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

, a very learned man of the 17th century, was born at Logrogno, a city of Spain, March 24, 1630, and took the degree of D. D. in the university of Salamanca in 1668, and read lectures in that faculty for many years. He was censor and secretary of the supreme council of the inquisition in Spain, chief interpreter of the scriptures in the university of Salamanca, and had been more than once abbot of the college of St. Vincent, when he was honoured with a cardinal’s hat by Innocent XI. in 1686. He died at Rome Aug. 19, 1699. His life was very exemplary; and the dignity to which he was raised was so far from making any change in him, that he shewed an instance very uncommon, by retracting in an express piece the doctrine of probability, which he had before maintained, as soon as he found it was inconsistent with the purity of the Christian morality. His first work was entitled “Ludi Salmanticenses sive Theologia Florulenta,” printed in 1668, fol. These are dissertations which he wrote, according to the custom of the university of Salamanca, before he received his degree of D. D. there; an-d there are some things in them to which he objected in his more mature years. In 1671 he published three volumes in folio upon philosophy, and in 1673 “A commentary upon Aristotle’s ten books of Ethics.” In 1677 he published “A treatise upon Virtues and Vices, or Disputations on Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy.” He then appfied himself to the study of St. Anselm’s works, upon whose principles in divinity he published “The Theology of St. Anselm,” 3 vols. fol. 1690. In 1683 he published a large work against the declaration of the assembly of the French clergy made in 1682, concerning the ecclesiastical and civil power, under the title of “A defence of the see of St. Peter.” The work for which he is chiefly celebrated is his “Collection of the Councils of Spain” with an introductory history. This was published in 1693-4, in 4 vols. fol.; and in 1753 in 6 vols. fol. He published a Prodromus of this work in 1686, 8vo. It is variously spoken of; Du Pin is inclined to depreciate its merit. Abstracts from it may be seen in the Acta Eruditorum of Leipsic, far the month of February, 1688, and some farther particulars in the General Dictionary.

Nor were these lessons thrown away. Beda became so exemplary for his great diligence and application, and his extensive and various learning, that his fame reached the continent, and particularly Rome, where pope Sergius made earnest applications to the abbot Ceolfrid, that Beda might be sent to him; but Beda, enamoured of his studies, remained in his monastery, exerting his pious labours only in the Northumbrian kingdom, although tradition, and nothing but tradition, insinuates that he at one time resided at the university of Cambridge, a place which in his day probably had no existence, or certainly none that deserved the name of university. Remaining thus in his own country, and improving his knowledge by all the learning his age afforded, animated at the same time with a wish to contribute to the improvement of his brethren and countrymen, he concentrated his attentions to that point in which he could be most useful. The collections he made for his “Ecclesiastical History” were the labour of many years, a labour scarcely conceivable by modern writers in the amplitude and facilities they possess for acquiring information. This history was in some respects a new work, for although, as he owns, there were civil histories from which he could borrow some documents, yet ecclesiastical affairs entered so little into their plan, that he was obliged to seek for materials adapted to his object, in the lives of particular persons, which frequently included contemporary history: in the annals of their convents, and in such chronicles as were written before his time. He also availed himself of the high character in which he stood with many of the prelates, who procured for him such information as they possessed or could command. They foresaw, probably, what has happened, that this would form a lasting record of ecclesiastical affairs, and making allowance for the legendary matter it contains, without a mixture of which it is in vain to look back to the times of Beda, few works have supported their credit so long, or been so generally known, and consulted by the learned world. He published this history in the year 731, when as he informs us, he was fifty-nine years of age, but before this he had written many other books on various subjects, a catalogue of which he subjoined to this history. By these he obtained such reputation as to be consulted by the most eminent churchmen of his age, and particularly by Egbert bishop of York, who was himself a very learned man. To him Beda wrote an epistle, which illustrates the state of the church at that time. It was one of the last, and indeed probably the very last of Beda’s writings, and in it he expresses himself with much freedom, both in the advice he gave to Egbert, and with respect to the inconveniencies which he wisely foresaw would arise from the multiplication of religious houses, to the prejudice both of church and state.

, was born at Orleans in 1475, and died in 1550. According to the custom of that age, he Latinized his name into Beraldus Aurelius, and it is under that name that his friend Nicolas Bourbon celebrates him in one of his Latin poems. Berauld, according to Moreri, was preceptor to cardinal Coligni, his brother the admiral, and to Chatillon. Erasmus, in many parts of his works, acknowledges the kind hospitality of Berauld, when, in 1500, he was travelling by the way of Orleans into Italy, and highly praises the elegance of his style. In 1522, Erasmus dedicated to him his work “De conscribendis epistolis.” Berauld published various works in Latin, of which the principal are, 1. “Oratio de pace restituta et de fcedere sancito apud Cameracum,” Paris, 1528, 8vo. 2. “Metaphrasis in oeconomicon Aristotelis,” Paris, 4to, without date. In 1516, he edited the works of William bishop of Paris, in folio, and the same year an edition of Pliny’s natural history, with numerous corrections, yet Hardouin has not mentioned Berauld among the editors of Pliny. He also supplied notes to the Rusticus of Politian, and published a “Greek and Latin Dictionary,” that of Crafton, with additions, a preface, and notes. 3. “Syderalis /ibyssus,” Paris, 1514. 4. “Dialogus quo rationes explicantur quibus dicendi ex tempore facultas parari potest, &c.” Lyons, 1534. 5. “De jurisprudentia vetere ac novitia oratio,” Lyons, 1533. 6. “Enarratio in psalmos LXXI. et CXXX.” Paris, 1529, 4to. Berauld was greatly respected by Stephen Poucher, bishop of Paris, and afterwards archbishop of Sens, a celebrated patron of learning and learned men. Berauld’s son, Francis, born at Orleans, embraced the principles of Calvin he was esteemed a very learned man and a good Greek and Latin poet. He was particularly eminent for his knowledge of Greek, which he taught at Montbelliard, Lausanne, Geneva, Montargis, of which last college he was principal in 1571, and at Rochelle. Henry Stephens employed him to translate part of Appian, and preferred his translation to that of Coslius Secundus Curio.

, in Latin Beverlacius, archbishop of York in the eighth century, was born of a noble family among the English Saxons, at Harpham, a small town in Northumberland. He was first a monk, and afterwards abbot of the monastery of St. Hilda. He was instructed in the learned languages by Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, and was justly esteemed one of the best scholars of his time. Alfred of Beverly, who wrote his life, pretends that he studied at Oxford, and took there the degree of master of arts; but bishop Godwin assures us this cannot be true, because such distinction of degrees was not then known at Oxford, nor any where else. Our abbot’s merit recommended him to the favour of Alfred, king of Northumberland, who, in the year 685, advanced him to the see of Hagustald, or Hexham, and, upon the death of archbishop Bosa in 687, translated him to that of York. This prelate was tutor to the famous Bede, and lived in the strictest friendship with Acca, and other AngloSaxon doctors, several of whom he put upon writing comments on the scriptures. He likewise founded, in 704, a college at Beverly for secular priests. After he had governed the see of York thirty-four years, being tired with the tumults and confusions of the church, he divested himself of the episcopal character, and retired to Beverly; and four years after died May 7, 721. The day of his death was appointed a festival by a synod held at London in 1416. Bede, and other monkish writers, ascribe several miracles to him. Between three and four hundred years after his death, his body was taken up by Alfric, archbishop of York, and placed in a shrine richly adorned with silver, gold, and precious stones. Bromton relates, that William the conqueror, when he ravaged Northumberland with a numerous army, spared Beverly alone, out of a religious veneration for St. John of that place. This prelate wrote some pieces, 1. “Pro Luca exponendo;” an essay towards an exposition of St. Luke, addressed to Bede. 2. “Homiliee in Evangelia.” 3. Epistolae ad Hildara Abbatissam.“4.” Epistolse ad Herebaldum, Andenum, et Bertinum.“- -Pits mentions another John of Beverly, so called from the place of his nativity, who was a Carmelite monk in the fourteenth century, and a very learned man, and doctor and professor of divinity at Oxford. He flourished about 1390, in the reign of Richard II. and wrote, 1.” Questiones in magistrum sententiarum“in four books. 2.” Disputationes ordinariae" in one book.

, an eminent nonconformist divine in the seventeenth century, was the sou of a citizen of London, and born there in February 1600. July 4, 1616, he was admitted of Pembroke-hall 5 in the university of Cambridge. In 1619, he took, the degree of bachelor of arts and in 1632, that of bachelor of divinity. He shewed himself very early no friend, to the Arminian party, which was the reason that he could not obtain a fellowship in that society, even when he seemed to be entitled to it from his standing, as well as from his learning and unblemished character. At last, however, he so far conquered all prejudices, that he was elected Tanquam Socius of that hall, which entitled him to wear the cap, and take pupils, but he had no share in the government of the house. Dr. Felton, the pious and learned bishop of Ely, had so great a regard to his diligence in study, and unaffected zeal for religion, that he made him his chaplain, and paid him, during his residence in his family, uncommon marks of respect. His lordship gave him likewise, as a farther mark of his favour, the vicarage of St. Mary’s in Swaffham- Prior, in Cambridgeshire, in which capacity he did much good, though he diid not reside on his cure by reason of its small distance from the episcopal place. But after the death of the bishop in 1626, Mr. Calamy being chosen one of- th$; lecturers of St. Edmund’s-Bury, in Suffolk, he resigned his vicarage, and applied himself wholly to the discharge of his function at Bury. He continued there ten years, and, as some writers say, was during the greatest part of that time a strict conformist. Others, and indeed himself, say the contrary. The truth seems to be, that he was unwilling to oppose ceremonies, or to create a disturbance in the church about them, so long as this might, in, his opinion, be avoided with a safe conscience; but when bishop Wren’s articles, and the reading of the book of sports, came to be insisted on, he thought himself obliged to alter his conduct, and not only avoid conforming for the future, but also to apologize publicly for his former behaviour. He caine now to be considered as an active nonconformist, and being in great favour with the earl of Essex, he presented him to the living of Rochford in Essex, a rectory of considerable value, and yet it proved a fatal present to Mr. Calamy; for, removing from one of the best and wholesomest airs in England, that of St. Edmund’sbury, into the hundreds of Essex, he contracted such an illness as broke his constitution, and left behind it a dizziness in his head, which he complained of as long as he Jived. Upon the death of Dr. Stoughton, he was chosen minister of St. Mary Aldermanbury, which brought him tip to London, 1639. The controversy concerning churchgovernment was tlu n at its greatest height, in which Mr. Calainy had a very large share. In the month of July 1639, he was incorporated of the university of Oxford, which, however, did not take him off from the party in which he was engaged. In 1640 he was concerned in writing that famous book, called Smectymnuus, which himself says, gave the first deadly blow to episcopacy, and therefore we find frequent references to it in all the defences and apologies for nonconformity which have been since published. In 1641 he was appointed by the house of lords a member of the sub-committee for religion, which consisted of very eminent divines, whose conduct, however, has been differently censured. He made a great figure in the assembly of divines, though he is not mentioned in Fuller’s catalogue, and distinguised himself both by his learning and moderation. He likewise preached several times before the house of commons, for which his memory has been very severely treated. He was at the same time one of the Cornhill lecturers, and no man had a greater interest in the city of London, in consequence of his ministerial abilities. He preached constantly in his own parish church for twenty years to a numerous audience, composed of the most eminent citizens, and even persons of great quality. He steadily and strenuously opposed the sectaries, and gave many pregnant instances of his dislike to those violences which were committed afterwards, on the king’s being brought from the Isle of Wight, He opposed the beheading of his sovereign king Charles I. with constancy ^ncl courage. Under the usurpation of Cromwell he was passive, and lived as privately as he could; yet he gave no reason to suspect that he was at all a well-wisher to that government. When the times afforded a favourable opportunity, he neglected not promoting the return of king Charles II. and actually preached before the house of commons on the day they voted that great question, which, however, has not hindered some from suggesting their suspicions of his loyally. After this step was taken, he, Mr. Ash, and other eminent divines were sent over to compliment the king in Holland, by whom they were extremely well received. When his majesty was restored, Mr. Calainy retained still a considerable share in his favour, and in June 1660, was appointed one of his chaplains in ordinary, and was offered the bishopric, of Coventry and Litchfield, which he refused. When the convocation came to be chosen, he and Mr. Baxter were elected, May 2, 1661, for London; but the bishop of that diocese having the power of chusing two out of four, or four out of six, elected within a certain circuit, Dr. Sheldon, who was then bishop, was so kind as to excuse both of them; which, perhaps, was owing to the share they had in the Savoy conference. After the miscarrying of that design, Mr. Calamy made use of all his interest to procure the passing of an act agreeable to the king’s declaration at Breda: but when this was frustrated, and the act of uniformity passed, he took a resolution of submitting to ejection, and accordingly preached his farewel sermon at Aldermanbury, August 17, 1662. He made, however, a last effort three days afterwards, by presenting a petition to his majesty to continue in the exercise of his ministerial office. This petition was signed by many of the London clergy, and Dr. Man ton and Dr. Bates assisted at the presenting it, when Mr; Calamy made a long and moving speech; but neither it nor the petition had any good effect, though the king expressed himself in favour of toleration. He remained, however, in his parish, and came constantly to church, though another was in the pulpit, which proved an occasion of much t;rouble to him for on December 28, 1662, the expected preacher not coming in time, some of the principal persons in the parish prevailed upon Mr. Calamy to supply his place, which, with some importunity, he did; but delivered himself with such freedom, that he was soon after, by the lord mayor’s warrant, committed to Newgate for his sermon. But the case itself being thought hard, and some doubt arising how far the commitment was legal, his majesty in a few days discharged him. He lived to see London in ashes, the sight of which broke his heart. He was driven through the ruins in a coach to Enfield, and was so shocked at the dismal appearance, that he could never wear off the impression, but kept his chamber ever after, and died October 29, 1666, within two naonths after this accident happened. He was, though a very learned man, yet a plain and practical preacher, and one who was not afraid to speak his sentiments freely of and to the greatest; men . He was twice married. By his first wife he had a son and daughter; and by his second seven children, some of whom we shall have occasion to mention in succeeding articles.

, second son of the preceding, was born in 1590 at Chiswick in Middlesex, where his father and mother lived and died. He was educated at Oxford, first in Magdalen college, where he completed his degrees in arts in 1610, and next year was chosen fellow of All Souls. Entering into orders, he was made chaplain to James I. and doctor of divinity, and principal of Al ban -hall. He was reputed a very learned man for his time, an able preacher, and good disputant. “His compositions were much valued by the greatest men then in the church; and the sermons which he published in his lifetime, as also those published after his death, in all thirteen, were then looked upon as choice pieces, very serviceable to the church and commonwealth. He died of the plague at Oxford, July 25, 1625, and was buried in St. Mary’s church-yard, where a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. Of his works, six of his” Sermons“were published, Lond. 1623, 8vo; one Lond. 1624, 4to; and six after his death, Oxford, 1629, 4to. He wrote also on” The Authority, Universality, and Visibility of the Church," Lond. 1625, 4to, and 1638, 12mo, and left some Mss. behind him.

The character of this bishop has been represented in an advantageous light by several writers. Bale styles him a very learned man: eloquent, and well acquainted with the English and Latin languages; and Godwin says, that he was a man of great gravity, learning, and holiness of life. “He was,” says Wood, “furnished with all kind of learning, almost beyond all his contemporaries and not only Adorned the pulpit with his sermons, but also the commonwealth of learning with his writings.” “Of him,” says sir John Harrington, “I can say much; and I should do him great wrong, if I should say nothing: for he was indeed a reverend man, very well learned, exceeding industrious; and, which was in those days counted a great praise to him, and a chief cause of his preferment, he wrote that great dictionary that yet bears his name. His life in Oxford was very commendable, and in some sort saint-like; for, if it is saint-like to live unreproveable, to bear a cross patiently, to forgive great injuries freely, this man’s example is sampleless in this age .” He married a wife at Oxford, by whom he had two daughters: but he was not happy with her, she proving unfaithful to his bed. “The whole university,” sir John Harrington tells us, “in reverence to the man, and indignity of the matter, offered to separate her from him by public authority, and so to set him free, being the innocent party: but he would by no means agree thereto, alleging he knew his own infirmity, that he might not live unmarried; and to divorce and marry again, he would not charge his conduct with so great a scandal.” The character of this woman makes us doubt the story that she burnt the notes which her husband had, for eight years, been collecting for his dictionary, lest he should kill himself with study. Such a proof of affection, however perplexing to a student, was not likely from such a wife as Mrs. Cooper.

We shall now subjoin sme additional testimonies to his character. M. Baillet, in his account of his life,c. highly commends him for his contempt of wealth and fame, his love of truth, his modesty, disinterestedness, moderation, piety, and submission to the authority of the church. Dr. Barrow, in his “Opuscula,” tells us, that he was undoubtedly a very good and ingenious man, and a real philosopher, and one who seems to have b fought those assistances to that part of philosophy which relates to matter and motion, which, perhaps, no other had done; that is, a great skill in mathematics, a mind habituated both by nature and custom to profound meditation, a judgment exempt from all prejudices and popular errors, and furnished with a considerable number of certain and select experiments, a great jtleal of leisure, entirely disengaged by his own choice from the readme: of useless books, and the avocations of life, with an incomparable acuteness of wit, and an excellent talent of thinking clearly and distinctly, and expressing his, thoughts with the utmost perspicuity. Dr. Halley (see Wotton’s Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning) says, “As to dioptrics, though some of the ancients mention refraction as a natural effect of transparent media, yet Des Cartes was the first who, in this age, has discovered the laws of refraction, and brought dioptrics into a science.” Wotton (ubi supra) though he degrades him in comparison with lord Bacon, whom he soon succeeded, and censures him for too precipitately drawing conclusions without a sufficient number of previous experiments, observes nevertheless, that “to a vast genius he joined an exquisite skill in geometry, so that he wrought upon intelligible principles in an intelligible manner, though he very often failed in one part of his end, namely, a right explication of the phenomena of nature; yet, by marrying geometry and physics together, he put the world in hopes of a masculine offspring in process of time, though the first productions should prove abortive.” Dr. Keil, in the introduction to his “Examination of Burnet’s Theory of the Earth,” animadverting on Wotton’s reflections, &c. tells us, that Des Cartes was so far from applying geometry and observations to natural philosophy, that his whole system is but one continued blunder on account of his negligence in that point; which he could easily prove by shewing, that his theory of the vortices, upon which the whole system is grounded, is absolutely false; and that sir Isaac Newton has shewn, that the periodical times of all bodies, which swim in a vortex, must be directly as the squares of their distances from the centre of the vortex. But it is evident, from observations, that the planets, in turning round the sun, observe quite another law; for the squares of their periodical times are always as the cubes of their distances; and, therefore, since they do not observe that Jaw, which they necessarily must, if they swim in a vortex, it is a demonstration that there are no vortices, in which the planets are carried round the sun: with more to the same purpose. Mr. Baker, considering the natural philosophy of Des Cartes, observes, that “though it would be very unjust to charge Des Cartes with the denial of a God, who is supposed by him to have created matter,and to have impressed the first motion upon it, yet he is blameable, that after the first motion is impressed, and the wheels set a-going, he leaves his vast machine to the laws of mechanism, and supposes that all things may be thereby produced without any further extraordinary assistance from the first impressor. The supposition is impious; and, as he states it, destructive of itself; for, not to deny him his laws of motion, most of which have been evidently shewn to be false, and consequently so must all be that is built upon them, his notion of matter is inconsistent with any motion at all; for, as space and matter are with him the same, upon this supposition there can be no motion in a plenum.” Dr. Keil condemns Des Cartes for encouraging the presumptuous pride of the modern philosophers; who think they understand all the works of nature, and are able to give a good account of them. Mr. Leibnitz, whilst he acknowledges that Des Cartes was a very learned man, and had read more than his followers imagine, and that he was one of those who has added most to the discoveries of their predecessors, observes, that those who rest entirely in him, are much mistaken in their conduct; and this, he says, is true, even with regard to geometry itself. He also remarks, that Des Cartes endeavoured to correct some errors with regard to natural philosophy, but that his presumption and contemptuous manner of writing, together with the obscurity of his style, and his confusion, and severe treatment of others, are very disagreeable. Rapin, in his “Reflexions de Physique,” after observing that Des Cartes’ s principles of motion, figure, and extension, are almost the very same with those of Democritus and Epicurus, tells us, that father Mersenne mentioned in an assembly of learned men, that Des Cartes, who had gained great reputation by his geometry, was preparing a system of natural philosophy, in which he admitted a vacuum; but the notion was ridiculed by Roberval and some others; upon which Mersenne wrote to him, that a vacuum was not then in fashion at Paris, which induced Des Cartes to change his scheme, in complaisance to the natural philosophers whom he studied to please, and admit the plenum of Leucippus; “so that,” says father Rapin, “the exclusion of a vacuum became one of his principles, merely from political considerations.” Rapin produces no authority for this story; and it should be recollected, that he was a very zealous Aristotelian, extremely prejudiced against any new systems of philosophy. Des Cartes, it is said, imagined it possible to prolong life very considerably beyond the common period, and thought he had discovered the method of doing it. In conversation with sir Kenelm Digby, Des Cartes assured him that, having already considered that matter, he would not venture to promise to render a man immortal; but that he was very sure it was possible to lengthen out his life to the period of the patriarchs. It seems evident to me, says he, in a letter written to M. de Zuylichem from Egmond, in 1638, when he had attained the age of forty-two years, that if we only guarded against certain errors, which we are accustomed to commit in the course of our diet, we might, without any other invention, attain to an old age, much longer and more happy than now we do. However, twelve years after this declaration was made, our philosopher died. Des Cartes was never married, but had one natural daughter, named Francina, who died at five years of age. Of his works there have been several editions; particularly a Latin edition, A rust. 1701—1715, 9 vols. 4to. That published at Paris comprehends 15 volumes in 12mo, and their contents are as follow; viz. “Lettres de M. Des Cartes, ou Ton a joint le Latin de plusieurs lettres, qui n‘avoient ete imprhnees qu’en Francois, aver une traduction Francois de celles, qui n‘avoient jusqu’a present paru qu'en Latin,” 1724, 6 vols. “Les Meditations metaphysiques touchant la premiere philosophic,” 1724, 2 vols. “Discours de la methode, pour bien conJuire sa raison, et chercher la verite dans les sciences. Plus la dioptrique, les meteores, la mechanique, et la musique,” 1724, 2 vols. “Les Principes de la Philosophic,” 1724, 1 vol. “Les Passions de l‘Ame. Le Monde, ou traite de la lumiere. Edition augmented d’un discours sur le mouvement local et sur la fie v re, sur* les principes du mema auteur,” 1728, 1 vol. “L'Homme de Rene Des Cartes, et la formation du fetus; avec les remarques de Louis de la Forge,” 1722, 1 vol.

, a very learned man, was born of a noble family at Nortwick in Holland, 1545. He lost his parents when very young, and was sent to several schools; and to one at Paris among the rest, where he made a great progress in Greek and Latin. When he had finished his education, he returned to his own country, and married; and though he was scarcely grown up, he applied himself to affairs of state, and was soon made a curator of the banks and ditches, which post he held above twenty years, and then resigned it. But Dousa was not only a scholar and a statesman, but likewise a soldier; and he behaved himself so well in that capacity at the siege of Leyden in 1574, that the prince of Orange thought he could commit the government of the town to none so properly as to him. In 1575 the university was founded there, and Dousa made first curator of it; for which place he was well fitted, as well on account of his learning as by his other deserts. His learning was indeed prodigious and he had such a memory, that he could at once give an answer to any thing that was asked him, relating to ancient or modern history, or, in short, to any branch of literature. He was, says Melchior Adam, and, after him, Thuanus, a kind of living library; the Varro of Holland, and the oracle of the university of Leyden. His genius lay principally towards poetry, and his various productions in verse were numerous: he even composed the annals of his own country, which he had collected from the public archives, in verse, which was published at Leyden 1601, 4to, and reprinted in 1617 with a commentary by Grotius. He wrote also critical notes upon Horace, Sallust, Plautus, Petronius, Catullus, Tibullus, &c. His moral qualities are said to have been no less meritorious than his intellectual and literary; for he was modest, humane, benevolentj and affable. He was admitted into the supreme assembly of the nation, where he kept his seat, and discharged his office worthily, for the last thirteen years of his life. He died Oct. 12, 1604, and his funeral oration was made by Daniel Heinsius. Of his works, we have seen, 1. “Couiin. in Catullum, Tibullum, et Horatium,” Antwerp, 1580, 12mo. 2. “Libri tres Prascidaneorum in Petronium Arbitrmn,” Leyden, 1583, 8vo. 3. “Epodon ex puris lambis,” Ant. 1514, 8vo. 4. “Plautinae Explicationes,” Leyden, 1587, 16mo. 5. “Poemata,” ibid. 1607, 12mo. 6. “Odarum Britannicarum liber, ad Elizabetham reginam, et Jani Dousae filii Britannicorum carminum silva,” Leyden, 1586, 4to; and 7. lt Elegiarum libri duo, et Epigrammatum liber unus; cum Justi Lipsii aliorumque ad eundem carminibus," ibid. 1586, 4to. In some catalogues, however, the works of the father and son seem be confounded.

He married in 1625, the only daughter of a rich merchant of Paris, by whom he had sixteen children. The first seven were sons the rest intermixed, six sons and three daughters. Laurence, the eldest of all, was at first minister at Rochelle but being obliged to leave that church by an edict, he went to Niort, where he died in 1680, having lost his sight about six months before. He was a very learned man, and a good preacher. He left several fine sermons, and likewise a collection of Christian sonnets, which are extremely elegant, and highly esteemed by those who have a taste for sacred poetry. They had gone through six editions in 1693. Henry, the second son, was also a minister, and published sermons. The third son was the famous Charles Drelincourt, professor of physic at Leyden, to whom we shall devote a separate article. Anthony, a fourth son, was a physician at Orbes, in Switzerland; and afterwards appointed physician extraordinary by the magistrates of Berlin. A fifth son died at Geneva, while he was studying divinity there. Peter Drelincourt, a sixth, was a priest of the church of England, and dean of Armagh.

, a very learned man of the fifteenth century, was a native of Spezia, a sea-port in the Genoese territory. The most curious inquirers into the history of literature have not yet been able to ascertain the precise period of his birth. From many passages, however, which occur in his works, it appears, that he was indebted for instruction in the Latin and Greek languages to Guarino Veronese, whom he frequently mentions in terms of affectionate esteem. Facio was one of the numerous assemblage of scholars that rendered illustrious the court of Alphonsus, king of Naples, by whom he was treated with distinguished honour. He had been sent by the Genoese to Alphonsus on a political erraod, in which he failed; but the interviews he had gave the king so favourable an opinion of him, that he invited him into his service, and made him his secretary, an office which he filled for many years. During his residence at Naples, the jealousy of rival ship betrayed him into a violent quarrel with Laurentius Valla, against whom he composed four invectives, and as he happened to die soon after Valla, the circumstance occasioned the following lines:

, or Tanaquil Faber, a very learned man, father of madame Dacier, was born at Caen in Normandy in 1615. His father determined to educate him to learning, at the desire of one of his brothers, who was an ecclesiastic, and who promised to take him into his Jiouse under his own care. He had a genius for music, and early became accomplished in it but his uncle proved too severe a preceptor in languages he therefore studied Latin with a tutor at home, and acquired the knowledge of Greek by his own efforts. The Jesuits at the college of La Fleche were desirous to detain him among them, and his father would have persuaded him to take orders, but he resisted both. Having continued some years in Normandy, he went to Paris; where, by his abilities, learning, and address, he gained the friendship of persons of the highest distinction. M. de Noyers recommended him to cardinal Ue Richelieu, who settled on him a pension of 2000 livres, to inspect all the works printed at the Louvre. The cardinal designed to have made him principal of the college which he was about to erect at Richelieu, and to settle on him a farther stipend: but he died, and Mazarine, who succeeded, not giving the same encouragement to learning, the Louvre press became almost useless, and Faber’s pension was very ill paid. His hopes being thus at an end, he quitted his employment; yet continued some years at Pans, -pursuing his studies, and publishing various works. Some years after he declared himself a protestant, and became a professor in the university of Saumur; which place he accepted, preferably to the professorship of Greek at Nimeguen, to which he was invited at the same time. His great merit and character soon drew to him from all parts of the kingdom, and even from foreign countries, numbers of scholars, some of whom boarded at his house. He had afterwards a contest with the university and consistory of Saumur, on account of having, unguardedly and absurdly, asserted in one of his works, that he could pardon Sappho’s passion for those of her own sex, since it had inspired her with so beautiful an ode upon that subject. Upon this dispute he would have resigned his place, if he could have procured one elsewhere: and at last, in 1672, he was invited upon advantageous terms to the university of Heidelberg, to which he was preparing to remove, when he was seized with a fever, of which he died Sept. 12, 1672. He left a son of his own name, author of a small tract “De futilitate Poetices,” printed 1697 in 12mo, who was a minister in Holland, and afterwards lived in London, then went to Paris, where he embraced the Romish religion; and two daughters, one of whom was the celebrated madam Dacier, and another married to Paul Bauldri, professor at Utrecht. Huet tells, that “he had almost persuaded Faber to reconcile himself to the church of Rome,” from which he had formerly deserted; “and that Faber signified to him his resolution to do so, in a letter written a few months before his death, which prevented him from executing his design.” Voltaire,' if he may be credited, which requires no small degree of caution, says he was a philosopher rather than a Hugonot, and despised the Calvinists though he lived among them.

Causes, have compassion on me." Dr. Fiddes was an ingenious, but not a very learned man. He had so happy a memory, that he retained every thinghe read, and never made use of notes in preaching. He was far from being a nervous writer, abounding in matter, but was prolix and tedious, for which it has been offered as an apology that his necessities did not allow him time to contract his thoughts into a narrower compass. It is reasonable to suppose, that he was sincere in his professions concerning the hierarchy; and as reasonable to suppose, that he had no affection for popery. In his Life in the General Dictionary, is a letter from him to a protestant lady, to dissuade her from turning Roman catholic, which sets this question at rest. His misfortunes, in the latter part of his life, were chiefly owing to his strong attachment to a party. His application to his studies was so intense, that he would frequently pass whole nights in writing, which, together with his misfortunes, is supposed not a little to have hastened his death . He was reckoned, upon the whole, a good man, but rather wanting in point of prudence, and by no means a manager of his money.

In 1530 he was employed with Stephen Gardiner at Cambridge, to obtain the university’s determination in the matter of Henry VIIL's divorce. In 1531 he was promoted to the archdeaconry of Leicester, and in 1533 to that of Dorset It was he that apprized the clergy of their having fallen into a prawunire, and advised them to make their submission to the king, by acknowledging him supreme head of the church, and making him a present of 1 -00,0001. In 1535 he was promoted to the bishopric of HerefordHe was the principal pillar of the reformation, as to the politic and prudential part of it; being of more activity, and no less ability, than Cranmer himself: but he acted more secretly than Cranmer, and therefore did not bring himself into danger of suffering on that account. A few months after his consecration he was sent ambassador to the protestaut princes in Germany, then assembled at Smalcald; whom he exhorted to unite, in point of doctrine, with the church of England. He spent the winter at Wirtemberg, and held several conferences with some of the German divines, endeavouring to conclude a treaty with them upon many articles of religion: but nothing was effected. Burnet has given a particular account of this negociation in his “History of the Reformation.” He returned to England in 1536, and died at London, May 8, 1533. He was a very learned man, as we are assured by Godwin, who calls him “vir egregie doctus.” Wood also styles him an eminent scholar of his time; and Lloyd represents him as a tine preacher, but adds, that “his inclination to politics brake through all the ignoble restraints of pedantique studies, to an eminency, more by observation and travel, than by reading and study, that made him the wonder of the university, and the darling of the court.” When he was called,“says he,” to the pulpit or chair, he came off not ill, so prudential were his parts in divinity; when advanced to any office of trust in the university, he came off very well, so incomparable were his parts for government."

, a celebrated printer of Lyons, in France, was a German, and born at Suabia, near Augsburg, in 1493. He performed the duties of his profession with so much honour as to receive the approbation of the most learned men. Conrad Gesner has even “dedicated one of his books, namely, the twelfth of his pandects, to him and takes occasion to bestow the following praises on him” You, most humane Gryphius, who are far from meriting the last place among the excellent printers of this age, came first into my mind: and especially on this account, because you have not only gained greater fame than any foreigner in France, by a vast number of most excellent works, printed with the greatest beauty and accuracy, but because, though a German, you seem to be a countryman, by youV coming to reside amon<r us.“Baillet says, that Julius Scaliger dedicated also to him his work” De Causis Linguae Latinae:“but this seems a mistake. Scaliger wrote a kind letter to Gryphius, which is printed at the head of the work: but the dedication is to Silvius Scaliger, his eldest son, to whom he also addressed his” Ars Poetica." Gryphius is allowed to have restored the art of printing at Lyons, which was before exceedingly corrupted; and the great number of books printed by him are valued by the connoisseurs. He printed many books in HebreV, Greek, and Latin, with new and very beautiful types; and his editions are no less accurate than beautiful. He was himself a very learned man, and perfectly versed in the languages of such books as he undertook to print. Vulteius, of Reims, an epigrammatist, has observed, that Robert Stephens was a very good corrector, Colinaeus a very good printer, but that Gryphius was both an able printer and corrector.

, a very learned man, born at the Hague, was a fine poet and orator; and to be compared, says Gronovius, in his “Orat. funeb. J. Golii,” with the Roman Atticus for his probity, tranquillity of life, and absolute disregard of honours and public employments. He went to Rome, and spent six years in the palace of cardinal Cesi. He wrote there' a panegyric on pope Clement VIII. which was so graciously received, that he was offered the post of librarian to the Vatican, or a very good benefice; and preferring the latter, was made a canon in the cathedral at Antwerp. Lipsius had a great esteem for him, as appears from his letters. He was Grotius’s friend also, and published verses to congratulate him on his deliverance from confinement. He was uncle by the mother’s side to James Golius, the learned professor at Leyden, who gained so vast a reputation by his profound knowledge in the Oriental languages: but Golius, who was a zealous protestant, could never forgive his having converted his brother Peter to popery. Hemelar applied himself much more to the study of polite literature and to the science of medals, than to theology. “He published,” says Gronovius, " extremely useful commentaries upon the medals of the Roman emperors, from the time of Julius Caesar down to Justinian, taken from the cabinets of Charles Arschot and Nicholas Rocoxius; wherein he concisely and accurately explains by marks, figures, &c. whatever is exquisite, elegant, and suitable or agreeable to the history of those times, and the genius of the monarchs, whether the medals in question be of gold, silver, or brass, whether cast or struck in that immortal city. It is a kind of storehouse of medals; and nevertheless in this work, from which any other person would have expected prodigious reputation, our author has been so modest as to conceal his name.' 7 This work of Hemelar’s, which is in Latin, is not easily to be met with, yet it has been twice printed iirst at Antwerp, in 1615, at the en.I of a work of James De Bie and secondly, in 1627, 4to which Clement has described as a very rare edition Bayle mentions a third edition of 1654, folio, but the work which he mistakes for a third edition, was only a collection of engravings of Roman coins described by Gevartius, in which are some from Hemelar’s work. The other works of this canon are some Latin poems and orations. He died in 1640. He is sometimes called Hamelar.

, French, Didier Herault, a counsellor of the parliament of Paris, has given good proofs of uncommon learning by very different works. His “Adversaria” appeared in 1599; which little book, if the “Scaligerana” may be credited, he repented having published. His notes on Tertullian’s “Apology,” on “Minutius Fe&­lix,” and on “Arnobius,” have been esteemed. He also wrote notes on Martial’s “Epigrams.” He disguised himself under the name of David Leidhresserus, to write a political dissertation on the independence of kings, some time after the death of Henry IV. He had a controversy with Salmasius “de jure Attico ac Romano;” but did not live to finish what he had written on that subject. What he he had done, however, was printed in 1650. He died in June 1649. Guy Patin says, that “he was looked upon as a very learned man, both in the civil law and in polite literature, and wrote with great facility on any subject he pitched on.” Daille, speaking of such protestant writers as condemned the execution of Charles I. king of England, quotes the “Pacifique Royal en deuil,” by Heranlt. This author, son to our Desiderius Heraldus, was a minister in Normandy, when he was called to the service of the Walloon-church of London under Charles I. but was so zealous a royalist, that he was forced to fly to France, to escape the fury of the commonwealth’s-men. He returned to England after the restoration, and resumed his ancient employment in the Walloon-church at London: some time after which he obtained a canonry in the cathedral of Canterbury, and enjoyed it till his death.

He was, first, bishop of Oxford, and Sept. 28, 1628, translated to Durham, which he held only two years, dying Feb. 6, 1631, aged seventy-five, and was interred in St. Paul’s church, London, leaving behind him, as Wood says, (t the character of a very learned man, and one plentifully endowed with all those virtues which were most proper for a bishop.“ Hozier (Peter D'), a man famous in his time, and even celebrated by Boileau, for his skill in genealogies, was born of a good family at Marseilles, in 1592, and bred to military service; but very early applied himself with great zeal to that study for which he became so eminent. By his probity as well as talents, he obtained the confidence of Louis XIII. and XIV. and enjoyed the benefit of their favour in several lucrative and honourable posts. After rising through several appointments, such as judge of arms in 1641, and certifier of titles in 1643, he was admitted in, 1654 to the council of state. He died at Paris in 1660. Hozier was author of a History of Britany, in folio, and of many genealogical tables. His son, Charles, was born Feb. 24, 1640, at Paris. His father had given him some instructions in genealogy, which he made use of to draw up, under the direction of M. de Caumartin,” the Peerage of Champagne,“Chalons, 1673, folio, in form of an Atlas. He received the cross of St. Maurice from the duke of Savoy in 1631, and had also the office of judge of the arms of the French nobility, and was rewarded with a pension of 4000 livres. He died in 1732. This gentleman’s nephew succeeded him in his office, and died in 1767. He compiled the” L'Armorial, ou Registres de la Noblesse de France," 10 vols. folio. Such works, of late years, have been of very little use in France.

, a very learned man, was born at Dantzic, in Prussia, 1571. He received the first rudiments of learning under James Fabricius, so distinguished by his zeal against Papists, Anabaptists, and other heretics; and in 1589, was sent to the university of Wirtemberg, where he studied philosophy and divinity. Two years after, he removed to the university of Leipsic; whence, after half a year’s stay, he went in 1592, to that of Heidelberg. Here he took a master’s degree, and was so highly esteemed by the governors of the university, that he was first made a tutor and afterwards Hebrew professor there. In 1597, the senate of Dantzic, pleased with the reputation and merit of their countryman, sent him a formal and honourable invitation, by letter, to come and take upon him part of the management of their academy, which he at first refused, but on a second invitation, in 1601, consented, after having first received the degree of D. D. at Heidelberg. As soon as he was settled at Dantzic, he proposed to lead the youth through the very penetralia of philosophy, by a newer and more compendious method than had hitherto been found out, according to which they might, within the compass of three years, finish a complete course. For this purpose he pursued the scheme he had begun at Heidelberg, and drew up a great number of books and systems upon all sorts of subjects; logic, rhetoric, ceconomics, ethics, politics, physics, metaphysics, geography, astronomy, &c. and in this industrious manner he went on till 1609, when, fairly worn out with constant attention to the business of teaching, he died at the early age of thirty-eight. His works were published at Geneva in 1614, 2 vols. fol. The most valuable are his systematic treatises on rhetonc; but they were all for some time used in teaching, and afterwards pillaged by other compilers, without acknowledgment.

Fox has preserved a conference, afterwards put into writing, which was held at this time between Ridley and Latimer, and which sets our author’s temper in a strong light. The two bishops are represented sitting in their prison, ruminating upon the solemn preparations then making for their trial, of which, probably, they were now first informed. “The time,” said Ridley, “is now come; we are now called npon, either to deny our faith, or to suffer death in its defence. You, Mr. Latimer, are an old soldier of Christ, and have frequently withstood the fear of death; whereas I am raw in the service, and unexperienced.” With this preface he introduces a request that Latimer, whom he calls “his father,” would hear him propose such arguments as he thinks it most likely his adversaries would urge against him, and assist him in providing proper answers to them. To this Latimer, in his usual strain of good humour, replied that “he fancied the good bishop was treating him as he remembered Mr. Bilney used formerly to do; who, when he wanted to teach him, would always do it under colour of being taught himself. But in the present case,” said he, “my lord, I am determined to give them very little trouble: I shall just offer them a plain account of my faith, and shall say very little more; for I know any thing more will be to no purpose: they talk of a free disputation, but I am well assured their grand argument will be, as it once was their forefathers, * We have a law, and by our law ye ought to die.' Bishop Ridley having afterwards desired his prayers, that he might trust wholly upon God” Of my prayers,“replied the old bishop,” you may be well assured nor do J doubt but I shall have yours in return, and indeed prayer and patience should he our great resources. For myself, had I the learning of St. Paul, I should think it ill laid out upon an elaborate defence; yet our case, my lord, admits of comfort. Our enemies can do no more than God permits; and God is faithful, who will not suffer us to be tempted above our strength. Be at a point with them; stand to that, and let them say and do what they please. To use many words would be vain; yet it is requisite to give a reasonable account of your faith, if they will quietly hear you. For other things, in a wicked judgment-hall, a man may keep silence after the example of Christ,“&c. Agreeably to this fortitude, Latimer conducted himself throughout the dispute, answering their questions as far as civility required; and in these answers it is observable he managed the argument much better than either Ridley or Cranmer; who, when they were pressed in defence of transubstantiation, with some passages from the fathers, instead of disavowing an insufficient authority, weakly defended a good cause by evasions and distinctions, after the manner of schoolmen. Whereas, when the same proofs were multiplied upon Latimer, he told them plainly that” such proofs had no weight with him; that the fathers, no doubt, were often deceived; and that he never depended upon them but when they depended upon Scripture.“” Then you are not of St. Chrysostom’s faith,“replied they,” nor of St. Austin’s?“” I have told you,“says Latimer,” I am not, except they bring Scripture for what they say.“The dispute being ended, sentence was passed upon him; and he and Ridley were burnt at Oxford, on Oct. 16, 1555. When they were brought to the fire, on a spot of ground on the north side of Baliolcollege, and, after a suitable sermon, were told by an officer that they might now make ready for the stake, they supported each other’s constancy by mutual exhortations. Latimer, when tied to the stake, called to his companion,” Be of good cheer, brother; we shall this day kindle such a torch in England, as I trust in God shall never be extinguished." The executioners had been so merciful (for that clemency may more naturally be ascribed to them than to the religious zealots) as to tie bags of gunpowder about these prelates, in order to put a speedy period to their tortures. The explosion killed Latimer immediately; but Ridley continued alive during some time, in the midst of the flames. Such was the life of Hugh Latimer, one of the leaders of that glorious army of martyrs, who introduced the reformation in England. He was not esteemed a very learned man, for he cultivated only useful learning; and that, he thought, lay in a very narrow compass. He never engaged in worldly affairs, thinking that a clergyman ought to employ himself in his profession only; and his talents, temper, and disposition, were admirably adapted to render the most important services to the reformation.

, or Launoius, a very learned man and voluminous writer, was born about 1601, and took a doctor of divinity’s degree in 1636. He made a journey to Rome, for the sake of enlarging his ideas and knowledge; and there procured the esteem and friendship of Leo Allatius and Holsten. Upon his return to Paris, he shut himself up, entering upon an extensive course of reading, and making collections upon all subjects. He held at his house every Monday a meeting where the learned conversed on many topics, but particularly on the discipline of the church, and the rights of the Gallican church; and they cordially agreed in condemning such legends as the apostolate of St. Dionysius the Areopagite into France, the voyage of Lazarus and Mary Magdalen into Provence, and a multitude of other traditions. Launoi was such an enemy to legendary saints, that Voltaire records a curate of St. Eustachius, as saying, “I always make the most profound obeisance to Mr. Launoi, for fear he should take from me my St. Eustachius.” He died at cardinal d‘Estr^es’s hotel, March 10, 1678, aged 75, and was buried at the convent of the Minimes de la Place Ro’iale, to whom he left two hundred crowns in gold, all the rituals which he had collected, and half his books; bequeathing the remainder to the seminary at Laon. Few men were so industrious and so disinterested, as M. de Launoi, who persisted in refusing all the benefices which were offered him, and lived in a plain, frugal manner, contented with his books and his private fortune, though the latter was but moderate. He was an enemy to vice and ambition, charitable, benevolent, a kind friend, ever consistent in his conduct, and submitted to be excluded from the faculty of theology at Paris, rather than sign the censure of M. Arnauld, though he differed in opinion from that celebrated doctor on the subject of Grace.

, queen of England, and eldest daughter of Henry VIII. by his first wife, Catharine of Arragon, was born at Greenwich in Kent, Feb. 18, 1517. Her mother was very careful of her education, and provided her with tutors to teach her what was fitting. Her first preceptor was the famous Linacer, who drew up for her use “The rudiments of Grammar,” and afterwards, “De emendata structura Latini sermonis libri sex.” Linacer dying when she was but six years old, Ludovicus Vives, a very learned man of Valencia in Spain, became her next tutor; and composed for her, “De ratione studii puerilis.” Under the direction of these excellent men, she became so great a mistress of Latin, that Erasmus commends her for her epistles in that language.

, a very learned man, of the same family as the preceding, was born in 1611. He devoted himself to literature and criticism, but particularly to the learning of the ancients; as their music, the structure of their galleys, &c. In 1652 he published a collection of seven Greek authors, who had written upon ancient music, to which he added a Latin version by himself. It was entitled “Antiques Musicae auctores septem Greece et Latine, Marcus Meibomius restituit ac Nods explicavit.” Amst. The first volume contains: I. Aristoxeni Harmonicorum Elementorum, libri iii. II. Euclidis Introductio Harmonica. III. Nichomachi Geraseni, Pythagorici, Harmon. Manuale. IV. Alypii Introductio Musica. V. Gaudentii Philosophi Introductio Harmonica. VI. Bacchii Senioris Introductio Artis Musicae. The second volume: Aristidis Quintiliani de Musica, libri iii. Martiani Capellse de Musica, liber ix. This, says Dr. Burney, is the most solid and celebrated of his critical works, in which all subsequent writers on the subject of ancient music place implicit faith. It is from these commentaries on the Greek writers in music, particularly Alypius, that we are able to fancy we can decipher the musical characters used by the ancient Greeks in their notation; which, before his time, had been so altered, corrupted, disfigured, and confounded, by the ignorance or negligence of the transcribers of ancient Mss., that they were rendered wholly unintelligible.

, a father of the church, bishop of Olympus, or Patara, in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre in Palestine, suffered martyrdom at Chalcis, a city of Greece, towards the end of Dioclesian’s persecution in the year 302 or 303. Epiphanius says “that he was a very learned man, and a strenuous assertor of the truth.” St. Jerome has ranked him in his catalogue of church writers; but Eusebius has not mentioned him; which silence is attributed by some, though merely upon conjecture, to Methodius’s having written very sharply against Origen, who was favoured by Eusebius. Methodius composed in a clear and elaborate style several works i a large one “Against Porphyry the philosopher;” “A Treatise on the Resurrection,” against Origen; another on “Pythonissa,” against the same a book entitled “The banquet of Virgins” one on “Free-will” “Commentaries upon Genesis and the Canticles” and several other pieces extant in St. Jerome’s time. Father Combesis collected several considerable fragments of this author, cited by Epiphanius, Photius, and others, and printed them with notes of his own at Paris, in 1644, together with the works of Amphilochius and Andreas Cretensis, in folio. But afterwards Possinus, a Jesuit, found “The Banquet of Virgins” entire, in a manuscript belonging to the Vatican library; and sent it, with a Latin version of his own, into France, where it was printed in 1657, folio, revised and corrected by another manuscript in the library of cardinal Mazarin. We cannot doubt that this is the true and genuine work of Methodius; as it not only carries all the marks of antiquity in it, but contains word for word all the passages that Photius had cited out of it. It is written in the way of dialogue, after the manner of “Plato’s Banquet of Socrates;” with this difference, that the speakers here are women, who indeed talk very learnedly and very elegantly.

, professor of divinity at Stetin, and a very learned man, was born at Cuslin in Pomerania, in 1597. He began his studies in the college of his own country; and, in 1614, removed to Stetin, where he studied theology under professor Cramer. In 1616, he maintained a dispute “de Deo uno & trino,” which gained him great reputation; and went the year after to the university of Konintrsberg, where he disputed again “de veritate. transcendentali.” He received, in 1621, the degree of master of philosophy at the university of Gripswald, after having maintained a thesis “de meteoris;” and, some time after, went to Leipsic to finish his studies. He was made professor of rhetoric in the royal college at Stetin in 1624, rector of the senate school in 1627, and rector of the royal college, and professor of theology, in 1649. The same year he received his doctor of divinity’s degree, in the university of Gripswald, and which he was, we are told, led to ask; because, in a dispute he had with John Bergius, first preacher at the court of the elector of Brandenburg, upon the differences between the Lutherans and Calvinists, the latter arrogantly boasted of his being an old doctor in divinity; to which Micrelius could only answer, “that he had received the degree of master in philosophy before Bergius.” He had obtained by his solicitations in 1642, when he was made professor of rhetoric, that there might be also professors of law, physic, and mathematics, in the royal college; and that a certain number of students might be maintained there at the public charge. He made a journey to Sweden in 1653, and had the honour to pay his respects to queen Christina, who gave him very obliging marks of her liberality, and who had before defrayed the charges of his doctor’s degree. He died Dec. 3, 1658.

He was a very learned man, and an eminent encourager of literature, as appears by his founding Emmanuel college, Cambridge, which, by the additional assistance of other benefactors, arose gradually to its present flourishing state. Fuller tells us that the founder “coming to court, the queen told him,” Sir Walter, I hear you have erected a puritan foundation." No madam,‘ sayth he, c far be it from me to countenance any thing contrary to your established laws; but I have set an acorn, which when it becomes an oak, God alone knows what will be the fruit thereof.’ ' He had so much of the puritan about him, however, as to make the chapel stand north and south, instead of east and west.

, a French mathematician and philosopher, and one of the greatest geniuses and best writers that country has produced, was born at Clermont in Auvergne, June 19, 1623. His father, Stephen Pascal, was president of the Court of Aids in his province, and was also a very learned man, an able mathematician, and a friend of Des Cartes. Having an extraordinary tenderness for this child, his only son, he quitted his office and settled at Paris in 1631, that he might be quite at leisure to attend to his son’s education, of which he was the sole superintendant, young Pascal never having had any other roaster. From his infancy Blaise gave proofs of a very extraordinary capacity. He was extremely inquisitive; desiring to know the reason of every thing; and when, good reasons were not given him, he would seek for better; nor would he ever yield his assent but upon such as appeared to him well grounded. What is told of his manner of learning the mathematics, as well as the progress he quickly made in that science, seems almost miraculous, liis father, perceiving in him an extraordinary inclination to reasoning, was afraid lest the knowledge of the mathematics might hinder his learning the languages, so necessary as a foundation to all sound learning. He therefore kept him as much as he could from all notions of geometry, locked up all his books of that kind, and refrained even from speaking of it in his presence. He could not however prevent his son from musing on that science; and one day in particular he surprised him at work with charcoal upon his chamber floor, and in the midst of figures. The father asked him what he was doing: “I am searching,” says Pascal, “for such a thing;” which was just the same as the 32d proposition of the 1st book of Euclid. He asked him then how he came to think of this: “It was,” says Blaise, “because I found out such another thing;” and so, going backward, and using the names of bar and round, he came at length to the definitions and axioms he had formed to himself. Of this singular progress we are assured by his sister, madame Perier, and several other persons, the credit of whose testimony cannot reasonably be questioned.

, advocate to the parliament of Paris, brother of the preceding, and also a very learned man, was born in 1544, at Troyes. He was well acquainted with the belles lettres, and law, and discovered, as we have just observed, the ms. of the fables of Phaedrus, which he sent to his brother, and which was published in 1596, in 12mo. Francis, with the assistance of his brother, applied himself particularly to revise and explain the “Body of Canon Law,” which was printed according to their corrections, 1687, 2 vols. folio; an edition which is reckoned the best. His other works are, “Codex Canonum,” 1687, folio. An edition of the “Salic Law,” with notes. The “Roman Laws,” compared with those of Moses, 1673, 12mo. “Observationes ad Codicem,” 1689, folio. “Antiqui Rhetores Latini, Rutilius Lupus, Aquila Romanus, Julius Rufinianus, Curius Fortunatianus, MariusVictorinus,” &c. Paris, 1599, 4to. republished by M. Caperonier, Strasburg, 4to. &c. He died February 7, 1621, aged seventy-eight.

, a French Dominican, and a very learned man, was born at Boulogne in 1661. He was well acquainted with the Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew languages and was critically skilled in the Holy Scriptures. Father Pezron, having attempted to establish the chronology of the Septuagint against that of the Hebrew text, found a powerful adversary in Le Quien who published a book in 1690, and afterwards another, against his “Amiquité des Terns rétablie,” a well-written work. Quien called his book “Antiquite des Terns detruite.” He applied himself assiduously to the study of the eastern churches, and that of England and wrote against Courayer upon the validity of the ordinations of the English bishops. In all this he was influenced by his zeal for popery, and to promote the glory of his church but he executed a work also for which both protestantism and learning were obliged to him, and on which account chiefly he is here noticed, an excellent edition in Greek and Latin of the works of Joannes Damascenus, 1712, 2 vols. folio. This did him great honour; and the notes and dissertations, which accompany his edition, shew him to have been one of the most learned men of his age. His excessive zeal for the credit of the Roman church made him publish another work in 4to, called “Panoplia contra schisma Graecorum” in which he endeavours to refute all those imputations of pride, ambition, avarice, and usurpation, that have so justly been brought against it. He projected, and had very far advanced, a very large work, which was to have exhibited an historical account of all the patriarchs and inferior prelates that have filled the sees in Africa and the East; and the first volume was printed at the Louvre, with this title, “Oriens Christianus in Africa,” when the author died at Paris in 17 S3.

, in German Roszfelit, an able antiquary, was born at Eisenac in Thuringia about 1550. He was educated in the university of Jena; in 1579, became sub-rector of a school at Ratisbon; and, afterwards was chosen minister of a Lutheran church at Wickerstadt, in the duchy of Weimar. In 1592, he was invited to Naumburg in Saxony, to be preacher at the catli-edral church; and there continued till 1626, when he died of the plague. He was a very learned man, and the first who composed a body of Roman antiquities, entitled “Antiquitatum Romanarum libri decem,” printed at Basil in 1585, foho. It was at first censured by some critics, but is ably defended by Fabricius in his “Bibliographia Antiqnaria.” It went through several editions; the latter of which have large additions by Dempster. That of Amsterdam, 1635, in 4to, is printed with an Elzevir letter, upon a good paper, and has the following title: ' Joannis Rosini Antiquitatum Romanarum corpus absolutissimum. Cum notis doctissimis ac locupletissimis Thomae Dempsteri J. C. Huic postremae editioni accuratissimae accesserunt Pauli Manutii libri If. de Legibus & de Senatu, cum Andreoe Schotti Klectis. I. De Priscis Romanis Gentibus ac Familiis. 2. De Tribubus Rom. xxxv. Rusticis atque Urbanis. 3. De ludis festisque Romanis ex Kalendario Vetere. Cum Indrce locupletissimo, & anneis figuris accuratissimis.“His other works are,” Exempla pietatis illustris, seu vitae trium Saxonirc Ducum electorum, Frederici II. Sapient 'is Joannis Constantly et Joannis Frederici Magnanimi“Jena, 1602, 4to a continuation of” Drechsleri Chronicon,“Leipsic, 1594, 8vo;” Anti-Turcica Lutberi," in German, a collection of some writings of Luther of the prophetic kind, against the TurksLeipsic, 1596, 8vo.

He was indisputably a very learned man; and, had his moderation and probity been equal to his learning, might justly have been accounted an ornament to the republic of letters: his application to study, his memory, the multitude of his books, and his quickness of parts, are surprising. Ferrarius tells us that he studied day and night; that, during the last fourteen years of his life, he kept himself shut tip in a little room, and that his conversation with those who went to visit him ran only upon learning; that, like another Ezra, he might have restored the holy scripture, if it had been lost, for that he could repeat it almost by heart; and that the number of his books exceeded the number of his years. He left behind him also several manuscripts, which, as Morhoff tells us, “remained in the hands of Picruccius, professor at Padua, and are not yet published, to the no small indignation of the learned world.” He was nevertheless a man of a malignant and contentious spirit, and lived in continual hostility with the learned of his time, nor did he spare the best writers of ancient Rome, even Cicero himself, whose language he censured for improprieties and barbarisms. Niceron enumerates upwards of an hundred different publications by Scioppius, all of which are now fallen into oblivion, or only occasionally consulted. They are mostly polemical, on subjects of criticism, religious opinions, the Jesuits, Protestants, &c. many of them under the fictitious names of Nicodemus Macer, Oporinus Grubinius, Aspasius Crosippus, Holofernes Krigsoederus, and other barbarous assumptions.

, professor of divinity at Leyden, was born at Amberg in the Upper Palatinate, Jan. 1, 1600, of a good family. His father Wigand Spanheim, doctor of divinity, was a very learned man, and ecclesiastical counsellor to the elector-palatine; he died in 1620, holding in his hand a letter from his son, which had made him weep for joy. Frederic was educated with great care under the inspection of this affectionate parent; and, having studied in the college of Amberg till 1613, was sent the next year to the university of Heidelberg, which was then in a very flourishing condition. He there made such progress both in languages and philosophy, as to justify the most sanguine hopes of his future success. After paying a visit to his father in 1619, he went to Geneva to study divinity. In 1621, after his father’s death, he went into Dauphine, and lived three years with the governor of Ambrun, as tutor in his family. He then returned to Geneva, and went afterwards to Paris, where he met with a kind relation, Samuel Durant, who was minister of Charenton, and dissuaded Spanheim from accepting the professorship of philosophy at Lausanne, which the magistrates of Berne then offered him. In April 1625, he paid a visit of four months to England, and was at Oxford; but the plague having broke out there, he returned to Paris, and was present at the death of his relation Durant, who, having a great kindness for him, left him his whole library. He had learned Latin and Greek in his own country, French at Geneva, English at Oxford; and the time which he now spent at Paris, was employed in acquiring the oriental tongues. In 1627, he disputed at Geneva for a professorship of philosophy, and was successful; and about the same time married a lady, originally of Poitou, who reckoned among her ancestors the f;unous Budtrus. He was admitted a minister some time after; and, in 1631, succeeded to the chair of divinity, which Turretin had left vacant. He acquitted himself of liis functions with such ability, as to receive the most liberal offers from several universities: but that of Leyden prevailed, after the utmost endeavours had been used to keep him at Geneva. He left Geneva in 1642; and taking a doctor of divinity’s degree at Basil, that he might conform to the custom of the country to which he was going, he arrived at Leyden in October that year. He not only supported, but even increased the reputation he had brought with him but he lived to enjoy it only a short time, dying April 30, 1649. His great labours shortened his days. His academical lectures and disputations, his preaching (for he was minister of the Walloon church at Leyden), the books he wrote, and many domestic cares, did not hinder him from keeping up a great literary correspondence. Besides this, he was obliged to pay many visits he visited the queen of Bohemia, and the prince of Orange and was in great esteem at those two courts. Queen Christina did him the honour to write to him, assuring him of her esteem, and of the pleasure she took in reading his works. It was at her request that he wrote some memoirs of Louisa Juliana, electress palatine. He was also the author of some other historical as well as theological works the principal of which are his “Dubia evangelica discussa et vindicata,” Genev. 1634, 4to, but afterwards thrice printed in 2 vols. 4to, with large additions; “Exercitationes de Grafla universali,” Leyden, 1646, 8vo. This involved him in a controversy with Amyraut; and “Epistolae ad Davidem Bu chananum super controversies quibusdam, quse in ecclesiis Anglicanis agitantur,” ibid. 1645, 8vo. Some other of his works were published with those of his son, and his funeral oration on Henry prince of Orange, pronounced at Leyden in 1647 may be seen in Bates’s “Vitas selectorupi aliquot virorum.” He was a correspondent of, and highly esteemed by archbishop Usher.

, a learned physician of Ireland, was born at Ardbraccan in the county of Meath. in 1622, in tfie house of his uncle, the celebrated archbishop Usher, but then bishop of Meath. He was educated in the college of Dublin, of which he became a fellow, but was ejected by the usurping powers for his loyalty. At the restoration he was reinstated, and advanced to the place of senior fellow by nomination, together with Joshua Cowley, Richard Lingard, William Vincent, and Patrick Sheridan, masters of arts, in order to give a legal form to the college, all the senior fellows being dead, and it being requisite by the statutes, that all elections should be made by the provost and four senior fellows at least. He was M. D. and LL. D. and public professor of the university. He was a very learned man, but more fond of the study of divinity, than that of his own profession, in which, however, he had great knowledge. He died in 1669, aged forty-six, and was buried in the college chapel, where a monument was erected to his memory. His writings are, J. “Aphorismi de frclicitate,” Dublin, 1654, 8vo, twice reprinted. 2. “De morte dissertatio,” ibid. 1656 and 1659, 8vo. 3. “Animi medela, seu de bearitudine et miseria,” ibid. 1658, 4to. 4. “Adriani Heerboordii disputation um de concwrsu examen,” ibid. 1658, 4to. 5. “De electione et reprobatione,” ibid. 1662, 4to. To this is added, “Manuductio ad vitam probam.” 6. “De Obstinatione, opus posthumum, pietatem Christiano-Stoicam Scholastico more suadens.” This was published in 1672 by the celebrated Mr. Dodwell, as we have noticed in his life. Dodwell had been pupil to Dr. Sterne.

He had a brother, named Cornelius Tollius, who was also a very learned man. He was born at Utrecht, and in the beginning of his life was an amanuensis to Isaac Vossius: he was afterwards professor of eloquence and the Greek tongue at Harderwic, and secretary to the curators of the academy. He published an “Appendix to Pierius Valerian us’s treatise De Infelicitate Literatorum,” Amst. 1707, 12mo; and an edition of “Palaephatus,” which last is a scarce and valuable work. Alexander Tollius was also brother to the two persons above mentioned, and is known in the literary world by an edition of “Appian,” 1670, 2 vols. 8vd, which is much esteemed.

, in his native language called Vander Beken, a very learned man, who flourished not long after the restoration of letters, was born at Ghent, in Flanders, in 1525, and educated at Louvain, Thence he went to Bologna, in order to study the civil law and antiquities; where he so distinguished himself by his skill in polite literature, and particularly in poetry, that he became known all over Italy, and acquainted with all the learned of Rome, Venice, and Padua. He was not only a man of learning, but of business also; and hence, after returning to his own country, was thought a fit person to be employed in several embassies. He took holy orders, and at length was raised to the bishopric of Antwerp. Hence he was translated to the metropolitical church of Mechlin, where he died in 15;<5, at seventy years of age. He* founded a college of Jesuits at Louvain, the place of his education, to which he left his library, coins, &c. Besides an octavo volume of “Latin poems,” printed by Plantin, at Antwerp, in 1594, he wrote “Commentaries upon Suetonius and Horace;” the former printed in 1592, the latter in 1608, 4to. Scaliger, Lipsius, Scioppius, and indeed all the learned, have spoken well of his “Commentaries.” Fabricius, speaking of explications and emendations of Horace, says, that he and Lambinus were men of great learning and critical talents, and had carefully consulted the best manuscripts, but it is thought that Torrentius had intrusted the collation to some person who had not his own accuracy

, or Adrien de Valois, brother of Henry, and a very learned man also, was born at Paris in 1607, and educated in the college of Clermont there, under the Jesuits. He followed the example of his brother, and had the same counsellors in his studies, the fathers Sirmond and Petavius. History was his principal object; and he spent many years in searching into the most authentic records, manuscript as well as printed. His long perseverance in these pursuits enabled him to give the public an elaborate Latin work, entitled “Gesta Francorum, seu de rebis Francicis,” in 3 vols. folio; the first of which came out in 1646, the two others in 1658. This history begins with the year 254; and ends with 752. It is written with care and elegance, and may serve for an excellent commentary upon the ancient historians of France, who wrote rudely and barbarously: but some have considered it as a critical work filled with rude erudition, rather than a history. Colbert asked him one day concerning his Latin history of France, and pressed him to continue it; but he answered the minister, that he might as well take away his life, as put him upon a work so full of difficulties, and so much beyond what his age could bear; for he was then in years. He is the author of several other Latin works; as “Notitia Galliarum, ordine alphabetico digesta,” 1675, in folio; a work of great utility in explaining the state of ancient Gaul. He was the editor, as we have mentioned, of the second edition of “Ammianus Marcellinus;” to which, besides additional notes of his brother and Lindenbrog, he added notes and emendations of his own. He wrote also a Panegyric upon the king, and a life of his brother. There is also a “Valesiana.”

, a very learned man, whom some have confounded with John Gerard Vossius, was born in the diocese of Liege, some say at Berchloon, and others at Hasselt, but he does not appear to have been related to the family of Gerard. He was an ecclesiastic of the church of Rome, employed in some considerable offices under the popes, and died at Liege in 1609. He published a Latin commentary upon “Cicero in Somnium Scipionis,” at Rome, 1575; and all the works of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Ephrem Syrus, and some pieces of John Chrysostom and Theodoret, with Latin versions and notes.

In 1709 he published a volume of “Sermons and Essays oh several subjects;” one of which is to prove that our blessed Saviour had several brethren and sisters properly o called, that is, the children of his reputed father Joseph, and of his true mother, the Virgin Mary. Dr. Clarke, he says, wrote to him to suppress this piece, not on account of its being false, but that the common opinion might go undisturbed but, he adds, <: that such sort of motives were of no weight with him, compared with the discovery and propagation of truth. In 1710 he published “Praelectiones Physico-Mathematicae sive Pbilosophia clarissimi Newtoni Mathematica illustrata” which, together with the “Prajlectiones Astronomicae” before mentioned, were afterwards translated and published tn English; and it may be said, with no small honour to the memory of Mr. Whiston, that he was one of the first, if not the very first, who explained the Newtonian philosophy in a popular way, and so that the generality of readers might comprehend it with little difficulty. About this year, 1710, Menkenius, a very learned man in Germany, wrote to Dr. Hudson, the keeper of the Bodleian library at Oxford, for an account of Mr. Whiston; whose writings then made, as he said, a great noise in Germany. He had some time embraced the Arian heresy, and was forming projects to support and propagate it and, among other things, had translated the “Apostolical Constitutions” into English, which favoured that doctrine, and which he asserted to be genuine. His friends began to be alarmed for him; they represented to him the dangers he would bring upon himself and family, for he had been married many years, by proceeding in this design; but all they could say availed nothing: and the consequence was, that, Oct. 30, 1710, he was deprived of his professorship, and expelled the university of Cambridge, after having been formally convened and interrogated for some days before.