fluxional quantity to the fluent. With regard to the nature and properties of numbers, the writings of Fermat (who had been so successful in them), and together with these all his profound researches, were lost. Engineering and navigation were reduced to vague principles, and were founded on a heap of often contradictory observations, rather than a regular theory. The irregularities in the motions of the celestial bodies, and especially the complication of forces whitfh influence that of the moon, were still the disgrace of geometers. Practical astronomy had jet to wrestle with the imperfection of telescopes, insomuch, that it could hardly be said that any rule for making them existed. Euler turned his eyes to all these objects he perfected the calculus integralis he was the inventor of a new kind of calculus, that of sines he simplified analytical operations and, aided by these powerful help-mates, and the astonishing facility with which he knew how to subdue expressions the most intractable, he threw a new light on all the branches of the mathematics. But at Catherine’s death the academy was threatened with extinction, by men who knew not the connection which arts and sciences have with the happiness of a people. Euler was offered and accepted a lieutenancy on board one of the empress’s ships, with the promise of speedy advancement. Luckily things changed, and the learned captain again found his own element, and was named Professor of Natural Philosophy in 1733, in the room of his friend John Bernouilli. The number of memoirs which Euler produced, prior to this period, is astonishing, but what he did in 1735 is almost incredible, An important calculation was to be made, without loss of time; the other academicians had demanded some months to do it. Euler asked three days—in three days he did it; but the fatigne threw him into a fever, and the fever left him not without the loss of an eye, an admonition which would have made an ordinary man more sparing of the other. The great revolution, produced by the discovery of fluxions, had entirely changed the face of mechanics; still, however, there was no complete work on the science of motion, two or three only excepted, of which Euler felt the insufficiency. He saw, with pain, that the best works on the subject, viz. “Newton’s Principia,” and “Herman’s Phoronomia,” concealed the method by which these great men had come at so many wonderful discoveries, under a synthetic veil. In order to lift this up, Euler employed all the resources of that analysis which had served him so well on so many other occasions; and thus uniting his own discoveries to those of other geometers, had them published by the academy in 1736. To say that clearness, precision, and order, are the characters of this work, would be barely to say, that it is, what without these qualities no work can be, classical of its kind. It placed Euler in the rank of the first geometricians then existing, and this at a time when John Bernouilli was still living. Such labours demanded some relaxation; the only one which Euler admitted was music, but even to this he could not go without the spirit of geometry with him. They produced together the essay on a new theory of music, which was published in 1739, but not very well received, probably, because it contains too much geometry for a musician, and too much music for a geometrician. Independently, however, of the theory, which is built on Pythagorean principles, there are many things in it which may be of service, both to composers, and to makers of instruments. The doctrine, likewise, of the genera and the modes of music is here cleared up with all the clearness and precision which mark the works of Euler. Dr. Burney remarks, that upon the whole, Euler seems not to have invented much in this treatise; and to have done little more than arrange and methodize former discoveries in a scientific and geometric manner. He may, indeed, not have known what antecedent writers had discovered before; and though not the first, yet to have imagined himself an inventor. In 1740, his genius was again called forth by the academy of Paris (who, in 1738, had adjudged the prize to his paper on the nature and properties of fire) to discuss the nature of the tides, an important question, which demanded a prodigious extent of calculations, aud an entire new system of the world. This prize Euler did not gain alone; but he divided it with Maclaurin and D. Bernouilli, forming with them a triumvirate of candidates, which the realms of science had not often beheld. The agreement of the several memoirs of Euler and Bernouilli, on this occasion, is very remarkable. Though the one philosopher had set out on the principle of admitting vortices, which the other rejected, they not only arrived at the same end of the journey, but met several times on the road; for instance, in the determination of the tides under the frozen zone. Philosophy, indeed, led these two great men by different paths; Bernouilli, who had more patience than his friend, sanctioned every physical hypothesis he was obliged to make, by painful and laborious experiment. These Euler’s impetuous genius scorned; and, though his natural sagacity did not always supply the loss, he made amends by his superiority in analysis, as often as there was any occasion to simplify expressions, to adapt them to practice, and to recognize, by final formulae, the nature of the result. In 1741, Euler received some very advantageous propositions from Frederic the Second (who had just ascended the Prussian throne), to go and assist him in forming an academy of sciences, out of the wrecks of the Royal Society founded by Leibnitz. With these offers the tottering state of the St. Petersburgh academy, under the regency, made it necessary for the philosopher to comply. He accordingly illumined the last volume of the “Melanges de Berlin,” with five essays, which are, perhaps, the best things in it, and contributed largely to the academical volumes, the first of which was published in 1744. No part of his multifarious labours is, perhaps, a more wonderful proof of the extensiveness and facility of his genius, than what he executed at Berlin, at a time when he contrived also that the Petersburgh acts should not suffer from the loss of him. In 1744, Euler published a complete treatise of isoperimetrical curves. The same year beheld the theory of the motions of tb.e planets and comets; the well-known theory of magnetism, which gained the Paris prize; and the much-amended translation of Robins’ s “Treatise on Gunnery.” In 1746, his “Theory of Light and Colours” overturned Newton’s “System of Emanations;” as did another work, at that time triumphant, the “Monads of Wolfe and Leibnitz.” Navigation was now the only branch of useful knowledge, for which the labours of analysis and geometry had done nothing. The hydrographical part alone, and that which relates to the direction of the course of ships, had been treated by geometricians conjointly with nautical astronomy. Euler was the first who conceived and executed the project of making this a complete science. A memoir on the motion of floating bodies, communicated to the academy of St. Petersburgh, in 1735, by M. le Croix, first gave him this idea. His researches on the equilibrium of ships furnished him with the means of bringing the stability to a determined measure. His success encouraged him to go on, and produced the great work which the academy published in 1749, in which we find, in systematic order, the most sublime notions on the theory of the equilibrium and mo. tion of floating bodies, and on the resistance of fluids. This was followed by a second part, which left nothing to be desired on the subject, except the turning it into a language easy of access, and divesting it of the calculations which prevented its being of general use. Accordingly in 1773, from a conversation with admiral Knowles, and other assistance, out of the “Scientia Navalis,” 2 vols. 4to, was produced, the “Theorie complette de la Construction et de la Manoeuvre des Vaisseaux.” This work was instantly translated into all languages, and the author received a present of 6000 livres from the French king: he had before had 300l. from the English parliament, for the theorems, by the assistance of which Meyer made his lunar tables . And now it was time to collect into one systematical and continued work, all the important discoveries on the infinitesimal analysis, which Euler had been making for thirty years, and which lay dispersed in the memoirs of the different academies. This, accordingly, the professor undertook; but he prepared the way by an elementary work, containing all the previous requisites for this study. This is called “An Introduction to the analysis of Infinitesimals,” and is a work in which the author has exhausted all the doctrine of fractions, whether algebraical or transcendental, by shewing their transformation, their resolution, and their developernent. This introduction was soon, followed by the author’s several lessons on the “calculus integralis, and differentialis.” Having engaged himself to count Orlow, to furnish the academy with papers sufficient to fill their volumes for twenty years after his death, the philosopher is likely to keep his word, having presented seventy papers, through Mr. Golofkin, in the course of his life, and left two hundred and fifty more behind him; nor is there one of these that does not contain a discovery, or something that may lead to one. The most ancient of these memoirs form the collection then published, under the title of “Opuscula Analytica.” Such were Euler’s labours, and these his titles to immortality His memory shall endure till science herself is no more! Few men of letters have written so much as Euler no geometrician, has ever embraced so many objects at one time or has equalled him, either in the variety or magnitude of his discoveries. When we reflect on the good such men do their fellow-creatures, we cannot help indulging a wish (vain, alas as it is) for their illustrious course to be prolonged beyond the term allotted to mankind. Euler’s, though it has had an end, was very long and very honourable; and it affords us some consolation for his loss, to think that he enjoyed it exempt from the ordinary consequences of extraordinary application, and that his last labours abounded in proofs of that vigour of understanding which marked his early days, and which he preserved to his end. Some swimmings in the head, which seized him on the first days of September, 1783, did not prevent his laying hold of a few facts, which reached him through the channel of the public papers, to calculate the motions of the aerostatical globes; and he even compassed a very difficult integration, in which the calculation had engaged him . But the decree was gone forth: on the 7th of September he talked with Mr. Lexell, who had come to dine with him, of the new planet, and discoursed with him upon other subjects, with his usual penetration. He was playing with one of his grand-children at tea-time, when he was seized with an apoplectic fit. “I am dying,” said he, before he lost his senses; and he ended his glorious life a few hours after, aged seventy-six years, five months, and three days. His latter days were tranquil and serene. A few infirmities excepted, which are the inevitable lot of an advanced age, he enjoyed a share of health which allowed him to give little time to repose. Euler possessed to a great degree what is commonly called erudition he had read all the Latin classics was perfect master of ancient mathematical literature and had the history of all ages, and all nations, even to the minutest facts, ever present to his mind. Besides this, he knew much more of physic, botany, and chemistry, than could be expected from any man who had not made these sciences his peculiar occupation. “I have seen,” says his biographer, Mr. Fuss, “strangers go from him with a kind of surprise mixed with admiration; they could not conceive how a man, who for half a century had seemed taken up in making and publishing discoveries in natural philosophy and mathematics, could have found means to preserve so much knowledge that seemed useless to himself, and foreign to the studies in which he was engaged. This was the effect of a happy memory, that lost nothing of what had ever been entrusted to it nor was it a wonder that the man who was able to repeat the whole Æneis, and to point out to his hearers the first and last verses of every page of his own edition of it, should not have lost what he had learned, at an age when the impressions made upon us are the strongest. Nothing can equal the ease with which, without expressing the least degree of ill-humour, he could quit his abstruse meditations, and give himself up to the general amusements of society. The art of not appearing wise above one’s fellows, of descending to the level of those with whom one lives, is too rare in these days not to make it a merit in Euler to have possessed it. A temper ever equal, a natural and easy chearfulness, a species of satirical wit, tempered with urbane humanity, the art of telling a story archly, and with simplicity, made his conversation generally sought. The great fund of vivacity which he had at all times possessed, and without which, indeed, the activity we have just been admiring could not have existed, carried him sometimes away, and he was apt to grow warm, but his anger left him as quickly as it came on, and there never has existed a man to whom he bore malice. He possessed a precious fund of rectitude and probity. The sworn enemy of injustice, whenever or by whomsoever committed, he used to censure and attack it, without the least attention to the rank or riches of the offender. Recent examples of this are in the recollection of all who hear me.” As he was filled with respect for religion, his piety was sincere, and his devotion full of fervour. He went through all his Christian duties with the greatest attention. Euler loved all mankind, and if he ever felt a motion of indignation, it was against the enemy of religion, particularly against the declared apostles of infidelity. He was of a very religious turn of mind. He published a New Demonstration of the Existence of God, and of the Spirituality of the Soul, which last has been admitted into several divinity schools as a standard book. With scrupulous exactness he adhered to the religion of his country, that of Calvinism, and, fortified by its principles, he was a good husband, a good father, a good friend, a good citizen, a good member of private society.

, archbishop of Toledo in the ninth century, was of an ancient Christian family of Cordova. In his youth he joined the community of ecclesiastics of St. Zoilus, then in the monastery of Cutelar, where he became intimate with Alvarus. In the year 844 he travelled into Navarre, and after his return to Cordova, in the year 850, he was imprisoned, under the reign of Abderamus, with some other Christians, on account of his religion. From this, however, he appears to have been released, and continued to exhort the Christians to maintain their faith at the risk of their lives. Having concealed a young Christian female named Leocritia, whom her Mahometan parents would have forced to apostatize, he was apprehended with her, and both were condemned to be beheaded, which sentence was executed in the year 859. This was soon after his appointment to the archbishopric of Toledo, to which, however, he was never consecrated. He wrote “Memoriale Sanctorum,” an account of the martyrdom of the Christians who had suffered before him in Cordova and afterwards he wrote an apology or defence of the same martyrs. These and his other writings are inserted in the Bibl. Patrum, vol. XV. and were printed separately by Morales in 1554, and by Poncius Leo in 1574.

, a celebrated orator of the fourth century, was a Greek by family, as his name imports, but was born at Autun, as he himself informs us in the fine panegyrie which he spoke at Treves in the year 309, in the presence of Constantine the Great. In the year 311 he again delivered an oration before that prince at Treves, as spokesman for the inhabitants of Autun, whom Constantine had honoured with a visit, and on whose city he had bestowed marks of liberality and favour. Eumenius long taught rhetoric in that city, and was highly esteemed by Constantine, as he had before been by Constantius Chlorus, the emperor’s father, who died in the year 306. Eumenius appeared to most advantage in the oration which he delivered before Rictiovarus, or Riccius Varus, the prefect of Lyons, in favour of the public schools for the young Gauls, of which he himself had the care. They had been destroyed by the incursions of some rebels, and Eumenius, in order to their re-establishment, offered the whole of his salary, which is said to have amounted to 600,000 sesterces, or more than 3000l. of our money; but this appears to have included his salary as imperial secretary, an office which he also held. All that remain of his works are printed in the “Panegyrici veteres.” His style indicates the declension of pure Latinity.

, a native of Sardis in Lydia, flourished in the fourth century, under the emperors Valentinian, Valeas, and Gratian. He was a celebrated sophist, a physician and historian. He was brought up by Chrysanthius, a sophist of noble birth, who was related to him by marriage; at whose request he wrote his book “Of. the Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists,” in which he frequently shews himself an enemy to Christianity. Brucker calls it a mass of extravagant tales, discovering a feeble understanding, and an imagination prone to superstition. He wrote a history of the Caesars, which he deduced from the reign of Claudius, where Herodian left off, down to that of Arcadius and Honorius. Photius speaks with approbation of this history; but complains, that he all along treats the Christian emperors very injuriously, while he is so partial to the heathen, as even to prefer Julian to Constantine the Great. He inveighs also severely against the monks, whom he charged with pride and insolence, under the mask of austerity and ridicules with great profaneness the relics of the martyrs. This history is lost but the substance of it is in Zosimus, who is supposed to have done little more than copy it. We have no other remains of Eunapius, but his “Lives of the Sophists,” 1596, 8vo, except a small fragment of his history, which is printed at the end of some editions of the lives; though Fabricius is of opinion that this fragment belongs to another Eunapius, who lived somewhat earlier.

, an Arian heretic of the fourth century, was born at Dacora, a town of Cappadocia and was the son of a peasant but not relishing a country life, he went to Constantinople, and afterwards to Alexandria, where he became the disciple and secretary of Ætius, but was abundantly more subtle than his master, as well as more bold in propagating the doctrines of his sect, who have since been called Eunomians. He then returned to Antioch, where he was ordained a deacon by Eudoxius, bishop of that place; but being sent to defend Eudoxius against Basil of Ancyra, before the emperor Constantius, he was seized upon the road by the partisans of Basil, and banished to Mida, a town, of Phrygia. He returned to Constantinople, and in the year 360 was made bishop of Cyzicum, by his protector Eudoxius, who advised him to conceal his doctrines: but Eunomius was incapable of following this advice, and gave so much disturbance to the church by the intemperance of his zeal, that Eudoxius himself, by the order of Constantius, was obliged to depose him from his bishopric, and he was that year banished again. He retired to a house "which he had in Chalcedonia, where he concealed the tyrant Procopius in the year 365, and being accused by the emperor Valens of having afforded shelter to his enemy, was by him banished a third time to Mauritania. Valens, bishop of Mursa, got him recalled; and he was next banished to the isle of Naxos, for disturbing the peace of the church. He again returned to Chalcedonia; but Theodosius the elder obliged him to quit that place, and sent him first to Halmyris, a desert of Mossia, near the Danube, and afterwards to Caesarea of Cappadocia; where, however, the inhabitants would not suffer him to continue, because he had formerly written against Basil, their bishop. Tired, at length, with being thus tossed about, he petitioned to retreat to the place of his birth; where he died very old, about the year 394, after having experienced great variety of sufferings.

Eunomius wrote many works; and his writings were so highly esteemed by his followers, that they thought their authority preferable to that of the gospels. The greatest part of them are lost: there is, however, besides two or three small pieces, “a confession of his faith” still remaining, which Cave took from a ms. in archbp. Tenison’s library, and inserted into his “Historia Literaria,” and Whiston afterwards published it in his “Primitive Christianity revived.” The substance of his opinions is, “There is one. God, uncreate and without beginning; who has nothing existing before him for nothing can exist before what is uncreate nor with him, for what is uncreate must be one; nor in him, for God is a simple and uncompounded being. This one, simple and eternal being, is God the creator and ordainer of all things: first indeed, and principally of his only begotten Son, and then through him of all other things. For God begot, created, -and made the Son only, by his own direct operation and power, before all things and every other creature; not producing however any other being like himself, nor imparting any of his own proper substance to the Son: for God is immortal, uniform, indivisible, and therefore cannot communicate any part of his own proper substance to another. He alone is unbegotten; and it is impossible that any other being should be formed of an unbegotten substance. He did not use his own substance in begetting the Son, but his will only; nor did he beget him in the likeness of his substance, but according to his own good pleasure. He then created the Holy Spirit, the first and greatest of all spirits by his own power indeed and operation mediately, yet by the immediate power and operation of the Son. After the Holy Spirit, he created all other things in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, corporeal and incorporeal, mediately by himself, by the power and operation of the Son, &c. &c.”

, the son of Polymnestus of Chalcis in Fubcca, a Greek poet and historian, was born, according to Suidas, in the 26th olympiad, at the time when Pyrrhns was defeated by the Romans, which was in the third year of that olympiad, or B. C. 274. Although his person was not captivating, he is said to have been beloved by Nicia, the wife of Alexander the king of his country. Towards the latter end of his life, he grew rich, and became librarian to Antiochus the Great, king of Syria, at the time of whose accession he was above fifty years of age. The time of his death is uncertain. He wrote in heroic verse, some few fragments of which are still extant. Cicero speaks of his compositions as obscure: but he was highly esteemed by the emperor Tiberius, who imitated his style, and placed statues of him in the libraries of Rome. There was also another Euphphoron, a son of Æschylus, who gained prizes at Athens for some posthumous tragedies of his father’s; and wrote a few himself; and a third, author of some Greek epigrams in the Authologia, who flourished in the 126th olympiad.

, an excellent sculptor and painter of Athens, was the disciple of Aristides, and flourished about 362 years before Christ. He wrote several volumes on the art of colouring, and on symmetry, which are lost. His conceptions were noble and elevated, his style masculine and bold; and he was, according to Pliny, the first who signalized himself by representing the majesty of heroes. Among his most celebrated paintings were the twelve Gods, the battle of Mantinea, and Theseus. The refinements of expression were certainly carried very far by Euphranor, if we may form our judgment from the Theseus, which he opposed to that of Parrhasius > and the bronze figure of Alexander Paris, in whom, says Pliny, the umpire of the goddesses^ the lover of Helen, and yet the murderer of Achilles, might be traced. He made the character of Paris so pregnant, that those who knew his history might trace in it the origin of all his future feats, though first impressed by the expression allotted to the predominant quality and moment. Such appears to be the expression of the sitting Paris, formerly in the cortile of the palace Altheims at Rome, a work of the highest style, and worthy of Euphranor, “though,” says Mr. Fuseli, “I shall not venture to call it a repetition in marble of his bronze.”

, a stoic philosopher, who flourished in the second century, was a friend of Dio and of Apollonius Tyanseus, who introduced him to Vespasian. Although a violent quarrel arose between the latter philosopher and Euphrates, in consequence of which Philostratus, the panegyrist of the former, inveighs with great severity against the latter, it appears from the testimony of Epictetus, Pliny the younger, and Eusebius, that Euphrates was v universally esteemed for his talents and virtues, and that the censures of Philostratus deserve only contempt. Pliny’s character of him is highly interesting. “If ever,” says he, " polite learning flourished at Rome, it certainly does at present. Of this I could give you many instances; but I will content myself with naming only Euphrates the philosopher. When in my youth I served in the army in Syria, I had an opportunity of conversing familiarly with this excellent man, and took some pains to gain his affection, though that indeed - was not difficult for he is exceedingly open to access, and full of that gentleness of manner which he teaches. Euphrates is possessed of shining talents, which cannot fail to interest even the unlearned. He discourses with great accuracy, dignity, and elegance; and frequently rises into the sublimity and luxuriance of Plato himself. His style is copious and diversified, and so wonderfully sweet as to captivate even the most reluctant auditor. Add to all this, his graceful form, comely aspect, long hair, and large white beard; circumstances which, though they may probably be thought trifling and accidental, contribute, however, to procure him much reverence. There is no disgusting negligence in his dress; his countenance is grave, but not austere; his approach commands respect, without exciting awe. With the strictest sanctity, he unites the most perfect politeness of manner. He inveighs against vice, not against men; and, without chastising, reclaims the offender. You listen with 6xed attention to his exhortations, and even when convinced, still hang with eagerness upon his lips. In conformity to the principles of the stoic philosophy, Euphrates, when he found his strength worn out by disease and old age, voluntarily put a period to his life by drinking hemlock, having first, for some unknown reason, obtained permission from the emperor Adrian.

, was an Athenian comic poet, who flourished about the year 435 before Christ, in the time of the old comedy. (See Cratinus). His play of “Numeniae” was acted in this year, and his “Flatterers,” about the year 420. Many others of his pieces are known by name, of which only fragments now remain. Of his death various accounts are given. Some say that he was thrown into the sea, by order of Alcibiades, for writing the “Baptae” against him; others, that he was shipwrecked in a military expedition in the Hellespont, which produced, says Suidas, a decree, that no poet should perform military service. He obtained seven prizes in the theatres of Athens. His first drama was produced at the age of seventeen. There are some remarks on this poet in Cumberland’s “Observer,” but which are now known to have been Bentley’s.

, a celebrated tragic poet, the contemporary and rival of Sophocles, was born of a creditable Athenian family; especially on his mother Clito’s side, whom Suidas reports to have been nobly descended, though Aristophanes in jest calls her a cabbage-seller, and Valerius Maximus has recorded it in earnest. He was born in the island Salamis, whither his father and mother had fled, with a great many other eminent families of Athens, upon the formidable invasion of Greece by Xerxes: and his birth is supposed to have happened in the first year of the 75th olympiad, 480 years before Christ. His name is supposed to have been formed from the Euripus, or narrow sea, in which the battle of Salamis was fought, and the Persians defeated. It is said, that while his mother was with child, her husband Mnesarchus consulted the oracle of Apollo, to know what he might hope for; and that he received in answer, that the child who should be born to him would reach the summit of glory, and gain the honour of the sacred garland. Mnesarchus merely interpreting this promise of the oracle, that his son should win the prize in the Olympic games, took care to educate him in the same manner with those whom the Greeks designed for athletae or wrestlers: but Euripides, though he made so good a progress in these feats of the body, as to gain the crown at the Athenian sports in honour of Ceres and Theseus, had always a more laudable ambition: and therefore, while his father was labouring to have him perfect in the paltcstra, became a constant auditor of Anaxagoras in philosophy, and Prodicus in rhetoric; and diverted his leisure hours by studying painting, which some will have to have been at first his profession. It is not probable, that Euripides learnt morality of Socrates, as Gellius reports: Socrates was ten or twelve years younger than Euripides, and therefore is more likely to have profited by him; but it is certain that fchey were friends, and Socrates is thought to have been consulted by him in the composition of his dramas. Socrates very rarely frequented the theatre, except when the pieces of Euripides were represented. In the character of Palamedes, Euripides is supposed to have delineated that of his friend, and some verses are quoted addressing the Greeks as having slain the best and wisest of thir nation, which the audience are said to have applied to the fate of Socrates, and to have burst into tears at the recollection of their crime. This, however, seems rather to savour of conjecture, and if the Athenians were ever thus affected, it must have been at some representation of the play subsequent to the death of Socrates, who survived Euripides some years, and therefore, in the character of Palamedes could have only alluded to his death, as the probable result of the jealousy and rashness of the Athenians.

The occasion of his applying himself to dramatic poetry was the extreme danger his master Anaxagoras had incurred by his philosophy: who, under the accusation of despising the public gods, was banished from Athens by the fury of the mob, and narrowly escaped with his life. Euripides was then eighteen; but his works will evidently shew, that he did not afterwards lay aside the study of morality and physics. He wrote a great number of tragedies, which were highly esteemed both in his life-time and after his death: and Quintilian, among many others, doubted whether he was not the best of the tragic poets. “Sophocles and Euripides,” says he, “have far excelled Æschylus in tragedy. Many people question, which of these two poets in their different manner deserves the preference but, as thisbears no relation to what I am now writing upon, I shall leave it undetermined. However, there, is np one but must own, that Euripides will be of much more use to those who are intended to plead: for his diction, which is censured by such as think there is more sublimity in the grave, majestic, and sonorous style of Sophocles, comes nearer to that of an orator. He likewise abounds with moral reflections; and is almost equal to the sages, when he treats on the same subject with them. In his manner of reasoning and replying, he may be compared to the most renowned orators at the bar. He charms all, when he attempts to raise the passions; and, when he would raise pity, he is inimitable.” Quintilian has here specified three of the most prominent characteristics of Euripides, his disposition to philosophize, the rhetorical cast of his style, and the power of touching the passions, which, notwithstanding frequent insipidity, he sometimes exercises in a high degree. The philosophy of his master Anaxagoras may be often traced in his writings, as has been proved by Valckenaer in his learned diatribe on the fragments of Euripides, some chapters of which are devoted to the illustration of this subject.

It has been wondered, that the Roman poets should celebrate Sophocles, Æschylus, and Thespis, as Virgil, Propertius, and Horace have done, yet should make no mention of Euripides: but the reason assigned for this omission is, that the syllables which compose his name were not suited to hexameter verse, and not that they thought him inferior, at least to Æschylus and Thespis. Varro relates, that out of the seventy- five tragedies written by him, five only gained the victory yet observes, that most of those who conquered him were wretched poetasters. He was probably defeated by that private interest and intrigue, which frequently pronounces the fate of compositions; and the basest arts, we are told, were employed, in order to procure the favour of the judges. In the mean time, his pieces were prodigiously applauded; and nothing can better demonstrate the high esteem they were in, than the service they did to the Athenians in Sicily. The Athenian army under the command of Nicias suffered all the calamities of unsuccessful war, and the victors made a most cruel advantage of their victories; but although they treated the Athenian soldiers with so much inhumanity, yet they are said to have spared such as could repeat any verses of Euripides. “We are told,” says Plutarch, “that many, who returned safe to their country, kindly saluted Euripides, declaring that they had been restored to their liberty, for teaching their victors such verses of his as they remembered; and that others, who roamed up and down, had meat and drink given them, in return for singing his verses.”

It was almost impossible for two great poets, such as Sophocles and Euripides, who were contemporary, and aspired to the same glory, to love one another, or to continue long in friendship; and Athenseus relates several particulars of their enmity, which are no way honourable to them. Yet Sophocles discovered a great esteem for Euripides, when he heard of his death, and caused a tragedy to be represented, in which he himself appeared in a mourning habit, and made his actors take off their crowns. Aristophanes took great pleasure in ridiculing Euripides in his comedies, which perhaps might give him more uneasiness than his quarrel with Sophocles.

About a year after the Sicilian defeat, Euripides left Athens, and went to the Macedonian court, to which king Archelaus, who was fond of learned men, invited them by acts of munificence, gave them a gracious reception, and often raised them to very high honours. Euripides, if Solinus may be credited, he made his prime minister. Kpthing can, be a more express proof of the high esteem, Archelaus had for him, than his resenting some personal insults of one Decamnichus offered to Euripides. Our poet was seventy-two years of age when he went to that court, and had passed but few years there, when an unhappy accident concluded his life. He was walking in a wood, and, according to his usual manner, in deep meditation; when unfortunately meeting with Archelaus’s hounds, he was by them torn to pieces. Every account gives him the same end, though it differs from the rest in some minute circumstances. Some indeed relate that he was pulled to pieces by women, to revenge the honour of their sex; but this is a fable, copied from that of Orpheus, who is said to have been destroyed by Bacchanals. It is not certain, whether his death happened by chance, or through envy of some of the courtiers. The anthor of an epigram in the Anthology denies all these accounts, and ascribes his death to a decay of nature. Archelaus, however, buried him with great magnificence; and not contented with solemnizing his funeral obsequies, he also cut his hair, and assumed all the marks of grief. The Athenians were so moved with his death, that the whole city went into mourning; and one of his friends, named Philemon, declared that, could he be persuaded that the dead enjoy a sense of things, he would hang himself, in order to be with Euripides. The Athenians also sent ambassadors to Macedonia, to request of Archelaus that his body might be removed to his native country; but the king refused their demand, and erected in memory of the poet a noble monument in the vicinity of Pella, his chief city. Disappointed of this, the Athenians testified their respect for Euripides by a cenotaph on the road leading from the city to the Pirjcus. Thucydides the historian is said to have written an epitaph on him, to this purpose “All Greece is the monument of Euripides the Macedonian land possesses his bones, for there he reached the boundary of his life. His country is Athens, the Greece of Greece. Having afforded general delight by his muse, he enjoys the recompense of general praise.” That he was the friend of Socrates, may be thought a circumstance which strongly testifies the virtues of his private character. He seems not to have possessed the social qualities which distinguished his rival Sophocles. Both Euripides and his fellow-disciple Pericles are said to have imitated the austere manners of their master Auaxagoras. An ancient noet, Alexander Ætolus, quoted by Gellius, says of him, that he was morose in social intercourse, averse from laughter, and even during the festivity of the banquet, ignorant how to promote hilarity; but that whatever he wrote he tempered with the sweetness of honey, and the charms of the Sirens. He has been charged with a professed antipathy to the fair sex. This should seem to be contradicted by his having been twice married; but it appears that he was unhappily married in both instances, and may from his own experience have contracted some degree of prejudice against the sex in general. Yet although he seems eager to take every opportunity of uttering a bitter or malignant sentiment against women, Sophocles is said to have observed, that the hatred which he expressed against them was confined to the stage. And even there our countryman, Barnes, observes that if he has described some females with all the vices incident to human nature, yet he has delineated many others with all the virtues that can adorn their sex. He was near seventy-five years old when he died; and, notwithstanding some aspersions recorded by Athenaeus, he was, according to the best accounts, a man of great gravity and severity in his conduct, and regardless of pleasures.

, an English poet, descended from a good family in Ireland, was son of Dr. Eusden, rector of Spotsworth in Yorkshire, and was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge; after which he went into orders, and was for some time chaplain to Richard lord Willoughby de Broke. His first patron was the celebrated lord Halifax, whose poem “On the Battle of the Boyne,” Eusden translated into Latin. He was also esteemed by the duke of Newcastle, on whose marriage with lady Henrietta Godolphin he wrote an Epithalamium, for which, upon the death of Rowe, he was by his grace (who was then lord chamberlain, and considered the verses as an elegant compliment) preferred in 1718 to the laureatship. He had several enemies; and, among others, Pope, who put him into his Dunciad; though we do not know what provocation he gave to any of them, unless by being raised to the dignity of the laurel. Cooke, in his “Battle of the Poets,” speaks thus of him:

And Oldmixon, in his “Art of Logic and Rhetoric,” p. 413, is not sparing of his reflexions on the poet and his patron. His censures, however, are plainly those of a disappointed competitor, and perhaps great part of the ridicule, which has been thrown on Eusden, may arise from his succeeding so ingenious a poet as Rowe. That he was no inconsiderable versifier, the poems he has left will evince; and, as his moral character appears to have been respectable, the duke acted a generous part in providing for a man who had conferred an obligation on him. The first-rate poets were either of principles very different from the government, or thought themselves too distinguished to undergo the drudgery of an annual ode. Eusden, however, seems to have been but little known before his preferment, if we judge by the manner in whieh he is mentioned in the duke of Buckingham’s “Session of the Poets:”

"In rushed Eusden, and cried, who shall have it

, an eminent ecclesiastical historian, surnamed Pamphilus, from his friendship with Pamphilus the Martyr, was born in Palestine, about A. D. 267. Cave thinks it probable, that he was born at Coesarea; but we have no account of his parents, or his masters. He tells us himself, that he was educated in Palestine, and saw Constantine there, while he travelled through that country in the retinue of Diocletian. He was ordained priest by Agapius, bishop of Caesarea, where he contracted an intimacy with Pamphilus, an eminent presbyter of that church. During the persecution under Diocletian, he exhorted the Christians to suffer resolutely for the faith of Christ; and particularly assisted his friend Pamphilus, who suffered martyrdom in the year 309, after two years imprisonment. In the time of the same persecution he went to Tyre, where he was ah eye-witness of the glorious combats of the five Egyptian martyrs. He was likewise in Egypt and at Thebais, where he saw the admirable constancy of many martyrs of both sexes, and was himself imprisoned. He has been reproached with having offered incense to idols in this persecution, in order to free himself from prison. This imputation was fixed upon him by Potomon, bishop of Heraclea, at the council of Tyre. Epiphanius informs us that Potomon, seeing Eusebius sitting in the council, cried out, “Is it fit, Eusebius, that you should sit, and that the innocent Athanasius should stand to be judged by you Who can bear such things as these Tell me, were not you in prison with me during the time of the persecution I lost an eye in defence of the truth but you are maimed in no part of your body, nor did you suffer martyrdom, but are whole and alive. By what means did you escape out of prison, unless you promised our persecutors that you would do the detestable thing, and perhaps have done it” Epiphanius adds, that Eusebius, hearing this, rose and broke the assembly, saying, “If, when you are out of your own country, you say such things against us, it is certain that your accusers must be in the right: for, if you exercise your tyranny here, you will do it with much more assurance in your own country.” Valesius observes, from the above-cited passage of Epiphanius, that those persons are mistaken, who relate that Eusebius had sacrificed to idols, and that it was openly objected to him in the council of Tyre; since Potomon did not charge him with it, but only grounded a suspicion on his being dismissed safe and whole. Besides, as Cave very properly remarks, had he really sacrificed, the discipline of the church was then so rigid, that he would have been degraded from his orders; at least, would never have been advanced to the episcopal dignity. Dr. Lardner has also brought various authorities to prove this accusation unfounded.

When the persecution was over, and peace restored to the church, Eusebius was elected bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, in the room of Agapius, who was dead; and this was about the year 3 13 or 315. He had afterwards a considerable share in the contest relating to Arius, priest of Alexandria; whose cause he, as well as other bishops of Palestine, defended at first, upon a persuasion that Arius had been unjustly persecuted by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. He not only wrote to that bishop in favour of Arius, but likewise, not being able to procure his restoration, permitted him and his followers to preserve their rank, and to hold in their churches the ordinary assemblies of the faithful, on condition that they should submit to their bishop, and intreat him to restore them to communion. He assisted at the council of Nice, held in the year 325, and made a speech to the emperor Constantine, at whose right hand he was placed, when he came to the council. He at first refused to admit of the term Consubstantial; and the long and formal opposition which he made to it occasioned a suspicion for which there seems to be very good ground, that he was not altogether sincere, when he subscribed, as he did at length, to the Nicene creed. About the year 330 he was present at the council of Antioch, in which Eustathius. bishop of that city, was deposed, but though he consented to his deposition, and was elected to the see of Antioch in his room, he absolutely refused it; and when the bishops wrote to Constantine to desire him to oblige Eusebius to consent to the election, he wrote also to the emperor, to request him that he would not urge him to accept of it; which Constantine readily granted, and at the same time commended his moderation. Eusebius assisted at the council of Tyre held in the year 335 against Athanasius; and at the assembly of bishops at Jerusalem, when the church was dedicated there. He was sent by those bishops to Constantine, to defend what they had done against Athanasius; and it was then that he pronounced his panegyric upon that emperor, during the pubHe rejoicings in the 30th year of his reign, which was the last of his life. He was honoured with very particular marks of Constantine’s esteem: he frequently received letters from him, several of which are inserted in his books; and he was often invited to the emperor’s table, and admitted into private discourse with him. When Constantine wanted copies of the scriptures for the use of those churches which he had built at Constantinople, he conn mitted the care of transcribing them to Eusebius, whom he knew to be well skilled in those affairs; and when Eusebius dedicated to him his book “concerning Easter,” he ordered it immediately to be translated into Latin, and desired our author to communicate as soon as possible the other works of that nature which he had then in hand.

Eusebius did not long survive Constantine, for he. died about the year 33 o, according to Dupin; or the year 340, according to Valesius. He wrote several great and important works, of which among those that are extant we have, 1. “Chronicon” divided into two parts, and carried down to A. D. 325 in which, not long before the council of Nice, Cave supposes this work to have been finished. The first part, which is at present extremely mutilated, contains an history of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Jews, Egyptians, &c. from the creation of the world. In the second part, which is called “Canon Chronicus,” he digests the history of the several nations according to the order of time. St. Jerom translated both parts into Latin: but we have remaining of the version of the first part, only some extracts, containing the names of the kings, printed with the translation of the second part. It was printed at Basil, and afterwards published more accurately by Arnauld de Pontac, bishop of Baras, at Bourdeaux in 1604. But no person ever undertook to collect the Greek fragments of the original, till Joseph Scaliger published them at Leyden, 1606, in folio, under the following title: “Thesaurus temporum, complectens Eusebii Pamphili chronicon Latine, S. Hieronymo interprete, cum ipsius chronici fragmentis Graecis antehac non editis, et auctores omnes derelicta ab Eusebio continuantes. Edente Josepho Justo Scaligero, qui notas et castigationes in Eusebium, nee non Isagogicorum Chronologix canonum libros tres adjecit.” There, was another edition, much enlarged, printed at Amsterdam in 1658, in 2 vols. fol. under the care of Alexander Morus. Dupin says, that “this work of Eusebius displays a prodigious extent of reading, and consummate erudition. It is necessary to have read an infinite number of books and ancient monuments, in order to compile an universal history; and to have been master of a very clear understanding at the same time, in order to collect such a multitude of facts, and dispose them in their proper order. This is an immense labour, which is a strong proof of the vast reading and prodigious memory of Eusebius. It must be owned, indeed, that Africanus’s Chronicle was of great service to him, and that he has copied that author throughout his work. However, he has corrected several of Africanus’s mistakes, though he has fallen into others himself. But it is almost impossible not to err in a work of such vast extent and difficulty as an universal chronicle. Mistakes are excusable in a performance of this kind; nor can they hinder it from being deservedly considered as one of the molt useful works of antiquity.” His next work is, 2. “Prseparationis Evangelicae, Hbri XV.” Valesius tells us that this book, as well as his treatise “De Demonstratione Evangelica,” was written before the Nicene council, since they are expressly cited in his “Ecclesiastical History,” which Valesius affirms to have been written also before it; but Cave is of opinion that the book “De Prseparatione Evangelica” was written after that council, undoubtedly after his “Chrdnicon,” since his “Canones Chronici” are expressly cited in it. 3. “De Demonstratione Evangelical” We have of this work only ten books extant, though Eusebius wrote twenty. A beautiful edition of this and the former book was printed in Greek by Robert Stephens in 1544 and 1545, in 2 vols. fol. They were reprinted at Paris, 1628, in 2 vols. fol. with a new version of the book “De Praeparatione,” by the Jesuit Francis Vigerus, and with Donatus’s translation! of the book “De Demonstratione.” 4. “Historic Ecclesiasticae, libri V.” containing the history of the church from the beginning to the death of Licinius the elder, which includes a period of 324 years. Valesius observes, that he wrote this after almost all his other works; and Cave says, that it was written after the Nicene council, since he mentions in it not only his “Chronicon,” but likewise his treatise “De Demonstratione.” At the end of the eighth book we find a small treatise “Of the Martyrs of Palestine;” in which he describes the martyrdom of those who suffered for the faith of Christ iri that province. This has been erroneously confounded with the 8th book of the history; whereas it is a separate tract, which serves for a supplement to that book. The Ecclesiastical History has been often translated and printed: but the best edition is that of Henry Valesius^ who, having remarked the defects of all the former translations, undertook a new one, which he has joined to the Greek text revised by four manuscripts, and has added notes full of erudition. Valesius’s edition was printed at Paris in 1659 and 1671, and at Francfort in 1672, with the rest of the ecclesiastical historians. It was printed again at Cambridge in 1720, in three vols. folio, by William Reading, who has joined to the notes of Valesius such observations of modern authors as he could collect; but, in Le Clerc’s opinion, somewhat too harsh, “they might as well have been placed at the end of the book, since they are much interior to those of Valesius, both for style and matter; and appear with the same disadvantage as an ordinary painting placed by the work of an eminent master.”

Eusebius wrote, 5. “Contra Hieroclem liber.” Hierocles had written a book under the name of Philalethes, against the Christian religion; in which, to> render it ridiculous, he had compared Apollonius Tyanseus with Christ, affirming that the former had worked miracles as well as the latter, and was ascended to heaven as well as he. Against this work of Hierocles, Ewsebius’s book was written; and it is printed at the eml of the “De Demonstratione Evangelica,” and at the end of Philostratus “De vita Apollonii.” 6. “Contra Marcellum, libri II.” and “De Ecclcsiastica Tbeologia, libri III.” This work was designed to confute Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, who was condemned for Sabellianism in the synod at Constantinople in the year 336; and was written at the desire of that synod. It is subjoined also to the book “De Demonstratione.” 7. “Epistola ad Cicsarienses de fide Nicajna.” Socrates and Theodoret have preserved this in their ecclesiastical histories. 8. “De locis Hebraicis,” containing a geographical description of all the countries, cities, and places, mentioned in the Old Testament. It was translated into Latin, and at the same time enlarged and corrected by St. Jerom. The original, with that translation, and a new version, with learned notes, was published by James Bonfrerius at Paris in 1631 and 1659. 9. “Oratio de laudibus Constantini,” mentioned above, which is printed at the end of the Ecclesiastical History. 10. “De vita Constantini, libri IV.” This is rather a panegyric than a life, being written in a florid and oratorical style. Some have denied this to be Eusebius’ s; but Cave thinks their arguments so inconsiderable, as not to deserve a particular answer. It is subjoined to the Ecclesiastical History. 11. “Expositio in Canticum Canticorum.” This was not written entirely by Eusebius, but compiled partly out of his writings, and partly out of those of Athanasius, Didymus, St. Gregory of Nyssen, and others. It was published in Greek with Polychronius and Psellus by Meursius at Leyden, 1617, 4to. 12. “Vitae prophetarum,” ascribed to Eusebius in an ancient manuscript, and published with the Commentaries of Procopius on Isaiah, in Greek and Latin, by Curterius, at Paris, 1580, in folio. 13. “Cajioues sacrorum evangeliorum X.” The translation of these by St. Jerom js published among that father’s works, and in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” 14. “Apologise pro Origene liber primus,” translated by Ruffinus, is published in St. Jerom’s works. St. Jerom tells us that Eusebius was the sole author of the “Six Books of the Apology for Origen,” ascribed to his friend Pamphilus: but it is evident from the testimony of Eusebius himself and from that of Photius, that he wrote the first five books in conjunction with Pamphilus, and added the sixth after the death of that martyr. The Latin translation of the first book of this work is all that we have remaining of it. 15. “Sermo in illud, Sero sabbatorum. Item, De Angelis ad monumentum visis.” These two sermons were published in Greek and Latin by Combefisius. Besides these works of Eusebius, there are several extant in ms. which have not yet been published; and the titles of several, which are not extant. Of the latter kind, the thirty books “against Porphyry,” (though Cave makes but twenty-five) “are,” says Le Clerc, “in all probability the greatest loss which we have sustained with respect to the writings of Eusebius; for we might have learned from' them the objections of the most learned philosopher of his time, and the answers of the most learned bishop also of his time.”

Photius has said of Eusebius, that he was a man of extensive learning, but that his style is neither agreeable nor polite. Dupin observes, that he was one of the most learned men of antiquity, as his friends and enemies have equally acknowledged and that there was none among the Greek writers who had read so much but remarks, that he never applied himself to the polishing his works, and is very negligent in his style. Dr. Jortin styles Eusebius “the most learned bishop of his age, and the father of ecclesiastical history. Like the illustrious Origen,” says he, “of whom he was very fond, he hath had warm friends and inveterate enemies; and the world hath ever been divided in judging of his theological sentiments. The Arians and Unitarians have always laid claim to him and in truth any party might be glad to have him. He scrupled at first to admit the word Consubstantial, because it was nnscriptural; but afterwards, for the sake of peace and quiet, he complied with it in a sense which he gave to it. He seems to have been neither an Arian nor an Athanasian, but one who endeavoured to steer a middle course, yet inclining more to the Arians than the Athanasians.” Le Clerc had a dispute with Cave about the orthodoxy of Eusebius; who, as Cave said, was a Consubstantialist, but, according to Le Clerc, an Arian, which last opinion appears to us most probable, as he associated with Arius, and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians. Brucker, speaking of his “Preparatio et Demonstrate Evangelica,” says, that had this celebrated work been more free from prejudice; had he taken more care not to be imposed upon by spurious authorities; had he more clearly understood, from the leading principles of each sect, its peculiar language; had he distinguished the pure doctrine of Plato from that of the later Platonists; had he more accurately marked the points of difference between the tenets of the sectarian philosophers and the doctrine of Christ, his works would have been much more valuable.

. Of the bishops of this name who lived in the fourth or fifth centuries, the following only seem deterving of brief notice. They were in general polemics, and their lives were spent in contrdversy, for or against the Arian doctrines. Of these, Eusebius, bishop of Berytus and Nicometftfl in the fourth century, adopted the errors of Arius, persecuted St. Athanasius, was assiduous about the emperor Constantino till his death, and gained Constantius and all the imperial family to his party. Eusebius usurped the see of Constantinople, after procuring the banishment of Paul, the legal bishop, and died in the year 342.

, bishop of Samosata, in the fourth century, at first joined the Arian party. The see of Antioch being vacant, they agreed with the orthodox to choose Meletus bishop, and entrusted Eusebiiis with the decree of this election; but St. Meletus declaring immediately for the catholic faith, the Ariana, supported by the emperor Valens, resolved to depose him. Eusebius, informed of their mischievous design, retired to his dioeese, with the writings which had been entrusted to him. On this messengers were dispatched after him, and the emperor’s en-> voy threatened to cut off his right hand, if he did not deliver up the act of election; but Eusebius presenting his two handi, said he would suffer them both to be cut pff, rather than part with this act, unless in presence of all those who had entrusted him with it. In the year 353 hp subscribed to the Nicene faith in the council of AntiocU, and went to Caesarea in Cappadocia in the year 371, at the request of St. Gregory the elder, of Nazianzen, to elect St. Basil bishop of that city. His zeal for the faith caused him to be banished by Valeus in the year 373, during which exile he went disguised as a soldier, to comfort the orthodox under their persecutions. After the death of Valens, St. Eusebius assisted at the council of Antioch in, the year 378, and was employed by the members, of it, tq visit some eastern churches, which he did with good success in Mesopotamia, and part of Syria; but baying pr-t dained Maris, bishop of the little city of Doliche in Syria, on his entering the city to put him in possession of his church, a woman of the Arian party threw a tile upon his head, which wounded him mortally. In his last moments he sought and obtained a promise from those who attended him, that the woman should not be prosecuted; which, was done nevertheless, but the catholics procured her pardon. St. Gregory of Nazianzen, and St. Basil, wroe sen veral letters to St. Eusebius.

, one of the most celebrated anatomists of the sixteenth century, was a native of San Severino, a village in Italy. He was educated at Rome, where he first conceived a bias in favour of medicine, and especially of anatomy, and cultivated the latter with such success, that he was appointed to the professor’s chair in that college. His life probably passed in the quiet pursuit of his studies and exercise of his profession, as no other events are on record concerning him. He died at Home in 1574. Eustachius was the author of several works, the greater part of which are lost. His treatise “De Controversiis Anatomicorum,” which was one of the most considerable of his productions, is much regretted. His opuscula which remain appeared under the following titles, “Opuscula Anatomica, nempe de Renum structura, officio, et administratione de auditus organo ossium examen de mom capitis de vena quae azygos dicitur, et de alia, quae in flexn brachii communem profundam producit de dentibus,” Venet. 1563, and again in 1674, with the notes of Pinus. An edition was also published at Leyden, in 1707, under the superintendance of Boerhaave. He has the merit of several discoveries in anatomy; being the tirst who described the renal capsules, the thoracic duct, and the passage leading from the throat to the internal ear, which is still called from him the Eustachian tube. A series of figures engraved on copper were mentioned in his “Opuscula” as nearly finished; but they were not discovered until 1714, when they were published at Rome by Lancisi, physician to pope Clement XL in one volume, folio. These plates were again published, but not well printed, at Geneva in 1717. The edition of Rome in 1728 is excellent; but the one published at the same city in 1740, by Petrioli, is less valuable. The same work was twice published at Leyden, under the direction of Albinus, viz. in 1744 and 1762. Eustachius edited the lexicon of Erotran at Venice in 1666, under the title of “Erotiani, Graeci scriptoris vetustissimi, vocum, quae apud Hippocratem sunt, collectio, cum annotatiombus Eustachii,” in quarto.

, a pious and learned bishop of Berea, was born at Sida in Pamphilia, and translated to the see of Antioch in the year 323. He assisted at the council of Nice in the year 325, and zealously defended the orthodox faith against the Arians, who accused him of infamous crimes, deposed him, and procured his banishment, by Constantine, to Trajanopolis in Thrace, where he died, about the year 337. He wrote several works, of which we have none remaining but his “Treatise on the Pythoness;” which Leo Allatius published in 1689, 4to, with another treatise on the “Exaemeron,” which is also attributed to St. Eustathius, but probably written by a more modern author. It is in the library of the fathers, and was published separately at Lyons, 1624, 4to.

, a learned critic of the twelfth century, was born at Constantinople. He was at first master of the rhetoricians (rhetorum magister), and afterwards deacon of the great church, under the patriarchate of Lucas Chrysobergus, who arrived at that dignity in 1155, and appears to have conferred many favours on Eustatius. Having been, elected bishop of Myra in Lycia, he had accepted the office, and was about to be consecrated, when the emperor Emanuel Comnenus sent a cong6 d'eLre to the synod, enjoining them to choose him archbishop of Thessalonica. In this he displayed great prudence, knowledge of business, and extensive learning, as appears by his works. In 1180 he was one of the prelates who remonstrated against the order of Emanuel Comnenus to erase from the Greek catechism, a censure of what is said of God by Mahomet in the Alcoran. Five years after, we find Eusebius displaying his spirit and regard for his flock in a remarkable manner. Andronicus Comnenus, cousin-german of the emperor Emanuel, had usurped the throne, fey causing Alexis, the son and successor of Emanuel, to be strangled in 1183. This act of barbarity procured Andronicus many enemies, and among the rest Alexis Comnenus, the nephew of Emanuel, to whom he had been cup-bearer, and who was afterwards banished to Scythia by him. Alexis went then to Sicily, to the court of William II. surnamed the Good, and excited him to declare war against the empire of Constantinople. The king of Sicily, who appears to have wanted little persuasion on this occasion, raised an army, passed the straights, and took the city of Duras. He then went by sea to Thessalonica, which he besieged both by sea and land. Eustatkius would not for a moment quit his flock amidst so many dangers, but shut himself up in the city, endured the hardships ofthe siege, with the greatest fortitude, and exhorted his people to bear with Christian patience the chastisements of the Almighty. The city was at last taken by the cowardice of the governor, and was pillaged, the churches themselves not being spared, and the inhabitants were treated with the utmost cruelty by the conquerors. Eustathius, not fearing their power, addressed himself with so much spirit and eloquence to the Sicilian commanders, as to obtain a considerable alleviation of the sufferings of the inhabitants, from which they were entirely delivered the following year. Nicetas attributes this in a great measure to the prayers of their archbishop. The time of his death is unknown, but he appears to have been alive in 1194.

The learned works for which he is chiefly memorable are his “Commentaries upon Homer and Dionysius Periegetes.” His “Commentaries upon Homer” were first published with that poet at Rome in 1550, under the pontificate of Julius Hi. to whom they were dedicated; and were reprinted by Frobenius at Basil ten years after. They are very copious, and frequently illustrate the text; but are principally valued by grammarians, for the great assistance they afford, in understanding the Greek language. The learned Duport, in his f< Gnomologia Homerica,“wonders that Eustathius, who was a Christian and an archbishop, should never mention Holy Scripture, and very seldom the ecclesiastical writers, throughout his Commentaries, though he had so many opportunities of introducing both. Fabricius, however, imputes this silence to his having collected the materials of them from the more ancient commentators upon Homer, who knew nothing of the sacred books, which is not improbable. Eustatliius’s” Commentaries upon the Periegesis of Dionysius,“were first published at Paris in 1577, but very imperfectly; they were afterwards greatly augmented by Fabricius, who supplied a hiatus between verses 889 and 917; and this addition was inserted in its proper place by Hudson, in his edition at Oxford, 1697, 8vo. From the similarity of the name, the” Loves of Ismenias and Ismene“have very unjustly been attributed to him.” Eustathii Comment, in Hexaemeron,“Leyden, 1629, has also by some been attributed to him, but the real author and the time he lived are unknown. Among the Mss. in the library of the Escurial, are two discourses attributed to him; the one,” Oratio ad eos qui in templo erant Sancti Myroblytæ, id est Demetrii, in principio indictionis, anno mundi 670.2 (A. C. 1194);“the other,” Oratio ad Michaelem Stathmitem, Saccularium et Chartophylacem, quod saepe cum melodiis celebrare debeaut inemoriam Sancti martyris Demetrii.“Oudin, who informs us of these manuscripts, adds, that among the Mss. upon paper in the library of Basil, theVe is a very beautiful oije in Greek, of the quarto size, whii'h is titled” The Homilies of Eustathius the metropolitan of Thessalo.iica,“and in the Bodleian are some Mss. attributed to him, as, an” Oratio in Imperatorem Em. Comnenuin;“” Supplicatio,“as it appears to be,” ad eundem Imperatorem, nomine civitatis cum siccitate laboiMvit,“&” Lamentatio in obitu fratris." In the same collection also, are two funeral orations delivered on the death of Eustathius, one of which, Fabricius assures us was by Michael Chonita Acominat, archbishop of Athens; the other bears the name of Euthymius, who, according to Fabricius and Oudin, was Eutbynius Zigubeaus, or Zigadenus, who flourished under Alexis Camnenus, but this is doubtful. Du Cange notices a correspondence between Eustathius and Michael Psellus in the French king’s library, and in that of Vienna is a commentary by him on John of Damascus’s hymn for the day of Pentecost. In Aldus’s collection of Greek grammarians is a treatise by him on the dialects used by Homer. The manuscript copies of his Commentary on Homer are not scarce in France, and there are some in Italy, of which Polito availed himself when he began his new edition of Eustathius in 1730, &c. but he finished only the first five books of the Iliad. The only complete editions are those mentioned above.

, of Ascalon in Palestine, a Greek mathematician of the sixth century, was one of the most intelligent of those who lived in the decline of Greek literature. He wrote Commentaries on the Conies of Apollonius, which were addressed to Anthcmius, and are inserted in Halley’s edition of that author, published at Oxford in 1710; and on the most important works of Archimedes, which lately appeared with every advantage of elegance and correctness, in the folio edition of Archimedes, jssued from the Clarendon press in 1792, which was prepared for publication by Torelli of Verona. Eutocius has some of the best qualities of a commentator. He very seldom passes over a difficult passage in his author without explaining it, or a chasm in the reasoning without supplying the defect. His remarks are usually full; and so anxious is he to render th text perspicuous, that sometimes he undertakes to elucidate where his author may be thought sufficiently clear. Writers have differed about his age; Saxius, one of the latest, and generally most accurate, authorities, places him in the fifth century; but Eutocius addresses Anthemius; and we find from his own writings, that Isidorus was his preceptor, both of whom were, according to Procopius, the architects of the church of St. Sophia, built at Constantinople, about the year 532; consequently, Eutocius must have flourished in the middle of the sixth century.

, an Italian sophist, according to Snidas, but probably a Greek by birth, wrote a compendious history of Roman affairs, divided into ten books, from the foundation of the city to the reign of Valens, to whom it was dedicated: that is, to A. D. 364. He was secretary to Constantine the Great, and afterwards served as a soldier under Julian the Apostate, whom he attended in his unfortunate expedition against the Persians. It appears, too, that he bore the offices of Proconsul, and Praetorian Praefect. There have been two opinions about his religion, some supposing him to have been a Christian, others a heathen. The former ground their opinion chiefly upon a passage, where he speaks of Julian as a persecutor of Christians: “Nimius Religionis Christianas insectator, perinde tamen ut cruore abstineret;” a persecutor of the Christian religion, yet abstaining from sanguinary methods. But it is more probable that he was an heathen, not only from his situation and character under Julian, but from the testimony of Nicephorus Gregoras, who declares him to have been “of the same age and sect” with that emperor. Vossius thinks that he might be neither Christian nor heathen; and seems inclined to rank him with many ethers of his times, who hesitated between the two religions, without embracing either. A passage in some editions of his history, in which he speaks of Jesus Christ as our God and Lord, is acknowledged to be spurious. The best editions of Eutropius, are those of Havercarnp, 1729, and ofVerheyk, published at Leyden in 1762, in 8vo, with every useful illustration. At the end of the tenth book, he promises another historical work, or rather a continuation of this; and he tells us, that he “must raise his style, and double his diligence, when he enters upon the reign of such respectable and illustrious princes as Valens and VaJentian:” but death, probably, prevented the execution of his purpose. There are two Greek versions of this short history of Eutropius, one by Capito Lycius, and another by Paeanias, both ancient. There is a French translation by the abbé Lezeau but no good one in English. Eutropius has long been one of our most common school-books but as his style is not of the first purity, some eminent teachers have lately discontinued the use of his history.

, originally a monk of the fifth century, and for his piety elected abbot of the convent near Constantinople to which he belonged, is said to have lived to an advanced age before he distinguished himself by any peculiar opinions. Then, through a violent desire to oppose the Nestorian heresy, which was supposed to divide the nature of Christ into two distinct persons, he became the leader of a new heresy, by absorbing the human nature of Christ entirely in the divine, and maintaining that the human body of Christ was only apparent. His doctrines were first noticed in a council assembled at Constantinople by Fluvianus, in the year 448, where they were condemned, and himself deposed from his dignity of abbot. Eutyches, however, had interest enough with the emperor Theodosius to procure another council at Ephesus, in the year 449, in which the former acts were reversed, Flavian and other bishops who had opposed Eutyches deposed, and every thing carried with such violence, that this council is generally named woJoj xwrrpun), the convention of robbers. A third council was necessary to settle these differences; and pope Leo the First, (called St. Leo, or Leo the Great) prevailed on Marcian, the successor of Theodosius, to cull one at Chalcedon, which met in the year 451, and was reckoned the fourth recumenical or general council. Six hundred and thirty bishops were present. Here Kutyches was condemned, though absent, and the following doctrine laid down in opposition to his heresy: “That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, without any change, mixture, or confusion.” Yet even after this decision, violent disputes and divisions subsisted for a considerable time. It is uncertain what became of Eutyches after the council of Ephesus; Leo certainly applied ta Marcian and to Pulcheria to have him deposed; but whether he succeeded or not, is unknown. Two supplications to Theodosius, one confession, and a fragment of another by Eutyches, are still extant.

, a Greek writer of the fifth century, composed a book under the title of “Altercatio Symonis Judaei & Theophili Christiani,” which may be seen in Martenne’s­“Thesaurus Anecdotorum.” The authors of the “Histoire literaire de la France,” torn. II. have shewn that the author of this writing mentioned by Gennadius was not a Greek, but a French priest, who had been the disciple of St. Martin. They place him accordingly in the former half of the fifth century, and ascribe to him likewise the “Consultationes seu deliberationes Zachan Christiani & Apollonii philosophi,” which Luke d'Acheri has printed in his “Spicilegium,” tom. X.

Absurd as this man appears to be, the strong-minded Warburton wrote “An account of the Prophecies of Arise Evans,” 1751. Dr. Jortin having mentioned Evans’s name in his “Remarks on Ecclesiastical History,” Warburton, who happened to have some of Evans’s prophecies, published under the title of an “Echo from Heaven,” sent Jortin an extract, with a large commentary upon it, which the doctor inserted in the Appendix to the first book of his “Remarks.” Warburton speaks here of Evans as a prophet, and mentions one of his visions as a prediction, which, he says, “astonishes all who carefully consider it.” This exposed the bishop to some ridicule, particularly in a pamphlet entitled “Confusion worse confounded Rout on Rout or the bishop of Gloucester’s Commentary upon Rice or Arise Evans’s Echo from Heaven, examined and exposed. By Indignatio,” 1772, 8vo. Indignatio, who employs learning, wit, and argument, in this pamphlet, was the rev. Henry Taylor, rector of Crawley, and vicar of Portsmouth, and one of the writers against Gibbon.

, D. D. a dissenting minister of the baptist persuasion at Bristol, was the son, and successor in the ministry, of the rev. Hugh Evans, M. A. pastor of a congregation at Broadmead, in that city, where he was born, in 1737. Having gone through the usual course of studies at the dissenting academy^ Mile-end, London, he was admitted a preacher, and for some time exercised his function in the metropolis, but afterwards became assistant to his father in the congregation at Broadmead, Bristol. On his father’s death he succeeded him, and remained in that office for about thirty-two years, admired and beloved by his people, and not less esteemed as the superintendant of a seminary for the education of young men who were designed for the ministry. He was likewise a man of unwearied benevolence, and liberally promoted the establishment of schools for the instruction and clothing of destitute children at Broadmead, Downend, Mangotfield, &c. and himself set a bright example of personal charity and contributions, while he stirred up others to the performance of a similar duty. His publications having procured him considerable reputation as a divine and scholar, he received in 1789, the degree of D. D. from King’s-college, Aberdeen. He died of a paralytic affection, Aug. 9, 1791. Dr. Evans was twice married; first, in 1762, to miss Sarah Jeffries, the only daughter of the rev. Joseph Jeffries, of Taunton, in Somersetshire, by whom he had five children, one of whom, Joseph Jeffries Evans, esq. a merchant of London, died very lately. Mrs. Evans died in 1771; and in 1774, Dr. Evans married miss Sarah Hazle, of Bristol, who survived him. His publications are,1. “Sermons on the Scripture doctrine of the Son and Holy Spirit,” 1766, 12mo, in answer to a petulant attack on the doctrine of the Trinity by one Williams, who was, or pretended to be, a livery-servant. 2. “A collection of Hymns, adapted to public Worship,” 1769, 12mo. 3. “An address to the serious and candid professors of Christianity,” 1772, 12mo, 5th edit. 4. “Christ crucified; or the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement, in four discourses,” 1789, 12mo. 5. Seventeen occasional Sermons, and a few tracts on fugitive subjects.

, a dissenting divine of Wales, was born, in 1680, at Wrexham, in Denbighshire, descended from a race of clergymen of the establishment until his father, who was ejected for non-conformity from the living of Oswestry, in Shropshire, in 1662, and became the minister to an independent congregation at Wrexham. The son was educated with great care, and inducted to the different branches’ of literature necessary to qualify him for the office of the ministry, which he afterwards exercised in London, first as an assistant, and afterwards as successor to Dr. Daniel Williams. He was also one of the lecturers at tSalter’s hall meeting and belonged to what is called “The Merchant’s lecture.” Tn youth he was remarkably studious, and not only read over all the Christian writers of the first three centuries, but also the whole of Pool’s Synopsis, in five large folio volumes. He married a lady of family, and had a daughter supposed to be a considerable fortune; but he had been tempted to embark his property in the South-sea scheme, and the loss is supposed to have contributed to shorten his days. He died in 1730, in the fifty-first year of his age, highly esteemed by all who knew him. He had ever been eminent for piety, integrity, and public spirit; in his principles he was orthodox, but disposed to think well of and to honour those who differed from him, without any regard to the sentiments which they might hold. He received a diploma of D. D. from the universities of Edinburgh and Aberdeen. His “Practical Discourses concerning the Christian Temper,” are still in considerable estimation. The celebrated Dr. Watts characterized them as “the most complete summary of those duties which make up the Christian life,” and Dr. Doddridge, as the best practical pieces in our language. His other works are, “Sermons upon various subjects, preached to young people,” 1725, 12mo; “A Letter to Mr. Gumming, concerning the regard which ought to be had to Scripture consequences;” “A Second Letter,” in defence of the former, and about twenty occasional Sermons, printed separately. He was the editor also of the “Life of the rev. James Owen,” 1711, 12mo.

, one of the most determined opponents of revealed religion in modern times, was born at Warrington, Lancashire, April, 1731, and at first educated by an uncle, who sent him to Emanuel college, Cambridge, when in his fourteenth year. Here he took the degree of Ib. A. in 1749, and that of M. A. in 1753. At a proper age he was ordained, and for several years officiated as curate to his uncle, who had the living of Mitcham in Surrey. In 1768 he obtained the vicarage of South Mirnms, near Barnet, and resided in the vicarage house about two years, when, by the interest of John Dodd, esq. M. P. for Reading, lord Camden, then lord chancellor, presented him to the rectory of Tewkesbury. In conjunction with this, Mr. Evanson held the vicarage of Longton, a village in Worcestershire, about five miles from Tewkesbury, for which he exchanged that of South Mimms. While settled at Tewkesbury, he seems first to have inclined to those deviations from the opinions of his church, which by degrees led him much farther than he could find any to follow him, even among those who had hitherto been most distinguished for their hostility to orthodoxy. We are told that almost as soon as he began to entertain doubts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, he wrote a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, stating the rise of his first scruples, with the grounds of them, and requesting of his grace to favour him, by means of his secretary, with such information as might assist in removing those doubts, and enable him conscientiously to remain in his office as a minister of the Gospel, &c. At what precise time, or to what archbishop this letter was written, we have not been informed, but no answer was returned, or could indeed have been reasonably expected. Perhaps, however, it was about the same time that Mr. Evanson began to take such liberties in reading the Liturgy as suited his new opinions; and for this, and some of those opinions delivered in the pulpit, particularly in a sermon preached in 1771, on the doctrine of the resurrection, a prosecution was commenced against him, which, after a considerable expence incurred on both sides, on account of some irregularity in the proceedings of the prosecutors, ended in a nonsuit. Seven years after this Mr. Evanson published the sermon, with an affidavit to its literal authenticity. To this he appears to have been obliged by the publication, on the part of his opponents, of “A narrative of the origin and progress of the prosecution against the rev. Edward Evanson.” This last was followed by “A word at parting; being a few observations on a mutilated sermon, and an epistle dedicatory to the worthy inhabitants of Tewkesbury, lately published by Edward Evanson, M. A.: to which are added, the arguraents of counsel in the court of delegates touching Mr. Evanson’s prosecution.” Both these were published by the late Neast Havard, esq. town clerk of Tewkesbury, who had been principally active in instituting the prosecution. In favour of Mr. Evanson, however, we are told that it was only “a small party” who found fault with his doctrines, and that the principal inhabitants of Tewkesbury supported him by subscribing a very large sum to defray his expences. The inhabitants of Longdon were still more partial, for it is said that “they would willingly have kept him among them, permitting him to make, as he had been accustomed, any alterations in the church service that his own views of the subject might have dictated:” Mr. Evanson, however, does not appear to have set a very great value on a licence of this description, and acted a more fair and wise part in resigning both his livings. He then (in 3778) returned to Mitcham, and undertook the education of a few pupils, the father of one of whom, col. EvelynJames Stuart, settled an annuity upon him, which was regularly paid until his death.

His next attempt was to prove that we have no authority from scripture to keep the Sabbath holy, which appeared in some papers in the “Theological Repository,” vol. V. His arguments on this subject were answered by Dr. Priestley and others, but without producing any effect on the mind of the author, who collected the whole controversy, and published it in 1792, with an additional letter to Dr. Priestley. Yet, lest it should be thought that he was a man devoid of all religion, and one who rejected the worship of the Deity as of no account, we are told that he had worship in his family on the Sunday, making use of Dr. Clarke’s reformed Liturgy, but not so reformed as that he did not think it necessary to introduce some alterations of his own. He even did more. When he had visitors, he administered the Lord’s supper, which he considered as the sole Christian rite, and always to be administered when a number of the professors of the religion of Jesus met for social worship. He appears at this time to have taken a hint from the Theophilanthropists of France, and would have gladly assisted in forming a society of Christophilanthropists, “meeting, like the Christians of the second and third centuries, merely to hear the authentic scriptures read, and rationally explained; and to commemorate the death of our Lord and Master, according to the mode ordained by himself.”

What Mr. Evanson meant by the authentic scriptures, he explained very freely in a volume published in 1792, which amply justifies our classing him among the most determined enemies of revealed religion, nor are we ashamed to class ourselves among “the superficial readers” (if that epithet must be applied) who “on the appearance of this publication, concluded that the author himself was an unbeliever, and that he was taking this method to undermine the principles of Christianity.” This work was entitled “The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, and the evidence of their authenticity examined.” In this work the author undertakes to shew that a considerable part of the New Testament is a forgery, and has no claims whatever to the title of inspired writing. He therefore discards, as destitute of all authority, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John the Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and the Hebrews the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and in the Book of Revelation, the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia. His very moderate desires are satisfied with one Gospel, and part of the Epistles, and he maintains that St. Luke’s history implies that neither Matthew nor any other apostle could have published any history previously to his own. But even St. Luke’s gospel is not entirely to his taste, for in it, as well as in the Acts, he is persuaded that there are manifest interpolations. This strange performance involved him in a controversy with Dr. Priestley, although of no long duration, and brought, we are told, “a considerable share of obloquy and persecution from persons of all parties.” Two instances, however, are all that are specified of this persecution first, he was expelled from a book-club in Suffolk, for which there was no remedy and secondly, he was pestered by anonymous letters, from the expence of which the post-office relieved him; and what is of more importance, we are told that “notwithstanding the apparent liberties this gentleman took with the scriptures, no man living was a firmer believer in the divine mission of Christ”

Mr. Evanson’s work, in its superstructure, after having been effectually attacked by opponents in agreement with him upon other points, has been undermined in its foundation principles very recently, and with more consistency, by the rev. Thomas Falconer, A. M. of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in his course of Bampton lectures preached in 1810, and published in 1811. Mr. Evanson’s other publications are, “Reflections upon the State of Religion in Christendom, &c. at the commencement of the nineteenth century of the Christian sera,” 1802; and “Second Thoughts on the Trinity,” in a letter addressed to the bishop of Gloucester, 1805. Soon after this he was afflicted with a serious complaint, which was partly relieved by a surgical operation, but a paralytic attack following, proved fatal Sept. 25, 1805. His personal character is thus given by his biographer “Those who have watched his conduct through every period of his existence, bear witness to the strictest integrity, honour, and benevolence of his character. The relative duties of a son, a husband, and a brother, he performed with the greatest attention. From his neighbours, wherever he resided, he received the sincerest testimony of respect and esteem. His manners were highly conciliating and engaging, and by his particular friends no man was more beloved. In his death the needy have lost a friend that will not easily be replaced.”

, a king of the Arabs, is said to have lived in the first century, and to have applied himself with great industry to the study of medicine. Pliny mentions that he wrote a book “De simplicium effectibus,” which he dedicated to Nero. But it is proved, both by Salmasius and Hardouin, that this account is not found in the best manuscripts of Pliny for which reason the former delivers it as his opinion, that by an error of transcribers, from Cratevas, who in some copies is also named Cratevax, this Evax has arisen. A manuscript is still found in several libraries “On the properties and effects of precious stones,” which is attributed to a certain Evax but Salmasius has remarked, that this piece was first cited by Marbodee, a French poet of the eleventh century, and therefore spurious in regard to its pretended antiquity. It was published by Henry llantzovius at Leipsic in 1585, 4to. under the title “De Gemmis scriptum, olim a poeta quodam non infeliciter carmine redditum, et mine primuin in lucem editum.”

, an ingenious canon, and grand vicar of Angers, under Messrs. Fouquet, Miron, de Reuil, and Arnaud, was born at Angers in 1572, or 1582, and obtained his preferments in consequence of his superior knowledge of ecclesiastical laws and customs. He was the author of an excellent treatise “des Excommunications, et des Monitoires,” 1672, 4to, and other valuable works. Eveillon also wrote “De Processionibus Ecclesiasticis,” 8vo “De recta psallendi ratione,” 4 to, &c. So great was his charity to the poor, that he denied himself almost every convenience of life for their sakes. Being blamed one day for having no hangings to his room, he replied, “When I come into my house in winter, I do not hear the walls complain of cold; but the poor, who are shivering at my door, tell me they want clothing.” He died at Angers in 1651.

Mr. Evelyn was born at his father’s seat at Wotton, a few miles from Dorking, on Oct. 31, 1620, and was educated at the school of Lewes, under the care of his grandmother Stansfield, where he acknowledges in his own memoirs, that he was too much indulged, and did not make so good use of his time as he ought to have done but for this he made ample amends by his future diligence, and perhaps his neglect here appeared in a more unfavourable light to him in his advanced years than it deserved, for he was only ten when sent to this school. In April 1673 he was entered of the Middle Temple, though then at school; but in the following month, May 9, was admitted fellow commoner of Baliol college, Oxford, where his tutor was a Mr. Bradshaw (which he calls nomen invisum, alluding to serjeant Bradshaw, who presided on the trial of Charles I.) This Bradshaw was a relation of the regicide, and sou of the rector of Ockham. While at college, Mr. Evelyn informs us, that Nathaniel Canopius came thither out of Greece, being sent by the celebrated patriarch Cyrill, and had a pension from archbishop Laud. On the rebellion breaking out, Canopius returned to Constantinople, was made bishop of Smyrna, and, as Mr. Evelyn thinks, patriarch of Alexandria. Having already a turn, for objects of that kind, Mr. Evelyn records in this part of his diary, that Canopius was the first he ever saw or heard of, that drank coffee. Mr. Evelyn’s brother Richard was also -of Baliol college, but his brother George was of Trinity, where he is mentioned by Wood among the benefactors to that house.