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

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 writer of some reputation among the Quakers, was born at Crowell, near Thame, in Oxfordshire, in 1639, where he received such education as his father, a man in poor circumstances, could afford. In his twenty-first year, the preaching of one Edward Burroughs induced him to join the society of the friends, and soon after he became a writer and a preacher among them. His principal work was entitled “Sacred History, or the historical part of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament,” 2 vols. fol. He appears to have sometimes uffered imprisonment in the reign of Charles II. in common with other dissenters; but his confinement on these occasions was neither long nor severe. The only incident in his life worth noticing is his introduction to Milton, to whom he acted for some time as reader, and to whom he is said to have suggested the “Paradise Regained,” by asking him, “Thou hast said much here of Paradise lost; but what hast thou to say of Paradise found?” Ellwood died March 1, 1713. He was a man of considerable abilities, and by dint of study and attention made up for the deficiencies of his early education. His life, written by himself, is rather tedious, but affords many interesting particulars of the history of the sect.

, 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).

The dissenters claim sir Richard Ellys as belonging to their communion, and as having been a kind friend and patron to many of their clergy. We have alrendy noticed that he corresponded with, and was a liberal friend to Mr. Thomas Boston, (See Boston), whose “Tractatus Stigmatologicus” was dedicated to him, when published under the care of the learned David Mill, professor of oriental languages at Utrecht. It may now be added that he was a great admirer of Boston’s “Fourfold State,” and his “Covenant of Grace,” in the publication of which he assisted the author; of course his sentiments were Calvinistic, but they had not always been so. He was originally of Arminian principles, and by a letter in the appendix to Boston’s Life, we learn that he was induced to adopt other views from some conversations with an aged Jady, at whose opinions he used to laugh. This change took place about 1730, or perhaps somewhat sooner for in that year he appears to have been a decided Calvinist. He was first a member of Dr. Calamy’s congregation, and on his death in 1732 (whose funeral Sermon is dedicated to sir Richard, by the preacher Daniel Mayo), he joined Mr. Thomas Bradbury’s flock, and remained in communion with them until his death.

, 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.

, a learned commentator of the seventeenth century, was a native of Hamburgh, and acquired very considerable fame as a critic. He published, with notes, 1. “Arnobii disputationes adversus Gentes,” Hamburgh, 1610, fol. 2. “Gennadius de dogmatibus Ecclesise, ibid. 1614, 4to. 3. Sidonii Apollinaris Opera,” Hanover, 1617, 8vo. 4. “Cebetis tabula cum versione et uotis Jo. Caselii,” Leyden, 1618, 4to. 5. “Apuleii Platonic! Opera omnia,” Francfort, 1621, 8vo, and an edition in fol. of Minucius Felix. He died in 1621.

, a French physician and biographer, was born at Mons, Sept. 20, 1714, and was educated to the practice of physic, in which he acquired great reputation both for skill and humanity. He was a man of extensive learning, and notwithstanding the time he devoted to study, and that which was necessary in his practice, he found leisure to write several valuable works. His first, which was published in 1750, was a small treatise, entitled “Reflexions sur l'Usage du The.” His next publication was an attempt at a history of medicine, arranged in the form of a dictionary, and entitled “Essai du Dictionnaire Historique de la Medicine ancienne et moderne,” in two volumes octavo, which appeared in 1755: this work was afterwards greatly enlarged, by extending the different articles which it contained, and was published in 1778, in four volumes quarto, with the title of “Dictionnaire Historique de la. Medicine ancienne et moderne;” a work in many respects more useful than Haller’s Bibliotheca. Eloy likewise published, in 1755, a small volume, entitled “Cours elementaire des Accouchemens;” and, a few years previous to his death, viz. in 17 So and 1781, he committed to the press two other essays, the first of which was entitled “Memoire sur la marche, la nature, les causes, et le traitement de la Dysenteric” and the other, “Question Medico-politique si l'usage du cafe” est avantageux a la sante, et s’il peut se concilier avec le bien de Petat dans les Provinces Belgiques“As a slight reward for the patriotic zeal manifested in this tract, the estates of Hainault presented him with a superb snuffbox, with this inscription,” Ex Dono Patria?;" the Gift of his Country. He held the honourable office of physician, to prince Charles of Lorraine until his death, March 10, 1788.

, a miscellaneous writer and schoolmaster, was born at Edinburgh, Dec. 6, 1721, and was the son of the Rev. William Elphinston. He was educated at the high school of Edinburgh, and afterwards at the university, where, or soon after he left it, and when only in his seventeenth year, he was appointed tutor to lord Blantyre, a circumstance which seems to indicate that his erudition was extraordinary, or his place nominal. When of age he accompanied Carte, the historian, on a tour through Holland and Brabant, and to Paris, where he acquired such a knowledge of the French language as to be able to speak and write it with the greatest facility. On leaving France he returned to Scotland, and became private tutor to the son of James Moray, esq. of Abercairny, in Perthshire, and an inmate in the family. How long he remained here is uncertain, but in 1750 he was at Edinburgh, and superintended an edition of Dr. Johnson’s “Ramblers,” by the author’s permission, with a translation of the mottos, which was completed in 8 vols. 12 mo, beautifully printed, but imperfect, as being without the alterations and additions introduced in the subsequent editions by Dr. Johnson. In 1751 he married, and leaving Scotland, fixed his abode near London, first at Brompton, and afterwards at Kensington, where for many years he kept a school in a large and elegant house opposite to the royal gardens, and had considerable reputation; his scholars always retaining a very grateful sense of his skill as a teacher, and his kindness as a friend.

In 1753 he made a poetical version of the younger Racine’s poem of “Religion,” which we are told was approved by Young. About the same time he composed an English grammar for the use of his school, which he afterwards enlarged and published in 2 vols. 12mo. This is by far the most useful of his works, and perhaps the only one likely to live. The late Mr. John Walker, a very competent judge, always spoke highly of this work. In the year 1763, Mr. Elphinston published a poem called “Education” but his taste was ill-adapted to poetry, of which unfortunately he never could be persuaded and this erroneous estimate of his talents led him to translate Martial, for which he issued proposals about 1778, and was at least fortunate in the number of his subscribers. Previous to this he had, for what reason we are not told, given up his school, and in 1778 removed altogether from Kensington, where, in the same year, his wife died. He then visited Scotland, and while in that city there was a design started of establishing a professorship of modern languages in the university of Edinburgh, with a view that Mr, Elphinston should fill the chair; but although this never took place, he gave a course of lectures on the English language, both at Edinburgh and Glasgow.

After his return to London, he published his translation of Martial in 1782, in 4to, which exhibited most wonderful proofs of a total want of judgment, both in the translation and notes . In the latter he gives some specimens of his new mode of spelling, which he explained more at large in 1786, in a work entitled “Propriety ascertained in her picture,” 2 vols. 4to. In this he endeavoured to establish a system of spelling according to pronunciation, and although he stood entirely alone in his opinion of its Value, he persisted in his endeavours, and followed it up by “English Orthography epitomized,” and “Propriety’s Pocket Dictionary.” In 1794, he published in 6 vols. 12mo, a selection of his letters to his friends, with their answers, entirely spelt in his new way; the appearance of which was so unnatural, and the reading so difficult and tiresome, that by this, as well as his other works on the same subject, he must have been a considerable loser. As an author, indeed, Mr. Elphinston was peculiarly unfortunate, having scarcely published any thing in which he did not afford the critics many opportunities to exemplify his total want of taste and judgment. He died at Hammersmith at a very advanced age, Oct. 8, 1809. His personal character is thus given by his biographer: “After all, it is as a man and a Christian that he excelled; as a son, a brother, a husband, and a father to many, though, he never had children of his own, as a friend, an enlightened patriot, and a loyal subject. His `manners were simple, his rectitude undeviating.' In religion he embraced the state establishment to its full extent. His piety, though exemplary, was devoid of show; the sincerity of it was self-evident but, though unobtrusive, it became impatient on the least attempt at profaneness and an oath he could not endure. On such occasions he never failed boldly to correct the vice whencesoever it proceeded.” 1

, 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.

The distractions of the state being appeased, and tranquillity restored both at home and abroad, the bishop found leisure to attend to an object that he had long meditated, and which engrossed much of his thoughts. Religion and learning had been the chief pursuits of his life, and he wished to diffuse the happy influence of both over the north of Scotland. For this purpose he applied to the king to solicit the papal authority for the foundation of the university of Aberdeen, which was granted by a, bull from ope Alexander VI. dated Feb. 10, 1494. From this time the bishop bent all his attention to the completion of his design; and having requested the king to permit the college to be founded in his royal name, letters patent under the great seal were passed accordingly; and the college called King’s-college, in Old Aberdeen, was erected in 1506, in a very magnificent manner. It was endowed with great privileges, similar to those granted to the universities of Paris and Bononia. A doctor in theology was constituted principal of the college; doctors of the canon law, civil jurisprudence, and of medicine, were appointed for the cultivation of those sciences; a professor of humanity, orlitei‘t? humam’ores, to instruct the students in grammar and languages, and a sub-principal to institute them in philosophy. The plan of endowment made provision also, for the maintenance of twenty-seven students, a chanter, organist, &c. As this college k the only one that has ever been erected in this university, it possesses within itself the whole rights and privileges of an university, and the whole corporation is denominated the “University and King’s College of Aberdeen.”

Besides the erection and endowment of the college, bishop Klphinston left ample funds to build and to support a bridge over the river Dee, and the sum he bequeathed for these two objects was 10,000l. It is mentioned to his credit, that he never held any benefice in commendam, as was the case with most of the prelates of that time, but, from the revenne of the see alone, made such savings as enabled him to execute these great works-, which are so honourable to his memory. When not employed in the duties of his office, he devoted his leisure hours to writing the lives of the Scotish saints, which were occasionally read to the clergy of the diocese for their instruction in religion and practical improvement in life. It is not, however, perhaps much to be regretted that these compositions no longer exist. He also wrote the history of Scotland, from the rise of the nation to his own time, which is now preserved among Fairfax’s Mss in the Bodleian library.

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.

, a celebrated painter, born at Francfort upon the Maine in 1574, was a taylor’s son, and at first a disciple of Philip Uftenbach, a German: but an ardent desire of improvement carrying him to Rome, he soon became an excellent artist in landscapes, histories, and night-pieces. He was a person by nature inclined to melancholy, and through continued study and thoughtfulness so far settled in that unhappy temper, that, neglecting his domestic concerns, he contracted debts, and imprisonment followed; which struck such a damp upon his spirits, that though he was soon released, he d'ld not long survive it, but died about 1610. The Italians had a great esteem for him, and lamented the loss of him exceedingly. James Ernest Thomas, of Landaw, was his disciple; and his pictures are so like Elsheimer’s, that they are often taken the one for the other.

That which renders Elsheimer’s pictures so interesting is, the grandeur of style in which they are executed. Many of his figures partake so much of Raphael’s best manner of character, of action, and disposition of the draperies, that if they were magnified, they would appear to be of that great master’s own hand and they have superadded a colour which is of a superior class in the production of which, indeed, the smallness of their size was of considerable assistance to him; for it is by no means so easy to extend a full body of colour over a large surface, with equally pleasing variety of tone, and freedom of execution and in it to separate and form the distinct parts as in a smaller one and though it requires more neatness in the execution of the latter, it does not demand so free and so ready a hand to unite, to blend, and soften the various parts, and to give expression its full force, as in the former. His pictures exhibit great attention to nature particularly his perspective is very perfect, in lines, at least and he not unfrequently chose very difficult things to manage: such as working with a short perspective distance, and sometimes placing his figures on the top of a hill, and suddenly losing the ground, till it is recovered again in a deep valley. His landscapes have, in general, the air of real views, and are finished with wonderful attention to general form, and beautiful scenery. Their colour is not always exactly that of nature, but as seen under a peculiar illumination, like the tone which Titian has adopted in his St. Peter Martyr; giving it an air of grandeur not to be obtained, perhaps, by the brighter hues of nature.

From the extreme care and excellence with which his works are finished, they were not, of course, in his short life, very numerous; and are rarely to be met with. While he was alive, his pictures bore an excessive high price, which was amazingly enhanced after his death: and Houbraken mentions one of them, representing Pomona, which was sold for eight hundred German florins. Sandrart describes a great number of his capital performances; among which are, Tobit and the angel, now at lord Egremont’s Latona and her sons, with the Peasants turned into Frogs the death of Procris and his most capital picture of the flight into Egypt, which needs no description, as there is a print of it extant, engraved by Gaud, the friend and benefactor of Elsheimer. Some of his works were in the collection of the grand duke of Tuscany. The richest collection of them in this country is at the earl of Egremont’s, at Petworth, in Sussex. There are ten pictures by him, eight of which are of one size, viz. about four inches high, by two and a half wide, or perhaps a little more. The subjects are, a St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John Baptist, Tobit and the angel with a fish, an old woman and a girl, an old man with a boy, and a capuchin friar, with a model of a convent in his hand. The figures in all these are about three inches high, yet their characters and expressions are just and excellent; and the drawing of their figures, and the draperies, in the best style of art. Another picture represents the interior of a brothel by fire and candle light, in which there are ten or more figures gaming, and indulging in the licentiousness of such a place, all exquisitely wrought; with some expressions that have never been surpassed, although the figures are not more than two inches and a half high. The last is “Nicodemus’s visit to Christ;” but it is not of so good a quality as the others.

, 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.

Had sir Thomas Elyot written only his book called “The Governor,” it would have entitled him to the respect of posterity as one of the best writers of his time, a man of acute observation, and of manly and liberal sentiments. The days of Henry VIII. were not very favourable to such, as the capricious will of Henry VI It. interfered so frequently with the progress of right thinking; but sir Thomas on some occasions was not afrai<$ to avour feis sentiments. In 1535, a proclamation was issued for calling in seditious hooks; under which description were reckoned, and chiefly intended, such writings as favoured the hishop of Rome. Upon this occasion sir Thomag Cromwell directed letters to several persons, ordering them to send in all publications of the nature designed to be condemned. Among others, he wrote to sir Thomas Elyot, whom, though an old friend of his own, he suspected, from his having been intimate with sir Thomas More, to be attached to the Romish religion. In answer, Elyot declared his judgment of the need of a reformation of the clergy, and disclaimed all undue connection with papists. As to any of the prohibited books he might chance to have by him, and which were very few, he was ready to deliver them up. Part of the language which he uses is as foilows: “Sir, As ye know, I have been ever desirous to read many books, especially concerning humanity and moral philosophy. And, therefore, of such studies I have a competent number. But, concerning the Scripture I have very few. For in Questionists I never delighted. Unsavory glosses and comments I ever abhorred. The boasters and advancers of the pompous authority of the bishop of Rome I never esteemed. But, after that, by a judgment, or estimation of things, I did anon smell out their corrupt affection, and beheld with scornful eyes the sundry abusions of their authorities, adorned with a licentious and dissolute form of living. Of the which, as well in them as in the universal state of the clergy, I have oftentimes wished a necessary reformation.”

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.”

On the whole, sir Thomas Elyot was both one of the most learned, and one of the wisest men of his time. Having in the earlier part of his life served his king and country in embassies and public affairs, he devoted his latter years to the writing of such discourses as he hoped would be serviceable in promoting true wisdom and virtue. From his youth he had a great desire after knowledge, and an earnest solicitude to be useful to his countrymen. The books which he most diligently perused, and which he eagerly sought after wherever they could be found, were all the ancient works, whether in Greek or Latin, that treated of moral philosophy, and the right institution of Jife. Strype has produced some examples of the wisdom of our knight in those weighty sentences which often came from his pen.

, 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."

The following is a list of Mr. Emerson’s works: 1. “The Doctrine of Fluxions,” 8vo. about 1743. 2. “The Projection of the Sphere, orthographic, stereograph ic, and gnomonical; both demonstrating the principles, and explaining the practice of these several sorts of projections,” 1749, 8vo. 3. “The elements of Trigonometry,” 1749, 8vo. 4. “The principles of Mechanics,” 1754, 8vo. 5. Navigation, or the art of sailing upon the sea, 1755, 12mo. 6. “A treatise of Algebra, in two books,” 1765, 8vo. 7. “The arithmetic of infinites, and the differential method, illustrated by examples. The elements of the conic sections, demonstrated in three books,” 1767, 8vo. 8. “Mechanics, or the doctrine of motion,” &c. 1769, 8vo. 9. “The elements of Optics, in four books,” 1768, 8vo. Jo. “A system of Astronomy; containing the investigation and demonstration of the elements of that science, 1769, 8vo. 11.” The laws of centripetal and centrifugal force,“1769, 8vo. 12.” The mathematical principles of Geography,“1770, 8vo. 13.” Tracts,“1770, 8vo. 14.” Cyclomathcsis; or an easy introduction to the several branches of the Mathematics,“1770, 10 vols. 8vo. 15.” A short comment on sir Isaac Newton’s Principia, containing notes upon some difficult places of that excellent book. To which is added, a Defence of sir Isaac against the objections that have been made to several parts of the Principia and Optics, by Leibnitz, Bernoulli, Euler, &c. and a Confutation of the objections made by Drs. Rutherford and Bedford against his Chronology,“1770, 8vo. 16.” Miscellanies or, a miscellaneous treatise, containing several mathematical subjects," 1776, 8vo. These are all good treatises, although the style and manner of some of them is rough and unpolished. But Emerson was not remarkable for genius, or discoveries of his own, as his works show hardly any traces of original invention.

, 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.

Emmius died at Groningen, Dec. 9, 1625, leaving a family behind him; for he had been twice married. Til the last years of his life he composed the three volumes o his “Vetus Grsecia illustrata,” or ancient Greece illustrated the first of which contains a geographical description of Greece the second, the history of it; the third, the particular form of government in every state. This work was committed to the press in his life-time; bur, through the delays of the printers, not published till after his death, in 1626, 3 vols. 8vo. He had published several considerable works before this; as, his “Opus Chronologicum novum,” Groningen, 1619, fol. and some genealogical works, which contain the history of Rome and an universal history, written in a very elaborate method his “Decades rerum Frisicarum,” in which we do not find him unreasonably prepossessed in favour of his native country: on the contrary, he confuted vigorously the idle tales related by the historians of Friesland, concerning the antiquities of their nation; and this love of truth raised him a great many enemies. This work was printed at Leyden, 16 1C, fol. an edition of great rarity. He wrote also a History of William Lewis count of Nassau, governor of Friesland; in which we meet, not only with a panegyric on that prince, but also a short history of thf United Provinces, from 1577 to 1614. This was printed at Groningen, 1621, 4to. He had theological controversies with Daniel Hoffman, and wrote an abridgment of the life and errors of David George, the enthusiast, in German, and not in Latin, as Clement has proved in his Bibl. Curieuse. When he died, he was about composing the history of Philip of Macedon; in order to shew the United Provinces by what fraudulent and indirect means Philip had oppressed the liberty of Greece, and had already carried this history to the 15th year of Philip’s reign.

, 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.

, an opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, was a native of the circle of Suabia, a licentiate of the canon law, professor at Leipsic, and secretary and counsellor to George duke of Saxony. When Luther’s translation of the Bible appeared, it was very generally read in Germany, and contributed much to advance the reformation. An antidote was therefore necessary, and Emser was fixed upon as the best qualified to furnish it. This he first attempted by publishing some notes on Luther’s New Testament, and afterwards, encouraged by the duke and two popish bishops, produced what Le called “A correct translation” of the New Testament into German, which was in fact little more than a transcript of Luther’s labours, with some alterations in favour of the peculiar tenets of the Romish church; yet the duke George had such an opinion of this formidable translation, and of the mischief it would do to the reformed, that as soon as it was ready to appear (1527), he issued a proclamation in which he treated Luther and his disciples with the most virulent language. Emser also entered into controversy with Luther, on the mass and other subjects which then formed the basis of the disputes between the popish adherents and the reformed. He died suddenly Nov. 8, 1527, and his works soon after him, which, indeed, had never been held in high repute, nor did Luther ever condescend to answer him.

, 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.

, a celebrated painter, was born in 1468, in the town of Leyden, and took for his guide the works of Johu van Eyck. He was the first that painted in oil in his country; was a good draftsman, and executed with no less vigour than dispatch both in water-colours and in oil. His works, which escaped the disturbances that ravaged the country, being preserved with respect, by the citizens in the town-house of Leyden, were two altar-pictures, with the side-pieces, since put up in the church of Notre-dame du Marais; one representing Christ on the Cross between the Thieves, the other Abraham’s Sacrifice, and another, a Descent from the Cross. In the same place is preserved a cartoon in water-colours, representing the adoration of the kings. Lucas van Leyden formed himself on his manner. But the principal work of Enghelbrechtsen, according to his biographer Van Marnier, is a picture designed to enrich the tombs of the barons of Lockhorst. It was in their chapel in the church of St. Peter of Leyden, and in 1604 was conveyed to Utrecht, to M. van den Bogaert, son-in-law of M. van Lockhorst. The main subject represents the lamb of the Apocalypse: a multitude of figures, well disposed, the physiognomies noble and graceful, and the delicate style of his pencil render this picture the admiration of all that see it. His genius led him to make a particular study of the emotions of the soul, which he had the art. of expressing in every physiognomy. He was considered by the masters his contemporaries as one of the greatest painters of his age. He died at Leyden in 1533, in the sixty-fifth year of his age.

, 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.

, a French woman by extraction, was eminent for her fine writing in the time of queen Elizabeth and James I. Many of her performances are still extant both in our libraries and private hands; particularly one in the Harcourt family, entitled “Histories memorabiles Genesis per Esteram Inglis Gallam,” Edenburgi, ann. 1600. It appears by Hearne’s spicilegium to Gul. Neubrigensis, vol. III. p. 751, 752, that she was the most exquisite scribe of her age. A curious piece of her performance was in the possession of Mr. Cripps, surgeon in Budge- row, London, entitled “Octonaries upon the vanitie and inconstancie of the world. Writin by Ester Inglis. The firste of Januarie, 1600.” It is done, on an oblong 8vo, in French and English verse; the French is all in print hand, and the English mostly Italian or secretary, and is curiously ornamented with flowers and fruits painted in water-colours, and on the first leaf is her own picture, in a small form, with this motto,

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 very ingenious physician, was born at Sandwich in Kent, Nov. 6, 1604; and, after regularly going through a course of classical instruction, was sent to Sidney college in Cambridge. He afterwards travelled on the continent, and received the degree of doctor of physic at Padua. After his return home, he became eminent for his practice, during the times of the usurpation, was chosen fellow, and afterwards president, of the college of physicians; and at length had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him by Charles II. He died at London, Oct. 13, 1689, and was buried in the church of St. Laurence Jewry. He was intimate with the celebrated Harvey, whom he learnedly defended in a piece entitled “Apologia pro Circulatione Sanguinis contra Æmilium Parisanum, 1641,” in 8vo. He also travelled to Italy in company with Harvey in 1649; and in 1651 he prevailed with him to consent to the publication of his “Exercitationes de generatione animalium;” which he himself superintended, and presented to the president and fellows of the college of physicians in a sensible and elegant dedication. Aubrey says he translated the whole into Latin. He published also, “Animadversiones in Malachiae Thrustoni, M. D. diatribam de respirationis usu primario, 1679,” 8v6; before which, says Wood, is his picture in a long peruke. In the Philosophical Transactions, number 14, ann. 1691, are sir George Ent’s “Observationes ponderis testudinis, cum in autumno terram subiret, cum ejusdem ex terra verno tempore exeuntis pondere comparati, per plures annos repetitae.” Wood thinks that sir George was the author of more things: but they had not come to his knowledge. His whole works were, however, published at Leyden in 1687, 8vo.

, 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 celebrated Latin poet of Hesse, tras born January 6, 1488, under a tree in the fields, and therefore probably of very obscure parents. He became, however, so famous by his poems, as to be called the German Homer. He taught the belles lettres at Herfort and Nuremberg, then at Marpurg, where the landgrave of Hesse loaded him with favours. Eobanus was given to his country vice of excessive drinking, in which he prided himself. He died October 5, 1540, at Marpurg. He translated Theocritus into Latin verse, Basil, 1531, 8vo, and Homer’s Iliad, Basil, 1540, 8vo, &c. His “Eclogues,” Haloe, 1539, 8vo, and “De tuenda bona Valetudine,” Erancforr, 1564, 8vo, are particularly admired. His style is natural, easy, clear, and correct; nor had' Germany, at that time, produced much that was superior. His life was written by Joachim Camerarius, Nuremb. 1553, 8vo.

, 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.

, a Greek orator and historian, a native of Cuma or Cyme in Æolia, flourished about the year 352 B. C. He was a disciple of Socrates, at whose instigation, he wrote history; which he commenced after the fabulous periods, with the return of the Heraclidae into Peloponnesus, and brought down to the twentieth year of Philip of Macedon. This work, which was-divided into 30 books, was held in estimation by the ancients, and is frequently cited by Strabo and other writers; though the historian is charged with errors and misrepresentations, and plagiarisms. Besides the history, the loss of which is regretted, Ephorus wrote several other books on moral, geographical, and rhetorical subjects, none of which are extant but some “Fragmenta” are published with Scylax, Or. and Lat. Leyden, 1697, 4to.

, 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.

, one of the most celebrated philosophers of antiquity, the real merit of whose system, however, still remains doubtful, was an Athenian of the Egean tribe, and born at Gargettus, in the vicinity of Athens, at the beginning of the third year of the 109th oh mpiad, or B. C. 344. His father Neocles, and his mother Chaerestrata, were of honourable descent, but being reduced to poverty, they were sent with a colony of 2000 Athenian citizens, to the island of Samos, which Pericles had subdued, to divide the lands among them by lot; but wljat fell to their share not proving sufficient lor their subsistence, Neocles took up the profession of a schoolmaster. Epicurus remained at Samos till he was eighteen years of age, when he removed to Athens, which the tyranny of Perdiccas soon made him leave; but after passing one year at Mitylene, and four at Lampsacus, he returned to Athens. From his fourteenth to his thirty-sixth year, he studied under the various philosophers of his day, and therefore when we read in Cicero that he boasted he was a selftaught philosopher, we are to understand only that his system of philosophy was the result of his own reflections, after comparing the doctrines of other sects. About th thirty-second year of his age he opened a school at Mitylene, which he soon removed to Lampsacus, where he had disciples from Colophon, but not satisfied with this obscure situation, he determined to make his appearance on the more public theatre of Athens. Finding, however, the public places in the city proper for this purpose, already occupied by other sects, he purchased a pleasant garden, where he took up his constant residence, and taught his system of philosophy; and hence the Epicureans were called the Philosophers of the Garden. Besides this garden, Epicurus had a house in Melite, a village of the Cecropian tribe, to which he frequently retreated with his friends. From this time to his death, notwithstanding all the disturbances of the state, Epicurus never left Athens, unless in two or three excursions into Ionia to visit his friends. During the siege of Athens by Demetrius, which happened when Epicurus was forty -four years of age, while the city was severely [harassed by famine, Epicurus is said to have supported himself and his friends on a small quantity of beans, which he shared equally with them.

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.

If it be asked, says Brucker, whence it happened, that a character, so eminently distinguished by simplicity and purity as that of Epicurus appears to have been, was loaded with so many calumnies, he answers, the circumstances of the times in which he lived will sufficiently account for the fact. Zeno, and the stoic sect, began to flourish about the same time with Epicurus and his school, that is, about the hundred and twentieth olympiad; although the latter is of somewhat later date than the former. The father of the Stoics was of a temper naturally severe and gloomy and his character was, under Antisthenes, formed upon the plan of the cynic school so that, both by disposition and education, he was inclined to carry his moral system beyond the limits of nature, and framed to himself a fanciful image of a wise man, which could have no archetype in real life. After pillaging the schools of other philosophers, in order to compose, from the plundered mass, a system of his own, thut he uiight give it an air of novelty, he introduced new terms, or affixed new significations and definitions to the old; whence arose dogmas, which had indeed little originality, but which under, a paradoxical form carried the appearance of profound wisdom. By these means, together with the external aid of uncommon gravity in language, dress, and demeanour, Zeno and his followers obtained such high reputation among the Athenians, that they were the only persons deemed worthy of the name of philosophers. The temper of Epicurus, and the character under which he chose to appear, was the reverse of all this. In his natural disposition lively and cheerful, and accustomed, from his infancy, to mix in society with men of all descriptions, he had acquired a captivating facility "of address, and urbanity of manners. Nothing could be more contrary to his disposition and habitude, than the artificial reserve, and hypocritical affectation of the stoics. His aversion to unnatural austerity, and artificial grimace, induced him to open his garden in direct opposition to the Porch. Observing that all the Athenians were at this time immersed either in pleasures or in ideal and useless disputes, he attempted to lead them to such an employment of their rational faculties as would be conducive to the true enjoyment of life; and for this purpose introduced among them a system of philosophy, the professed object of which was, to enable men to preserve themselves from pain, grief, and sorrow of every kind, and to secure to themselves the uninterrupted possession of tranquillity and happiness. This great end he assured himself would be effected, if, by taking off the forbidding mask with which the Stoics had concealed the fair face of virtue, he could persuade men to embrace her as the only guide to a happy life. At the same time Epicurus was convinced, that the subtlety of disputation would contribute little towards the accomplishment of his design; and therefore endeavoured to divert the public taste from these trifling occupations, and to put an end to the verbal contests of the academics, dialectics, and stoics, by instituting a school, in which greater caution than had hitherto been customary should be exercised in the assumption of principles, and in the use of terms. The natural consequence of this was a crowded school to Epicurus, and jealousy and envy among his contemporaries. The stoics, above all others, in opposition to whom he had erected his school, would be disposed to employ detraction and calumny against so powerful an opponent.

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.

Notwithstanding the violent opposition which Epicurus met with from the stoics, he had many friends and followers during his life; and after his death a degree of respect was paid to his memory, which fell little short of idolatry. His three brothers, Neocles, Cheredemus, and Aristobulus, devoted themselves to the study of philosophy, and were supported by his liberality. Of his intimate friends the most celebrated were, Metrodorus, Polyaenus, and Hermacnus. After the death of Epicurus, his followers celebrated his birth-day as a festival. They preserved his image on their rings or cups, or in pictures, which they either carried about their persons, or hung up in their chambers; and so great was their reverence for his authority, and their regard to his dying advice, that they com-p mitted his maxims, and some of them the whole body of Lis instructions, to memory. For several ages they adhered with wonderful unanimity to his system, yielding as implicit submission to his decisions, as the Athenians or Spartans ever yielded to the laws of Solon or Lycurgus, They carried this point so far, that it was deemed a kind of impiety to innovate upon his doctrine; so that the Epicureans formed a philosophical republic, regulated by one judgment, and animated by one soul.

, 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.

, named the Scholastic, a native of Italy, and an eminent Greek and Latin scholar, was born about the year 510. At the request of Cassiodorus he translated into the Latin language the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodcret, a version more entitled to commendation for its fidelity than its elegance. Cassiodorus was also indebted to Epiphanius for the improved version of the “Codex encyclicus,” or collection of synodal letters of the year 458, addressed to the emperor Leo, in defence of the council of Chalcedon. His histories of Socrates were first printed at Angsburgh, 1472, fol. and were often reprinted afterwards at Basil and Paris, 1523, 1528, 1533, &c. &c.

, 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 celebrated lawyer, was born at Roorda, in Friesland, in 1529. He studied at Cologne and Louvain, and made such rapid progress in the acquisition of the learned languages, that at the age of twenty he gave public lectures on Homer. He afterwards taught, not only at Louvain but at Paris, jurisprudence, the belles lettres, and theology, and afterwards went to Geneva with a view to inquire if the religious principles of Calvin were worthy of the reputation they had gained. Not satisfied, however, with them, -tie returned to the church of Rome in which he had been educated, and confining his studies to the civil and canon law, took the degree of doctor in. 1561, at Toulouse, where he had studied under Berenger Ferdinand, one of the most learned lawyers of his time. He then returned to Louvain, where he lectured until he was chosen one of the professors of the new university of Douay, an office which he held for twenty-seven years, He died Nov. 16, 1599. He wrote a great many works on law, ecclesiastical history, &c. among which are, 1. “Juliani Archiepiscopi Prognosticon, sive de futuro seculo, libri tres,” 1564, 8vo. 2. “Antiquitatum Ecclesiasticarum Syntagmata,” 1578, 8vo. 3, “Heroicarum et Ecclesiasticarum Q.uestionum libri sex.” 4. “De Jure sacro, vel principiorum Juris pontificii, libri tres,” 1588, 3 vols. 8vo. In 1711 a new edition of his works was begun to be published at Brussels, but we have not discovered whether it was completed.

, 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.

When Erasmus was sent to Daventer, his mother went to live there; for she was very tender of him, and wished to be near him, that she might see and take care of him. She died of the plague there about four years after; and Gerard was so afflicted with the loss of her, that he survived her but a short time. It does not appear that either of them much exceeded the fortieth year of their age; and they both left behind them very good characters. Gerard is said to have possessed a great share of that gaietjr, wit, and humour, which afterwards shone forth with so much lustre in Erasmus; and Margaret might, as Bayle observes, have said with Dido, in Virgil,

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.”

He left England the latter end of 1497, and went to Paris; whence, on account of the plague, he immediately passed on to Orleans, where he spent three months. He was very ill, while there, of a fever, which he had had every Lent for five years together; but he tells us, that St. Genevieve interceded for his recovery, and obtained it, though not without the assistance of a good physician. About April 1498 he had finished his “Adagia.” He applied himself all the while intensely to the study of the Greek tongue; and he says that, as soon as he could get any money, he would first buy Greek books, and then clothes: “Statimque ut pecuniam accepero, Graecos primum auctores, delude vestes, emam.” At this time he began to experience some of the vicissitudes of patronage, and both the marchioness of Vere and the bishop of Cambray seem to have relaxed from their liberality. The marchioness, though she entertained him very politely, yet gave him little more than civil words, and squandered her money upon the monks: and the bishop soon after quarrelled with him, upon pretence that he had spoken slightly of his kindnesses.

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.

He had now spent three years in close application to the Greek tongue, which -he looked upon as so necessary, that he could not fancy himself a tolerable divine without it. Having rather neglected it when he was young, he after wards studied it at Oxford, under Grocyn and Linacer, but did not stay long enough there to reap any considerable benefit from their assistance; so that, though he attained a perfect knowledge of it, it was in a great measure owing to his own application; and he might truly be called, in respect to Greek, what indeed he calls himself, “prorsus autodidactus;” altogether self-taught. His way of acquiring this language was by translating; and hence it is that we come to have in his works such a number of pieces translated from Lucian, Plutarch, and others. These translations likewise furnished him with opportunities of writing dedications to his patrons. Thus he dedicated to our king Henry VIII. a piece of Plutarch, entitled “How to distinguish a friend from a flatterer;” a dialogue of Lucian, called “Somnium, sive Gallus,” to Dr. Christopher Ursewick, an eminent scholar and statesman; the Hecuba of Euripides, to Warham, archhishop of Canterbury, which he presented to him at Lambeth, after he had been introduced by his friend Grocyn; another dialogue of Lucian, called “Toxaris, sive de arnicitia,” to Dr. Richard Fox, bishop of Winchester; and a great number of other pieces from different authors to as many different patrons, both in England and upon the continent. The example which Erasmus had set in studying the Greek tongue was eagerly and successfully followed; and he had the pleasure of seeing in a very short time Grecian learning cultivated by the greater part of Europe.

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.”

He was invited down to Cambridge by Fisher, bishop of Rochester, chancellor of the university, and head of Queen’s college, accommodated by him in his own lodge, and promoted by his means to the lady Margaret’s professorship in divinity, and afterwards to the Greek professor’s chair but how long he held these places we know not and his necessities were still very scantily supplied. In a letter to Colet, dean of St. Paul’s, he earnestly importunes him for fifteen angels, which he had promised him long ago, on condition that he would dedicate to him his book “De copia verborum;” which, however, was not published till the following year, 1512. It has indeed been alleged, in excuse for this apparent neglect of a man of so much merit, that Erasmus was of a very rambling disposition, and hardly staid long enough in a place to rise regularly to preferment; and that though he received frequent and considerable presents from his friends and patrons, yet he was forced to live expensively because of his bad health. Thus he had a horse to maintain, and probably a servant to take care of him: he was obliged to drink wine because malt liquor gave him fits of the gravel. Add to this, that, though a very able and learned man, yet, like many others of his order, he was by no means versed in ceconomics.

In 1513, he wrote from London a. very elegant letter to the abbot of St. Berlin, against the rage of going to war, which then possessed the English and the French. He has often treated this subject, and always with that vivacity, eloquence, and strength of reason, with which he treated every subject as in his Adagia, under the proverb “Dulce Bellum inexpertis” in his book entitled “Querela Pads,” and in his “Instruction of a Christian Prince.” But his remonstrances had small effect, and the emperor Charles V. to whom the last-mentioned treatise was dedicated, persisted in his belligerent plans. Erasmus was so singular in his opinions on this subject, that bethought it hardly lawful for a Christian to go to war; and in this respect, as Jortin observes, was almost a quaker.

In the beginning of 1514 Erasmus was in Flanders. His friend Montjoy was then governor of Ham, in Picardy, where he passed some days, and then went to Germany. While he was here, he seems to have written “The Abridgment of his Life,” in which he says, that he would have spent the rest of his days in England if the promises made to him had been performed; but, being invited to come to Brabant, to the tourt of Charles archduke of Austria, he accepted the offer, and was made counsellor to that prince. Afterwards he went to Basil, where he carried his New Testament, his Epistles of St. Jerome, with notes, and some other works, to print them in that city. At this time he contracted an acquaintance with several learned men, as Beatus Rhenanus, Gerbelius, CEcolampadius, Amberbach, and also with the celebrated printer John Frobenius, for whom he ever after professed the utmost esteem. He returned to the Low Countries, and there was nominated by Charles of Austria to a vacant bishopric- in Sicily; but the right of patronage happened to belong to the pope. Erasmus laughed when he heard of this preferment, and certainly was very unfit for such a station; though the Sicilians, being, as he says, merry fellows, might possibly have liked such a bishop. He would not settle at Louvain for many reasons,' particularly because of the divines there, for whom he had much contempt.

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 VI. having succeeded Leo in the see of Rome, Erasmus dedicated to him an edition of a Commentary of Arnobius upon the Psalms; and added to it an epistle, in which he congratulates this new pope, and entreats him not to pay any regard to the calumnies spread against his humble servant, without first giving him a hearing. Adrian returned him an elegant and artful letter of thanks, exhorting him strongly to write against Luther, and inviting him to Rome. Erasmus wrote a second time, and offered to communicate to Adrian his opinion upon the fittest methods to suppress Lutheranism; for he entertained some hopes that his old friend and school-fellow might possibly do some good. Adrian sent him word that he should be glad to have his opinion upon this affair; and invited him a second time to Rome. Erasmus excused himself from the journey, on account of his bad health, and other impediments; but certainly did not repose such confidence in Adrian, as to trust himself in his hands. He tells his holiness, that he had neither the talents nor the authority requisite for answering Luther with any prospect of success. He then proceeded to the advice he had promised: and, 1. He disapproves of all violent and cruel methods, and wishes that some condescension were shewed to the Lutherans. 2. He thinks that the causes of the evil should be investigated, and suitable remedies applied; that an amnesty should ensue, and a general pardon of all that was past; and that then the princes and magistrates should take care to prevent innovations for the future. 3. He thinks it needful to restrain the liberty of the press. 4. He would have the pope to give the world hopes, that some faults should be amended, which could be no longer justified. 5. He would have him assemble persons of integrity and abilities, and of all nations. Here Erasmus breaks off in the middle of a sentence, intending to say more at another time, if the pope were willing to hear it. But he had already said too much. Adrian utterly disliked his advice and Erasmus’s enemies took this opportunity of plotting his ruin but the death of the pope soon after, put a stop to their contrivances. Yet as the monks reported in all places that Erasmus was a Lutheran, he took much pains by his letters to undeceive the public, and satisfy his friends. With this view he wrote, in 1523, to Henry VIII. and to the pope’s legate in England. Cuthbert Tonstall sent him a letter, and exhorted him to answer Luther; and, unable any longer to withstand the importunate solicitations of the Romanists, he sent word to the king that he was drawing up a piece against Luther. This was his “Diatribe cle libero arbitrio,” which was published the following year. But this gave no satisfaction at all to the Romanists; and, although he could have proved Luther erroneous in his notion of free-will, this had nothing to do with the dispute between Luther and the pope, and the Romanists therefore thought themselves Tery little obliged to him.

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 1524, Luther, upon a rumour probably that Erasmus was going to write against him, sent him a letter, full of fire and spirit; which gives so just an idea of both Luther and Erasmus, that we think ourselves obliged to present the reader with part of it. He begins in the apostolical manner: “Grace and peace to you from the Lord Jesus. I shall not complain of you for having behaved yourself as a man alienated from us, for the sake of keeping fair with the papists, our enemies; nor was I much offended, that, in your printed books, to gain their favour, or to soften their fury, you censured us with too much acrimony. We 8aw that the Lord had not conferred upon you the discernment^ the courage, and the resolution, to join with us in freely and openly opposing those monsters; and therefore we durst not exact from you what greatly surpasseth your strength and your capacity. We have even borne with your weakness, and honoured that portion of the gift of God which is in you.” Then, having bestowed upon him his due praises, as a reviver of good literature, by means of which the holy scriptures had been read and examined in the originals, he proceeds thus: “I never wished, that, deserting your own province, you should come over to our camp. You might, indeed, have favoured us not a little by your wit and eloquence; but, forasmuch as you have not the courage which is requisite, it is safer for you to serve the Lord in your own way. Only we feared, that our adversaries should entice you to write against us, and that necessity should then constrain us to oppose you to your face. I am concerned, as well as you, that the resentment of so many eminent persons of your party, hath been excited against you. I must suppose that this gives you no small uneasiness: for virtue like yours, mere human virtue, cannot raise a man above being affected by such trials. I could wish, if it were possible, to act the part of a mediator between you, that they might cease to attack you with such animosity, and suffer your old age to rest in peace in the Lord: and thus they would act, if they either considered your weakness, or the greatness of the cause in dispute, which hath been long since beyond your talents. They would shew their moderation towards you so much the more, since our affairs are advanced to such a point, that our cause is in no peril, though even Erasmus should attack it with all his might: so far are we from dreading the keenest strokes of his wit. On the other hand, my dear Erasmus, if you duly reflect upon yor own imbecility, you will abstain from those sharp and spiteful figures of rhetoric; and, if you cannot defend your sentiments, will treat of subjects which suit you better. Our friends, as you yourself will allow, have reason to be uneasy at being lashed by you, because human infirmity thinks of the authority and reputation of Erasmus, and fears it: and indeed there is much difference between him and other papists, he being a more formidable adversary than all of them put together.” This letter vexed Erasmus not a little, as may easily be imagined, and he wrote an answer to it; but the answer is not in the collection of his epistles.

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.

In April 1529 Erasmus departed from Basil, where he had now lived many years, but where he thought himself no longer safe; and went to Friburg, where at first he had apartments belonging to the king, but afterwards bought a house. Here, in 1531, he had a sight of the first oration of Julius Scaliger against his “Ciceronianus;” all the copies of which, or at least as many as he could, Erasmus is said to have collected and destroyed. “There is something,” says Dr. Jortin, “ridiculously diverting in the pompous exclamations and tragical complaints of Scaliger. One would imagine at least, that Erasmus had called Cicero fool, or knave: and yet all his crime was, to have besprinkled the servile imitators of Cicero with a little harmless banter.” After the first oration, Scaliger composed a second more scurrilous if possible than the first: but it was not published till after Erasmus’s death, in 1537. Some of Scaliger’s friends were much displeased at the scandalous manner in which he had treated Erasmus, and desired him to give over the contention. He declared himself, therefore, though in a proud and awkward manner, willing to be reconciled: and, to do him justice, he was at last sorry for his rudeness to Erasmus, and wrote a copy of verses in his praise, when he heard that he was dead.

Erasmus now began to complain to his friends, and to represent himself as quite worn down with age, pain, and sickness; and in 1535 he returned to Basil, to try if he could recover his health, where he continued ever after. This year Bembus congratulates him upon the high regard which the pope had for him; and hopes that it would end in great preferment, by which he probably meant a cardinal’s hat. The enemies of Erasmus have affirmed, that the court of Rome never designed him such a favour; but Erasmus has affirmed the contrary, and says, “that having written to Paul III. that pope, before he had unsealed his letter, spoke of him in the most honourable manner: that he had resolved to add to the college of cardinals some learned men, of whom he might make use in the general council, which was to be called and I,” says Erasmus, “was named to be one. But to my promotion it was objected, that my bad state of health would make me unfit for that function, and that my income was not sufficient so at present they think of loading me with preferments, that I may be qualified for the red hat.” He declares, however, that his health would not permit him to accept such favours, since he could scarce stir out of his chamber with safety; and he refused every thing that was offered him.

He had been ill at Friburg, and continued so at Basil. In the summer of 1536 he grew worse; and the last letter which we have of his writing is dated June the 20th of that year. He subscribes it thus, “Erasmus Rot. aegra manu.” He was for almost a month ill of a dysentery; and he knew that his disease would prove mortal. He had foreseen for several months, that he could not hold out long; and he foretold it again three days, and then two days, before his death. He died July 12, in the sixty-ninth year of his age; and was buried in the cathedral church of Basil, where his tomb is to be seen, with a Latin inscription on the marble, of which a copy it inserted in the first volume of his works. He had made his will in February, in which he left handsome legacies to his friends, and the remainder to be distributed to relieve the sick and poor, to marry young women, and to assist young men of good characters: by which it appeared, that he was not in low circumstances, nor so bad an ceconomist as he sometimes, between jest and earnest, represented himself. His friend Beatus Rhenanus has given us a description of his person and manners, and tells us, that he was low of stature, but not remarkably short; that he was well-shaped, of a fair complexion, with hair in his youth of a pale yellow, grey eyes, a cheerful countenance, a low voice, and an agreeable utterance; that he was neat and decent in his apparel; that he had a very tender and infirm constitution, and a tenacious memory; that he was a pleasant companion, a very constant friend, generous and charitable, &c. He had one peculiarity belonging to him, which was, that he could not endure even the smell of fish; so that, however he might be a papist in other respects, he had, as he says, a very Lutheran stomach. He used to dine late, that he might have a long morning for study. After dinner, he would converse cheerfully with his friends upon all sorts of subjects, and deliver his opinions freely upon men and things. Erasmus objected long to sit for his picture; but he conquered that aversion, and was frequently drawn by Holbein. He dwelt longer at Basil than at any other place. He delighted in that city; and though he sometimes made excursions, yet he was sure to return. The revolution in religion was the only cause that hindered him from fixing his abode there all his days. At Basil they show the house in which he died; and the place where the professors of divinity read their winter-lectures is called the college of Erasmus. His cabinet is one of the most considerable rarities of the city; it contains his ring, his seal, his sword, his knife, his pencil, his will written with his own hand, and his picture by Holbein, which is a masterpiece. The magistrates bought this cabinet, in 1661, for nine thousand crowns, of the descendants of Erasmus’s heir: and, if we may believe Patin, they made a present of it to the university; but others say, they sold it for a thousand crowns. Nothing has made the city of Rotterdam more famous, than its having given birth to this great man: nor has it been insensible of the honour, but has testified its high regard to him. The house in which he was born is adorned with an inscription, to inform both natives and strangers of this illustrious prerogative; the college, where Latin, Greek, and rhetoric are taught, bears the name of Erasmus, and is consecrated to him by an inscription on th6 frontispiece; a statue of wood was raised to him in 1549; a statue of stone in 1555, and one of copper in 1622, which is admired by the connoisseurs. It is in an open part of the city, standing on a bridge over a canal, upon a pedestal adorned with inscriptions, and surrounded with iron rails.

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 Spanish poet, was the son of a celebrated lawyer, and was born at Madrid in 1533. He was brought up in the palace of Philip II. and fought under him at the famous battle of Saint Quentin in 1557, after which being desirous to acquire the knowledge of different countries and their inhabitants, he travelled over France, Italy, Germany, and England. Having heard, while at London, that some provinces of Peru and Chili had revolted against the Spaniards, their conquerors and their tyrants, he was seized with an ardent longing to signalize his courage on this new scene of action. Accordingly he set out on the voyage; and soon after his arrival, he passed the frontiers of Chili into a little mountainous region, where he maintained a long and painful war against the rebels, whom at length he defeated. It is this war which makes the subject of his poem of the “Araucana,” so called from the name of the country, and which has very considerable merit, and several passages glow with all the charms of animated verse. The descriptions are rich, though defective in variety; but we can trace no plan, no unity of design, no probability in the episodes, nor harmony in the characters. This poem consists of more than 36 cantos, the length of which is produced by many repetitions and tedious details. Mr. Hayley, however, has bestowed considerable attention on it in his “Essay on Epic poetry,” with a view to recommend it to the English reader. It was printed, for the first time, in 1597, 12mo; but the best edition is that of Ma1632, 2 vols. 12mo. The time of his death is hot known, nor can he be traced beyond 1596.

, an English antiquary, was the son of Hugh Erdeswicke, esq. and was born at Sandon in Staffordshire. He studied at Brazen-nose college, Oxford, in 1553 and 1554, as a gentleman commoner, and afterwards returned to Sandon, where he employed much of his time in antiquarian researches, especially what related to his own county. In this he must have shown acuteness and judgment as well as industry, for Camden styles him “venerandse antiquitatis cultor maximus.” He died April 11, 1603, and was buried in Sandon church, which be had a little before repaired and new glazed. He left behind him, in manuscript, “A short view of Staffordshire, containing the antiquities of the same county.” He began this, it is said, in 1593, and continued adding and improving it till his death. It is now incorporated in Shaw’s History of Staffordshire. A very incorrect copy was published at London in 1717, 8vo, and again in 1723. There are two copies of the original in the British Museum, and one among Mr. Gough’s Mss. in the Bodleian library. In the Museum are also some ms collections by him of genealogies, monuments, arms, &c. It is said that he wrote “The true use of Armory,” published under the name of Will. Wyrley, 1592; but this seems doubtful, and Wyrley was certainly very capable himself of writing it.

, 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.

, an eminent scholar of the middle age, was born in an early part of the ninth century. The most common account of him is, that he was a native of Ayr, in Scotland, though some writers have said that the place of his birth was Ergene, on the borders of Wales, and others have contended that he was an Irishman. It is, we apprehend, most probable that he was a Scotchman. However this may have been, he was animated, in a very dark period, with a most uncommon desire of literature. Seeing his country involved in great confusion and ignorance, and that it afforded no means of acquiring the knowledge after which he thirsted, he travelled into foreign, parts; and it is even asserted, by several authors, that he went to Athens, and spent some years in studying the Greek, Chaldaic, and Arabic languages. In whatever place he obtained his learning, it is certain that in philosophy he had no superior, and in languages no equal, in. the age during which he flourished. These extraordinary accomplishments, together with his wit and pleasantry, which rendered his conversation as agreeable as it was instructive, procured him an invitation from Charles the Bald, king of France, the greatest patron of literature in that period, to reside with him. Of this invitation Erigena accepted, and Jived a number of years in the court of that prince, on a footing of the most intimate acquaintance and familiarity. He slept often in the royal apartments, and dined daily at the royal table. From the following repartee, which is preserved by one of our ancient historians, we may judge of the freedom which Scotus used with the monarch. As they were sitting one day at table opposite to each other, after dinner, the philosopher having said something that was not quite agreeable to the rules of politeness, the king, in a merry humour, asked him, “Pray what is between a Scot and a sot” To which he answered, “Nothing but the table.” Charles, says the historian, laughed heartily, and was not in the least offended, as he made it- a rule never to be angry with his master, as he always called Erigena; yet, in order to assist our belief in the above joke, it has been observed, that we ought to know in what language Charles and Scotus conversed. Charles, however, valued this great man for his wisdom and learning, still more than for his wit, and retained him about his person, not merely as an agreeable companion, but as his preceptor in the sciences, and his best counsellor in the most arduous affairs of governnfenf. While Scotus resided in the court of France, he composed, at the desire of his royal patron, a number of works, which procured him many admirers on the one hand, and many adversaries on the other. The clergy, in particular, were dissatisfied with some of his notions, as not being perfectly orthodox. One of the subjects which employed his pen was the doctrine of predestination. In his treatise on this subject, which was addressed to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and Pardulus, bishop of Laon, the position he begins with is, that every question may be resolved by four general rules of philosophy, viz. division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. By these rules he endeavours to prove, that there cannot be a double predestination, of one to glory, and another to damnation; and that predestination does not impose any necessity, but that man is absolutely free; and that, although he cannot do good without the grace of Jesus Christ, yet he does it, without being constrained or forced to do it by the will of God, by his own free choice. Sin, and the consequences of it, and the punishments with which it is attended, are, says Erigena, mere privations, that are neither foreseen nor predestinated by God; and predestination hath no place but in those things which God hath pre-ordained in order to eternal happiness; for our predestination arises from the foresight of the good use of our free-will. Sentiments so bold, and delivered in such an age, could not fail of exciting great indignation. Wemlo, or Ganelo, archbishop of Sens, having read the work, collected out of it several propositions, which he arranged under nineteen heads, according to the number and order of the chapters of Scotus’s treatise, and sent them to Prudentius, bishop of Troyes. This prelate, having examined them, found in them, as he thought, not only the errors of Pelagius, but the impiety of the Collyridians. He employed himself, therefore, in answering Erigena and another answer to him was written by Florus, a deacon of the church of Lyons. It does not appear that Scotus engaged any farther in the controversy.

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 Greek poetess, is mentioned by different writers as a native of Lesbos, of Teios, of Rhodes, and of Tenos in Laconia, and is supposed to have been contemporary with Sappho, about the year 600 B. C. but according to the Chronicle of Eusebius 250 years later. She was celebrated in ancient Greece, and several epigrams were written upon her, one of which speaks of her as inferior to Sappho in lyrics, and superior in hexameters. Some fragments are extant in her name, which are inserted in the “Carmina Novem Poetarum Foeminarum,” Antw. 1568, and in the Edinburgh edition of Anacreon aud Sappho, 1754, form. min.

, 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.

, was born at Tacnnstadt in Thuringia, Aug. 4, 1707, was educated at Witternberg and Leipsic, and became one of the most learned philologers of Germany. He studied theology as a profession; and in 1734 was chosen rector of St. Thomas’s school. In 1742 he was appointed professor extraordinary of ancient literature, in 1756 professor of eloquence, and in 1758 doctor and professor of divinity, the functions of all which offices he discharged with great assiduity and high reputation, and yet found leisure for his numerous original publications, and those excellent editions of the classics which have made his name familiar in the learned world. As a divine, he disliked the modern philosophical innovations in the study of theology, and was alike hostile to infidelity and superstition. He died, with the character of a man of consummate learning and irreproachable character, Sept. 11, 1781. Among his valuable editions of the classics are, 1. His “Homer,” Leipsic, 1759, 5 vols. 8vo, which may be ranked among the very best. It is formed on the basis of Clarke’s, containing his text and notes, and the various readings of a Leipsic manuscript, with those of the ancient editions. 2. “Callimachus,” Ley den, 1761, 2 vols. 8vo, containing, besides the preface, notes, and version of Ernesti, many grammatical and critical observations of Hemsterhusius and Ruhnkenius, and the whole of what is valuable in Gravius. 3. “Cicero,” of whose works he published three editions, the first at Leipsic, 1737, 5 vols. the others at Halle, 1758 and 1774, in 8 vols. 8vo. The second and third, which are the most correct, contain the famous “Clavis Ciceroniana,” which has been published separately. 4. “Tacitus,” Leipsic, 1752, 1772, 2 vols. 8vo, both valuable, although there are more errors and omissions than could have been wished; yet the preface, notes, and indexes are interesting and useful. 5. “Suetonius,” two editions, at Leipsic, 1748 and 1775, 8vo, but neither correct, or indeed at all valuable. 6. Aristophanes’ s Nubes,“Leipsic, 1788, a very useful edition, with the ancient scholia, and remarks by the editor and by Nagelius. 7. Xenophon’s” Memorabilia,“of which there have been several editions, 1737, 1742, 1755, &c. The best is that of Leipsic, 1772. Ernesti’s other works are, 8.” Initia doctrinse solidioris,“Leipsic, 1783, 8vo, the seventh edition. 9.” Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti,“Leipsic, 1775, 8vo, the third edition, which Alberti of Leyden calls a” golden work.“10. An improved edition of Hederic’s Lexicon, 1754 and 1767. 11. A” Theological Library,“1760 1771, 11 vols. 8vo. 12.” Opuscula Oratoria, Orationes, Prolusiones et Elogia x “Leyden, 1762, 8vo. This contains thirteen very elegant and judicious academical discourses, pronounced on different occasions, with the same number of historical eloges. The subjects of the discourses are, 1. Of the study of the belles lettres. 2. That eloquence has its real source in the heart. 3. That we must conform to the laws of criticism in the study of divinity. 4. Of the revolutions of eloquence. 5. Of the conditions to be observed for studying and teaching philosophy with success. 6. Of the advantages of real learning. 7. The arts of peace and war. 8. A parallel between the Greek and Roman writers. 9. Of the name of on’s country. 10. Of joining the art of thinking to that of speaking. 11. Of the desire of praise and reputation. 12. Of popular philosophy and, 13. Of moral or practicable philosophy. These discourses are written in an easy flowing style, and in elegant Latinity. II.” Opusculorum oratoriorum, novum volumen,“Leipsic, 1791, 8vo: this and another volume published in 1794, forms a complete collection of Ernesti’s smaller tracts. 12.” Archaeologia literaria,“Leipsic, 1768, 8vo, to which we may add his excellent new edition, of which he lived to publish only 3 volumes, of” Fabricii Bibl. Graeca." His nephew, Augustus William Ernes n, was born in 1733, and died in 1801 at Leipsic, where he was professor of eloquence in that university from 1770, and well known by his edition of Livy, Quintilian, and other classics. To the university library there he bequeathed his very complete collection of the works of Camerarius; and to that of the Senate, his collection of the editions and Mss. of Cicero, to complete the Ciceronian collection already in it.

, or, as he was called in Dutch, Thomas van Erpe, a very learned writer, and eminently skilled in the oriental tongues, was descended, both by his father and mother’s side, from noble families at Boisleduc in Brabant, which place his parents had quitted on account of their adherence to the protestant religion, and was born, at Gorcum in Holland, Sept. 11, 1584. Prom his earliest years he shewed a peculiar disposition for learning, which induced his father, though no scholar himself, to send him to Leyden, where he began his studies, and prosecuted them with such success, as to excite the admiration of his masters. In 1608, at the age of eighteen, he was admitted into the university of that city, where he took the degree of doctor in philosophy. Vossius informs us, that, soon after he became a student in that place, he grew so diffident of succeeding in his labours, as to have thoughts of laying them entirely aside; but that, being encouraged to persevere, and inspired with fresh courage, be made himself master of several branches of literature, and particularly metaphysics, in the pursuit of which last, his patience appears to have been invincible. He is said to have read over not only Aristotle, but likewise a great number of his interpreters, with all the commentaries of Suarez; in which he was so conversant, that, several years after he had gone through his course of philosophy, and was engaged in other studies, he could give a distinct account of the contents of almost every page of that vast work.

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.”

His works, which have spread his name all over the world, are, l, “Annotationes ad lexicon Arabicum Francisci llaphelengii,” Leyden, 1613, 4to, printed with the Lexicon. 2. “Grammatica Arabica,” 1613, 4to. 3. “Proverbiorum Arabicorum centuriae II. Arabice & Latine, cum s.choliis Josephi Scaligeri & Thomas Erpenii,” 1614, 4 to. having translated and written notes upon part of the Arabian proverbs, Casaubon engaged Erpenius, Scaliger being dead, to complete that work. 4. “Lockmanni fabulrr & selecta qurcdam Arabum adagia, cum interpretatione Latina & notis,” 1615, 8vo; Amst. 1636, and 1656, in 4to, with the Arabic grammar just mentioned. 5. “Giarumia grammatica de centum regentibus, sive lingux Arabia; particulis, Arabice & Latine, cum notis,” 1617, 4to. Giarumia is an Arabic grammar, which takes its name from its author, and is highly esteemed in Asia and Africa. 6. “Novum Testamentum, Arabice,” 1615, 4to. This is an ancient Arabic version, whose author is not known. 7. “Historia Josephi patriarchs ex Alcorano, Arabice, cum versione Latina & notis,” 1617, 4to. 8. “Canones de literarum Evi apud Arabes natura & permutatione,” 1618, 4to. 9. “Rudimenta lingute Arabic,” 1620, 8vo: an improved edition of this was published by Schultens, at Leyden, in 1733, 4to, with a collection of Arabic sentences and a key of dialects. 10. “Versio & notac ad Arabic-am paraphrasin in evangelium Joannis,” 1620. 11. < Grammatica Hebraea,“1621, 8vo, 12.” Orationes tresdelinguarum Hebretc atque ArabicaB dignitate,“1621, vo. 13.” Pentateuch us Mosis, Arabic^“1622, 4to. This version is ancient, and was made by a Christian. 14.” Elmacini historia Saracenica,“&c. 1625, fol. 15.” Psalmi Davidis, Syriace, cum versione Latina,“1625, 4to. 16.” Grammatica' Chaldaa & Syra,“1628, 8vo. 17.” De peregrinatione Gallica utiliter instituenda tractatus,“1631, 12mo. 18.” Prtrcepta de lingua Grsccorum communi,“1662, 8vo. 19.” Arcanum punctationis revelatum,“&c. 1624, 4to. The whole of these were printed at Leyden, and some of them, the reader sees, are posthumous; he had a design to have published an edition of the Koran, with an accurate Latin version and notes, and a confutation of it where it was necessary; a” Thesaurus Grammaticus“for the Arabic tongue: and a lexicon of the same language. But he was prevented by death from executing these designs; as we are informed by Mr. Chappelow, in the preface to his” Elementa linguae Arabicoe ex Erpenii rudimentis, ut plurimum, desumpta. Cujus praxi grammaticie novam legendi praxin addiclit Leonardus Chappelow, linguae Arabicae apud Cantabrigienses professor," Lond. 1730, 8vo.

, lord Dun, an eminent Scotch lawyer, was born at Dun, co. Angus, 1670, and brought up to the law, partly in the university of St. Andrew’s, and partly in that of Paris. In 1696 he was called to the bar in the court of session, and became a famous pleader. He opposed the union in the Scottish parliament, and was a munificent benefactor to the persecuted episcopal clergy. In 1711 he took his seat on the bench in the court of session, under the title of lord Dun. In 1713 he was appointed one of the commissioners of the court of justiciary, which he held till 1750, when he retired; and in 1752, published a most excellent volume in 12mo, under the title of “Lord Dun’s Advices.” He died at Dun, 1755, aged eighty-five.

, 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.

Theology, however, was his favourite study; and his predilection for the ministerial function increasing, he persevered, notwithstanding the opposition of his relations, in the necessary preparatory studies; which being completed, he obtained a licence from the presbytery of Dumblane, in 1742. In May 174-4, he was ordained minister of Kirkintillock, in the presbytery of Glasgow. In 1751 he was removed to the borough of Culross, in the presbytery of Dumfermline. In June 1758, he was invited to Edinburgh, and settled in the New Grey-friars’ church there; and in July 1759, he and Dr. Itobertson were admitted joint ministers of the Old Grey-friars’ church. His unaffected piety, attention to pastoral duties, and useful instructions in public and private, his sympathy with the distressed, and the blamelessness of his private conduct, were truly exemplary, and secured him the affections of his people wherever he went, as well as occasioned their regret at his removal. While thus employed among his people, or in his study, his actiye mind was also employed in watching the progress of religion, both in his own country and in the world at large, and in manifesting his zeal for the success of it. With a view to procure information on this subject, he commenced a correspondence with several persons of distinguished fame and knowledge, both on th continent and in America. He also procured and read very new publication of merit, all the foreign journals, and whatever could administer to his purpose. His “Sermons,” which were published in 1798, may be ranked among the best specimens of pulpit composition. Between 1742, the year in which he was licensed, and 1798, the year in which his sermons appeared, the literature of Scotland had suffered a complete revolution, and in nothing was the change more apparent than in the manner in which the services of the pulpit were conducted. At the former period, sermons abounded with diffuse illustrations; and were disgraced by colloquial phrases, and vulgar provincialisms, In these later years, pulpit composition has attained a highdignity and elegance. Whoever reads the discourses of Dr. Erskine, which in purity and energy of style, no less than in precision of thought and originality of sentiment, may challenge a comparison with any contemporary sef+ inons, must be sensible that their author, whose education bad been completed sixty years before their publication, must have paid no common attention to literary composition, and could watch the variations of taste, keep pace with its improvements, and adapt his productions to the style of the day. Yet he did not servilely imitate the refinements of others, or allow himself to be passively borne along with the stream of fashion. His labours contributed to accomplish that revolution to which we have just now alluded, and to form that standard which we admire; but he had nobler objects in view than the bare information of the literary taste of his countrymen, although he was far from indifferent to this object. In the detached sermons which he printed when a country clergyman, there was a propriety and correctness which had never been exhibited in any religious productions of North Britain, and which was scarcely surpassed in the English language at that time. His “Theological Dissertations,” which appeared so early as 1765, contain several masterly disquisitions on some highly interesting branches of divinity. The subjects, indeed, did not admit a display of eloquence; but throughout the whole, he has shewn great soundness of judgment, as well as an intimate acquaintance with the doctrines of the Gospel, and history of the Christian church.

Hi feeble bodily constitution soon felt the approach of old age, and for many years before his death his appearance was that of a man whose strength was gone. For several winters he was unable to preach regularly; and during the last thirteen months of his life he did not preach at all, his voice having become too weak to he distinctly heard by his congregation. Still, however, the vivacity of his look, and the energy of his manner, bespoke the warmth of his heart, and the vigour of his mind; and his mentalfaculties remained unaffected by his bodily decay. His memory was as ready, his judgment as acute, his imagination as lively, and his inclination for study as strong as in his youthful years. To the last hours of his being he was eagerly employed in those pursuits which were the business and pleasure of his life. After 1801, he published five numbers of a kir^d of periodical pamphlet, entitled “Religious Intelligence from abroad;” and on the week before his death he sent his bookseller notice, that he had collected materials for another number. His great modesty and diffidence in his own talents, rendered him averse to publishing much of his own, while he was ever ready to bring forward the works of others. The public regretted that he spent his thne in labours of this kind; and his friends remonstrated against the impropriety of his depriving the world of the benefit of his own productions. He felt the force of these remonstrances, and, in 1793, published his “Doctrinal and occasional Sermons,” 1 voL 8vo; after which, he was engaged, as his health permitted, in preparing for the press a volume of “Practical Discourses,” and a work of a similar nature with his “Sketches of Church History and TheologicalControversy.” The Sermons will probably appear but, owing to a peculiar obscurity in his hand-writing, the great mass of his other manuscripts will be lost to the world.

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.

, brother of the above, was born at Monilaws in Northumberland, March 15, 1685, was educated along with his brother Ebenezer in the university of Edinburgh, and took the degree of A. M. 1704, after which he was licensed to preach as a probationer in 1709. But notwithstanding his popular abilities as a preacher, yet he did not obtain a settlement in the church till 1711, when he was ordained minister at Dunfermline in Fifeshire. There he continued till 1734, when, joining the st'ceders along with his brother Ebenezer, he was deposed by an order from the general assembly. Esteemed and beloved by his hearers, they built a meeting for him, and attended his ministry till his death, which happened Nov. 6, 1752, in the sixty-eighth year of his age. As a divine, few men were ever more esteemed in Scotland; and the character given of him by the late Mr. Hervey sets his abilities in the highest point of view. His works, in 2 vols. fol. were published in 1764, consisting principally of sermons, “The Gospel Sonnets,” and “A Paraphrase in verse of the Song of Solomon.”

, an eminent naturalist, was born at Quedlinburgh, June 22, 1744, and became professor of philosophy at Gottingen, where he had studied, and where he died, too soon for the sciences, August 15, 1777, aged only thirty-three years, during the latter part of which his merit had procured him admission into most of the learned societies of Europe. In 177 1 he published “Practical Observations on the Veterinary Art,” in which he had attained great knowledge, This work relates to the diseases of domestic animals, and particularly that among the horned cattle, for which a method of inoculation was attempted, the result of which was that out of nine only four died from inoculation, whereas in the natural way seven out of nine perished: but the chief advantage of the experiment was, that the inoculated cattle were never subject to a fresh attack of the disease. His other works are, “Dissertations relative to Natural Philosophy and Chemistry,” 1776;“” Elements of Natural History,“2 vols. 8vo, Gottingen, fourth edition, improved by Gmelin” Elements of Physic,“Francfort, 1794, 8vo, sixth edition, with additions by Lichtenberg” Elements of Chemistry," Gottingen, 1790, 8vo, the third edition, &c.

, a Portuguese writer, was born at Lisbon in 1614. After having early acquired a taste for literature, he went and studied the military art in Italy, and on his return to his native country was successively governor of Penicha, and of Tangiers, counsellor of war, gentleman of the chamber to the infant don Pedro, and counsellor of state. In the midst of these several employments he found time, for study and composition. On the subject of his numerous publications, the reader may consult the “Journal Etranger” of 1757. The principal of them are, 1. “The History of Tangiers,” 1723, fol. 2. “The History of Portugal, from 1640 to 1657,” in 2 vols. folio. 3. “The Life of John I. king of Portugal.”

, great grandson of the foregoing, and inheritor of the literary industry of his ancestor, was born at Lisbon in 1673. He bore arms with distinguished merit; and obtained in 1735 the title of camp-master general and counsellor at war. He died in 1743, in the seventieth year of his age, member of the academy of Lisbon, of that of the arcades of Rome, and of the royal society of London, to which last he was admitted in 1738, and was then director of the royal academy of history in Portugal. He did not put on the airs of a man of quality among the learned, but was easy, “polite, and communicative. Pope Benedict XIII. honoured him with a brevet; the king of France made him a present of the catalogue of his library, and 21 Volumes of engravings, The academy of St. Petersburg addressed its memoirs to him; several writers of France, England, Italy, &c. paid him the compliment of their works. His ancestors had left him a select and numerous library, which he augmented with 15,Ooo volumes and 1000 manuscripts. He marked his literary career by upwards of a hundred different publications. The most known of them are, 1.” Memoirs on the value of the Coins of Portugal, from the commencement of the monarchy,“1738, 4to. 2.” Reflections on academical studies.“3.” Fifty-eight Parallels of illustrious men, and twelve of illustrious women.“4.” The Henriade, an Heroic Poem, with observations on the rules to be observed in Epic Poetry," 1741, 4to. Among his manuscripts were found a quantity of essays on the number 22, on occasion of the 22 sorts of Roman coins presented to the king, and dug up at Lisbon the 22d of October 1711, on which day that prince completed his 22d year; and from these accidental circumstances, he proves the number 22 to be the most perfect of all. Such puerilities are sometimes found in otherwise judicious heads.

, 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.

, 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.”

, a French protestant divine in the seventeenth century, was born at Dauphine, and became minister of the French church in London, an office which he sustained during the reigns of James I. and Charles I. He published several s’mall tracts, which were afterwards collected and published at Geneva and the Hague, in three and in two volumes 12mo, about 1670. He also published a work, which he dedicated to Charles I. entitled “Erreurs Populaires en points generaux qui concernent Pintelligence de la Religion,” and in some of his works has a criticism on the catechism of Calvin, which was so much used in the schools at Geneva.

, 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."

, an eminent canonist, was born at Louvain in 1646, “and after taking his degree of doctor of laws in 1675, filled a chair in the college of pope Adrian VI. with great success. Being fond of retirement and study, he is only known to the world by his writings. Having lost his sight in the sixty-fifth year of his age, by a cataract, which was removed two years afterwards, he neither lost any thing of his vivacity nor his application. His sentiments on the Formulary, and on the frull Unigenitus, and the kind of approbation which he gave to the consecration of Steenoven, archbishop of Utrecht, brought on him much unmerited persecution, chiefly from the envy of individuals. What they made him suffer, however, forced him to retire to Maestricht, and then to Amersfort, where he died, Oct. 2, 1728, at the age of eighty-three. Van Espen is doubtless one of the most learned canonists of his times. His principal work, still consulted, is his” Jus ecclesiasticum universum,“in which the most important points of ecclesiastical discipline are circumstantially discussed with profound knowledge of. the subject. At Paris, under the imprint of Louvain, was published, in 1753, a collection of all the works of Van Espen, in 4 vols. folio. This edition, which is enriched with the observations of Gibert on the” Jus ecclesiasticum," and the notes of father Barre, a canoiv-regular of St. Genevieve, contains every particular of importance in ethics, the canon, and even the civil law, and since that time a supplementary volume was published by Gabriel de Bellegarde.

, 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,”

All his works, of which the following is a correct list, are held in much esteem I “Attila,” or, “De Gestis Attilae,” without date, but probably Trevisa, 1489, 4to reprinted at Haguenau, 1531, 4to, Basil, 1541, 8vo, and inserted in Bontinius’s collection of Latin historians. 2. “Historia de rege Uladislao, seu clade Varnensi,” Augsburgh, 1519, 4to. Michael Bruto appears to have been ignorant of this first edition, when he published one from a manuscript, which he entitled “De rebus ab Uladislao Hungarian ct Polonire rege gestis ad Casimiruin V. libri tres,” Cracow, 15S2, 4to. He added, however, a very interesting life of Esperiente, which was reprinted at Cracow, 1584, 4to. Paul Jovius preferred this work of Esperiente to any history since the days of Tacitus. It is also printed, with the history of Poland, by Martin Cromer, 1589, and in Bonfidius’s collection. 3. “De clade Varnensi epistola,” inserted in the second volume of the “Chronicon Turcicum” by Louicerus, Bale, 1556, and Francfort, 1578, folio. 4. “Oratio de Bello Turcis inferendo et historia de his qu;r a Venetis tentata snnt, Persis ac Tartaris contra Turcos inovendis,” Haguenau, 1533, 4to. Among the Mss. he left were some Latin poems, and a history of his travels.

, 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.

, was grand-auditor of the chancery of Paris, and died in 1611, but we have no account of his early life. He left several manuscripts, of which some were published. 1. His “Journal of Henry III.” published by the abbé Lenglet du Fresnoy, in 1744, in 5 vols. 8vo, with the addition of several scarce pieces on the League, selected from a multitude of pamphlets, satires, and polemical works, which those turbulent times produced. This journal begins at the month of May 1574, and terminates with the month of August 1589. 2. “Journal of the reign of Henry IV.” with historical and political remarks by the abbé Lenglet du Fresnoy, and several other interesting pieces of the same period; but the years 1598, 1599, 1600, and 1601, which are wanting in the journal of l'Estoile, have been supplied by an anonymous author in this edition, in the way of supplements, published for the first time in 1636. The two journals of the grand auditor were published by the messrs. Godefroi, at Cologne, [Brussels] the first under the title of “Journal of Henry III.” 4 vols. 8vo the second under that of “Memoires pour servir a l'histoire de France,” 1719, 2 vols, 8vo, with plates, and as they contain many things omitted in the edition of the abbé du Fresnoy, they are more sought after, and are become more scarce. L'Estoile, in both these journals, seems attached to the parliament, a good citizen, an honest man, and a faithful historian, relating impartially the good and the bad; the good with pleasure, the bad with simplicity. He was well informed in all the particulars of the reign of Henry III. and that of Henry IV.; and he enters into the minutest circumstances. The affairs of government are mixed with those of his family. Deaths, births, the price of provisions, the prevailing distempers, ludicrous or sorrowful events, in short, every thing that makes the subject of conversation, is the object of his journal; and he retracts when he finds himself mistaken, with as good a grace as he confirms what he finds to be true. The author, under an appearance of ease and openness, conceals a turn for arcasm, and this no doubt recommended his work to numberless readers. The original manuscript of his Journals, in his own hand writing, in 5 folio volumes, was in the library of the abbey of St. Acheul, at Amiens, where it had been deposited by the nephew of the author, but has been lost; which is rather to be regretted, as it contained many curious particulars not in any of the printed editions.

, 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.

, marshal of France, and viceroy of America, was born at A gen, in 1627, and served a long time in Holland, under prince Maurice, with whom he acted as agent of France, and proved at once a good general and an able negociator. Being appointed ambassador extraordinary to England, in 1661, he had an affront offered to him there, Oct. 10 of that year, by the baron de Vatteville, ambassador from Spain, which his sovereign not only disavowed, but issued orders to his ministers at foreign courts, not to contest with the ambassadors of France in any public ceremonies. Count d‘Estrades having negotiated in 1662 the sale of Dunkirk, was commissioned to receive that town from the hands of the English. Though Charles II. had signed the treaty, the parliament strongly opposed its execution, and the English garrison refused to evacuate the place. But the count d’Estrades (according to the French historian’s account) judiciously distributed considerable sums of money; and the governor and the garrison embarked for London. On their passage they met the packet conveying to them the order of parliament not to surrender Dunkirk to the French; but the affair was already settled, owing to the active and ingenious address of d'Estrades. Being returned to Paris, he was dispatched again to London, in 1666, in quality of ambassador extraordinary; and the year following went over to Holland, invested with similar powers, and there concluded the treaty of Breda. He distinguished himself not less in 1673, when sent ambassador extraordinary to the conferences of Nimegucn for the general peace. He died the 26th of February, 1686, at the age of seventy-nine. He had been appointed two years before, governor to the duke of Chartres, and superintendant of his finances. The negociations of the count d'Estrades were printed at the Hague, 1742, in 9 vols. 12mo, which is merely an extract from the originals, which form 22 vols. folio, the thinnest of which is of 900 pages. John Aymon published some of them at Amsterdam, in 1709, 12mo.

, 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.”

, duke, peer, and marshal of France, son of the subject of the preceding article, was born in the year 1573. At first he embraced the ecclesiastical state, and king Henry IV. appointed him to the bishopric of Laon; but he quitted the church to take up the profession of arms. He signalized himself on several occasions, brought succours to the duke of Mantua in 1626, took Treves, and distinguished himself no less by his sagacity than by his valour. Being appointed in 1636 ambassador extraordinary to Rome, he honourably executed that office in supporting the glory and interests of the crown, but not with the prudence requisite in such an office; and his rudeness and sallies of temper so involved him in differences with Urban VIII. and his nephews, that it was found necessary to recall him; which he much resented, and refused to appear at court to give an account of his conduct. He died at Paris the 5th of May, 1670, in his ninety-eighth year. The marshal d‘Estre’es was more calculated for serving the king at the head of his troops, than in intricate negociations. Not content with making his character respected, he would make his person feared. He was brother of the fair Gabriel d'Estrdes, whose history is given in a subsequent article. He was the author of, 1. “Memoirs of the regency of Mary de Medicis,” the best edition of which is that of Paris, 1666, 12mo, which has a preliminary epistle by Pierre le Moine. 2. Relation of the siege of Mantua, in 1630; and another of the Conclave in which Gregory XV. was elected in 1621. In these different works, although the style, that of a man more accustomed to weild the sword than the pen, is incorrect, there reigns an air of truth which disposes the reader to think favourably of the integrity of the author.

, cardinal, abbot of St. Germaindes-Prés, son of the preceding, was born in 1C28, and raised to the see of Laon in 1653, after having received the doctor’s hood of Sorbonne. The king made choice of him, not long after, as mediator between the pope’s nuncio and the four bishops of Aleth, of Beauvois, of Pamiers, and of Angers, and he had so far the art of conciliating the most opposite tempers, as to effect a short-lived peace to the church of France. He went afterwards to Bavaria, by the appointment of Louis XIV. to negociate the marriage of the dauphin with the electoral princess, and to transact other affairs of importance; and afterwards he went to Rome, where he asserted the rights of France during the disputes about the regale, and was charged with all the business of the court, after the death of the duke his brother, in 1G89. He reconciled the disputes of the clergy with Rome, and had a great share in the elections of popes Alexander VIII. Innocent XII. and of Clement XI. When Philip V. set out to take possession of the throne of Spain, the cardinal d‘Estrées received orders to attend him, to be one of the ministry of that prince. He returned to France in 1703, and died in his abbey the 18th of December 1714, at the age of eighty-seven. The cardinal d’Estrées was well-versed in the affairs both of church and state. With 31 comprehensive genius, he possessed agreeable and polite manners, an amiable talent in conversation, a great equality of temper, a love for literature, and was charitable to the poor. If he was not always successful in his negociations, it was neither the fault of his understanding nor of his prudence. He wrote, 1. “L'Europe vivante et mourante,” Brussels (for Paris), 1759, 24mo. 2. “Replique, au nom de M. Desgrouais, a la lettre de l'abbé Desfontaines, inserée dans le 6 e vol. des Jugemens de M. Burlon de La Busbaquerie,” Avignon, 1745, 12mo.

, 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.

, born in 1660, succeeded John, count d'Estrees, his father, in the post of vice-admiral of France, which he filled with great reputation in the maritime parts of the Levant. He bombarded Barcelona and Alicant in 1691, and commanded in 1G97 the fleet at the siege of Barcelona; being appointed in 1701 lieutenant-general of the naval forces of Spain by Philip V. a station which he held together with that of vice-admiral of France, and thus had the command of the Spanish and French fleets. Two years afterwards, in 1703, he was made marshal of France, and took the name of marechal des Cceuvres. This dignity was followed by those of grandee of Spain, and knight of the golden fleece; all which he merited by his heroic but prudent courage. Though the abb de St. Pierre describes him as a man of a capricious temper, he had an excellent disposition, and was capable of strong attachments. The French academy, that of sciences, and that of inscriptions, admitted him of their societies. Amidst the tumultuous occupations of war, he never forgot the cultivation of letters. He died at Paris, Dec, 28, 1737, in the seventy-seventh year of his age, equally lamented by the citizen, the scholar, and the philosopher. He left no issue by his wife, Lucia Felicia de Noailles.

, 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:

"This reverend author was no sooner set by,

But i‘th’ crying sin idleness he was so harden'd,

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.

But the production of sir George Etherege which has been most applauded, and on which his reputation has been principally founded, is his “Man of Mode, or sir Fopling Flutter.” “This,” says the Biographia Dramatica, “is an admirable play. The characters in it are strongly marked, the plot agreeably conducted, and the dialogue truly polite and elegant. The character of Dorimant is, perhaps, the only completely fine gentleman that has ever yet been brought on the English stage; at the same time, that in that of sir Fopling may be traced the groundwork of almost all the Foppingtons and petit-maltres which appeared in the succeeding comedies of that period.” In another part of the Biographia Dramatica it is asserted, that “The Man of Mode” is, perhaps, the most elegant comedy, and contains more of the real manners of high life, than any one with which the English stage was ever adorned. That the play exhibits a spirited representation of what were then living characters is not denied; but, to the praises which are so generally and indiscriminately given of it, we must be permitted to oppose the censures of sir Richard Steele, in the sixty-fifth number of the Spectator.

In Spence’s anecdotes we learn that sir George was himself a great fop, and exactly his own sir Fopling Flutter, but that he designed Dorimant for his own picture.

, or Etheridge, or, as in Latin he writes himself, Edrycus, probably an ancestor of the preceding, was born at Thame in Oxfordshire, and admitted of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in 1534; of which he was made probationer fellow in 1539. In 1543 he was licensed to proceed in arts; and, two years after, admitted to read any of the books of Hippocrates’s aphorisms. At length, being esteemed an excellent Grecian, he was made the king’s professor of that language about 1553, and so continued till some time after Elizabeth came to the crown, when, on account of his joining in the persecution of the protestants in Mary’s reign, was forced to leave it. He practised medicine with great success in Oxford, where he mostly lived; and also took under his care the sons of many popish gentlemen, to be instructed in the several arts and sciences; among whom was William Gifford, afterwards archbishop of Rheims. He was reckoned a very sincere man, and adhered to the last to the catholic religion, though he suffered exceedingly by it. Wood tells us, that he was living an ancient man in 1588; but does not know when he died. He was a great mathematician, skilled in vocal and instrumental music, eminent for his knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, a poet, and, above all, a physician. There are musical compositions and Latin poems of his still extant in manuscript. In manuscript also he presented to queen Elizabeth, when she was at Oxford in 1566, “Acta Henrici Octavi, carmine Graeco.” He also turned the psalms into a short form of Hebrew verse; and translated the works of Justin Martyn into Latin. In 1588 was published by him in 8vo, “Hypomnemata quasdam in aliquot libros Pauli Æginetae, seu observationes medicamentorum qui hue aetate in usu sunt.” The antiquary Leland was his intimate friend, and in his life-time celebrated his praises in these lines:

, a physician, was born at Leipsic, May 26, 1644, and studied there and at Wittemberg. He took his master’s degree at Leipsic in 1662, travelled for two years in Italy, France, England, and Holland; on his return was admitted M. D. at Leipsic in 1666, where he assiduously read and disputed, was appointed in 1676 assessor of the faculty, and afterwards, in 1681, ordinary professor of botany, and extraordinary professor of surgery and anatomy. He wrote, 1. “Synopsis collegii institutionum medicarum.” 2. “Institutiones medicae.” 3. “Collegium chymicum.” 4. “Collegium pharmaceutiCum.” 5. “De pracscribendis formulis.” 6. “Collegium practicum doctrinale.” 7. “Tract, de morborum curationibus.” 8. “Fundamenta medicinae vera.” 9. Chymia rationalis & experimentalis curiosa which last was published by John Ephraim Aussfeldt, Leyden, 1684, 4to. 10. “Dissertationes de corpulentia nimia,” and many other topics, which were published together in 1708, at Francfort on the Mayne, by his son Dr. Michael Ernest Ettmuller, and also in 1729 at Naples by professor Cyrillo, in 5 vols. folio, with annotations, and are highly esteemed not only in Germany but over all Europe. He fell ill, after an unsuccessful chemical operation, and died in the prime of life, March 9, 1683.

, a physician, son of the preceding, was born at Leipsic, Aug. 26, 1673. In 1692 he entered of the academy at Wittemberg, and in 1694 removed to Leipsic, where he took his master’s degree, after which he set out on a tour through England, Holland, and Germany, and took the degree of M. D. at Leipsic, in 1697. In 1702, he was made professor extraordinary of medicine, and member of the imperial academy Naturae Curiosorum; in 1706 extraordinary professor of anatomy and surgery, and physician to the Lazaretto at Leipsic in 1710 assessor of the medicinal faculty; in 1719 professor of physiology in ordinary; in 1724 professor of pathology of the academy decemvir, and collegiate of the grand ducal college; and in 1730, director of the imperial academy of Naturae Curiosorum. He died Sept. 25th, 1733. He published his father’s works, with a preface, and wrote various dissertations on medical subjects, and contributed various papers to the “Acta Eruditorum,” and to the collections of the “Naturae Curiosorum.”

, 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.

, archbishop of Lyons, of the fifth century, was of an illustrious family, and so reputed for his piety that he was afterwards sainted. He retired with his sons Salonius and Veranius into the solitude of Lerins r after having distributed a part of his property among the poor, and divided the other part between his daughters. After some time he quitted the isle of LeVins, where the fame of his virtues brought him much applause, and went over to that of Le'ro, at present called St. Marguerite. Itwas not till after repeated solicitations that he was prevailed upon to leave this desert for the see of Lyons, which dignity he accepted about the year 434. In this capacity he assisted at the first council of Orange in the year 441, where he acquired much reputation for his judicious speeches. He died about the year 454. History has not handed down to us the events of his episcopate: but Claudian Mamertius informs us, that Eucherius frequently held conferences at Lyons, in which he gave proofs of his learning and judgment, that he often preached, and always with success, and that he was accounted the greatest prelate of his age. He wrote several books in the ascetic taste of the times. 1. “In praise of the desert,” addressed to St. Hilary; in which, it must be owned, he paints that of Lerins in very pleasing colours, and the style is in general elegant. 2. A tract “On the contempt of the world;.” translated into French by Arnaud d'Andilly, as well as the former, 1672, 12mo. They are both in the form of letters; the latter addressed to his kinsman Valerian. 3. “On spiritual formularies;” for the use of Veranius, one of his sons, 4. “The history of St. Maurice aud the Martyrs of the Thebaic legion.” All these are in the Bibliotheca Patrum. His two sons, Salonius and Veranius, were bishops even during the life-time of their father.

, 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.